Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Comments on special 40th anniversary...
 A new era in anthropology - Harold...
 Announcement - Fortieth annual...
 F.A.S. anniversary notes (revised)...
 Reprint - The Florida Anthropologist...
 An invitation to join the Florida...
 The role of the avocational archaeologist...
 Early sixteenth century beads from...
 Florida's terra incognita - West...
 Subsistence strategies of private...
 The statutory framework of Florida's...
 Conservation of the El Morro castle...
 Book reviews
 Current research
 Comments, organization notices,...
 Back issues order form
 Join/rejoin the Florida Anthropological...
 Back Cover

Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00033
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Anthropological Society
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
Publisher: Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Frequency: quarterly[]
two no. a year[ former 1948-]
Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
Summary: Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- May 1948-
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027829
Volume ID: VID00033
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Comments on special 40th anniversary issue of the Florida Anthropologist - Louis D. Tesar, Editor FAS
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    A new era in anthropology - Harold D. Cardwell
        Page 8
    Announcement - Fortieth annual meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, May 6-8, 1988
        Page 9
    F.A.S. anniversary notes (revised) - John W. Griffin
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Reprint - The Florida Anthropologist volume I number 1-2 (1948)
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    An invitation to join the Florida Anthropological Society
        Page 31
        Page 32
    The role of the avocational archaeologist - Louis D. Tesar
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Early sixteenth century beads from the Tatham mound, Citrus county, Florida - Data and interpretations - Jeffrey M. Mitchem and Jonathan M. Leader
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 48a
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
    Florida's terra incognita - West Florida's natives in the sixteenth and seventeenth century - John H. Hann
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
    Subsistence strategies of private archaeological firms in Florida - Inside looking in - Harry M. Piper
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
    The statutory framework of Florida's comprehensive historic preservation planning process and related activities - Louis D. Tesar
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
    Conservation of the El Morro castle ordonez gun - David A. Muncher
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
    Book reviews
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167 (MULTIPLE)
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
    Current research
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
    Comments, organization notices, etc.
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
    Back issues order form
        Page 202
        Page 203
    Join/rejoin the Florida Anthropological Society
        Page 204
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text


2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.

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

all rights to the
and shall be
and images of

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

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

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.

Special 40th Anniversary Issue

S .. .. .:


f .1* -:

.k: : &,'


VOL. I MAY 1948 NOS. -2-

Volume 41 Number 1 March 1988

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published quarterly by the Florida Anthropological
Society, Inc., P.O. Box 1013, Tallahassee, Florida 32302. Subscription is by
membership in the Society for individuals, families and institutions interested
in the aims of the Society. Annual dues are $12 (Individual), $18 (Family), $15
(Institutional), $25 (Sustaining), $100 (Patron) and $150 (Life). Foreign sub-
scriptions are an additional $5 U.S. currency to cover added postage costs for
individual, family or institutional membership categories. Requests for infor-
mation on the Society and membership application forms, as well as notifi-
cations of changes of address, should be addressed to the Membership Secretary.
Donations should be sent to the Treasurer. Requests for copies of the Editorial
Policy and Style Guide (re: FA 37(1)), orders for back issues, submissions of
manuscripts for publication and notices of non-receipt or damaged issues should
be sent to the Editor. Newsletter items should be sent sent to the President.
Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 days prior to the mailing of the next
issue. The Post Office will not forward bulk rate mail.


Harold D. Cardwell, Sr.
1343 Woodbine. Street
Daytona Beach, FL 32014

Chris Newman
Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board
P.O. Box 1987
St. Augustine, FL 32084

(Three Years):
Donna Ruhl
Dept. of Anthropology
Florida State Museum
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

Marlene Levy
Dept. of Anthropology
Florida Atlantic Univ.
Boca Raton, FL 33431

Joan Deming
308 6th St. NE
Largo, FL 34640


(Two Years):
Ralph Gozlin
7347 Hennessey Road
Jacksonville, FL

Elizabeth Horvath
P.O. Box 290876
Temple Terrace, FL 33687

AGENT: Wallace Spears
422 Brentwood Drive
Daytona Beach, FL 32017

(One Year):
Jeffrey Mitchem
Florida State Museum
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611


Louis D. Tesar Joan Deming George Luer Gandy Printers, Inc.
P.O. Box 1013 308 6th St. NE 3222 Old Oak Drive 1800 S Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL Largo, FL 34640 Sarasota, FL 34239 Tallahassee, FL
32302 32301


James J. Miller
Div. of Historical Resources
Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250

John W. Griffin
Route 5 Box 19
St. Augustine, FL 32084

William H. Marquardt
Florida State Museum
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

Glen Doran
Dept. of Anthropology
G-24 Bellamy
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306

organ H. Crook
Dept. of Anthropology
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303

NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Board members, the review comments of
others knowledgable in a manuscripts subject matter are solicited as part of
our peer review process.




Volume 41 Number 1
March, 1988

Comments on Special 40th Anniversary Issue of The Florida
Anthropologist Louis D. Tesar, Editor FAS . 4
A New Era in Anthropology Harold D. Cardwell, 1987-88 FAS
President . . . .. . . 8

ANNOUNCEMENT: Fortieth Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropo-
logical Society, May 6-8, 1988 ........... 9
F.A.S. Anniversary Notes (Revised) John W. Griffin .... i .10
REPRINT: The Florida Anthropologist Volume I Number 1-2 (1948) 13
Results of an Archaeological Investigation of a Spanish
Mission Site in Jefferson County, Florida Hale G. Smith 13

Folsom-like Points from Florida J. Clarence Simpson 18
A Note to Members W.W. Erhmann . . .... 21

The Big Circle Mounds Ross Allen . .... 21
Weeden Island Zoned Red John W. Griffin . ... .24
Man Enters America Frederick W. Sleight ....... 424
An Unusual Shell Pendant John W. Griffin ....... 727
BOOK Reviews:
The Indians of the Southeastern United States by John P.
Swanton. Reviewed by Hale G. Smith ......... 27

The Everglades: River of Grass by Marjory Stoneman
Douglas. Reviewed by John W. Griffin . . 28
The Theory of Human Culture by James Feibleman. Reviewed
by Bevode C. McCall . . . 28




An Invitation to Join the Florida Anthropological Society 31

The Role of the Avocational Archaeologist Louis D. Tesar 33

Early Sixteenth Century Beads from the Tatham Mound, Citrus
County, Florida: Data and Interpretations Jeffrey M.
Mitchem and Jonathan M. Leader . . . 42

Florida's Terra Incognita: West Florida's Natives in the Six-
teenth and Seventeenth Century John H. Hann . .. 61

Subsistence Strategies of Private Archaeological Firms in
Florida: Inside Looking In Harry M Piper .. . .108

The Statutory Framework of Florida's Comprehensive Historic
Preservation Planning Process and Related Activities
Louis D. Tesar . . . . . 140

Conservation of the El Morro Castle Ordonez Gun David A.
Muncher . . . . . . 146

Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean,
1500-1800, Volume 1: Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads (1987)
by Kathleen Deagan. Reviewed by John F. Scarry .. 163

Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: Essays in Memory of Charles H.
Fairbanks (1985). Edited by Kenneth W. Johnson,
Jonathan M. Leader and Robert C. Wilson. Reviewed by
Louis D. Tesar . . . . . .164

Anthropology in Florida (1986) by Brian M. duToit. Reviewed
by Louis D. Tesar . . . . .. .165

The Route of the Soto Army Through Alabama (1983) by Caleb
Curren. Reviewed by Louis D. Tesar . ... .167

The Archaeology of Mission Santa Catalina de Guale: 1. Search
and Discovery (1987) by David Hurst Thomas with a contri-
bution by Lorann S.A. Pendleton. Reviewed by Louis D.
Tesar . . . . ... ... .. .168

HAWKSHAW: Prehistory in an Urban Neighborhood in Pensacola,
Florida (1985) Edited by Judith A. Bense. Reviewed by
Louis D. Tesar . . . . . .170

Indian Mounds of the Atlantic Coast: A Guide to Sites from
Maine to Florida (1987) by Jery N. McDonald and Susan L.
Woodward. Reviewed by Louis D. Tesar . . .172

Spanish Point: Guide to Prehistory (1987) by Marion M. Almy
and George M. Luer. Illustrated by Hermann Trappman.
Reviewed by John W. Griffin . . . .173


Vol. 41 No. 1

Mar., 1988


Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook (1987) by Prudence M. Rice.
Reviewed by Marion Smith. . . . .174

Early Sixteenth Century Glass Beads in the Spanish Colonial
Trade (1982) by Marvin T. Smith and Mary Elizabeth Good.
Reviewed by Louis D. Tesar. . . . 176

Archaeological Sites in the Drowned Tertiary Karst Region of
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico James S. Dunbar .. 177

Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at Ray Hole Spring
in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Richard J. Anuskiewicz .181

Inundated Sites in the Apalachee Bay Area of the Eastern Gulf
of Mexico Michael Faught . . . .. 185

An Example of an Offshore Sinkhole in the Gulf of Mexico with
Good Archaeological Potential Don Serbousek . .190

De Soto Winter Encampment B. Calvin Jones and Charles Ewan .191

Apalachee Settlement Patterns Project Marion Smith and John
Scarry . . . . . . .. 192

St. Marks Wildlife Refuge Firetower Cemetery Site (8Wal5)
John Scarry, Rochelle Marrinan and Rhonda Majors . .192

San Luis (8Le4) Gary Shapiro . . . .. 192

NEWS RELEASE: ARPA Conviction J.M. Adovasio . . .193

Help Buy the de Soto Winter Camp Site Funding Effort . 195

Call for Papers for de Soto-First Spanish Period Special Issue 197

de Soto Commemorative Stamp Effort . . . .197

How to Join the Texas Archeological Society Information .198

St. Francis Barracks Project Seeks Funds and Volunteers .. 199

Rediscover San Luis, March 11-12, 1988 Public Archaeology Event 200

1000 Friends of Florida Organization Information ..... 201

FA Back Issues Order Form . . . . 202

Join/Rejoin the Florida Anthropological Society Information 204


Vol. 41 No. 1

Mar., 1988


Louis D. Tesar

It is a pleasure to bring you this special
40th Anniversary Issue of The Florida
Anthropologist. It is a celebration of co-
operation between avocational and profes-
sional archaeologists. It also reflects
the growth in understanding (1) about our
prehistoric and historic heritage, (2)
about the nature of the resources which
represent that heritage (both prehistoric
and historic archaeological sites and asso-
ciated features and artifacts, historic
structures and associated features, and
historic and oral documentation), (3) about
the growing breadth and complexity of
skills and experience necessary to obtain
the maximum amount of information from such
resources and to accurately interpret such
data, and (4) the legal and practical mea-
sures and tools which have been developed
to permit the proper conservation and study
of such resources. The latter are included
within the concept of historic preservation
planning, which takes place at the federal,
state and local level. The bottom line is
that, to use a term coined several years
ago, we must all be "Stewards of the Past".

The Florida Anthropological Society had its
beginning in August 1947 at an informal
meeting in Daytona Beach, Florida. The
meeting occurred at the close of a three-
day conference, the purpose of which "was
to exchange information and work out a gen-
eral framework for archaeology in the
state" (John W. Griffin 1983:111, this is-
sue). It was a time when anthropology, and
its subdiscipline archaeology, was begin-
ning to establish itself as an independent,
viable program in Florida's institutions.
In that beginning, perhaps growing out of
the WPA-CCC experience, it was recognized
that the growth and development of anthro-
pological/ archaeological knowledge in
Florida would depend on a partnership of
cooperation between avocational and profes-
sional archaeologists and others simply in-
terested in learning about the state's pre-
historic and historic heritage.

The nascent Florida Anthropological Society
had grown to around 70 members by the time
the first issue of The Florida Anthropolo-
gist (Volume 1 Numbers 1-2) was published
in May of 1948. The cover of that out-of-
print issue serves as part of the cover il-
lustration for this issue and, except for
portions of the last two pages, it is
reprinted in this issue.

In FA 36(3-4), John W. Griffin chronicles
our beginnings and growth; and, I have
reprinted that article in this issue (with
corrections and editorial updating of the
information in its last paragraph). As the
Society's first Editor and first President
(succeeding the Society's organizing Chair-
man, W.W. Ehrmann), and continuing on our
editorial review board and in other capaci-
ties, John W. Griffin brings a special con-
tinuity to our Society, and has served as a
role model for many of us. Both for myself
and on behalf of the FAS, I wish to extend
our appreciation to John W. Griffin for his
many years of assistance to the Society, to
both professional and avocational archaeol-
ogists, and for his many contributions to
furthering our understanding of Florida's
prehistoric and historic cultural heritage.

For those of you interested in a well writ-
ten review of the development of anthropol-
ogy in Florida's institutions, I direct
your attention to Brian du Toit's article,
"Anthropology in Florida: The History of a
Discipline," published in the Journal of
Florida Anthropology Special Publication
No. 5 -- 1986 (see book reviews this is-
sue). This publication may be obtained
from the Florida Anthropology Student Asso-
ciation of the Univeristy of Florida.
Also, a brief article on "The Role of the
Avocational Archaeologist" is included for
your consideration. It explores the chang-
ing role of avocational (and professional)
archaeologists over the past 50 years.

The article by Harry M. Piper, "Subsistence


Mar., 1988

Vol. 41 No. 1

Strategies of Private Archaeological Firms
in Florida: Inside Looking In," reviews the
growth of private contract archaeology
firms in Florida, discusses general opera-
tional and staffing needs for such firms,
and suggests areas of change needed in ap-
plied anthropology programs to better pre-
pare their graduates for the marketplace.
When Harry first inquired about the possi-
bility of having an article of this type
considered for publication, I responded
that it was within our scope and encouraged
him to write it. His progress reports in-
dicated that it was becoming larger than
expected, in spite of the limitation on its
focus. I recommended that he write it and
let reviewers' comments and editing address
its merits and any suggested additions,
deletions, amendments, etc. All reviewers
have performed contract work in Florida,
two of us working as staff for others and
two as principles in successful contracting
firms. All reviewers commented favorably,
and one reported calling Harry to congratu-
late him on a job well done. I believe
Harry's article will certainly be of inter-
est to professionals working in Florida and
elsewhere, to anthropology students consid-
ering career opportunities and training
needs, to universities considering program
training needs, and to others simply inter-
ested in an inside view of one facet of a
contract archaeological firm. Because of
its length and to facilitate its use it has
its own table of contents.

"Early Sixteenth Century Beads from the
Tatham Mound, Citrus County, Florida: Data
and Interpretations" by Jeffrey M. Mitchem
and Jonathan M. Leader will, in my opinion,
become an important reference work for re-
searchers whose work encounters sixteenth
century beads. This work goes beyond a
simple description of artifacts from a sin-
gle site. It provides an extensive compar-
ative review and analysis of its subject
and related materials from other sites in
Florida and surrounding areas. It also
contains the first color plate ever pub-
lished in The Florida Anthropologist. Be-
cause of its use of "Early Sixteenth Cen-
tury Glass Beads in the Spanish Colonial
Trade" (1982) by Marvin T. Smith and Mary
Elizabeth Good as the basis of its descrip-
tive glass bead typology, a review of that

publication is included in our BOOK REVIEW

The Smith and Good publication is dedicated
"to John Goggin and Charles H. Fairbanks,
pioneers in the study of Spanish colonial
beads, and to L.B. and Carrie, who made it
all possible." The research of the former
forms the foundation of much of the back-
ground work for the study, while the spon-
sorship of L.B. and Carrie (now deceased)
has made possible this work, some of my own
research when I worked for Cottonlandia,
and that of numerous Masters and Doctoral
students in anthropology. Southeastern ar-
chaeological studies have benefited over
the past 15-20 years from L.B. and Carrie's
sponsorship and enthusiasm. We all owe a
debt of gratitude to such individuals.

"Florida's Terra Incognita: West Florida's
Natives In The Sixteenth And Seventeenth
Century" by John H. Hann brings a histori-
cal focus which will aide, as it has been
aided by, archaeological research. Dr.
Hann's article deals with the Chacato,
Chisca, Pansacola, Chine, Savacola and
Tawasa from the period of early Spanish ex-
ploration of the Southeast to cessession of
Florida to Britain by Spain. This original
document and supporting research, along
with that on the Apalachee (Hann 1988),
will prove invaluable to historic archaeol-
ogists and historians alike.

It is noted that in recent years these two
professions have become increasingly aware
of how each profits from the work of the
other. With the coming of 1989 and 1992,
the 450th anniversary of the de Soto expe-
dition in Florida and the 500th anniversary
of Columbus' famous voyage respectively,
there will be a heightened interest in
studies focusing on this historical period
in the Southeast.

The Florida Anthropologist will continue to
bring articles and book reviews on such
studies to its readers. Indeed, we plan to
publish an enlarged Special Issue of The
Florida Anthropologist, Volume 42 Number 4,
in December 1989. That issue will be de-
voted to the de Soto expedition and other
First Spanish Period topics (see Call for
Papers, this issue).

The brief book review (this issue) of the
short technical report prepared by Caleb
Curren, "The Route of the Soto Army Through
Alabama" (1987) andthe review of the work
of Thomas (1987) are examples of such First
Spanish Period topics. Furthermore, our
section in this issue on Current Research
at the de Soto winter camp and San Luis
and their funding and volunteer assistance
needs deserves your careful attention. Fi-
nally, the article (this issue) by David
Muncher on efforts to preserve the El Morro
Ordonez Cannon are of interest. The
Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources operates one of the
foremost conservation laboratories in the
Western Hemisphere, and the Ordonez Cannon
was one of their projects. It is reported
in detail for use by other conservation-
ists, and as a source of interest to our

Continuing our efforts to involve our read-
ers in historic preservation activities is
the article by Tesar on "The Statutory
Framework of Florida's Comprehensive His-
toric preservation Planning Process and Re-
lated Activities" One of the goals of his-
toric preservation is the conservation of
significant archaeological sites and his-
toric structures, and associated artifacts,
for public visitation and appreciation.
The publications by McDonald and Woodward,
"Indian Mounds of the Atlantic Coast: A
Guide to Sites from Maine to Florida," by
Almy and Luer, "Spanish Point: Guide to
Prehistory," and Bense (ed.) "HAWKSHAW:
Prehistory in an Urban Neighborhood in Pen-
sacola, Florida" were reviewed in this is-
sue to make our readers aware of examples
of publications contributing to this goal.
Likewise, the announcement of the annual
"Rediscover San Luis" event on March 12,
1988 at the state-owned and operated San
Luis Historic Archaeological Site in Talla-
hassee, Florida is included to further this
goal; although, unforeseen delays in re-
ceiving the final figures for a key article
in this issue may result in some of our
readers not receiving this notice until too
late to attend this exciting public archae-
ology event.

The focus of our journal is more than his-
toric archaeology. On the other end of the

spectrum are Paleo-Indian studies. The
current research papers by James Dunbar,
Richard J. Anuskiewcz, Michael Faught and
Don Serbousek are intended to report on
drowned terrestrial site research. By so
doing, it is hoped to remind our readers of
the extensive environmental changes and
cultural response to those changes as a
consequence of sea level rise.

While Dunbar, Anuskiewicz. Faught and Ser-
bousek focus on sites in karst topographic
locales, we must not be misled by conclud-
ing that the high frequency of site identi-
fication in such locales versus other areas
represents a preference by early people for
such environments to the exclusion of other
environments. Indeed, while not denying
that Paleo-Indians and Early-Middle Archaic
people utilized such locales -- the oaises
of a drier climate when sea level was some
30m lower than today, we must not ignor the
site potential in our drowned and silted
river valleys (i.e., Tampa Bay,
Choctawhatchee Bay, Pensacola Bay,
Apalachicola Bay and the Apalachicola River
Valley) and their relic water courses
across the continental shelf. Sites in
these locales are masked by heavy soil de-
position, in contrast to the shallow soils
in karst environments. Much more research
is warranted in all such locales.

The 40th Anniversary Issue of The Florida
Anthropologist is the cooperative effort of
many authors. However, it would have been
a lesser issue without the extraordinary
wordprocessing efforts of Joan Deming.
Joan wordprocessed John Hann's lengthy ar-
ticle from typescript and processed the
galleys of Mitchem and Leader's article
from the disket which they provided. In a
similar vein, Harry Piper is to be thanked
for his extraordinary efforts in the prepa-
ration of the final galleys of his article.
He upgraded his wordprocessing program in
an effort to be compatible with those which
I use. Unfortunately, we discovered that
both his and my printers had difficulty in-
terfacing with the resulting product -- a
software glitch as it were. After much
added time, cost, anxiety and exasperation
on Harry's part, he was finally able to
print galleys which minimized the original
amount of cut-and-paste which was antici-

pated and removed the fear that the entire
article would have to be retyped. David
Muncher, Marion Smith, John Scarry and
James Dunbar are thanked for providing
diskets on their articles, book reviews,
and current research topics. I word pro-
cessed and prepared the final galleys on
the remaining material.

Jeff Mitchem is to be congratulated for ob-
taining a small grant to help cover the
cost of printing the color plate included
in this issue. The remaining excess cost
of this issue was paid for with funds
raised from back issues sales and the auc-
tion proceeds from last year's FAS annual
meeting. Also, thanks are due to Phil Pol-
lock for contributing the copy of FA 1(1-2)
reprinted in this issue. The quality of
photoplates has certainly improved over the
years, and Gandy Printers is thanked for
doing as well as they did in reprinting
from faded original figures. Indeed, I
wish to thank and commend Gandy Printers
for their continued excellent work and co-
operation, which has had the effect of mak-
ing my efforts look better than they might
otherwise look. They consistently produce
a quality product on time and in a cost ef-
fective manner. I highly recommend them to

As an aside note, when I became Editor of
The Florida Anthropologist, I arranged all
of the back issues (which are now in the
capable hands of Chris Newman) in date or-
der, and pulled 1-2 copies of each to es-
tablish a master collection for the Society
and to facilitate possible reprinting. In
so doing, I discovered that many issues
were out-of-print without any Society copy.
From time to time I have borrowed other
people's issues for photocopying, but such
copies, except for text, are generally in-
adequate for reprinting. I would like to
obtain copies of the following out of print

FA 1(1-2), FA 1(3-4), FA 2(3-4), FASP No.
1, FASP No. 2, FASP No. 3, FA 5(1-2), FA
6(1), FA 6(4), FA 7(1), FA 7(2), FA 7(3),
FA 7(4), FA 8(1), FA 8(2), FA 8(3), FA
8(4), FA 9(1), FA 9(2), FA 9(3-4), FASP No.
4, FA 10(1-2), FA 10(3-4), FA 11(1), FA
11(2), FA 11(3), FA 11(4), FASP No. 5, FA
12(1), FA 12(2), FA 12(3), FA 13(1), FA
13(2-3), FA 15(4), FA 16(1), FA 16(3), FA
17(1), FA 17(2), FA 17(3), FA 17(4), FA


18(1), FA 18(2), FA 18(3 Part 1), FA 18(3
Part 2), FA 18(4), FA 20(1-2), FA 20(3-4),
FA 21(1), FA 21(2-3), FA 21(4), FA 23(4),
FA 24(1), FA 25(4), FA 26(1), FA 27(1), FA
27(3), FA 29(2 Part 2)/FASP No. 8, and FA

To obtain these issues for the Society, if
they are not received as gifts, I am pre-
pared to exchange available back issues for
them. The exchange rate would be at the
same value as it would be if they were
available for sale by the Society as back
issues, $5 credit for single numbers and
$10 credit for double numbers. This re-
quest will from time to time be amended as
missing issues are obtained. You may write
to me if you have any questions, or you may
wish to bring issues for exchange at our
annual meeting in May.

Finally, it is with pleasure that I an-
nounce that our next issue, FA 41(2) will
be a joint publication of our Society and
the Florida Anthropology Student Associa-
tion of the University of Florida. Clau-
dine Payne will be the Guest Editor of that
issue, which will feature a range of arti-
cles by University of Florida, Department
of Anthropology students and faculty. Sev-
eral manuscripts have already been re-
viewed, and will shortly be prepared for
galley paste-up. I believe that our read-
ers will enjoy that issue.

And, as you have all probably noticed we
have been changing the color of our jour-
nal's cover with each issue. While they
are not generally color coded, except for
FA 37(3) and FA 40(4) which are both orange
and both contain content indexes -- togeth-
er covering our first forty volumes, it has
not been unusual to refer to particular is-
sues with specific articles by their cover
color. Generally, the author of the lead
article has been allowed to select the
cover color. However, the blue cover color
of this issue was selected by Tom Watson on
behalf of Mary Lou Watson, who is currently
in ill health. Both Mary Lou and Tom have
for years been dedicated avocational ar-
chaeologists and key representatives of the
Florida Anthropological Society. I hope
that it can bring some pleasure to Mary Lou
to have her favorite color (according to
Tom) selected for this issue.

Louis D. Tesar, Editor
February 20, 1988


Harold D. Cardwell, Sr.
President, F.A.S. (1987-1988)

As this year marks our 40th Anniversary,
the Florida Anthropological Sociaty can re-
flect positively on its growth. Avoca-
tional and academic studies of pre-history
and history, from Paleo man to the present
in Florida, have proved mutually advanta-
geous to the scholar and the layman. Man
is a creature who consistently fills a void
when one exists. This is seen clearly in
the organization and growth of the FAS.
The year 1988 sees us with a large member-
ship and 14 chapters throughout the state
(see attachment). We have progressed in
the Electronic Age with computer science
and laser techniques which allow us to date
more accurately and in a more sophisticated
manner the objects of our research in the
study of man.

Let us reflect upon our beginnings in 1947-
48. W.W. Ehrmann was the first Chairman
who organized the fledgling society until
its first formal meeting in 1949 when the
first President, John W. Griffin (who is
still an active member) was elected. Our
journal, The Florida Anthropologist,
has grown from a few pages to a recognized
scientific-educational journal.

While originally planned for April of 1948,
the first annual meeting was not held until
February 12, 1949. Eleven of the 104 mem-
bers were in attendance at that meeting
held at the University of Florida,
Gainesville. According to the first Presi-
dent, John Griffin, "from these humble be-
ginnings the society continued to grow and

A roster of FAS presidents through the
decades follows:

1950-60: H.G. Smith, A.C. Holt, F.W.
Sleight, W.T. Neill, C.H. Fairbanks, W.J.
Armistead, W.H. Sears, J.M. Gogqin, and M.

1961-70: W.C. Lazarus, C.E. Mattox, C.W.
Tebeau, C. W. Arnade, R.T. Grange, J.F.
Monk, R.P. Bullen, and J.W. Covington;

1971-80: C.A. Benson, W.M. Goza, G.

Magruder, J.W. Griffin, B.I. Waller, W.B.
Williams, R. Williams, G. Percy, J. Hyde,
and T. Watson; and,

1981-Present: I.R. Eyster, M. Almy, J.
Beriault, C. Payne, J. Deming, K. Malesky,
and H.D. Cardwell, Sr.

Many of our presidents were well known and
were constantly in the public's view, while
others were little known outside of the so-
ciety. To all of these men and women, both
professional and avocational archaeologists
and historians, and to the many other indi-
viduals who have served in both elected and
appointed positions, we extend our thanks
for their dedication and hard work. They
have been a credit to the FAS membership
and the State of Florida.

Now, let us look to the future. I have ti-
tled my tenure as the Year of Preserva-
tion, largely because it is essential that
we find better ways to protect the re-
sources in our heritage. The FAS has
served as a catalyst to foster respect and
cooperation between laymen and scholars.
Together we must meet the changing needs of
anthropological research in the 21st Cen-
tury, collating and interpreting the vast
volume of data collected during the last 40
years and using this information to synthe-
size regional histories and prehistories
and to perfect the techniques available in
the Electronic Age.


Archeological Society of Southern Florida,
5740 SW 64th Avenue, South Miami, FL 33143

Broward County Archaeological Society, c/o
Museum of Archaeology, 203 SW First Avenue,
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

Central Florida Anthropological Society,
810 East Rollins St., Orlando, FL 32803

Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society,
P.O. Box 82255, Tampa, FL 33682

Indian River Archaeological Society, 1615
Saturn Street, Merritt Island, FL 32953


Mar., 1988

Vol. 41 No. 1

Northeast Florida Anthropological Society,
5314 Coppedge Avenue, Jacksonville, FL

Northwest Florida Chapter, Florida
Anthropological Society, P.O. Box 4641, St.
Andrew Station, Panama City, FL 32401

Ocali Scrub Anthropological Society, P.O.
Box 82, Altoona, FL 32702

Paleontological & Archaeological Research
Team of Florida, P.O. Box 2091, Palatka, FL

Palm Beach County Archaeological Society,
P.O. Box 6574, Southboro Station, West Palm
Beach, FL 33405

St. John's Anthropological Society, c/o
South Brevard Historical Society, P.O. Box
1064, Melbourne, FL 32901

Southwest Florida Archaeological Society,
P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 33941

Time Sifters, P.O. Box 32091, Midtown
Station, Sarasota, FL 34239

Volusia Anthropological Society, P.O. Box
1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32074

Withlacoochee River Archaeological Council,
c/o Citrus County Historical Society, The
Old Courthouse Room 102, Inverness, FL
If you are interested in learning more
about our society, please contact any of
the above referenced FAS chapters, or
write directly to our Membership Secretary
and plan to attend our up-coming annual
meeting on May 6-8, 1988 at the Bush
Science Building, Rollins College in
Winter Park, just north of Orlando,
Florida. Non-members are welcome.

Harold D. Cardwell, Sr.
1343 Woodbine Street
Daytona Beach, FL 32014

MAY 6-8, 1988


May 6, Friday morning: Tours of the Lock
Haven Park area including Orlando Science
Center, Orlando Art Center and Orange
County Historical Museum. A prehistoric
exhibit is scheduled for the Lock Haven
Park area.

Friday afternoon 3:00
Archaeological Council

pm: The Florida
Annual Business

Friday afternoon 5:00 pm: Florida Anthro-
pological Society Board Meeting.

Friday evening 6:00-8:00 pm:
and registration.


May 7, Saturday:
8:00-8:30 am: Registration
8:30-noon: Presentation of Papers
Noon-l:30 pm: Lunch
1:30-5:00 pm: Presentation of Papers
5:00 pm: Brief FAS business meeting

Saturday morning till 6:00 pm: Book room
will be open.

May 8, Sunday:
9:00-noon: Presentation
concurrent workshops

of papers and

The meetings will be held at the Bush Sci-
ence Center, Rollins College in Winter
Park, just north of Orlando.

For further information, please write to
Michelle Alexander, Central Florida
Anthropological Society, 810 E. Rollins
St., Orlando, FL 32803. You do not have
to be a member of the Florida Anthropo-
logical Society to attend.


John W. Griffin

When, in August of 1947, a number of us
launched the Florida Anthropological Soci-
ety under an initial organizing committee,
the establishment of a journal was foremost
in our minds. It was, however, not until
the Spring of 1948 before the first issue
of The Florida Anthropologist was
mailed to the approximately 70 members of
the nascent society.

The formation of a state society to serve
professional and non-professional alike
seemed a logical, and even necessary, step
to many of us who were working on the ar-
chaeology of Florida in that period immedi-
ately following the end of World War II. A
number of out-of-state archaeologists and
institutions had been hard at work on re-
search which, when published between the
years 1946 and 1951, would bring our knowl-
edge of Florida archaeology into a new era.
By correspondence and meetings, this knowl-
edge was being shared among the profession-
als, including among others, Gordon Willey,
Irving Rouse, John Goggin and James B.
Griffin. Hale Smith and I had begun work
for the Florida State Park Service in the
summer of 1946, becoming the first archae-
ologists employed by the state. There were
numbers of interested and informed academi-
cians and laymen within the state who were
eager to participate. There had to be a
formalized avenue of communication between
all these parties.

In August of 1947, a three-day conference
was held in Daytona Beach, where Smith and
I were engaged in summer field work. The
purpose of the Daytona Conference was to
exchange information and work out a general
framework for the archaeology of the state.
It was a rewarding conference, but the
specifics of it relate more closely to the
history of Florida archaeology than to the
history of the Florida Anthropological So-
ciety. However, on the day following the
conference, August 14, 1947, some of the
participants, being together in one place,
can be said to have established the Soci-
ety, or at least set it in motion. Before
the end of the month the first Newsletter
had been issued and distributed.

That newsletter contained a statement of
purpose which is worth quoting:

The Florida Anthropological Society is or-
ganized to serve both non-professionals and
professionals interested in one or more
fields of Florida anthropology.

The primary interest of the Society is in
the Florida Indian, past and present, but
the scope of the Society is as broad as the
field of anthropology -- "the science of
man." An interest in any field qualifies
one for membership.

At another point in that first Newslet-
ter, it was noted that the Society encour-
aged the establishment of local chapters.
Chapters, so important in the current orga-
nization, were slow to materialize, but
they were authorized from the very begin-

The initial Organizing Committee was as

Chairman: W. W. Ehrmann, University of

Secretary-Treasure: Hale G. Smith, Florida
Park Service

Editor: John W. Griffin, Florida Park Ser-

Committee Members: John M. Goggin, Miami

0. F. Quackenbush, University of

Frederick W. Sleight, Rollins College

The initial newsletter had tentatively pro-
jected that the first annual meeting would
be held in April of 1948, but it did not
materialize until February 12, 1949. In
the meantime, there were several changes
and additions to the organizing committee.
Hale Smith vacated his position as Secre-
tary-Treasurer to return to college to work
on his doctorate. His successor, Bevode C.
McCall, did the same thing, and was re-
placed by Dr. Donald E. Worcester of the
Department of History, University of


Vol. 41 No. 1

Mar., 1988

Figure 1. Participants in the Daytona Conference, August
11-13, 1947. From left to right: John M. Goggin, Yale Uni-
versity; Charles M. Brookfield, National Audubon Society;
Albert C. Manucy, National Park Service; John W. Griffin,
Florida Park Service; Hale G. Smith, Florida Park Service;
Wesley Hurt, Alabama Museum of Natural History; Charles H.
Fairbanks, National Park Service; Antonio J. Waring, Jr.,
Savannah; Gordon R. Willey, Bureau of American Ethnology,
Smithsonian Institution. Not pictured, but attending the
conference: Mark F. Boyd, Florida Historical Society;
Winston W. Erhmann, University of Florida; Lewis G. Scoggin,
Florida Park Service.

Florida. Both Smith and McCall became mem-
bers of an expanded committee, to which
were added: Dr. Raymond F. Bellamy of
Florida State University; Robert F. Green-
lee, an anthropologist teaching in Daytona
Beach; and Dr. Albert C. Holt, pastor of
the First Presbyterian Church, Jack-
sonville. The composition of the committee
became five anthropologists, four sociolo-
gists, one historian, and one minister.

This group managed the affairs of the Soci-
ety during its first 18 months. During
that time three newsletters appeared, mem-

bers were mailed reprints of John Goggin's
"A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological
Areas and Periods in Florida," and both
double numbers of Volume I of The Florida
Anthropologist were published.

The 80 pages of the first volume of The
Florida Anthropologist contained 8 ar-
ticles, 5 book reviews and several brief
communications. The table of contents re-
veals a deliberate attempt on the part of
the editor to encompass the broad scope of
subject matter envisaged in the purposes of
the Society. Archaeology, ethno-history


and physical anthropology are represented
in the articles, while the book reviews en-
compass archaeology, ethnology, history and
general cultural theory. The emerging
field of historical archaeology was repre-
sented by the first paper in the volume,
and authors included both professionals and

I must admit that achieving this degree of
balance took some doing. Particular au-
thors had to be solicited, my former pro-
fessor of physical anthropology for one.
Some articles had to be extensively rewrit-
ten by the editor in cooperation with the
authors, and the field of anthropological
linguistics was not represented. I must
also admit that I left no stock of
manuscripts for my successor as editor.
Lack of a backlog is still an editorial

The choice of a symbol (the term "logo" was
not then in common use) fell to the editor.
I had in 1946 published an article on cer-
tain Florida artifacts which I believed
were related to the widespread Southern or
"Buzzard" Cult, and subsequently one of
these, in silver, had appeared in the Good-
now Mound in Highlands County, excavated by
Hale Smith and me. This artifact type im-
pressed me as eminently suitable for the
new society and journal. It represented to
me a strictly Florida type related to a
broad southeastern pattern, executed in
metallic form which symbolized the contact
of prehistoric and historic cultures. The
easiest representation to copy was the gold
ornament found near Ft. Bassinger on the
Kissimmee River and published by A. E.
Douglass in 1890. This, then, became 'ou
logo. It remains as such, even though it
may be interpreted somewhat differently to-

When the first annual meeting of the Soci-
ety was held on the campus of the Univer-
sity of Florida on February 12, 1949, we
could boast of 104 members and a deficit of
$2.23, which had been covered by borrowing
from the $50.00 special publication fund.
Only eleven members attended that first
meeting. They were: A. T. Anderson,
Adelaide K. Bullen, Ripley P. Bullen,
Winston W. Ehrmann, John W. Griffin, John
M. Goggin, Albert C. Holt, Bevode C.
McCall, Lois Watkins, Kenneth F. Wilson and
Donald E. Worcester.

The constitution of the Society was adopted
and the assembled group proceeded to the
election of its first slate of officers.
It should be remembered that there were
nine offices to fill and eleven members in
attendance! But since three slots were
filled by members not in attendance, the
group elected only slightly more than half
its own number. That first governing panel
was as follows:

president: John W. Griffin, Florida Park

First vice-president: Winston W. Ehrmann,
University of Florida

Second vice-President: Lucius S. Ruder,

Secretary: Adelaide K. Bullen, Gainesville

Treasurer: Lois Watkins, Gainesville

Editor: John M. Goggin, University of

Executive Committeemen:
Sleight, Mt. Dora

Frederick W.

Albert C. Holt, Jacksonville

Madaline W. Nichols, Tallahassee

Four future presidents and two future edi-
tors were in that group. One of them, Dr.
Holt, became in 1951 the first non-profes-
sional to hold the presidency, but over the
history of the organization that office has
been split nearly fifty-fifty between non-
professionals and professionals, in keeping
with the original concept of the composi-
tion of the organization.

The Florida Anthropologist has contin-
ued to be, to my mind, the most important
vehicle for the advance and continuity of
the Florida Anthropological Society. About
144 issues have followed the thin offering
of Volume I. Twelve editors have labored
with scores of authors to give us this vi-
tal source which now contains over 650 ar-
ticles and book reviews on more than 7100
pages. What would Florida anthropology be
without it?

John W. Griffin
St. Augustine, Fl 32084
(Editor's Note: Reprinted from FA 36(3-
4):110-113 with reformatting, corrections
and updated data.'






Hale G. Smith ................. .. .............. 1


THE BIG CIRCLE MOUNDS. Ross Allen ................. 17

MAN ENTERS AMERICA. Frederick W. Sleight............. 23


A NOTE TO MEMBERS. W. W. Erhmann ................ 16

WEEDEN ISLAND ZONED RED. John W. Griffin ........... 22

AN UNUSUAL SHELL PENDANT. JohnW. Griffin .......... 28


The Indians of the Southeastern United States. John R. Swanton.
Reviewed by Hale G. Smith ..................... 29

The Everglades: River of Grass. Majory Stoneman Douglas.
Reviewed by John W. Griffin ................... 30

The Theory of Human Culture. James Feibleman.
Reviewed by Bevode C. McCall .................. 31

CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE ..................... 34

ganization and officers, and on this journal, THE FLORIDA ANTHRO-
POLOGIST, will be found on the inside rear cover.

Hale G. Smith

With the approval of the Spanish government, a concerted effort to
missionize the Apalachee Indians was started in 1633 by members of
the Franciscan Order. Various early travelers along the mission
chain which extended from St. Augustine to the Apalachicola River
have left us lists of the missions which they visited, together with
notations of the distances between missions. A list compiled in 1655
gives sixteen missions, and by 1680 twenty-five missions were in

From one point of view these missions were very successful; in the
Apalachee country most, if not all, of the Indians came under Spanish
surveillance. Of course, reactionary factions both within and outside
the group caused minor uprisings from time to time, but these were
never wholly successful. The blow that really broke the missions was
delivered in 1704 by Colonel Moore of South Carolina, who, with fifty
British soldiers and 1000 Creek Indians, raided and burned most of
the missions in the Apalachee country.

The Spaniards in St. Augustine obtained most of their food by supply
ships from Cuba. Most of the time these ships failed to keep their
schedule, with resulting privation in the colony. Fish, which should
have been a valuable food in such times, are not mentioned in any of
the historical documents consulted. The mission Indians of the Apa-
lachee region were, therefore, important to the people of St. Augustine
because of the corn which they supplied.

The mission which we excavated is located about twenty miles southeast
of Tallahassee, in Jefferson County, just three miles southeast of the
town of Waukeenah. The site is in the Tallahassee Red Hills region,
a very fertile agricultural area.

The location of the site was not a matter of accident. Prior to 1939,
Mr. Clarence Simpson of the Florida Geological Survey was traveling
through the region, and on passing a farm house noticed what seemed
to be two Spanish water jars on the front porch. Stopping, he asked
where they had been found, after ascertaining that they definitely were
This paper is slightly revised from one read before the
Florida Historical Society at their annual meeting in
Jacksonville, February 6-7, 1948. The work described was
done by the author as Assistant Archaeologist, Florida
Park Service. A complete report is being prepared.
1 w


Spanish jars. The farmer said he had dug them up on his land, in an
area a few hundred yards from the farm house. He had found more,
but had broken most of them with a hammer, believing, because of
their weight, that they contained gold. In reality they were only filled
with dirt. Mr. Simpson examined the land where they had been found,
and noticed numerous wrought iron nails, pieces of Spanish pottery,
Indian potsherds and other material on the surface of the ground.
S Also he noted that in certain areas rudimentary building walls could
S be discerned. From his knowledge of the approximate location of the
Spanish missions, gained from historical records, he was fairly sure
that this was the site of one of them.

5 Later, Dr. Mark F. Boyd and Mr. Simpson dug some test pits m this
C area and discovered the floor of one of the buildings, and obtained
w O! several artifacts of both Indian and Spanish origin. Therefore, when
So the Archaeological Survey of the Florida Park Service began exca-
Svations, we were fairly certain that we were excavating a Spanish
a S mission site. Work done by Dr. Boyd on Span'sh documents, part
0 of which has been published, helped us immensely in our work.

o o When we visited the site prior to excavation, the land had been freshly
plowed, and it was easy to note on the surface where two of the mission
Buildings had stood. Concentrated in these areas were pieces of
burned clay, and various artifacts of Spanish and Indian origin.

In preparing to excavate an archaeological site, the total area is
o surveyed and mapped, and the section to be excavated is staked out in
a < five foot squares. Each square is given a number so that anything
ao found may easily be assigned a location in the field notes. Accuracy
0o is of the utmost importance in keeping the field notes, since they are
0 used when we are back in the laboratory, and form the basis for the
S written report. The usefulness of accurate notes may be illustrated
S by reference to the reconstruction of a Spanish jar which had been
2 5 broken into hundreds of pieces when a burning building collapsed.
SThese pieces had become scattered, so in putting the jar together we
a C4 referred to our catalog, and gathered all specimens from squares
S.9 0 surrounding the square in which the majority of the sherds had been
Sa found. In this way we were able to reconstruct most of the jar without
o going over all of the thousands of such sherds which came from the
o 2 excavation. One sherd from this pot came from an area twenty-five
feet away from the square which contained the maximum concentration.

After staking out the area covered by the two visible floor areas, a
depression was noticed about seventy-five feet to the north. Sus-
Specting that this might have been part of the mission complex, the
staking-out was extended to take in this portion of the field. The

y --------------------------
Boyd, 1939


depression later proved to have been a borrow pit from which clay had
been obtained for use in the buildings.

With the staking completed, we were ready to begin excavating. A
few small test pits indicated that the floors of the buildings lay about
eleven to twelve inches beneath the surface, so the top eight inches
of soil was removed with shovels from the entire area, care being
taken that materials found were properly labeled. The remaining
debris, down to the floor level, was removed with mason's trowels
and small bruches. It was easy to follow the floor plan )-ecause the
floor was composed of burned red clay resting on a light sandy soil.
Charred posts outlined the wall areas at the edges of the floors.

The completed excavation disclosed that the mission complex con-
sisted of two buildings and the borrow pit. Further trenching over
a twenty acre field failed to reveal any other features that could be
interpreted as belonging with the mission. Since some of the missions
were seemingly palisaded, particular care was taken in searching for
evidence of such a structural feature, but if a palisade ever existed
the agricultural practices of the last century have completely oblit-
erated it. The artist's reconstruction at the appearance of this settle-
ment accompanies this paper (Fig. 1).

The walls of the larger mission building were of wattle and daub, i.e.
a series of vertical posts were set up, and between these posts a
lattice work of vertical and horizontal saplings were woven or lashed
in place. The lashing was either of leather thongs or fibers. Over the
framework, a plaster of clay mixed with grasses was applied until a
thickness of at least six to eight inches was reached. The framework
for the roof was of hewn timbers held in place with wrought iron
nails. The roofing material was either palmetto thatch or bark. The
floors of the buildings were of packed red clay procured from the
borrow pit. The interior walls of the larger building were plastered
over with a coat of lime.

Since the mission was destroyed by fire, we found many remnants of
charcoal beams and posts. By recording the location of these beams
and posts we were able to make a fairly accurate estimate of many of
the architectural features of the buildings.

It is evident that the Franciscan fathers utilized an aboriginal type of
wall construction which was topped by a European type of beam and
rafter construction. This mission, and probably all other missions in
Florida, differed in appearance from those found in the Southwest,
California and Mexico where adobe bricks or stone were the primary
materials. Dr. Boyd has found a picture of a Florida mission on an
old Spanish map, showing the mission bells suspended from a sort of
gallows in front of the building. This feature is also different from
the Southwestern missions. In the Southwest and in California the bells
are usually found in a niche in the front facade of the mission, high

above the roof.

Before the excavation was begun there were many problems which we
hoped to solve by archaeological work on a mission site. These prob-
lems were historical, anthropological and archaeological. Such ques-
tions as these arose: would it be possible to identify this as a mission
site; would we be able to determine the name of the mission, if it
turned out to be a mission site; could we by various means give a date
to the mission; what plants other than corn were grown around the
missions; how far had acculturation gone among the Indians; what
relationship exists between the aboriginal culture of the Apalachee
and the surrounding Indian groups of Florida and Georgia; what was
the nature of the material culture of a frontier mission. We had hints
of what to expect on some of these questions from historical docu-
ments previously translated and from archaeological work that had
already been done. After the excavation had been completed we had
cleared up many of the problems previously raised, but found that
many more problems had been raised. These will be mentioned later.

We were able to establish that this was a Spanish mission by some of
the artifacts which we found, and by reference to the historical ac-
counts. We found an eight inch brass crucifix (Fig. 2), and a brass
piece that may have been the top of a censer. Dr. Boyd, in his testing
of the site, found apiece of a marble slab that probably was a section
of an altar. Two inscribed Spanish olive jar sherds were found, one
by Dr. Boyd in 1940 and one by us in 1947, which when fitted together
gave us the name of a priest in the vicinity in 1704. Father Criado
is mentioned in documents which reveal that he had been at San Luis
de Apalachee (just west of present-day Tallahassee) and was killed
at the hands of the British and Indians in 1704. These inscribed
sherds indicated two things; that this mission had probably been
visited by Father Criado, and that it was probably one of the missions
destroyed in 1704.

For an identification of just which mission this was, we turned to Dr.
Boyd's work on the mission sites, and discovered that we could narrow
the choice to two missions. Depending on various factors of distances
directions, the mission was probably either San Francisco de
Oconee or San Lorenzo de Hibichacho; most likely it was the former.
It was hoped that a mission bell would be found in the excavations,
since these bells generally have the date of founding and the name
of the mission cast onto the side of the bell, but none was found.

We are able to limit the time span of the mission fairly accurately.
The historical records indicate that the missionization of the Apa-
lachee Indians did not begin until 1633, and that most, if not all, of
the missions were destroyed in 1704. This gives us a miximum span
of 71 years. In all probablility the mission buildings were not built
in the first year of mission activity in the region. We can therefore
assume that the site in question was in existence for less than 71

years, with an end date of 1704.

Fig. 2: Brass crucifix found at the mission.


The Spanish cultural materials recovered included various iron objects
such as nails, a spur rowel, a flintlock striker, a pistol barrel, a
musket barrel, an axe, locks of various sizes, a key, chest handles,
hinges, a bolt, cotterpins, a chisel, hoes, a lance head, an anvil, and
miscellaneous items. A lead finger ring was found. The most abun-
dant item of European materials was quantities of sherds from water
or olive jars and from a glazed mojelica-like ware that we may call
Hispano-Mexican. Dr. Louis Caywood of the National Park Service
has been making a study of this type of ware, and has made certain
identifications for us. The kind of Hispano-Mexican ware found at
the mission was made in Puebla, Mexico by 1600. A very similar
glaze composed of tin and lead was first made in Italy, from whence
it was introduced into Spain after 1566. The transfer of the technique
to Mexico was rather rapid. The paste of the Mexican ware is a buff
color, caused by the admixture of equal parts of red and white clay.
Pottery of the same kind has been found in the moat of Castillo de
San Marcos in St. Augustine, which was initially dug in 1686, and at
the Higgs site in Brevard County. It has also been found in Spanish
sites in Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and
Sonora, Mexico.

In contrast to the variety of Spanish artifacts found, Indian remains
were relatively meagre. The major type of Indian material at the site
consisted of a vast number of potsherds; there was very little in the
way of other artifacts. It appears that at this time the Indian craft
of pottery making was encouraged by the Spaniards, as they them-
selves made use of the pots for cooking purposes. The Spaniards,
unlike the British or French, did not have any great amount of metal
pots and kettles either for their own use or for trade purposes. Since
it was easier to use Indian earthenware than to transport it from Spain
or Mexico, the native ceramic industry thrived.

Much of the Indian pottery found at the mission site was new to arch-
aeology. In fact, this work has led to the establishment of a new arch-
aeological period, called Leon-Jefferson.2 In addition to types unique
to the site, some of the pottery was of a type found in Georgia at the
Macon Trading Post, which was in existence between 1675-1718.3
This dating checks rather closely with that of the mission. Another
check on the dating of the mission is that some of the pottery found m
excavations around Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine is similar
to pottery from the mission. The pottery from the fort is from a
period tentatively dated as covering the range 1565-1750. Some of it
is the same type of ware found on the Georgia coast, made by the
Huspaw Indians and dating from 1715.4 A red painted pottery type
found at the mission is like that which was made by the Kasita Indians
of Georgia.
- ---------------------------------1948 Kelley, 198, p. 55 4aldwell, 19
2Smi~th, 1948 3Kelley, 1938, p. 55 4Caldwell, 1943

Some of the pottery from the mission is related to types found in the
proto-historic and early historic sites of the region. By taking the
total ceramic complex found at the mission we are able to note various
changes in the ceramic tradition during a relatively short period of
time. The earlier Weeden Island pottery of the Area had been in-
fluenced by various types manufactured by the Georgia Indians by
1500.5 By the time of the mission site we see still further influences.
Whether these influences accompanied Indians coming from Georgia,
or whether the technique was passed from group to group, is as yet
unknown. It is known that in later times various Georgia Indians did
migrate to Florida, the Oconee for example. Since the Oconee were
close relatives of the Kasita, it is possible that they are the ones
who introduced the red-filmed Kasita pottery into the area.

Many of the Indian vessels had an annular ring base, a type of base
generally produced on a potter's wheel. Whether the wheel was actu-
ally used, or whether these bases are hand-made copies of Spanish
wheel-made pottery, is still a problem. The above comments should
indicate how comparative analysis of pottery found in various arch-
aeological sites is used to build up a fairly accurate general picture
of the relationship of one group of people to others.

The other aboriginal artifacts found at the mission included a few
projectile points made of chert, limestone discoidals that were prob-
ably used as gaming pieces, limestone grinders, limestone awl sharp-
eners, smoothed quartz pebbles, granite corn pounders, and a frag-
ment of a maul. There were also several pottery discs, about one inch
in diameter, which were probably gaming pieces.

Indications of food habits were given by charred corn cobs and peach
pits. Animal bones found in the refuse pit included deer, domestic
pig and cow or ox.

It is unfortunate that we know so little about the Apalachee group.
We do know that the confederacy was in existence at the time of
Narvaez and De Soto, for it is mentioned in the accounts of these
expeditions. At this early time the Apalachee were quite hostile
to the Spaniards, but something of great magnitude must have happened
to their culture, for by 1607 they were asking the Spaniards to send
missionaries to baptise them. The cause of this change of attitude
is unknown; they may have wished to profit by trade with the Spaniards,
or they may have felt that the presence of Spaniards in the area would
make them more secure from attacks by neighboring tribes. From
1633 to 1647 events seem to have moved smoothly in the area, but in
the latter year there was a revolt. After the 1647 revolt had been
suppressed, the Apalachee were forced to furnish laborers for the

5See Goggin, 1947, for a summary of the various periods in
this area, with the exception of the mission period, de-
fined subsequent to his publication.

building of the fort in St. Augustine. This servitude was continued
until 1704, with the Indians making many unnoticed appeals to be
freed from this work.

The Timucua Rebellion in 1656 also involved the Apalachee, but,
evidently, none of the various uprisings were supported by the whole
of the Apalachee Confederacy, since there is no record that all of the
missions were destroyed at any one time. The uprisings were un-
doubtedly caused by reactionary factions that struck from time to
time at the missions which were the symbol of Spanish authority in
the territory.

If we can rely on the census figures of that time, it appears that most
of the native population was living around the missions. It would
appear, then, that the relationship between the Spaniards and the
indians was, on the whole, outwardly friendly. In looking over the
whole cultural assemblage revealed at the mission, one thing stands
oit. Most of the artifacts are Spanish. Of course, we realize that
an excavation of a purely aboriginal site of this time period might
alter the picture considerably, but, since there were so few Spaniards
in relation to the number of Indians around the missions, we would
expect to find, if the Indians were still using their aboriginal artifacts
exclusively, more evidence of aboriginal culture. Ostensibly, ac-
culturation seems to have progressed rather far.

We are now left with various problems that can only be solved by
more work by the historian and archaeologist. We would like to know
the cultural picture of other mission sites, the picture of the aboriginal
culture existing away from the missions, the areal distribution of the
late type of culture, the information that the untranslated documents
contain, the type of men sent to be missionaries among these people,
the agricultural practices and plants introduced by the Spaniards, the
relationship between the various Apalachee groups, and many other

In all of this work, we hope by answering various questions of this
type to better understand the various aspects of culture, and to be
able, eventually, to apply this knowledge to the general problems of
social science.


Boyd, Mark F.
1939. "Spanish Mission Sites in Florida." Florida Historical
Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4,' pp. 254-280. St. Augustine.

Caldwell, Joseph R.
1943. Cultural Relations of Four Indian Sites of the Georgia Coast.
Master's thesis, University f Chicago.

Goggin, John M.
1947. "A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and
Periods in Florida." American Antiquity. Vol, 13, No. 2,
pp. 114-127. Menasha.

Kelly, A. R.
1938. "A Preliminary Report on Archaeological Explorations
at Macon, Ga." Bulletin 119, Bureau of American Ethnology.

Smith, Hale G.
1948. "Two Historical Archaeological Periods in Florida." Ameri-
can Antiquity, Vol. 13, No. 4. Menasha.

Florida Park Service
Sebring, Florida
March, 1948


By J. Clarence Simpson

For many year the presence of Folsom points in Florida was denied.
More recently, however, certain points exhibiting some of the essential
Folsom characteristics have been found, although it may still be said
that no "true" Folsom points have so far been found. Following the
procedure in other areas of the eastern United States, we may refer
to the points from Florida as Folsom-like.

The true Folsom point is about two inches in length, rather thin and
leaf shaped. It has a concave base, usually marked by ear-like pro--
jections. Distinctive of the Folsom points is the removal of longi-
tudinal flakes from either surface, resulting in well-defined grooves.1
Points obviously related to this type have at various times been re-
ferred to as Folsomoid, Folsom-like, and Generalized Folsom, and
there seems to be a tendency today to substitute the term Fluted
Points. Whichever term is used, it is recognized that points re-
sembling the classic Folsoms are present in many areas of the country,
although most have come from surface collections.

The Florida points about which this paper is written are similar to
the Folsom points, and more particularly to the Folsom-like points,
in general shape, in the possession of concave bases, and in the pres-
ence of ear-like projections. Grooving, when present, is rudimentary,
but this is perhaps due to the quality of the material used rather than
to a different idea of manufacture. It is because of this relative lack
of the characteristic groove that the term Folsom-like is used in this
paper in preference to the term Fluted point. The bases of these
Florida points have been smoothed, a feature noted in other Folsom-
like points.

The three Folsom-like points from Florida illustrated in Figure 3
are representive of these points as known from the state. Figure
3 c shows the closest approach to a well-defined groove. These points
have come from the following Florida localities: (See Fig. 4).

1. At River Springs, on the Suwannee River, 3 miles north-
west of Branford, Suwannee County. Simpson collection.

2. Mouth of the Santa Fe River, Gilchrist County. Simpson

3. Dunnegan's mill site, on Santa Fe River, 6 miles west of
High Springs, Gilchrist County. Simpson collection.

1Wormington, 1944, p. 7.

4. Santa Fe River, 2 miles west of High Springs, Gilchrist
County. Simpson collection.

County. Simpson collection.

6. Itchtucknee River, 1 mile below Itchtucknee Springs,
Columbia County. Simpson collection. (Fig. 3 c).

7. Near Hillsborough River, about in Sec. 2, T28S, R20E.
Hillsborough County. Simpson collection. (Fig. 3 b).

S8. Near Melrose, Alachua County. Florida State Museum,
S' No. 18558.

9. Near Keystone Heights, Clay County. Florida State Mu-
seum, No. 72477.

'"-- Ii 10. Near Kanapaha, Alachua County, Florida State Museum,
No. 74776.

11. Near Lakeland, Polk County. Photo on Tile, Florida Park
Sb Service.
It will noted immediately that the known finds of Folsom-like points
SCm in Florida are from the higher ridge sections of the state, although
i5- 1 1'i cm. it is too early to draw any real conclusions from this fact.

Mostof the findspots have been in steam beds, or in the immediate
vicinity of streams. Number 6 in the above list (Fig. 3 c) was found
i n the Itchtucknee River with fossil vertebrate remains and fossilized
artifacts of bone. It will be well to note here that in this locality were
also found three fossilized ivory points, similar to those found at
d Clovis, New Mexico,2 and that a chert scraper was found in place
below a partly articulated mastodon skeleton. The mastodon skeleton
and the scraper were recovered by the Florida Geological Survey,
and are in the museum of that department in Tallahassee. The ivory
artifacts and Folsom-like points are in the Simpson collection at
e High Springs. The point shown as Fig. 3 a was found in the Santa
Fe River with fossil vertebrate remains and fossilized artifacts of
bone. Number 7 in the above list (Fig. 3 b) was found resting on clay
beneath five feet of seemingly undisturbed surface sand in Hillsborough
County, and is almost completely de-silicified.

While the occurrence of these points in river beds in association with
fossil vertebrates is not indisputable evidence of contemporaneity,
the consistency with which they are found together and the degree of
Fig. 3: Early artifacts from Florida fossilization of the ivory artifacts which also occur under the same

2Jenks and Sirrson, 1941.

conditions, clearly indicate that there is a need for further research
on the problem. There is one locality, at the mouth of the Santa Fe
River, which has revealed several whole and broken points, flake
knives and scrapers, and may be a campsite or village site of the

As has been indicated previously, certain points of fossilized ivory
are found under the same conditions as the Folsom-like points, and
are probably related to them. Several of these have been described
in the literature, and their similarity to points from Clovis, New
Mexico, a Folsom site, has been noted. Another object which occurs
at the Folsom-like localities in Florida, and is not known from estab-
Lished later horizons, is an unusual type of clubhead. These clubheads,
of sandstone, limestone, or quartz, are about the size and shape of a
hen's egg, and have a shallow indentation in the smaller end, pre-
sumably for fitting a handle.

Before leaving the question of the presumedly early Folsom-like
points in Florida, it will not be amiss to add several notes on the
question of the Pleistocene. There has been a great deal of mis-
understanding on the matter as concerns Florida, and much of the
controversy which has revolved around the possible association of
"Pleistocene" fauna and "Pleistocene" man.

The peninsula of Florida is rich in the remains of extinct animals
generally considered as Pleistocene, and at many of the localities
where these animals have been found, evidences of man have also
been found. There is a growing tendency to believe that many of these
"Pleistocene" vertebrates outlasted the Ice Age in Florida. In fact,
if climate alone were the critical factor in the survival of the Pleis-
tocene fauna, the mastodon, elephant, sloth and other animals might
still be living in Florida. They doubtless survived in Florida longer
than in many other areas. Consequently, while it may be erroneous
to suggest that man lived in Florida during the Pleistocene Age, a
large amount of evidence has accumulated suggesting that man in
Florida was contemporaneous with some of the forms of Pleistocene
mammalian life which probably survived well into the post-glacial

The exact time relations of the Folsom-like points from Florida to
the geologically dated Folsom sites in the west is not known. The
typological relations of the artifacts, together with the association
with extinct fauna would seem to indicate a rough contemporaneity.
Another point of interest lies in the fact that the Folsom culture is
usually looked on as oriented towards a plains type of hunting. This
is not inconsistent with the Florida picture; there are a large number
of plains type animals found in the Itchtucknee and Santa Fe Rivers,

3Jenks and Simpson, 1941.

and Florida during this time probably resembled the game fields of

Tallahassee, Florida
April, 1948.


Jenks, A. E., in collaboration with Mrs. H. H. Simpson, Sr.
1941. "Beveled Artifacts in Florida of the same type as Arti-
facts Found near Clovis, New Mexico". American
Antiquity, Vol. 6, no. 4. pp. 314-319. Menasha.

Wormington, H. M.
1944. Ancient Man in North America. Colorado Museum
of Natural History, Popular Series, No. 4. Denver.

See Also: "Man Enters America" by Frederick W. Sleight, in the
present number of the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST.

W. W. Ehrmann
Chairman, Organizing Committee

Upon the suggestion of the editor, the title of this publication, the
official organ of our society, is the Florida Anthropologist instead
of the Bulletin as previously announced in the Newsletter. Most of
us will agree, I believe, that the new title is more descriptive and
more appropriate than the old.

Our society, though less than a year old, has enjoyed a satisfactory
growth. We now have over seventy members who represent every
major section of the state. The membership dues from this number
will enable us to publish two issues of the Florida Anthropologist
each year. In order for our publication to become a quarterly, we
must have one hundred fifty or two hundred members, and in order
for us to publish longer monograph studies, we must have more sus-
taining members. The publication of a monograph series will be a
significant and interesting function of our society for it is planned to
republish some of the famous early works on Florida archeology
and ethnology, as well as to publish new anthropological field studies.

I have asked our editor to send to each member two copies of this
first issue of our journal. I hope that each one of you will loan this
second copy to your friends whom you believe might be interested in
joining our society. The last page of this issue is an application
blank. If you need more than this one, please write to the secretary-

The editor will appreciate contributions which may be published in
the Newsletter or the Florida Anthronologist. Members of the or-
ganizing committee will welcome any suggestions thatyou may have
about the function of the society. Please remember that this is your
society. Its continued success depends upon your support and interest.


By Ross Allen

In the early part of 1946, while on a trip in the Everglades, we had
an interesting conversation around the camp fire among the members
of our snake hunting party. During this discussion George Espenlaub
and Lawrence Bright of Clewiston mentioned a place called Tony's
Mound. The site was very familiar to Espenlaub, who had camped
there, and Bright, who had never camped there, had flown over it
many times. The descriptions of the two men did not completely
agree, which aroused my curiosity to the degree that I decided to
fly over the area with Lawrence Bright. When we did fly over the
site, I was amazed to see the peculiar formation shown in the aerial
photographs accompanying this article.

Although I am not an archaeologist, I was interested in looking over
this formation of mounds, and planned an expedition with some friends,
who, like myself, needed a vacation.

We met at George Espenlaub's headquarters in Clewiston, and pre-
pared for a ten day trip. Espenlaub and Ned Moren each had an Ever-
glades buggy, and these were to be our transportation. George J.
Leahy of Chicago, Bob Morrow of Miami, George Marnhout of Phila-
delphia, and the writer made up our party, which later turned out to
be the most congenial group I have ever camped with.

While we were preparing for the trip George Marnhout flew over the
Indian mounds with Lawrence Bright, and made motion pictures and
photographs, some of which are used with this article. (Figs. 5-6)
The mounds are located approximately south-southeast of Clewiston.
On leaving the Clewiston airport the direction is at 165 degrees for
about 15 miles in a straight line.

In order to reach the mounds by land, we traveled all day long through
mud and water in the 'Glades buggys, and made camp in a beautiful
little hammock. The following day we drove to the mounds, which
were only about ten minutes away.

These Indian mounds are located on a grassy prairie, which was very
dry at the time of our visit. They are at the edge of the sawgrass,
about three miles northeast of the cypress swamps. The area covered
by the mound group is so extensive that it cannot be seen m its en-
tirety from the ground, but as we measured and walked over the area
we became more fascinated by this strange group. The half circle,
which may be seen in the illustrations, and which led us to apply the
name "Big Circle Mounds", has a diameter of 580 feet and is 1665 ft.
around. The roadway-like enbankment which forms it is about 10 to
15 feet in width. The mounds that are set off from the main circle
are connected to it by raised pathways about six feet in width; the

mounds themselves are of various sizes. Beyond these mounds there
is a crescent-like raised earthwork which does not connect with any
other feature.

We counted the different mounds of the group at various times, and
decided that there were between 19 and 22 distinct mounds, with the
possibility that there had formerly been a few more. Small areas
which may or may not have been mounds complicated the counting.

Tony's Mound, one of the largest, is easily recognized in the photo-
graphs because of the trees growing on it. This vegetation includes
sugarberry, banyan, mulberry, papaya, saw palmetto and small plants.
Tony's Mound measures 110 by 83 feet. A canal-like depression 600
feet long, flanked by spoil banks or raised pathways 30 feet in width,
extends from the north side of the mound. The depression itself is
i 68 feet wide, and breaks through the half circle as shown in the sketch
plan of the site. At this point it should be noted that the sketch plan
o (Fig. 7) was made before the aerial photographs were developed, and
S is not strictly accurate. It does however serve to orient one in study-
S ing the photographs.

o The largest mound is situated opposite Tony's Mound, and is barely
.b visible in the photographs. It is 390 feet in length and 135 feet wide;
M there is a small canal leading to it. It was evident that cattle had
used this mound as a bedding place, and consequently had caused
more erosion here than on the other mount's. Because of this, ac-
S curate measurements of this mound were difficult to secure.

P Approximately a quarter of a mile northwest of the mounds there is
another large mound covered with trees and growth. We presumed
That this was the burial mound.

G The longer I studied the terrain, the more I realized how well located
the site was. The deepest sawgrass area was on the northeast side of
Sthe group, but the grass also extended all along the east side of the
area. I believe that this sawgrass area extends all the way to Miami.
It was an area of deeper water and doubtless provided both fishmg and
water transportation. To the west of the mounds was grassy prairie,
dotted with attractive hammocks, which provided good hunting and
palm materials for construction. To the southwest was the Cypress
Country, where wild turkey and deer abound.

It seemed to us that the shape of the mounds and the canals indicated
that there had been deep water next to the homes of the Indians, and
that the canals certainly provided a waterway to the most important
mounds. Perhaps at the time when the site was occupied this area
was largely covered with water much of the time, and perhaps the
mounds were the only dry places available.

We later found out from Mr. John W. Griffin, State Archaeologist, that

these mounds were of the type made by the Calusa Indians in the 16th
century, and that the crescent arrangement is present in other sites
in the area. We did not do any digging in these mounds because I
felt that they were too valuable for amateurs to disturb, and we have
told many citizens of Hendry County that these mounds should be
preserved, and perhaps set aside as state property.

Silver Springs, Florida
April, 1948


I 0'


FIG, 7 30" 68'

200 FEET


0 830
0)'-- a



John W. Griffin

Figure 8
The pottery vessel in the illustration is of the type know as Weeden
Island Zoned Red. Various areas of the vessel, set off by incised
lines, are painted red with hematite. In the present example these
red areas are the ones which show as darker in the illustration. The
vessel is approximately 15 cm. in diameter and 19 cm. in height;
it was found near Ceder Keys, Florida, and is preserved in the Florida
State Museum, Gainesville (FSM no. 9857).

Weeden Island Zoned Red is one of the pottery types characteristic of
the Weeden Island Period, which dates roughly between 1000 and 1500
A. D. The most recent analysis of the Weeden Island culture is to be
found in an article by Dr. Gordon R. Willey, "The Weeden Island
Culture: A Preliminary Definition", American Antiquity, Vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 225-254, January, 1945.

Florida Park Service
Gainesville, Florida

Frederick W. Sleight

(Note: This is the first of a series of general articles designed to
orient the lay reader to the position of Florida in the total pictures of
aboriginal America. The present paper gives the reader a very brief
sketch of the earliest evidences of man's occupation in the New World.
Succeeding articles will summarize the various regions of North
America, working gradually into the Southeast. The ultimate purpose
of the series is to give the layman sufficient background to make the
reading of technical papers interesting and informative. EDITOR)

If one could have looked down on the North American continent 30,000
to 50,000 years ago, he would have seen slow but constantly shifting
ice sheets advancing and retreating on the American terrain of that
time. This was the last period of the Ice Age. Much of what we now
know as the United States was quite different in character than as
compared with the present. Green trees and lush growth flourished in
areas that are now semi-desert. Many strange animals that are now
extinct broused and fed along grass-lined streams where now only
fossils and river sediments give evidence of this early period. But of
greater interest to us, at the moment, is the fact that nowhere in this
scene could Man be found. This creature had not as yet made his
appearance in the Americas although in the European and Asiatic areas
he was far enough advanced to have attained attributes sufficient to
distinguish him from his other primate contemporaries.

As time progressed, several conditions became evident. The great
ice she .s began to recede and in so doing exposed areas that here-
tofore had been engulfed with ice and glacial flow. Life was entering
close on the heels of the recession in the form of lush green grass
and brush lands. Animal life was finding new feeding grounds. On
the Asiatic side men had moved up the Pacific coast and had found
themselves in the neighborhood of the Bering Strait.

It might be well to pause a moment and state that the proof that arch-
aeology has to offer relative to this coming of man to the Asiatic
shore and thence into America is based in part on indirect evidence;
i.e., the physical type of these early peoples, the only accessible
route at that time, etc. The information concerning the glacial and
climatic features of the time, on the other hand, is based on sound
geologic research. As time goes on, there is a steadily mounting
supply of data being accumulated, and the point has now been reached
wherein scholars the world over generally agree that the only possible
and probable point of entry was via the Asiatic-Bering Ftrait- Alaskan

Let us return to the Asiatic shore some place along the Bering Strait

and join an aboriginal hunter as he looks off to the east. If it is a
clear day, he can see in the far distance (about fifty miles away)
another shore. In between there is an island group, and connecting
the whole is a white glistening ice pack. Being a man, that trait
called "Curiosity" creeps into his mind, and he sets forth to see
what is on the other side. Some time later he returns to his group
and tells stories of having found this new ground. Hunting parties
go forward to this untouched place and return. Other groups follow
through the months, and they come back. The time comes, however,
when some of these groups take their families and move to the new
land. Here they have found good hunting and possibly a freedom from
enemies. Here our first American, with his dog at his heels, had
found a new land. As Associated Press was not on the spot, the reader
must realize that all of this is supposition based on human trends
and our ever growing collection of facts. All indications point to the
fact that this populating of the New World did not come in great waves.
It was, more than likely, a small stream of mankind.

Authorities differ, but the general consensus of opinion places this
coming of first aborigines on the American scene at 15,000 to 20,000
years ago. The best proof of this is the fact that there are now on
record several hundred geologically dated discoveries of Early Man
and his artifacts. When the first so-called "Early Man" discoveries
were made in the early part of this century there were few who would
put much stock in them. It was not until the Folson remains were
uncovered that evidence was made available that could not be disputed.

The first evidence concerning Folsom man came from the so-called
"type-site" of Folsom, New Mexico. It was here in the mid-1920's
that the first of a long series of finds of man-made objects were
found in direct association with bones of extinct animals. When one
hears the term "Folsom" referred to, an immediate association with
the famous "Folsom Point" is brought to mind. It seems that these
early hunters were past-masters in turning out a most distinctive dart
or spear point. It can be recognized by its leaf shape which in turn
is characterized by longitudinal channels on each face that run from
the base toward the tip. These channels give the point an appearance
of having lateral ridges that run parallel to the finely worked edges.
It was the association of blades such as this with the remains of extinct
animals that gave archaeology its first great boost toward pushing
back the screen of time in America. There were some, however, who
would not be convinced. As was later shown, it was up to the findings
north of Fort Collins, Colorado, (the Lindenmeler Site) to establish
positive proof.

In 1935 and 1936 extensive work was undertaken in the Colorado site
at the suggestion of Major R. G. Coffin who had noted there the pres-
ence of Folsom points. As the work progressed, large accumulations
of bones were found representing an extinct species of Bison, Bison
taylori. Many of the bones were charred and numerous man-ma~

implements were recovered. But the find that made the institutions
of the world take notice was an articulated vertebrae of a Bison taylori
in which was imbedded solidly a perfect example of the Folsom point.
Any doubts as to the contemporaneous nature of man in America with
extinct species of animals that lived 15,000 to 20,000 years ago were
completely dispelled.

Since the time of those original findings, both chance discovery and
systematic exploration have brought to light many hundreds of addi-
tional Folsom and Folsom-like artifacts, not only in the western United
States but throughout the nation. The widespread distribution of these
early hunters has even been manifest in Florida where Folsom type
points have been reported.1 One of the perplexing problems to the
archaeologist, however, has been the fact that Folsom Man himself
has never come to light. Many have been his words that have been
unearthed, and much has been learned concerning the nature of his
livelihood, but his physical nature continues to remain somewhat
of a secret.

The thought has been voiced that the "fossil man" discovered on
February 22, 1947, in the Valley of Mexico may prove to have Folsom
connections. This early Mexican (called Tepexpan Man because he
was found in Tepexpan, State of Mexico) evidently met an accidental
death along an ancient muddy shore while in search of animals that
became extinct in that region at least 15,000 years ago. The deposits
in which he was found date from the Upper Pleistocene period, which
makes for a rather positive statement that man roamed this area
during the Late Ice Age. This would put Tepexpan Man in the same
time scale as Folsom. We must wait, however, for more definite
conclusions, as the final and complete reports on this discovery are
still to be forthcoming.

In an article of such brevity as this, one is likely to gain the im-
pression that outside of the Folsom finds there is little more that
can be told in the story of our early adventurers. If one will take
the time to delve into the literature he will discover that "Early
Man" finds have been rather numerous. There have been many re-
ports that describe the finding of artifacts and human sketetal material
in association with extinct animals of Late Ice Age times. For ex-
ample: Homo novus mundus discovered along the Cimarron River in
New Mexico; "Pleistocene Man" from the Los Angeles area; the
"Minnesota Man"; the remains from Gypsum Cave in Nevada; and
"Vero Man" From Florida.

It can be stated with assurance that outside of Folsom there is hardly
another series of discoveries that has received as much publicity
and controversy in the United States as "Vero Man". Ever since
1916 there has been a steady flow of printed matter discussing the
-------------------------.-------- -
ISee the article by J. Clarence Simpson in the present pub-

status of "Vero Man" as well as his close neighbor, "Melbourne
Man". The original material was uncovered by Dr. E. H. Sellards,
who was at that time State Geologist for Florida, along a section of
the Van Valkenburg Creek about one half-mile north of Vero Beach,
Florida. Although the discovery was made in October of 1915, the
facts were not published until 1916. A cross section of the site re-
vealed three distinct strata, which were listed as follows: the Ana-
stasia Marl, lowest of the three beds, a marine deposit containing
neither verterbrate fossils nor human artifacts; the Melbourne Bone
Bed, the middle strata, a non-marine sand deposit; and the Van
Valkenburg Bed, the top layer of the three, a sand-muck deposit.
Sellards indicated a point that sheds light on the antiquity of the beds;
the evidence of a period of erosion between the upper two strata.
Both of the top beds contained human skeletal material scattered
among the fossil bones of extinct animals.

Space does not permit a complete discussion of the points foi and
against the antiquity of the Vero discoveries. For the purposes of
this article one might say that through a demonstration of the re-
lationship between the sketetal remains of humans and fossil verte-
brates, Sellards has attempted to point out the existence of an Ice
Age Man in Florida. There is today among authorities a growing
belief that the "Vero Man" can be classed among the early men of
the New World.

In summing up our "thumb-nail sketch" of the coming of the first
Americans, several impressions should be stressed. The first man
came from Asia via the Bering Strait, they walked, arrived as small
groups, and brought the dog. They knew only the rudiments of liveli-
hood, used a spear or dart-like device to secure their game, and
were characterized by a wandering existence. This population more
than likely infiltrated into most areas of North America at one time
or other. From this and successive groups were to spring the greatly
diversified tribes and cultures that we now consider the American


De Terra, Helmut.
1947. "Preliminary Note on the Discovery of Fossil Man at Tepex-
pan in the Valley of Mexico." American Antiquity, Vol.
XIII, pp. 40-44. Menasha.

Hrdlicka, Ales.
1923. "The Origin and Antiquity of the American Indian." Annual
Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1923, pp. 41T--494

McCurdy, George Grant (Editor).
1937. Early Man. J. B. Lippincott Company, New York.

Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr.
1944. "The New World Paleo-Indian." Annual Report of the
Smithsonian Institution, 1944, pp. 403-433W Washington.

Sellards, E. H.
1916. "Human Remains and Associated Fossils from the Pleis-
tocene of Florida." Florida State Geological Survey, Eighth
Annual Report, pp. 123-160. Tallahassee.

1940. "Early Man in America." Bulletin of the Geological Society
of America, Vol. 51, pp. 373-432. (Good bibliography).

Steward, T. Dale.
1946. "A Reexamination of the Fossil Human Skeletal Remains
from Melbourne, Florida, with Further Data on the Vero
Skull." Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 106,
No. 10.

Wormington, H. M.
1944. Ancient Man in North America. Colorado Museum of Natural
History, Popular Series No. 4. Second (revised) edition.

Mount Dora, Florida
May, 1948


John W. Griffin

Fig. 9.

The shell pendant shown in Fig. 9. is in the collections of the Florida
State Museum, Gainesville (F~M no. 15908). Mr. Nile C. Schaffer,
Acting Director of the Museum, supplied the following information
about it. The artifact was received in the Museum on May 20, 1921,
and is cataloged as coming from Mr. F. W. Bruce, Arlington, Florida.
It reportedly came from a mound on the St. Johns River, near Lake
Jessup, in Seminole County.

The pendant measures 51 mm. wide at the top, and is 74 mm. long.
It is probably fashioned from a Busycon shell. Four suspension holes,
two near each of the upper corners, may be seen. The surface is
decorated with a geometric incised design, together with 16 pearl
seats. At the time of acquisition one of these seats contained a pearl,
but as reference to the illustration will show, it is not there now.

The writer does not recall having seen such a pendant elsewhere, and
would appreciate any information on similar specimens. Unfortunately
we know nothing of the cultural materials with which the pendant was
found, and, temporarily at least, it must be left floating in time.
Florida Park Service
Gainesville, Florida


The Indians of the Southeastern United States. John R. Swanton.
Bulletin 137, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, 1946. 943
pages, 13 maps, 107 plates, 5 text figures. $2.75 in paper cover.

This voluminous compilation of materials relating to the Indians of
the Southeast has a place in the library of any student interested in
the ethnology, history or archaeology of this area. This book brings
together from various sources, many of which are inaccessable to the
average reader, materials that help in clarifying the picture of ab-
original activities of various kinds in the Southeast from earliest
times up to reservation days. The book is a revised edition, ac-
cording to the author, of an earlier work, Early History of the Creek
Indians and Their Neighbors, which appeared as Bulletin 73 of the
Bureau of American Ethnology in 1922. Since this is a review of
Swanton's later work I will not make a comparison of the two, but I
would like to say that the 1922 volume has a good set of reference
maps which are not reproduced in the 1946 volume. Also, the citing
of references is more complete in his earlier work. The student
who is interested in a specific problem is advised to make use of
both works.

For any person to attempt a work of this sort would require years
spent in merely acquiring a good set of notes. In a work of this type
one cannot expect an analysis of the various aspects of the numerous
cultures, nor at this time can one expect the various source materials
to be carefully weighed, nor can one expect a true picture of any of the
various meagerly documented groups.

The book is well arranged; it is easy to find specific material. The
various tribes are listed in the text alphabetically, and with each is
given a sketch of the tribal history from the time of their discovery
until their disappearance or removal to reservations. After this
various aspects of culture are taken up, such as items of material
culture, economy, social and ceremonial activities and the like. This
portion of the book is handled by aspect of culture throughout the area.

In using this book for research on the Florida groups I have found
several things that I believe warrant criticism. Whether these criti-
cisms hold for other regions covered by the book is not a question
that I am prepared to answer. One is expected to consider that the
United States De Soto Commission Report (1939) is a definitive work,
although, at present, there is much well founded doubt and disagree-
ment as to the accuracy of this report. In giving a resume of the
expedition of De Soto all footnoting is omitted, and one is referred
to the report of the Commission, which is difficult to obtain. In the
section on sketches of the various tribes the source references are

often omitted. Occasionally a writer is mentioned by name without any
further documentation. In the accounts of the Yamasee war of 1715,
Swanton mentions the migrations of Indians that took place at this
time, but no primary sources are given making it difficult to evaluate
the evidence used in arriving at the conclusions (Swanton, 1922, pp.
97-101; 1946, p. 210.)

In his conclusion Swanton has tried with a certain degree of success
to bring order to the previous 799 pages of factual material. He has
attempted to deal with the cultural features as a whole, and to evaluate
the existing evidence in the light of known cultural shift and change.
I believe that the conclusion gives a good over-all picture of the
various cultural processes that were functioning in the Southeast,
and the relationship of the physiographic area to the culture. Also,
the importance of trade, migration and the contact of alien cultures
is treated, and the acceleration of culture change upon the infusion
of acceptable foreign elements into the receiving culture is dealt with.

Hale G. Smith
Florida Park Service

The Everglades: River of Grass. Marjory Stoneman Douglas. New
York: Rinehart and Co., 1947. 406 pages, 2 maps, illustrated with
text figures. $3.50.

The Everglades is a refreshing popular history, exceptionally so to
the anthropologist. Not only has Mrs. Douglas carefully checked her
factual material, but her approach is actually more in the tradition of
cultural or social history than is usually found in such a book.

After outlining the geology, flora, and fauna of the region, the author
proceeds to give a brief, but exceptionally good, resume of the arch-
aeology of the Glades. In essence, although the names never appear,
the sequence of Glades I, H and HI as defined by Goggin is presented.
The names of the three major pottery wares of the area, Glades Gritty,
Biscayne, and Belle Glade, appear in the text, and represent the first
time that these terms have appeared in a popular work, The develop-
ment of culture in the Glades is outlined through time, and there is
some information on the manufacture of particular artifacts. The
sketch on page 73 is a good reconstruction of life in Glades I times.

The author gives full recognition to the help she received from John
M. Goggin, and one can see that this help was very considerable. It
is indeed a shame that authors of similar books have not taken the
trouble to consult authorities, but have relied on printed materials
which are hopelessly out of date. Most of the other popular books
on Florida history published in recent years suffer from this short-
coming insofar as their treatment of anthropological topics is con-
cerned. Mrs. Douglas is to be complimented on her handling of this


The White Man is introduced for the first time on page 80 of this
book, but, in contrast to many other histories, the Red Man is not
thereby forgotten or relegated merely to the position of the opposition.
The treatment of White vs. Indian, or more specifically, American
vs. Feminole, is very well balanced. Douglas points out the little
known fact (p. 295) that the State of Florida in 1850 voted two million
dollars to get rid of the Indians remaining in the State, but that the
Secretary of War would not permit Florida to go to war with the
Indians. This incident is about as black as the blackest in all of the
unpleasant history of American-Indian relations.

The real opening of South Florida, from the end of the Civil War,
through "Boom, Blow, Bust and Recovery", to the present day, gives
one a good general picture of the developing conditions rather than
just a recounting of names and dates. The author's final section
points out the destruction that has occurred in the Everglades area
through drainage and development without an adequate understanding
of the natural balance of the area, but concludes on a hopeful note
of action for the immediate future.

Others reviewers of this book have found a few names misspelled,
and a few unimportant dates slightly in error. These relatively slight
mistakes should not be permitted to detract from the value of the book
as a whole. The book does have value in bringing to the public the
history of the area, simply told, in an objective manner, with a mini-
mum of chauvinism.

John W. Griffin
Florida ParkService

The Theory of Human Culture. James Felbleman. New York: Duell,
Sloan and Pearce, 1946. 361 pp.

James Feibleman is a philosopher and approaches the study of cul-
ture from the standpoint of a philosopher, not of an anthropologist.
Nevertheless, from this study an anthropologist can garner many
stimulating thoughts. This review, therefore, will deal only with
his basic assumptions. He considers the basic need of a social science
to be a unified field theory for the science of culture. This unified
field theory is the theory of the implicit dominant ontology: the sub-
consciously held or accepted concept of the meaning of being, domi-
nant in the culture of a group.

Culture according to Feibleman has its base in three basic impera-
tives: feeding, breeding, and inquiry. Man will develop social groups
in response to these needs. The relation of the first two basic im-
peratives to social life is clear. The author then finds that: "A social

group, considered as an integral organization with its institutional
forms and material tools, is the answer made to the question of what
being is all about." Culture is considered as the organization of
value in human society and is described as the particular employment
of a pure philosophy within a given environment. These concepts
are in distinction to the ordinary concept of culture as socially trans-
mitted ideational material--traditions--and socially transmitted
behavior patterns--customs--and place and emphasis on the value
systems that underlie ideas and behavior.

There are two other assumptions of importance to this theory of
culture: 1) man receives the form as well as the materials of his
culture from thq external world, and 2) culture may be best borne
in mind as embracing a certain area which includes man and his
world. These two assumptions point up the fact that the form and
content of culture as a phenomenon is derived from the external
world. The study of culture includes the study, not only of culture,
but also of the biological and physical worlds; and the interrelation-
ship between the three types of phenomena. The field of human cul-
ture is thus closely wrapped up with the field of human ecology. The
central assumption of these two is stated as follows: "The previously
established philosophy upon which the present inquiry relies is one
which holds values as well as universals to be independent of minds
and of all other actual things, although both the minds and other actual
things derive their substance from participation in the uriversals."

Part n of the book deals with types of culture, seven of which are
described. The four types of early cultures are (1) infra-primitive,
(2) the primitive, (3) the martial, and (4) the religious. The infra-
primitive type of culture is a collective name for all previous stages
before the primitive, and was probably characterized by a large
degree of dependence on the physical and biological environments.
The primitive type of culture is the first type of highly organized
society, and is marked by imitative language, animism (The belief
that all things, animate and inanimate, are endowed with personal
indwelling souls), exogamy (the practice of marrying outside of cer-
tain locally defined and prescribed webs of relationship -- the family,
clan or race), and myth. Martial culture as a type starts from the
implicit acceptance of the nominalistic premise nominalismm: the
doctrine that there are no universal essences in reality, and that
the mind can frame no single concept or no image corresponding to
any general term--it is the opposite or realism) that actual physical
particulars alone are real. The religious type is almost a reaction
against the martial culture, and starts from the implicit acceptance
of the postulate of extreme realism (the doctrine that universals
exist outside the mind--it is the opposite of nominalism) that uni-
versals alone are real.

The three types of advanced cultures are (5) the civilized, (6) the
scientific, and (7) the ultra-scientific. Civilized or urbane culture

starts from the half-explicit acceptance of psychological nominalism
as its postulate. If physical particulars alone are real and cannot
directly be known, then we must be content with the only reality dis-
cernible, our sensations and our thoughts. Literature, the arts, and
science flourish as expressions of the individual--under urbane cul-
ture individualism triumphs. Scientific culture starts from the im-
plicit acceptance of the realistic postulate, that the realm of fixed and
eternal universals is no less real and no more real than the world
of changing actuality. Knowledge of natural law is the goal of society.
The ultra-scientific culture will replace the scientific and lies in the
future. It will probably start from the postulate of explicit realism,
and will probably succeed in banishing the criterion of reality from
its considerations; all will be real which appears, and appearances
will be treated as real appearances.

The culture of the Baiga of India is analysed as an example of an
advanced culture. The work closes with a discussion of the treat-
ment of culture and of the advancement of culture by dealing with
the individual and with the group. The closing chapter deals with
the conception of a science of culture, its problems and its future-
a future that depends on the proper conception of the scientific method
by the social scientist.

The Theory of Human Culture is a stimulating work for the trained
student of culture, but it may be misleading to the lay reader because
attention is concentrated on the ideational aspect of culture as the
essential aspect, and then this aspect of culture is organized in the
systematic concept, the implicit dominant ontology. This is both
its chief merit and its chief demerit.

Bevode McCall
University of Florida




Ross Allen. Well-known for his activities in the field of herpetology,
Mr. Allen ventures into a new field and brings us interesting
observations on an archaeological site in the Everglades region.

JohnW. Griffin. As Editor of this journal, Mr. Griffin inserts two
short illustrated notes on archaeological materials from
Florida. He is Archaeologist for the Florida Park Service.

J. Clarence Simpson. Mr. Simpson, of the Florida Geological Sur-
vey, has a great knowledge of and interest in Florida arch-
aeology. His present paper marks the first formal presen-
tation of the Folsom problem in Florida.

Frederick W. Sleight. Mr. Sleight acts as Consultant in Archaeology,
Rollins College. His interest in bringing anthropological
fact to the general public has led him to prepare a series
of papers for our journal.

Hale G. Smith. Until recently, when he returned to his academic
studies, Mr. Smith was Assistant Archaeologist for the Florida
Park Service. His paper on excavations at a Spanish mission
site covers work done while he was with that Service.


Chairman: W. W. Ehrmann, Department of Sociology, University
of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Secretary-Treasurer: Donald E. Worcester. Departmentof His-
tory, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Editor: John W. Griffin. Florida Park Service. Address: Room
103, Seagle Building, Gainesville, Florida.

Raymond F. Bellamy
Florida State University

John M. Goggin
Miami, Florida

Robert F. Greenlee
Daytona Beach, Florida

Albert C. Holt
Jacksonville, Florida

Bevode C. McCall
University of Florida

O. F. Quackenbush
University of Florida

Frederick W. Sleight
Rollins College

Hale G. Smith
Ann Arbor, Michigan



The following types of membership are available: (1) Member:
any person, institution or organization interested in the work of the
Society, (2) Fellow: any person holding a bachelors degree in anthro-
pology, a masters or doctors in a related field, or who has, in the
opinion of the Committee, made a significant contribution to anthro-
pology, (3) Sustaining Member: A Member or Fellow who makes a
financial contribution of $5 or more per year above the regular dues,
(4) Student Member: A reduced dues classification open to bona fide


Member or Fellow. $3.00 per year.
Sustaining Member. $8.00 or more per year.
Student Member. $1.50 per year, while a

John W. Griffin
W. W. Ehrmann

Bevode C. McCall
Donald E. Worcester


Address all letters concerning membership, requests for information
and orders for publications to the Secretary-Treasurer.

Address all manuscripts and news items to the Editor.

Extra copies of this publication may be obtained by members of the
Florida Anthropological Society at fifty cents each. Non-members
may order this publication for seventy-five cents. Information on
membership will be found in the rear of this issue.

Anthropological Society, and a series of BULLETINS. All mem-
bers of the Society receive all publications.


What do the Smithsonian Institution, the
Museum of the American Indian, Museum of
Mankind, over 155 American universities,
colleges and public libraries, and more
than 475 individuals and families in the
United States of America, Canada, England,
Puerto Rico, the West Indies, Barbados and
elsewhere have in common. They are all

The Florida Anthropological Society was
founded in 1947 by a small group who saw a
need for an organization dedicated to the
advancement of anthropological and
archaeological matters in Florida and
nearby areas. By the end of August, 1947,
the Society's first Newsletter was pub-
lished, and by May, 1948, when the first
issue of The Florida Anthropologist
(Volume 1 Numbers 1-2) was published, the
Society had grown to over 70 members,
representing every major section of the
State (Ehrman 1948:16). It has since grown
to 10x that size, with individual and fam-
ily members and institutional subscribers
in nearly every state, as well as in
Canada, England, Australia, Puerto Rico and
elsewhere. Its distribution is actually
worldwide when one takes into account its
exchange through the University of Florida,
Gift and Exchange Library. Membership in
the Society, which includes subscription to
its journal, The Florida Anthropolo-
gist, is from January through December of
each year.

From its beginning, the Society's mem-
bership has been made up of professional
anthropologists, avocational archaeologists
and concerned citizens interested in learn-
ing about and helping to preserve
Florida's, and surrounding area's, pre-
historic and historic heritage. Indeed,
the only real qualification for membership
in the Society is an avowed interest in
these matters. You do not have to be a
resident of Florida, or even the United
States of America, to join the Florida An-
thropological Society and subscribe to its
journal; although, there is an additional
$5.00 U.S. postage and handling fee for out
of country mail which is not covered by our
bulk mail permit (See application form,

this issue).

Unquestionably, a major attraction to
prospective FAS members is its quarterly
journal, The Florida Anthropologist,
which is entering its fortieth year of
publication. While the majority of its
articles have dealt with anthropological
and archaeological topics in Florida and
adjacent geographic areas of the
Southeastern United States and Circum-
Caribbean region, its scope it broader than
that. A brief review of the nearly 600
articles listed in the 1948-84 index pub-
lished in FA 37(3):124-150, or the over 100
articles, etc. listed in the FA 37-40
Content Index from 1984 to present
published in FA 40(4), will provide an
understanding of the wide range of topics
published in The Florida Anthropolo-
gist. In addition, the Society also per-
iodically publishes a Newsletter. Society
members receive all publications published
during each year of membership. Donations,
grants and back issues sales are used to
raise funds for our Monograph Account to
fund publication of enlarged special issues
of our journal, which is funded primarily
through membership dues and institutional

But there is more to the Florida
Anthropological Society than its
journal ...

The Society has local chapters scattered
throughout the state. These chapters work
at the local level and in concert with
state organization to preserve the fragile
remnants of Florida's past. Some of the
many accomplishments of the individual
chapters include alerting authorities to
the vandalism or potential destruction of
archaeological or historic sites, preparing
exhibits, establishing a museum, working
with local organizations to educate the
public, working on the historic pre-
servation aspects of local government
comprehensive plans, helping to excavate
endangered archaeological sites, recording
100s of archaeological sites in the Florida
Master Site File, and, of course, sharing
the results of their work through the
publication of articles in The Florida


Vol. 41 No. 1

Mar., 1988

Anthropologist, chapter newsletters, and
newspapers, as well as through various
public presentations.

Each Spring the Society holds its annual
meeting to hear formal presentations on
scholarly and general topics of interest to
its members, hold workshops, exchange
ideas, and to invest newly elected
officials in their posts. In addition to
elected positions, the appointed positions
of Membership Secretary and Editor are
filled or renewed by the newly elected
Board of Directors. All Officers in the
Society serve without compensation, as do
appointed positions. Such volunteer ser-
vice helps to minimize the Society's admin-
istrative costs, and permits it to devote
most of its membership fees to publishing
and distributing its journal. However,
with increasing postal and other costs we
need to increase our membership in order to
reduce the relative cost of each issue, if
we are to retain our current low fee

If you like what you have read in this and
other issues of The Florida Anthropolo-
gist, then you should join the Florida
Anthropological Society. If you are in-
terested in helping to protect significant
historic resources and study aspects of our
prehistoric and historic heritage, then you
should join the Florida Anthropological
Society. If you wish to join with and meet
others interested in these topics, then you
should join the Florida Anthropological

If you are presently a member and have not
yet renewed your membership, then please do
so now. If you are a member, then help
find new members and earn back issues
acquisition credits, or consider giving a
gift subscription to our Society (and earn
back issues acquisition credits for each
such gift subscription). If you know
anyone in the Acquisition Department of
your local community or school library,
then encourage them to subscribe so that
students and the general public may learn
more about historic resources and the issue
of historic preservation. If you edit (or
know someone who edits) the newsletter or
journal of an organization whose membership
may be interested in joining our Society

and receiving The Florida Anthropolo-
gist, then please reprint (or ask them to
reprint) this notice and our membership
application form in that newsletter or
journal. (Likewise, if you publish this
notice for your readers, we will publish
your similar notice to our readers).

Thank you for your time and effort in this
matter. We look forward to your joining
our Society and receiving The Florida
Anthropologist, as well as participating
in other aspects of our society, for years
to come. Your comments are always welcome.

Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist


*Foreign subscribers add
$5 US for postage, etc.

Make check or money order payable to:
Florida Anthropological Society

F.A.S. Chapter affiliation
If gift membership, name of donor
If new member, indicate how you learned about
our Society

Hail Application to: Membership Secretary,FAS
308 6th St. NE
Largo, Florida 34640


Louis D. Tesar


Avocational archaeologists have long been a
very important group in Florida's and other
states' efforts to locate, identify, and
protect archaeological sites and the data
which they contain in order to further
knowledge of our prehistoric and historic
heritage, as well as to preserve sites re-
presenting that heritage for visitation,
appreciation and study by this and future
generations. The avocational archae-
ologist, historian and historic preserva-
tionist, along with their professional
counterparts, form the foundation of any
state's historic preservation program. It
is the strong cooperative bond between pro-
fessional and avocational archaeologists,
historians, architectural historians, his-
toric preservationists, and other concerned
citizens which is essential to make it all
work. What, then, is the role of the avo-
cational archaeologist today? How does it
differ from in times past? What is it
likely to be in the future? The answers to
these questions, in abbreviated form, are
the subject of this paper.

Some Basic Definitions and Comments

First, it is necessary to make a clear dis-
tinction between the "avocational archaeol-
ogist," the "anthropology student," the
"professional archaeologist," and the
"treasure hunter or salvor" and "pot-
hunter." The truth of the matter is that
as little as 100 years ago there was little
distinction in North America and elsewhere
between the individuals who might be clas-
sified in any of these groups. The focus
was on the acquisition, broad interpreta-
tion, and display of museum quality arti-
facts. Site specific provenience was gen-
erally all that was expected; there was
little if any intra-site provenience data
recorded. Indeed, much of what we study
today was discarded, and maintaining the
integrity of a collection was secondary to
exchanging items to have representative
collections from as wide an area as possi-
ble. In fact, institutions even sold and
bought collections.

With the coming of the depression and sub-
sequent WPA-CCC massive archaeological pro-
jects, the profession of archaeology began
developing in its own right at more than a
few isolated institutions. It was at this
time that the Department of Anthropology at
the University of Chicago was introducing
the controlled excavation techniques (i.e.,
site grid and level excavation with stan-
dardized field record forms, etc.) which
have become the standard today -- with many
further improvements and refinements of de-
tail and methodology.

It was during this time that "avocational"
or "amateur" archaeologists and the nascent
"professional" archaeologists working out
of universities and public museums were
gradually distinguishing themselves in the
level and intensity of their background
training; although, both had already sepa-
rated themselves from the site-looting
"treasure hunters" and "pot-hunters." No,
Indiana Jones was not a real profession-
al archaeologist; although, there are ad-
mittedly some Indiana Jones-like individ-
uals in departments of anthropology around
the country and it is to these exceptions
that site looters point when trying to jus-
tify their own activities. For instance,
is an individual claiming to be a profes-
sional archaeologist who engages in the
sale of artifacts allegedly to raise funds
for archaeological excavation in Israel and
to provide buyers with an opportunity to
own a piece of history, a relic from the
holy land, any less reprehensible them the
treasure hunter or pothunter? Both are in
violation of the code of ethics of every
professional and most avocational/profes-
sional archaeological/anthropological or-
ganizations in the United States.

It was also at this time that "avocational"
and "professional" archaeologists allied
themselves in the formation of such organi-
zations as the Florida Anthropological
Society. These organizations were formed
in a spirit of cooperation and information
exchange which continues today; although,
there has been a changing of roles with the
increasing levels of training and detail
required of professional archaeologists.

Mar., 1988


Vol. 41 No. 1

And, yes there have been occasional strain-
ings of relations as the new generation of
professional archaeologists increasingly is
drawn directly from an academic background
without any prior avocational experience.

At the time when the Florida Anthropologi-
cal Society was formed, so little was known
about the prehistoric and early historic
periods of Florida that the goal was to es-
tablish and refine broad space-time per-
spectives within the distinct regions of
Florida. John Goggin's work formed the
foundation of this effort. The goal was
primarily to locate and generally catalog
sites to assemble the comparative data
needed to make further refinements in
Goggin's work. The avocational archaeolo-
gist played a significant role in these ef-

But, I have digressed from distinguishing
between groups of individuals affecting
historic resources. The avocational or
amateur archaeologist is an individual
who has a hobbyist's interest in the sub-
ject matter of archaeology. That is to say
that she or he may have started with little
more than an interest in learning about the
artifacts which he or she may have surfaced
collected from plowed fields or eroding
shorelines, or received as a gift. Indi-
viduals who do not go beyond the basic
level of simply collecting artifacts are
collectors, but not avocational
archaeologists. With an increasing in-
terest in such resources, such individuals
may join local archaeological/ anthro-
pological or affiliated historical organ-
izations, such as the Florida
Anthropological Society and/or its chap-
ters, and learn more about historic re-
sources (both prehistoric and historic ar-
chaeological sites, and historic struc-
tures, and their associated features and
artifacts) through attending meetings and
reading organization newsletters and jour-
nals, such as The Florida Anthro-
polog ist.

By joining such organizations they learn
that prehistoric and historic sites are
fragile, non-renewable resources for which
we all have a responsibility to report and
protect to the extent practical. They
learn that the surface collecting and study

of artifacts is quite acceptable. And,
they are encouraged to contribute to our
understanding of such resources by report-
ing the locations of sites collected and
other factors. To this end, The Florida
Anthropologist has published various
how-to guides, e.g., "A Guide to Surface
Survey Techniques, Artifact Recording and
Curation, and Type Collection Preparation
for the Amateur Archaeologist" (Tesar
1984a:84-96), "Human Bones for the Non-
Physical Anthropologist: An Aid in Their
Identification" (Tesar 1984b:189-202),
"Archaeological Site Survey Reports: A Non-
Professional's Guide to Their Preparation"
(Tesar 1985:282-287), "Historic Preserva-
tion and Florida's Local Government Compre-
hensive Planning Process" (Tesar 1986:257-
280), and "Artifact Recording Methods"
(Pollock 1987:99-102).

However, if beginning artifact collectors
do not join organizations, such as the
Florida Anthropological Society and its
chapters, where they can be guided in his-
toric preservation ethics and become con-
scientious avocational archaeologists, they
are likely to unknowingly fall in with
those who loot sites for artifacts and
their monetary value, little caring for
what is lost. Such individuals are known
as "treasure hunters" and "pot hunters."
They are little better than site vandals
and thieves destroying evidence of our pre-
historic and historic heritage for personal
gain. Indeed, such individuals are often
literally as well as figuratively thieves,
as they often enter both public and private
property without owner permission to loot
sites, often burial sites which are pro-
tected under the provisions of Chapter 872,
Florida Statutes 1987. Furthermore, they
often confuse the issue by claiming to be
"amateur" or "professional" archaeologists,
and it is true that many of them once
were what they claim. Their actions are
contrary to the code of ethics of both avo-
cational and professional archaeologists.

We should all strive to prevent the perver-
sion of an innocent collecting hobby to a
selfish, site destructive, law-breaking ac-
tivity. While we should recognize that
some collections were amassed prior to the
development of a code of ethics and a
recognition of the wrongfulness of looting

native American burials and other signifi-
cant sites, such that we may not necessar-
ily condemn individuals who assembled col-
lections during that period, it is clear
that there is no excuse or rationale that
would overlook the performance of such acts
today. We should all work to show those
who are not too hardened by such selfish
activities that there is a legitimate al-
ternative; that we must all be stewards of
the past; that archaeological sites are the
tangible remains of our prehistoric and
historic heritage and NOT artifact mines;
that human burial sites and associated ar-
tifacts should be left undisturbed, unless
it has been clearly demonstrated that their
preservation and protection in place cannot
be accomplished (at which point the provi-
sions of Chapter 872, Florida Statutes
1987, should be followed); and, that our
historic preservation laws should be obeyed
and enforced.

While we should work to convert individuals
who did not realize the wrongfulness of
their actions, we should shun, as the cul-
tural thieves that they are, "treasure
hunters" and "pot hunters." Yes, it is
difficult not to desire the gold, silver,
and whole pots and other artifacts which
such individuals have looted from sites,
but their wealth is little better than that
amassed by drug dealers. Both do so with
the result of a greater public loss. The
problem is that "treasure hunters" and "pot
hunters" often try to mask their wrongs by
claiming that the public would never see or
appreciate their artifacts, or be able to
purchase a piece of history, were it not
for their hard work. However, aside from
the issue of site vandalism and theft of
public and private property, it must be
recognized that their methods of site loot-
ing destroy at least 90% of the data which
could be recovered from such sites with mo-
dern, professional archaeological techni-
ques. Yes!, archaeological excavation can
take five-times as long as site looting to
recover such artifacts, but the information
return is much, much greater.

The next class of individuals is the stu-
dent of anthropology. The study of an-
thropology includes as one of its sub-dis-
ciplines the study of archaeology, which
can itself be subdivided into various spe-

cialities. However, at least through their
masters level (at which time they begin
specializing), students must deal with all
the subfields of anthropology and with such
related studies as mathematics, geology,
biology, history, and the like. While the
"avocational" archaeologist approaches
her/his topic as a hobby (although some
study so intensively that they might better
be considered students), the student is
training to become a professional. And,
yes there are a few avocational archaeolo-
gists that have been so diligent in their
studies and work with professionals that
they are recognized by others to have at-
tained a professional level of expertise in
their area of special interest; however, I
refrain from the use of the term para-
professional in this context because of
its general misapplication.

While many professional archaeologists
started out as avocational archaeologists,
today most anthropology students begin with
an academic interest. This has caused and
is causing problems on two levels: (1) the
student has been taught "ideal" field
methodology and lab techniques, which must
be adjusted in the non-academic real world;
and, (2) the student often does not inter-
act well with the avocational archaeolo-
gist, and vice versa. The latter are unim-
pressed with the student's inability to lo-
cate sites as easily as themselves (often
failing to note that they are operating on
their own turf) and the student's ego is
threatened by this fact. Further, avoca-
tional archaeologists are put off by the
student's (and yes some professional's) at-
tempt to compensate for their lack of field
accumen by reciting in detailed jargon
phrasiology the ideal way to find sites
with fixed transects and sampling inter-
vals, stating that anything less is biased,
unscientific sampling of little value. The
logic of this often escapes avocational ar-
chaeologists as they accompany the student
or professional in the field and observe
their failure to identify sites located or
locatable by the avocational archaeologist.
This is a problem which our universities
must work to correct. Likewise, a persis-
tent failure of some students and profes-
sionals to give credit to the avocational
archaeologists who have guided them to
sites is a problem, especially when the av-

ocational archaeologist later reads that
the site was "discovered" by the individual
to whom its location was shown. Such fail-
ures to acknowledge assistance when ren-
dered are unprofessional and unworthy of
the profession and individuals aspiring to
the profession.

The final category is the professional
archaeologist. The paper by Harry Piper
(this issue) notes the distinction in focus
of "contract" or "applied" archaeologists
and "academic" archaeologists. There also
is a distinction in those whose experience
is almost exclusively in excavating sites
vs. those whose experience is in site sur-
vey; likewise prehistoric vs. historic ar-
chaeology; land vs. underwater archaeology;
familiarity with the kind and character of
archaeological resources in one area of the
state vs. another, or more broadly in one
state vs. those in another, or still more
broadly in one region of the country vs.
another, and so on through a host of spe-
cialities. The point is that while there
was little distinction between the experi-
ence and training of avocational and pro-
fessional archaeologists as little as 50
years ago, there is a considerable differ-
ence today. Modern professional archaeol-
ogy is decidedly a highly skilled, techno-
logical profession requiring proficiency in
a number of academic and practical sub-

It takes a minimum of a masters level de-
gree with two years of progressively re-
sponsible archaeological experience with a
demonstrated ability to carry work from its
beginning through analysis to profession-
ally acceptable report preparation before
an individual may be considered to be a
professional archaeologist. These stan-
dards have come about basically during the
past decade, and yes those who were already
practicing, as with other professions, were
"grandfathered." For that reason there are
practicing "professional" archaeologists
whose work may be (indeed is) less profes-
sional than that of some of Florida's
"avocational" archaeologists, at least in
the area within which the avocational ar-
chaeologist is more experienced. And, yes,
as with any profession, there are individu-
als in the profession whose ethics might be
questioned. However, with time these prob-

lems should be resolved. The national
Society of Professional Archaeologists and
the Florida Archaeological Council and sim-
ilar state professional organizations were
formed to establish uniform professional
standards and provide forums of information
exchange. In Florida, the standards for
field methodology and report preparation
for archaeological site assessment surveys
are contained in The Historic Preser-
vation Compliance Review Program of
the Florida Department of State
Division of Historical Resources
(DRAFT; September 21, 1987) prepared by
Louis D. Tesar, and now under minor revi-
sion. These standards were developed in
consultation with the Florida Archaeologi-
cal Council.

One subject which should, however, be made
clear in distinguishing between the activi-
ties of the professional and avocational
archaeologist is that the former has in-
vested a lot of time and money in efforts
to gain sufficient experience to be ac-
knowledged as a professional in their cho-
sen field. As with doctors, lawyers, ac-
countants, carpenters, or any other highly
skilled "profession" they are accountable
and liable for the products which they pro-
duce. Their livelihood and continuance in
their profession requires that their prod-
ucts meet certain minimally acceptable ba-
sic standards, and that they be compensated
sufficiently to meet their daily needs, as
well as those of the company for which they
work. The avocational practitioner in any
of these activities does not risk their
livelihood and professional certification
on the quality of the product produced by
their efforts. Furthermore, the avoca-
tional practitioner generally has a source
of income which is used to subsidize
her/his avocational activities, and cer-
tainly is not paying corporate income
taxes, insurance, office rent, or the other
costs associated with the activities of a
practicing professional.

As with other professions, in Florida and
elsewhere we have seen avocational archae-
ologists enter the market in competition
with the professional in the performance of
work conducted to fulfill federal and state
environmental law requirements. This is
especially disconcerting since the perfor-

mance standards for such work are generally
beyond the capability of most avocational
archaeologists. Since the developer seek-
ing such services generally does not know
what is actually required, a knowledgeable
avocational archaeologist may appear ap-
propriate to his/her needs. This is espe-
cially true when the cost that the avoca-
tional archaeologist presents to perform
the requisite archaeological and historical
site assessment survey and report prepara-
tion is far below that offered by the pro-
fessional. While the profession was evolv-
ing in Florida and elsewhere and while
there were no established standards for
professional accreditation and while there
were no professionally accepted standards
for the performance of such work in compli-
ance with federal and state laws and regu-
lations (while regretable and confusing to
developers, consultants and others), there
was no standard upon which to base product
acceptability. However, such circumstances
no longer exist, in Florida at least.

The avocational archaeologist who seeks to
enter the world of the professional con-
tract archaeologist risks having their work
rejected if it does not meet professional
standards. The result may be that they
will find themselves in litigation with the
consultant or developer with whom they in
effect contracted to produce a profession-
ally acceptable product. The developer
whose project is delayed with the result of
lost income, ever increasing interest on an
unreduced principal, and possible
bankruptcy as a result of project delays
will end up paying far more than she/he
would have had he/she contracted with a
professional capable of producing the req-
uisite product. And, the historic re-
sources which the laws and regulations were
designed to protect may be irrevocably lost
as a consequence of these actions. Final-
ly, these circumstances serve to fray coop-
erative relationships between avocational
and professional archaeologists. Thus, if
you are not a trained lawyer, don't try to
professionally practice law; if you are not
a trained doctor, don't ...; and, if you
are not a trained professional archaeolo-
gist, don't contract (or volunteer) to per-
form work required to fulfill the require-
ments of federal and state laws and regula-
tions. Furthermore, if your group is

"volunteering" to perform such work for a
"donation" to your organization, you may
find yourself faced with having your non-
profit or not-for-profit status revoked and
faced with both the state Department of
General Revenue and the Internal Revenue
Service knocking on your door seeking back
taxes for activities deemed to be in cir-
cumvention of the intent of the laws which
they administer.

Finally, after rambling along on that and
other digressions, we arrive at the answers
to the three questions posed in the begin-
ning of this article. Since you have prob-
ably forgotten them by now, they are: (1)
What is the role of the avocational archae-
ologist today?; (2) How does it differ from
in times past?; and, (3) What is it likely
to be in the future? However, I will re-
order them slightly to present them in a
past, present and future order.

The Past

To start with, it must be clearly under-
stood that the avocational archaeologist
has consistently been a colleague of the
professional archaeologist in the study of
archaeological resources in Florida and
other states. Were it not for the efforts
of the avocational archaeologist much of
what we know about prehistoric and historic
archaeological resources today would be
lacking. When the Florida Anthropological
Society was formed, the avocational and
professional archaeologist worked in full
partnership in efforts to locate and study
sites. Indeed it was recognized that be-
cause of time and logistics, the avoca-
tional archaeologist would likely make a
larger contribution in the locating and
recording of archaeological sites than the
professional. Further, many of our avoca-
tional archaeologists studied the archaeo-
logical resources in their area and read so
extensively that they became quite profi-
cient -- so much so that professional ar-
chaeologists acknowledged their expertise
in their areas of interest. Indeed the
Lazarus Award of the FAS was created to ac-
knowledge the outstanding contributions of
avocational archaeologists.

In the past, avocational archaeologists not
only located and recorded the locations of

archaeological sites, they also undertook
the excavation and analysis of many key
sites, and the resulting reports on such
efforts may by found throughout The
Florida Anthropologist during the past
40 years. Indeed, that journal was
founded, in large part, as a means of fa-
cilitating the exchange of information on
the results of projects conducted by both
avocational and professional archaeolo-
gists. With time, as the profession became
more professional, the issue of the role of
the avocational archaeologist became the
subject of discussion. This discussion is
reflected in articles in The Florida
Anthropologist, including Robert Nero's
"The Surface Collector" (1956), D.D.
Laxon's "Amateur and Professional Archaeol-
ogists" (1973), and Fairbanks' "The Contri-
bution of the Amateur" (1962), as well as
in the adoption of a code of ethics and
other measures taken by the Society's mem-
bership and its chapters. Portions of
Fairbanks', Laxon's and other pertinent ar-
ticles on this subject are cited below.

Writing some 25 years ago on the role of
the avocational archaeologist, Fairbanks
(1962:16-17) states:

There are important contributions that the
amateur can make. These will further our
attempts to understand human behavior and
will take advantage of his interests, tal-
ents, and resources. Perhaps the basic
fact to be considered is that most of us,
amateur and professional alike, are inter-
ested in Indian relics. We have somehow
become a bipedal packrat. This often means
that we are impelled to dig. Unless the
proper scientific procedures, from excava-
tion technique through analysis to publica-
tion, can be followed this compulsion must
be curbed. ... Paradoxically, we are
rapidly shoveling ourselves into extinc-
tion. Is there any activity that can sat-
isfy our need to collect while we still
conform to our code (of ethics)?

Site discovery, location, and recording can
be fully as rewarding as unskilled digging,
and this is an area where the professional
is at a disadvantage. The professional
rarely has the chance to systematically
search for sites. His teaching or museum
duties mean he is tied to an office for
most of each year. The local enthusiast
has all the advantage of familiarity with
the terrain, local soil conditions, pass-

ability of roads, and rapport with local
informants. ... The personal and scien-
tific rewards of site recording are many
and will amply repay the effort. The ama-
teur who locates sites, makes surface col-
lections, analyses the artifacts, and then
turns in a site card is doing a real ser-

While strongly encouraging site location
and analysis, and discouraging unskilled
digging, Fairbanks attempted to guide the
avocational archaeologist into personally
satisfying activities, which could make
meaningful contributions. He concluded
with the still valid observation that the
avocational archaeologist "will always out-
number the professional archaeologists sev-
eral hundred to one. The future of Florida
archaeology is largely in the hands of the
non-professional" (Fairbanks 1962:18).

However, throughout the history of the
Florida Anthropological Society, our avoca-
tional members have joined with our profes-
sional members on issues which go beyond
site location and excavation. In his arti-
cle, "A Discussion of Florida Anthropology
from a Historian's Point of View," Charles
W. Arnade (1963:47) concludes his essay by
stating that:

... the Florida Anthropological Society
with its modest means is doing a most com-
mendable job. Such a FAS success as the
federal law making the site of the old fort
at. Saint Marks in Wakulla County a national
monument is a tremendous credit to the FAS.
It also shows the worthwhile cooperation of
amateurs and professionals, something which
has not been achieved in the field of
Florida History. Finally it indicates the
many opportunities for Florida Anthropol-

As another example, Fairbanks (1965:156)
describes how Florida Anthropological
Society members were able to have the most
serious objections to the draft antiquities
bill corrected through testimony at leg-
islative hearings which resulted in amend-
ments to the bill prior to its passage and
being signed into law by the governor on
June 23, 1965. This law was later expanded
in 1967 to become the Florida Archives and
History Act (Chapter 267, Florida
Statutes), which itself was periodically
amended, including the significant changes

which led to its renaming as the Florida
Historical Resources Act. The Florida
Anthropological Society has supported all
of these changes to strengthen historic
preservation in Florida.

In a manner similar to Fairbanks' 1962 ar-
ticle, Laxon (1973:162) rightfully observes

In no other science does the validity of a
man's work rest on his integrity more than
in archaeology. Often working alone in re-
mote places, he is forced to be interpre-
tive, objective and frequently presumptive.
The archaeologist's findings are tossed to
his colleagues to be approved or almost
gleefully rejected. If an amateur is going
to dabble in another man's science, he
should abide by the other man's rules. ...

All is not lost, but the amateur should re-
member that in too close a liaison with a
professional, only the professional has
anything to lose. His name on his work is
more than a signature, it shows adherence
to certain standards and the writing be-
comes part of his reputation and recogni-
tion. He cannot afford to be conned into
some scheme to further the ambition of a
layman. However, the professional should
realize that his treatment of an amateur
may well mean the difference between an ar-
tifact preserved, a site destroyed or, as
has happened, a lost grant. The amateur
archaeologist is also a reservoir of mate-
rial, a site locator, a volunteer shovel,
trowel and screen manipulator who loves to
see his name in print.

Hundreds of archaeological site forms and
numerous survey and excavation reports and
data syntheses over the past 40 years at-
test to the validity of the above state-
ment. Yes, 40-50 years ago, when accepted
field methodology was relatively simple and
rote, and while our understanding of our
prehistoric and historic heritage was un-
derstood only in broad general terms, there
was little to distinguish the work of the
avocational and professional archaeologist.
However, with increasing knowledge and
technology, the gap has steadily widened.
And yes, it is one of life's ironies that
the diligent and outstanding contributions
of avocational archaeologists over the past
four decades have assisted this process of
increasing distinction.

The Present

Today, as in times past, the avocational
archaeologist is a very important link in:

(1) locating and recording archaeological

(2) reporting on the results of site loca-
tion survey efforts to both professional
and avocational colleagues. (The FAS was
founded and exists to facilitate such ef-
forts; and, these activities are distinct
from contract site assessment survey work
to fulfill environmental laws and regula-
tions -- the latter are more rigorous and
comprehensive efforts).

(3) educating others in their community
about the significance of archaeological
sites and other historic resources.

(4) working on local government comprehen-
sive planning efforts to assure that his-
toric preservation concerns are met.

(5) monitoring known sites to advise appro-
priate officials of site vandalism and po-
tential threats from site development.

(6) monitoring development projects to
identify previously unknown sites.

(7) working with professional archaeolo-
gists on site survey and excavation pro-

(8) notifying legislators of needed support
of historic preservation laws and funding.

(9) volunteering to assist local museum op-

However, these activities of the avoca-
tional archaeologist today reflect the
gradual toning down and phasing out of some
of the activities of the past. Among the
foremost of the deletions is the cessation
of activities involving the excavation of
non-threatened archaeological sites, espe-
cially activities involving human burial

Over the years, both state and federal
laws, as well as local ordinances, have
been strengthened to protect archaeological

sites. Sites which in the past would have
been lost during property development are
now often preserved as greenspace, conser-
vation or passive recreation areas, or else
they are subjected to professionally super-
vised, archaeological salvage excavation.
Sites with human remains have a special
added level of protection under the provi-
sions of Chapter 872, Florida Statutes
1987. It is a felony to "knowingly and
willfully" disturb such sites.

If you know of a human burial site, do not
excavate it. Notify in writing (with a lo-
cation map) the following individuals (1)
the coordinator of the Florida Master Site
File and (2) the State Archaeologist in
Tallahassee, (3) local law enforcement
agencies and (4) planning and zoning de-
partments in the areas in which it is lo-
cated, and, (5) of course, the owner of the
property upon/within which it is located.
It then clearly comes under the protection
of the law. If you know of anyone digging
or otherwise disturbing such sites notify
your local law enforcement agency. If you
believe that such agencies are not enforc-
ing the law, notify the State Attorney's
Office, the State Archaeologist and the
news media for investigative reporting.

If you want the experience of excavating on
an archaeological site, register for a
field school, volunteer to assist on pro-
fessionally supervised projects, or become
employed on such projects. That is how
students gain experience. That is how
those who are professional archaeologists
today learned proper field methodology, lab
analysis and report preparation. Excavat-
ing an archaeological site on a self-
trained, learn-as-you-go basis is no more
acceptable today and in the future than
learning to be a surgeon by that method --
each can result in unacceptable and unnec-
essary losses. Each suffers from generally
involving methodology and concepts outdated
by a factor of several years from those in
use today.

The Future

The role of the avocational archaeologist
in the future will continue the trend es-

tablished over the past 10-20 years. The
avocational archaeologist in Florida, indi-
vidually and as a participant in FAS chap-
ter projects, will continue to:

(1) be a primary spokesperson for historic
preservation concerns in their community,
especially in local government comprehen-
sive planning, ordinances, zoning and plan-
ning activities.

(2) conduct archaeological site location
surveys (with owner permission) leading to
the completion of Florida Master Site File
site forms and the preparation of survey
reports -- many of which will be reported
in Chapter newsletters and published in
The Florida Anthropologist.

(3) prepare lectures and graphic aids for
use in area schools, museums, chambers of
commerce, and presentations to civic and
other groups.

(4) assist/work with professional archaeol-
ogists in archaeological site assessment

(5) assist/work with professional archaeol-
ogists in the excavation of threatened,
significant archaeological sites, such as
occurred at the Gauthier, de Soto and other

(6) participate in archaeological field
schools, especially those designed to train
avocational archaeologists to improve their
ability in archaeological field methodology
in constructive and meaningful settings,
such as in the training programs in
Arkansas for avocational archaeologists.

(7) continue to participate in the Florida
Anthropological Society and similar organi-
zations and to read The Florida Anthro-
pologist and similar publications to ex-
change ideas and learn more about our pre-
historic and historic heritage and the man-
ner in which to protect historic resources.

(8) work with other organizations to make
their members aware of the importance of
locating, identifying, protecting and pre-
serving archaeological sites and historic
structures, the tangible remains of our

prehistoric and historic heritage.

(9) monitor known archaeological sites, es-
pecially human burial sites, and report any
known or planned site looting or vandalism.

(10) monitor development projects (with
owner permission) which may impact signifi-
cant archaeological sites.

(11) monitor the work of professional ar-
chaeologists, especially if it is suspected
that there may be reason to question the
accuracy or quality of their work, and re-
port known or suspected oversights to ap-
propriate officials.

(12) write to federal, state and local pub-
lic officials and corporate representatives
thanking them for their support for, or
urging them to support, activities involv-
ing the study and preservation of prehis-
toric and historic archaeological sites.

(13) contact TV, radio, newspaper and other
news media urging them to cover more his-
toric preservation related topics, includ-
ing archaeological site excavations, and
thanking them for any favorable coverage.

These are, of course, examples and are
meant to guide, not limit (except for free-
lance excavations) the activities of avoca-
tional archaeologists.


The role of the avocational archaeologist
has grown and changed through time, as has
that of the professional archaeologist.
Both have become more knowledgeable and
conscientious about their activities, in-
cluding acceptance of a code of ethics
which stresses site preservation. Both
continue to interact on a student-teacher
or colleague level, depending on their
level of experience, and the avocational
archaeologist sometimes functions as the
teacher, although this is relatively rare
compared to 20 years or more ago. The avo-
cational archaeologist has been, is and
will continue to be a major factor in his-
toric preservation efforts in Florida and
elsewhere. It is incumbent on professional
archaeologists and the Florida Anthropolog-

ical Society and similar organizations to
cooperate in providing opportunities for
avocational archaeologists to have meaning-
ful archaeological experiences. We must
all be stewards of the past, and the avoca-
tional archaeologist is critical to these

References Cited

Arnade, Charles W.
1963 A Discussion of Florida Anthropology
from a Historian's Point of View.
The Florida Anthropologist

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1962 The Contribution of the Amateur.
The Florida Anthropologist

1965 Florida's New Antiquities Law. The
Florida Anthropologist 18(3):

Laxon, D. D.
1973 Amateur and Professional Archaeolo-
gists. The Florida Anthropolo-
gist 26(4):162-164.

Nero, Robert
1956 The Surface Collector. The Florida
Anthropologist 9(3-4):101-103.

Pollock, Phillip M.
1987 Artifact Recording Methods. The
Florida Anthropologist 40(1):

Tesar, Louis D.
1984a A Guide to Surface Survey Techniques,
Artifact Recording and Curation,
Type Collection Preparation for the
Amateur Archaeologist. The
Florida Anthropologist 37(2):

1984b Human Bones for the Non-Physical An-
thropologist: An Aid in Their Iden-
tification. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 37(4):189-202.

1985 Archaeological Site Survey Reports: A
Non-Professional's Guide to Their
Preparation. The Florida
Anthropologist 38(4):282-287.

1986 Historic Preservation and Florida's
Local Government Comprehensive Plan-
ning Process. The Florida
Anthropologist 39(4):257-280.

Louis D. Tesar, FAS Editor
P.O. Box 1013
Tallahassee, FL 32302


Jeffrey M. Mitchem and Jonathan M. Leader


The Tatham Mound (8Ci203) was dis-
covered in 1984 in eastern Citrus County,
Florida (Figure 1). Artifacts from a
shovel test at the time of discovery indi-
cated that the mound is a burial mound of
the Safety Harbor Culture (ca. A. D. 1000
-1650). The site is considered signifi-
cant for three reasons: it is located in
the general geographic area where both the
Narvaez and Soto expeditions are presumed
to have traveled through in the early
sixteenth century; it is located only 8.95
km (ca. 5.56 miles) from the Ruth Smith
Mound (8Ci200), which yielded early
sixteenth century European artifacts
(Mitchem and Weisman 1984; Mitchem, Smith
et al. 1985); and it was completely un-
disturbed at the time of discovery.

Because of these factors, the mound
was considered to be an excellent site for
investigating the effects of early Spanish
contact on Florida aborigines and for
learning more about Safety Harbor groups
in the northern portion of the culture
area. As a result of unusually cooper-
ative landowners and a generous private
donor interested in Florida's past, we
were able to conduct three archaeological
field schools at the site, excavating an
estimated total of 90-95% of the total
volume of the mound. The results of these
three seasons of work have been presented
in three reports (Mitchem and Hutchinson
1986, 1987; Mitchem, Weisman et al. 1985).

The excavations revealed that the
mound had been constructed in two main
episodes: the first at some time during
the period from A. D. 775-1460, and the
second stage after A. D. 1528 (Mitchem and
Hutchinson 1987:71-78). Within the later
stratum, at least 74 individuals had been
buried in a single episode sometime short-
ly after death. These people probably
died as a result of epidemic disease, pos-

sibly introduced by European explorers.
Many of these primary burials were ac-
companied by glass and metal beads and
other European artifacts (Figure 2). The
purpose of the present paper is to des-
cribe, classify, and interpret the glass
and metal beads excavated from the
postcontact portion of the mound.

A number of studies in the last two
decades have demonstrated the value of
trade bead research in archaeology. Glass
beads have proven especially useful for
dating episodes of Spanish/Indian contact
in New World sites (Brain 1975; Deagan
1987; Fairbanks 1968; Smith 1983, 1987;
Smith and Good 1982). One outgrowth of
this research has been the development of
a typology of early sixteenth century
glass beads from New World Spanish col-
onial sites. This typology, developed by
Marvin Smith and Mary Elizabeth Good
(1982), is used in the present study to
simplify comparison with other early con-
tact sites. Metal beads have not proven
to be as diagnostic as glass beads, but
study of their composition and manufac-
turing techniques can yield valuable data
concerning their origins.

Such comparative research is not only
useful in identifying sites of early six-
teenth century Spanish/Indian contact, but
also promises to eventually aid in tracing
the routes of specific expeditions by the
particular varieties of beads they brought
for trade or gifts to the Indians. How-
ever, interpretations must be made with
caution, because beads are small and very
portable artifacts, and could have been
widely traded between different aboriginal

The location of the Tatham Mound and
the excellent provenience data for the
beads underscore the importance of the
site for learning more about the types of
glass and metal beads brought by the


Mar ., 1988

Vol. 41 No. 1



Figure 1. Location of the Tatham Mound.

Figure 1. Location of the Tatham Mound.

Figure 2. Burial #17 with a Nueva Cadiz bead in situ on the neck.

earliest Spanish expeditions to North
America. A total of 150 glass and 298
metal beads were recovered from the mound
(Mitchem and Hutchinson 1987:48-58).
These artifacts constitute an exception-
ally large assemblage of early sixteenth
century Spanish beads from a North
American aboriginal site.

Bead Descriptions

In this section, the beads will be
described and classified. Because methods
of analysis were different for the glass
and metal beads, they will be discussed

Glass Beads

The glass beads from the Tatham Mound
were classified using the typological sys-
tem devised by Smith and Good (1982).
This system uses attributes of method of
manufacture, color, and shape to divide
the beads into separate categories. Each
individual bead variety is then designated
by a number and letter code. The Smith
and Good publication also includes color
plates of the bead varieties with numbers
for each variety (1982:Figures 5-8). In
the present work, beads will be identified
by the Smith and Good typological designa-
tion whenever possible (some of the Tatham
beads are unique types or are varieties
not included in the typology).

The glass beads from Tatham are list-
ed in Table 1. Representative examples of
each of the glass bead varieties from
Tatham are depicted in Figure 3. The
single example of a Seminole bead from the
humus layer of the mound is not included
here (Mitchem and Hutchinson 1987:46-47).

As Table 1 indicates, 107 of the
glass beads were recovered from burial
contexts. A total of 89 were accompanying
primary adult burials (this includes 33
recovered from Burial #111, which was a
partial interment we are including as pri-
mary). Of the nine primary adult burials
with glass beads, six were females, one
was male, and two were indeterminate sex.
One primary interment with glass beads

(Burial #73) was an infant or full term
fetus. Another (Burial #79) was an (ap-
proximately) eight year old child. Inter-
estingly, only one secondary burial (#48,
consisting of more than one individual)
had glass beads in definite association.

In addition to the glass beads listed
in Table 1, a small fragment of jade-
colored green glass was recovered which
could be a bead fragment, but no other
beads of this color were recovered. Also,
a cremation (Burial #54) yielded three
small disc-shaped beads of an amber or
yellow colored substance. These might be
made of glass, but the laminated structure
and lack of normal patina suggests that
they are made of resin or a similar sub-

Of the beads from primary burials at
Tatham, most appear to have been worn on
necklaces, often in combination with shell
and metal beads. However, nine were found
in the wrist or pelvic area of one burial
(#27), indicating that they may have been
on a bracelet or attached to the waist
area of a garment (Mitchem and Hutchinson

Several of the glass bead types re-
covered from Tatham are especially useful
for dating purposes. The most accurate
types are Nueva Cadiz Plain and Twisted
beads, which have been shown to date ex-
clusively to the period 1500-1560 in New
World archaeological sites (Deagan
1987:163; Smith and Good 1982:10-11). The
sole exception is a single specimen re-
covered from the 1565 Fountain of Youth
Park site (8SJ31) in St. Augustine,
Florida (Edward E. Chaney, Jr., personal
communication 1987). These distinctive
beads are square in cross section, and are
usually composed of one or three layers of
glass (Figure 3, rows 2 and 3).

Also of use for dating purposes are
the seven layered faceted chevron vari-
eties (Figure 3, row 3), which date to the
sixteenth century, especially the first
two thirds of the century (Deagan 1987:-
165; Francis 1986:36-37; Smith 1983:148,
1987:31). These multicolored beads were

Table 1. Glass Beads From The Tatham Mound.

Class.* # Description**
5 Spherical Dark Navy Blue

Spherical (Burned or patinated)




Zone B2
Burial #2
P.S. 58

Zone B2
F.S. 64

VIDI- 1 Donut-shaped: Red or Reddish
Purple (Very Patinated)

Spherical Transparent Green

Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Navy Blue

IIC2- 1 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
(Unique) Blue/Thin White/Translucent
Purple Core

517N500E IIC2g
Zone B2 (#56)
Burial #27
F.S. 93

517N497E IIA2a
Zone B2 (#40)
Burial #17
F.S. #94

9 Short, Tubular: Cobalt Blue/
Thin White/Translucent Light
Blue Core

1 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Translucent
Navy Blue Core

1 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Navy Blue

1 Short, Tubular: Translucent
Dark Navy Blue

1 Short, Tubular: Transparent
Cobalt Blue

1 Donut-shaped: Transparent
Pale Yellow (Very Patinated)

1 Donut-shaped: Translucent
Green (Very Patinated)

1 Donut-shaped: Translucent
Yellow (Very Patinated)

8 Olive-shaped: Opaque
Medium Blue

1 Short, Tubular: Translucent
Dark Navy Blue

1 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Colorless

1 Short, Tubular: Translucent
Dark Navy Blue

1 Short, Tubular: Translucent
Navy Blue/Thin White/
Translucent Navy Blue Core






Zone B3
Burial #60
F.S. 140

Zone B2
F.S. 147

Zone B3
P.S. 157

Zone B3
Burial #68
F.S. 164

Zone B3
Burial #73
F.S. 167

517N503E &
Zone B3
Burial #66
F.S. 173

Zone B3
Burial #79
F.S. 175

Zone B3
F.S. 190







1 Spherical Transparent Green

8 Spherical to Olive-shaped:
Cobalt Blue/White/Red/White/
Transparent Medium Blue/
White/Transparent Medium Blue

1 Olive-shaped: Opaque Medium

1 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Navy Blue

2 Olive-shaped: White with 3
Wide Blue Spiraling Stripes

1 Olive-shaped: Cobalt Blue/
Medium Blue/White/
Transparent Medium Blue Core

8 Olive-shaped: Opaque Medium

1 Spherical Transparent Green

IIAle 4 Short, Tubular: Transparent
(#37) Cobalt Blue





Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Navy Blue

Olive-shaped: Opaque Medium






10 Sub-spherical: Translucent
Dark Purple Seed Beads

1 Barrel-shaped: Opaque Light
Blue with 4 White-on-Red Stripes





















Zone B4
F.S. 198

1 Short, Tubular: Transparent
Cobalt Blue

1 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Translucent
Navy Blue Core

2 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Navy Blue

1 Long, Tubular: Translucent
Turquoise Blue/Thin White/
Translucent Navy Blue Core

1 Donut-shaped: Translucent
Green (Very Patinated)

5 Olive-shaped: Opaque Medium




IB4- 1 Olive-shaped: Translucent Red
with 3 Spiraling Opaque White
Stripes/Opaque Brick Red/Pale

5 Short, Tubular: Translucent
Cobalt Blue/Thin White/
Translucent Medium Blue Core

2 Olive-shaped: Blue/White/
Red/White/Translucent Green/
White/Translucent Green Core

1 Olive-shaped: Opaque
Medium Blue

Zone B2
F.S. 90

IB4- 1 Olive-shaped: Colorless with 3
Spiraling Opaque White Stripes/
Opaque Brick Red/Medium
Transparent Blue Core

Zone B2
Burial #31
F.S. 99

Zone B2
F.S. 100

Zone B2
Burial #48
F.S. 127











Table 1. (Cont.)

520N497E IVC2d
Zone B2 (#82)
Burial #94
F.S. 212

Transparent Light Blue/Partial
Opaque Brick Red Core

3 Olive-shaped: Cobalt Blue/
Medium Blue/White/
Transparent Medium Blue Core

1 Spherical to Sub-spherical: Faceted
Cobalt Blue/White/Red/White/ Chevron
Colorless/White/Colorless Core

Table 2. Postcontact Metal Beads from the Tatham Mound.

Zone B2
F.S. 249

Zone B3

Burial #111
F.S. 256

IIA2a 1 Long, Tubular: Turquoise N
(#40) Blue/Thin White/Translucent C
Navy Blue Core P

IVC2d 3 Spherical to Olive-shaped: F
(#82) Cobalt Blue/White/Red/ C
White/Transparent Medium
Medium Blue Core

IVC2e 2 Olive-shaped: Navy Blue/ F
(#83) White/Red/White/Translucent C
Navy Blue/White/Transparent
Light Blue Core

IVC2p 2 Spherical to Sub-spherical: F
(#94) Cobalt Blue/White/Red/ C
Colorless Core

IA4- 1 Short, Tubular: Thin Colorless
with 3 Sets of Paired Opaque

White Spiraling Stripes (6
Total)/Opaque Brick Red/Pale
Blue-Green Core

IA4- 1 Long, Tubular: Thin Colorless
with 6 Opaque White Spiraling
Stripes/Opaque Brick Red/Opaque
Brick Red with Swirls of
Transparent Pale Gray-Green
(Poorly Mixed)/Transparent Pale
Gray-Green Core







520N497E IIA2a
Zone B3 (#40)
F.S. 262

516N497E ---
Slumped North Wall
F.S. 355

16 Short, Tubular: Transparent
Cobalt Blue

2 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Translucent
Navy Blue Core

2 Long, Tubular: Translucent
Blue/Thin White/Navy Blue

1 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Navy Blue

6 Short, Tubular: Cobalt Blue/
Thin White/Translucent Light
Blue Core

4 Olive-shaped: Opaque Medium

1 Long, Tubular: Turquoise
Blue/Thin White/Translucent
Navy Blue Core

1 Spherical Transparent Green











P.S. 37

F.S. 55

F.S. 60
Burial #7

F.S. 64

F.S. 93
Burial #27

Silver Rod Bead

Silver Barrel Beads

Rolled Iron Bead

Rolled Sheet Gold Bead
Rolled Sheet Brass Bead
Silver Disc Beads

Silver Disc Bead

F.S. 122 Silver Rod Bead
Burial #42 Silver Disc Bead

F.S. 127 Silver Disc Beads
Burial #48 Rolled Sheet Silver Bead

F.S. 131 Rolled Sheet Brass Bead
Burial #54 Rolled Sheet Gold Beads
Rolled Sheet Silver Beads

F.S. 138 Silver Rod Beads
Burial #58 Rolled Sheet Silver Bead
Silver Disc Beads
Rolled Sheet Bronze Bead

F.S. 148 Rolled Sheet Gold Bead
Silver Disc Bead
Rolled Sheet Silver Bead

F.S. 164 Silver Disc Beads

Burial #68

F.S. 167
Burial #73

F.S. 173
Burial #66

F.S. 175
Burial #79

F.S. 190

F.S. 204

F.S. 256
Burial #111

F.S. 262

F.S. 289

F.S. 303

Silver Disc Beads
Rolled Sheet Gold Beads

Silver Disc Beads

Silver Disc Beads

Silver Disc Beads

Silver Disc Beads

Silver Disc Beads

Silver Disc Beads

Silver Disc Bead

Rolled Sheet Brass Bead

* Not all beads were checked for composition.
and the results are presented.


.999 Silver

.925 Silver

Brass (Zinc & Tin)

The number that were

* Based on Smith and Good (1982) typology. Numbers in parentheses
refer to photograph numbers in Smith and Good (1982).

** Layers are listed in sequence from exterior to interior.



:ount Notes*
1 .999 Silver

2 .999 Silver

1 Made from Armor

1 22K Gold
1 Brass (Zinc & Tin)
33 17 are .925 Silver

1 .925 Silver

1 .999 Silver
1 .925 Silver

16 8 are .925 Silver
1 .925 Silver

1 Brass (Zinc)
2 22K Gold
5 3 are .925 Silver

8 ,999 Silver
1 .999 Silver
2 .925 Silver
1 Bronze (Tin)

1 22K Gold
1 .925 Silver
1 .925 Silver

96 10 are .999 Silver

60 10 are .925 Silver
2 1 is 18K, other is
22K Gold

3 1 is .925 Silver

2 1 is .999, other
is .925 Silver

37 2 are .999, 8 are
.925 Silver

8 3 are .925 Silver

5 All .999 Silver

especially popular in Mexico and Peru
during the Spanish Conquest (Francis
1986:36-37, 1987:7; Smith and Good 1982:7-
8), and we assume that they were equally
popular in North America. The number of
recorded instances of faceted chevron bead
finds from North American archaeological
sites supports this assumption (Smith and
Good 1982:Table II). Chevron beads are
sometimes called star beads because of the
concentric star pattern they exhibit when
viewed from the end (Allen 1983:19).

The olive-shaped striped varieties
(IB3e and IB3-) are also apparently useful
for dating sites to the early sixteenth
century. In North America, these types
are only recorded from early sixteenth
century sites in Florida (Mitchem and
Hutchinson 1987:Table 15; Mitchem, Smith
et al. 1985; Smith and Good 1982:Table

As shown in Table 1, most of the
glass beads from Tatham are previously
recorded varieties in the Smith and Good
(1982) typology. Several new types were
recovered, however. These include dark
blue and transparent green spherical
beads, which were originally thought to
date from the late sixteenth century
(Mitchem, Weisman et al. 1985:40-41).
Their recovery from definite early six-
teenth century proveniences in the mound
indicates that they are contemporaneous
with the Nueva Cadiz beads.

Other unique beads include a pre-
viously unrecorded variety of Nueva Cadiz
Plain (IIC2-), translucent dark purple
seed beads (VID1-), a barrel-shaped opaque
light blue specimen with four white-on-red
stripes, two multilayered olive-shaped red
beads with spiraling white stripes (IB4-),
and two multilayered tubular red beads
with spiraling white stripes (IA4-).
Specimens similar to the olive-shaped red
striped varieties have since been recorded
in collections from the Parrish Mound #1
(8Mal) site and the St. Marks Wildlife
Refuge Cemetery (8Wal5) site (Florida
State Museum Collections). These are con-
sidered to be variants of the olive-shaped

white with wide blue stripes variety

The barrel-shaped blue with white-on-
red stripes and the two tubular beads with
spiraling white stripes varieties are
truly unique, and unlike any beads record-
ed from other early sixteenth century
sites. The red tubular beads are round in
cross section, and superficially bear a
vague resemblance to some beads found on a
mid-sixteenth century Susquehannock site
in Pennsylvania (Harris 1982:7). However,
neither of these types are known from
other early sixteenth century sites in the

Metal Beads

A total of 298 metal beads were re-
covered from the postcontact stratum of
the Tatham Mound. In the present report,
fragments of copper or copper alloy, a
silver pendant, and a small gold foil dome
are also included due to their interpre-
tive value.

One hundred five metal artifacts from
Tatham were subjected to non-destructive
qualitative analysis. The metal analysis
was undertaken to broadly determine the
source of the raw materials and to determ-
ine the origin of manufacture. Metal is
not a native resource of Florida. Any
metal recovered from a Florida arch-
aeological site had to have been brought
to the site from outside the area (Leader

The closest deposit of native metals
is in the tri-state region of Georgia,
Kentucky, and Tennessee (Goad 1978).
Copper is the primary metal found in this
tri-state region. Gold is known to have
been available in historic times (McCallie
1926), but there is no evidence that it
was used by the precontact aboriginal
groups in the Southeast. Silver was
available in quantity only from the Great
Lakes region (Goad 1978; Seeman 1979), and
was not widely used in the southeastern
United States. The stratum at Tatham
Mound that contained the silver artifacts
corresponds with a time period during

Photograph by Harry W. Buck II.

Top row (1 to r): Spherical dark navy blue **; Spherical dark navy blue **; Spherical
transparent green **; Spherical transparent green **; Olive-shaped white with three
wide blue spiraling stripes [IB3e (#26)]; Olive-shaped colorless with three spiraling
opaque white stripes/opaque brick red/medium transparent blue core [IB4-] **; Olive-
shaped translucent red with three spiraling opaque white stripes/opaque brick
red/pale transparent light blue/partial opaque brick red core [IB4-] **; Barrel-
shaped opaque light blue with four longitudinal white-on-red stripes [IB3-] **; Long,
tubular, thin colorless layer with six opaque white spiraling stripes/opaque brick
red/opaque brick red with swirls of transparent pale gray-green (poorly
mixed)/transparent pale gray-green core [IA4-] **; Short, tubular, thin colorless
layer with three sets of paired opaque white spiraling stripes/opaque brick red/pale
blue-green core [IA4-] **.

Second row (1 to r): Nueva Cadiz Plain [IIAld (#36)]; Nueva Cadiz Plain [IIAle
(#37)]; Nueva Cadiz Plain [IIA2a (#40)]; Nueva Cadiz Plain [IIA2a (#40)]; Nueva Cadiz
Plain [IIA2c (#42)]; Nueva Cadiz Plain [IIA2e (#44)]; Nueva Cadiz Plain [IIA2g
(#46)]; Nueva Cadiz Plain [IIA2g (#46)]; Nueva Cadiz Plain, faceted [IIC2a (#50)];
Nueva Cadiz Plain, faceted [IIC2b (#51)].

Third row (1 to r): Nueva Cadiz Plain, faceted [IIC2g (#56)]; Nueva Cadiz Plain,
faceted [IIC2g (#56)]; Nueva Cadiz Plain, faceted-long, tubular turquoise blue/thin
white/translucent purple core [IIC2-] **; Nueva Cadiz Twisted, faceted [IIIC2a
(#67)]; Faceted chevron [IVC2a (#79)]; Faceted chevron [IVC2a (#79)]; Faceted chevron
[IVC2d (#82)]; Faceted chevron [IVC2d (#82)]; Faceted chevron [IVC2e (#83)]; Faceted
chevron [IVC2p (#94)].

Fourth row (1 to r): Olive-shaped opaque medium blue [VIDlh (#108)]; Olive-shaped
opaque medium blue [VIDlh (#108)]; Olive-shaped opaque medium blue [VIDlh (#108)];
Olive-shaped opaque medium blue [VIDlh (#108)]; Donut-shaped transparent pale yellow
(very patinated) [VIDid (#104)]; Donut-shaped translucent green (very patinated)
[VIDle (#105)]; donut-shaped translucent yellow (very patinated) [VIDlf (#106)]; Sub-
spherical translucent dark purple seed bead [VID1-] **; Sub-spherical translucent
dark purple seed bead [VID11-] **.

NOTE: All designations in brackets refer to Smith and Good (1982) typology.
Numbers in parentheses refer to photographs in Smith and Good (1982). Color layers
described in sequence from exterior to interior (core).

NOTE: ** Not in Smith and Good (1982) typology.

~r0 U

eSi a~~b


0 1 2

0 1 2 3 4 5
~-1-4 ,Al

which no identifiable silver from the
Great Lakes was brought to Florida.

Archaeological analyses of metal ar-
tifacts generally fall into one of two
formats, qualitative or quantitative. The
choice of which format to follow is de-
pendent on the research questions, phys-
ical state of the artifacts to be studied,
and the amount of time and money available
to the researcher. Qualitative analyses
tend to be the least expensive in terms of
time and money, and often the least de-
structive. The Tatham Mound materials
were, for the most part, in an excellent
state of preservation. The question of
raw material source was simplified by the
lack of metal found in the state. It was
further simplified by the apparent lack of
an advanced pyrometallurgy among the
precontact period Indians of the eastern
United States.

Prior analyses of metal artifacts
recovered from archaeological contexts in
Florida show that the European derived
materials tend to be either alloys or
refined materials with component element
signatures different from the native metal
artifacts (Leader 1985; Moore 1894; Rau
1878). The differences in signature are
tied to the inclusion of copper, tin,
lead, silver, and zinc in alloys of gold,
silver, bronze, and brass. Natural alloys
of gold and silver do occur, but are not
common in the native materials which have
been used in the eastern United States
(Patterson 1971). If tin, lead, or zinc
are present in a "copper" artifact, then
clearly the metal used was not from native
sources. Silver and gold were not used
elsewhere in the southeastern United
States during the time period, and
therefore are considered to be de facto

The presence or absence of the al-
loying materials was quickly determined by
simple qualitative wet chemical analysis.
A Koslow machine (Metal ID Set #1899,
Koslow Corporation) was chosen for its
speed and accuracy. The gold and silver
were subjected to a standard touch test
(comparison to known compositions through

acid reduction)
(Walchli 1981).
destructive or
the artifacts.

to determine fineness
None of the analyses were
altered the appearance of

Origin of manufacture was determined
by analyzing manufacturing techniques and
tool markings. A number of the early
Spanish expeditions that had visited the
area carried trade items (Smith 1987).
While it was extremely unlikely that the
Spanish (or any other explorers) would
have willingly parted with either gold or
silver, the frequency of trade items of
copper, brass, and bronze was high.

The analysis of a similar metal col-
lection from south Florida showed that the
European metal was often refashioned by
aboriginal metalworkers into unique Indian
artifacts (Leader 1985). The technology
being used by the Indians had its roots in
wood and shell working. It was therefore
possible to identify the differences be-
tween European and aboriginal metal
manipulation and tool use. Experimental
testing of the observed differences
demonstrated their validity and repli-
cability (Leader 1985). These differences
allow for the separation of metal arti-
facts made by Europeans and Indians.
Continued analysis and testing has made it
possible to separate south Florida Indian
metalwork from southeastern United States
metalwork, and southeastern United States
metalwork from Central and South American
Indian metalwork (Leader 1986, 1988).

The metal beads recovered from the
Tatham Mound can be divided into several
different types based on form. These
include rolled sheet, rod, barrel, and
disc beads. The order given follows a
scale of increasing complexity in manu-
facturing technique. This order will be
followed for the presentation of type
descriptions given below.

Rolled Sheet Beads. These beads (some-
times called rolled tube beads) are the
simplest form of bead (Figure 4). This
type of bead was first made of copper
during the Late Archaic period (ca. 3000
B. C.) and has not changed in manu-

0 0

*liL r



0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 4. Metal beads from Burial #54. Top: Rolled sheet gold beads.
Center: Rolled sheet silver beads. Bottom (1. to r.): Three
disc beads of resin (?), rolled sheet brass bead.


0 1 2 3 4

Figure 5. Silver artifacts from Tatham Mound. Top: Drilled rod bead.
Bottom: Socketed celt effigy pendant.

facturing technique or form since then
(Leader 1988). They were made by ham-
mering the metal into thin sheets and
rolling them around a mandrel, forming a
tubular bead. The beads were made in
gold, silver, and copper alloys. One of
the Tatham specimens was made from part of
an iron armor plate. The rolled sheet
beads from Tatham are listed in Table 2,
with information on their composition.

Work hardening occurs in both the
copper alloy and (to a lesser extent) sil-
ver forms of this bead as a result of cold
hammering. It is necessary to reheat the
metal anneall it) to remove the work
hardened condition which might otherwise
cause it to crack. Smith (1968) demon-
strated that it is possible to work copper
into a rolled tube without annealing.
However, this does not appear to have
occurred to the extent that he suggests
was possible.

A characteristic of a cold worked
copper sheet which has been rolled into a
tubular bead is a distinct yield point.
When the cold worked sheet is rolled
around a circular form (the mandrel), a
section of the hardened sheet resists the
shaping. The sheet does eventually con-
form to the shape, but as it yields to the
force of the shaping, the sheet bends at a
sharp angle making a corner. This corner
is known as the yield point structure.
All of the copper alloy sheet beads and
most of the silver ones from Tatham
exhibit this characteristic. The lessened
form that the yield point takes in these
specimens suggests that the material was
either annealed or was not worked to the
same degree of hardness as Smith's (1968)
test pieces.

Gold rolled sheet beads do not have
yield points. The greater malleability of
gold makes it very difficult to form a
yield point structure. Two of the gold
rolled sheet beads from Tatham have been
very carefully abutted and soldered
closed. The Indians of North America did
not use solder. Perez de Barradas (1966)
discusses rolled beads similar to these
two as being of South American Indian

origin. The
discussed in

implications of this are
a later portion of this

Rod Beads. This type of bead is somewhat
more complex than the rolled sheet type.
Rod beads were made from lengths of
hammered solid rod (Figure 5). Sections
of the solid rod were biconically drilled
(drilled from both ends with the hole
meeting in the center) through the length
to form the bead. Errors in the drilling
were common, and very few of the holes
connected in a straight line. Seating the
drill was a problem in some cases,
resulting in remnants of the first drill
hole being visible in the final drill

Silver was the metal of choice for
this bead at Tatham. Rod beads from the
site are listed in Table 2. Copper or
copper alloy rod beads have been recovered
from other sites (Leader 1985), but they
are never as common as the silver

Barrel Beads. This type is a modified
form of the rod bead (Figure 6). The
techniques for making a rod bead were
followed to completion, then the bead was
modified by grinding of the ends to a
smaller circumference. The drill lip
which was routinely left on the rod beads
was often smoothed or removed during the
grinding. Again, silver was the metal of
choice at Tatham, though copper and copper
alloys were used at some other sites
(Leader 1985). The barrel beads from
Tatham are listed in Table 2.

Disc Beads. Disc beads represent a depar-
ture from the manufacturing techniques
used to make the other forms of beads.
They are the most common form of metal
bead from Florida sites, and when found en
masse demonstrate a surprising level of
similarity (Figure 7). Several sugges-
tions have been made concerning the tech-
niques used to make these beads (Jernigan
1978; Lawson 1967; Leader 1985; Williams
1986). Jernigan's (1978) technique was
originally suggested for the manufacture
of stone disc beads. However, it has been

0 1 2



3 4 5

i 2

Figure 6. Two silver barrel beads from Tatham Mound.


oooooooooo o .
o000o00 0@
OOOOOOOOOO e '''* .^

0 1 2

0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 7. Glass and metal beads from Burial #73. Top two rows: Nueva
Cadiz Plain beads. Third row: Two soldered rolled sheet gold
beads (probably of South American origin). Fourth through
ninth rows: Silver disc beads.

substantiated by analysis and experiment
as being the most likely technique for the
manufacture of similar metal disc beads
(Leader 1985).

A hammered plate of metal was
probably first scored into square blocks.
It is possible that the scoring did not
sever the blocks from the plate, but
differentiated them. It would be easier
to drill the blocks if they were still
attached to the sheet. Regardless, each
block was biconically drilled through its
center. The separated blocks were strung
on twine or sinew and abraded as a single
unit on a stone hone. The outcome of this
technique is longitudinal striations on
the edges of the bead in contact with the
stone. These striations are clearly
evident on the majority of the beads.
While no hones with appropriately shaped
furrows have been recovered from the
Tatham Mound site, numerous hones have
been recovered from other sites in Florida
(Sears 1982:81-82). The disc beads from
Tatham are listed in Table 2.

Other Metal Artifacts

The Tatham Mound site also yielded a
small quantity of metal artifacts which
are not beads. These include fragments of
copper or copper alloy objects, an effigy
pendant, and a small foil dome. The arti-
facts and their compositions are listed in
Table 3. Brief discussions of each of
these artifact types follow.

Fragments of Copper or Copper Alloys.
Seven copper or copper alloy plate frag-
ments were recovered from the site. One
of these contained zinc, indicating it was
made of brass. The other six (based on
analysis of one fragment) contained nei-
ther zinc nor tin, and are made of copper.
We do not know whether the original object
was made of European or native copper, nor
do we know what the object was.

The brass fragment has retained part
of its original shape and was probably a
round boss or earspool fragment. Bosses
are quite common in the region (Leader
1985), and a copper earspool was found in

situ with one of the precontact burials
(#105) in the Tatham Mound (Mitchem and
Hutchinson 1987:33-34). Gold, silver,
copper, and copper alloy bosses have been
recovered elsewhere (Leader 1985; Sears
1982). It has been suggested that bosses
were worn as personal adornment either as
pendants/gorgets, or as armlets/anklets
(Leader 1985; Lorant 1946; Sears 1982).
Earspools were also common during
Mississippian times. The method of
attachment cannot be determined for this
piece because of its condition.

Effigy Pendant. A single silver pendant
in the form of a socketed stone celt
(Figure 5) was recovered from Burial #2.
This artifact started out as a small
"finger" ingot of silver, probably of
Spanish origin. It was modified through
very careful abrasion and hammering into
its present form. The suspension hole is
a biconical drill hole. No similar metal
artifact has been recovered in North

Foil Dome. A single gold foil dome was
recovered from the site. The thinness of
the metal (less than 0.03 cm) suggests
that the piece was originally made to clad
(cover) a similarly shaped artifact.
Artifacts clad with metal are found
throughout Florida. The most common ma-
terial used as the underlying structure is
carved wood (Leader 1985, 1988; Sears
1982). Gold and silver clad wooden but-
tons of the appropriate size were re-
covered from the Fort Center site (Leader
1985). Unfortunately, the wooden (or
other material) understructure has not
survived for the Tatham Mound artifact.


The metal artifacts from the Tatham
Mound site are familiar types. The ma-
jority of the artifacts fit within the
parameters of what is now referred to as
the South Florida Metal Complex (Leader
1988). This complex arose in the late
Mississippian time period and coincided
with (and relied upon) the first depo-
sition of European metal in Florida. It
encompasses a number of different Florida

Indian groups, but seems primarily cen-
tered with the Calusa. The hallmark of
this complex is the use of European/South
American metal to manufacture copies of
shell or wood artifacts. The technology
initially used for this manufacture is
clearly based on the wood and shell tech-
niques which were used to produce the
original artifact forms.

This metal complex differs from the
complex which encompassed Georgia and
north Florida. The north Florida and
Georgia metal artifacts were made of
native metal and demonstrate a greater
technical familiarity with metal. The
metal artisans of Georgia and north
Florida routinely used techniques which do
not have analogs in non-metal tech-
nologies. Motifs identified with the
Southern Cult were regularly expressed in
metal by these groups, which was not the
case for south Florida. The artifact
types produced by the South Florida Metal
Complex were much more limited in number,
size, and artistic scope. This was
probably the result of the scarcity of
metal in the area prior to European

The interaction between Georgia and
north Florida was of a very different form
from that which occurred between northern
and southern Florida. The discovery of
identical copper symbol badges at both the
Etowah site in north Georgia and at the
Lake Jackson site in north Florida
illustrate the close interactions in the
northern area (Leader 1988). At present
it is not possible to fully discuss the
differences in the interaction, but the
existence of differences is clearly
demonstrated by the archaeological record.

The metal artifacts recovered from
the Tatham Mound site were all made by
American Indian metalworkers. There are
no artifacts at the site which were made
by European techniques. However, the
majority of the metal was derived from
European sources. This is not to say that
the metal was from Europe. The Spanish
removed large quantities of gold, silver,
copper, bronze, and brass from Central and

South America (Leader 1986). The treasure
fleets routinely followed the coastline of
south Florida and often met their end
there. Recovery of metal from shipwrecks
by the Florida Indians has been well
documented (Bushnell 1981:91-96).

The discovery of an Incan gold jaguar
at the Fort Center site (Sears 1982:64), a
Sinu Colombian bead at the Hontoon Island
site (Barbara Purdy, personal communi-
cation 1987), and a possibly Tairona
Colombian crocodillian effigy at Nicodemus
Slough are most likely tied to the re-
covery efforts of the Florida Indians.
The two soldered gold rolled sheet beads
from Tatham are most likely South American
artifacts. The Tatham Mound site should
now be added to the list of Florida sites
from which South American metal artifacts
have been recovered.

Bead assemblages similar to the
Tatham assemblage have come from other
Florida sites and a few sites outside of
Florida in the Southeast. Several sites
in south Florida have yielded examples of
the metal bead varieties found at Tatham.
Rolled sheet silver beads have been
reported from the John's Pass (8Pi4) mound
(Walker 1880:401), the Seven Oaks (8Pi8)
mound (Willey 1949:334), the Thomas (8Hil)
mound (Bullen 1952:17), the Philip
(8Po446) mound (Benson 1967:125), the
Parrish #1 (8Mal) mound (Stirling
1935:379), and the Nicodemus Slough mound

Drilled silver rod beads have come
from the Nicodemus Slough mound (8G19),
the Ortona mound (8G135), and the Gopher
Gully site (8G128). Silver disc beads are
recorded from a mound in Manatee County,
the Gopher Gully site (8G128), and the
Ortona mound (8G135).

However, on the basis of the metal
beads alone, it is impossible to determine
whether any of these sites are con-
temporaneous with Tatham. Indeed, most of
these sites were looted or collected
unsystematically, and many have yielded
glass beads which indicate later episodes
of European contact.

Glass bead varieties provide the best
means of comparing contemporaneous sites.
Table 4 lists known sites which have
yielded specimens of glass bead varieties
found at Tatham. It should be noted that
many other glass beads exist from sites in
Florida and the Southeast which have not
been classified as to variety. However,
the known distribution of the particular
varieties is useful for trying to identify
patterns of contact.

Table 4 clearly shows that three
Florida sites have yielded glass bead
assemblages which include many of the
varieties found at Tatham. These are the
St. Marks Wildlife Refuge Cemetery (8Wal5)
site (sometimes called St. Marks Light-
house), the Weeki Wachee mound (8He12),
and the Ruth Smith mound (8C1200). The
Weeki Wachee and Ruth Smith mounds are of
special interest, as both are located near
the Tatham Mound (Figure 8).

The Weeki Wachee mound was excavated
in 1970, and yielded 127 glass beads, 151
of silver (both disc and barrel types),
and a single amber bead (Mitchem, Smith et
al. 1985:202). The Ruth Smith mound, just
a few kilometers northwest of the Tatham
Mound, was looted over a period of several
decades before its final leveling in the
1970s. Examination of collections re-
sulted in the recording of 30 glass beads,
51 silver beads (disc, rolled sheet, and
rod varieties), two gold beads (one rolled
sheet and one barrel), three rolled iron
beads (similar to the specimen from
Tatham), a large iron chisel (similar to
one recovered from Tatham), an uniden-
tified iron fragment, 3 brass rings
(possibly part of a shirt of chain mail),
and a sherd of Green Bacin, a type of
early Spanish pottery (Mitchem, Smith et
al. 1985:202-210; Mitchem and Weisman

The St. Marks site was excavated by
amateur archaeologists in the late 1930s,
then further excavated by Florida State
University archaeologists in 1950. These
excavations yielded many metal and glass
beads, as well as a large number of
copper, brass, gold, and silver artifacts

(Deagan 1987:Figure 7.5; Goggin 1947;
Smith 1956:31-33). The collections in-
clude silver and gold barrel beads,
hundreds of silver disc beads, and one
silver rod bead. The silver disc beads
are made of fine (.999) silver (Leader
1987), and several of the metal artifacts
are definitely of South American origin.
A number of the artifacts also demonstrate
south Florida contacts (Goggin 1947).

When viewed together, the assemblages
from these three sites aid in attempting
to identify the particular Spanish ex-
pedition(s) which contacted the group
buried in Tatham Mound. The geographical
positions of the sites are also important.

In 1528, the expedition of Panfilo de
NarvAez landed somewhere in the vicinity
of Tampa Bay and traveled north, appar-
ently staying near the coast (Covey 1983;
Nidez Cabeza de Vaca 1984; Scott 1981).
Though the narrative of the expedition
through Florida is vague, the Indians in
the vicinity of the Weeki Wachee, Ruth
Smith, and Tatham mounds would undoubtedly
have had contact with members of the
expedition. When the expedition reached
northwest Florida, a fateful decision was
made to build rafts and sail along the
Gulf coast. The place where the Spaniards
launched their rafts was called the Bay of
Horses, and this was probably in the
general vicinity of the St. Marks area
(Covey 1983:45-47; Nunez Cabeza de Vaca
1984:63). Most of the expedition members
were lost at sea.

Eleven years later (1539), the
Hernando de Soto expedition landed, proba-
bly at the south end of Tampa Bay. As
they headed north, they passed through an
area of swamps and lakes on their way to
the town of Cale (Fernandez de Oviedo y
Valdes 1973:64-65; Fidalgo of Elvas 1968:-
36-37). A village called Tocaste on a
large lake is mentioned in the narratives
(Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes 1973:65;
Fidalgo of Elvas 1968:37), which is prob-
ably located somewhere in the Cove of the
Withlacoochee. They crossed the river or
swamp of Cale, which is presumably the
Withlacoochee River.

Table 3. Postcontact Non-Bead Metal Artifacts from Tatham Mound
Included in Present Study.

F.S. 58
Burial #2

F.S. 64

F.S. 137
Burial #57

F.S. 147

Silver Socketed Celt
Effigy Pendant

Gold Foil Dome

Copper Alloy Plate

Boss or Earspool Frag.

Count Notes
1 .999 Silver

1 22K Gold

6 Brass (Zinc & Tin)

1 Brass (Zinc)

Table 4. Glass Bead Inter-Site Comparisons.**

Site name
Weeki Wachee
St. Marks Lighthouse
Weeki Wachee
Seven Oaks
Poarch Farm, GA
Weeki Wachee
Ruth Smith
Taylor Mound, GA
Tram Site, NY
Adams Site, NY
Warren Site, NY
Tallapoosa River Valley, AL
Weeki Wachee
Little Egypt, GA
Roger Mills County, OK
Weeki Wachee
Weeki Wachee
Ruth Smith
St. Marks Lighthouse
Ruth Smith
Weeki Wachee
Weeki Wachee
Ruth Smith
Parkin, AR

# recorded





IVC2d (82)

IVC2e (83)







Philip Mound
San Marcos de Apalachee
Bear Point, AL
St. Marks Lighthouse
Seven Oaks
Kent Mound, GA
Hawikuh, NM
Fountain of Youth Park
Poarch Farm, GA
Weeki Wachee
Ruth Smith
St. Marks Lighthouse
Poarch Farm, GA
Fountain of Youth Park
St. Marks Lighthouse
Abercrombie Site, AL
Seven Oaks
Parrish Mound #1
Ortona or Nicodemus Mounds
St. Marks Lighthouse



* Number unknown.
** All sites in Florida unless otherwise noted. Basic source:
Smith and Good (1982:Table II).

Smith & Good #
IB3e (26

IIAld (36)

IIAle (37)

IIA2a (40)

IIA2c (42)

IIA2e (44)

IIA2g (46)

IIC2a (50)

IIC2b (51)

IIC2g (56)

IIIC2a (67)

IVC2a (79)


Figure 8. Location of Tatham, Ruth Smith, and Weeki Wachee mounds.

When the expedition reached Anhaica
Apalache (called Iniahico in some of the
narratives), Soto sent a group of soldiers
to search the coastal area. This group
relocated the place where the Narvaez
expedition had set out to sea (Fernandez
de Oviedo y Valdes 1973:79-80; Fidalgo of
Elvas 1968:47; Hernandez de Biedma
1968:234). Following this, part of Soto's
force traveled south along the original
route to the landing place at Tampa Bay,
then again traveled north to Anhaica
Apalache over the same route (Fernandez de
Oviedo y Valdes 1973:81; Fidalgo of Elvas
1968:47-48; Hernandez de Biedma 1968:234-
235). This indicates that members of the
Soto expedition passed through the Cove of
the Withlacoochee area three separate
times in 1539.

If the St. Marks site is near Nar-
viez's Bay of Horses, the European arti-
facts could have come from either or both
expeditions. The European artifacts at
Tatham, Weeki Wachee, and Ruth Smith could
have likewise come from either expedition.
At present, we are unable to identify
specific artifact types associated with
these two expeditions, but Table 4
indicates that it may soon be possible to
identify particular bead varieties carried
by the Soto expedition. Certain sites,
such as Poarch Farm and Little Egypt in
Georgia, and the Martin site in
Tallahassee appear to be definite sites of
Soto contact. As research on these and
other early contact sites in the Southeast
continues, we may eventually identify
glass bead varieties carried by the Soto

The present evidence seems to
indicate that the group buried in Tatham
Mound was contacted by the Soto expe-
dition, especially since the Spanish
soldiers passed through the immediate area
three times. Skeletal evidence from
Tatham supports a direct contact inter-
pretation. Two bones from the mound
exhibit definite wounds produced by a
sword or similar edged metal weapon
(Mitchem and Hutchinson 1987:41). These
bones were both from secondary deposits,
indicating that the flesh had been removed

before burial. This suggests that the
body or bodies from which the bones came
had been stored in a charnel house for
some time prior to interment. This fact
is important, because additional evidence
from the mound indicates that at least 74
people died within a short time period,
and were buried before the flesh had
decomposed. The most plausible inter-
pretation of these burials is that an
epidemic killed a number of people during
a short period (Mitchem and Hutchinson

If these interpretations are correct,
the cut bones could have resulted from a
skirmish with members of the Narvaez
force, with the aboriginal corpse(s)
placed in an existing charnel structure.
The wounds could also have been inflicted
by Soto's soldiers on their initial pass
through the region in July, 1539 (Swanton
1985:307). If the epidemic was a result
of Spanish contact, it was probably in-
troduced by members of Soto's expedition.
This statement is based on the fact that
enough time had to have passed between the
fighting and the epidemic for the flesh to
have decomposed from the cut bones. Given
the temperature and humidity charac-
teristics of this part of Florida, such
decomposition could have occurred during a
short time period (Putman 1983). As more
is learned about beads from known Soto
contact sites, we may be able to better
interpret the Tatham Mound data.

The glass and metal beads from Tatham
Mound are important because they represent
the largest assemblage of early sixteenth
century European beads excavated from any
North American aboriginal site. They are
also the best documented collection (in
terms of exact provenience of discovery)
from any contemporary site in the New
World. The collection should become a
valuable resource for future comparative
studies of early Spanish contact in the
New World.


The study of the beads from Tatham
Mound and the accompanying color plate

were funded by a research grant awarded by
The Bead Society, Culver City, California.
The authors are very grateful for this
support, which greatly increased our
ability to interpret the European beads
from the site, and aided in the dissem-
ination of the results. The color plate
accompanying this article was photographed
by Harry W. Buck II. Initial excavation
and analysis of the Tatham Mound was
funded primarily by a single private
individual, who wishes to remain anony-
mous. Additional support was provided by
the Florida Division of Parks and
Recreation; the Division of Historical
Resources, Florida Department of State;
the Division of Sponsored Research,
University of Florida; the Tinker Founda-
tion; and the Departments of Anthropology
of the Florida State Museum, the Univer-
sity of Florida, and the University of

References Cited

Allen, Jamey D.
1983 Chevron-Star-Rosetta Beads: Part I. Ornament
7(1):19-24, 40.

Benson, Carl A.
1967 The Philip Mound: A Historic Site. The
Florida Anthropologist 20:118-132.

Brain, Jeffrey P.
1975 Artifacts of the Adelantado. Conference on
Historic Site Archaeology Papers 8:129-138.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough
County, Florida. Report of Investigations 8.
Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee.

Bushnell, Amy
1981 The King's Coffer: Proprietors of the Spanish
Florida Treasury, 1565-1702. University
Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Covey, Cyclone (translator and editor)
1983 Cabeza de Vaca's Adventures in the Unknown
Interior of America. Reprinted. Univer-
sity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Originally published 1961, Crowell-Collier,
New York.

Deagan, Kathleen
1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida
and the Caribbean, 1500-1800. Volume 1:
Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1968 Early Spanish Colonial Beads. Conference on
Historic Site Archaeology Papers 2(1):3-21.

Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes, Gonzalo
1973 A Narrative of de Soto's Expedition Based on
the Diary of Rodrigo Ranjel, His Private
Secretary. Translated by Edward Gaylord

Bourne. In Narratives of the Career of
Hernando de Soto in the Conquest of Florida,
edited by Edward Gaylord Bourne, pp. 49-158.
Reprinted. AMS Press, New York. Originally
published 1922, Allerton, New York.

Fidalgo of Elvas
1968 True Relation of the Vicissitudes that
Attended the Governor Don Hernando de Soto
and Some Nobles of Portugal in the Discovery
of the Province of Florida, Now Just Given
by a Fidalgo of Elvas. In Narratives of de
Soto in the Conquest of Florida as Told by a
Gentleman of Elvas and in a Relation b Luys
Hernandez de Biedma, translated by Bucking-
ham Smith, pp. 5-203. Reprinted. Palmetto
Books, Gainesville, Florida. Originally
published 1866, Bradford Club, New York.

Francis, Peter, Jr.
1986 Beads and the Discovery of the New World.
Occasional Paper No. 3. Center for Bead
Research, Lake Placid, New York.

1987 Chevrons and the Conquistadors. The
Margaretologist 1(4):6-7. Center for Bead
Research, Lake Placid, New York.

Goad, Sharon I.
1978 Exchange Networks in the Prehistoric South
eastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Georgia. University Micro-
films, Ann Arbor.

Goggin, John M.
1947 Manifestations of a South Florida Cult in
Northwestern Florida. American Antiquity

Harris, Elizabeth
1982 Nueva Cadiz and Associated Beads: A New Look.
Archaeological Research Booklets XVII:3-15.
G. B. Fenstermaker, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Hernandez de Biedma, Luys
1968 Relation of the Conquest of Florida, Pre-
sented by Luys Hernandez de Biedma in the
year 1544 to the King of Spain in Council.
In Narratives of de Soto in the Conquest of
Florida as Told b a Gentleman of Elvas and
in a Relation b Luys Hernandez de Biedma,
translated by Buckingham Smith, pp. 229-261.
Reprinted. Palmetto Books, Gainesville,
Florida. Originally published 1866, Brad-
ford Club, New York.

Jernigan, E. Wesley
1978 Jewelry of the Prehistoric Southwest. School
of American Research, Santa Fe.

Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Edited by Hugh
Talmage Lefler. University of North Caro-
lina Press, Chapel Hill.

Leader, Jonathan M.
1985 Metal Artifacts from Fort Center: Aboriginal
Metal Working in the Southeastern United
States. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of
Florida, Gainesville.

1986 Peruvian Metallurgy: A Discussion of Role and
Process. Florida Journal of Anthropology

1987 Alloy Analysis of Some Silver Beads from the
St. Marks Wildlife Refuge. Ms. on file,
Department of Anthropology, Florida State
Museum, Gainesville.

1988 Technological Continuities and Speciali
nation in Prehistoric Metalwork in the
Eastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation in

preparation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Lorant, Stefan (editor and annotator)
1946 The New World: The First Pictures of America.
Duell, Sloan & Pearce, New York.

McCallie, S. W.
1926 A Preliminary Report on the Mineral Resources
of Georgia. Revised ed. Geological Survey
of Georgia Bulletin 23. Atlanta.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. and Dale L. Hutchinson
1986 Interim Report on Excavations at the Tatham
Mound, Citrus County, Florida: Season II.
Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 28.
Department of Anthropology, Florida State
Museum, Gainesville.

1987 Interim Report on Archaeological Research at
the Tatham Mound, Citrus County, Florida:
Season III. Miscellaneous Project Report
Series No. 30. Department of Anthropology,
Florida State Museum, Gainesville.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M., Marvin T. Smith, Albert C.
Goodyear, and Robert R. Allen
1985 Early Spanish Contact on the Florida Gulf
Coast: The Weeki Wachee and Ruth Smith
Mounds. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves:
Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks,
edited K. W. Johnson, J. M. Leader, and
R. C. Wilson, pp. 179-219. Florida Journal
of Anthropology Special Publication No. 4.
Florida Anthropology Student Association,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. and Brent R. Weisman
1984 Excavations at the Ruth Smith Mound (8Ci200).
The Florida Anthropologist 37:100-112.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M., Brent R. Weisman, Donna L.
Ruhl, Jenette Savell, Laura Sellers, and Lisa Sharik
1985 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the
Tatham Mound (8-Ci-203), Citrus County,
Florida: Season I. Miscellaneous Project
Report Series No. 23. Department of
Anthropology, Florida State Museum,

Moore, Clarence B.
1894 Certain Sand Mounds of the St. Johns River,
Florida. Journal of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia 10:5-246.

Nunez Cabeza de Vaca, Alvar
1984 Naufragios y Comentarios. Edited by Roberto
Ferrando. Cronicas de America 3, Historia
16. Hermanos Garcia Noblejas, Madrid.

Patterson, Clair
1971 Native Copper, Silver, and Gold Accessible to
Early Metallurgists. American Antiquity

Perez de Barradas, Jose
1966 Orfebreria Prehispanica de Colombia, Estilos
uimbaya y Otros. 2 Volumes. Talleres
Graficos Jura, Madrid.

Putman, R. J.
1983 Carrion and Dung: The Decomposition of Animal
Wastes. Studies in Biology No. 156. The
British Institute of Biology Studies,

Rau, Charles
1878 Observations on a Gold Ornament from a Mound
in Florida. Annual Report of the Smithsonian
Institution for 1877:298-3-2.

Scott, Elizabeth
1981 The Route of the Narvaez Expedition through
Florida. Florida Journal of Anthropology

Sears, William H.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the
Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Presses
of Florida, Gainesville.

Seeman, Mark F.
1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evi
dence for Interregional Trade and Structural
Complexity. Indiana Historical Society,

Smith, Cyril S.
1968 Metallographic Study of Early Artifacts Made
from Native Copper. Actes du XIe Congress
International d'Histoire des Sciences
Extrait 6:237-252.

Smith, Hale G.
1956 The European and the Indian: European-Indian
Contacts in Georgia and Florida. Florida
Anthropological Society Publications 4.

Smith, Marvin T.
1983 Chronology from Glass Beads: The Spanish
Period in the Southeast, 1513-1670. In Pro
ceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Con
ference, edited by Charles F. Hayes III, pp.
147-158. Research Records No. 16. Rochester
Museum and Science Center, Rochester, New

1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in
the Interior Southeast: Depopulation during
the Early Historic Period. University
Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Smith, Marvin T. and Mary Elizabeth Good
1982 Early Sixteenth Century Glass Beads in the
Spanish Colonial Trade. Cottonlandia Museum
Publications, Greenwood, Mississippi.

Stirling, Matthew W.
1935 Smithsonian Archeological Projects Con-
ducted under the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration, 1933-34. Annual Report of
the Smithsonian Institution for 1934:371-
TOT. ----

Swanton, John R.
1985 Final Report of the United States De Soto
Expedition Commission. Reprinted. Smith-
sonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
Originally published 1939, U. S. House of
Representatives Document No. 71, 76th Con-
gress, 1st Session, Washington, D. C.

Walchli, Walo
1981 Touching Precious Metals. Gold Bulletin

Walker, S. T.
1880 Preliminary Explorations among the Indian
Mounds in Southern Florida. Annual Report of
the Smithsonian Institution for 1879: 392-

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113.
Washington, D. C.

Williams, Samuel Cole (editor)
1986 Adair's History of the American Indians.
Reprinted. Promontory Press, New York.
Originally published 1930, National Society
of Colonial Dames of America, Johnson City,

Jeffrey M. Mitchem
Jonathan M. Leader
Florida State Museum
Gainesville, FL 32611


John H. Hann


Mariners of old marked the unexplored land
shown on their charts as terra incognita.
For the sixteenth and seventeenth centur-
ies, anthropologists, archaeologists, and
historians could well do the same today
for the natives of Florida living west of
the Ochlockonee River. Recent general
works on the Indians of the Southeast or
on the Indians of Florida contain only
fleeting references to the natives living
from the Ochlockonee River westward to
Pensacola Bay in those two centuries or no
reference at all. When those natives are
mentioned, as often as not, the allusion
is to the arrival in Alabama of the rem-
nant of one or more of those peoples as
refugees from the assault on Florida's
natives that began with the 1704 attack on
Apalachee by the Carolinians and their
Creek allies. Although mention of the na-
tives of West Florida in Spanish records
is minimal, those records have a potential
nonetheless for making the region less of
a terra incognita.

For the sixteenth century the records are
indeed unrewarding. From the account of
the 1528 Narvaez expedition the only re-
marks that apply with certainty to West
Florida are observations that seven days
after they had left the Bay of the Horses
in Apalachee they found some houses on an
island near the shore where they "found
many dried mullet and roes" and that in
the coves and creeks they entered during
their first 30 days at sea, they saw
"occasionally Indian fishermen, a poor and
miserable people" (Cabeza de Vaca 1969:51-
52). They had probably passed beyond
Pensacola when the first natives with whom
they established contact are described in
more detail. The de Soto accounts merely
mention a settlement or province named
Ochuse or Achusi, believed to have been on
Pensacola Bay, but say nothing about the
size and nature of the settlement or even
whether a settlement had been seen by the
Spaniards. If the settlement ever exist-

ed, it was located elsewhere or disappear-
ed shortly after de Soto's passage through
Florida in 1539-1540. In 1559 a scant
generation later, the Tristan de Luna
expedition found only a few fishermen's
huts along the bay, which they named
officially Bahia de Santa Maria Filipina
but referred to at times as Santa Maria de
Ochuse, reflecting their belief that de
Soto's Ochuse had been on or near the bay.
If the natives of the region were agricul-
turalists in the early sixteenth century,
it is unlikely that they would have had
more than seasonal fishing camps on the
immediate coast in view of the poor soils
for a distance inland. The Luna expedi-
tion's exploring parties, on moving in-
land, one up the Escambia River and the
other overland, found no settlements of
significance in the hinterland immediately
behind the bay, but only a sparse popula-
tion scattered along the banks of the
river (Priestly 1928:1, xxxviii-xxxix, II,

By contrast, seventeenth century Spanish
records identify and provide information
about five or possibly six distinct peo-
ples who were living in or came from this
western zone in that period. They are the
Chacato, Chisca, Pansacola, Chine,
Savacola, and Tawasa. The most useful and
voluminous of those records, dating from
the 1670s, originated from an attempt by
the Franciscans and the Spanish authori-
ties to extend the mission effort into
this western zone. This article will pre-
sent what those and other records and a
number of published sources reveal about
each of those six peoples.

The Chacato or Chatot

Among the six peoples the Chacato are the
best known, yet one finds little reference
to them in works published during the last
two decades on the Indians of the South-
east in general or on the natives of
Florida in particular. So little known
were these people a generation or so


Mar., 1988

Vol. 41 No. 1

Tawasa Provin


.0 40

:.'-' '% r . ...

'Gulf of '

0 50 M, North l ; .....i: ..

0 50 KM

Map of West Florida's natives, villages and settlements in
the sixteenth and seventeenth century.

Figure 1.

earlier that a historian, who in 1939
published a volume of translated documents
on the Spanish approach to Pensacola,
could identify the Chacato as Choctaw.
Twentieth century works usually refer to
the Chacato as Chatot, but Chacato is the
name used most commonly in Spanish docu-
ments. The Spanish alternative usage was
Chacta, which appeared also as the name of
a Chacato interpreter in 1675, Chacta
Alonso. For the Choctaw, Spaniards gener-
ally used the spelling Chato, although
Bishop Calderon used Chacta. The Chacato
do not seem to have been mentioned under
any of these names in Hudson (1976) or in
the 1978 work edited by Milanich and
Proctor. As the latter work does not
contain an essay on any people in North
Florida living westward of the Yustaga,
that work's failure to mention the West
Florida natives is understandable. Less
so is the failure to note their existence
in lengthy published papers bearing such
titles as "The Spanish Gulf Coast Cultural
Assemblage 1500-1763," and "French,
Spanish and English Indian Policy on the
Gulf Coast 1513-1763," presented at a 1970
conference at the University of West
Florida (Dibble and Newton 1971:9-39, 56-
77). To find significant mention of these
peoples one must turn to relatively inac-
cessible contract research pieces such as
Louis Tesar's "Archaeological Survey and
Testing of Gulf Islands National Seashore,
Part I, Florida (1973) or George E.
Lankford's more recent "A Documentary
Study of Native American Life in the Lower
Tombigbee Valley" (1983) prepared for the
Corp of Engineers. But such works are
usually based largely on secondary sources
and published documents, because of the
circumstances under which they are pre-
pared. Among broadly focused works, two
of those by John R. Swanton (1922: 134-
137; 1946:107-108) remain the most infor-
mative published sources on the Chacato
and the other natives of West Florida, but
they do not exhaust the potential of the
records available.

Swanton began his summaries on the Chatot
describing them as an Apalachicola River
tribe (1922:134) and remarking that they
were "A tribe which at one time gave its
name to Apalachicola River and at another,
apparently, to the Flint," adding that the

Choctawhatchee was also probably named for
them and that "they ranged well westward
toward Pensacola" (1946:107). If true
this seems to indicate that the Chacato
had moved about frequently, or, as Swanton
(1922:134) phrased it, "was anciently very
important." But as Swanton's sources for
those attributions are eighteenth century
French writers and the Lamhatty map, their
reliability is questionable. On such
bases one might include the Chattahoochee
as well since the river's name is rendered
as Chactauchi in one Spanish document and
Gatschet (1969:74-76) used the spelling
Chatahuchi. It should be noted that other
derivations for Chattahoochee have been

The Chacato were not mentioned by name
until 1639, when Florida's governor noted
that through an envoy he had brought an
end to war between the Apalachee (whose
missionization had begun six years
earlier) and the Chacato, Apalachicola,
and Amacano, who were the Apalachee's
neighbors to the north, northwest, and
west. The governor observed that the
achievement was extraordinary with respect
to the Chacato because they had never been
at peace with anybody (Vega Castro y Pardo
1639). The next governor visited the
Apalachicola and the Chacato in 1646,
describing both peoples as having asked
for friars at that time (Rebolledo 1657).
Bishop Calderon noted that 14 years before
his 1675 visit to Florida the Chacato
again asked for friars (Wenhold 1936:9).
The occasion was probably an early 1660s
expedition from Apalachee led by Pedro de
Ortes, the governor's lieutenant for
Apalachee. Although Ortes set out to
explore the province of the Chata (the
Choctaw), believed to lie beyond that of
the Apalachicola, he advanced no farther
than Casista, then the farthest away of
the settlements in Apalachcola Province
(Ramirez 1687). The Spaniards began regu-
lar contact with the Chacato in June of
1674 with the establishment of two mis-
sions among them.

Fray Rodrigo de la Barrera and Fray Miguel
de Valverde founded the missions of San
Carlos de Yatcatani and San Nicolas de
Tolentino in the vicinity of present-day
Marianna, Florida, where the main body of

the Chacato had probably been living since
1639 and long before. A third settlement,
San Antonio, may have been a visit
(Leonard 1939:267; Valverde and Barrera
1674; Fernandez de Florencia 1675b:138;
Gardiner 1969:6-7; Jones 1987). It is
possible that additional Chacato were then
already living at the Chisca village on
the Choctawhatchee attacked by the
Apalachee in 1677. And, although it is
probable that the Chacato were also scat-
tered in fishing camps along the shore to
Pensacola Bay, Lankford's description of
Choctawhatchee Bay as the Chacato's ances-
tral home and citation of Gardiner as his
source (Lankford 1983:2) seems to be based
on a misreading of Gardiner (1969:6-7),
who stated clearly "I do not believe the
Chatot lived around the Choctawhatchee Bay
area until extremely late in their his-
tory." Gardiner based his judgment on the
predominance of shell tempered ceramics in
the Choctawhatchee Bay area in contrast to
the fine sand and grit tempered pottery
that predominates in the Marianna area
associated with the Chacato in historic
times. In the mid-1680s Marcos Delgado
identified Ogchay (Okchai) located far to
the northwest and four leagues north of
Tallapoosa River as a Chacato settlement
(Boyd 1937:25). San Carlos was described
in mid-1675 as having 400 inhabitants and
San Nicolas 100 (Fernandez de Florencia
1675a). San Antonio was portrayed in 1675
as a settlement of "eighty men who have
strayed from the places of the Chacatos,
of the same nation of the Chacatos, who
had withdrawn last year because of the
want that they were experiencing." There
was a fourth little place that had few
people (Perez 1675a:120).

In 1675, Apalachee's lieutenant placed San
Nicolas ten leagues by trail from the
Apalachicola River crossing at the Sava-
cola mission of Santa Cruz just below the
confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee.
He located San Carlos four leagues farther
west on a trail that led to the Chisca
settlement on the Choctawhatchee mentioned
above (Fernandez de Florencia 1675a,
1677). That same year Bishop Calder6n
placed San Nicolas nine leagues from the
river and San Carlos three leagues beyond
San Nicolas (Wenhold 1936:9). In 1693
Fray Barrera and Governor Laureano de

Torres y Ayala, although they traveled
together, differed similarly about the
distance from the river to San Nicolas,
the governor saying ten leagues and the
friar a little more than eight. Both 1693
travelers mentioned San Nicolas' proximity
to a cave described by one as large enough
to lodge 200 men, lighted by natural win-
dows in the stone walls, and containing a
very large spring (Leonard 1939:230-231,
267-268). San Antonio was north of the
two missions at a site which had "three
springs of water within a short distance
of each other." To reach the chicasa or
abandoned site of San Antonio in 1686
Delgado traveled 20 leagues from his
crossing of the Apalachicola at San Carlos
de Savacola. An unoccupied land stretched
to the north northwest from San Antonio to
the Tawasa territory in the vicinity of
the junction of the Talapoosa and Coosa
Rivers (Boyd 1937:23-25). The Chacato's
territory, hence, seems to have extended
farther north than that of their Apalachee
neighbors just to the east. For an ear-
lier period John T. Lanning (1935:171) and
others seem to place the Chacato still
farther north and east, remarking that,
although the Chatot lived "near the middle
course of the Chipola River and west of
the Apalachicola River" when first report-
ed by the Spaniards in 1639, "Their his-
tory was, however, tied up with the
Georgia tribes." That Lanning cited no
source for this judgment leaves one to
wonder whether it was based on anything
more solid than the Florida governor's
1639 mention of them in conjunction with
the Apalachicola and Amacano as having
just made peace with the Apalachee under
his auspices.

By September of 1674 the two friars could
boast that more than 300 of the Chacato
had become Christian, including the caci-
ques of the two mission settlements. But
the overzealous pressure tactics used to
achieve such results had stirred up trou-
ble as well. Three feared warriors pro-
tested over being pressed to become Chris-
tians against their will, threatening the
chiefs with trouble at the hands of their
Chisca friends from a settlement relative-
ly nearby, some of whom were living in the
mission villages. Alerted by the friars,
Apalachee's lieutenant brought a small

force of soldiers and 25 harquebus-armed
Apalachee to restore calm. During their
eight-day stay in Chacato territory peace
was restored, the three recalcitrants be-
came Christians nominally at least along
with more than 50 others, and the trou-
blesome Chisca present in the two mission
centers were expelled (Valverde and
Barrera 1674).

That resort to force did not resolve the
underlying tensions between the new and
the old ways that resurfaced in a more
serious form in less than a year as the
implications of conversion became more
evident to the natives and as the friars
made it clear that nominal conversion
would not satisfy them. During the summer
of 1675 three noted warriors named Juan
Fernandez de Diocsali, Luis Ubabesa, and
Juaquin forged a conspiracy, phrased eu-
phemistically at the start as envisioning
only the expulsion of the bothersome friar
Barrera, who was alone at San Carlos at
that time. Presumably they were the same
three recalcitrants who had threatened
trouble in 1674. Diocsali almost cer-
tainly was one of them. The friars' re-
port that Juan Fernandez de Florencia
served as godfather for one of the recal-
citrants suggests that Diocsali was the
man in question in view of the Christian
name he adopted as does also the involve-
ment of the Chisca as will be seen below
(Fernandez de Florencia 1675b; Valverde
and Barrera 1674).

As in Guale in 1597, the culture clash
over sexual mores was the heart of the
matter. Diocsali, already angered by the
friar's chiding him about attending Mass
regularly and the need to send away three
of the four women with whom he had been
living before his baptism, was pushed to
thoughts of murder when the friar had
three of the women removed from his house
and insisted that the eighty-year old
warrior make the first of the four his
wife in a Catholic ceremony. In view of
Diocsali's reputation for having Chisca at
his house regularly for meals, the loss of
those three women's services was a hard
blow, not to mention the loss of status
that it probably involved as well. The
other two, however, Ubabesa and Juaquin,
initiated the conspiracy after Fray

Barrera reprimanded Ubabesa for an adul-
terous affair with a Christian Chacato
woman while her husband was absent in
Apalachee. When Barrera punished the
woman and scolded Ubabesa publicly at
Sunday Mass in response to the returned
husband's complaint, Juaquin broached the
idea of killing the priest.

That discontent was widespread is indica-
ted by the conspirators' rapid winning
of the support of the 80 men at San
Antonio, the inhabitants of the unidenti-
fied small village, and many of the people
of San Nicoldas. But it is difficult to
gauge how much this phenomenon resulted
from discontent and how much from fear of
the conspirators' bullying threats that
they would have the Chisca come to kill
everyone who opposed the action or did not
follow them (Fernandez de Florencia
1675b). San Carlos' cacique testified
that Diocsali had all the people of San
Carlos and San Nicolas frightened by his
threats that, if they did not follow him,
he would have the Chisca kill them
(Cacique Carlos 1675: 135). Felipe, the
usinulo of San Carlos, testified that, as
a brave, Diocsali had all the Chacato
"subject to his will and also because of
their fear of the Chiscas" and that
Diocsali threatened them with the Chisca,
"that he would send to summon them because
he was their owner and that they would do
what he wished and that they obeyed his
orders out of fear (Phelipe usinulo
1675:132). Other Chacato corroborated
that testimony about Diocsali's sway over
the Chisca, and Fernandez de Florencia
(1675b), in his opening statement for the
inquiry into this tumult, accused Diocsali
of having assembled some Chisca and other
caciques to support him. But there is no
other indication that the Chisca as a
people actually participated in this move-
ment as they had in the 1647 revolt of the
Apalachee. All the talk of the Chisca
coming may have been nothing more in this
case than a psychological ploy, as Dioc-
sali claimed also that "the places of the
province of Apalachicola also were at his
disposal," a claim that was patently false
(Cacique Carlos 1675:135). That from the
start the rebels planned to flee to Tawasa
once they had killed Fray Barrera and the
friar at Santa Cruz de Savacola rather

than remaining to defend their villages
suggests that they did not have much sup-
port from the Chisca in this enterprise at
least initially (Fernandez de Florencia

In their initial approaches to the caci-
que, enija, usinulo, and fiscal of San
Carlos the plotters spoke only of expel-
ling the troublesome friar from their
land, asking for a contribution of two
deerskins from each to bring that about.
Only after San Carlos' leaders refused to
contribute any deerskins and objected that
they could not expell the friar, who could
be removed only by his prelate, and made
it clear that they would resist any at-
tempt to expel or harm him, did the con-
spirators resort to threats and reveal the
full scope of their plans (Juan Ebanje-
lista 1675:131; Phelipe usinulo 1675:132;
Nicolas fiscal 1675:133-134). This loyal
element that spurned the invitation and
ignored the threats included initially all
the known leaders at San Carlos except
Diocsali and at San Nicolas it included
the cacique and the enija, although San
Nicolas' young cacique seems to have been
wavering from the start. San Nicolas'
chacal or fiscal, Juaquin, was one of the

On being apprised of the threat, the loyal
element set up a guard to protect the
friar. The enija of San Carlos, Cutca
Martin, and the cacique of San Nicolas
soon defected under the pressure and that
cacique declined Fray Barrera's request
that he accompany him to San Luis with his
harquebus. As the loyal element shrank,
Cutca Martin panicked most of San Carlos'
remaining inhabitants by affixing a shield
at the edge of San Carlos' plaza and
spreading a report that the Chisca were on
their way to kill all those who remained
to defend the friar. This impelled the
loyal Chacato to advise Fray Barrera to
try to save himself by fleeing to Santa
Cruz. Seemingly unaware that Cutca Martin
had joined the conspirators, the loyal
Chacato permitted Cutca to choose two
young men who were to guide the friar, as
that responsibility fell normally within
the enija's purview. Cutca instructed the
guides to kill the friar at their first
opportunity. That San Carlos' leaders

sent no warriors to protect Barrera raises
a suspicion that, Pilate-like, they were
washing their hands of the affair.

A short distance from the San Carlos plaza
the young guides asked the friar for a
light for their tobacco. As the friar
bent over to retrieve it from whatever
baggage he carried, one of the young men
struck him on the head and then in the
face with a hatchet, felling the friar.
The stunned and wounded friar was able
nonetheless to grab the musket that he
carried and to kill his assailant, at
which the second Indian fled to bring news
of the failure to San Carlos. Although
the friar had to pass San Nicolas on his
way to Santa Cruz, no attempt seems to
have been made to intercept or to overtake
him despite the short lead the friar must
have had. Diocsali himself, on arriving
at the house of the cacique of San Carlos
not long afterward to inquire of the caci-
que's wife whether news of the friar's
death had arrived as yet, on being told
that the friar had killed the Indian,
allegedly contented himself with an idle
boast that, if he had not been late and if
he had made the attempt as he was supposed
to, the friar would not have escaped and
he would have split the friar's skull like
a pumpkin with his first blow. After this
debacle most of the Chacato who had not
left already fled to Tawasa for refuge,
according to their testimony later, "out
of fear of the Apalachee." This incident
also suggests that San Carlos' leaders
were not unaware of the fate to which they
had condemned the friar, but if the Span-
ish authorities harbored that suspicion,
they did not voice it.

Shortly prior to the crisis that led to
his flight, Fray Barrera had sent the
enija of San Nicolas to San Luis with an
appeal to the acting lieutenant, Diego
Perez, for aid. On the next day, July 29,
Perez dispatched five soldiers and nine
Indians drawn from San Luis and Escambe to
help the loyal Chacato protect the priest,
explaining that at the moment few
Apalachee could be sent as they were then
still engaged in the second hoeing for
some fields (three hoeings or cavas was
the normal routine), because of the rains
having been late. When Perez heard short-

ly thereafter from Fray Juan Ocon at Santa
Cruz that Fray Barrera's guard force of
loyal Chacato had shrunk to 20, Perez dis-
patched 24 archers to catch up with the
first force that he had sent. And, by
August 2, on learning of the attempt on
Barrera's life, Perez sent an additional
11 gunmen (presumably natives) with orders
for the entire relief force to return to
San Luis with the two priests until the
crops were in and the authorities were in
a better position to assess the problems
they faced. To lessen the danger in the
meantime Perez reported to the governor:

Today I have sent for the interpreter
(atiqui) for the Chiscas in order to
dispatch him to speak to the Chisca
caciques, asking them not to give sup-
port to the Chacatos, because, if they
give in, sir, we are going to have our
hands full because there are many
Chiscas. And, that on the way, he
should see whether there is a way of
speaking with the Chacatos and to tell
them to calm down and that they may
come [here] under a pledge of safety to
give an account of the reason for the
uprising (Perez 1675b:123).

Upon the arrival of the regular lieuten-
ant, Fernandez de Florencia, Fray Juan de
Paiva, pastor at San Luis, persuaded him
to attempt a peaceful resolution of the
crisis by offering amnesty to all but the
principal conspirators and pledging that
even the chief conspirators' lives would
be spared if they returned to stand trial.
Santiago, the loyal enija of San Nicolas,
was sent to Tawasa to make that offer in
the name of the governor, the king, and
Fray Paiva. The Chacato population fig-
ures given by Bishop Calderon, 100 for San
Carlos and 30 for San Nicolas, probably
represent the number who accepted the
offer immediately and returned with
Santiago. Diocsali and Juaquifn, two of
the ringleaders, and Miguel, cacique of
San Nicolds, were among those who returned
to San Carlos to stand trial and to be
taken to San Luis for their statement and
sentencing. Diocsali was condemned to
perpetual exile from his village and re-
manded to St. Augustine for what seems to
have amounted to house arrest. Cacique
Miguel was given a year of unpaid labor in

the royal works and three years of forced
labor with pay. Juaquin received the same
sentence. Miguel's sentence was commuted
in less than a year at the request of Fray
Paiva and the cacique returned to assume
his functions (Fernandez de Florencia
1675b; Hita Salazar 1677b).

It is not known whether any friar returned
to the Chacato mission villages of the
Marianna region or how long the Chacato
remained there after the inquiry into the
revolt held at San Carlos in October of
1675. That the friars did not return
seems indicated by Fernandez de Floren-
cia's statement that the "two missions of
the Province of the Chactos ... are no
more" (Boyd 1948:186), but his report to
the governor in which that statement was
made is, oddly, dated July 15, 1675, two
weeks before Fray Barrera's flight from
the province. Both mission villages were
abandoned by the natives some time before
September of 1677, a fact reported by the
leaders of an Apalachee attack force that
passed that way in that month (Fernandez
de Florencia 1677).

Citing Gardiner as his source, Lankford
(1983:2) posits the migration of other
Chacato as well, noting that "In 1677 the
Chato finally abandoned Choctawhatchee
Bay, their ancestral home, if the name of
the bay is any guide (Gardiner 1969:6)."
But, when Gardiner (1969:6) said "The
records indicate the area was abandoned by
them in 1677," he was speaking of the
Marianna region, not Choctawhatchee Bay.
Indeed on the same page Gardiner stated
flatly "It is almost certain because of
the presence of numerous historic arti-
facts covering the period between A.D.
1550 and 1650 that the people in and
around Pensacola and Choctawhatchee Bay
were the Pensacola." What Lankford could
have had in mind were the Chacato and
Pansacola who shared the Chisca village on
the Choctawhatchee River that the
Apalachee attacked in 1677. The Chacato
and Pensacola had opened a trail to the
sea from that village, but in view of the
sharp westward swing of the Choctawhatchee
as it approaches the bay, it is probable
that the seacoast frequented via that
trail was to the east of Choctawhatchee
Bay and closer to St. Andrew Bay. It was

that seaward trail that the Apalachee
headed for once they had passed the
Chacato missions, fearing that the Chisca
would have posted sentinels on the direct
trail westward that linked San Carlos and
the Chisca village (Fernandez de Florencia

Some time before September of 1677 the
loyal Chacato of San Carlos at least had
moved to a new San Carlos de los Chacatos
mission located in Apalachee a little over
a kilometer to the west of San Luis on
lands under the jurisdiction of the chief
of San Luis. Many of the Chacato remained
in Tawasa territory near present day
Montgomery, Alabama. Some of those allied
with the Chisca probably remained in West
Florida, though not in the Marianna region
villages, it seems. The old San Nicold's
mission was still uninhabited in 1693 when
another Spanish expedition from Apalachee
passed there (Leonard 1939:267).

In an article about the Waddells Mill Pond
site (8Ja65) Gardiner (1966:57) stated
that "It seems reasonably certain that Ja
65 is indeed the village of San Carlos,"
although the author cautioned that no his-
torical material was found on the site.
Eight years earlier Mark F. Boyd (1958:
260) similarly placed San Nicolas in the
vicinity of Rock Arch Cave in the Florida
Caverns State Park. Neither identifica-
tion has been borne out by subsequent

After considerable work on 8Ja65, B.
Calvin Jones rejected the possibility that
it could be the site of the San Carlos
mission. He noted, however, that 8Ja65
was an important ceremonial mound site and
possibly the center for the 25 to 30 pre-
historic settlement sites that he has lo-
cated in the vicinity of Marianna. Some
of those sites, Jones believes (as does
Gardiner), were occupied probably until
the beginning of the historic era and
their inhabitants may well have been the
ancestors of the mission-era Chacato. But
Jones observed that the intensity of the
human occupation of this region bears no
comparison to that of the Apalachee region
just to the east (Jones 1973; 1975; 1987).

A statement made during the 1675 inquiry
into the Chacato revolt could be interpre-
ted as signifying that both the Chacato
and the Chisca had been in that area since
the start of the seventeenth century at
least. Diocsali was described as eighty
years of age, as having been raised in the
household of the father of the chief of
San Carlos, and as having been installed
later as chief of San Carlos by the San
Carlos chief's father (Chief Carlos 1675:
135). Nothing was said about the circum-
stances under which Chief Carlos had as-
sumed leadership.

Jones has also rejected the Rock Arch Cave
area as the site of the San Nicolas mis-
sion, based on his surface survey, noting
that, to date, no archaeological evidence
of the Spanish presence of 1674-1675 has
been found anywhere in the region (Jones
1987). The brevity and the limited nature
of the Spanish presence in that region are
certainly factors contributing to that re-
sult. Jones remains hopeful, neverthe-
less, that continued research will reveal
some key that will point the way to the
mission structures that would serve as an
unquestionable signature.

Documentary evidence about the Chacato
missions' architectural structures is
minimal. San Carlos is known to have had
a church and the convent there was men-
tioned in terms that suggest that it may
have been a two story structure similar to
that of the later Creek chiefs' summer
house. The granary at San Carlos was
definitely an elevated structure large
enough and close enough to the convent to
function as the guardpost housing the war-
riors who were protecting Fray Barrera.
The most striking feature, perhaps, is the
absence in the records of any mention of a
council house coupled with the frequent
mention of the plaza and the plaza's
serving as the scene for functions that in
Apalachee would have been held in the
council house. The lieutenant's inquiry
into the revolt was held in the plaza of
San Carlos, but when the concluding phase
of the process, the recording of the
statements of the guilty leaders who had
returned to face justice and their sen-

tencing, was moved to San Luis, it was
held in the council house. Gary Shapiro
has suggested that this might indicate
that the Chacato plaza was the equivalent
of the Creek squareground. That the resi-
dence of the former cacique, Diocsali, was
ample is suggested by the allusions to his
constantly having a number of Chisca stay-
ing there.

On the whole the nomenclature used for the
Chacato leadership parallels that used for
Apalachee, cacique principal, cacique,
enija, enija principal, usinulo, and
chacal or fiscal. San Carlos' cacique was
given the title of cacique principal, but
it was San Nicolas' loyal enija who was
denominated enija principal. Tascaia, the
term for warrior, is the same as that for
Apalachee. But the allusion to Diocsali
as a "great warrior" together with the
following that he had suggests the Creek
institution of the Tustunnuggee thlucco
described by Hawkins (1982:72) rather than
anything known from the Apalachee.

The tenuous evidence available suggests
that Chacato leadership may not have been
determined matriarchically. Diocsali was
installed earlier as chief of San Carlos
by the 1675 chief's father, who had raised
Diocsali in his household, and Diocsali
became chief despite, or perhaps because
of, his mother being a Chisca. The re-
peated allusions to Diocsali's being a
feared warrior and as having the trouble-
some Chisca at his command suggests that
security may have been a consideration in
the elevation of Diocsali. There are
references to Diocsali's "protecting" the
Chacato from greater harassment by the
Chisca than that which they were forced to
endure. Chief Carlos' succession to the
chieftainship suggests a father-son line
of descent along with the adoptive-son
pattern signified by Diocsali's chieftain-
ship. Generational considerations may
have been a factor as well in Diocsali's
elevation and demotion, as cacique Carlos
was 20 years younger than the eighty-year
old Diocsali. This may, of course, have
resulted simply from the old chief's lack
of a sister to provide such an heir or
from the unfitness of her progeny.

The frequent allusion to Ubabesa and
Juaqui'n as well as "feared warriors"

suggests that prowess as a warrior may
have been more a path to power in the
Chacato's marcher country than it was
among more settled and secure groups such
as the Apalachee and the Timucua. Fur-
thermore, the following that these rebel
leaders attracted along with the enijas'
defiance of their caciques at both mis-
sions suggests that the power and prestige
of the cacique were not very great. The
enija at SanNicolas remained loyal to the
Spaniards despite the defection of his
chief and served as Fray Paiva's envoy to
the rebels who fled to Tawasa. At San
Carlos the enija eventually joined the
rebels, but was still in San Carlos when
the lieutenant and the friar came there
after the revolt. On that occasion he
received permission from the lieutenant to
go to Tawasa to bring back his wife and
children, but he remained in Tawasa in-
stead and along with Ubabesa sought to
impede Santiago's mission of reconcili-
ation (Santiago 1675:138-139).

The Spanish authorities' use of both
Apalachee and Chacato interpreters for the
questioning of the Chacato witnesses
during the inquiry into the revolt indi-
cates that the two languages were dis-
tinct. Chacta Alonso, the Chacato inter-
preter, translated from Apalachee to
Chacato and vice-versa. Diego Salvador,
an Apalachee native who was a veteran
interpreter for the royal authorities
whose experience went back at least to
1657, translated from Apalachee to Spanish
and vice-versa. To ensure that Salvador
transmitted the questions and answers
faithfully, Pedro de Florencia, an
Apalachee-speaking Spaniard, monitored the
process, although that hardly seems to
have been necessary as Juan Ferndndez de
Florencia himself, who directed the pro-
cess, was conversant with the Apalachee
tongue. Apalachee and Chacato may have
been closely enough related, however,

through common ties to Choctaw to permit a
degree of mutual understanding without an
interpreter. During the 1677 expedition
against the Chisca the Apalachee were suf-
ficiently conversant with the speech of
their Chacato guides to understand them
when the discontented Chacato began to
talk among themselves of deserting
(Fernandez de Florencia 1675b; 1677). Of
course this incident could also indicate

merely that these western Apalachee had
had sufficient contact with the Chacato to
become acquainted with their tongue. Dur-
ing the 1695 visitation of the supposedly
Chacato-speaking Chine in Apalachee, the
visitor used his Apalachee interpreter,
but to converse with a group of Chacato
refugees at Escambe (in Apalachee) he used
a Chacato interpreter (Florencia 1695:57).
Whatever was the Chine's native language,
they had probably learned Apalachee by
1695, having been in the province for at
least a generation. Chacato seems to have
been distinct from Choctaw as well. Even
though Marcos Delgado had Chacato with him
on his projected trek to the Choctaw's
country in 1686, he brought along, to
serve as interpreter, a Christian Choctaw,
who lived at San Luis, and who had been
captured by the Chisca as a young boy
(Boyd 1937:13).

Despite the known impact of epidemics on
Florida's natives during the seventeenth
century, the Chacato leadership in 1675
contained a surprising number of indivi-
duals of mature age. Diocsali's eighty
years have already been mentioned. Caci-
que Carlos was 60, Juaquin, the chacal,
55, Nicolas, the fiscal for San Carlos,
and Santiago, enija for San Nicolas, 45,
and the usinulo, Felipe, 40. Miguel, the
cacique of San Nicolas, at 30, was the
youngest whose age was recorded during the
inquiry. The father of Ubabasa, Bacta
Diego, also was alive and fit enough to
carry some of the deerskins he collected
to Tawasa as a present, as was a brother
of Juaquin. Perhaps the Chacato's rela-
tive isolation from the Spaniards protec-
ted them to a degree.

The oppressive nature of the Chisca's
presence in the Chacato territory and the
Chacato's fear of their Chisca neighbors
is reflected strongly in the 1675
testimony. Typical is that by Juan
Ebanjelista, parish interpreter at San
Carlos, in speaking of Diocsali.

And that even though they received
injury from the said Chiscas on many
occasions when they were hunting in
their woods, both these people of San
Carlos as well as those of San Nicolas,
and, even though they were in the habit

of taking the products (frutos) of
their woods, he was wont to threaten
them with the Chisca, and he would say
that it was through him that they en-
joyed peace; that, if that were not
what he wanted, they would not have it
(Ebanjelista 1675:131).

The Chisca'a image as projected
testimony is reminiscent of

in the

Mathews' remark only four years earlier
about the coastal natives of South
Carolina being "Affraid of ye very foot
step of a Westoe" to whom Florida's Chisca
seem to have been closely related (Swanton
1922:68, 288-290). The same fear of the
Chisca was manifested in the Chacato
guides' planned desertion of the 1677
Apalachee expedition against the Chisca.
Although hunger and the hardships of the
trail contributed to the Chacato's dis-
content, they complained as well "that the
Apalachee were mere boys who did not know
how to fight, who would flee on seeing
the palisade of the Chiscas, and that they
would all perish." While the Apalachee
threatened to bring the Chacato along by
force if necessary until they had found
the Chisca village, they gave the Chacato
the option of not participating in the
attack and, in fact, only three of the ten
Chacato took part in the attack (Fernandez
de Florencia 1677). Whatever was the
gesture's connotation, for many in San
Carlos the certainty of the reports that
the Chisca were on their way to kill those
who remained with the priest was
symbolized by a shield (rodela) that the
enija Cutca Martin "nailed up alongside
the plaza so that he might instill fear in
them with it" (Ebanjelista 1675:131-132).
Despite the Chacato's fear of the Chisca,
or possibly because of it, the Chisca
village attacked by the Apalachee housed
Chacato and Pansacola as well (Fernandez
de Florencia 1677). It is not clear
whether any of those Chacato living in the
Chisca village were refugees from the de-
funct Chacato missions of San Carlos and
San Nicolas or from San Antonio. The
Spanish records speak only of the mission
Chacato's having fled to Tawasa.

Confusion and mystery surround
those mission villages and
habitants immediately after

the fate of
their in-
the conclu-

sion of the inquiry at San Carlos early in
October of 1675. It is not known how soon
after the inquiry the Chacato abandoned
their Marianna area villages. Prior to
September of 1677 some of the Christian
Chacato had settled half a league west of
San Luis on lands under the jurisdiction
of the chief of San Luis. In September of
1677 the Apalachee expedition reported
that both San Nicolas and San Carlos were
abandoned, but did not say that they had
been destroyed. The Apalachee's remarks
about their approach to San Carlos suggest
that some or all of its structures were
still standing. As the Apalachee drew
near to San Carlos they left the trail and
slept to one side of it and in the wee
hours of the morning surrounded the place
entirely "to see if there were any Chiscas
there because it is their regular stopping
place" (Fernandez de Florencia 1677).

On the other hand a mid-1677 inquiry into
the conduct of Diocsali during his detain-
ment in St. Augustine indicates that the
Chacato villages were attacked by the
Chisca probably less than a year after the
1675 inquiry under circumstances that
could have involved their destruction. In
July of 1677 the governor charged that

while the said Juan Fernandez Diosale
was in this said presidio with, as his
jail, the city that all the natives of
these provinces frequent, he had the
cunning to send word to the head chief
of the Chiscas so that they might enter
into the Christian provinces to inflict
damage, killing and disturbing their
inhabitants, not even sparing the very
place where they were born (Hita
Salazar 1677a).

The governor continued his remarks with an
enigmatic passage that suggests that the
pardoned chief of San Nicolas was in
league with Diocsali, noting that

when the said cacique had satisfied his
sentence of one year of exile and when
his excellency sent him back at the
request of the Reverend Father Fray
Juan de Payba...so that he might return
to governing his place, after a few
days the said cacique came to this
presidio with others of his nation with

a protest that he came to see his ex-
cellency the said senor governor. And,
his excellency having had a warning
from his said lieutenant that he pre-
sumed that they were coming with the
intention of carrying off the said
Diosale or to receive new orders from
him, his excellency launched a formal
investigation to have his lieutenant
verify the matter. After having re-
ceived the statements from both the
said cacique and from those whom he
brought in his company and the confes-
sion from the said Juan Fernandez
Diosale, it was proved and stated to be
true that he had sent to say to the
head cacique of the Chiscas, as his
very close friend, that he should dev-
astate all the land without leaving a
trace of any person at all (Hita
Salazar 1677a).

For this mischief Diocsali was given per-
petual exile in Mexico and remanded to the
custody of the archbishop viceroy of New

The fate and subsequent activity of the
cacique of San Nicolas are revealed in
part in the following order [reproduced in
part] issued by the governor on July 20,
1677 that is as enigmatic in places as are
his remarks quoted above.

Don Pablo de Hita Salazar, governor
ports from the captain Juan Fernandez
de Florencia...and likewise from the
Reverend Father Fray Juan de Payba in
which they tell me how the Chisca na-
tion [has] appeared to be on the Rio
Pansacola (presumably the Choctawhat-
chee) divided in two places (distan-
cias) and that the the (sic) Chacatos
who border on (? se alimaron a) the
Pansacolas and the cacique of San
Nicolas, who had been detained here,
was sent [to be?] with the Chacatos who
are in the province of Apalachee in the
doctrine of the Reverend Fr. Juan de
Payba [San Luis]. The which cacique
fled with six or seven of his nation,
saying he was going to gather his vas-
sals together and to bring them back.
And, according to the reports, he left
with a depraved intent, for it is known
from them that because of his mediation

the Chacatos have made peace with the
Chiscas, doing so with the calculation
of coming to disturb the Christian
provinces and of soliciting the parti-
cipation of the Pansacolas who are at
peace and who have shown themselves to
be our friends (Hita Salazar 1677b).

The above remarks by the governor suggest
that the Apalachee expedition against the
Chisca in September of 1677 may not have
been as entirely spontaneous on the part
of the Apalachee of San Luis and Escambe
as their account of the expedition by it-
self would lead one to believe. I have
found no further mention of the cacique of
San Nicolas, but he was possibly among the
Chacato who were living at the Chisca vil-
lage attacked by the Apalachee.

It is also unclear how long the Chacato
settlement near San Luis continued to be
occupied. It was in existence at the time
of the expedition of September 1677 as the
Chacato guides were reported as having
been recruited from a village that was on
lands under the jurisdiction of San Luis.
There was no mention of the Chacato only
two months later during Domingo de
Leturiondo's visitation of the province.
As he did not mention the Chine either
that omission may not have any signifi-
cance and both peoples may have been
included in the visitation of San Luis
without being mentioned. A mission named
San Carlos de los Chacatos described as a
new conversion appears on the 1680 mission
list, but there is no indication of its
location. Although the Chacato settlement
near San Luis appears on the 1683 map of
Florida attributed to Alonso Solana (Arana
1964), it is not known how up to date the
data was that it was based on. The visi-
tation record of 1694 reveals that the
Chacato had abandoned the site near San
Luis some time before 1694 and that at
least some of the Chacato refugees from a
Chacato mission on the Apalachicola, who
were housed at Escambe in December of
1694, had once lived at the Chacato set-
tlement near San Luis (Florencia 1695:57).
That it had been abandoned was indicated
clearly by the site's being referred to as
a chicasa. This link suggests that the
site near San Luis was abandoned when the
Chacato moved to or appropriated the site

of the 1674-1677 Savacola mission of Santa
Cruz on the west bank of the Apalachicola
River just below the confluence of the
Flint and the Chattahoochee at some time
prior to 1686. In that year this Apala-
chicola River settlement contained both
Chacato and Savacola, but the Savacola are
believed to have abandoned it soon after
the 1677 expedition against the Chisca in
which a few of the Christian Savacola

Confusingly, Marcos Delgado and Antonio
Matheos, Apalachee's lieutenant in 1686,
in their correspondence about the Delgado
expedition to the Choctaw country in that
year, refer to the Apalachicola River
village alternately as "the Chacatos,"
"village of San Carlos," "Pueblo of
Savacola," "Savacola," and "village of
Christian Chacatos" (Boyd 1937:13-14, 17,
22). In his introduction to the documents
Boyd compounded the confusion by his allu-
sions to "the Indian village of Sabacola
at the junction of the Flint and Chatta-
hoochie" and his explanatory note, "San
Carlos de Sabacala, or Savacola, an Indian
pueblo on the banks of the Apalachicola
river near the site of the present village
of Chattahoochee, Fla." (Boyd 1937:6, 30).

Disoriented, apparently, by this confusing
association of the Chacato and the
Savacola in 1686 and later in the decade
in subsequent listings of the missions,
John Tate Lanning invented a Chatot mis-
sion on the Ocmulgee River five years ear-
lier in 1681. Lanning (1935:172) noted
that "It appears that Francisco Gutierrez
de Vera, attending a Chatot mission on the
Ocmulgee River near Coweta (Butts County,
Georgia), was joined by some disaffected
Lower Creeks (Chichumecos) in 1681." In
Woodbury Lowery's copy of what appears to
be the same May 19, 1681 letter by Fray
Gutierrez de Vera cited by Lanning, there
is no mention of Chatot; Fray Vera's
residence was the Savacola mission on the
Chattahoochee in the vicinity of present
day Columbus; and the only allusion to
Coweta is an appended note written after
May 19 in which Vera observed that the son
of the cacique of Caveta had arrived at
Savacola with news that many Chuchumecos
had come recently to Caveta to live
(Gutierrez de Vera 1681, n.d.). There

does not appear to be any reason to place
Coweta on the Ocmulgee as early as 1681,
as Caveta's eastward move from its Chatta-
hoochee River site seems to have occurred
only after Antonio Matheos burned the vil-
lage during his second foray in search of
the English traders whom the Apalachicola
protected. That occurred only in the mid-
1680s. Although descendants of Lanning's
Chichumecos of 1681 at Coweta probably be-
came Lower Creek, it is more informative
to identify these Chuchumecos of 1681 as
Westo refugees from their recent war with
the Carolinians in which they were badly

To muddy the waters additionally, a 1686
report by Florida's governor alludes to
Chacato desiring to occupy farmlands in
the vicinity of a recently established
Spanish blockhouse at Savacola, to the
Chacato's maintaining a war party in the
vicinity of the blockhouse, and of even-
tually slipping in undetected one night
and killing three Indians before they were
discovered and repulsed. The blockhouse
had a garrison of 50 Apalachee warriors
drawn from San Luis and Escambe, who pur-
sued the attackers across the river. This
subject needs further research as I have
only a few excerpts, that I made in 1976,
from this lengthy document. This block-
house may have been a temporary structure
built on the chicasa of the Savacola
village near Columbus that served as
Matheos' base camp during his efforts to
hunt down the English traders (Marques
Cabrera 1686). This structure would
antedate the better known Apalachicola
blockhouse and stockade built in 1689 in
the village of that name on the orders of
the next governor, Diego de Quiroga y

Little is known about the fate of the
probable majority of the Chacato of the
Marianna region who did not accept the
Spanish pardon in 1675 and remained in
Tawasa and elsewhere as refugees. Two of
the rebel leaders, Luis Ubabesa and Cutca
Martin, the enija, remained in Tawasa and
sought to thwart the rebels' return under
the pardon arranged by Fray Paiva. As
noted above, the subjects of the cacique
of San Nicolas were spoken' of as having
scattered during his imprisonment. On a

visit to San Luis in the spring of 1686
the cacique of Tawasa brought 24 Christian
men and women with him, most if not all,
doubtless were fugitive Chacato from the
tumult of 1675. In reporting the visit,
Matheos noted that an unspecified number
of Christian natives remained in Tawasa
(Matheos 1686). Later that year during
Delgado's journey through Tawasa, at the
second village within the province where
he stopped, he was told of a Christian
Chacato named Clemente having been killed
in that region in a recent raid by the
Movila. Delgado identified the village of
Ogchay (Okchai) within the province of
Tiquepache just beyond the province of
Tawasa as inhabited by Chacato, but gave
no indication they were Christian or re-
cent immigrants (Boyd 1937:15, 25). It is
possible that Delgado's visit to Tawasa
led to the return of additional fugitive
Christian Chacato.

That might account for the reappearance of
a mission of San Nicolas de los Chacatos
on the 1689 mission list. San Carlos also
appeared on that list under the hybrid
name of San Carlos de Sabacola (Ebelino de
Compostela 1689). In a listing of the
convents in 1690 this settlement was men-
tioned under the exclusively Savacolan
name of Cavacola Chuba or Big Savacola.
The Chacato were mentioned among the vil-
lages not having a convent at that time,
but as Savacola Chuba's convent had two
friars, it is probable that one served the
Chacato (Luna 1690).

There may have been a falling out between
the Chacato and the Savacola at this
period. In their 1690 accounts of their
overland trek from San Luis to Pensacola
Bay neither Governor Torres nor Fray
Barrera mentioned the Savacola, referring
to the village at the crossing of the
Apalachicola as a Chacato village and "the
most outlying mission post...in this
region" (Leonard 1939:230, 267). The
following year Savacola participated in
the attack on that Chacato mission that
produced the refugees whom the visitor
Florencia encountered at Escambe in
December of 1694. At that meeting they
asked formally for permission to reoccupy
the site they had occupied earlier near
San Luis. To that end a formal agreement

was reached between the Chacato refugees
and the chief of San Luis spelling out the
Chacato's rights and establishing some
restrictions on hunting and gathering.
The Chacato were to reoccupy that site
after making a trip to some unidentified
place. Whether the Chacato reoccupied the
site or not is not known as they are not
mentioned on any of the subsequent mission
lists, but that may signify only that they
were considered to be part of the San Luis
doctrine (Florencia 1695:57, 72-73).

The 1694-16
also that
acquired ho
Chacato na
that Escamb
him for t
had sold to
ceived pay
pledged the
filly and
mount in

95 -

visitation record


by this time the Chacato had
rses. During the visitation a
Lmed Chuguta Mariana complained
e's cacique, don Vicente owed
:hree riding horses that Chuguta
him for which he had not re-
'ment. Cacique Vicente acknow-
debt, returning a mare with a
paying Chuguta for the third
the presence of the visitor

Wherever the Chacato settled, they re-
mained in the vicinity of Apalachee.
Early in 1699 40 Chacato recruited by a
Spaniard for a buffalo hunt in the region
west of Apalachee, participated in the
treacherous murder of a number of peaceful
Tiquepache, who were on their way to San
Luis to trade, whom they had encountered
on the trail. At the end of 1702
Christian Chacato were mentioned as among
the natives desirous of avenging the
recent attack on the Santa Fe mission by
neighboring non-Christian Indians (Boyd,
Smith and Griffin 1951:26, 37-38).
Several hundred or more of the Chatot
survived the 1704 onslaughts on Apalachee
that destroyed the missions there,
joining the Apalachee who migrated
westward to Pensacola and Mobile. If the
document is to be believed one of the ten
settlements that made up Lamhatty's
province of Towasa, located allegedly from
just west of the Apalachicola River to a
little west of the Choctawhatchee, may
have been inhabited by Chacato. This
village, named Choctouh on the Lamhatty
map, is shown just to the east of the
eastern branch of the river interpreted as
being the Choctawhatchee, at a
considerable distance from the coast at a

latitude a little above the confluence of
the Flint and Chattahoochee as allegedly
portrayed on this map (Bushnell 1908:568-
571; Swanton 1929:435-438).

In the spring of 1704 Governor Arriola
reported the presence of "Tabaza, Chacato,
and a few Apalachino Indians, who had come
to Pensacola driven from their homes in
Apalachee" (Griffen 1959:248). This mi-
gration seems to have occurred prior to
the general withdrawal from Apalachee in
July of 1704. By 1708 all the natives in
and around Pensacola loyal to the Span-
iards seem to have been killed or cap-
tured by Indians allied with the English
during their attacks on the Spanish out-
post during the preceding years or to have
moved on to Mobile to escape that constant
harassment. Early in 1708 Bienville
reported that during his recent stay in
Pensacola to assist in its defense he had
left Pensacola's governor three of his
Chacato from Mobile so that the governor
would be able to send out scouts to gather
intelligence about impending attacks on
the Spanish outpost (Higginbotham
1977:313; Rowland and Sanders 1932:111:

The majority of the Chacato, however, pro-
ceeded directly to Mobile in the summer of
1704 when they abandoned Spanish territory
along with the Apalachee from San Luis.
These 200 Chacato who accompanied cacique
Juan and his mother Jacinta were assigned
lands initially at the mouth of the Mobile
River at a site then called Oigonets that
was preempted by the French in 1711 when
they moved Mobile downriver to its present
site. The Chacato were then moved farther
south into the bay to a site a short dis-
tance up Dog River. Though these Chacato
escaped the initial yellow fever epidemic
that afflicted the Apalachee upon their
arrival in late summer of 1704, many had
succumbed to disease before 1711 (Higgin-
botham 1977:192-194, 244, 304, 455, 457).
About 20 years later Bienville noted in
his memoirs that of the 250 men who ar-
rived in 1704 only 40 were left, whom he
described as "very brave and very labori-
ous," observing that they had come from
St. Joseph's Bay where they used to hunt
for the Spaniards (Rowland and Sanders
1932:111:535-536). One of his tests of

their mettle had been to send separate
parties of 15 of them and of 25 Tawasa
upriver early in 1708 to raid the town of
Koasati to capture prisoners who might
provide intelligence about the plans of
the English and their Indians for further
attacks on Pensacola. The expeditions
returned with four prisoners who told of
Anglo-Indian plans for a massive assault
on Pensacola which occurred shortly there-
after (Higginbotham 1977:310; Rowland and
Sanders 1932:111:114). Bienville's choice
of the Chacato as well as the Tawasa for
that enterprise may indicate that some of
the Chacato at Mobile were familiar with
the Koasati town from the 1675 migration
to Tawasa territory.

Upon the cession of the Mobile region to
Britain in 1763, the surviving "Chatot
moved to Louisiana and settled on Bayou
Boeuf" and from there had moved on to the
Sabine River by 1817 (Swanton 1946:108).
Like the similar moves of the other
"Spanish" Indians such as the Apalachee,
the Chacato's move to Texas probably
followed the cession of the Louisiana
territory to the United States.

The Chisca

The Chisca appear early and relatively
often in the sixteenth century Spanish
records as people living at several places
in the mountainous interior of the South-
east who were acquainted with the working
of metal. The Gentleman of Elvas recorded
that de Soto, on meeting the cacique of
Acoste, asked if the chief had reports of
any rich land in the region. The chief
replied, yes, that "toward the north there
was a province called Chisca and that
there was founding of copper and of anoth-
er metal of that color except that it was
more refined (acendrado) and of a much
more perfect color and much better in ap-
pearance and that it was not used as much
because of being softer, and the same
thing was said to the governor in
Cutifachique where we saw some little
hatchets (machadinhos) that had a mixture
of gold (Elvas 1557:lxiii-lxv). Farther
west after de Soto had crossed the
Mississippi, Chisca was mentioned again by
Elvas as a land where there was gold and
founding of copper and gold (Elvas

1968:107, 116). Of the Chisca near Coste
Rangel noted only that from Coste "the
Governor sent two soldiers to view the
province of Chisca, which was reputed very
rich, toward the north, and they brought
good news" (Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdez
1904:110). Garcilaso de la Vega gave the
name Chisca to another people living near
the Mississippi (Vega 1951:423-428) and
modern authorities consider the Quizquiz,
mentioned by another de Soto chronicler,
to be the same Mississippi-region Chisca
(Swanton 1922:293).

A generation or so later, early in 1567,
Juan Pardo's lieutenant, Hernando Moyano,
fought the Chisca some distance north of
Joara (de Soto's Xuala) (DePratter, Hudson
and Smith 1983:131-135). During an
inquiry held at St. Augustine in 1600 to-
gather information about the lands and
natives of the Tama region and the hin-
terland farther north visited by Pardo and
Moyano, an hispanicized Indian woman,
brought out by Moyano in the 1560s as a
very young girl, described the Chisca in
mythic terms as fair-skinned, blue-eyed
natives, who looked like Flemings, wore
clothes, and possessed gold (Serrano y
Sanz 1912:149).

The Chisca of seventeenth century Florida
proper and tribes related to them were
portrayed in a far less favorable light.
The Chisca's presence in Florida seems to
have been recorded only in 1639 when they
were described as a warlike people, who
prided themselves of that, and who roamed
freely through the provinces of Spanish
Florida. Viewing them as potentially
valuable allies, who might be useful for
hunting down Christianized natives who
fled from the doctrinas, the governor
tried to entice them to settle down on the
Rio Blanco near a Christianized Timucuan
village about ten leagues from St.
Augustine (Vega Castro y Pardo 1639).
That they were mentioned in the same
letter in which notice of the Chacato was
first taken suggests that the Chisca were
neighbors of the Chacato already, as does
the San Carlos cacique's adoption of young
Diocsali about 1600.

The governor's hopes of alliance with the
Chisca were never realized. Instead the

Chisca became a thorn in the side of the
Spaniards in helping to instigate the 1647
revolt in Apalachee, in raiding missions
in Apalachee and elsewhere for slaves, and
in being involved in the Chacato troubles
of 1674 and 1675. And in the eighteenth
century under the name of Yuchi, they con-
tinued to torment the Spaniards and the
aborigines of Florida as far south as the
Keys until 1763 (Hann 1988). On the bor-
ders of Guale, Tama, and Timucua the
Chisca's cousins, the Chichimeco or Westo
gained a similar reputation (Aranquiz y
Cotes 1662; Ponce de Leon 1651).

Because of their predatory activities the
Chisca and Chichimeco may have gained a
worse reputation than they merited.
Bishop Calderon's description of the
Chisca living near the Chacato is typical
of this "bad press" and probably echoed
what the Florida authorities believed as
revealed in a 1675 letter to the queen by
the governor. The governor characterized
the Chisca as "our enemies, rebellious
people, untamed and brought up licentious-
ly without the moderating effect of cul-
ture or other advantages, devoted solely
to the hunt, which is their sustenance and
with which these lands abound (Hita
Salazar 1675:2). The bishop described
them as "living in encampments without any
permanent dwellings" and as people "who
sustain themselves with game, nuts, and
roots of trees" (Wenhold 1936:9). Both
descriptions are open to question.

The Apalachee portrayed the Chisca village
that they attacked just two years later as
a large, palisaded, and seemingly perma-
nent settlement 300 paces to a side. The
Apalachee took ears of maize from two
Chisca huntsmen whom they surprised in the
woods smoking meat and noted the existence
of many guaritas or corncribs in the
village and savannas or planted fields to
which the Apalachee went to gather provi-
sions for the trek back to Apalachee.
Within the palisade were three large
houses the walls of which had loopholes
through which the Chisca could fire their
arrows. Other high platforms were men-
tioned in addition to corncribs. Many of
the women and children who had taken
refuge in both types of elevated struc-
tures were burned alive when fire swept

through many of the structures in the
course of the assault. The settlement
appears to have been on the east bank of a
river at a point where it passed through a
gorge (Fernandez de Florencia 1677).

The motive for this assault, the Apalachee
leaders explained was "because for many
years past Christians have been being
attacked and killed on the royal roads
without our knowing whether [the culprits]
were Chisca or Chichimeco, and they car-
ried off men, women, and children as
slaves, but finally this past year of 1676
from the deaths that occurred at
Hucitachuco (sic) [Ivitachuco], it was
learned that they were Chiscas, and from
those that were inflicted on the Chines at
the place of Chacariz, and at Cupaica we
also learned that they were Chiscas"
(Fernandez de Florencia 1677). Although
the Apalachee portrayed the expedition as
inspired entirely by councils among the
leaders at San Luis and Cupaica, it is
probable that there was imput as well from
the governor's lieutenant in Apalachee who
sanctioned the enterprise and supplied
powder and balls to the 15 harquebusmen
from each of the two missions who were
part of the 190-man force. Those Chisca
raids had intensified beginning in 1676.
The reason for this has been touched upon
already--the messages sent by Diocsali
from his prison in St. Augustine to the
head chief of the Chisca. Although the
Apalachee explained that they waited until
September when their farm work was com-
pleted to take vengeance, it is probably
no coincidence that the expedition fol-
lowed so closely upon the governor's in-
quiry into the machinations of Diocsali
and the pardoned cacique of San Nicolas
(Fernandez de Florencia 1677; Hita Salazar
1677; Leturiondo 1678).

It is worthy of note that in this episode
and others the Apalachee and the Spaniards
seemingly considered the Chisca and the
Chichimeco to be peoples or bands that
were sufficiently distinct to justify the
use of discreet names rather than
considering the Chichimeco or Westo as
just another band of Yuchi as did Swanton
(1946:213). But the evidence points to
the Chisca, Chichimeco, and Yuchi being
closely related whatever the basis for

regarding them as distinct groups. In
many respects the Chisca were like the
fearsome, troublesome Westo-Chichimeco of
South Carolina. The fear that the Chisca
inspired in the Chacato mirrored that
which the Westo instilled in the natives
of coastal Carolina where the first
English settlers reported that the natives
were more afraid of the Westo "than the
little children of the Bull beggars in
England." Like the Chisca the Westo were
described as a rangingg sort of people"
(Crane 1956:6, 12-13). At times, both
were accused of cannibalism, charges that
seem unfounded, although as late as 1700
St. Augustine's pastor could refer to the
Chisca as Caribs (Leturiondo [1700]:177).
There is no doubt that the Chisca and
Chichimeco were closely related linguisti-
cally. When the Chichimeco swept into
Guale and Tama in the early 1660s the
Spaniards captured several of them and
employed two of the West Florida Chisca as
interpreters for the questioning of the
captives (Aranguiz y Cotes 1662).

A more direct tie that suggests the vir-
tual identity of the two groups is found
in a 1651 document. In that year
Florida's acting governor used the name
Sisica, probably a variant of Chisca, in
alluding to Indians who may have been the
Westo-Chichimeco. The governor instructed
the leader of a force he was sending to
Guale with supplies for the friars to in-
quire of the Guale leaders whether there
were any Sisica near their territory. If
there were any within two or three days
march, he was to assemble the necessary
native forces to seek them out and capture
or kill them, being careful to spare the
women and children with them, who, it was
believed, would be Christians whom they
had kidnapped from an unidentified doc-
trina. If he heard any reports that the
Sisica were planning an assault on Guale
with powerful forces, the Spanish force
was to establish itself at the point
believed to be most at risk "in order to
resist them, and capture them or kill
them" (Ponce de Leon 1651). The name
Sisica resembles Ysica, an alternate name
given to the Chisca when they were first
mentioned during the mission era in 1639
(Vega Castro y Pardo 1639). The appear-
ance of this group in Spanish Florida in

1651 brings into question Crane's identi-
fication of the Westo-Chichimeco with the
Ricahecrians "who had been expelled from
Virginia in 1656" (Crane 1956:5-6). It
should be noted, however, that the Span-
iards spoke of the Chichimeco of the 1660s
as having come from Jacan, the Spanish
name for Virginia.

However closely the Chisca and Chichimeco
were related, the relationship did not
preclude hostilities between the two
groups at times. In 1675 a soldier from
Apalachee reported that the cacique of the
Chisca had informed the commander of the
San Luis garrison of information the
Chisca chief had gained from a woman of
his tribe, who had been taken prisoner by
the Chichimeco and sold to the English at
Charles Town as a slave in exchange for a
gun and who had escaped later. In a
seemingly rare gesture of friendship, the
Chisca cacique warned the Spaniards that
the Chisca woman brought news that "there
were English in the village of the
Chichimecos who were teaching them to use
firearms with the purpose in view" of an
attack on St. Augustine and the destruc-
tion of the Christian Indians of Timucua
and Apalachee (Reding 1925:174).

The Chisca and Chichimeco's language was
distinct from that of the people among
whom they lived. In 1675 Apalachee's
lieutenant had an interpreter for the
Chisca distinct from his Chacato and
Apalachee interpreters (Fernandez de
Florencia 1675b). In 1716 Diego Peia
noted that the Uchee on the Chattahoochee
spoke a language diverse from all the
other languages then represented among the
Lower Creek--Muskogee, Hitchiti, Yamasee,
Savacola, and Apalachee (Boyd 1949:25).
Late in the eighteenth century Benjamin
Hawkins also observed that the Chattahoo-
chee River Uchee, whose ancestors he
identified as having come from South
Carolina and Georgia, spoke a language
different from that of the Creek. Swanton
(1922:297) suggested that the Yuchi may
have been Algonquian, but in his later
works (1939:54; 1946) stated only that the
Chisca were of Uchean stock and eschewed
any broader classification of their

Interestingly, Hawkins' portrayal of the
Chattahoochee River Uchee is much more
favorable than the Carolinians' portrayal
of the Westo from whom those Uchee may
have descended or than the Spaniards'
image of the Chisca "bandits" and "untamed
nomads" (montaraz). Hawkins described the
Uchee as more civil, orderly, and indus-
trious than their Creek neighbors, re-
marking that their women were more chaste,
their men better hunters, and that "the
men take part in the labors of the women,
and are more constant in their attachment
to their women, than is usual among red
people." He noted as well that they had
clung to their original customs and laws,
having adopted none from the Creek
(Hawkins 1982:61-62). Swanton (1946:214)
observed that even when the "Yuchi removed
to Oklahoma with the Creeks" they "still
held themselves aloof in some measure from
the Creeks proper."

The Chisca appear to have been the most
numerous group in West Florida in the
seventeenth century. Bishop Calderon put
their population at more than 4,000
(Wenhold 1936:9). And, as has been noted,
Apalachee's acting lieutenant remarked at
the time of the Chacato revolt that, if
the Chisca joined in, it meant real trou-
ble because they were many (Perez 1675b:
123). The figure of 4,000 plus seems to
indicate that there were other Chisca set-
tlements in the area in addition to the
one attacked in 1677 or the two places on
the Rio Pansacola of the governor's 1677
order mentioned earlier (Hita Salazar
1677b). Calvin Jones (Personal Communi-
cation 1987) believes that there are
Chisca sites in Houston County, Alabama.

It is not known whether the surviving
Chisca reoccupied the settlement destroyed
by the Apalachee in 1677. The 1693 over-
land expedition from San Luis to Pensacola
Bay apparently saw no natives at all from
their departure from the Chacato mission
on the Apalachicola until they reached the
bay. There they found only a few Chacato.
It is likely that the destroyed Chisca
village was abandoned. During the 1675
inquiry Diocsali stated that his reason
for having sent presents of deerskins to
Atasi and Toasi was so that they would not
harm the Chisca who were going to that

province to settle (Diocsali 1675:139).
The Chisca who survived the Apalachee
attack remained just across the river
after fleeing their village and during all
the first day after the battle for the
village, which lasted from three in the
morning until sunrise, the Chisca contin-
ued to fire arrows across the river into
the village. When the Apalachee set fire
to the rest of the village and headed
homeward two days later, a troop of Chisca
appeared on the trail in sight of them but
left without challenging them more direct-
ly when two Chisca were felled by the
chief of Cupaica and the enija of San Luis
with well placed shots from their fire-
arms. In a clearing about a league far-
ther on the Apalachee found an arrange-
ment of four snail shells and some pots of
boiled herbs. The puzzled Apalachee
learned from their Chacato guides that the
assemblage was designed to place a curse
on them so that they would not find their
way home and perish on the trail
(Fernandez de Florencia 1677).

There are indications, however, that
Chisca remained in or near West Florida
for some time after 1677. The Chisca's
presence nearby is suggested by the circa
1700 reference to the "Carib Indians" as a
threat to the trail from Apalachee to
Santa Maria de Galve (Pensacola)
(Leturiondo 1700:177). In 1686 while
Delgado was in the Upper Creek country in
the province of Cossate (Koasati), he sum-
moned various chiefs from the provinces
along the Alabama rivers as far away as
that of the Movila to promote peace among
them. During his speech to them, Delgado
reproached the chiefs from Movila over a
"report brought by Christian Indians from
Mobila of the killing of the Chisca
Indians who were brothers coming to see
us" (Boyd 1937:27-28).

Swanton (1929:443) identified the
"Ogolaughoos" of the Lamhatty map as "A
form of Hogologee or Hog Logee, which is
again a corruption of Tahogalewi, an
Algonquian name of the Yuchi" and added
"The Yuchi here mentioned are the Choc-
tawhatchee band." Another possible ref-
erence to the presence of Chisca in the
area Delgado traveled through on his way
to Tawasa was made by Apalachee's lieu-

tenant early in 1686. In the spring the
lieutenant sent a number of Esthama to
tour the Lower Creek country as spies to
gather intelligence for him about the re-
lations between the villages of the prov-
ince of Apalachicola and the English
traders and about the intentions about
rebuilding of the inhabitants of the towns
he had burned during the winter. His
spies forwarded a warning sent by the
cacique of the village of Apalachicola
about a large unidentified force spotted
by a hunting party from his village while
the hunters were "in the chicara of
Calossa which is located five days by
trail from the said province [Apalachi-
cola], that they heard many shots, and
that from afar they had seen a great
number of people who were coming toward
the Flint River." The hunters had been too
far away to identify them, but
Apalachicola's chief speculated that they
might be "English, Chichimecos or
Chiscais" (Matheos 1686). I believe that
chicara was meant to be chicasa or
abandoned village site. The identity of
Calossa is problematical.

Swanton (1922:214; 1939:224) associated a
Caluga or Coloose mentioned in the de Soto
chronicles with the Chickasaw and the
Black Warrior River or its tributary,
Black Water Creek. The second village in
the province of Tawasa in which Delgado
stopped later in 1686 was named Culasa,
identified by Boyd as "Qulasa, a village
on the Coosa River" (Boyd 1937:15, 30).
On the other hand, the allusion that the
strangers were coming toward the Flint
River coupled with the Apalachicola ca-
cique's speculation that they might be
English suggests that Calossa might have
been to the east of the Chattahoochee
rather than west or northwest of it.
Whereever the West Florida Chisca may have
lived immediately after 1677, they even-
tually settled among the Upper Creek,
where they came to be known later as the
Pea Creek Yuchi (Swanton 1946:213).

Rogers (1979:28) questioned efforts to
identify the Yuchi of the eighteenth
century with groups such as the earlier
Chisca and Westo, remarking that "there is
no indisputable evidence associating them
with any of those which various writers

have identified as Yuchi." Despite that
initial strong statement, she made little
attempt to deal with the evidence from
Spanish records. Furthermore, in the
opening lines of her conclusion, she
undermined that initial strong statement
thus: "The preceding discussion has served
mainly to play the role of devil's
advocate; it has provided no new answers
and has in fact given no real proof that
the explanatory positions taken by others
are untenable" (Rogers 1979:38).

The name Chisca seems to have appeared in
the Spanish records for the last time as
the name of a people in 1705 during the
testimony for the inquiry into the deaths
of the friars during the 1704 attacks on
Apalachee. Manuel Solana, son of the
Apalachee lieutenant, repeating hearsay
gleaned from captives who had escaped,
revived the old charge of cannibalism. In
telling of the atrocities inflicted on
some of the captives taken by the Indians
who were with Colonel Moore, Solana stated
that the Indians put the captives "in
stocks and there cut off the scalps from
the heads, and the breasts from the women,
and dried them on some long sticks and
even le parese heard it said [by] the
[escaped] captives that the Indians of the
Chichimeco and Chisca nations cut off
pieces, which they half roasted and ate,
in the battle of Ayubale" (Boyd, Smith and
Griffin 1951:81). For the remainder of
the first Spanish period Yuchi is the name
that one encounters for both those peoples
in the Spanish records.

The Pansacola

Although Narvaez and his men probably saw
some Pansacola as they sailed along West
Florida's coast in 1528, and de Soto's men
probed along the coast far to the west of
Apalachee to a land of Ochuse, and Tristan
de Luna landed on Pensacola bay, estab-
lished a short-lived settlement there, and
found a few natives living along the
Escambia River, they neither mentioned the
Pansacola by name nor left any useful des-
cription of the people whom they met or
saw at a distance. Even the documents of
the last quarter of the seventeenth cen-
tury in which the Pansacola are first men-

tioned by name, tell little about the peo-
ple for whom the bay was named.

The Pansacola seem to have been mentioned
by name for the first time in a July of
1677 order by the governor and in the
September of 1677 report by the Apalachee
on their attack on the Chisca settlement.
The governor's order reveals, however,
that contact with the Pansacola had been
established earlier as he described the
Pansacola as being at peace and as having
shown themselves to be friends of the
Spaniards (Hita Salazar 1677b). The
Apalachee's report indicated that the
Chisca settlement they attacked contained
Pansacola and Chacato as well and that the
trail the Apalachee had used to surprise
the Chisca was "a trail that comes from
the sea to the settlement of the Chiscas
that the Chacatos and Pansacolas, who had
settled by the sea had opened" (Fernandez
de Florencia 1677). Surprisingly, the
Panascola were not mentioned by Bishop
Calderdn, who noted tribes as distant as
the Upper Creek, Choctaw, and Mobile to
the west and northwest of the mission
territory (Wenhold 1936:9-10).

The name Pansacola appeared as early as
1657 as the name of an Apalachee settle-
ment that was a satellite village of San
Juan de Aspalaga (Hann 1986:386). Pansa-
cola appears with some frequency as a name
used by individual Apalachee from a number
of the Apalachee missions as does the name
Savacola as well (Hann 1988). An expedi-
tion from Mexico that visited Pensacola
Bay early in 1686 recorded that Panzacola
was what the Indians called the bay.

The inhabitants of the Pansacola village
that then existed on the bay greeted the
Spaniards warmly, bringing a cross for
them to kiss and feeding them maize tor-
tillas. In a memorial drawn up several
years after his return to Mexico, the 1686
expedition's leader reported that "at the
Indian village found on the bay there were
little patches of corn, beans, squash,
tomatoes, chili, and many other products
characteristic of the Indies" (Leonard
1939:80). The ufanismo or boosterism that
characterizes this memorial makes one won-
der whether those gardens really existed,
as most other accounts remarked on the in-

fertility of the sandy soils around the
bay and for a distance inland, indicating
that the Indians of the region lived in-
land where better soils were to be found
and maintained only seasonal fishing camps
on the coast.

The Pansacola told the Spaniards that they
had been sorely afflicted by attacks from
the Indians from Mobile Bay in which many
of their people had been killed and their
cultivated fields destroyed. That the
Pansacola considered the Apalachicola
River the eastern limit of their territory
might be indicated by their having led
some stranded white men as far as that
river after having fed them in their vil-
lage (Leonard 1939:13-14). Gardiner
(1969:Table 2) noted that the Fort Walton
ceramics in the coastal zone from west of
the Apalachicola River to Pensacola Bay
belonged to tbe Pensacola Series. Unfor-
tunately the affiliation of the interpre-
ter whom the Spaniards used to communicate
with the Pansacola was not indicated. As
the ship from Mexico had stopped at San
Marcos de Apalachee, the interpreter like-
ly was a Chacato or a Chine picked up
there, most probably a Chine. That same
year Apalachee's lieutenant had noted that
"from St. Marks one can go in a canoe from
here to the place of Panzacola, bringing
along Indians who are experienced pilots
such as there are in this province in the
place of the Chines" (Matheos 1686). In
1693 Chief Chine and his son served as

pilots for the maritime
Torres' reconnaissance
(Leonard 1939:241-244).

arm of Governor
of Pensacola Bay

Later in 1686 several Pansacola visited
San Luis, arriving shortly before the
scheduled departure of Delgado's expe-
dition in search of information about La
Salle's supposed colony on the Espirito
Santo River (the Mississippi). These
Pansacola visitors did not show the do-
cility attributed to the Pansacola by the
leader of the 1686 expedition from Mexico
in the memorial alluded to above (Leonard
1939:87). On learning that Delgado
planned to journey overland to Pensacola
Bay and head west or west north-west from
there, the Pansacola visitors sought to
dissuade him, alleging a shortage of food
that would prevent them from resupplying a

force as large as the one that was to
accompany Delgado.

However, badgered by Matheos and desirous
of obtaining powder and balls for an har-
quebus that Matheos had given to the
Pansacola earlier, the visitors appeared
to give a nominal acquiescence to assist-
ing Delgado. They promised to meet
Delgado with canoes at a point on the
Choctawhatchee. Setting out before
Delgado, the Pansacola were to proceed to
the Chacato village of San Carlos de
Sabacola on the Apalachicola after an
overnight stop at Escambe. Four of the
Pansacola were to press on to arrange for
the canoes and the rest were to wait for
Delgado at the Chacato settlement.
Delgado, on receiving no report about the
promised canoes during his stopover at San
Carlos, resolved on a northwesterly over-
land route via the province of Tawasa to
which he already seems to have inclined on
perceiving the Pansacola's opposition to
the expedition's passing through their
territory (Boyd 1937:5-6, 12-13).

When a second expedition from Mexico
explored Pensacola Bay in the spring of
1693, it did not encounter the friendly
Pansacola of 1686. Neither is it certain
that they found the village of 1686 with
its little patches of maize, beans, and so
forth. What may have been the settlement
visited by the Mexicans in 1686 was allud-
ed to less euphemistically thus.

In this estuary and the previous one
there are many oysters: judging by the
tumble-down bohios, or fishermen's
huts, on the banks, it is doubtless
much frequented by the Indians in the
summer time, which is the season when
they come down to their fisheries on
the seacoast after preparing their
inland cornfields.

Nevertheless, Carlos de Siguenza y
Gongora, scientific leader of this expe-
dition, was enraptured by the spot re-
marking that "Of all the places visited up
to then none was more delightful than this
spot, and since it closely resembles
Ystacalco in Mexico City we gave it that
name" (Leonard 1939:172).

The few Indians, whom the Mexicans sur-
prised in the act of preparing a midday
meal at two points along an inlet or
stream, fled at the sight of the Spaniards
leaving their food and other possessions
behind. In what seems to be a poorly
translated passage, Irving Leonard ren-
dered Sigienza y Gongora's description of
the repast being prepared thus.

There we found a fire burning over
which was a very tasteless stew of
buffalo entrails in a crudely shaped
earthen pan, and the flesh of the same
animal roasted, or rather singed in
some places and raw in others, on some
spits made of sticks; some fishes like
dogfish were being roasted on others.
In several baskets made of otate (a
hard and solid reed) there were squash
seeds and corn; (Leonard 1939:160-161).

Unfortunately I do not have Leonard's
Spanish text with which to compare his
translation. But Barcia has given us what
seems to be a rather literal copy of this
passage in his Ensayo cronoldgico. The
following is my translation of Barcia and
Barcia's original Spanish text.

They found a fire lit and a poorly made
earthen pan placed by it with some
tastelessly stewed buffalo lungs and
some pieces of meat that had begun to
roast on wooden spits; on one, some
fish were stuck like tidbits; it had in
reed baskets (that the Indians call
Ucate) some maize, pumpkin seeds;
Hallaron lumbre encendida y puesto un
BarreHo mal hecho a' ella, con unos
Livianos de Cibola desabridamente
quisados y algunos pedacos de came
empegada a tostar en asadores de palo,
en uno estaban atrevessados Peces como
Chuchos; tenia en cestas de cafa (que
llaman Ugate los Indios) algun Maiz,
pepitas de Calabagas (Gonzalez Barcia
Carballido de ZuHiga 1723:309).

Anthony Kerrigan rendered Barcia's "Peces
como Chuchos" as "Some fish resembling
herring" (Gonzalez Barcia Carballido de
Zu'iga 1951:336). Stewed lungs make more
sense in this context than stewed entrails,
even though Indians of the far north of

Canada as late as the 1930s consumed the
entrails of ruminants for the vitamins
provided by the digested or semi-digested
greenery they contained.

At the second campsite in addition to
half-roasted buffalo meat, the Mexicans
found a variety of pemmican described by
Sigiienza as buffalo meat "pounded into a
very fine, evil smelling powder in wooden
mortars." He noted that "there was a large
quantity of all this, for the reason that
on this spot or near by they had killed a
buffalo; this had happened only a short
while before, as the exceedingly large and
frightful head was still intact. At this
camp they also found baskets that
contained "roots like those of lilies or
ginger, fiberless and sweet; others when
taken in one's hands, stained them a
pinkish color, then turned purple and,
finally, bluish" (Leonard 1939:162).

It is worthy of note that Cabeza de Vaca
met Indians on an island somewhere along
the Gulf coast from whom his party re-
ceived "a large quantity of fish with
certain roots, some a little larger than
walnuts, others a trifle smaller, the
greater part got from under the water and
with much labor" Cabeza's root was har-
vested during the winter, particularly in
November and December (Nlffez Cabeza de
Vaca 1966:67, 75).

SigUenza adjudged this group to have a
better quality of earthenware than the
stewpan found at the first site. He
described it as "numerous, not badly
shaped pots and pans with gourd dippers
and ladles of buffalo horn in them."
Nearby were 10 or 12 tanned buffalo hides
and "uncured pelts of martens, foxes,
otters, and many deer." At this site
Siguenza noted that

There was considerable yarn of buffalo
hair, both slender and coarse, in balls
and on cross-shaped distaffs of otate
ver hair, soft, white feathers, powder
like a cosmetic for self-adornment,
wooden combs, which were not badly
made, leather shoes like buskins,
pieces of brazilwood, dittany roots,
claws of birds and animals, and a thou-
sand other small objects; there was

also an iron hoe, badly worn and
without a handle, and an iron plane
attached to a stick in the form of an
adze. With the bark stripped from the
pine trees with considerable skill, for
each piece had been removed intact, the
Indians had fashioned two huts with a
single sloping roof (Leonard 1939;162).

Barcia presented Leonard's "powder like a
cosmetic for self-adornment" as "powders
of earth that seemed to be for the purpose
of painting oneself" (polvos de tierra,
que parcecian a proposito para tefirse."
Leonard's prolix "iron plane attached to a
stick in the form of an adze" appears in
Barcia as simply as "un hierro de Acuela"
or "iron adze" (Gonzalez Barcia Carballido
de Zuniga 1723:309).

At the first campsite the Mexicans had
also found buckskin bags containing "the
hair of buffaloes and other animals,
mussell shells, bones, roots and other
odds and ends" as well as plumes placed
"between the bark of trees (and very
carefully tied so as not to be injured
when not in use)." Those headresses were
described as made "not only of the feath-
ers of fine peacocks but also, of American
turkeys, cardinals, and various other
birds" (Leonard 1939:161). Barcia pre-
sented Leonard's "plumes etc." as
"hallaron various plumeros de plumas de
Pavos finos, Cardenales y otras pajaros
or "headdresses of feathers of fine
turkeys, cardinals, and other birds"
(Gonzalez Barcia Carballido de Zuniga
1723:309). Pavo fino could be rendered as
peacock but pavon is the more usual word
and I do not believe the peacock is native
to the New World. Barcia's buckskin bags
contained "cantidad de Almejas, Conchas,
Huesos y cosa semejantes" or "a quantity
of mussell shells, oyster shells, bones
and similar things."

At the second site the Mexicans also found
a "medium-sized fishing craft...drawn up
on the beach, and inside were an indefi-
nite number of bows and arrows; these were
not made of reeds but of a shaft of hard
wood tipped with bone. A little farther

off was another boat, old and worm-eaten,
with masts inside ---indications that the
Indians had come to this place for water"

(Leonard 1939:162). In Barcia's account
the second boat does not seem to be as
decrepit as the one portrayed by Leonard.

Unfortunately, the Mexicans were not able
to establish contact with these people to
learn their identity, but it is probable
that they were either Chacato or Pansa-
cola. A few months later a force of
Spaniards and Indians who came to the bay
overland from Apalachee found a few
Chacato in the area from whom they learned
that more of the Pansacola had been killed
since 1686 by raiding Movila and that the
remaining Pansacola had moved inland. But
in the light of the preceding account,
there is considerable doubt whether the
Pansacola maintained a permanent village
on the bay at any time, during this era at
least. The stream where the two small
campsites were found was on the east side
of the bay. Leonard (1939:188) identified
the stream as the East Bay River. How-
ever, it seems to me that it could also
have been the Yellow River.

At another point at some distance from the
first campsite Siguenza found a "hut built
on four stakes with a covering of palm
leaves" and in it "a deerskin, a very
well-woven sash of buffalo hair and a
tattered piece of blue cloth of Spanish
manufacture about a vara and a half in
length; in baskets hanging from stakes
were little shells of mother-of-pearl,
fish scales, bones of animals, tufts of
hair." Nearby on a reed mat at the base of
a very handsome pine "were the bones of a
human body; by the feet and hands, to
which the flesh still clung, it appeared
to be the skeleton of a woman or a lad."
In conclusion Siguenza remarked that
"Judging from the aggregation of varied
objects, I am convinced that this place
was connected with their superstitions"
(Leonard 1939:167). Barcia alluded to the
cadaver thus. "Al pie de un gran pino
vieron en una Petaca un cadaver carcomido
que parecia de Muger" (Gonzalez Barcia
Carballido de Zudiga 1723:310). "At the
foot of a great pine they saw in a chest a
decayed cadaver that appeared [that] of a
woman." Barcia's petaca definitely has the
sense of a trunk or closet covered with
hides or leather or a covered hamper,
particularly ones such as one would put on

the back of a mule or horse for carrying
cargo. It is definitely something more
complex than Leonard's "reed mat."
"Carcomido" could also be rendered as
"gnawed upon."

The various differences between Leonard's
translation of these documents and
Barcia's account presumably based on the
same documents point up the need for
another look at the original Spanish text
particularly for those passages where a
faithful rendition of all the nuances is
of significance to anthropologists and
archaeologists, as is the case in a number
of the above-cited passages.

A few months later in the summer of 1693
dual expeditions to Pensacola Bay from
Apalachee, proceeding by sea and by land,
also found no trace of the Pansacola ex-
cept the remains of two of their villages,
but they did speak to a few Chacato in the
region (Leonard 1939:236-237, 280). Of
the vanished Pansacola Fray Barrera wrote
from Pensacola Bay in 1693:

As regards the Indians there are none
in the entire bay, nor have we learned
anything more than what the Choctaws
[Leonard's translation of Chacato] have
told us, which is to the effect that
the Mobile and Apalachicola tribes have
killed off the Pensacola Indians in the
wars that they have had with each of
them, and the whereabouts of the survi-
vors, who must be few in number, is
unknown (Leonard 1939:280).

According to Leonard (1939:66) "The
Pensacolas...had been practically annihi-
lated, it appeared, in tribal wars with
the neighboring Mobilas, and the few rem-
nants were scattered about the hinterland
of their former domain."

Jay Higginbotham (1977:42) provided a
diverse explanation for their disappear-
ance from the bay in the following foot-
note: "The Pensacola had abandoned Santa
Maria de Galve for Mobile Bay in the early
1690's. Diario de Torres y Ayala, 1692,
AGI, Mexico, L, 616." The date 1692 for
his source is disconcerting as Governor
Torres reached Florida only in mid-1693 as
is its suggestion that the Pansacola had

moved to the very doorstep of their enemy,
but Higginbotham cites solid evidence that
in 1700 the Pensacola did indeed have a
village on Mobile Bay. Charles Levasseur,
while exploring the Mobile River in 1700,
spent a night at a Pansacola village at
the mouth of the Tensaw River, the eastern
arm of the Mobile. Lankford (1983: Figure
3), for 1706, shows a Pensacola village at
that point. That suggests that the Mobile
had made peace with the Pansacola, influ-
enced perhaps by the losses they as well
as the Pansacola had been suffering at the
hands of the Indians allied to the En-
glish, which had been intensified by the
English demand for Indian slaves.

The little that is known of the Pansacola
hardly seems to justify Swanton's (1946:
173) positive assertion, "Their language
and customs seem to have been almost
identical with those of the Choctaw, with
whom they no doubt ultimately united."
That might well be the case, but if
Swanton's evidence is that cited in his
earlier work (1922:13), it provides a
rather weak foundation for so sweeping a
statement. That evidence was, basically,
that the Pansacola's name "is plainly
Choctaw and signifies 'hair people'" to-
gether with "Adair's statement to the ef-
fect that the Choctaw were Pansfalaya,
'long hair,'" and Cabeza de Vaca's having
met several chiefs in an area Swanton be-
lieved to be near Pensacola Bay who wore
their hair long. Others have suggested
that the name means "bread people."

In view of the appearnace of the name
Pansacola among the Apalachee as well and
our knowledge that the Apalachee's hair
was long enough to require tying up for
their ball game, Swanton's statement
illustrates the perils of building such
bridges on the basis of the meaning of or
the similarity of names. It might be
noted that some linguists have indicated
strong ties as well between Apalachee and
Choctaw even though Alabama and Koasati
appear to be the tongues with which
Apalachee is most closely related
(Crawford 1975:30-31; Haas 1978:282-293).

Whatever was the size of the Pansacola
population that migrated to the Mobile
region, the Pansacola seem to have main-

trained their identity through the period
of French control. Crawford (1975:30)
noted that "the Pensacola and Mobile bands
maintained a separate existence until at
least 1758" and that they moved westward
when the territory was ceded to Britain.
About 1725 Bienville recorded that the
Pansacola and the Biloxi then had villages
on the Pearl River, observing that "These
nations now have only forty men who are
very laborious and good hunters" and who
"furnish an abundance of meat to all the
French who are near enough to trade for
it" (Rowland and Sanders 1932:111:535).

The Chine

Even less is known about the Chine than
about the Pansacola, even though the Chine
lived in Apalachee as mission Indians from
at least 1675 on. Swanton (1946:119) be-
lieved them to be simply a band of Chatot,
who took their name from a chief named
Chine and there is evidence to support his
position. But in view of Chief Chine's
knowledge of the coast west of Apalachee
all the way to Mobile Bay, one might as
justifiably refer to the Chine as a band
of Pansacola or wonder whether there was
any genuine difference beyond their names
and the characteristics of their ceramics
between Pansacola, Chacato, and Chine.
They may represent a parallel to the
Tacatacuru and Saturiwa, who both spoke
Mocamo but formed distinct types of shell
middens and represented different ceramic
traditions (Deagan 1978:90-91, 100-101).
The Spaniards, however, used the separate
names of Chine and Chacato in speaking of
these peoples, even when the Chine and the
Chacato were serving together as they did
on the Apalachee expedition against the
Chisca in 1677. And no indication was
given that the Chine joined the Chacato in
the plans to desert or in not participat-
ing in the attack (Fernandez de Florencia

The one seeming departure occurs in Fray
Barrera's journal from the 1693 trek to
Pensacola Bay. That the Chine's language
was Chacato or akin to it is suggested by
several of the friar's statements as when,
on one occasion, he said "when I question-
ed Chief Chine and the rest of the Choctaw
Indians..." (Leonard 1939:241-242, 244,

246-247, 249, 274-275, 278-279, 283, 297).
Some day perhaps one of the Chine mission
sites may be found and provide ceramics to
serve as a diagnostic of their origin. It
is worthy of note that in 1694, despite
the availability of the Chacato interpre-
ter employed in communicating with the
refugee Chacato at Escambe, the visitor
used the same Apalachee interpreter at the
Chine mission as he had used in the
Apalachee missions (Florencia 1695). Of
course, having lived in Apalachee for a
generation, it is likely that the Chine
had learned the Apalachee's language.

The Chine's knowledge of the coast west-
ward from Apalachee is the salient feature
that seems to have distinguished them in
the eyes of the Spaniards. As has been
noted earlier, when the first reports of
French activity on the Gulf Coast, near
the Mississippi, reawakened Spanish inter-
est in that region which had become a
terra incognita to the Spaniards them-
selves, Apalachee's lieutenant indicated
the village of the Chine as a source of
pilots who were experienced in going by
canoe from St. Marks to the place of
Pansacola (Matheos 1686). Seven years
later in 1693 Chief Chine and his son
served as pilots for the ketch that func-
tioned as the maritime arm of Governor
Torres y Ayala's exploratory expedition to
Pensacola Bay and Mobile Bay (Leonard
1939:241). The journals written by
Governor Torres, Fray Barrera, and
Francisco Milan Tapia, master of the ketch
for which Chief Chine served as pilot,
attest repeatedly to Chief Chine's de-
tailed knowledge of the features of the
coast and especially of the channels and
land of the coastal sector between Pensa-
cola Bay and Mobile Bay. The knowledge of
that latter region attributed to them
suggests that the Chine came from that
region in or near Pensacola Bay or that
they had spent much time there. Even in
Apalachee their mission sites reflect an
association with the coast, such as being
referred to as "on the road to the sea."
although the site was inland close to San
Luis (Fernandez de Florencia 1675a).

The Chine were first mentioned in 1675 as
inhabitants of one of three small settle-
ments that composed the newly established

mission of the Assumption of Our Lady
located on the road to the sea from San
Luis (Fernandez de Florencia 1675a). The
name Assumpcion del Puerto that Bishop
Calderon gave for the mission suggests
that it may have been on the Wakulla River
close enough to the sea to serve as a
port. Pacara and Amacano also lived at
that mission in its other two settlements
(Wenhold 1936:9). In contrast to the
Chine the Pacara and Amacano were never
mentioned again after 1675. I have seen
no evidence that would support Swanton's
statement (1946:119) that the 1675 mission
inhabited by the Chine, Caparaz, and
Amacano was named San Luis or located
directly on the seacoast.

That a few Chine were drafted for the 1677
expedition against the Chisca indicates
possibly that by then they were living on
lands belonging to San Luis as were the
Chacato. Wherever the Chine were living,
they were not mentioned during the 1677-
1678 visitation held several months after
the return of the expedition against the
Chisca. As the Chacato were not mentioned
either, that might indicate that both
groups attended the visitation session for
San Luis. The mission reappeared on the
1680 list as San Pedro de los Chines
(Marquez Cabrera 1680). On his 1683 map
Alonso Solana placed the Chine settlement
a short distance due south of San Luis.
In 1689 the mission was credited with 30
families or 150 individuals (Ebelino de
Compostela 1689). By 1694 the mission was
known as San Antonio de los Chines
(Florencia 1695), possibly an indication
that the settlement had moved to a new
site. It was last mentioned in 1697,
located then one-half league from the
mission of La Tama, which was then a
league and one-half from Tomole (Menendez
Marques and Florencia 1697).

In 1693 the master of the ketch on which
Chief Chine served as pilot, on passing
what seems to have been the mouth of the
Ochlockonee River, noted that "This river
is called Claraquachine in the Apalachina
tongue" (Leonard 1939:283). It is not
clear whether the 'chine' that formed part
of that name signified a link between the
Chine and that river or its mouth. Clara-
quachine was not the usual native name for

that river used by the Spaniards, which
was Rio Lagna or some variant of it. Rio
Lagna apparently meant Yellow River.

The fate of the Chine during and after the
1704 assaults on Apalachee is unclear.
The Chine are not mentioned in any of the
documents published in Here They Once
Stood (Boyd, Smith and Griffin 1951). B.
Calvin Jones (1972: 27-28) lists the
Chine's mission among those that surren-
dered or were captured during the assault
by Colonel Moore early in 1704, but he put
the Chine settlement in his category of
missions "not specifically identified" as
having been taken. To my knowledge no
source from 1704 or later mentions the
Chine by name. Governor Zuiiga (1705)
listed Ayubale, Tomole, Capoli, Tama, and
Ocatoses as the five places whose people
were carried off by the invading forces
led by Moore. Inasmuch as the Chine's
village was relatively close to two of the
above-named missions, Tomole and Tama, it
would have been a likely target as well
and that likelihood is illustrated in
Jones' (1972:27) map of the province and
the probable thrust of Moore's attacks.

By a process of elimination the Chine may
be considered to be masked under the name
Ocatoses in the above listing by the gov-
ernor in view of the association of "Oca"
with water in the Muskhogean languages.
The Tocobaga are the only other people in
Apalachee as clearly linked with the
coastal waters as are the Chine. The
probability that Ocatoses refers to the
Chine is strengthened by a later listing
of the former missions and settlements
(Juan de Castilla 1740). All the usual
names appear in it except those of the
Chine and Tocopaca [Tocobaga]. These two
are masked apparently under the names
Ocatacos and Tabacos (?). If the Chine
are the Ocatoses-Ocatacos some of them may
have escaped capture as Indians named
Ocataze, who were loyal to the Spaniards,
were reported to have been living just
outside Pensacola's fort in 1707. In
August 1707 attacking Indians burned their
houses and captured some of the Ocataze,
including women and children, while others
escaped into the fort (Griffen 1959:251).
Any who survived this wave of attacks
probably joined the general exodus of the

remaining loyal natives, as Bienville
found Pensacola later that year to be
without Indians who could serve as scouts
to warn of impending attacks (Rowland and
Sanders 1932:111: 115). However, I have
found no mention of Ocataze or Chine in
sources dealing with French Mobile's early

The Savacola

Like the Pansacola and the Chine, the
Savacola appear in the Spanish records
only at the beginning of the last quarter
of the seventeenth century. Because of
the Spaniards' interchange of 'b' and 'v'
the tribe's name was rendered frequently
as Sabacola. On English and French ton-
gues the tribe's name has assumed various
forms, some of which bear little resem-
blance to the Spanish version. Among them
are Bartram's Swaglaw, Hawkins' Sauqoogo-
lo, Beverly's Sowoolla, the DeCrenay map's
Chaouakle (Fretwell 1980:107; Bushnell
1908:571) and in modern times Swanton's
Sawokli. As was true of the name Pansa-
cola, the name Savacola appeared as early
as 1657 affixed to a satellite settlement
of the Apalachee mission of San Joseph de
Ocuia (Hann 1986:386) and the name was
used as well by Apalachee men such as
Savocolo Caurenti (Florencia 1695). There
is no indication that Apalachee's Savacola
and Pansacola were inhabited by other than
Apalachee any more than that Tomole's
Samoche was inhabited by immigrants from
Cemochechobee. The Savacola people first
appeared on two mission lists for 1675 and
in Bishop Calderdn's listing of the Apala-
chicola settlements along the middle

The 1674-1677 era mission village, known
initially as Santa Cruz de Savacola was on
the west bank of the Apalachicola River
about 15 leagues from San Luis a little
below the confluence of the Flint and
Chattahoochee (Leonard 1939:230). Calde-
ron described it as "a heathen village
called formerly Santa Cruz de Sabacola el
Menor, now La Encarnacion a la Santa Cruz
de Sabacola, the.Church having been dedi-
cated to this sovereign mystery on Thurs-
day, February 28 of this year, wherein
have gathered the Great Cacique of that
province, with his vassals from Sabacola

el Grande, which I have converted to our
holy faith."

The distinction between a Savacola Grande
and a Savacola Menor or Big and Little
Savacola would persist well into the
eighteenth century. The bishop predicted
that the Savacola mission would become a
large town because the 13 Apalachicolan
villages located 30 leagues upriver had
offered to become Christians as well.
Despite the seeming presence of the people
of both Little and Big Savacola at the new
mission, the bishop listed another Saba-
cola among the 13 Apalachicola villages
upriver (Wenhold 1936:9). It is not clear
whether this was simply an oversight on
the bishop's part, or whether only a depu-
tation had come down from Sabacola El
Grande with the Great Cacique or an indi-
cation of a third Savacola. The latter is
a possibility as Swanton (1922: 142-143)
noted that "Besides the Big and Little
Sawokli which Hawkins describes there was
at a very early date a northern branch
living in the neighborhood of the Kasihta
and Coweta."

General confusion has characterized some
of the interpretations of the data con-
cerning the time of foundation and the
location of this mission as described by
Calderon. An incautious reader might in-
deed infer that the bishop had established
the Sabacola mission early in 1675. Thus
Boyd (1958:215) was moved to wonder how
the bishop, who by his own account was in
Apalachee as late as February 2 "could
have personally effected the conversions
and erected a new church, however crude,
in less than 4 weeks, unless...by the
labor of his numerous escort." However,
the work among the Savacola began during
1674 probably contemporeaneously with the
work among the Chacato, as Boyd himself
suggested might be the case. The bishop
probably simply consecrated the church,
embellishing the truth a bit in suggesting
an active role in the mission's founda-

A more serious misinterpretation from the
archaeological standpoint is that involv-
ing the location of the bishop's Savacola
mission of 1675. Boyd (1958:215-217) took
an equivocal position, observing that

"While his [the bishop's] statement indi-
cates that Sabacola El Menor was adjacent
to the bank of a river, it is not evident
that this could be the bank of the present
restricted Apalachicola River." Then more
positively Boyd suggested that the bis-
hop's Sabacola was located above the con-
fluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee
near the site appropriated by Cherokee-
leechee in 1716, concluding, "In further
confirmation, it is known that the Saba-
cola of Pena was west of the Flint River."

Recently Boyd's view has been stated more
forthrightly thus.

Bishop Calderon's sojourn at the Forks
of the Flint and Chattahoochee at the
heathen village called formerly Santa
Cruz de Sabacola el Menor. His new
mission church was located on the west
side of the Flint River near the mouth
of Spring Creek a few miles above the
forks now covered by Lake Seminole
(Fretwell 1980:104).

Careful comparative reading of the ac-
counts of the route followed by the 1677
Apalachee expedition against the Chisca
and the journals kept by Governor Torres
and Fray Barrera on their 1693 trek to
Pensacola Bay makes it clear that both
expeditions followed the same trail as far
as the Marianna region and that the bis-
hop's Sabacola mission of 1675 occupied
the same position on the west bank of the
River of Santa Cruz (the Apalachicola) as
did the later mission of San Carlos de los
Chacatos on that river. The 1677 expedi-
tion crossed no stream that could be con-
strued as the Flint to reach the village
of Savacola on the west bank of the River
of Santa Cruz, where they tarried to rest
and reprovision (Fernandez de Florencia
1677; Leonard 1939:230, 266-267).

It is not known whether Savacola had oc-
cupied the site on the Apalachicola prior
to 1674 or whether they had moved down
river from the region of the Apalachicola
settlements in order to be missionized.
That they had only recently moved to that
site seems more likely in view of the
probability that a people living that
close to the Apalachee would have evoked
some comment to survive in the post 1633

records because of the frequent contact
that would surely have resulted from such
proximity. It is worthy of note, however,
that a longer-term relationship with that
river is suggested possibly by a 1693 re-
mark by the master of the ketch exploring
the coast westward to Pensacola Bay in
1693 that the eastern mouth of the Apala-
chicola River was known as the Sabacola
(Leonard 1939:288).

Influenced by that remark and some less
substantial evidence, Swanton (1922:141;
1946:179-180) held that position, noting
that "the earliest home of the Sawokli of
which we have any indication was upon or
near the coast of the Gulf of Mexico,
probably in the neighborhood of Choctaw-
hatchee Bay." The remaining evidence cited
by Swanton was a passing remark by Barcia
(1951:352) about French designs in the
Gulf area in 1705 relative to "the provin-
ces of Pensacola, Sabacola and others near
the ports and bays of the Mexican Gulf,"
and Lamhatty's placement of Sowoolla
(identified by Swanton as Sawokli) between
what is believed to be the Apalachicola
and the Choctawhatchee Rivers and on Lam-
hatty's attachment of the name Sowoollaou-
bab to the Choctawhatchee River as depic-
ted on his map. Swanton did not explain
how the Savacola, who had been living on
the upper Apalachicola and on the Chatta-
hoochee in the 1670s and 1680s and proba-
bly on the Ocmulgee River in the 1690s,
became associated with Lamhatty's Towasa
by 1706 and were living near the Choctaw-
hatchee River.

Savacola along with Apalachicola and
Tiquepache attacked the Chacato settlement
of San Carlos on the Apalachicola River in
1694. That Governor Torres struck the
Apalachicola settlements on the Ocmulgee
in 1695 in retribution suggests that the
attackers were believed to have come from
that region (Torres y Ayala 1695a).
Swanton's evidence for so positive a
statement seems rather slim particularly
in view of Choctawhatchee Bay's being
designated also as an ancestral home of
the Pansacola and the Chacato.

That the Savacola
Apalachicola and/or
might be inferred

had lived long on the
lower Chattahoochee
possibly from Diego

Pena's remark in 1716 that most of the
Apalachicola villages spoke the same lan-
guage [Hitchiti], "except Savacola, which
is distinct, but they speak Apalachian"
(Boyd 1949:26). That the Savacola spoke
Apalachee as a second language suggests a
long association. But only for the 1675-
1690 is there documentary evidence that
some of the Savacola were relatively close
neighbors of the Apalachee in the two mis-
sion sites above and below the forking of
the Apalachicola, but those two villages
probably did not house all the Savacola.
Although the known upriver sites for
Savacola are in general among the south-
ernmost of the Creek villages on the Chat-
tahoochee, Pena in 1716 recorded having
traveled 58 leagues beyond San Luis to
reach Savacola on the west bank of the
Chattahoochee. Forty-five leagues or 117
miles of that total of 150 miles was the
distance to upriver Savacola from the site
of the former Savacola mission just above
the confluence of the rivers. Consequent-
ly, Bishop Calderon, in placing the first
of the upriver villages a mere 30 leagues
north of the Santa Cruz mission on the
Apalachicola seems to have seriously
understated the distance, unless one is
prepared to believe that the province of
Apalachicola was located considerably
farther south in 1675 than it was in 1716.

The Savacola mission of Santa Cruz did not
live up to the expectations that Bishop
Calderon had for it in 1675 as its popula-
tion remained small, none of the other
peoples of the upriver settlements having
shown any disposition to move downriver or
even to become Christians, when the mis-
sion moved upriver four years later. At
the time of the attack on Fray Barrera,
the leader of the relief force sent to
Santa Cruz reported that Fray Ocon told
him that there were no more than 30 men
there and that "the cacique of this place
of Santa Cruz said that, on Father Fray
Ocon's withdrawal, he is going to leave
with all of his people; that he fears the
Chisca would kill them." The cacique
added, however, that if he were given
three soldiers he would not abandon the
place. The soldier disagreed, opinioning
that Santa Cruz would not be secure even
with six soldiers, warning the acting
lieutenant at San Luis, "I caution your

excellency [about this] because these
Indians and the entire settlement of Santa
Cruz are bound to go and to leave it de-
serted. The same day that I reached this
place, two leagues before the river, we
saw a person's tracks and Indians that he
brought [with him] say that it was a
Chisca's track and he is presumed to be a
spy" (Herrera 1675:125).

In view of the prompt resolution of the
crisis through Fray Paiva's intervention,
the Savacola probably did not abandon the
settlement at this time as some were still
there two years later. The 1677 Apalachee
expedition against the Chisca stopped
there to rest and reprovision. But, as
the Savacola chief, Baltasar, joined the
expedition with six of his warriors, it is
likely that the Savacola retreated upriver
soon after the return of that expedition
(Fernandez de Florencia 1675b; 1677).
During his visitation of the Apalachee
missions several months later, Leturiondo
did not mention the Savacola (Leturiondo

The mission Savacola's retreat upriver
seems to be confirmed by the dispatch, in
1679, of Fray Ocon, their pastor at Santa
Cruz, and two recently arrived friars to
establish a mission at a village of Sava-
cola on the middle Chattahoochee a few
leagues below the falls. Although Lanning
(1939:265), in discussing the first Fran-
ciscan effort at Savacola on the Chatta-
hoochee, remarked that "This story of the
Spanish missions and presidios, English
traders and slave hunters juggled into a
complex international problem, in perfect-
ly documented studies has been definitive-
ly told by H. E. Bolton," neither Lanning
nor his mentor Bolton seem to have been
aware of the 1674-1677 mission to the
Savacola on the Apalachicola River, des-
pite Bolton's (1925a:119) noting that the
Apalachicola had asked for missionaries
"In the very year when Woodward crossed
the middle Savannah (1674)" and suggesting
that "There may have been some connection
between the two events."

That may well have been true for the 1679
enterprise on the Chattahoochee, but the
effort of 1674-1675 among the Savacola and
the Chacato antedated the Spanish intelli-

gence concerning English moves westward
from Charleston reported by Crane (1956:
17). Indeed, the intelligence came via
the new western mission enterprises.
Three days after the three friars' arrival
in upriver Savacola, they were ordered to
leave by the cacique of Caveta, then head
chief of the Apalachicola. Governor Sala-
zar instructed his lieutenant in Apalachee
to accept the rebuff with good grace and
to continue to treat the Apalachicola as
friends (Bolton 1925a: 119; Hita Salazar
1679, 1680; Royal Officials 1680).

Salazar's successor, the more militant
Juan Marquez Cabrera, thrust two friars
back into Savacola backed by a number of
soldiers in March of 1681. Despite the
coldness of the reception they received,
one of the friars soon reported that in
two months he had baptized 30 people be-
tween adults and children, including the
principal cacique of Savacola, two of his
sons, and his stepfather. But, that the
friars were still meeting hostility is
indicated by the friar's suggestion that
if the governor were to place a dozen
soldiers in the most northerly of the
villages and another dozen at Savacola,
they would be able to convert all of the
natives, or, he added, if the governor
were to visit the region and speak to them
forcefully about conversion. The friar
then observed that there were no Chisca or
Chuchumeco to be concerned about in those
settlements, noting that most of the
places along the Chattahoochee were at war
with the Chisca and Chichimeco (Gutierrez
de Vera 1681). Before dispatching the
letter some time later Gutierrez reported
in an undated postscript that the number
of new converts had risen to 36 and the
total number of Christians to 53 (Gutier-
rez n.d.), but in view of the hostility of
many of the Apalachicola to the friars'
presence, the mission was withdrawn after
a few months.

Governor Cabrera's threats led to a com-
promise under which the Christianized
Savacola moved downriver once more (Bolton
1925a:119). Bolton (1925a:119) and Lan-
ning (1939:173) gave the name of the new
mission as Santa Cruz de Sabacola and lo-
cated it at the confluence of the Chatta-
hoochee and Flint "not far from a new

Franciscan mission among the Chatot." The
Bolton and Lanning accounts imply that the
Savacola settlement north of the junction
of the rivers was established at this
time, although as Boyd (1958:217) noted
concerning Bolton's remark, "This of
course is an unspecific localization." If
the Savacola site above the forks was
established at this time, the settlement
was short-lived or not all the Savacola
remained there. In 1686, as has been
noted in discussing the Chacato settle-
ments in that region, both Delgado and
Matheos spoke of one settlement in that
region, containing Chacato and Savacola,
which they alluded to variously as "the
Chacatos," "Village of San Carlos,"
"Pueblo of Savacola," "Savacola," and
"village of Christian Chacatos" (Boyd
1937:13,14,17,22). That village of 1686
seems to have been the earlier one on the
west bank of the Apalachicola River.

Delgado's description of the features of
the trail he followed to reach it and the
initial section of the trail he followed
on leaving it match the descriptions of
the trails taken in 1677 and 1693 men-
tioned earlier. There is no indication
that Delgado crossed the Flint, though he
mentions the river in passing in giving
the width and the depth of the Apalachi-
cola where it is joined by the Flint.
Neither Matheos nor Delgado used the name
Santa Cruz for the mission village, nor
have I seen the name Santa Cruz in any
subsequent reference to the Savacola mis-
sion of the 1680s.

The hybrid character of this mission set-
tlement was reflected anew three years
later in its name of San Carlos de gaba-
cola. It then contained 30 families or
150 individuals (Ebelino de Compostela
1689). The following year, when the
friars were congregated in a few convents
the village of Savacola Chuba (Big Sava-
cola) had a convent containing two friars,
one of whom probably served San Nicolas de
los Chacatos, which reappeared on the 1689
list. The creation of separate Chacato
and Savacola settlements by 1689 may re-
flect a falling out between the two peo-
ples, particularly in view of Savacola's
participation in the 1694 assault on the
Chacato mission, in which five Chacato

were killed, 42 carried off as slaves, and
the rest forced to seek refuge at Escambe
(Florencia 1695; Torres y Ayala 1695).
The Savacola mission is not mentioned in
the 1694-1695 visitation nor on subsequent
mission lists, indicating that it ceased
to exist in 1690 or soon thereafter.

Conceivably, the Savacola Chuba estab-
lishment of the 1690 convent list marks
the time of the founding of the Savacola
mission village above the confluence of
the Flint and the Chattahoochee. Diego
Pena's remark that the 1716 village of
Chislacaliche just to the west of the
Flint was built on the lands of the former
Savacola village there is the only undis-
puted evidence for the existence of the
Savacola village above the fork in the

The archaeologists' survey of the region
prior to its inundation by Lake Seminole
established, however, that the site chosen
by Chislacaliche was not the site of the
Savacolan village itself. They identified
9SE24 as the site of Chislacaliche's 1716
village and tentatively indicated 9SE20
about one-half mile to the east as the
only feasible candidate for identification
with the Savacola settlement (Boyd 1958:
211-212). The results of the Georgia
archaeologists' work on those two sites
prior to their inundation apparently has
never been published. That is unfortunate
as it might provide a clue as to the
length of time the Savacola settlement
there was occupied.

Bolton's allusion to Matheos having
crossed the Chattahoochee River at the
chicasa of Sabacola el Grande in 1685
suggests that the upriver site was aban-
doned completely by the inhabitants at the
time of the move downriver of the early
1680s. Some of the migrants could have
established the site above the fork at
that time. That all the Savacola moved
downriver is suggested as well by Bolton's
failure to mention Savacola in talking of
the caciques who accepted or rejected
Matheos' invitation to parley at Caveta
over the severing of dealings with the
English traders (Bolton 1925b:47, 51,79;
Lanning 1935:177-178). The Savacola's
absence from the upriver site is suggested

as well by the incident mentioned earlier
arising out of the interest of some Cha-
cato in occupying farmlands in the vici-
nity of a recently established blockhouse
at Savacola in 1686 (Marques Cabrera
1686). As has been noted, nothing appears
to be known about this 1686 blockhouse.

At the time of the archaeological salvage
work in the Walter F. George Basin on the
Alabama side of the Chattahoochee where
the upriver Savacola of the 1670s was lo-
cated, the historical research that orien-
ted the archaeologists seems to have been
confined largely to English and American
sources and to have ignored the commercial
contacts between the Spaniards in Apala-
chee and the Apalachicola villages along
the Chattahoochee that began in the 1640s.
The one exception reflected in the reports
(DeJarnette 1975) is the account of the
excavation of what was believed to be the
Spanish fort built on lands belonging to
the village of Apalachicola in 1689. In
relation to Savacola, DeJarnette (1975:21-
23) indicated a number of sites considered
by archaeologists as possibly the site of
the Savacola visited by Hawkins at the end
of the eighteenth century.

They are in the area indicated by Pena in
1716 for the Savacola of that day, a day's
journey south of a farm then worked by
Apalachee. That farm was apparently the
site of the 1689 Apalachicola Fort, two
leagues south of the town of Apalachicola
(Boyd 1949:22-23, 26). It is worthy of
note that 1Br30, the site favored by
DeJarnette as Hawkins' Savacola, as well
as at least one of the sites favored by
others, had a ceramic complex "similar to
that of all the other Historic Creek sites
that have been tentatively identified in
this report, but differs from some of them
in its lack of Ocmulgee Fields Incised."
That finding is interesting in light of
Pena's remark in 1716 that most of the
Apalachicola spoke the same language
(Hitchiti), "except Savacola, which is
distinct" (Boyd 1949:26). Authorities
such as Swanton (1922:12; 1929:412) placed
the Savacola among the Hitchiti speakers,
ignoring Pena's remark, as did Boyd him-
self (1958:215), who had translated Pena's
1716 remarks nine years earlier.

Although no description of the Savacola
mission villages has been found, those
villages may have contained some of the
features of the Savacola Pena portrayed
briefly in 1716. Peia noted that the
cacique, principal men, and tascayos or
warriors conducted him into the village
where they "seated me on a bench near the
bujio or royal house" where an exchange of
courtesies occurred. After Pena explained
the reason for his visit, the natives
fired a salute and cheered the king before
leading PeEa "to the royal house, which is
a gallery." The term 'gallery' is more
suggestive of the political architecture
of the Creek 'squareground' than of Apala-
chee and Timucua's large round council
house. The individual houses PeEa de-
scribed appear to show signs of some ac-
culturation. "They have, and are making,
very good houses, some covered with shin-
gles, others with bark, and for them
culatas of clay, and others of shingles,
and make with skill strong houses with
small windows" (Boyd 1949:22). The term
culata generally connotes "the back part
of anything" such as the breech of a gun,
though in this context clay tiles are a

If the traditional interpretations of the
Lamhatty document (Bushnell 1908; Swanton
1929; 1946:180) are to be believed some of
the Savacola had settled in a village
named Sowoolla some distance inland from
the Gulf and a lesser but significant dis-
tance to the east of an eastern affluent
of the Sowoollaoubab, which believers in-
terpret to be the Choctawhatchee, though
Swanton (1929:412) also remarked that "As
laid out on the map, this river suggests
the Chippola." Neither of the records from
the debriefing of Lamhatty in Virginia
specify the fate of the ten individual
villages of the West Florida assemblage
of settlements of which Sowoolla was
supposed to have been a part until it suc-
cumbed to the attacks of 'Tuscaroras' in
1706 and 1707. Neither do they say how
long Sowoolla and the other nine settle-
ments had been there before 1706. It
seems improbable that so many villages
could have been there very long, between
the Spanish outposts at Pensacola and
Apalachee without coming to the attention
of the Spanish authorities and eliciting

comment from them. In August of 1704 the
Apalachee and Christian Chacato refugees
traveled through that territory to reach
Pensacola and Mobile. In 1699 Francisco
de Florencia led a band of 40 Chacato on a
buffalo hunt in the same region (Boyd,
Smith and Griffin 1951:26-27).

Although the Lamhatty accounts do not
identify which of the settlements' inhab-
itants were carried off and which fled,
Swanton (1946;180) states positively that

In 1706 or 1707, the Sawokli were driv-
en from this country, or rather, it
seems, carried away, by hostile Indians
in alliance with the English and we
hear of them next among the Lower
Creeks only, where all appear to have
gathered for a time. Part, at least,
seem to have been settled upon Ocmulgee
River, but after the Yamasee War (1715)
we find them all on or near the Chatta-
hoochee, lower down than all other con-
stituent bodies of the Confederation
except the Lower Eufaula.

In 1716 except for Chiscaliche's village,
Savacola was the southernmost of the newly
occupied Chattahoochee River settlements,
wherever its inhabitants came from (Boyd
1949:22). In 1717 Pena mentioned the
Savacola as among the peoples who ex-
pressed willingness to ally with the
Spaniards by moving to the former Apala-
Apalachee territory (Serrano y Sanz 1912:
234-235). As a group the Savacola did not
fulfill the tentative promise to move into
Apalachee and, through the years after
1717, one or more villages named Savacola
located on the Chattahoochee continued to
appear on Spanish lists as late as 1745
(Marques del Toro 1738; Montiano 1745).
And some of the Savacola remained on the
Chattahoochee until removal in the 1830s
(DeJarnette 1975:22). But a group that
included some of the Christianized Sava-
cola suffered some reverse around 1745.
At that time the commandant at San Marcos
de Apalachee reported the arrival of an
Indian woman named Savacola with a son and
daughter. He identified her as the widow
of the leading man (Principal) Savacola
and stated that they had once been Chris-
tians (Montiano 1746). Swanton (1946:181)
noted that some Savacola were among the

first Seminole who established themselves
on the Alachua prairie.

The Tawasa or Toasi

Of the six peoples reported as having
lived in West Florida in the sixteenth or
seventeenth centuries, least is known
about the presence of the Tawasa there.
Except for the David I. Bushnell and the
Swanton interpretations of the Lamhatty
account and a few statements by Spaniards
and Frenchmen mentioning the Tawasa along
with the Apalachee, Chacato, and Pensacola
as having come from Spanish territory to
settle near Old Mobile, the Tawasa's pres-
ence in Florida might well be overlooked.
The sources discovered to date do not pro-
vide precise evidence about the time of
the Tawasa's arrival in Florida or where
they settled or the circumstances that
brought them into Spanish territory except
for the few who appeared in Apalachee as
visitors in 1686. The uncertainty has ex-
tended even to the rendition of the tribal
name. It appears variously in Spanish
sources as Tawasa, Tavasa, Tabasa, Toasi,
Tuasi, and Toassa. In the two versions of
the Lamhatty account it is Towasa. The
French added the variant Taouchas.

Like the Chisca, the Toasi appeared on the
historical horizon in the de Soto chroni-
cles. According to the Gentleman of Elvas
(1968:78) and Ranjel (1902:11:3), de Soto,
on setting out from Coosa, on "the first
day went through Tallimuchase [or Talima-
chusy], a great town without inhabitants,
halting to sleep half a league beyond,
near a river bank. The following day he
came to Ytaua, a town subject to Coga
[Coosa]." Ranjel described Itaba as "a
large village along a fine river." From
Itaba de Soto proceeded to Ullibahali, an
important palisaded town near a stream,
described as small by Elvas, and as "a
large river" by Ranjel, with another town
on the opposite shore. According to
Ranjel (1902:11:114) from this town sub-
ject to Coosa, de Soto went to a small
village near the river where they spent
the night and the following day and night.
After traveling all the third day, they
spent the night in the open country,
reaching Tuasi on the fourth day. Elvas
(1968:79) placed de Soto in Toasi at the

end of the second day out from Ullibahali.
Both chroniclers agree, however, that five
days journey separated Toasi from its next
important neighbor to the south, Talisi,
which both described as "large, situated
by the side of a great river, other towns
and many fields of maize being on the op-
posite shore, the country on both sides
having the greatest abundance of grain"
(Elvas 1968:79).

Using that historical data in combination
with modern archaeological research, arch-
aeologists and anthropologists have presen-
ted differing interpretations in locating
Tawasa and the settlements that were its
neighbors in de Soto's time. Until very
recently the conclusions of the Final
Report of the United States De Soto
Expedition Commission, which represent
basically the views of Swanton, were wide-
ly accepted. Swanton placed Coosa on the
river of that name, north of Childersburg,
Alabama, between the mouths of Talladega
and Tallasseehatchee Creeks "from de
Soto's time, in 1540, down into the eigh-
teenth century" (Swanton 1946:125; 1985:
206-208). Swanton identified Ullibahali
as the later Upper Creek town of Hothli-
hali located on the north bank of the
Tallapoosa and the west side of Chubbee-
hatchee Creek and maintained that de
Soto's Ullibahali was situated in about
the same position. With that reference
point, Swanton placed de Soto's Tuasi on
the same site as the eighteenth-century
town of Tawasa, just below the junction of
the Coosa and the Tallapoosa, on the
northeastern edge of the present city of
Montgomery (Swanton 1946:139, 190; 1985:

More recently a team of Georgia archae-
ologists have identified Coosa convin-
cingly with the Little Egypt site near
Carters, Georgia, at the junction of the
Coosawattee River and Talking Rock Creek
(Hudson et al. 1985:726-729). Noting that
the name of Ytaua "was the same then as it
is today," they identify Itaba with the
Etowah Mounds site. Ullibahali, they lo-
cate, as probably "on the south side of
the Coosa River near downtown Rome, Geor-
gia, where there is a large but poorly
known Barnett phase site, the Coosa Coun-
try Club site." The village one day's

journey beyond Ullibahali they identify as
possibly the Apica "where Luna's men stop-
ped just before they reached Ulibahali"
and affirm that "this Apica was no doubt
ancestral to eighteenth- and nineteenth-
century Abihka." From Apica, the Georgia
team observed, de Soto "the next day con-
tinued down river to yet another village,
Piachi, also located near the river
(Oviedo 1959:171)... This village was
probably the King site." In a subsequent
study, Marvin Smith (1987:137) observed
that "the Tuasi village of the de Soto
period was probably located ... in
Cherokee County, Alabama ... at site

Alabama archaeologists offer other vari-
ants of the Georgia team's version of the
de Soto route. Curren (1986:2-6) follows
the Georgia team's route as far as Etowah.
From there, in a piece directed at a popu-
lar audience, he parts company with the
Georgia team in abandoning the Coosa River
system to head almost due south to place
Ullibahali "on the west bank of the Chat-
tahoochee, probably in Douglas County,
Georgia, southwest of present day Atlan-
ta". Consequently Curren places Toasi as
well on the Chattahoochee midway down
Alabama's eastern border somewhere in
Chambers or Randolph County. In a subse-
quent professionally oriented paper,
Curren (1984:14, 18-21, 54) conceded that
Ullibahali and Tuasi could have been loca-
ted in either the Coosa or the Chattahoo-
chee drainage, indicating one of the
Kymulga phase sites as the likely location
for Tuasi, if de Soto followed the Coosa.
Vernon James Knight, Jr. (Personal Commu-
nication 1987) places de Soto's Tuasi far-
ther down the Coosa River than does the
Georgia team, observing that his "own best
guess location for DeSoto's Toasi is on
Tallasseehatchee Creek, Southern Talladega
County, Alabama."

Influenced by the opinion that Lamhatty's
language was or resembled Timucuan, Lank-
ford (1983:51) has suggested even that
there may be no link between "the Alabama
River Tuasi known from Soto to the Creek
War" and Lamhatty's "Towasa" or the refu-
gee Tawasa at Mobile in the first years of
the eighteenth century. Lankford specu-
lated that the linkage made by scholars

may be based on nothing more than "a sim-
ilarity of names, and that the refugee
Tawasa were simply another little-noticed
coastal tribe propelled momentarily into
historical light by the onslaughts of the
Apalachicolas and Alabamas." As shall be
indicated later, there is a definite
"paper trail" linking the "refugee Tawasa"
of Pensacola and Mobile in the early eigh-
teenth century with the upriver hinterland
Tawasa or Toasi of the Tallapoosa and
Coosa from 1686 back to de Soto's time.

On a less kaleidoscopic scale authorities
display similar differences of opinion and
greater uncertainty about the Tawasa's
place of residence for most of the post-de
Soto period down into the early eighteenth
century. Swanton (1946:190-191), after
placing Tuasi at Montgomery in 1540, wrote
that "Between that date and 1693 these
people seem to have moved down near the
Tohome and Mobile and by 1706 had worked
their way toward the Apalachicola, proba-
bly to a point between that stream and the
Choctawhatchee. In the latter year (1706)
or the year following they were driven out
by northern Indians probably accompanied
by English. The greater part of them
sought refuge with the French at Mobile"
but had returned upriver to the vicinity
of their original home by the time Fort
Toulouse was built. On the other hand J.
Leitch Wright (1981:143), toward the end
of the mission period at least, placed the
Tawasa in the vicinity of North Carolina,
noting that "the Tuscaroras were the most
powerful nation in the North Carolina
Tidewater and for years before 1711 they
had fallen on their weaker neighbors--
Meherins, Tawasas, Corees, and assorted
others--and sold captives to Virginians
and North Carolinians." Most disconcer-
tingly, Swanton's source for the Tawasa's
move into West Florida is the same one
that led Wright to make the Tawasa neigh-
bors of the Tuscarora of North Carolina,
the Lamhatty account.

Briefly, the Lamhatty account is a record
of the travails of a native named Lamhatty
who appeared in Virginia early in 1708,
identifying himself as a Towasa who had
been enslaved nine months earlier alleg-
edly by a Tuscarora raiding party that
attacked a number of villages shown on an

accompanying map as located near what is
believed to be the Gulf of Mexico, desig-
nated by the native name Ouquodky. On the
map the villages are placed near to or
between a very large river system flowing
into the "Gulf" and a smaller river system
to the west of it.

Bushnell (1908:568-574), who first pub-
lished the Robert Beverly version of the
account, and Swanton (1929:435-438), who
republished that version along with a
second one by John Walker, both identified
the above-mentioned river systems as the
Apalachicola-Flint-Chattahoochee and the
Choctawhatchee respectively, though Swan-
ton noted that a stream that is clearly
the Tallapoosa is portrayed as a western
affluent of the Chattahoochee and that the
supposed Choctawhatchee has a western af-
fluent that resembles the Chipola.

The names assigned to these rivers on the
map do not correspond to those given by
any other source. They are Chauctoubab
for the Flint, bly Netuckqua, for the
Apalachicola (part of the name having been
lost to a tear in the page), Wichise for
the Chattahoochee, Sayente Alatam oubab
for the western affluent of the Chatta-
hoochee,and Sowoolla oubab for the western
curving main stem of the Choctawhatchee.
To the serious errors in the two versions
of the account, that Swanton has indica-
ted, others might be added. Lamhatty, for
example, described his town in the Walker
account as being not far from "great
falls, and a little below that a great
salt water lake], whose waves he des-
cribes to tumble and roar like a sea"
(Swanton 1929:432). The falls and the
salt water lake do not appear in the
Beverly version. Whatever one makes of
the salt water lake, the "falls" suggest
an inland location for Lamhatty's Towasa
rather than coastal Florida.

It might be noted as well that the river
systems depicted on the map seem to con-
form more closely to those of Alabama than
to those of western Florida. Two of the
map's river names, Wichise and Sayente
Alatam, are suggestive of Georgia's Ocmul-
gee (Uchise Creek) and Altamaha. The mul-
tiplicity of problems, inherent in the ac-
count that Swanton and others have noted,


(o~r~X ~~A 3

Map showing the route of Lamhatty from Towasa in 1708.
Based on map insert (page 570 facing) in David I. Bushnell,
Jr's. "The Account of Lamhatty" (1908) in the American
Anthropologist, new series 10:568-574.

Figure 2.

suggest that the account should be ap-
proached with more caution than was re-
flected in Swanton's early effusive com-
ment that "A great deal of light has been
thrown upon the ethnographical complexion
of the region along the Apalachicola
River" by the Lamhatty account, even
though his enthusiasm is understandable in
the light of the little that was known

At the time of the interviews, Lamhatty
was a young man of twenty-six years, who
had just endured nine months of traumatic
experience and privation as a slave of his
fellow natives or as a fugitive from that
enslavement, the marks of which he still
bore. For those interviews there appar-
ently was no one available in Virginia who
understood his language and, most distur-
bingly, the main text of the Beverly ver-
sion closed with the remark, "but no body
can yet be found that understands his lan-
guage." In his version Walker noted simi-
larly that, after Lamhatty had been in his
house for a few days "I got ye Interpreter
and a tuscarora Indian to talk with him;
he at all times seemed very inclinable to
be understood, and was very forward to
talk, but neither of them could understand
him." The main text of the Beverly ver-
sion was followed by these words: "Post-
script [torn] (sic) after some of his
Country folks were found servants [torn]
he was sometimes ill used by Walker, be-
came very melancholy after fasting and
crying several days together sometimes
using little Conjuration & when warme
weather came he went away & and was never
more heard of." Despite this enigmatic
postscript the Tuscarora seem to have been
the vehicle for the "intelligence" gained
from Lamhatty.

In relation to this Swanton (1929:439)
remarked on the likely contamination of
the account due to the ethnocentrism of
the interpreters, suggesting that the
Tuscarora interpreters, in order to exalt
the importance of their nation, attributed
events to the Tuscarora in which they had
played no part and extended "the Tuscarora
name over numerous towns which had nothing
to do with that tribe, except it may be as
occasional enemies. Most of these really
belonged to the Creeks." In addition to

the problems posed by reliance on inter-
preters unfamiliar with the language of
the one being quizzed, one should keep in
mind the waggishness often attributed to
the native, as in a 1609 remark by Alonso
de Alas, a royal official at St. Augus-
tine, that "the Indians are great story
tellers and when there is the prospect of
their being given something for it they
will invent tales" (Alas 1609:17-20).
Consequently, the Lamhatty account overall
leaves much to be desired as a reliable
historical source and must be used with
great caution especially when it is not
corroborated by other sources. Fortu-
nately, there are late seventeenth century
and early eighteenth century sources of
information on the Tawasa other than the
Lamhatty account.

The Tawasa appear to have been mentioned
for the first time in the seventeenth cen-
tury only in 1675, but the precision of
the data on Tawasa provided by Bishop
Calderon in that year suggests that the
Spaniards already had had contact with
Tawasa or had gathered intelligence on
them through the Chacato or the Apalachi-
cola. After alluding to the Chacato and
the Chisca the bishop spoke of Tawasa
thus: "Between the northeast and [north]
west (sic), about 30 leagues distant, on
the bank of a large river, is the province
of Toassa, of barbarous heathen inhabi-
tants, comprising 14 villages: Toassa,
Imocolasa, Atayache, Pacani, Oslibati,
Afaschi, Escatana, Atassi, Tubassi,
Tiquepachi, Achichepa, Hilapi, Ilantalui,

With good reason authorities have ques-
tioned the bishop's placing of all those
villages, some of which were identified
later as important Upper Creek villages,
under the sway of Toassa. But that Toassa
was a leading village, then and later,
seems to be indicated by the repeated
allusions to the "province of Tawasa"
during the inquiry into the Chacato re-
volt, Marcos Delgado's reports, the Lam-
hatty account, and by the fact that it was
the cacique of Tawasa who visited Apala-
chee in 1686. But it should be noted that
among Lamhatty's ten Towasa villages,
Towasa was the only one whose name resem-
bles those of the bishop's province of

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

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