|USFDC Home | USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200385Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002069292
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 100420s2009 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0003187
Buffington, April J.
Creek/Seminole archaeology in the Apalachicola River Valley, northwest Florida
h [electronic resource] /
by April J. Buffington.
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 138 pages.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: The Seminole Indians were Creek Indians from Georgia and Alabama who migrated to Florida for several reasons, including much conflict from not only other native groups but European pursuits. This thesis documents the early Creeks coming into northwest Florida, and thereby contributes to the larger research question of Seminole ethnogenesis. By compiling not only the confusing and often unclear historical documentation, but also the archaeological record, this thesis examines Creek/Seminole archaeological sites along the Apalachicola River and lower Chattahoochee River and matches them up with known historical towns to see where and when the Creek Indians were coming into Florida within this valley and when these groups were being referred to as Seminoles. Another question addressed is why the sites, either known historical or archaeological, all fall in the northern portion of the project area and on the west bank of the rivers. The significance of this research is to try to correlate archaeological sites with historic towns and get a better understanding of which native groups are being referred to as Seminole, when they came into Florida, where they were settling, and what the settlements look like archaeologically.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Advisor: Nancy White, Ph.D.
Lower Creek Indians
Upper Creek Indians
Chattahoochee brushed pottery
x Applied Anthropology
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Creek/Seminole Archaeology in the Apalach icola River Valley, Northwest Florida by April J. Buffington A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Nancy Marie White, Ph.D. Brent R. Weisman, Ph.D. E. Christian Wells, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 13, 2009 Keywords: Historic Archaeology, Lower Cr eek Indians, Upper Creek Indians, Chattahoochee Brushed po ttery, Seminole Indians Copyright 2009, April J. Buffington
i Table of Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures v Abstract vii Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Historic Background 9 Chapter Three: Historically-Recorded Lower Creek/Seminole Towns 29 Historically-Recorded Towns along the Apalachicola River 33 Negro Fort/ Fort Gadsden 33 Ehawhohales or Ehawhokales 37 Blunt and Tuski Hajo Reservation 37 Ocheese(s) 38 Hyhappo or Savannah 38 Tamatle(s), Tomatly, or Tamathli 39 Mulatto King and Emathlochee Reservation 40 Historically-Recorded Towns along the Lower Chattahoochee River in Florida 40 Cheskitalowa(s) or Chiskatalofa 40 Red Ground or Ekanachatte 40 Wekiva(s) 42 Emusses, Emasses, or Yamassees 42 Tock-to-ethla, Totoawathla, or To towithla 42 Econchatimicos Reservation 43 Telmochesses or Telmocresses 44 Fowl Town 2 44 Other Historically-Recorded Towns 45 Tophulga 45 Nea Mathla Reservation 45 Mikasuki or Mikasuky 48 Uchees or Uchee Village 48 Tallehassas or Tallahassee 48 Attapulgas 48 Fowl Town 49
ii Oakmulges 49 Tallewheanas 49 Chehaw(s) 50 Etohussewakkes 50 Okatiokina(s) 50 Ufalla(h) or Eufaula 51 Sabacola, and Cherokeeleechees Town and Fort 51 Owassissas or Owacissa 52 Chapter Four: The Archaeology of the Lo wer Creek/Seminoles in Northwest Florida 54 Archaeological Site Descriptions Within the Project Area 60 The Atkins Landing site, 8Ca5 61 The McClellan site, 8Ca6 63 The Ocheesee Landing site, 8Ca8 66 The Ammonia Lake site, 8Ca11 67 The Dead Dog site, 8Ca26 68 The Windy Pines site, 8Ca27 69 The Graves Creek site, 8Ca34 69 The Cypress Stump site, 8Ca43 71 The John A. McClellan site, 8Ca149 71 The St. Vincent 6 site, 8Fr365 73 The St. Vincent 10 site, 8Fr369 75 USFS #86-10, the Negro Fort/Fort Gadsden site, 8Fr798 76 The Miles site, 8Gd137 80 The Interstream site, 8Gd279 81 The Sore Eye site, 8Gd280 81 The Jim Woodruff site (J-2), 8Ja5 81 The Chattahoochee #4 site (J-23), 8Ja25 82 The Arnold #5 site (J-25), 8Ja27 83 The Anthony/Fl.St.Pk. #1 site (J-28), 8Ja30 83 The Wendell Spence/Fl.St.Pk. #2 site (J-29), 8Ja31 84 The Port Jackson site (J-30), 8Ja32 85 The Hudson site (J-30), 8Ja37 86 The Neal site (J-42), 8Ja44 86 The Neals Landing site (J-43), 8Ja45 87 The Irwin Mill #1 site (J-46), 8Ja48 92 The Irwin Mill #2/Robinson site #6 (J-47), 8Ja49 92 The Irwin Mill #3 site (J-48), 8Ja50 93 The Neals Bridge #2 site (J-49), 8Ja51 94 The Neals Bridge #3 site (J-50), 8Ja52 95 The State Hospital Farm site (J-3), 8Ja60 95 The Sawgrass Circle site, 8Ja270 96 The Robinson #1 site, 8Ja272 96 The Robinson #7 site, 8Ja278 97
iii The Night site, 8Ja296 98 The Peeper site, 8Ja309 98 The Popes Cabin site 8Ja391 99 The Sneads Port site, 8Ja409 100 The Thick Greenbriar site, 8Ja417 100 Chapter Five: Data Analysis 102 Historical Analysis 102 Archaeological Analysis 111 Settlement Patterns 122 Chapter Six: Summary Statements 126 References Cited 132
iv List of Tables Table 2.1 European-Native American treat ies during the 1700s 20 Table 3.1 Historically-recorded towns within the Project Area 34 Table 3.2 Other histori cally-recorded towns outsi de the Project Area 46 Table 4.1 Sites thought to be Lowe r Creek/Seminole recorded within the Project Area 58 Table 5.1 Associated archaeological site clusters with historicallyrecorded towns 112 Table 5.2 Native American ceramics from Lower Creek/ Seminole sites in the Proj ect Area 114 Table 5.3 Euro-American ceramics from Lower Creek/Seminole sites within the Project Area 115 Table 5.4 Glass and other remain ing materials recovered from Lower Creek/Seminole sites wi thin the Project Area 116 Table 5.5 Percentages of different ar tifact types from possible creekcomponent materials at sites within Project Area 120
v List of Figures Figure 1.1 Project Area 3 Figure 1.2 Crew photo 6 Figure 1.3 Internship area outlined in red 7 Figure 2.1 Southeast region 10 Figure 2.2 Map of the mouth of the St. John s River and St. Augustine 13 Figure 2.3 Lower Creek Indian movements 1685-1691 15 Figure 2.4 The southern frontier, circa 1800 18 Figure 2.5 Land exchanged in U.S.-Native Am erican relations 26 Figure 3.1 Upper and Lower Creek Indians circa 1800 31 Figure 3.2 Historically-recorded town s within the Project Area based on location descriptions 35 Figure 3.3 Other historica lly-recorded towns outside of the Project Area referred to in the disc ussion 47 Figure 4.1 Example of Chattahooch ee Brushed Pottery found on the surface at the Interstream site (Gd279) 56 Figure 4.2 Lower Creek/Seminole sites found through archaeological investigation 59 Figure 4.3 Five sites visited du ring internship research, outlin ed in red 62 Figure 4.4 Shovel test Ca6-A 64 Figure 4.5 Artifact scatter at Ca6 65
vi Figure 4.6 Swamp near the Dead Dog s ite and the Windy Pines site where crew was lost 69 Figure 4.7 Sherd labeled Chattahoochee Brushed Pottery from Fr365 in the FSU collection 74 Figure 4.8 Sherd labeled Chattahoochee Brushe d Pottery from 8Fr369 75 Figure 4.9 Earthwork remains of Fort Gadsden 77 Figure 5.1 Archaeological (green dots) a nd historical (red squares) sites in Project Area 103 Figure 5.2 Etawhohasles and Ca6, Ca26, Ca27, and Ca149 104 Figure 5.3 Ocheeses and Ca8 and Ca43 105 Figure 5.4 Hyhappo (Savannah) and Ja417 106 Figure 5.5 Tamatles and Ja409 and Ja391 107 Figure 5.6 Wekivas and Ja25 108 Figure 5.7 Econchatimicos Reservation and Ja309, Ja270, Ja32, Ja31, Ja30, and Ja27 108 Figure 5.8 Red Ground (Ekanachatte) and Ja45, Ja48, Ja49, and Ja50 109 Figure 5.9 Historic towns and a ssociated archaeological sites not associated 110 Figure 5.10 Aerial photo of the Apalachicola River 123
vii Creek/Seminole Archaeology in the Apalach icola River Valley, Northwest Florida April J. Buffington ABSTRACT The Seminole Indians were Creek In dians from Georgia and Alabama who migrated to Florida for several reasons, including much conflic t from not only other native groups but European pursuits. This th esis documents the early Creeks coming into northwest Florida, and thereby contributes to the larger research question of Seminole ethnogenesis. By compiling not only the confusing and often unclear historical documentation, but also the archaeological record, this thesis examines Creek/Seminole archaeological sites along the Apalachicola River and lower Chattahoochee River and matches them up with known historical towns to see where and when the Creek Indians were coming into Florida within this valley and when these groups were being referred to as Seminoles. Another question addressed is why the sites, either known historical or archaeological, all fall in the northern portion of the project area and on the west bank of the rivers. The significance of this research is to try to correlate ar chaeological sites with historic towns and get a better understanding of which native groups are being referred to as Seminole, when they came into Florida, where they were settling, and what the settlements look like archaeologically.
1 Chapter One: Introduction After almost two centuries of disease, European conflict, and harsh colonial policies following the Old World invasion, Florida and southwestern Georgia were essentially devoid of Native American groups (Wright1986:6). The Native Americans in Georgia and Alabama were dealing mostly with the British. Struggles between the Spanish and the British created an opportuni ty for the Native Americans to migrate to Florida (Sturtevant 1971:102). The area of north central Florida became repopulated by the Creek Indians from central Georgia and Alabama (Stojanowski 2005:39). Those Creeks living in Florida eventually became known as the Seminole Indians. These Creek groups can be separated into Upper and Lo wer Creeks depending on where they were originally located. The Uppe r Creeks resided on the C oosa, Tallapoosa, and Alabama Rivers while the Lower Creeks resided on th e Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers (Swanton 1998:216). The Upper Creeks ar e typically referred to as the Creeks while the Lower Creeks are thought to be the ancestors of the Seminole I ndians. Unfortunately the process of ethnogenesis, the emergence of a particular group of people with a specific heritage, is not always clear. To understand how these new natives in Florida became the Seminoles, one need not only examine the archaeological record for evidence of which Native American groups were occupying Florida and at what period of time, but also to incorporate
2 historical documentation to understand when these groups were being referred to as Seminole. Caution is advised when using the historical record. Na mes of towns, rivers, chiefs, and other people are often the same or similar. Also, when groups of people moved they occasionally used the same town name for their new location. This is why it is important to document not only the names of people and places but also where they are located and when events occurred. This thesis explores the Apalachicola Ri ver Valley and the lowest 25 miles of the Chattahoochee River Valley in Florida (Figure 1.1), which is farthe r northwest than the better known Seminole region of north-central an d southern peninsular Florida. During the First Seminole War (Saunt 1999:276), military activities took place in the Apalachicola region, especially at the Negro Fort (later known as Fort Gadsden). It stands to reason that the Semi noles would have been living here prior to that event. I am specifically looking for how histor ically known sites compare with the archaeological record and where and when Native American groups were being called Creek (specifically Upper or Lower) or Semi nole in northwest Florida. Although this does not explain the ethnogenesis of the Seminol e Indians, it contributes to larger studies on the topic. The goals of my work are to identify the locations of historically known Creek and Seminole towns along the Apalachic ola River and Lower Chattahoochee River as defined by the presence of Chattahooch ee Brushed pottery, and to compile all the unpublished University of South Florida data concerning Lower Creek/Seminole sites in this region. I also conducted spec ific internship research at a few of the sites to add to the data. In addition to these goals, I discuss whether the Native Americans referred to as
Figure 1.1 Project Area: the Apalachicola River Valley and the lower Chattahoochee River Valley (within the Florida border). 3
4 Creeks within the project area are Lower, as originally recorded, or Upper Creeks. Since the historical record can create confusion, it is important to understand what other variations Seminole can take. The term Seminole is derived from the Spanish word cimarron which means wild or untamed (Fairbanks 1957:4); the term also applied to marooned sailors and to the big horn sheep of the American West. By the 1830s, the term took on two different uses by the Europeans. The first was a general term for all the Florida Indians, and the second was a specifi c term for the native band that derived from Alachua, along the Suwannee River in central peninsular Florida (Sturtevant 1971:110). Eventually the Native groups, whether for gains in trade or any other government venture, or because it was just easier, began referring to themselves in the same fashion. The Creek Indians, from whom the Seminoles derived, do not use the r sound, but transformed it into an l sound. The English, overhearing the Native Americans talking, believed cimarron to be Seminole (Fairbanks 1957: 6). The first recorded use in English of the new term appears in field notes accompanying the surveyor DeBrahms map of Florida in 1765, using Seminolskees to refer to any Indians whom he encountered in Florida during his ex pedition for the British government (Weisman1989:37). Sturtevant (1971) gathered information th at the earliest report was a 1765 English document in which Seminole applied speci fically to Cowkeepers Alachua group. Another early account of the term Seminole come s from a letter from Indian Agent Stuart to General Gage from Mobile, Alabam a, December 14, 1771, which includes the Seminoles or East Florida Creeks (Fai rbanks 1957:6). In general by the 1770s,
5 Native Americans of Florida were being referred to as Seminoles; but specifically the Alachua group (or Oconee Creeks who migrated to Florida by 1738) is credited as being the first (Fairbanks 1957:95; Sturtevant 1971:110; Wright 1986:6). However, many Creeks were in northwest Florida by this time. I examine the project area first by docume nting all of the historically recorded Lower Creek/Seminole towns, looking not only at locations but also when they were occupied. For this I created a table of the towns with their locations and the time period they were recorded. From that, a map was created with the towns placed as closely as possible to where they are descri bed in the historical documents. Next, I document all the recorded Lower Creek/Seminole archaeological sites in my project area and describe the material culture. This part of the work was done as part of my M.A. internship. Information was gath ered from the University of South Floridas archaeological database, the Fl orida Master Site File in Tallahassee, the Florida State University archaeology lab (where the St. Vi ncent Island artifacts are stored), and the University of Georgia archaeo logy lab (where artifacts from the Lake Seminole Survey are stored). Once a list was created of all the archaeologically-recorded Lower Creek/Seminole sites (based on the presen ce of diagnostic Chattahoochee Brushed pottery or location near a hist oric Lower Creek/Seminole town), five sites were chosen to be revisited. The fieldwork was conducted in Flor ida in August, 2004. A small crew volunteered for the job (Figure 1.2) since the project was not pa rt of a field school or any other survey project. Most of the archaeological sites compiled were investigated
through surface collection and some shovel test ing, so many of them could use further investigation. As seen on the map (Figure 1.3), the majority of sites are located close to the confluence of the Apalachic ola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers. The sites start to thin out as one moves southward to enter Ca lhoun County, and it is not understood why. Figure 1.2 Crew photo l-r, Cassandra R. Harper, Tony White, Nancy White, Amber Yuellig, and April J. Buffington. Since it is unclear why there are fewer historic Creek sites in the middle and lower Apalachicola River Valley as the archaeol ogical record for all other time periods is very rich and the resources of the valley are abundant, I decided to start in Calhoun County with the five southernmost Lower Creek sites. One goal was to see if there was a difference in the southernmost sites compared to those in north Jackson County, closer to where the Creek Indians would have been coming into Florida from Georgia and Alabama. The five sites chosen (Figure 1.3) for further investigation included McClellan (8Ca6), John A. McClellan (8Ca149), D ead Dog (8Ca26), Windy Pines (8Ca27), and Ammonia Lake (8Ca11). Ammonia Lake was also investigated because, although it was 6
Figure 1.3 Internship area outlined in red; show ing archaeological site s attributed to the Lower Creeks/Seminoles. 7
8 labeled as Lower Creek in the University of South Florida database, none of the typical brushed pottery was recorded for this site in any of the databases. The information on materials from my fiel dwork and the data collected from other surveys were compiled into tables and analyzed. They were compared to the record from other Creek sites in Georgia and Alabama. Finally, I overlaid the ar chaeological sites and the historically-recorded towns on a map to see how they compare. Some archaeological sites were previously determined to coincide with the historically-recorded towns, while the map I created suggested other correlations All of this work contributes to an understanding of the ethnogenesis of the Se minole Indians and also of which native groups were occupying the Apalachicola River Valley during the European and American struggle for Florida.
9 Chapter Two: Historic Background Before Europeans became interested in Florida in the early 1500s, the Native Americans had only one another and the forces of nature to contend with. All that changed when Juan Ponce de Len, who had served as governor of the colony of San Juan on the island of Puerto Rico for Sp ain (Milanich 1995:107), landed on the Florida peninsula in 1512. His original destination, an island named Bimini, was to be claimed for Spain (Hoffman 1993:1). Ponces voyage followed a more westerly route, landing him and his crew just north of Cape Canavera l (Figure 2.1). Because of Floridas natural beauty and the voyage coinciding with the Fe ast of the Flowers during Holy Week, Ponce named the peninsula La Florida (Clayton et al. 1993:62; Fairbanks 1957:12; Milanich 1995:108), or flowery. Conti nuing his quest for Bimini, he traveled around southern Florida, exploring the Gulf coast. He finally landed proba bly just south of Charlotte Harbor (Milanich 1995:108). The expedition met with little success as they did not reach Bimini or, more important, find riches for Spain. His second expedition, February 1521, brought to Florida an attempt at colonization. It is unknown where he landed but he was met with Native American hostilities. After being defeated by natives, Ponce retreated to Cuba, where he died of wounds from an arrow (Milanich 1995:110). Panfilo de Narvez, a conquistador who had participated in campaigns against the native peoples of Cuba and Mexico, was the firs t to explore northwest Floridas interior.
He was contracted by Spain to colonize the region, which included building three forts, and Christianizing the native people (Milanich 1995:116). Narvez landed in the Tampa Figure 2.1 Southeast region 10
11 Bay area around 1528 and went as far as the Ap alachee, in or near Tallahassee (Hoffman 1993:4-5). He and his crew stayed here for about 25 days. During their stay, they made three explorations into the surroundi ng areas (Milanich and Hudson 1993:218-219). They were attacked constantly by the Native Americans in the area, possibly one of the first accounts of guerrilla warfare (Fernndez 1975:48). Eventual ly the hungry crew began to eat their horses, despite the abundance of Floridas wildlife. They decided to sail westward, possibly landing on St. Vincent Island in the Apalachicola delta, stealing canoes and food from the Native Americans. After their barges we re repaired, they continued their westward journey to th e Mississippi River (Cabeza de Vaca 1537:47). Hernando DeSoto landed in Florida around Tampa Bay on the last day of May in 1539 (Clayton et al. 1993: 99). Like Narvez he traveled north to Apalachee where he spent the winter. DeSoto and his men continued north through to Georgia, not to return to Florida (Fairbanks 1957:13). His expedition ev entually turned west towards Mexico but in June of 1542, Hernando DeSoto contracted an illness. After several days of severe fever, he died, never reaching Mexico (C layton et al. 1993:446-7). Although these Spanish expeditions moved fairly quickly throug h Florida, they left behind a lasting gift for the Native Americans: European diseases which spread throughout Florida (Milanich 1995:125). The presence or absence of gold, at first, determined Floridas land value to the Spanish. These expeditions, as well as many ot hers, led Spain to believe Florida was of little significance to them. The French did not have the same feeling. In 1562 Jean Ribaut landed in present day St. Augustin e and traveled to South Carolina. His
12 expedition led directly to the coming of Ren Goulaine de Laudonnire, a French Huguenot and Ribauts lieutenant during his Florida voyage, who settled on the St. Johns River (Smith and Gottlob 1994:5). Here he esta blished Fort Caroline, a base station for the French from which further explorati on occurred (Fairbanks 1957:13-4; Ribaut 1927:4-5). Although the Spanish had little use for th e land in Florida, the waterways around Florida proved to be a valuable source to tr ansport the gold recovered from Mexico. In order to protect Spanish assets, the French n eeded to be removed from Florida. Spain sent Pedro Menndez de Avils, commander of Spains Caribbean fleet, in September 1565, to establish a post from which they c ould destroy the French. Menndez landed at the mouth of the St. Johns River (Figure 2.2; although these events occurred in 1565, the 1832 map is used to show how rapidly European colonization took pl ace). As a result the French were slaughtered and St. Augustine was founded (Fairbanks 1957:14; Milanich 1995:148-150; Smith and Gottlob 1994:5). The DeSoto expeditions of the interior of Florida influenced Menndezs decision to send Captain Juan Pardo to further explor e inland. Specifically, they were looking for agricultural possibilities; if they were going to be in Florida, they c ould take advantage of the opportunities. Perhaps more important, though, the Spanish were looking for a shorter route to Mexico (Hoffman 1993:9). Having control of Florida meant the Span ish now had to deal with the native populations. The Spanish believed that the Florida natives did not have the rich, elaborate cultures or social systems they saw among the natives of Mexico. In an
Figure 2.2 Map of the mouth of the St. Johns River and St. Augustine (adapted from I.T. Hinton & Simpkin & Marshall Map, 1832). attempt to remedy the situation, a mission sy stem was developed (there are many years between the exploration of Florida and the colonization or mission era, of which we have little knowledge). Not only could they save the native souls, but they could also capitalize on small agricultura l societies (which they would develop among the natives) in order to control a larg er area (Fairbanks 1957:16; Smith and Gottlob 1994:7). 13 While the French and the Spanish battled for position in Florida, the English were exploring other lands just to the north and making their own contacts (Bushnell 2006:205). The Spanish had little use for the Native Americans except for labor, while the English immediately realized the trade opportunities. Th e trade produced a desire by
14 Indians for European goods which only the E nglish capitalized on. Th e English in return received native tools, ornaments, and especi ally deerskins and othe r goods. They also traded for native slaves. Warfare and raids into Florida occurred in order for Englishfriendly natives to acquire slaves for trading (Bushnell 2006:205). The Lower Creek (a name originally given to the Native American s living on Ochese Creek, a tributary of the Ocmulgee River, by the English) or Yamasee groups of Georgia, affiliated with the English, were usually at the heart of th ese disruptions (Fairbanks 1957:19; Saunt 1999:13; Wright 1986:2). In Chapter three, th ere is an in-depth discussion of which native groups were being referred to as Creeks, Lower Creeks, and Upper Creeks. The Spanish eventually understood the advantages of having friendly trade relations with the Indians. As part of th eir efforts to acquire native friendships, the Spanish waged war against those natives friendly to the British. After almost a century of abuse, including the Spanish burning of th eir towns, a number of major Lower Creek groups moved from the Chattahoochee River to the middle course of the Ocmulgee River, 1685 to 1691 (Figure 2.3). A more favor able position for the Indians in the Carolinian (English; referred to as Carolinian due to their occupation of the Carolinas) trade also prompted this move (Mason 1963:69). The Lower Creeks fought back with British-assisted raids on the Spanish from 1702-04 (Hoffman 2002:161; Weisman 1989:7). They effectively wiped out the Spanish-Indian mission chain in north Florida which had extended at one point as far west as the confluence of the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers (which make the Apalachicola River). This left the Spaniards on the Atlantic
Figure 2.3 Lower Creek Indian movements 1685-1691. coast unprotected. It also left few Spanishfriendly Native Americans in north Florida (Fairbanks 1957:20). The Lower Creek groups took full advantage of the Spanish-free territory by moving into ar eas around Tallahassee and al ong the Apalachicola River (Hoffman 2002:175; Weisman 1989:7) while other groups moved to the St. Augustine area for the same reasons (Hann 2006:141). During this time, the Yamassee War of 1715 was being waged in Georgia and the Carolinas. The war was between the Yamass ee Indians and the British or any other Native Americans who were loyal to the British. The Creek and the Choctaw were major figures and to a lesser extent the Cherokee, who eventually sided with the British. The Native Americans revolted against the Britis h mainly because the British required the natives to pay for their debts in Nativ e American slaves (Ethridge 2003:24; Hann 2006:137-8; Swanton 1998:97). With an Englis h victory, many of the Native American 15
16 groups moved to Florida, specifically to St Augustine where, as noted earlier, the Spanish missions were effectively wiped out. The English, although victorious, learned a few important details about the Native Americ ans. The most important realization was that, although the natives relied on Europ ean-made guns, the Native Americans were far greater in number than the English. This fact or forced them to esta blish a more regulated trade in deerskins instead of slaves (Ethridge 2003:24-25). By 1715, the English trade and overall trea tment had proved disappointing to the Native Americans along the Ocmulgee, so t hose Lower Creeks who did not move to Florida moved back to the lower Chattahoochee Valley (Fairbanks 1957:104, Sturtevant 1971:101; Wright 1986:2). It is at this point that the Cree ks began to divide, with some now allying themselves with the Spanish in stead of the British (Hoffman 2002:184). The English began making their way south at Spains expense. In an attempt to buffer themselves against the British, the Span ish tried to lure the Creeks back to the Apalachee area, closer to the north central portion of Florida (Stu rtevant 1971:101). The Spanish especially wanted Emperor Brim, th e Lower Creek chief of Coweta, Georgia, whose son, named Usinjulo (by the Spanish) or Seccoffee, (by the British) was already friendly to the Spanish. Although Brim and his group could not be swayed by any one European group, the Spanish managed to c onvince several native groups, including the towns of Apalachicola (along the lower Chattahoochee Rive r, not on the Apalachicola River; see Figure 2.3), Oconee, Hitchiti, Sawokli, and Yuchi to move from Georgia to the Apalachee region, near present day Tallaha ssee (Fairbanks 1957:109; Sturtevant 1971:101). The English again attempted to ea rn the friendship of the Lower Creeks by
17 sending Tobias Fitch in 1725 to help create peace between the Lower Creeks and the Cherokee, who were at war. The Lower Creek s were open to this friendship until they were attacked by the Cherokee a year later. They felt betrayed by the English and the beginning of Creek anti-British peri od began (Fairbanks 1957:112-3). In 1732, Georgia was founded by James E. Og lethorpe. The English presence in Georgia was immediately felt. Oglethorpe c oncentrated a small, white colony near the Atlantic coast to establish a foothold. By 1745 there were nearly 1400 English in the colony, growing to approximately 6000 by 1760 (Wood 2006:85). Because of this, some Creek towns, families, and individuals moved into Florida. Seccoffee and the Spanishfriendly Lower Creek groups settled in the Apalachee area (Figure 2.4) while Cowkeeper, leader of a band of Oconee Creeks from Georgia who moved into Fl orida as allies of Oglethorpe, and his followers settled in th e Alachua prairie (Fairbanks 1957:120-1). Although the English quickly closed in on the Florida territory, Spai n did manage to hold on to it for thirty more years. In 1763 the Spanish ceded Florida to Britain in exchange for Havana, as negotiated in the Trea ty of Paris (Hoffman 2002:174). The British were not prepared to take over at first, but by May 1763 they were ready. They decided to use St. Augustine as their administrative center for East Florida while Pensacola served as a base for West Florida, the boundary between them being the Apalachicola River (Wright 1986:104-5). Duri ng this time, the leading figure was John Stuart, British Indian agent fo r the Southern District, which included all thos e tribes south of the Ohio line. First he implemented a po licy that the British ha d been slowly working on since the disastrous effects of the uncontrolled trade resu lting in the Yamassee War of
Figure 2.4 The southern frontier, circa 1800 (a dapted from Ethridge 2003:14). Seccoffee and his Lower Creek band moved to Apalachee and Cowkeeper and his Oconee Creeks moved to the Alachua Prairie, 1732. 1715 (Fairbanks 1957:138; Hoffma n 2002:184; Ethridge 2003:25). The basic plan was to have a line to separate the Indians, to locat e them west of the line, from the European settlements, on the east. The British were given advice from Spanish commander Bentura Diaz, who explained that the Indians could raise a force of 500 men to attack at any time. A letter he wrote in 1764 refers to the Indian hunters and inhabitants from the west, but also indicates native occupation al ong the coast west of the St. Marks River, perhaps in the Dog Island area. Major Og ilvie, in command at St. Augustine, reported 18
19 that the Creeks around St. Augustine were quiet and that Cowkeeper was very friendly to the English (Fairbanks 1957:143). In any ev ent, the Apalachicola River was the line that was established by the Treaty of Augus ta (Table 2.1) in 1763 (Sturtevant 1971:104; Wright 1986:105). Stuart organized a meeting with the Creeks at St. Marks on 13 September 1764. Some of the groups to attend from Georgia were the Chiaha, Apalachicola, and Sawokli. These groups, with the Oconees, were the pa rent towns of Cowkeeper and his band, who now resided in the Alachua area. At this meeting, Stuart noticed separateness between them and Cowkeepers band. Stuarts next move was to turn the two native groups against each other without their knowledge. His immediate action simply emphasized the differences between the Lower Creek in Georgia and those in Florida (Fairbanks 1957:146). Several more treaties (Table 2.1) were signed in following meetings with the natives. The Treaty of Pensacola in 1765 (S turtevant 1971:104) further established peace between the British and Native American settle rs by reinforcing the line that was drawn by the Treaty of Augusta, 1763. There were no identifiable chiefs among the signers of the Treaty or Pensacola (Fairbanks 1957:147). The next meeting occurred at Picolata, just west of St. Augustine, also in 1765 (Sturtevant 1971:104 ). Among the agreements of this treaty were friendship between the English and the Upper and Lower Creeks, good trade relations, and an area of 2,000,000 acres from the St. Johns River towards the St. Marys River, ceded to the English. The Na tive Americans simply ceded the coastal land to the English while retreating inland.
Table 2.1 European-Native American treaties du ring the 1700s Treaty Year Place What Accomplished Between Whom Augusta 1763 Augusta, Georgia A line to separate the Native Americans (in the west) and the Europeans (in the east) in GA The Creek Indians and the colony of Georgia (English) Pensacola 1765 Pensacola, Florida Continued the east/west Georgia line into Florida establishing East and West Florida The Creek Indians and the English Picolata 1765 Picolata, Florida (west of St. Augustine) Continued friendship, good trade relations, and 2,000,000 acres of land ceded to the English The Creek Indians and the English Pensacola 1784 Pensacola, Florida Friendship between Spanish and the Creek Indians The Creek Indians and the Spanish Galphinton 1785 Galphinton, Georgia Appoint commissioners to deal with southern Native Americans, additional Indian land ceded to U.S The Creek Indians and the United States Cowkeeper did not attend the meeting at Pico lata due to an illness. It is thought that the sickness was political in nature (Fairbanks 1957: 154). If the birth of the Seminole can be traced to a specific time and place, that date is November 18, 1765, the place, Picolata on the banks of the St. Johns River west of St. Augustine (Weisman 1999:14). The Creeks in Florida, specifical ly Cowkeepers Alachua group, had begun to drift from their Georgia counter parts, coinciding with their resentment of the colonial authorities. In 1767 another meeting between the British and the Indians was held at Picolata. Cowkeeper again did not attend but sent hi s brother and brother-in-law with 20 other 20
21 Indians from the Alachua group to gather up the presents to whic h he felt they were entitled. It was common practi ce of the English to present gifts to the Native Americans at the start of such meetings. It was here we have an earl y reference to wild people or Cimarrones or the English in terpretation as Seminoles (Fairbanks 1957:159; Saunt 1999:35; Sturtevant 1971:105) in re ference to the Alachua band. At this point, the Lower Creeks inhabite d areas from the Apalachicola River to nearly the St. Johns River and from the Ge orgia border to Caloosahatchee Bay. The Seminoles, or proto-Seminoles as Hoffman (2002:215) refers to them, had not yet become a separate entity from the Creek C onfederacy (combined forces of the Upper and Lower Creeks [Ethridge 2003:26-28]) but were beginning to drift apart and create a division. People such as William Bartram, a naturalist, who was traveling along the St. Johns River in Florida in 1765-66, used the terms Lower Creeks and Seminoles interchangeably (Bartram 1955; Fairbanks 1957:167; Hoffman 2002:216). As the American Revolution approached, the Creeks and the Seminoles had to choose sides. Trade was extremely impor tant to the Creeks and the Seminoles, explaining their attraction to the loyalists (t hose settlers who remained loyal to the British) who gave them presents (this is espe cially true of the Florida bands). Again things are not always as black and white as people would like to believe. Some groups, one in particular headed by Tugulkee (Thle hulgee), the grandson of Old (Emperor) Brim and a powerful chief of the Coweta, traveled to Havana, Cuba, to discuss friendship with the Spanish (Fairbanks 1957:174-176; Wright 1986:35). By 1771, John Stuart, superintendent of Indi an affairs for the southern department of North America (Hamer
22 1930:351), wrote to General Thomas Gage, Br itish general and commander-in-chief of North American forces 1763-1775, about these trip s to Havana. This letter is one of the first documents to mention specifically the ea st Florida Creeks as Seminoles (Wright 1986:104). These trips lasted until about 1788, a nd it seemed that at least some of the Creeks and Seminoles were allying themselves with the Spanish. Although the amount of Seminoles was small (Bartram 1955:209), th ey possessed territory reaching from east to west Florida. Following the Revolutionary War, the Englis h had to relinquish all claims in the New World. The second Spanish occupati on of Florida lasted from 1783 to 1819. The history of this era is dominated by W illiam Augustus Bowles and Alexander McGillivray. McGillivray, son of a Scottis h man and a native woman, promoted himself as the head of the Lower Creeks in the 1780s. Although the Creeks did not necessarily believe he was their head, he did represen t the emergence of a new and controversial political and economic order (Saunt 1999:7075). McGillivray believed the Creeks needed a strong ally against the Americans, which he sought out with the Spanish. He also pushed for the Seminoles (Fairbanks 1957:191) in Florida to become part of the Creek Confederacy and to ally themselves with the Spanish. Bowles was a loyalist during the American Revolution (Wright 1967:7) but was dismissed for insubordination. After his dismissal he lived in the Florida and south Georgia woods for about two years until he returned to the defense of Pensacola with the Creek. For his efforts in Pensacola, his commission was reinstated. It was about th is time that he married the daughter of a Lower Creek chief Perryman (Wright 1967:13). Bowles and his new bride then moved to
23 the lower Apalachicola River area (Fairba nks 1957:194-95). He supported the trading company of Miller, Bonnamy, and Company in an attempt to break up the monopoly in east Florida of Panton, Leslie and Company. Bowles won over the Lower Creeks in 1791 by suggesting to them that McGillivray had ced ed native lands to enrich himself. The Creeks and Seminoles also received a feeling of independence with Bowles as he tried to establish an independent state of Muskogee (Fairbanks 1957:182, Saunt 1999:86-7; Wright 1967:120). The British were slower to leave Florida in 1783 than had been the Spanish in 1763. It was not until 1785 that they had comp letely left. Vicente Manuel de Zspedes (Saunt 1999:166), the new Spanish governor, began his reign by taking full advantage of the trade system that the British had su ccessfully introduced. Panton, Leslie, and Company was still the recognized Indian trader in East Florida (Wright 1986:47) even though they were British. McGillivray was a si lent but not concealed partner in the firm, with John Forbes at the head. They made pleas to the Spanish to stay and trade with the Lower Creeks and the Seminoles, claiming they knew how to handle them. They argued that this would also take some pressure off the new Spanish government. With the English rule, there had been a push by St uart for the separation of the Creeks and Seminoles. With McGillivray in charge, the push was back to keeping them as one unit, the Creek Confederacy (Fairbanks 1957:187). Overall, the Indians were in shock at the idea of the English leaving and the Spanish once again taking over. The majority supported the English, despite attempts to make friends with the Spanish in Havana as the English had better trade.
24 The Spanish Treaty of Pensacola (Tab le 2.1), signed May 31 and June 1, 1784, began formalized relations between the Creeks and the Spaniards. There was no land exchange, but the Indians agreed to help the Spanish in the struggle against the Americans. In 1784, the Creeks and the Seminol es mainly occupied two principal areas: the Tallahassee Red Hills and the Alachua prairie. There is little known about the groups living on the Apalachicola River. Keeping the Seminoles and Creeks closer to the Georgia border was part of McGillivrays plan to draw them closer to the Creek Confederacy (Fairbanks 1957:191). Zspedes wa s not completely oblivious to what was happening in Florida. He realized that the Seminoles were almost a separate entity and decided to make an address aimed at them separate from the Creeks. In Georgia a meeting was held between the US Commission for Indian Affairs and the Creeks to sign the Treaty of Galphinton, 12 Novemb er 1785. Only a handful of Creeks attended the meeting but the Georgia commissioners were willing to accept these signatures. The treaty established peace be tween the United States citizens and the Native Americans, upholding th e line established by the Trea ty of Augusta in 1763. The Creeks not in attendance never acknowledged this meeting, which led to the outbreak of the Oconee War between the Creeks and the Ge orgians. The Seminoles contributed to the attacks on Georgia (Fairbanks 1957:194). Although the Seminoles were making strides towards their independence, they rema ined a part of the Creek Confederacy. In fact, in 1786, the U. S. commissioners create d a list of Indians which divided the Lower Creeks, Upper Creeks and Seminoles, but grouped them under the title of Creek Confederacy.
25 By 1788, the Spanish had withdrawn their support for McGillivray, which gave Bowles the courage to seek out supporters. At McGillivrays death in 1793, the Creeks turned to Benjamin Hawkins, an American agent, for help (Sturtevant 1971:106). This and a visit in 1811 by Tecumseh, Shawnee warrior from Ohio, campaigning for a panIndian uprising (Ethridge 2003:21; Wright 1986 :166)), are thought to have been major factors in the outbreak of the Redstick War, a civil war among those Creeks who supported an uprising and those who did not. The Red Sticks were those followers of Tecumseh and the Indian prophets, and in cluded Upper Creeks, who lived along the Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Alabama Rivers, as well as Lower Creeks, who lived along the lower Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers (Eth ridge 2003:238-40). The uprising produced a major migration of Upper Creeks into Florid a where they combined with the Seminole bands (Fairbanks 1957:188). By this time, Bowles had become a major problem. Forbes lost much from the attacks on the Panton, Leslie, and Company by Bo wles. Forbes wanted satisfaction in the way of land for the debt which his company ha d incurred from the Creeks and Seminoles. Benjamin Hawkins simply wanted to capture Bowles. After Hawkins meetings with the Creeks and the Seminoles, these native groups turned over Bowles to Hawkins. Forbes was repaid with the land acquired through the Forbes Purchase in 1804 (Figure 2.5). The Native American land ceded consisted of a tr act between the Apalachicola and St. Marks Rivers, nearly 1.4 million acres situated southwest of present day Tallahassee (Saunt 1999:222). Forbes did not actually purchase the land but it was used as a settlement for
Figure 2.5 Land exchanged in U.S.-Native American relations (adapted from Saunt 1999:271). the Creeks and Seminoles debt. The Creeks initially denied res ponsibility for those debts to Forbes and Panton, Leslie, and Company incurred by the Seminoles but later claimed that the Forbes Purchase cancelled out any debt that they had obtained (Fairbanks 1957:207-8; Wright 1967:164). 26
27 In 1790, Major Caleb Swan, an Americ an Military officer (Braund 1991:603), described the Seminoles as living chiefly n ear the Apalachicola River but the only town mentioned was Mikasuki, which lies east of th e Ochlocknee River. He described them as almost completely wandering hunters and fi shers (not like the extensive settlements around Alachua). By 1804, Seminole bands assumed virtually complete independence from the Lower and Upper Creek Confederation (Fairbanks 1957:208). The division of the Seminoles in Florid a from the Lower Creek groups in Georgia and the trouble over the American-Spanish border conditions was the catalyst for the First Seminole War. Reports from U.S. m ilitary along the Apalachicola River were that the Seminoles were preparing for war. The Negro Fort (Figure 2.1) was being occupied and armed by natives as well as escaped black slaves. The Negro Fort, as it was called due to the escaped black slaves who fl ed there, was constructed by the British to supply those natives loyal to the British. It was built on Prospect Bluff along the Apalachicola River where Forbes had earlier es tablished a trading post, discussed further in Chapter 3 (Griffin 1950:256; Poe 1963:2). Co l. Duncan Clinch was ordered to build Fort Scott (Figure 2.1) on the Flint River just north of the Florida border (Saunt 1999:276). The Americans, looking for a reason to start the war, ordered the supplies for Fort Scott to be brought in from New Orleans, up the Apal achicola River. The thought was that if the convoy was fired upon, the Ameri cans would have an excuse to attack the Negro Fort and the Seminoles. It just so ha ppened that Clinch got to fire on the Negro Fort in July of 1816. The men at the fort were not trained in heavy artillery and were not fair opponents for Clinch. After a few rounds, Clinch had targeted the powder magazine
28 and fired a hot shot, a cannonba ll that had been placed in the fire to make it hot when it was loaded. The cannonball hit its target and de stroyed the fort (Poe 1963:2). The rest of the war was also not good for the Seminoles In 1823, just south of St. Augustine the Treaty of Moultrie Creek was signed. The tr eaty ceded all Indian land claims in the whole territory of Florida ex cept for reservation lands, four along the Apalachicola River and two in central Florida. To the Seminoles confined to the central part of the state as well as those on the Apalachicola River, th e government would afford protection and money. They were guaranteed peaceable posse ssion of the reserve and allotted rations for one year. They were given an Indian agent, a school, and a gun and blacksmith. They also had to return any slaves or fugitives to the U. S. government if they wandered onto their land. There was also a clause that gave the Seminoles hope of receiving more land, though unlikely (Fairbanks 1957:251-256). From this point on, the Seminoles and the Creeks were separate entities. Although they had come from the same people, they fought for many years to be recognized (not necessarily by the term Seminol e) as a separate group from the Creeks.
29 Chapter Three: Historically-Record ed Lower Creek/Seminole Towns The Seminole Indians were not indigenous to Florida. By the 1700s, the Spanish missions were destroyed and many of the origin al Florida Indians had died out or moved away. Early European conflicts caused so me Lower Creeks, or the Hitchiti speaking Creeks, to move into Florida increasing th e population of natives by about two-thirds. After the Creek War in 1813-14, many Upper Creeks also began to migrate into Florida. Swanton (1998:403) calls the Lower Creeks the true Seminoles whereas the Upper Creeks, or Muskogee Creeks, were the ne w Seminoles. The languages of these two groups (Hitchiti and Muskogee) were related but mutually unintelligible, (Weisman 2007:199). The two groups stayed separate for some time but eventually were all considered Seminole. In order to understand better which native groups the Seminoles along the Apalachicola River derive from, I made a list of groups who were living in the area. It is also important to note if the groups were be ing referred to as Seminole and when that occurred. Specifically, I reviewed sites al ong the Apalachicola River and parts of the lower Chattahoochee River within Florida, as rivers were a major highway system for Native American groups. This chapter lists so me of the historically-recorded towns in this area. In chapter 4, I ove rlay the archaeological data w ith the historically-recorded
30 information to try to confirm the locations of these sites. As names of people and places are often used interchangeabl y, there is some prerequisi te information needed. It is important to discuss the identity of the Creeks in order to begin to understand the identity of the Seminoles. Originally, Cr eek was an English term used to identify all Native Americans living on Ochese Creek, a tributary of the upper Ocmulgee River in Georgia (the Ocmulgee River is east of th e Flint River, see Figure 2.3 [Saunt 1999:13; Wright 1986:2]). The English referred to th e same group of people as either Upper or Lower Creeks based on location. The division oc curs at a fork in the trading path from Charleston whose southern branch dropped off toward the Chattahoochee. More specifically, the division between Upper a nd Lower Creek was partly geographic and partly the result of an inte rnal political division (Fos ter 2004:65). The Upper Creek towns were those located along the lower C oosa, the Tallapoosa, and the upper Alabama River drainages in Central Alabama (Figur es 2.4 and 3.1), and the Lower Creek towns were those located on the middle and lower Ch attahoochee River drainage in east-central Alabama and west-central Georgia and later along the Flint River drainage (Ethridge 2003:27; Foster 2004:65; Saunt 1999:13). Prior to 1540, the lower Chattahoochee River was occupied by indigenous Hitchiti speakers, the Lower Creeks. The Muskogee speakers, Upper Creeks, were probably from other areas (Worth 2000:272). But none of them were called Creeks until much later, by the British. They were called by their town name or their leaders name. This causes many problems in interpretation since the Apalachicola people lived on the lower Chattahoochee River, not what is todays Apalachicola River.
Figure 3.1 Upper and Lower Creek Indians cir ca 1800 (map adapted from Ethridge 2003:29). 31
32 One major problem in understanding whic h groups were living where is that many of the towns listed are only one of many towns with the same or similar names often used at different times. Swanton ( 1998:406) also adds that Seminole towns moved around frequently and often altered their names. This thesis does not deal with all recorded Creek towns, but specifically w ith towns along the lower Chattahoochee River in Florida, the Apalachicola River, and some surrounding areas. I acquired much of the information from the works of Boyd (1958) a nd Fairbanks (1957). Bo th use the works of Captain Hugh Young (1818), a topographer in A ndrew Jacksons army. Captain Youngs memoirs were published by the Florida Historical Quarterly (Boyd and Ponton 1934). Also reprinted in the same journal is th e written portion of the Stuart/Purcell Map, A Map of the Road from Pensacola to St. Augustine, 1778 as well as portions of the map (Boyd 1938). Young presents a table of 20 Seminole sites which he has broken up into three distinct languages: Hitchiti, Yuchi, and Mu skogee (Fairbanks 1957:232). I have referred to these sites in the sections below as Young labeled them, in th e vicinity of Fort Scott. Some of these towns might have been twenty miles or more from Fort Scott. To clarify, Fort Scott (relocated by White et al 1981) is located on th e first high bluff encountered above the confluence of the F lint and Chattahoochee Rivers on the west bank of the Flint River (Boyd 1958:221). Andrew Jackson and his army constructed the fort (1816) as a military outpost to restrain hostile Red Stick Cr eek Indians or those Indians defiant to the U. S. government who had taken refuge around the forks (Boyd 1958:221). The use of the term Apalachicola ma y also cause some confusion. Fairbanks (1957:66) explains that the term means three things: 1. the pr ovince centering on the
33 Apalachicola River from the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers to the Gulf; 2. a general term for the Lower Creek s of Georgia, including the Coweta and Kasita; 3. the name of a town or gro up of small towns on the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers. Aside from Fairbankss (1957) meanings, Apal achicola is also the name of the river in Florida that fl ows from the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers. For all sites listed below (from southernmost on the Apalachicola River north to the lower Chattahoochee River) refer to table 3.1 and figure 3.2 for their locations on a map. Historically-Recorded Towns along the Apalachicola River Negro Fort/Fort Gadsden. Although Negro Fort was not a town, it served as a place where Native Americans resided even if for only a short time. The story of the Negro Fort/Fort Gadsden site occurs long before it received its name. Before 1804, the land in which the fort would sit was part of Span ish Florida and specifically belonged to the Creek/Seminole Indians in the area. In 1804, the land and parts of Franklin, Liberty, Gadsden, Leon, and Wakulla Counties were ced ed by the natives to the John Forbes Company (headed by Panton, Leslie, and Compa ny trading post near St. Marks, Florida (Poe 1963:1) as discussed in chapter 2. A trading post was established, by Forbes, on Prospect Bluff (site of the future Fort Gadsden on the Apalachicola River at river mile 19.8) and all was quiet until about 1814 (Griffin 1950:256; Poe 1963:2). The British built a fort there in which to hold supplies and support those Native Americans friendly to the British. Colonel Edward Nicholls was placed in charge, with Captain Ge orge Woodbine at his side supervising the
Table 3.1: Historically-recorded towns within the Project Area Town Chief Location Given Year Reference Ehawhohasles (Ehawhokales) Apiok-hija on the Apalachicola 12 miles below Ocheese Bluff adjacent to present day Blountstown 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Blunt and Tuski Hajo Reservation Blunt and Tuski Hajo Apalachicola River; below Mulatto King and Emathlochee Reservation 1823; early 1800s Royce 1971 Ocheeses John or Jack Mealy (Yahalla Emathla) Apalachicola River; Ocheese Bluff on Apalachicola/seven miles below Tamatles 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Hyhappo or Savannah Tomatly Warrior Apalachicola River; five and a half miles below Tomatly on the west bank 1778, mid to late 1700s Boyd 1938/ Fairbanks 1957 Tamatles (Tomatly or Tomathli) Yellowhair or Intalgee and Black king or Mulatto King or Vacapuchasse Apalachicola River; seven miles above Ocheeses on Apalachicola/ four miles below the forks on the west bank 1778, mid 1700s to early 1800s Boyd 1938, 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Mulatto King and Emathlochee Reservation Mulatto King and Emathlochee Apalachicola River; below forks, see Historic Town Information for exact location 1823; early 1800s Royce 1971 Cheskitalowas (Chiskatalofa) Yaholamico west side of the Chattahoochee 2 miles above line/four miles below Wekivas 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Red Ground Conchallamico (Conchattimico or Econchatimico) Chattahoochee River; two miles above line 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Wekivas Ben Perryman Chattahoochee River; four miles above Cheskitalowas/two miles below Emasses 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Emasses (Emusses or Yamassees) Emusse-Mico and Ohulluckhija (governed by Oshahija two miles above Wekivas/ 8 miles above the line on west side of Chattahoochee 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Tock-to-ethla (Totoawathla or Totowithla) Chattahoochee River; Econchatimico's village on the old river landing called Port Jackson on his reservation (north of the south line). This is 10 miles above the forks. The village was established before the reservation. 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958 Econchatimico's Reservation Econchatimico On the west side of the Chattahoochee River in Jackson County, FL (part of township 5 North, range 7, sections 16, 21, 28, 9, 33, 8, 17, 20, 29, and 32). 1823; early 1800s Boyd 1958/Royce 1971 Telmochesses (Telmocresses) William Perryman west side of the Chattahoochee 15 miles above the Forks 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Fowl Town 2 Chattahoochee River; Fairchild River landing in present day Seminole County, GA (possibly original Perryman family homestead) 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958 Red Ground (Ekanachatte) Cockee (the Bully) west bank of the Chattahoochee some distance above the Forks at the point where the Pensacola-St. Augustine road of that date crossed the river 1778, mid to late 1700s Boyd 1938,1958/ Fairbanks 1957 34
Figure 3.2 Historically-record ed towns within the Project Area based on location descriptions. 35
36 training of the Indians. In addition to the Native Americans who occ upied the fort, it had become a safe haven for escaped slaves. This led to its being called the Negro Fort. In 1815, the British withdrew from the fort due to the pressures of American forces from the end of the War of 1812, leaving the Negroe s and Indians in charge. These remaining people eventually became a th reat to the surrounding area as they had control of a large portion of the Apalachicol a River and had access, via the river, to the plantations of lower Georgia. The United States sent forces under the direction of Colonel Clinch, with Captain Amelung at his side, to deal with the growing problem. On 27 July 1816 a shot was fired from his vessel on th e river, amazingly hitting the powder magazine of the fort, destroying the central portion of the fort and killing most of the occupants outright (Poe 1963:2). On August 3, 1816 the fort was burned by the Americans. By 1818, the Indians, in general, were st ill a growing threat to the Americans. Andrew Jackson ordered a fortification to be constructed at the location of the former British (Negro) fort. Captain Gadsden of the Engineers was given the task of designing a fort to serve as a supply base for the Am erican troops in the north Florida area (Boyd 1937:90, Poe 1963:3). A letter from Gads den to Jackson (reprinted in the Florida Historical Quarterly Boyd 1937) states that the fort was haphazardly built and would need to be reconstructed if it was to be used for any length of time. The fort, named after Gadsden, was in use until 1821, when it was ab andoned due to the cession of Florida to the United States, and all troops moved to Fort St. Marks.
37 Ehawhohales or Ehawhokales Ehawhohales was one of 16 Muskogee-speaking Seminole towns recorded in 1818 in the vicinity of Fort Scott as classified by Capt. Hugh Young (Boyd 1958:229). According to Boyd (1958:229), Young was the only writer to report Ehawhohales. The town, according to Young, is located twelve miles below Ocheese Bluff on the Apalachicola River adjacent to present day Blountstown (Boyd 1958:229; Boyd and Ponton 1934:85; Fairba nks 1957:234). This is some 30 miles downstream from Fort Scott. Consisting of about 75 people, Ehawhohales was actually broken up into two groups, Iola (or Yawalla) and Spanawalka John Blount (or Lafarka), an Upper Creek (Fairbanks 1957:228) whose group was often referred to as Lower Creek, Seminole, and Apalachicola (Wright 1986:209), o ccupied Iola. Spanawalka (Spaninalha (American State Papers 2005:439)) was o ccupied by the head chief, Cochrane (Covington 1963:58). Osiah Hadjo could be found at Iola with Blount. John Blount established himself not by his hos tilities to the Americans but by fleeing the Red Sticks at the forks and helping the Americans in the a ttack on the Negro fort (mentioned above) in 1816 (Boyd 1958:229). Blount chose to help the Americans attack other Native Americans who were, essentially, his neighbors. During these engagements, he lost his family and land and escaped to Fort Sco tt to serve as Jacksons guide in the 1818 campaign. Blunt and Tuski Hajo Reservation The reservation was one of four established by the treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823. The boundaries as stated in Royce (1971:707) are, a reservation commencing on the Ap alachicola, 1 mile below Tuski Hajos improvements; running up said river 4 miles; thence W. 2 miles; thence southerly to a
38 point 2 miles due W. of the begi nning; thence E. to the begi nning point. The reservation encompasses Ehawhohales, twelve miles below Ocheese Bluff on the Apalachicola River and was named after the towns leaders. The reservation land was ceded to the United States by the treaty with the Apalachic ola Band (those Native Americans of this reservation) on Octobe r 11, 1832 (Royce 1971:707). Ocheese(s) Ocheese was another of the 16 Muskogee-speaking Seminole towns in the vicinity of Fort Scott as classi fied by Capt. Hugh Young (Boyd 1958:229). The 90 or so Native Americans here occupied a pl ace referred to as the Spanish Bluffs or Ocheese Bluff on the Apalachicola River (Boyd 1958; Fairbanks 1957). The group had about 25 warriors and were honest and peaceable (Body and Ponton 1934:86). William Hambly, an interpreter who had been associ ated with the Panton and Forbes trading company, built a plantation across from Ochees e Bluff when he informed Lieutenant Scott of these Indians. In a skirmish be tween these Seminole Indians and those from Telmochesses (to be described later) br ought down to protect Hambly, William Perryman, chief at Telmochesses, was killed and his party beaten. The survivors were forced to join the Ocheese group (Boyd 1958:229). Hyhappo or Savannah Hyhappo or Savannah, located five and a half miles below Tamatles on the west bank of the Ap alachicola River, does not have much description except that it consisted of six houses four families, and six gunmen (a term to indicate the men and boys capable of acting as warriors or hunters, which equates to about a quarter of the population [Waselkov 2006:447]). Because not much is known of
39 the town, it is believed to be a daughter to wn, or a smaller group breaking away from a larger town, that of Tomatly (Fairbanks 1957:163, Boyd 1938:22). Tamatle(s), Tomatly, or Tamathli Capt. Hugh Young describes Tamatle not only as one of the Muskogee-speaking towns but also as being well established by 1818, having been around for half a century (B oyd 1958:228). The town included about 90 people. The location of Tamatles as record ed by Captain Young is seven miles above Ocheeses on the Apalachicola River. Fairba nks (1957) records Toma tly being four miles below the forks, as the St uart/Purcell map of 1778 indi cates (Boyd 1938:22). Fairbanks (1957) also references Young in saying that Tamatles lies seven miles below Ocheese. The reprint of Captain Youngs memoirs (Boyd 1934:86) indicates that Fairbanks misquoted Young by saying below Ocheese inst ead of above. Wright (1986:13) also shows Tamathli above Fort Scott on the Chattahoochee River. As with many Creek towns after the Cr eek War of 1813, the natives from Georgia may have relocated here, keeping their sa me name. A town, Chokonokla, appears on a government document list pertaining to the Treaty of Moultrie Creek 1823, seven miles above Ocheeses on the Apalachicola River w ith Mulatto King as the chief (American State Papers 1823:439). Benjamin Hawkins, an Indian agent, refers to the Lower Creek people of Tamatle as Seminoles about 1790 (Fairbanks 1957:59-60). The town was actually divided into two, the lower half, Choconicla, under the leadership of Yellow Hair, and the upper half, under Mulatto King (also called Vacapuchasse). Yellow Hair, friendly to the Americans (Covington 1963:58) was commissioned by Colonel Arbuckle of Fort Scott to keep an eye on the tra ffic on the Apalachicola (Boyd 1958:228). He was
40 discharged after mistakenly firing on friendl y Indians. After that incident, John Blount was appointed to be head chief of the upper half of Tamatle and the Mulatto King was made chief of Choconicla, the lower half (American State Papers 1823:439; Boyd 1958). Mulatto King and Emathlochee Reservation The reservation was one of four established by the treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823. The boundaries are recorded by Royce (1971) as follows: a reservation comme ncing on the Apalachicola at a point to include Yellow Hairs improvements; thence up said river for 4 miles; thence W. 1 mile; thence southerly to a point 1 mile W. of the beginning, and thence E. to the beginning point. The reservation encompasses the hist oric town of Tamatle listed earlier. The land was ceded to the United States by the treaty with the Apalachicola Band (those of this reservation) on June 18, 1833 (Royce 1971:707). Historically-Recorded Towns along the Lower Chattahoochee River in Florida Cheskitalowa(s) or Chiskatalofa Capt. Hugh Young describes in his memoirs Cheskitalowa as one of the 16 Muskogee-speaking Seminole towns, in 1818 (Boyd and Ponton 1934:87). Not much is known about th e 65 warriors and their chief Yaholoamico except that they were considered honest and friendly to the United States. Young recorded that Native Americans living here cultivated, spun and wove and had a small number of cattle (Boyd and Ponton 1934). The to wn is located on the west side of the Chattahoochee River two miles above the Flor ida-Georgia line and four miles below Wekivas. Red Ground or Ekanachatte Ekanachatte was a Muskogee-speaking Seminole town as determined by Capt. Hugh Young, in 1818 (Boyd 1958:228). The site does not
41 appear on maps until Purcell (topographer) a ccompanied Col. John Stuart in 1778 from Pensacola to St. Augustine to assist in its defenses. From the Purcell discussion of the map, the town of Ekana Chatte or Red Ground is located some distance above the forks (Boyd 1938:22). Boyd (1958:252) identifies the s ite as being located approximately two miles below Irwins (Boyd refers to it as Ir vin) Mill Creek adjacent to Neals Landing. Captain Young identifies Red Grounds being two miles above the line (indicating the Florida-Georgia line (Boyd and Ponton 1934:87)). The original inhabitants of Ekanachatte or Red Ground were Indians from Alabama under the leadership of Cockee or the Bully (Boyd 1938:22), as named by traders. The group may have named the town after their former town on the Alabama River, E-cun-chate (Red Ground) as stated by Boyd (1958:253). There was no mention of the town for about three decades, then it reappeared in 1817 two miles above the forks bearing a name similar to that of its l eader, Econchatimicos Town or Red Ground as referred to by Captain Young. It is unknow n whether Econchatimico was a descendent of Cockee but he and his band put the town back on the map, literally. Econchatimico was considered very hostile to the white ma n, which is why it is surprising to see him locate near Cheskitalowa, also known as Ichiscataloufa or Chiskatalofa (a place used to cross the Chattahoochee River by the Amer icans prior to the establishment of Ekanachatte [Boyd 1958:253]). Th is association may have cau sed the conflict that drove Econchatimico and his group to relocate (see below) to Tock-to-ethla (Boyd 1958:205). Because the town involved two different groups separated by thirty years, both towns
42 exist at different ends of the county at different times with the same name, Red Ground. Wekiva(s) Another Muskogee-speaking Semino le town described by Capt. Hugh Young was Wekiva (Boyd and Ponton 1934:87). Not much is known about the town but it is assumed that, since the leader, Ben Pe rryman, had a reputation for being honest and friendly to the Americans, his 105 followers at Wekiva shared his reputation. Wekivas was said to be located four miles above Cheskitalowas and two miles below Emasses (Boyd 1958, Fairbanks 1957:235) which puts it about six miles above the FloridaGeorgia border on the Chattahoochee River. Emusses, Emasses, or Yamassees Emasses was a Muskogee-speaking Seminole town in the vicinity of Fort Scott as described by Capt. Hugh Young (Boyd and Ponton 1934:87). Fairbanks (1957) puts Emusses on the map in a smaller group on the west side of the Apalachicola River at the forks while Boyd (1958) places the site two miles above Wekivas and eight miles above the Florid a-Georgia line on the west side of the Chattahoochee. The town consisted of ar ound 75 people but there was some division of power among the people. Chief Oshahija was regarded as having good character but a portion of his group under the war chiefs Emus semico and Ohulluckhija were dishonest and troublesome (Boyd and Ponton 1934:87). This group of about 15 to 20 warriors was at fault for the massacre of Scotts party during the First Seminole War as retaliation for an attack on the Lower Creek Fowl town (see page 48). Tock-to-ethla, Totoawathla, or Totowithla Tock-to-ethla, meaning river junction, was the village of Econchatimico. By 1821, Econchatimico and his band had abandoned
43 Red Ground and moved to 10 miles above the forks (American State Papers 2005:439; Swanton 1998:407) and settled here on the ol d river landing called Port Jackson. Econchatimicos home within this village was the datum for Econchatimicos reservation as established by the treaty of Moultrie Creek 1823 (Boyd 1958:205). Econchatimicos Reservation Econchatimicos reserv ation was one of four reservations created by the te rms of the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823. By the time the treaty was created, Econchatimico and his followers had already moved to the area where the reservation would be centered and we re living in a town called Tock-to-ethla, Totoawathla, or Totowithla. The treaty simp ly incorporated this village in its boundaries using Econchatimicos house as a datum point (Boyd 1958:205). Royce (1971) describes the reservation as follows. F or Econchatimico, a reservation commencing on the Chatahoochie [sic], 1 mile below Econsha timicos [sic] house; thence up said river for 4 miles; thence 1 mile W.; thence southe rly to a point 1 mile W. of the beginning; thence E. to the beginning point. By 1832, the government was arranging for the removal of the Indians from Florida with the treaty of Paynes Landing ( on the Oklawaha River north of Ocala). Some Seminoles along the Apalachicola River were permitted to stay but the remaining Indians were forced to leave. With the Paynes Landing treaty Bl ount did relinquish his lands and eventually, after much persua sion, Mulatto King and Econchatimico signed treaties at Popes, Fayette County, Florida (a short-lived split from Jackson County), on June 18, 1833 (Boyd 1958:206, Royce 1971:707). In these agreements, the Indians would give up their interests in the reservations and could ei ther stay on the land and be
44 subjected to territorial laws or sell their land and relocate at their own expense. They did also have the option of the Paynes Landing treaty in which they would receive $3,000 for the land relinquished (Boyd 1958:206) and move to the Arkansas Territory to become part of the Creek Nation. Econchatimico and his followers remained on the land until 1838 when the government realized they ha d not moved. They were given a $3000 payment for their land and moved to New Orlean s and then up the Mississippi. It is not known if Econchatimico was alive at the start or end of this journey (Boyd 1958:208). Telmochesses or Telmocresses This band of Indians was a Muskogee-speaking Seminole town described by Capt. Hugh Young, in 1818 (Boyd 1958:228). It was located fifteen miles above the forks on the west side of the Cha ttahoochee. Under the leadership of William Perryman, these 50 Indians were in the service of the United States Army (Boyd and Ponton 1934:86). William Perryman died serving the army when he and his group traveled from the forks to protect William Hambly, an interpreter for Panton and Forbes Company, from the Indians on the opposite bluff. Fowl Town 2. This is regarded as the original Perryman family homestead. The site may date back to Theophilus Perryman, a white trader of the 1700s. His son Jim, a halfbreed, was a resident of Okatiokana (Okitiyakani) (Figure 3.3; Table 3.2) and probably from there continued the Perryman name even as part of a matrilineal Indian family (Boyd 1958:210). From the later maps, I ndian paths are shown connecting the site to Fort Gaines and Fort Scott. Also it is me ntioned that friendly Indians in the services of the United States at Fort Gaines, could ra rely venture lower than the old Perrymans former dwelling about 40 or 50 miles below Fort Gaines (Boyd 1958:210). The site lies
45 53 miles directly below Fort Gaines. As to why the site was given the name Fowl Town it is unknown unless it simply indicates that the residents were Hitchiti speakers, as the first Fowl Town recorded by Hawkins (1848:65) was a sub-village of Hitchiti, off of the Flint River and not the Hitchiti on the Chattahoochee River (Boyd 1958:211 and 291). Other Historically-Recorded Towns The following sites are not in the research area but either played an important role during the early 1800s as far as the Creeks m oving south or were pa rt of Captain Hugh Youngs group of Seminole towns (Table 3.2; Figure 3.3). Tophulga. Tophulga was a town that appeared on Rocky Comfort Creek in 1818 under the leadership of Emathlachee (Boyd 1958:226). Passakemahla and his followers from Attapulgas (see below) probably moved to this location to avoid Jacksons army as it approached Fowl Town in early 1818. U nder the treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823, Tophulga was surrendered to Neamathla of Fowl Town. Emathlochee and his followers joined Yellow Hair and Mulatto King on th e Apalachicola River. Here they resumed their name of Attapulgas (Boyd 1958:227; Swanton 1998:407). Nea Mathla Reservation. Nea Mathla Reservation was one of four reservations set up in the treaty of M oultrie Creek in 1823. Royce (1971:707) describes the boundaries as follows, miles square, embr acing the Tuphulga village on the waters of Rocky Comfort creek. The reservati on is near the Ochlocknee River close to Tophulga (described above). Nea Mathlas re servation land has neve r specifically been ceded back to the United States but, as Royce (1971:707) record s, it may have been
46 within a general land session made by the Seminole treaty of May 9, 1832. Table 3.2 Other historically-recorded towns outside of the Project Area Town Chief Location Given Year Reference Tophulga Emathlochee Rocky Comfort Creek in Florida near Ochlocknee River 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/Royce 1971/Wright 1986 Nea Mathla Reservation Nea Mathla Near the Ochlocknee River close to Tophulga 1823; early 1800s Royce 1971 Mikasuki (Mikasuky) Kinhagee (kinhega or Capachimico) (Capixity Mico)) and ChocheTustenuggee On Lake Mikasuki in present-day Jefferson and Leon County 1778; 1818; early 1800's Boyd 1938/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957/Wright Jr. 1986 Uchees (Uchee Village) Uchee-Billy Lake Mikasuki; near Mikasuki early 1800's Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Tallehassas (Tallahassee) Okiakhija on the road from the Ocklockonee to Mikasuki 1818; early 1800's Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Attapulgas Passukimathla (Passakemahla) on Little River, a branch of the Ochlocknee River, 15 miles from place where Mikasuki path crosses the Ochlocknee and SE of Fowltown 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Fowltown Innematle twelve miles east of Fort Scott early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Oakmulges Hotlepoemico (brother of Hoponnee or Opony) East side of Flint near Tallwewanas 1818; early 1800's Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Tallewheanas Spokock Tustemuggee Flint River; near Chiaha 1818; early 1800's Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Chehaw(s) Old Howard or Cochamico Flint River; In the fork of Makully (Muckalee) Creek 1818; early 1800's Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Etohussewakkes Micotoxa (Micotocoxa) Chattahoochee River; three miles below Fort Gaines on the east bank 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957/ Swanton 1919 map Okatiokinas Hones-higa Chattahoochee River; near Fort Gaines 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Ufallaha(h) (Eufaula) Tallapahija twelve miles above Fort Gaines on the east bank of the Chattahoochee (although Fairbanks suggests below Fort Gaines) 1818; early 1800s Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957 Sabacola (Sawokli) and Cherokeeleechee's Town and Fort Cherokeele(ch)ee Near the forks? early to mid 1700s Boyd 1958/Wright 1986 Owassissas (Owacissa) Opai-uchee east waters of St. Marks River 1818; early 1800's Boyd 1958/ Boyd and Ponton 1934/ Fairbanks 1957
Figure 3.3 Other historically-recorded towns outsi de of the project ar ea referred to in the discussion. 47
48 Mikasuki or Mikasuky. Mikasuki was classified as one of three H itchiti-speaking towns of the 20 Seminole settlements in the Fort Scott area (Boyd 1938:23; Boyd 1958:226). This was the most populous settleme nt in the area with both a civil chief (Kinhagee, Kinhega, or Capachimico (Cap ixity Mico)) and a war chief, Coche Tustenuggee. Mikasuki is lo cated on Lake Mikasuki in present day Jefferson and Leon Counties (Fairbanks 1957, Wright 1986). Uchees or Uchee Village Uchees was identified by Capt. Hugh Young as one of 20 Indian settlements categorized as Se minole in the Fort Scott area (Boyd 1958:226, Fairbanks 1957). This village of 75 people ha d no identifying name except to classify them by the language of the people, Uchee (Yuc hi). The village was located next to the Mikasuki and under the leadership of Uchee B illy. This group was said to have had the worst character of all the Muscogee tribes, notorious for most crimes of the times (Boyd and Ponton 1934:85). Tallehassas or Tallahassee. Tallahassee was one of the Muskogee-speaking Seminole towns around Fort Scott described by Capt. Hugh Young (Boyd 1958:226). This group of 15 Indians was located on the ro ad from the Ochlocknee River to Mikasuki (at Lake Mikasuki in Leon and Jefferson Counties) and its inhabitants considered unfriendly (Boyd and Ponton 1934:88). Attapulgas. Another of Capt. Hugh Youngs Muskogee-speaking Seminole towns was Attapulgas. These Indians were referre d to as unfriendly from the beginning (Boyd and Ponton 1934:86). When Jacksons army attacked Fowl Town for the third time in 1818 he made his way to Attapulgas only to fi nd that it had been abandoned. Jacksons
49 army then moved down the Ochlocknee Valley and into Florida where the village of Tophulga appeared, probably where Passakemahla, chief of the group of 90 or so Indians, sought refuge (Boyd 1958:226). The historic town of Attapulga s is in the same location as the present-day town of Attapulgas, Georgia. Fowl Town Fowl Town is one of three H itchiti-speaking Seminole towns around the Fort Scott area as identified by Capt Hugh Young (Boyd 1958:226). The name Fowl Town or Tutalosi Talofa has been given to several villages in s outhwestern Georgia and Middle Florida in the early 1800s. The fi rst mention is by Hawkins in 1799 who recorded a Hitchiti village lo cated on a small creek of th e tributary Kitch-o-foo-nee (Kinchafoonee) which joins the Muckalee and eventual ly the Flint River (Boyd 1958:291). Capt. Hugh Young mentions it in 18 18 as 12 miles east of Fort Scott (Boyd and Ponton 1934:85). Oakmulges Oakmulges is one of 16 Muskogee-speaking Seminole towns in the vicinity of Fort Scott (Boyd 1958:226, Fairba nks 1957). Like Tallewheanas, these 85 natives under the direction of Hotlepoemico we re always considered hostile towards the Americans. The town is located on the east side of the Flint Ri ver near Tallewheanas (Boyd and Ponton 1934:88). Tallewheanas. Tallewheanas is one of 16 Mu skogee-speaking towns labeled Seminole in Capt. Hugh Youngs records (Boyd 1958:226, Fairbanks 1957). These 85 natives led by Spokock Tustemugge were alwa ys considered hostil e to the Americans (Boyd and Ponton 1934:88). The town lies on th e Flint River near Chiaha (also called Chehaws).
50 Chehaw(s). Chehaw is one of 16 Muskogee-speaking towns of the 20 Seminole towns in the Fort Scott area (Boyd 1958:227, Fairbanks 1957). The town is located on the Flint River at the fork of Makully (Muckalee Creek (Boyd and Ponton 1934:88)). Old Howard or Cochamico was chief of about 280 people who lived here. These natives were considered friendly to the Americans but unreliable. The group had a small division and part of the group started the town of Fa lemmes Town. They did not leave the area but separated from the town of Chehaws. Etohussewakkes The Muskogee-speaking town of Etohussewakkes lies off of the map area but has been placed in the descripti on as it is one of Captain Youngs twenty Seminole towns. The town is actually closer to Fort Gaines than to Fort Scott (Boyd 1958:227). Boyd (1934:87; 1958:256) and Fairbanks (1957:235) st ate that the site is three miles below Fort Gaines but Swanton (1922:284) states that Etohussewakkes lies three miles above the fort. The 1919 Swanton map puts the site on the map in the general vicinity of Fort Gaines but does not indicate whether the site is above or below the fort. Regardless of its location, the group of about 50 Indians was c onsidered unfriendly. It is likely that they relocated to displace the Ekanachatte group from below the Irwins Mill Creek (Boyd 1958:227). Okatiokina(s) Okatiokina was one of three H itchiti-speaking Seminole towns as described by Capt. Hugh Young, 1818 (Boyd 1958:226). Okatiokina is located near Fort Gaines in Georgia (Figure 3.3). The group of about 230 people was friendly to the Americans during the Creek wars, often cons idered part of th e War of 1812, but found their rebellious passions with their neighbor s of Mikasuki. According to Young, they
51 were somewhat advanced as they used a plow and spun and wove (Boyd and Ponton 1934:85). Ufalla(h) or Eufaula Eufaula was regarded as th e northernmost village on the Chattahoochee River of the Seminole town s described by Capt. Hugh Young, 1818. As one of 16 Muskogee speaking-towns, its name comes from an Upper Creek village of the same name (Boyd 1958:227). The 280 Indians of Eufaula were regarded as friendly to the Americans. Again, there are differences in where Fairbanks (1957) and Boyd (1934; 1958) place Eufaula. Young (Boyd and Ponton 1934:88) places the town twelve miles above Fort Gaines and Fairbanks places it twel ve miles below the fort. This is probably another incident of either movement of the to wn or two towns with the same name. If the town is placed above Fort Gaines it may coinci de with the present-day town of Eufaula, Alabama. Sabacola, and Cherokeeleechees Town and Fort These two towns are grouped together because one town was built on the old fiel ds of the first. Sabacola or Savacola to the Spanish and Swaglaw, Sau-woo-go-lo or Sa wokli to the English was occupied first as a Spanish mission. The earliest recognition of Sa bacola was by the Spanish in a letter to the Queen of Spain in which Gabriel Diaz Va ra Caldern, Bishop of Cuba, reports on a visit to the periphery of th e Province of Apalachicoli, 1674-75 (Boyd 1958:214). Here he converted someone who he calls the great Cacique (big chief) and his followers. Calderns goal was to include this settlement in the thirteen Apalachicoli towns on the banks of the Chattahoochee where he wanted the Spanish to have the missions. There are two towns which are referred to as Sabacola, a greater and a lesse r. It is difficult to know
52 which is being referred to, not only in the Bishops letter, but in other letters and documents referring to the town. The Spanis h had influenced the early years of this settlement but by the late 1600s the English and their Indian allies were putting great pressure on the Cherokees and the Creeks. It is this pressure that may have caused the Indians of Sabacola to move up river to their mother town of Apalachicoli (Boyd 1958:218-219). By 1717, pressure was also being put on the Palachucola on the Savannah River Valley in what is today eastern Georgia. Their leader at the time was Cherokeeleechee (Chalaquiliche or Chislacasliche). These pe ople, when the Yamassee war turned against them, moved west to the interior on the Chattahoochee. Cherokeeleechee and his followers did not join the rest of the town but moved to the forks where they occupied the old fields of Sab acola (Boyd 1958:219). Boyd (1958:211) describes the possible loca tion as just below the bend where the Flint River changes from a westerly to a southe rly course as it approaches the confluence, about half a mile southwest of Gauldings La nding. It should be not ed that Boyd did not field-check his work. Owassissas or Owacissa Owacissa was one of the 16 Muskogee-speaking Seminole towns in the vicinity of Fort Scott in 1818 (Boyd 1958:226, Fairbanks 1957). The village consisted of about 55 people and sat on the east waters of St. Marks River (Boyd and Ponton 1934:88). The leader was Op ai-uchee and the group was considered unfriendly by the Americans.
53 The discussion here is not an in-depth historical treatment of these towns but simply a careful listing of the names and locations that I am trying to correlate with the archaeological record.
54 Chapter Four: The Archaeology of the Lower Creeks/Seminoles in Northwest Florida It is important to understand what occu rred in the past as it helps people know who they are and how they arrived at the pr esent. But as Peter Berger, sociologist and Lutheran theologian, once stated (1963:56), The past is ma lleable and flexible, changing as our recollection inte rprets and re-explains what has happened; or as Ambrose Bierce, satirist, defines history (quoted in Hopkins 1967 :73): An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools. Although Bierce gives history a satirical twist, part of what he says is valid. Much of history is written by those who were victorious, allowing them to add their own interpretations to the situations. That is why the hi storical record is a valuable resource but should not be the only resource used when tr ying to understand the past. Much research collected for this project was based on historical documentation. These documents are only one portion of the story and often misleading; archaeological work was the other portion of the research. The archaeological record gives a different look at history. It is up to the archaeologists to understand the stories that the artifacts tell. Archaeology, like hist ory, can sometimes be misunderstood, but by using both sources, a clearer picture of what actually occurred can be drawn.
55 For the Seminole Indians, their Lower Creek ancestors made their way into north and northwest Florida from Georgia and Alabam a for various reasons and settled. These people were labeled Seminole by the Europeans. Along the lower Chattahoochee River (through Jackson County, Florida) and Apalachicola River, from the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers through to the Gulf of Mexico, archaeological materials representing these historic Indians have been collected for years, but the data were not compiled, nor analyzed or interpreted. The rivers were a great place to settle as waterways were a quicker travel route than by foot. Here I will discuss some of the archaeological work and research that has been conducted in this area. Chattahoochee Brushed pottery (Figure 4.1) as defined by Ripley P. Bullen (1950) is one marker used to identify a site as either Lower Creek or Seminole. Bullen (1950) surveyed 8500 acres of Florida on the west side of the Chattahoochee River for the Florida Park Service. Construction of the Jim Woodruff Dam on the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers would de stroy many of the data pertaining to the prehistory of Florida, so the Park Service agreed. Bullen (1950:103) defined the sites by ceramic inventory based on the chronological scheme established by Willey and Woodbury (1942) for prehistoric cultures. To this chronology he added the historic Leon-Jefferson Spanish mission period, a nd a later Lower Creek period. The Chattahoochee Brushed pottery was described, then defined by being post-Fort Walton (late prehistoric) and found at known Creek towns (Bullen 1950:103-4). Willey and Sears (1952:11) confirm that the brushed pottery was Creek by reporting that similar or even identical pottery was being made by Creeks in Oklahoma after 1830. Goggin
Figure 4.1 Example of Chattahoochee Brus hed Pottery found on the surface at the Interstream site (Gd279). (1964:183) states that similar brushed pottery was found in Alachua County in central peninsular Florida at kno wn Seminole sites. 56 Brushed pottery does appear in the late prehistoric time but becomes more widespread at historic Indian sites throughout the Southeast. There are a few instances of indeterminate brushed sherds at late pr ehistoric/proto-historic sites along the Apalachicola River (White 2000:213). Th e Chattahoochee Brushed pottery type was firmly established by the 1800s and its presen ce at a site represented a Creek/Seminole occupation throughout the project area and elsewher e. In central peni nsular Florida there are two types of brushed sherds (Fig Springs Roughened and Jefferson Roughened) recovered from the Fig Springs site (8Co1) that date to the ea rly 1700s (Worth 1992:194, 200). Bullen concluded that, for this pottery, the similarity la y with the brushed wares of the historic Creek in Georgia. Also the Lamar pottery of Georgia and Florida seems to be the same as or similar to the historic Le on-Jefferson types that Bullen (1950) added to Willey and Woodburys (1942) chronology (Williams and Thompson 1999:68) to
57 represent earlier historic indi ans. Goggin (1964:184) also indi cated that as the European ceramics became more commonplace, the amount of Seminole earthenware declined. It should be noted that it is dangerous to iden tify a culture based only on a pottery type, but the research here is following Bullens exam ple. In this case there is clear historic association of Chattahoochee Brushed with the Creeks and Seminoles, but it is unknown what small specific ethnic group or language groups are represented at each site. Aside from surveys done by Bullen and ot hers from Georgia, Nancy White, at the University of South Florida, recorded many Lower Creek/Seminole sites in the Apalachicola River Valley. Several surveys were conducted reaching from the mouth of the Apalachicola River up the Chattahoochee River into Georgia. Of the over one thousand sites recorded in the Apalachicola River Valley, 38 sites are considered Lower Creek/Seminole (Table 4.1, Figure 4.2). Table 4.1 lists the original 38 sites by site ID number. All the sites are from Florida. Th e , designating them Florida sites, before each site ID, has been left off. Many of th ese sites were uncovered in the post-reservoir resurvey archaeological work done at Lake Semi nole (White et al 1981). Other sites with Chattahoochee Brushed pottery were record ed through the years by the Florida State University and other archaeological surveyors. The location of each site is indicated by the river mile it is associated with (mile 0 for the Apalachicola River is the mouth and mile 0 for the Chattahoochee River is at th e confluence of the F lint and Chattahoochee Rivers). The reader should remember that the archaeological sites list ed below (table 4.1, figure 4.2) are strictly from Florida survey and along the Apalachicola River and lower
58 Table 4.1 Sites thought to be Lower Creek/Sem inole recorded within the Project Area Site ID Site Name USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle River Mile/ Apalachicola (A), Chattahoochee (C) Direction/ Distance to River Ca5 Atkin's Landing Rock Bluff 89.4-90.3 A 0 m E Ca6 McClellan Blountstown 74 A 1000 m E Ca8 Ocheesee Landing Rock Bluff 93.5 A 0 m E Ca11 Ammonia Lake Estiffanulga 60.2 A 3200 m E/ 0 m E of Iamonia Lake Ca26 Dead Dog Blountstown 77 A 660 m E Ca27 Windy Pines Blountstown 77 A 850 m E Ca34 Graves Creek Altha East 89.4 A 2291 m E Ca43 Cypress Stump Rock Bluff 92.8 A 0 m E Ca149 John A. McClellan Site Blountstown 72.8 A 1225 m E Fr365 Saint Vincent 6 Indian Pass 0 A 0 m N to St. Vincent Sound Fr369 Saint Vincent 10 Indian Pass 0 A 0 m E to St. Vincent Sound (Big Bayou) Fr798 USFS #86-10 Forbes Island 19.8 A 310 m W Gd137 Miles Chattahoochee 104.8 A 1540 m W Gd279 Interstream Chattahoochee/Sneads 103.5 A 0 m W Gd280 Sore Eye Chattahoochee 103.9 A 0 m W Ja5 Jim Woodruff (J-2) Chattahoochee 106.5 A 0 m E Ja25 Chattahoochee #4 (J-23) Fairchild 6.7 C in River Ja27 Arnold #5 (J-25) Fairchild 8.9 C 0 m E Ja30 Anthony/Fl. St. Pk. #1 (J-28) Fairchild 10.7 C 60 m E Ja31 Wendell Spence/Fl. St. Pk. #2 (J-29) Fairchild 9.5 C 0 m E Ja32 Port Jackson (J-30) Fairchild 9.5 C 0 m E Ja37 Hudson (J-35) Steam Mill 17 C 0 m E Ja44 Neal (J-42) Bascom 23.9 C 20 m E Ja45 Neals Landing (J-43) Bascom 23.7 C 0 m E Ja48 Irwin Mill #1 (J-46) Bascom 24.7 C 250 m E Ja49 Irwin Mill #2/Robinson Site #6 (J-47) Bascom 24.9 C 450 m E Ja50 Irwin Mill #3 (J-48) Bascom 24.4 C 120 m E Ja51 Neal's Bridge #2 (J-49) Bascom 24.3 C 200 m E Ja52 Neal's Bridge #3 (J-50) (GV) Bascom 23.9 C 250 m E Ja60 State Hospital Farm (J-3) Chatta hoochee 106.5 A 40 m N to Lake Seminole Ja270 Sawgrass Circle Fairchild 9.1 C in River (island) Ja272 Robinson #1 Bascom 25.4 C 840 m E Ja278 Robinson #7 Bascom 25 C 580 m E Ja296 Night Steam Mill 16.6 C 0 m E Ja309 Peeper Fairchild 10.6 C 0 m E Ja391 Popes Cabin Cha ttahoochee 104.1 A 0 m E Ja409 Sneads Port Sneads 103.4 A 0 m E Ja417 Thick Greenbriar Sneads 100.3 A 0 m E
Figure 4.2 Lower Creek/Seminole sites found through archaeologica l investigation. 59
60 Chattahoochee River. The research does not include the sites along the east bank of the lower Chattahoochee River in Georgia, as the ma terials used to help synthesize data were only from the Florida surveys. Also the sites of Saint Vincent 6 (Fr365) and Saint Vincent 10 (Fr 369) on the barrier island west of the river mouth are included in this table as they were originally classified as havi ng Chattahoochee Brushed pottery. As I discuss later, after my research reex amining the ceramics, we determined this classification was incorrect. The table is based on data from th e Florida Master Site File and from USFs Apalachicola River Valley database. My research will help correct mistakes in both and reconcile differences between the two. Archaeological Site Descripti ons Within the Project Area For the Lower Creek/Seminole archaeological sites, I compiled all the data from the Florida Master Site File at the Division of Historical Resources in Tallahassee, Florida, the University of South Florida arch aeology database, and other survey projects including masters theses. This section pr esents those data, incl uding lists of artifacts from Lower Creek/Seminole components at the sites. Most of the sites were classified as Lower Creek/Seminole based on the presence of Chattahoochee Brushed pottery. A few sites do not contain brushed po ttery but were previously somehow associated with a Lower Creek/Seminole town. A few sites were classified as Lowe r Creek/Seminole but did not contain brushed pottery and were not associated with a known town, so it is unknown how or why they were so classified in th e original records. Part of my research cleans up these data either by confir ming or denying these sites as Lower Creek/Seminole.
61 I revisited five sites in Calhoun County (Figure 4.3) as part of my internship project. Most of the archaeological sites cluster al ong the Chattahoochee River and just below the confluence of the Chattahoochee, Flint, and Apalachicola Rivers. These five sites are different in that they cluster in the middl e of Calhoun County some twenty river miles south of the confluence. Also one of the sites, Ammonia Lake (8Ca11), did not contain Chattahoochee Brushed pottery. By researching the historic town s along the Lower Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Rivers, I could place their approximate locations on a map with the archaeological sites to see if sites, especially those that did not contain Lower Creek/Seminole archaeological materials, overl apped (discussed further in Chapter 5). The following are descriptions of the archaeo logical sites labeled Lower Creek/Seminole within the project area and th e evidence they have produced. They are labeled as Lower Creek after Bullen (1958) and because archaeo logists did not use the term Seminole in this area. The sites are listed in alphabet ical order then numerically by site number and, all materials possibly associated with the Lower Creek/Seminole o ccupation are listed for each site. The aboriginal ceramics were classi fied based on type descriptions in Bullen (1950) and Willey (1949) and our USF sorting guide for northwest Florida pottery. The historic Euro-American ceramics were classi fied using the works of Ivor Nol Hume (1970), Kathleen Deagan (1987), and George Miller (1980). The Atkins Landing site 8Ca5. The site is located about halfway up the Apalachicola River in Calhoun County. The site was mentioned by C.B. Moore in 1903 and later visited by a Univers ity of South Florida (USF) field crew in 1986 (USF lab
Figure 4.3 Five sites visited during inte rnship research, outlined in red. 62
63 notes). Atkins Landing is a mound site with a low density of surface-collected artifacts. It is classified as Fort Walton and possibly Lower Creek by the presence of Fort Walton Incised pottery and Chattahoochee Brushed potter y, respectively. It is fairly disturbed and has little integrity left as far as furthe r research is concerned (Florida Master Site File; USF database; Moore 1903:480). The following are possible Lower Creek/Seminole artifacts from USFs surface collection: Provenience Materials Surface of exposed 1 Chattahoochee Brushed body sherd riverbank 3 grit-tempered plain body sherd The McClellan site 8Ca6. The site is located about 15 river miles south of Atkins Landing. The site, recorded in the Flor ida Master Site File, includes both historic and prehistoric surface-collected artifacts, some indicating a Lower Creek occupation. The McClellan site was revisited in 2004 for pa rt of my internship. The site is currently privately owned by Neal Land and Timber Company, who granted my crew permission to be on their property. To relocate the si te, UTM coordinates were obtained from the topographic maps of the area and a handheld GPS used to direct me and my crew to the site. We walked the area to see if there were artifacts on the surface. One surface scatter of artifacts was found about 30 meters east of the UTM coordinates. A 50-cm square shovel test, Ca6-A (Figure 4.4) was dug at the UTM coordina tes for the site and another 50-cm square shovel te st, Ca6-B, dug in the center of the surface scatter of artifacts (Figure 4.5). During this fieldwork, all shovel tests were ex cavated to 100 cm (if
possible) and all soils were sc reened and backfilled. At Ca6-A the following stratigraphy was observed: 0-26 cm light olive brown sand 2.5Y 5/4 26-60 cm light yellowish brown sand 2.5Y 6/4 60-100 cm brownish yellow sand 10YR 6/6 To be noted was a plow scar at about 26 cm that was 3-4 cm thick. At Ca6-B the following stratigraphy was observed: 0-10 cm dark grayish brown sand 10YR 3/2 10-20 cm light yellowish brown sand 10YR 6/4 20-100 cm tan sand 10YR 7/6 Ca6-B ended in a clay/sand mix. No artifact s were found in the s hovel tests but the land has been altered due to the timber company activity. Figure 4.4 Shovel test Ca6-A. 64
Some of the materials shown in Figure 4.5 may indicate that the Indians were using Euro-American artifacts. The black gl ass was not intentiona lly chipped as the picture may indicate. The fact that all the artifacts were found on the surface, as were the clear glass sherds from a modern bottle, indicat e that the integrity of the site is lost. Figure 4.5 Artifact scatter at Ca6. From surface near UTM c oordinates of the McClellan site. Three sherds of black gla ss, bottleneck (upper left), 3 sherds of blue transfer print ceramic (upper right), 4 sherds of clear glass, bottleneck (lower left), 1 sherd of porcelain (lower center), and 1 spent lead shot (lower right). The following artifacts are possible Lowe r Creek/Seminole materials recovered (USF Archaeology Lab, Tampa, Florida) from my internship research. The indeterminate brushed artifacts could not be securely iden tified as Chattahooc hee Brushed but had definite brush marks on the surface. 65
66 Provenience Materials Surface side 5 Chattahoochee Brushed body sherds of the dirt road 8 indeterminate brushed body sherds 1 indeterminate roughened surface sherd 1 Ocmulgee Fields Incised body sherd, (possible) 31 sand-tempered plain sherds 1 grit-tempered plain sherd 14 grog -tempered plain sherds 4 whiteware body sherds 3 blue transfer-print body sherd 2 pearlware body sherd 1 porcelain body sherd 1 yellow stoneware body sherd 1 Annular ware sherd 4 clear container glass 3 black glass 1 spent lead shot The Ocheesee Landing site 8Ca8. The site lies about 3 river miles north of the Atkins Landing site along the Apalachicola River. White went to the site in 1985 (USF lab notes). The surface survey produced pr ehistoric non-diagnostic artifacts including plain sand-tempered and grit-tempered pottery and secondary flakes and one indeterminate brushed pottery sherd po ssibly indicating a Lower Creek/Seminole occupation. Provenience Materials Surface of cut 1 indeterminate brushed body sherd river bank 16 sand-tempered body sherds 7 grit-tempered plain body sherd 6 grit and grog-tempered plain body sherds 1 block shatter 3 secondary flake 1 large chert core-possible hammerstone
67 The Ammonia Lake site, 8Ca11. The site is located about 15 river miles south of the McClellan site in Calhoun County along th e Apalachicola River. White visited the site in 1983 (USF lab notes). A surface inspec tion of the area revealed a prehistoric midden. A Fort Walton, a possible Lamar, and a possible Lower Creek habitation were determined from the artifacts listed below. It is unknown why the site was labeled Lower Creek as there is no brushed pottery or a know n historic Lower Creek town in the area. The site was not listed as such in the Florida Master Site File and wa s possibly an error in the USF database. For these reasons, it was one of the five sites revisited for my internship. The Ammonia Lake site is now the Ammonia Lake Camp for hunting and fishing. A small building and a parking area now cover the land. My crew walked the river bank and all exposed areas nearby the facilities, and there wa s much exposed ground, so if there was a site here, it is gone except for one prehistoric plain grit-tempered sherd. Modern trash was all that was left in th e area including a bottle cap that cleverly disguised itself as prehistoric pottery due to its position on the riverbank. As there was no evidence to conclude otherwise, I am rem oving Ammonia Lake from the list of Lower Creek/Seminole sites. Provenience Materials Surface of road cut 1 sand-tempered plain sherd along bank of Anna 6 grit-tempered plain sherds Maria Lake 2 grit and grog-tempered plain sherds Surface area of hunting 1 grit-tempered plain sherd camp-internship
68 The Dead Dog site, 8Ca26. This site was recorded at the Florida Master Site File and was visited during the 1985 USF survey (USF lab notes). It is located 3 river miles north of the McClellan site along the Apal achicola River in Calhoun County. A surface scatter of artifacts, listed be low, was determined to be a prehistoric midden and a historic Lower Creek occupation. The Dead Dog site is anothe r site I revisited in 2004 fo r part of my internship. This site was a little more difficult to locat e than the other four. The timber roads had drastically changed since the surveys in th e 1980s. The site was well north of the entrance roads to the property by which the s ites should have been easily located, causing the crew to get lost. Figure 4.6 shows the area we originally t hought was the Dead Dog site. Eventually with the help of the 7.5 minute quadrangle map, the GPS, and Mr. Capps (a local gentleman whom the road we came in on was named after), we located the Dead Dog site as well as the Windy Pines site. So me modern garbage and a few historic and prehistoric materials were found on the surf ace but the disturbance was too great to warrant any shovel testing. Provenience Materials Surface of borrow 2 Chattahoochee Brushed body sherds pit edge 1 sand-tempered plain body sherds Surface of dirt road 3 sand-tempered plain body sherd 2 porcelain body sherd 1 red painted body sherd 1 secondary chert flake 1 chert scraper 1 brown glass basal sherd
The Windy Pines site 8Ca27. This site is similar to the Dead Dog site in that the surface scatter of artifacts (listed below) indicates a midden site with Lower Creek occupation. The site lies within a mile of th e Dead Dog site and was visited by White, in 1983 (USF lab notes). This site was revisite d for my internship in 2004. There were no artifacts on the surface, except modern garbage. This area, like the Dead Dog site, is too disturbed due to the altering of the roads by the timber company to warrant any shovel testing. Provenience Materials Surface of dirt road 8 Chattahoochee Brushed body sherds 5 sand-tempered plain body sherds 7 grit-tempered plain body sherds Figure 4.6 Swamp near the Dead Dog site and the Windy Pines site where crew was lost (shown to indicate the difficulty of navigation)! The Graves Creek site 8Ca34. This site was origin ally recorded in the Florida Master Site File and revisited by White, in 1983 (USF lab notes). Tw o different orchards 69
70 and an area near the creek were surface-colle cted. A majority of the artifacts recovered (listed below) were histor ic Euro-American and could relate to the Lower Creek occupation indicated by Chattahoochee Brushed pottery. The site also includes a Late Archaic occupation indicated by fiber-tempered pottery. The site lies close to Atkins Landing in Calhoun County. Provenience Materials Surface near the creek 3 Chattahoochee Brushed body sherds 4 sand-tempered plain body sherds 3 grit-tempered plain body sherds 27 secondary flakes 1 quartzite fragment 1 black glass fragment Surface of Orchard 7 whiteware sherds 6 blue transfer print sherds 3 red transfer print sherds 1 black transfer print sherds 1 green-edge decorated whiteware rim 2 shell-edge decorated whiteware sherds 3 floral design whiteware sherds 5 creamware sherds 2 clear glass jar base 1 amber bottle base 8 crystal glass sherds Surface of Pecan Orchard 1 chert flake 1 polished limestone 3 bone fragments 13 whiteware sherds 9 blue transfer print whiteware sherds 2 red transfer print whiteware sherds 2 black transfer print whiteware sherds 1 shell-edge decorated whiteware rim sherd 4 hand painted design, whiteware 7 pearlware sherds 1 porcelain sherd 1 stoneware base fragment 1 black glass bottle fragment
71 2 green glass, foggy, sherd 1 milk glass base fragment 2 blue glass sherds 1 clear glass, floral design 1 glass doorknob 1 glass marble The Cypress Stump site 8Ca43. This site had a low-density surface artifact scatter during the initi al survey by White (1984:3). It wa s determined to be a prehistoric midden site with a Fort Walton occupation i ndicated by a Fort Walton Incised rim sherd, and a Lower Creek occupation indicated by Chattahoochee Brushed pottery (listed below). The site is located about one ri ver mile south of Ocheesee Landing along the Apalachicola River. Provenience Materials Surface of exposed bank 4 Chattahoochee Brushed body sherds 2 sand-tempered plain sherds 2 grit-tempered plain sherds 1 grit and shell-tempered plain sherd The John A. McClellan site 8Ca149. The site was r ecorded by White in 1990 (USF lab notes). It is located two river miles south of the McClellan site and is owned by Neal Land and Timber Company. There is a prehistoric Middle Woodland occupation indicated by the presence of complicated-stamped pottery and other non-diagnostic artifacts. The Chattahoochee Brushed pottery indicates a Lower Creek occupation. There are also historic Euro-American artif acts either from a Euro-American occupation or items acquired by the Creeks. The McClellan site was revisited in 2004 for my internship as it is one of the five southernmost sites in Calhoun County. UTM coordinates obtained from a topographic
72 map were entered into a hand-held GPS to gui de us to the site location. A shovel test, Ca149-A, was dug at the location of the UT M coordinates, looking for subsurface features such as a village pattern. Ca 149-A produced the following stratigraphy: 0-23 cm dark yellowish brown sand 10YR 4/4 23-41 cm yellowish brown sand 10YR 5/4 At 41 cm, the clay was difficult to break th rough with a shovel so a 4-inch hand auger was used. 41-180 cm yellowish brown clay 10YR 5/4 180-248 cm dark brown/pale brown clay 10YR 3/3 and 6/3 No subsurface cultural materials were loca ted. The rest of the road surrounding the coordinates was surface-collected. A surface scatter of ar tifacts was discovered and another 50 cm-square shovel test was dug, Ca149-B. Ca149-B produced the following stratigraphy: 0-30 cm dark grayish brown sand 10YR 4/2 30-46 cm light olive brown sand 2.5Y 5/4 46-60 cm light olive brown/browni sh yellow 2.5Y 5/4 and 10YR 6/6 The brownish yellow soil is evidence of flooding in the area. The shovel test was culturally sterile. Materials relating to the Lower Creek occupation are listed below. Provenience Materials Surface along river bank 7 brushed sherds 30 sand-tempered plain body sherds 1 Ocmulgee Fields Incised body sherd 2 chert, secondary flakes 3 whiteware sherd 1 blue shell edge-deco rated whiteware sherd 3 pearlware sherds
73 1 brown-orange annular decorated sherd 1 salt-glazed stoneware sherd 1 redware sherd 1 Rockingham ware body sherd Surface of road 2 Chattahoochee Brushed body sherds 5 sand-tempered plain sherds 3 grit and grog-tempered plain body sherds 3 whiteware body sherd 1 whiteware, green transfer-print 1 whiteware, green shell-edge 1 Rockingham ware body sherd 1 metal fragment 1 metal plate fragment 1 metal barbed wire Although subsurface testing was conducte d, the Lower Creek/Seminole sites in Calhoun County produced cultural materials on ly through surface collection. Many of the sites have been highly disturbed and have therefore lost much of their integrity. Nonetheless, there is information that can be learned from these collections. Possibly the occupation was too short to have left many features or deeply buried cultural materials. It is also possible that modern construction sits on top of the Cr eek occupation or has completely destroyed most of the evidence. The Saint Vincent 6 site 8Fr365. This site is loca ted on St. Vincent Island on the south shore of the St. Vincent Sound at the bottom of the Apalachicol a delta (Figure 4.2). It, along with St. Vincent 10, is the farthest south of those sites recorded to have a possible Lower Creek component. This site wa s recorded by Miller, Griffin, and Fryman (1980). Their project was to assess the status and significance of cultu ral resources at St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge by conductin g a literature search and a field survey which would comply with the federal historic preservation mandates during
implementation of the Bicentennial Land Herita ge Program (Miller et al 1980:1). With seventeen aboriginal archaeol ogical sites, all cultural peri ods from Archaic to Seminole were recorded on the island. Miller conduc ted sub-surface testing at St. Vincent 6, producing fiber-tempered pottery along with check-stamped, Fort Walton Incised, redpainted, shell-tempered, cob-marked, and brushed pottery. The only possible Lower Creek/Seminole materials he recorded were: Provenience Materials Midden profile 1 indeterminate Brushed (from 0 to 3 below surface) 2 Lamar Complicated Stamped Figure 4.7 Sherd labeled Chattahoochee Brushe d Pottery from Fr365 in FSU collection. In 2004, I and a group of University of South Florida students visited the archaeology lab at Florida State University (FSU) to see the artifacts from the St. Vincent survey. We looked at the single sherd that Miller classified as Chattahoochee Brushed pottery and determined it was mislabeled (F igure 4.7) Often we see brushed marks on the pottery of other time periods just from smoothing coils even on the interior of the vessels. The brush strokes on the sherd are on the interior and are not typical for the type 74
Chattahoochee Brushed as they are not on th e whole surface uniformly. The strokes are also tentative and not deep like those of Ch attahoochee Brushed pottery. Last, this piece does not have a white slip, as defined by Bullen 1950, as some Chattahoochee Brushed pottery does. The Saint Vincent 10 site 8Fr369. This site, also, is published in Miller et al (1980) and is documented by the Florida Master Site File. As with Saint Vincent 6, these are the farthest south of the recorded po ssible Lower Creek sites in the Apalachicola River Valley. They are both located on St. Vincent Island on the shore of the Sound at the bottom of the Apalachicola delta. Un like at Saint Vincent 6, Miller did no subsurface testing here. Surface ar tifacts include three Lake Jackson sherds and one brushed pottery sherd that may or may not be Chattahoochee Brushed. The site was determined to have a Fort Walton occupation and a possi ble Lower Creek occupation based on that single sherd. Mill ers materials: Provenience Materials Surface 1 indeterminate Brushed 3 Lake Jackson Figure 4.8 Sherd labeled Chattahooc hee Brushed Pottery from Fr369. 75
76 As with the Saint Vincent 6 site, during our 2004 visit to the archaeology lab at FSU we looked at the single sherd that Mi ller classified as Chattahoochee Brushed pottery from St. Vincent 10 and determined it was mislabeled. The sherd (Figure 4.8) seems to have the same sort of brush mark s as on the sherd at Saint Vincent 6. USFS #86-10, the Negro Fort/Fort Gadsden Site, 8Fr798. This site is located only twenty river miles up the Apalachicola River in Franklin County. Some of the first work to be conducted concerning Creeks and Seminoles in the Apalachicola River Valley was done here by John W. Griffin, for the United St ates Forest Service. Fort Gadsden (Figure 4.9) was also known as the Negro Fort, which wa s the original fort in use by Indians and blacks during the First Seminole War (see disc ussion on pg. 36) but then was reoccupied later. Interestingly, Griffin (1950) states that there could have been Choctaw Indians from Mississippi at the fort as well as proto-Seminoles and Upper Creeks. The primary goal of Griffins work was to provide a background study for the United States Forest Service, who had become interested in preser ving and marking the site. His shovel tests produced evidence of occupation including glass bottles, military buckles, and pieces of artillery hardware, lead balls, gun flint, and unglazed European earthenware (Griffin 1950:260). The Florida State University Depart ment of Anthropology also conducted archaeological work at the Fort Gadsden site. The fieldwork, funded by a Florida Board of Parks and Historic Memorials grant, lasted from September, 1961 through January, 1962 (Poe 1963:1), and 9 trenches were excava ted. The main objectives of the project
had more to do with learning about the Eng lish rather than the Native Americans and blacks (Seminoles) who lived there, but Native American artifacts were still recovered. Aboriginal artifacts recovered from the powder magazine included a chunkie stone, projectile points, a clay pipe, and pot sherds. The evidence does not suggest a long occupation for the Indians but merely a brie f stop in their travels. Of the 146 sherds recovered, 115 were plain mica-tempered (the Apalachicola River Valley has mica Figure 4.9 Earthwork remains of Fort Gadsde n. Photo by N. White taken during field season of 2003. in the soils so anything made in the regi on would have mica), probably from the Swift Creek period (Poe 1963:13). Brushed sherds were the second most numerous at 31 pieces. In another area of the fort, sixty-f our brushed sherds were found. The following artifacts are from 9 differen t trenches that were excavat ed throughout the fort. Poe (1963) lists the levels in which the artifacts we re recovered (the firs t and second levels of each trench) but does not list the depth of each level. Poe also lists some artifact categories, such as boneware, that ar e unknown as to what they indicate. 77
78 Provenience Materials Trench 1, Level 1 2 boneware 27 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 1, Levels 2-4 23 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 2, Level 1 17 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 3, Level 1-3 1 blue glazed earthenware 1 boneware 1 brown lead glazed stoneware 1 green glass 218 miscella neous military paraphernalia Trench 3, Level 4 3 flint chip 8 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 4, Level 1 10 brushed 2 boneware 2 brown lead glazed stoneware 7 orange glazed earthenware 1 painted whiteware 1 brick 9 green glass 2 clear glass 1377 misc ellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 4, Level 2-base 21 brushed 8 orange glazed earthenware 1 ginger beer bottle ware 21 green glass 1 clear glass 1555 misc ellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 5, Level 1 10 brushed 16 boneware 2 ironstone 3 transfer ware 1 featheredge ware 4 orange glazed earthenware 8 painted whiteware 3 Olive jar 15 brick 1 kaolin pipe bowl
79 25 green glass 14 clear glass 1 medicine bottle 174 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 5, Level 2 24 brushed 2 plain shell-tempered 12 boneware 5 transfer ware 2 kaolin pipe bowl 1 kaolin pipe stem 15 green glass 2 clear glass 216 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 5, Level 3 15 brushed 186 plain shell-tempered 4 boneware 1 featheredge ware 1 brick 48 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 5, Level 4 1 brushed 1 chunkie stone 3 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 6, Level 1 8 brushed 9 boneware 2 kaolin pipe stem 6 green glass 1 clear glass 17 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 6, Level 2 2 brushed 1 boneware 1 painted whiteware 1 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 7, Level 1 6 boneware 1 banded whiteware 1 brown glass 48 green glass 2 clear glass 78 miscellaneous military paraphernalia
80 Trench 7, Level 2 3 brushed 1 boneware 6 green glass 21 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 9, Level 1 2 brushed 7 boneware 2 banded whiteware 2 painted whiteware 21 green glass 1 clear glass 72 miscellaneous military paraphernalia Trench 9, Level 2 8 brushed 26 boneware 2 transfer ware 8 brick 57 green glass 5 clear glass 209 miscellaneous military paraphernalia The brushed pottery and the European ceramics are distributed in the same areas of the fort and at the same le vels in the excavation units, most of which come from trench 4; the powder magazine and trench 5, part of the American fort. The shell-tempered pottery is very interesting a nd unusual in this valley and ma y mean other Indian groups from elsewhere, such as the Choctaws, or el se they are part of the late prehistoric component. Other prehistoric components (art ifacts not listed above) are located in the lower levels. The Miles site 8Gd137. This site is about 15 ri ver miles north of Atkins Landing along the Apalachicola River and into Gadsde n County. The site was located through surface survey by Calvin Jones and recorded in the Florida Master Si te File. A possible burial mound was recorded with brushed pottery among the artif act scatter on th e surface.
81 Not much is recorded about this site. The s ite form does not even indicate the number of sherds recovered. The Interstream site 8Gd279. Whites 1983 survey (1984:3) recovered a surface scatter of artifacts includi ng Chattahoochee Brushed pottery and indeterminate incised pottery from the site. The integrity of the s ite is low and it does not have a high potential for further information. Provenience Materials Eroding river bank 3 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds 6 grit-tempered plain sherds 1 indeterminate grog and grit-tempered 3 secondary flakes The Sore Eye site, 8Gd280. This site is located adjacent to the Interstream site and both are only about one river mile south of the Miles site along the Apalachicola River. White (1984:3) recorded the site in 1983. The components at this site are Swift Creek, Lower Creek, possible Lamar, and Fort Walton. Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface 4 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds 2 indeterminate brushed body sherds 1 Lake Jackson rim sherd 26 sand-tempered plain sherds 77 grit-tempered sherds 1 shell-tempered plain sherd 9 grit and grog-tempered plain sherds 1 grit and shell-tempered sherd 2 secondary flakes 1 primary decortization 5 secondary decortization The Jim Woodruff site (J-2) 8Ja5. This site is locat ed on the west bank at the confluence of the Apalachicola, Chattahooch ee, and Flint Rivers. Bullen (1950:112)
82 conducted the original test exca vations at this site after he convinced the Florida Park Service that much of Florida prehistory w ould be lost without a survey due to the construction of the Jim Woodruff Dam. The site produced Fort Walton, Deptford, Swift Creek, and Weeden Island materials. Bu llen also recorded Chattahoochee Brushed pottery but grouped the site with the rest of the Fort Walton sites he recorded. Historic pottery was also recovered at the Jim Woodr uff site. Further work conducted here by White et al (1981:167) confirmed the pres ence of earlier components but obtained no diagnostic Creek artifacts. The possible Lo wer Creek materials (including Bullens admittedly inconsistent categories): Provenience Materials Mixed surface and 3 Chattahoochee Brushed subsurface, Bullen 11 roughened surface plain 19 Lake Jackson body sherds 13 burnished surface pottery 12 sand-tempered plain 3 shell-tempered plain 1 limestone-tempered plain 13 indeterminate incised pottery 3 indeterminate punctated pottery 47 chert chips Surface of erosional 5 Lake Jackson body sherds Gully on riverbank edge, 4 chert flakes White 1 oval iron ring Artifact list attached to 1 brushed body sherd Florida Master Site File form 14 plain rim sherds with incised line below lip 12 plain rim sherds with folded lip The Chattahoochee #4 site (J-23) 8Ja25. The site is located approximately 7 river miles up the Chattahoochee River in Ja ckson County. Subsurface testing by Bullen
83 (1950), as part of the Jim Woodruff Dam projec t, produced a low density of artifacts. A Fort Walton occupation was indicated by th e Fort Walton pottery and Lower Creek occupation as determined by the following (Bullen 1950:112): Provenience Materials Mixed surface and 10 Chattahoochee Brushed subsurface, Bullen 3 shell-tempered plain 4 chert chips The Arnold #5 site (J-25), 8Ja27. This site does not have enough information to interpret much about the occupations. Bulle n (1950:109) recorded this site during his survey for the Jim Woodruff Dam. He labe led it as a Weeden Island site and Lower Creek. Due to its location within Econchatimicos Reservation and the presence of the English stoneware it was consider ed Lower Creek (Bullen 1950:111). Provenience Materials Mixed surface and 93 sand-tempered plain subsurface 47 chert chips 2 worked chert fragments 1 quartz hammer stone 10 English stoneware, early nineteenth century The Anthony/Fl. St. Pk. #1 site (J-28) 8Ja30. This site lies two river miles north of Arnold #5. Bullen (1950:121) recorded the si te during his survey for the Florida Park Service before the construction of the Jim Woodr uff Dam. He recorded the site as within the boundaries of Econchatimicos Reservation. White returned to the site in 1979 for further testing. In addition to the Native Amer ican artifacts, she located the remains of a historic turpentine still at the north end of the site. The site has a Lower Creek
84 component as well as a historic Euro-Ameri can component. Only a portion of the site remains intact with most of it being disturbed (White et al 1981:185). Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface, Bullen 4 Chattahoochee Brushed 23 chert chips 1 chert cores 1 chert, utilized flakes 1 side scraper 4 English stoneware, early nineteenth century Surface of plowed 4 Chattahoochee Brushed body sherds area and forest edge, 1 sand-tempered plain sherd White 4 sand and grit-tempered plain sherds 47 chert flakes 2 bifacial chert tool fragments 1 quartzite cobbl e, possible hammer stone 1 blue, white and dark brown banded pearlware bowl body sherd 1 black glass liquor bottle sherd 1 clear glass sherd Shovel test E-9 (20 cm), White 1 chert flake Shovel test E-10 (10-15 cm), White 1 Chattahoochee Brushed Shovel test R-12 (0-25 cm), White 2 plain sand and grit-tempered sherds Shovel test S-2 (25 cm), White 2 chert flakes The Wendell Spence/Fl. St. Pk. #2 site (J-29) 8Ja31. This site was originally surveyed by Bullen (1950:121) as part of the Florida Park Service project before the construction of the Jim Woodruff Dam. The site produced a large density of Chattahoochee Brushed pottery on the surface (Bullen 1950:121) indicating a Lower Creek occupation. Another visit to the site for the Lake Seminole Survey (White et al
85 1981:186) produced more Chattahoochee Brushed pottery on the surface, some chert, and some historic pottery. The site has been plowed and used for recreational use and continues to be used as such. The work done by White et al (1981) concluded that no intact cultural sediments were encountered. The site is located about halfway between Arnold #5 and Anthony along the Chattahooch ee River in Jackson County. Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface of cultivated field, 21 Chattahoochee Brushed Bullen 9 plain pottery 2 chert chips 5 English stoneware, early nineteenth century Surface, southeast corner 3 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds of cultivated field, White 1 chert flake Surface of pasture south of 1 plain creamware ring stand sherd cultivated fields, around pits 2 salt-glazed earthenware body sherds or wells, White Shovel test S-7, plow zone, 1 plain sand and grit-tempered body sherd White The Port Jackson site (J-30) 8Ja32. This site is locate d at the same river mile as Wendell Spence and produced the same types of artifacts, Chattahoo chee Brushed pottery and lithic debitage, although in much smaller quantity than Wendell Spence. The site was surface-collected by Bullen (1950:121) as part of the survey for the Jim Woodruff Dam. Provenience Materials Surface 3 Chattahoochee Brushed 114 chert chips
86 2 chert cores 1 utilized chert flakes 1 English stoneware, early nineteenth century The Hudson site (J-35) 8Ja37. This site lies 7 river miles up stream from Port Jackson and the same types of materials were found. The site was originally recorded as a Weeden Island site (Bullen 1950:109) and then White et al (1981:188) returned and she recovered more evidence to add a Lower Creek component to the site. The site, originally on the riverbank, is now on an island due the Jim W oodruff Dam flooding the area and creating a lake. The site still has intact archaeological material. Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface of fallow field, 13 sand-tempered plain Bullen 19 chert chips 1 quartz fragments of pebbles Shovel test R-1, 3 Ch attahoochee Brushed sherds White 1 plain sand and grit-tempered sherd 18 chert flakes The Neal site (J-42) 8Ja44. This site was first recorded by Bullen (1950:121) during his survey for the Jim Woodruff Dam. It is one of several sites that is said to represent the Lower Creek set tlement of Ekanachatte (White 1981:197). The two surveys produced artifacts from Fort Walton, Swift Cr eek, Deptford, and, of course, Lower Creek cultures (Bullen 1950, White 1981, Florida Master Site File). Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface, Bullen 33 Chattahoochee Brushed
87 1 roughened surface pottery 16 sand-tempered plain 96 chert chips 1 chert cores 5 utilized chert flakes 6 worked chert fragments 7 stemmed points, large 3 end scrapers 1 pitted hammer stone, quartzite 1 hammer stone, quartzite 40 E nglish stoneware, early nineteenth century Shovel test R-1 (0-66 cm), White 3 sand and grit-tempered plain body sherds 10 chert flakes 1 whiteware rim 1 blue transfer-print body sherd 3 ash-glazed stoneware body sherd 2 machine-cut and headed nails 1 drawn wire nail 4 glass pieces The Neals Landing site (J-43) 8Ja45. Earth Search, Inc. (Franks and Yakubik 1987) tested the site and put a report together as part of National Register of Historic Places nomination. This is another site that represents the Lower Creek settlement of Ekanachatte (White et al 1981:197, Franks a nd Yakubik 1987:i). Portions of the site have been highly disturbed but still some areas are intact. Due to the significance of the site, it has the potential to yield much historical information about the Lower Creeks and Seminoles. Aside from the Lower Creek co mponent, possible Fort Walton and Lamar culture are represented (Wh ite et al 1981:203). Artifacts included below are only from Bullen (1950) and White et al (1981) surveys. The Earth Search, Inc., excavations are not included here (see summary below) as the two smaller surveys demonstrate a
88 representative sample of the artifacts recovered at the site. An in-depth listing of artifacts can be found in the Earth Search, Inc. report (Franks and Yakubik 1987). Provenience Materials Surface collection, 11 Chattahoochee Brushed Bullen 1 roughened surface pottery 1 Ocmulgee Fields Incised 6 chert chips 1 English stoneware, early nineteenth century Area 1, general surface (S.E.) 81 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds White 5 Ocmulgee Fields Incised sherds 5 Lamar plain sherds 7 sand-tempered plain sherds 107 sand and grit-tempered plain sherds 46 grit-tempered plain sherds 1 bifacial chert tool fragment 38 chert flakes 1 creamware standing-ring sherd 1 complex molded creamware sherd with green underglaze design 1 hand-painted polychrome pearlware sherd 3 whiteware sherd 27 black glass liquor bottle sherds 5 cut nails Area 1, surface, daub 3 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds concentration, White 15 grit-tempered plain sherds 3 sand-tempered plain sherds 1 chert flake 1 Birch beer bottle fragment, possible Area 1, chert debitage, surface 1 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds concentration around oak tree, 4 sand and grit-tempered plain sherd White 1 chert side scraper 23 chert flakes Area 1, shovel test (2-40 cm) K-2 29 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds 1 sand and grit-tempered sherds 1 cast iron gun cock
89 Area 1, shovel test K-2, 3 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds Possible floor, 42 cm, White Area 1, shovel test K-2, 3 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds Below possible floor, 44 cm, 1 Lamar Plain rim White Area 2, surface, small rise (S.W.) 1 sand-tempered plain sherd White 1 sand a nd grit-tempered plain sherd 1 chert flake Area 3, surface (S.W.) 29 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds around shower and restroom, 4 sand-tempered plain sherds White 3 sand a nd grit-tempered plain sherds 1 indeterminate incised sand-tempered sherd 10 chert flakes 2 molded blue-banded refined earthenware 11 black glass liquor bottle sherds 1 transparent blue-green glass bottle base 5 cut nails 1 oval ring fragment, possible chain link 1 steel buckle with rivet 1 brick fragment 2 mortar pieces Surface, between new well 3 sand and grit-tempered plain sherds (Area 2) and shower and restroom 1 sand and grog-tempered plain sherds (Area 3), during construction, White Surface, between Area 3 and 1 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds Area 4, White 1 sand and grit-tempered plain sherds 3 chert flakes Surface, Area 4 (N.E.), 3 Kasita Red Filmed sherds near old well, White 8 sand and grit-tempered plain sherds 2 grit-tempered plain sherds 1 sand-tempered plain sherd 1 chert drill tip 1 bifacial chert tool midsection 18 chert flakes
90 1 blue transfer print rim 9 hand-painted whiteware sherds (one plate) 5 plain whiteware sherds 2 cut nails Area 4, surface, E. of 1 chert flake Parking lot, White 1 black glass li quor bottleneck Area 4, surface, N. of 1 chert flake Parking lot, White Area 4, surface, N. of well, 5 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds White 1 Ocmulgee Fields Incised rim 2 sand and grit-tempered plain sherds 7 chert flakes 1 beer bottle base fragment 1 hand-painted whiteware sherd 3 fragments, flat metal strip (possible barrel hoop) Area 4, shovel test N-1, 1 Westerwald sherd Plow zone, White Area 4, shovel test (30 cm) N-1, 1 chert flake White Surface, south of Herman 1 projectile point Talmadge Bridge, White 1 chert flake N. end of park, shovel test ( in fill) 3 whiteware sherds D-4, White 3 wire nail fragments A series of methods were used by Earth Search, Inc. in their investigation of Neals Landing. Auger tests were used across the site to provide a control for stratigraphy (Franks and Yakubik 1987:53). Sh ovel tests were used throughout the campground and wooded areas. The shovel tests were 30 x 30 cm and reached a depth of between 30 and 50 cm depending on the depth of the sterile soil, red clay subsoil. Fortythree shovel tests produced aboriginal and/or Euro-American artifacts (Franks and
91 Yakubik 1987:54). Six units were excavated. The first was placed in the area White (1981) labeled Area One. The second excavatio n unit was placed at the northern end of the site where auger tests produced a burned subsurface feature. Excavation unit 3 was also placed at Whites (1981) Area One. The fourth, fifth, and sixt h units were placed where shovel tests produced high densities of aboriginal materials (Franks and Yakubik 1987:59). Finally, a front e nd loader and a tractor equi pped with a box scraper pan created twelve trenches stretching the public use area of the park. Twelve features were uncovered and several hundred artif acts including 175 brushed or roughened sherds and a smaller perc entage of Euro-American artifacts. The aboriginal occupation seems to be located in the middle and southern portions of the site. The Euro-American component lies in the north. There were so me aboriginal artifacts in the north but they were associated with nine teenth and twentieth-ce ntury artifacts in a disturbed context (Franks and Yakubik 1987:205 ). This was also the location of a historic steamboat landing. Artifacts recovered from the mi ddle portion of the site are consistent with those found at other Creek si tes in other areas, sp ecifically Upper Creek sites (Franks and Yakubik 1987:168, 205). The feat ures were mainly pits and postmolds which were, at times, adjacent to one another. There was also an undisturbed hearth feature with charred corncobs indicating th at the Creeks were eating maize (Franks and Yakubik 1987:206). Also, compared to the ab original artifacts, the Euro-American artifacts were small in numbers, indicating th at they had less access to the European trade here than in other areas. It should be noted that this is th e only site with good controlled excavation in my research project area and is important especially for later analysis.
92 The Irwin Mill #1 site (J-46) 8Ja48. The site was first recorded by Bullen (1950:121). The site lies one rive r mile north of Neals Landi ng and is part of the Lower Creek town of Ekanachatte (White et al 1981:206). Possible Lowe r Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface collection, 31 Chattahoochee Brushed Bullen 1 Ocmulgee Fields Incised 21 sand-tempered plain 4 plain smooth pottery 69 chert chips 1 utilized chert flakes 4 worked chert fragments 1 patinated, rough, thick, trianguloid blade 1 unpatinated, long trianguloid point with concave base 1 chipped hoe-like implement Surface of soybean field, 5 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds White 3 sand-tempered plain body sherds 17 sand and grit-tempered sherds 2 grit-tempered plain sherds 109 chert flakes 3 bifacial chert tool fragments 1 blue transfer-print rim The Irwin Mill #2/Robinson Site #6 site (J-47) 8Ja49. This site is the second of three sites named Irwin Mill which are considered to be associated with the Lower Creek settlement of Ekanachatte (White et al 1981: 208). Also a large early Middle Woodland period occupation is represented at this site along with an Archaic component (Bullen 1950:122; White et al 1981:208). Possi ble Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface collection, 25 Chattahoochee Brushed Bullen 3 sand-tempered plain 28 chert chips 1 chert core
93 1 utilized chert flakes 2 English stoneware, early nineteenth century Surface, N. end of plowed 1 sand-tempered plain sherd field, White 5 sand a nd grit-tempered plain sherds 6 bifacial chert tool fragments 98 chert flakes 2 quartzite flakes 1 small mammal tooth, unidentified Surface, S. end and corner 3 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds of plowed field, White 4 sa nd and grit-tempered plain sherds 1 sand-tempered plain sherd 1 projectile point 2 projectile point tips 1 scraper 104 chert flakes 1 green shell-edge rim 1 blue shell-edge rim 7 whiteware sherds 1 ash-glazed stoneware crock sherd 1 green glass bottle sherd Surface, in woods 1 projectile point 150 m E. of plowed field, 3 chert flakes White Shovel test S-1, N. end of 3 chert flakes plowed field (30 cm), White Shovel test R-6, N. of fiel d 2 chert flakes in woods (70 cm), White Surface, N. of plowed field, 2 sand and grit-tempered plain sherds in woods, White 1 projectile point base 7 chert flakes The Irwin Mill #3 site (J-48) 8Ja50. This site is the last of three sites named Irwin Mill that contain brushed pottery re lating to the Lower Creek settlement of Ekanachatte (White 1981:211). This site was surface-collected with minimal subsurface
94 testing. Aside from the Lower Creek compone nt there is evidence for Late Weeden Island culture (Bullen 1950:122). Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface collection, 5 Chattahoochee Brushed Bullen 1 roughened surface sherd 52 sand-tempered plain 10 smooth plain pottery 32 chert chips 1 chert core 2 utilized chert flakes 2 worked chert fragments 1 large stemmed knife 1 triangular projectile point 3 English stoneware, early nineteenth century Surface of plowed field, 4 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds White 14 sand and grit-tempered plain sherds 1 grit-tempered plain sherd 1 grit and grog-tempered body sherd 20 chert flakes 1 whiteware body sherd 1 pearlware body sherd Shovel test R-4, 1 sand and grit-tempered plain sherd White 2 chert flakes 1 quartzite cobble fragment 1 clear glass bottle base The Neals Bridge #2 site (J-49) 8Ja51. This site is located near the Irwin Mill sites and may also relate to the Lower Cr eek town of Ekanachatte. Bullen (1950:122) indicated a Lower Creek occupation and a possible Archaic. Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface collection, 16 Chattahoochee Brushed Bullen 2 roughened surface pottery
95 7 plain smooth pottery 7 sand-tempered plain 33 chert chips 1 chert core 2 utilized chert flakes 3 worked chert fragments 1 chipping hammer 1 rough thick asymmetric trianguloid blade 1 lanceolate-shaped knife 4 thick stemmed projectile points 3 English stoneware, early nineteenth century The Neals Bridge #3 site (J-50) (GV) 8Ja52. This site is about one river mile south of Neals Bridge #2 on the Chattahooc hee River. The GV stands for general vicinity. No one has been to this site since Bullen in 1950 and the Florida Master Site File classified it as GV since the Bullen ma p location was unclear. A high density of surface artifacts found here indicate a Lowe r Creek occupation along with a possible Early Archaic and Swift Creek /Early Weeden Island occupa tion (Bullen 1950:122). The site is also clearly part of Ekanach atte. Possible Lower Creek evidence: Provenience Materials Surface collection, 16 Chattahoochee Brushed Bullen 10 sand-tempered plain 41 chert chips 1 chert core 8 utilized chert flakes 5 worked chert fragments 3 large stemmed projectile points 3 projectile points with side notches 1 triangular arrow point The State Hospital Farm site (J-3) 8Ja60. The site is on the bank of Lake Seminole above the forks (Bulle n 1950). Artifacts recovered include lithic debitage and
96 cob-marked, red painted, Lake Jackson, ch eck-stamped, shell-tempered, Chattahoochee Brushed, complicated-stamped, and Ocmulgee Fields pottery. The site has been destroyed by the prison but has left be hind evidence of Lower Creek, Leon-Jefferson, Deptford, Swift Creek/early Weeden Island, a nd Fort Walton cultures. I did not examine the artifacts for this site; they are stored in Gainesville at the Florida Museum of Natural History. White et al (1981: 47-48) noted that Calvin Jones reported a Seminole burial at this site. The Sawgrass Circle site 8Ja270, is located within the boundaries of Econchatimicos Reservation. The site is located in the forest and White et al (1981:286) was not able to surface collect. The area tested produced evidence of a Lower Creek component, listed below, and demonstrates that the site is rich with potential. One black glass bottle sherd was also associ ated with the Creek artifacts. Provenience Materials Shovel test R-2, 2 Ch attahoochee Brushed sherds (0-20 cm) White 1 sand and grit-tempered sherd Shovel test E-2, 2 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds (10-20 cm) White Shovel test R-3, 1 Chattahoochee Brushed sherd (10-30 cm) White 2 sand and grit-tempered plain sherds Shovel test E-4, 1 bl ack glass liquor bottle sherd (0-5 cm) White The Robinson #1 site 8Ja272. This site is located near the Irwin Mill #2/Robinson #6 site and is part of the Lowe r Creek settlement of Ekanachatte. Surface reconnaissance by White et al (1981) revealed a Lower Creek occupation with a high
97 density of Chattahoochee Brushed pottery along with check-stamp ed and complicatedstamped pottery indicating earlier components. The portion of the site that was surveyed was highly disturbed, but intact portions may remain on the private property that was outside of the Lake Seminole survey boundari es (White et al 1981: 288). Possible Lower Creek artifacts: Provenience Materials Surface of dirt road, 1 sand and grit-tempered plain sherd White 1 chert flake 1 quartzite flake Surface, concentration 1 Chattahoochee Brushed sherd in dirt road, White 8 sa nd and grit-tempered plain sherds 1 grit-tempered plain body sherd 2 sand-tempered plain body sherd 15 chert flakes The Robinson #7 site 8Ja278. This site was reco rded during the Lake Seminole survey. It produced Archaic and Swift Creek materials. It may have a Lower Creek component due to its location within the borders of the Ekanachatte settlement (White et al 1981:295), and so the historic Euro-American artifacts may be pa rt of a Lower Creek component. Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface of dirt road, 132 sand-tempered plain body sherds White 4 sand and grit-tempered plain body sherds 219 chert flakes 1 stemmed point 1 thick, very weathered projectile point 1 unfinished stemmed projectile point 3 bifacial chert tool fragments 1 tallahatta quartzite flake 1 sandstone celt bit 1 pearlware body sherd
98 1 pearlware standing-ring sherd 1 creamware standing-ring sherd 1 black glass bottle sherd Shovel test 2-1, 1 chert flake (28 cm) White The Night site 8Ja296. This is a Lower Creek si te that sits about 17 river miles up the Chattahoochee River and was determin ed by White et al (1981:314) to be associated with the historic settlement of Telmochesses or Telmocresses described in the 1818 report by Capt. Hugh Young, topographer of Andrew Jacksons army. The riverbank is inundated here and much of the site is probably underw ater. Possible Lower Creek artifacts: Provenience Materials Surface of firebreak, 1 sand and grit-tempered plain sherd White Surface of dirt road, 9 Chattahoochee Brushed sheds White 7 sand-tempered plain sherd 14 grit-tempered plain sherds 13 chert flakes 1 whiteware rim sherd 1 black glass liquor bottle sherd Shovel test R-1, 1 sand-tempered plain sherd (30 cm) White 2 cand and grit-tempered plain sherd 3 chert flakes Shovel test N-1, 1 chert flake (30 cm) White The Peeper site 8Ja309. The site lies about 6 rive r miles south of the Night site. The Peeper site most likely lies within the boundaries of Econchatimicos Reservation. The White survey, near what local informants believed to be old wells, produced historic
99 Euro-American and aboriginal materials in cluding Chattahoochee Brushed pottery and whiteware. The site may still yield important information despite the fact that much of it is inundated (White et al 1981:328). Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface of plowed field, 1 green floral transfer-print whiteware White sherd Shovel test R-1, in woods 1 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds E. of plowed field, 1 blue edge-decorated plate rim with raised (0-25 cm) White design 1 blue delft bowl sherd 1 hand-painted blue floral whiteware sherd 1 hand-painted polychrome whiteware sherd Shovel test R-2, in woods 1 blue edge-decorated plate rim with raised near pit or well, design (20 cm) White The Popes Cabin site 8Ja391. This site is located right below the forks on the Apalachicola River. White (USF lab notes) r ecorded this site during her survey of portions of the Apalachicola River Valley. Dorothy Ward (1989), a USF masters student, returned to the site for further testing. The artif acts recovered include lithic debitage and sand-tempered plain, shell-temp ered, Lake Jackson, possible Lamar, checkstamped, Fort Walton, Chattahoochee Brus hed, indeterminate in cised, complicatedstamped, and cord-marked pottery (Ward 1989:83, 90). These artifacts indicate Deptford, Swift Creek, Fort Walton, and Lower Creek occupations. Possible Lower Creek artifacts: Provenience Materials Surface collection, 1 Chattahoochee Brushed pottery
100 Ward 2 indeterminate brushed pottery The Sneads Port site 8Ja409. This site is located about one river mile south of Popes Cabin. A high density of artifacts wa s discovered but not much diagnostic. The artifacts include sand-tempered, grit-temp ered, grog-tempered, and Ocmulgee Fields pottery (White 1984:4). Lamar, Fort Walton, and Lower Creek may possibly be represented here. There was no Chattahooch ee Brushed pottery recovered but the site was labeled as possible Lower Creek due to the one Ocmulgee Fields Incised sherd. Possible Lower Creek materials: Provenience Materials Surface collection, 1 Ocmulgee Fields incised body sherd White 1 sand-tempered plain body sherd 8 grit-tempered plain body sherd 1 yellow sandstone fragment 11 secondary chert flakes 1 unifacial tool 1 bifacial tool fragment 1 chipped stone celt or hafted scraper 3 block shatter The Thick Greenbriar site, 8Ja417. This site is lo cated about 100 river miles up the Apalachicola River. Lower Creek and Fo rt Walton cultures are represented by the following artifacts: lithic debitage and sand-tempered plain, grog-tempered, checkstamped, Fort Walton, Chattahoochee Brus hed, Lake Jackson, and Point Washington pottery (White 1984:4). Like the Popes Ca bin site (8Ja391), Thick Greenbriar has been extensively excavated over the course of several field seasons, 1994, 1996, and 2000 (White 2000:213; Rodriguez 2004). During th e 1996 field season, one Chattahoochee Brushed sherd was found during excavati on (White 2000:209, 212-213). Only 6
101 Chattahoochee Brushed sherds were recovered, 5 from surface co llection and 1 from excavation, from all of the work conducted at the Thick Greenbriar site (USF lab notes). There is not much evidence for a Creek compon ent at this site a nd was probably a brief campsite at best.
102 Chapter Five: Data Analysis A major portion of my thesis was de dicated to matching up known historic Creek/Seminole towns along the Apalachicola Ri ver and the west bank of the lowest 25 miles of the Chattahoochee River with thos e archaeological site s found in the same vicinity. We know that the Creeks and Se minoles occupied the Apalachicola River Valley. This is where the First Seminole Wa r occurred. Another goal of my thesis was to see if the Creeks, who were later called Se minole, living within th e project area were Upper or Lower Creeks by comparing the cultur al materials to thos e from other Creek studies. All of this was not only to unders tand more thoroughly the historic occupations along the Apalachicola and lower Chattahooch ee Rivers but also to contribute to understanding how and when the Creeks became known as Seminoles. Historical Analysis The first step in my research was to ove rlay the historically-recorded towns with the archaeologically-recorded sites on a ma p (Figure 5.1). On the map, red squares represent the approximate locations of Creek and Seminole Indian towns as recorded in historical documentation between the mid 1700s and early 1800s. The term Seminole or variations of it, does not seem to be us ed before that time in regard to the Native American groups (Sturtevant 1971). Archaeological sites on the map, indicated by green circles, represent the Creek /Seminole towns determined archaeologically by the presence
of Chattahoochee Brushed pottery or sites that were labeled as Creek/Seminole sites by the original investigators ba sed on the sites location near the known historic town and the presence of Euro-American materials. The archaeological site and historic town combinations are discussed starting with the southernmost sites in Calhoun County using the following figures (5.2 to 5.9), which are enlarged portions of Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1 Archaeological (green dots) and histor ical (red squares) sites in project area. 103
In east-central Calhoun County is the historic Muskogee-speaking town of Ehawhohasles (Ehawhokales; Figure 5.2). It over laps with Ca6, specifically and is in the vicinity of Ca26, Ca27, and Ca149. These site s are also encompassed by the Blount and Tuski Hajo Reservation. Figure 5.2 Ehawhohasles and Ca6, Ca26, Ca27, and Ca149. Ocheeses (1818), twelve mile s north of Ehawhohasles, is located near Ca8 and Ca43 (Figure 5.3). The estimated location of the historic town lies between two archaeological sites, Ca8 and Ca43. Becau se the historic towns were approximate locations based on written descriptions, bot h archaeological sites may be part of Ocheeses, whose people were Muskogee-speakers. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show the area right or just below the confluence of the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rive rs. The two sites below Ca43 (Ca34 on the 104
west left and Ca5 on the east right) are not near to any known historic town along the Apalachicola River. These sites also did not produce much Chattahoochee Brushed pottery, with three sherds and one sherd, respectively. Figure 5.3 Ocheeses and Ca8 and Ca43. Continuing north about a mile and a half was the probable location of the town of Hyhappo (Savannah), 1778. This Muskogee-speaking town coincides with the archaeological site Ja417 (Figure 5.4). Ag ain, the locations of the towns are based on descriptions written in the mid-seventeenth century and early eighteenth century. The Thick Greenbriar site, Ja417, is a known Fort Walton (late prehis toric) site that has been extensively excavated and ha s produced only six sherds of Chattahoochee Brushed pottery. Of those, only one was recovere d from excavations and was very shallow (White 2000:212-213). The Thick Greenbriar site may not be the location of the 105
Hyhappo (Savannah) town but it was probably the occupants of th at historic town (yet to be discovered archaeologically) who dropped thos e six sherds at what we call today the Thick Greenbriar site. Figure 5.4 Hyhappo (Savannah) and Ja417. The next town is Tamatles (Tomatly or Tomathli), with Muskogee-speakers. It is located five and a half m iles north of Hyhappo. Based on the town description, it probably overlaps with Ja409 and Ja391 (Figure 5.6). These sites are located within the boundaries of the Mulatto King and Emathloche e Reservation, 1823. On the other side of the river, still relatively close to these site s but not necessarily related to Tamatles, are Gd137, Gd279, and Gd280. 106
Figure 5.5 Tamatles and Ja409 and Ja391. Wekivas, a town of Muskogee-speakers, is approximately six miles north of the Florida/Georgia boundary at the confluence of the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers. Again, the historic towns are approximations in location based on the historic description, so Ja25 may be the loca tion of Wekivas, even though they are not matched up perfectly on the map (Figure 5.6). The following historic towns have been pr eviously associated with archaeological sites from earlier surveys. My research c onfirms this information while adding some new data. Emasses (Emusses or Yamassees) is cont emporaneous with and located near Tock-to-ethla, recorded in 1818, which is the town used as the base point from which Econchatimicos Reservation (Figure 5.7) was m easured. Archaeological sites associated 107
Figure 5.6 Wekivas and Ja25. Figure 5.7 Econchatimicos Reservation and Ja309, Ja270, Ja32, Ja31, Ja30, and Ja27. 108
with these towns and Econchatimicos Re servations are Ja30, Ja31, Ja32, Ja270, and Ja309 (White et al 1981:197-328). To these sites I have also add Ja27 as being within the boundaries of the reservation, based on Bullens (1950) assess ment of the site as its location is within the boundaries of the reservation. Ekanachatte, 1778, located at the north e nd of Jackson county (Figure 5.8), is associated with the archaeological sites Ja45, Ja48, Ja49, and Ja50 (Franks and Yakubik 1987; White et al 1981:199-211). Other archaeol ogical sites within th at cluster are Ja44, Ja51, Ja52, Ja272, and Ja278, even though these s ites are farther away from what was perhaps the center of the settle ment of Ekanachatte. This site cluster shows how these historic Native American towns were so spread out. Figure 5.8 Red Ground (Ekanachatte) and Ja45, Ja48, Ja49, and Ja50. 109
There are only three towns that did not fall near an archaeological site: Red Ground, Cheskitalowas, and Telmochesses (F igure 5.9). Fowl Town 2 was also identified with an archaeological site, 9Se14, but it is a Georgia site and outside my limits in this thesis, so not on the map. There were several archaeological sites that did not fall ne ar a historicallyrecorded town: Ca5 and Ca34 (Figure 5.3), Gd137, Gd279, Gd280 (Figure 5.5), Ja5 and Ja60 (Figure 5.9), Ja37 and Ja296 (Figur e 5.9), and Ja44, Ja51, Ja52, Ja272, Ja278 (Figure 5.9). Figure 5.9 Historic towns and arch aeological sites not associated. The archaeological sites Ca5, Ca 34, Gd137, Gd279, and Gd280 lie a good distance from any of the histor ically-recorded sites. Ja5 and Ja60 were not associated 110
111 with Red Ground and Cheskitalowas. Ja37 and Ja296 were not associated with the historic town of Telmocessess as the to wn locations were farther away from the archaeological sites than with other paired sites and towns. An error from Young when he recorded the town or when I placed them on the map could make the sites closer or even farther apart than they s eem here; so although I chose no t to correlate them with any archaeological sites, more research could dete rmine otherwise. The last sites, Ja44, Ja51, Ja52, Ja272, and Ja278, as I mention above, were loosely associated with Ekanachatte. More research, again, can determine that these sites are within the boundaries for the historic town or that they represent a pa th of movement for the Creeks coming into Florida. The sites comprising Ekanachatte ar e distributed along almost three river miles demonstrating the changes in settlement patterns since the time of prehistoric chiefdoms when settlements were more centralized and more densely populated. Overall, most of the historic town s along the Apalachicola and the lower Chattahoochee Rivers, within the project area, were associated with the archaeologicallyrecorded Creek/Seminole sites. Further re search, both historical and archaeological, would help determine the exact locations of the unassociated historic towns and if there are other Creek/Seminole towns along the Ap alachicola and lower Chattahoochee Rivers that are not recorded in historic documents Table 5.1 is a summary of the associated historically-recorded towns and the archaeological sites. Archaeological Analysis The second part of the analysis conducted was to compare the artifacts recovered from the 38 sites. Artifact count tables we re created (Tables 5.2, 5.3, 5.4) and the sites
112 were examined by the presence or absen ce of diagnostic artif acts. Specifically, Chattahoochee Brushed, or brushed and roughened pottery in general, was the distinctive type made by the Creeks (Bullen 1950). This pottery type is new to the Apalachicola River Valley in later historic times and does not occur pr ehistorically, although indeterminate brushed pottery has been found in some proto-historic sites. Also by the mid-eighteenth century, Native Americans were trading regularly with Europeans, so trade goods or goods of European manufacture may indicate a historic Native American presence, or simply the presence of Europeans or Euro-Americans. Table 5.1 Associated archaeological site clusters with historically-recorded towns Site ID Archaeological Site Name HistoricallyRecorded Town Year Historic Town Recorded Ca6 Ca26 Ca27 Ca149 McClellan Dead Dog Windy Pines John A. McClellan Ehawhohasles Blunt and Tuski Hajo Reservation 1818 1823 Ca8 Ca43 Ocheesee Landing Cypress Stump Ocheeses 1818 Ja417 Thick Greenbriar Hyhappo (Savannah) 1778 Ja391 Ja409 Popes Cabin Sneads Port Tamatles Mulatto King and Emathlochee Reservation 1778 1823 Ja25 Chattahoochee #4 (J-23) Wekivas 1818 Ja27 Ja30 Ja31 Ja32 Ja270 Ja309 Arnold #5 (J-25) Anthony/Fl.St.Pk. #1 (J-28) Wendell Spence/Fl.St.Pk. #2 Port Jackson (J-30) Sawgrass Circle Peeper Emasses Tock-to-ethla Econchatimicos Reservation 1818 1818 1823 Ja44 Ja45 Ja48 Ja49 Ja50 Ja51 Ja52 Ja272 Ja278 Neal (J-42) Neals Landing (J-43) Irwin Mill #1 (J-43) Irwin Mill #2/Robinson #6 Irwin Mill #3 (J-48) Neals Bridge #2 (J-49) Neals Bridge #3 (J-50) Robinson #1 Robinson #7 Ekanachatte 1778
113 Of the original 38 sites identified arch aeologically as Lower Creek/Seminole, eight sites do not contain Chattahooch ee Brushed pottery: Ca8, Ca11, Fr365, Fr369, Fr798, Ja27, Ja278, and Ja409 (Table 5.2 [note that Tables 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 are more general categories for artifacts; Chapter Four has more extensiv e listing]). Of these eight sites, there are three that do contain indeterminate brus hed or roughened: Fr365, Fr369, and Fr798. That means that there were f our sites that did not contain either Chattahoochee Brushed or brushed/roughened pottery: Ca11, Ja27, Ja278, and Ja409. For Ja27, Bullen (1950) reports English stoneware and notes that its location is within the boundaries of Econchatimicos Reservation, so I am confident in labeling it Lower Creek/Seminole. Ja278 is within the cluste r of sites designating the historic town Ekanachatte and also has Euro-American materials. Ja409 had one sherd of Ocmulgee Fields Incised another diagnosti c type indicating a Lower Cree k presence. As for Ca11, I removed it from the USF databa se of Creek/Seminole sites. Of the 38 original sites identified archaeologically, nineteen (or 50%) have no Euro-American artifacts: Ca5, Ca8, Ca11, Ca27, Ca43, Fr365, Fr369, Gd137, Gd279, Gd280, Ja5, Ja25, Ja37, Ja52, Ja60, Ja270, Ja272, Ja391, and Ja409 (Tables 5.3 and 5.4). The Thick Greenbriar site, Ja417, has been left off of this list as it contains EuroAmerican artifacts but is clearly associated with an earlier historic (protohistoric) component. Of the sites that do contain Euro-American artifacts, whiteware and stoneware are the most common ceramics, while black glass and clear glass are the most common types of glass found. The most common Euro-American artifact, at nearly 20%
114 Table 5.2 Native American ceramics from Lo wer Creek/Seminole sites in the Project Area* Ch a tt a h ooc h ee Brushed indeterminate brushed roughened surface Kasita Red Filmed Ocmulgee Field Incised Lake Jackson Lamar Plain sand-tempered plain grog-tempered plain grit-tempered plain sand and grittempered plain sand and grogtempered plain grit and grogtempered plain shell-tempered plain grit and shelltempered plain Ca5 1 3 Ca6 5 8 1 1 31 14 1 Ca8 1 16 7 6 Ca26 2 4 Ca27 8 5 7 Ca34 3 4 3 Ca43 4 2 2 1 Ca149 2 7 1 35 3 Fr365 1 2 Fr369 1 3 Fr798 104 188 Gd137 X Gd279 3 6 1 Gd280 4 2 1 26 77 9 1 1 Ja5 3 1 11 24 24 3 Ja25 10 1 3 Ja27** 93 Ja30 9 1 6 Ja31 24 9 1 Ja32 3 Ja37 3 13 1 Ja44 33 1 16 3 Ja45 16 7 1 3 7 6 6 17 63 130 1 Ja48 36 1 24 2 17 Ja49 28 5 11 Ja50 9 1 52 1 15 1 Ja51 16 2 7 Ja52 16 10 Ja60 X Ja270 5 3 Ja272 1 2 1 9 Ja278** 134 4 Ja296 9 1 14 10 Ja309 1 Ja391 1 2 Ja409 1 1 1 Ja417 6 *Materials recovered from surface co llection unless otherwise specified **Sites that are labeled Creek/Seminole based on criteria other than diagnostic aboriginal ceramics x Chattahoochee Brushed pottery reported for thes e sites but not examined for this research Shovel testing conducted at site Extensive excavations conducted at site
115 Table 5.3 Euro-American ceramics from Lower Creek/Seminole sites within the Project Area* creamware earthenware floral designed ceramic pearlware pearlwaredecorated porcelain red ware stoneware stoneware-saltglazed whiteware whitewaredecorated whiteware, shelledged yellowware Ca5 Ca6 2 1 1 4 4 Ca8 Ca26 2 Ca27 Ca34 5 4 7 1 1 7 44 3 Ca43 Ca149 3 1 1 6 2 2 2 Fr365 Fr369 Fr798 20 4 20 2 Gd137 Gd279 Gd280 Ja5 Ja25 Ja27 10 Ja30 1 4 Ja31 1 2 5 Ja32 1 Ja37 Ja44 43 1 1 Ja45 2 2 1 1 11 11 Ja48 1 Ja49 3 1 7 2 Ja50 1 3 1 Ja51 3 Ja52 Ja60 Ja270 Ja272 Ja278 1 2 Ja296 1 Ja309 6 Ja391 Ja409 Ja417 *Materials recovered from surface co llection unless otherwise specified Shovel testing conducted at site Extensive excavations conducted at site
116 Table 5.4 Glass and other remaining materi als recovered from Lower Creek/Seminole sites within the Project Area* black glass clear glass crystal glass amber glass green glass blue glass milk glass other EuroAmerican materials other Native American materials Ca5 Ca6 3 4 1 Ca8 5 Ca26 1 3 Ca27 Ca34 2 1 9 1 2 2 1 32 Ca43 Ca149 2 3 Fr365 Fr369 Fr798 29 192 4160 54 Gd137 Gd279 4 Gd280 7 Ja5 96 Ja25 3 Ja27 50 Ja30 1 1 79 Ja31 3 Ja32 117 Ja37 38 Ja44 4 133 Ja45 28 2 11 135 Ja48 193 Ja49 1 261 Ja50 1 71 Ja51 53 Ja52 62 Ja60 Ja270 1 Ja272 17 Ja278 1 226 Ja296 1 17 Ja309 Ja391 Ja409 25 Ja417 *Materials recovered from surface co llection unless otherwise specified Shovel testing conducted at site Extensive excavations conducted at site
117 of the sites, is black glass, representing liquor bottles. This black glass has a deep green hue and may include the many green glass frag ments at Negro Fort/Fort Gadsden site, Fr798. Other Euro-American materials in clude metal items, military paraphernalia, bricks, pipe fragments, etc.; most of th is came from excavations at the Fr798. There are fourteen sites that contai n both Chattahoochee Brushed pottery and Euro-American materials: Ca26, Ca34, Ca149, Ja30, Ja31, Ja32, Ja44, Ja45, Ja48, Ja49, Ja50, Ja51, Ja296, and Ja309. Most of these site s fall within the archaeological site clusters that are associated with known historic towns, including the following: Blunt and Tuski Hajos Reservation and Ca26, Ca 34, and Ca149; Econchatimicos Reservation and Ja30, Ja31, Ja32, and Ja309; Ekanachatte and Ja44, Ja45, Ja48, Ja49, Ja50 and Ja51. Ja296 was the only site that had both types of artifacts and was not associated with a historic town. Based on my research, the Lower Creek/Seminole label will be removed from one site in the USF database, Ca11. Ca11 was onl y labeled in the USF database and not on the original site form. It did not contain brushed pottery and is not located near a historically-recorded town. There is no evidence to s upport this sites having a Lower Creek/Seminole occupation, and this designation must have been a typographical error. There are two other sites in question, Fr365 and Fr369. These sites are located on St. Vincent Island in the Apalachicola River delta I was a little suspicious of these sites as they are not near any of the other Lower Creek/Seminole sites, bu t Miller et al (1980) reported one Chattahoochee Brushe d sherd at each site. After further investigation in the FSU collection, as described earlier, the sherds were determined not to be Chattahoochee
118 Brushed. They did however have brush strokes on them and have been relabeled indeterminate brushed sherds. Although I am not removing them from the list of Lower Creek/Seminole sites, they are not likely from a longterm settlement or town. Aside from Chattahoochee Brushed pottery and Euro-American trade goods, Ocmulgee Fields ceramics are present at U pper Creek sites (Dickens and Chapman 1978: 390). In fact, the presence of Ocmulgee Fields ceramics may indicate if a settlement was permanent. The Chattahoochee Brushed po ttery was a utilitarian pottery but the Ocmulgee Fields was a nicer, a more time-consuming pottery to design. A study conducted by Dickens and Chapman (1978) te sted two contemporaneous Upper Creek sites, Nuyaka and Tohopeka in Alabama. Nuyaka was established in 1777 as a permanent settlement. Tohopeka was establis hed in the winter of 1813 as a temporary settlement during the Creek Wars. Their findings were that mo re Ocmulgee Fields ceramics were found at permanent settlements as compared with temporary sites (Dickens and Chapman 1978:397). Five sites within my project area cont ain Ocmulgee Fields ceramics: Ca6, Ca149, Ja45, Ja48, and Ja409. These archaeological si tes are associated with historicallyrecorded towns as follows: Ehawhohasles a nd Ca6; Blunt and Tuski Hajos Reservation and Ca149; Ekanachatte and Ja45 and Ja 48; Mulatto King and Emathlochees Reservation and Ja409. Three historic towns agree with Dickens and Chapman (1978) in that they are permanent sites a nd contain Ocmulgee Fields pottery. Gordon Willey and William Sears (1952:11) discovered, while working on the Kasita Site on the Lower Chattahoochee River at the Fort Benning Military Reservation
119 near Columbus, Georgia, that non-shell-tempe red brushed pottery and red-painted pottery were specific representations of the Upper Creeks in the late eighteenth century. Foster (2004:68) examined archaeological phases in Ge orgia. He learned that, in the lower Chattahoochee River Valley, in southern Georgi a (home of the Lower Creeks or Hitchiti speakers), from about 1550-1650, pot tery types were primarily shell and grit-tempered Lamar ceramics. By the early 1700s through the early 1800s, there was a decrease in shell-tempering and an increase in grit-te mpering in the lower Chattahoochee River Valley (Worth 2000:286). By this time, the Yamassee War was occurring in Georgia. The Lower Creeks were moving away from the lower Chattahoochee River and into Florida around the Tallahassee region, while the Upper Creeks, or Muskogee speakers, were actually moving into the lower Chatta hoochee River Valley (Wright 1986:2). If Upper Creeks made non-shell-tempered pottery, this may be why there was a decrease in frequency of shell-tempering in the lower Chattahoochee River Valley. The area that Foster (2004) refers to as the lower Chatta hoochee River is a couple hundred miles north of the project area in this thesis. A Creek presence is suggested by brushed pottery. If a larger percentage of shell-tempering occurr ed than grit-tempering within the ceramic assemblage, a Lower Creek presence is sugge sted, while a larger percentage of grittempering may indicate an Upper Creek pres ence at sites that occur in the 1700s and early 1800s. In the lowest part of the Chattahoochee and the Apalachicola Rivers, the project area for this thesis, south of the region Foster (2004) is researching, there is little shell
120 tempering. In Table 5.5 I have calculated the percentage of diagnosti c artifacts within the entire artifact assemblage known for each site (as listed in Chapter Four). Table 5.5 Percentages of different arti fact types from possible Creek-component materials at sites within the Project Area Chattahoochee Brushed brushed/ roughened Euro American Lamar shell tempered grit tempered other Ca5 25 75 Ca6 6 11 25 1 58 Ca8 3 20 77 Ca11 70 30 Ca26 17 25 58 Ca27 40 35 25 Ca34 2 68 2 28 Ca43 44 22 34 Ca149 3 10 28 0 59 Fr365 33 67 Fr369 25 75 Fr798 2 93 4 1 Gd137 Gd279 23 46 35 Gd280 3 2 >1 60 3 Ja5 2 7 2 89 Ja25 59 18 23 Ja27 7 93 Ja30 9 7 84 Ja31 53 18 20 9 Ja32 2 1 97 Ja37 5 95 Ja44 14 21 65 Ja45 28 10 1 10 51 Ja48 13 1 86 Ja49 9 4 87 Ja50 6 1 4 1 88 Ja51 20 2 4 74 Ja52 18 82 Ja60 Ja270 56 11 33 Ja272 3 3 94 Ja278 1 99 Ja296 17 4 26 53 Ja309 14 86 Ja391 33 67 Ja409 4 96 Ja417 100
121 Of the 38 sites only 5 sites containe d shell-tempered pottery: Ca43, Fr798, Gd280, Ja5 and Ja25. Each site had only a small percentage of the tota l artifacts that was shell tempered pottery: <1%, 4%, <1%, 2%, and 18% respectively. However, calculated as a percentage of aboriginal ceramics, sh ell-tempered pottery makes up 11% at Ca43, 64% at Fr798, <1% at Gd280, 5% at Ja5, a nd 23% at Ja25. Considering that it is uncommon for the historic Native American s living along the Apalachicola River to temper their pottery with shell, these numbers are a little more significant. The largest percentage of shell-tempered pottery from the aboriginal ceramics occurred at Fr798, the Negro Fort (later Fort Gadsden) site There were 188 sherds of shell-tempered pottery recovered from this site. Griffin (1950:260) reports that along with Lower Creek Indians and escaped African and African-American slaves, the fort was also occupied by Choctaw Indians who came from farther west, outside northwest Florida. The Choctaw Indians prehistorical ly made shell-tempered pottery, which is typical Mississippian cerami cs. This probably accounts for the large number of shelltempered pottery sherds at Fr798, a high percen tage that is seen nowhere else in the project area. All of the sites within the project are cont ain some grit-tempered pottery, as that is a common temper in the Apalachicola River Valley. It is interesting to note that the Kasita Site, an Upper Creek site excavated by Gordon Willey, contained 28.7% Chattahoochee Brushed pottery (percentage of th e total number of artifacts). At Neals Landing, Ja45, the most extensively excavated site in my project area, Chattahoochee Brushed pottery was 28% of the total artifacts and there was no shell-tempered pottery. It
122 should also be noted that most of the artif act information from the 38 sites within my project area is mostly based on surface collections. Materials collected, even based on shovel testing, do not provide enough contro l for an unbiased assessment of artifacts (Foster 2007:76). That said, I can sugge st that the Creeks settling on the lower Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Rivers we re Upper Creeks who made non-shelltempered, brushed pottery. Settlement Patterns In the late prehistoric Fort Walton peri od, archaeological sites are spread fairly evenly up and down the Apalachicola and lo wer Chattahoochee Rivers (Marrinan and White 2007). The sites with Creek/Seminole co mponents do not share th is characteristic. These sites cluster in five areas with gaps in between. The southernmost cluster is that of the Blunt and Tuski Hajo Reservation around river mile 74 of the Apalachicola. The next cluster is at Ocheeses around river mile 93 of the Apalachicola. Mulatto King and Emathlochees Reservation is th e next cluster at river mile 103 of the Apalachicola. Then there is Econchatimicos Reservation at river mile 10 of the Chattahoochee. Finally, the town of Ekanachatte has the last cluster of site s at river mile 24 of the Chattahoochee. In between these clusters of sites, are single, isolated sites. These are probably shorter-occupation campsites, while the clusters represent more permanent settlements. Besides the fact that these sites occur in clusters, most of the Creek/Seminole sites are located only in the northe rn half of the Apalachicola River and on the west bank. This is a very distinctive settlement pattern that re quires explanation. The southern half of the
Apalachicola River Valley is mainly swamp. Figure 5.10 shows that the light colored farmland does not extend below the south part of Calhoun County today. Although the area may have been used for hunting, it would not have provided good farm land. The same kind of environmental explanation may hol d with the east bank of the river. The landscape throughout Liberty County is steep bl uffs and ravines (see Figure 5.10). Again this would not be a good spot for a settlem ent for the Creeks and Seminoles who had become reliant on agriculture. Figure 5.10 Aerial photo of the Apalachicola River. 123
124 Another contributing factor to the locati on of the sites may be that the mission road from west Florida over to St. Augustine that ran through the fork s area at the top of the Apalachicola River. This would have been a strategic place for trade as well as a route on which to travel east and west. Al so, the Florida-Georgia border was important for the Native Americans. On one side, they were under British cont rol and on the other, Spanish control. Even later, it meant the di fference of being under American control. As stated earlier in this thesis, many Native American groups especially the Creeks, moved across the border for better trade rela tions or just to be left alone. With that said, I can ask why would the Creeks/Seminoles want to go even as far downriver as modern day Blountstown, the southernmost cluster of sites which is over 25 river miles from the forks? Prior to the First Seminole War, there was a small town located there in which Blunt was one of the leaders. It is unknown how or why Blunt was there in the first place, although two majo r Fort Walton mound centers, Yon and Cayson, are located there (Marrinan and White 2007). When he was to be put on a reservation, the Americans chose that area to place th e boundaries. The location was probably not meant to be permanent as far as the Creek s were concerned, but the government made it as such. There are a few anomalies in the data se t. The first are the two sites on St. Vincent Island. St. Vincent Island is in the Apal achicola River delta. This means that the sites are at river mile 0 of the Apalachicola while, aside from Fr798 (see below), the first cluster of sites starts at river mile 72 of the Apalachicola. Although the St. Vincent sites contained no Chattahoochee Brushed potter y, they did each contain one sherd of
125 indeterminate brushed pottery. This may be from a campsite but more information is needed to conclude this. Negro Fort/Fort Gadsden, Fr798, is locat ed at river mile 19-20 of the Apalachicola. The site was originally a tr ading post on Prospect Bluff. Later a fort, Negro Fort, was built by the British and wa s home to escaped slaves and Lower Creeks and Choctaw Indians (Griffin 1950). As stated above, the farthest south the clusters of Creek/Seminole sites lie is river mile 72. Fr 798 is still quite a ways south, over 50 river miles, from this cluster. As the site was chosen by the British, they may have traveled up the Apalachicola River from the Gulf of Me xico to the first high ground amid the swamp that is the south half of the river. At this point only 19 miles upriver, trav elers would still have the tide to assist them in navigating to this bluff. The presence of this British-made fort is apparently the only reason that Creeks ever settled in the lower Apalachicola River Valley.
126 Chapter Six: Summary Statements During the 1700s, many struggles were ta king place in Georgia. The English were trading not only for goods but also for native slaves. For this reason, Native Americans were forced to move farther s outh to trade with the Spanish. Also the Yamassee War and the Creek Wars were driving both the Upper and the Lower Creeks into Florida. The Lower Creeks, specifically Cowkeepers group and others, moved to the Alachua area. The Upper Creeks, Mus kogee-speakers, may have been the ones to come into Florida along the Apalachicola River. The earliest Creek town recorded in my project area was 1778. At some point in the late 1700s, Native Americans in Florida were being referred to as Seminoles. The term Seminole was almo st used as the term Floridian is used today; those who live there ar e given that name no matter where they came from. The three governments that dominate Florida hi story, the Spanish, the English, and the Americans, did not necessarily distinguish the separate Native Americans. If they did, it was to single out those groups loyal to th e government and those who could not be trusted. During the Seminole Wars, the Indian s migrated, or were forced, south while some were removed from Florida completely. In this thesis, I initially set out to inve stigate the Seminole In dians from some of their early historic settlements in northwest Florida. With my research area being the
127 Apalachicola River Valley and the lowest 25 mi les of the west bank of the Chattahoochee River Valley, I realized th at determining from which Native American groups the Seminole Indians derived was too large of a que stion for this thesis. My focus switched to research that would cont ribute to investig ating from which groups of people the Seminole Indians derive. The first step was to compile a list of hi storic Creek or Seminole towns within the project area. The historic town locations on the map are approximations based on written descriptions. I made note of what years these towns were being recorded. It was interesting that although the terms Lower Creek, Upper Creek, Creek, and Seminole are distinctive groups of people, most of the Europeans used these terms interchangeably. What the Europeans did distinguish was the language, Hitchiti or Muskogee. It is understood that the Hitchiti language was origin ally spoken by those inhabitants of the lower Chattahoochee River Valley, the Lo wer Creeks, while Muskogee was spoken by the Upper Creeks (Worth 2000: 272). The towns that I researched that were within the project area had Muskogee-speaking Native Amer icans living there. (Whether Hitchitispeaking Lower Creeks were represented by ea rilier, protohistoric sites that produced Lamar pottery is a separate research issue [Marrinan and White 2007]). Next, I compiled data from the archaeological sites recorded from years of survey. The locations of these sites are based on Global Positioning System (GPS) data points. I put both the historic town locations and the archaeological site locations on a map to see if they matched up. There turned out to be five clusters of sites that overlapped the historic town locations. These included the Blunt and Tuski Hajos Reservation,
128 Ocheeses, Mulatto King and Emathlochee s Reservation, Econchatimicos Reservation, and Ekanachatte. There were a few towns a nd a few archaeological sites that did not match up. These sites were located between thes e clusters of sites. These clusters seem to represent a new settlement patterns for the historic Native Americans as compared to those of the prehistoric Native Americans who lived in this same area. In the late prehistoric Fort Walton period, the natives had mound centers with concentrated, large populations that did not spread out far. Also these centers and other large villages without mounds seem to be located all along the project area. The Creek/Seminole sites investigated in this thesis are in the north half of the Apalachicola and lower Chattahoochee Rivers, with few exceptions, and on the west bank. It is possible that the swamp land in the southern valley and the steep ravines and bluffs on the east bank were not suitable for farming and not attractive to these native migrants. By the time historic groups were settling in the project area, they had come to rely on ag riculture a nd cattle herding done in European ways. Also, the cl ustering of sites shows that some of these towns are spread out over almost three rive r miles, unlike the pr ehistoric mound centers and villages. The last step in my research was to examine the cultural materials from the sites. As most of the archaeological sites were la beled as Creek or Seminole based on presence of Chattahoochee Brushed pottery, it was interesting to find that there were four sites that did not contain that ceramic type. All except for Ca11 were located within a cluster of Creek/Seminole sites that had been previous ly identified as being associated with a known Creek town and had Euro-American cultural materials. After further research,
129 Ca11 was removed from the list of 38 archaeolo gical sites labeled as Creek/Seminole. It did not contain any artifacts that are diagnostic of Creek s or Seminoles and was not located near any of the historic towns. As the USF database was the only source that contained this label, it was probably a typographical error. Previous studies on Creek sites north of the project area (Foster 2007) have suggested that shell tempering of ceramics is a marker for Lower Creeks. Foster noticed that in the lower Chattahooc hee River Valley, over a hundred miles north of this project area, the shell-tempering of the ceramics d ecreased as the Lower Creeks moved out and the Upper Creeks moved into the area. If this is the case, then Cr eek sites with a large percentage of shell-tempered ceramics may be, in fact, those of Lower Creeks, while Creek sites with a little or no shell-tempering may be those of Upper Creeks. There are five sites within my project area that contain shell-tempered pottery. As a percentage of the entire artifact assemb lage, the shell-tempering is minute. As a percentage of just the aborig inal ceramics, the shell temper ing at Fr798 stands out. This site is the location of the Negro Fort. As Griffin (1950) stated, Choctaws were also occupying the fort. Prehistorically, the C hoctaw Indians made predominately shelltempered pottery which can account for so much being at this site a nd nowhere else in the valley. Ja25 also had a larger percentage compared to the rest of the sites. Further research may help explain why this site w ould contain more shell-tempered ceramics. Perhaps it was a homestead of a more forei gn family who had come to join the Creeks. Many of the sites contained Euro-American cultural materials. Aside from stoneware, black glass was the most frequently occurring material. As most of these sites
130 were only surface-collected, it is hard to sa y if these materials belonged to the Native Americans or from Europeans in the area. Wh at is known is that these black glass sherds represent liquor bottles. With liquor being represented at almost 20% of the sites, it was probably a major part of life in this area during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Although most of these sites were only surface collected, there is some evidence from shovel testing and extensive excavation. From both my own shovel testing and the few excavated sites, we know that these Creek sites are shallow. Most of the artifacts were discovered at or above 30 centimeters be low the surface. There were few features, with the most being at the Neals Landing site Ja45, which was also the most extensively excavated, and the location of a historic boat landing (Franks and Yakubik 1987). Although ethnogenesis was too large of a topi c for this thesis, I hope I have made contributions toward it. It seems that the historic Creeks living on the Apalachicola River and lowest 25 miles of the Chattahoochee River, were not here until the late 1700s. Most of the sites are in clusters with the towns sp read out over many miles. Also, there may be evidence to suggest that these Creeks are not Lower Creeks as origin ally labeled. They may, in fact, be Upper Creeks. At this point in time, the term Seminole was being used for these groups living in the project area as well as the terms Lower Creek, Upper Creek, and Creek. Of course, future research could help determine why the historic groups are settling in these patterns. Also, more resear ch needs to be conducte d to further support the hypothesis that these Native Americans were originally Upper Creeks. Finally, was liquor really as important as these data suggest and who wa s drinking it? The Seminole
131 Indians have a very interesting past which is deeply intertwined with that of the Creeks. As always, with new discoveries, new understandings of our past unfold.
132 References Cited American State Papers 2005 Treaty with the Florida Indians: Communicated to the Senate, December 15, 1823. American State Papers 0 8, Indian Affairs Vol. 2, 18th Congress, 1st Session, Publication No. 198. Electronic Document, http://infoweb.newsbank.com accessed March 5, 2009. Apalachicola River Aerial Photograph 2007 Google Earth from United States Geological Survey January 9, 2007, accessed August 24, 2009. Bartram, William 1955  The Travels of William Bartram Edited by Mark van Doren. Dover:New York. Berger, Peter 1963 Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective New York: Doubleday. Boyd, Mark F. 1937 The Defences of the Floridas. Florida Historical Quarterly 15(4):242-248. 1938 A Map of the Road from Pe nsacola to St. Augustine, 1778. Florida Historical Quarterly 17(24): 15-31. 1958 Historic Sites in and Around the Jim Woodruff Reservoir Area FloridaGeorgia, River Basin Surveys Papers, No. 13. Boyd, Mark F. and Gerald M. Ponton 1934 A Topographical Memoir on East and West Florida with Itineraries of General Jacksons Army, 1818. Florida Historical Quarterly 3(2):82-104. Braund, Kathryn E. Holland 1991 The Creek Indians, Blacks, and Slavery. The Journal of Southern History 57(4): 601-636. Bullen, Ripley P. 1950 An Archaeological Survey of the Cha ttahoochee River Valley in Florida.
133 Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences Washington D. C. 40 (4) pp. 101-125. Bushnell, Amy Turner 2006 Ruling the Republic of Indians in Seventeenth-Century Florida. In Powhatans Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast edited by Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and Tom Hatley, pp.195-214. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cabeza de Vaca, Alvar Nez 1961 Cabeza de Vacas Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America Translated by Cyclone C ovey.Collier Books, New York. Clayton, Lawrence A., Vernon James Knight Jr., and Edward C. Moore (editors) 1993 The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedi tion of Hernando DeSoto to North America in 1539-1543 Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Covington, James W. 1963 Apalachicola Seminole Leadership: 1820-1833. Florida Anthropologist 16(2):57-62. Deagan, Kathleen 1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Carribbean, 15001800, Volume I: Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Dickens, Roy S. Jr., and James H. Chapman 1978 Ceramic Patterning and Social Structur e at Two Late Hist oric Upper Creek Sites in Alabama. American Antiquity 43(3):390-398. Ethridge, Robbie 2003 Creek Country: The Creek Indians and Their World Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Fairbanks, Charles H. 1957 Ethnohistorical Report of the Florida Indians Defendants Exhibit No. 141, Before the Indian Claims Commission, Docket Nos. 73 and 151 (mimeographed). Fernndez, Jos B. 1975 Alvar Nez Cabeza de Vaca: The Forgotten Chronicler Ediciones, Miami.
134 Foster II, H. Thomas 2004 Evidence of Historic Creek Indian Migration from a Regiona l and Direct Historic Analysis of Ceramic Types. Southeastern Archaeology 23(1): 65-84. 2007 Archaeology of the Lower Mu skogee Creek Indians 1715-1836 Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Franks, Herschel A. and Jill-Karen Yakubik 1987 Archaeological Test E xcavations at the Neal s Landing Site (8Ja45), Jackson County, Florida. Earth Search. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Contract No. DACW01-87-C-0041. Goggin, John M. 1964 Indian and Spanish Selected Writings Coral Gables: The University of Miami Press. Griffin, John W. 1950 An Archeologist at Fort Gadsden. Florida Historical Quarterly 28:254-261. Hahn, John 2006 The Native American World Beyond Apalachee: West Florida and the Chattahoochee Valley Gainesville: The University Press of Florida. Hahn, Steven C. 1996 Late Seventeenth-Century Forebears of the Lower Creeks and Seminoles. Southeastern Archaeology 15(1): 66-80. Hamer, Philip M. 1930 John Stuarts Indian Policy during the Early Months of the American Revolution. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 17(3): 351-366. Hinton, I. T. & Simpkin & Marshall 1832 St. Johns County Map. Engraved & printed by Fenner Sears & Co. Hoffman, Paul E. 1993 Introduction: The DeSoto Expedition, a Cultural Crossroads. In The DeSoto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando DeSoto to North America in 1539-1543, edited by Lawrence A. Clayton, Vernon James Knight Jr., and Edward C. Moore, pp 1-17. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. 2002 Floridas Frontiers Bloomington and Indianapol is: Indiana University Press.
135 Hopkins, Ernest Jerome (editor) 1967 Enlarged Devils Dictionary New York: Doubleday. Marrinan, Rochelle A. and Nancy Marie White 2007 Modeling Fort Walton in Northwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 2:292-318. Mason, Carol I. 1963 Eighteenth Century Culture Change Among the Lower Creeks. The Florida Anthropologist 16(3): 65-80. Milanich, Jerald T. 1995 Florida Indians and the invasion from Europe. Gainesville: The University Press of Florida. Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles Hudson 1991 Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T. and Samuel Procter (editors) 1978 Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period Gainsville: The University Presses of Florida. Miller, George L. 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of Nineteenth Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14:1-40. Miller, James J., John W. Griffin and Mildred L. Fryman 1980 Archaeological and Historical Survey of St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Cultural Resource management, Inc., Tallaha ssee, Florida, Cont ract No. A-5831(79). Nol Hume, Ivor 1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. Pearson, Fred Lamar 1990 Spanish-Indian Relations in Florida: A Study of Two Visitas, 1657-1678 New York: Garland Publishing. Poe, Stephen R. 1963 Archaeological Excavations at Fort Gadsden, Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Notes in Anthropology, v.8.
136 Ribaut, Jean 1927 The Whole and True Discouerye of Terra Florida De Land: The Florida State Historical Society. Rodriguez, Nelson David 2004 Contact/Mission Period Depopulation in the Apalachicola River Valley, Northwest Florida Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. Royce, Charles C. 1971 Indian Land Cessions of the United States. New York: Arno Press. Saunt, Claudio 1999 A New Order of Things: Property, Po wer, and the Transfo rmation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816. Cambridge University Press. Smith, Hale G. and Mark Gottlob 1994 Spanish-Indian Relationships: Synoptic History and Archaeological Evidence, 1500-1763. In Tacachale edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Procter, pp. 1-18. Gainesville: University Pres s of Florida. Stojanowski, Christopher M. 2005 Unhappy Trails. Natural History 114(6) pp38-44. Sturtevant, William C. 1971 Creek into Seminole. In North American Indians in Historical Perspective edited by Eleanor Burke Leacock a nd Nancy Oestreich Lurie. New York: Random House. Swanton, John R. 1998 Early History of the Creek Indians and their Neighbors Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Ward, Dorothy 1989 An Investigation of Inland Deptford Culture in the Upper Apalachicola Area of Northwest Florida Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. Waselkov, Gregory A. 1989 Seventeenth-Century Trade in the Colonial Southeast. Southeastern Archaeology 8(2): 117-133. 2006 Indian Maps of the Colonial Southeast. In Powhatans Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast edited by Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and
137 Tom Hatley, pp. 435-502. Lincoln: Un iversity of Nebraska Press. Weisman, Brent Richards 1989 Like Beads on a String: A Culture Histor y of the Seminole Indians in North Peninsular Florida. Tuscaloosa: The University Press of Alabama Press. 1999 Unconquered People: Floridas Seminole and Miccosukee Indians Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2007 Nativism, Resistance, and Ethnogene sis of the Florida Seminole Indian Identity. Historical Archaeology 41(4):198-212. White, Nancy Marie 1984 Apalachicola Valley Archae ological Survey, 1984 Season Report to the Office of Sponsored Researc h, University of West Florida. 2000 Prehistoric and Protohistoric Fort Walton at the Thick Greenbriar Site (8Ja417), Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3):204-222). 2003 Unknown and Known Historic Indians of the Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida Paper presented at the a nnual meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society May 10th. 2004 Protohistoric and Historic Native Cultu res of the Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, St. Louis, October. White, Nancy Marie, Stephanie J. Belovich, and David S. Brose 1981 Archaeological Survey at Lake Seminole. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Archaeologica l Research Report No. 29. Willey, Gordon R. 1998  Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Willey, Gordon R. and R. B. Woodbury 1942 A Chronological Outline for the Northwest Florida Coast. American Anthropologist 7:232-254. Willey, Gordon R. and William H. Sears 1952 The Kasita Site. Southern Indian Studies IV:318. Williams, Mark and Victor Thompson 1999 A Guide to Georgia Indian Pottery Types. Early Georgia 27(1).
138 Wood, Peter H. 2006 The Changing Population of the Colonial South. In Powhatans Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast edited by Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and Tom Hatley, pp. 57-132. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Worth, John E. 1992 Revised Aboriginal Ceramic Typol ogy for the Timucua Mission Province. In Excavations on the Franciscan Frontie r: Archaeology at Fig Springs Mission by Brent Richard Weisman, pp.188-205. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2000 The Lower Creeks: Origins and Early History. In Indians of the Greater Southeast edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp.265-298. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Wright, Jr. J. Leitch 1986 Creeks and Seminoles: The Destruction and Regeneration of the Muscogulge people Lincoln and London: Univer sity of Nebraska Press.