Talk:Calusa

Calusa Trace

Excuse me but there is a subdivision in Florida called 'Calusa Trace.' You can google it if you don't believe me. Just because you wrote this article doesn't mean you can have a monopoly on it, asshole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.195.117 (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And that has nothing to do with this article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Donald Albury 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not an encyclopedia. That's why people like you can write about a topic like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.195.117 (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- Donald Albury 11:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Evolution of Calusa

I am very interested in the Calusa Tribe. I am making a request that if anyone owns The Evolution of Calusa that they would please contribute any more information they could append to this article. It's saddening to see such an unique tribe to have so little written about them. I would also like to thank Donald Alubry for his support. Cneetz (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor to contribute here. If you have access to reliable sources, you can add to the article. All the material I've added has been based on books I checked out from public libraries. I hope to come back to this article again but it's hard to find the time. -- Donald Albury 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I think it would be beneficial to the reader if you were to mention that the Calusa beliefs were documented primarily by Spanish missionaries. They undoubtedly had a limited perspective on the cultural significance of what they witnessed and documented. For instance, this account of the soul migrating to lesser animals may have actually been similar to a Hindu concept of reincarnation. Additionally, this belief may not have been common among all Calusa. It should also be noted that the Spanish had a particular agenda which included the justification for conquering and taking over a territory. They would therefore attempt to dehumanize the Calusa and make their beliefs appear hedonistic and “savage” from a European perspective. Examples of this can be found in early colonies all over the Americas. All of this should be considered by the reader. -Skarurewebb 21 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.171.82 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why My Excerpt/Contribution Was Deleted

I recently added a valid addition to the Calusa from a very credible source ( "The Handbook of American Indian Tribes North of Mexico") entry marking how scholars know that they lasted in Florida "up to the Second Seminole War." Yet it was deleted. I would like to know the reason for this and why this author insists on saying 'there is no hard evidence to support it'? What is your definition of 'hard evidence'? Are you this territorial? and why do you stubbornly refuse valid research and information other than yours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.222.35 (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That source is from 1906. It apparently is repeating the mistaken notion from the 19th century that the so-called "Spanish Indians" of the Seminole Wars era were Calusas that remained in Florida after the Spanish left. More recent authorities dismiss that theory and regard the "Spanish Indians" as Seminoles or other migrants from north of Florida who had moved down into the Everglades prior to the Second Seminole War. From the end of the 17th century until the Spanish withdrew from Florida in 1765, Indians (originally allied with the Province of Carolina) raided all the way down the Florida Peninsula. By the 1740s a remnant of Calusas that had taken refuge in the Florida Keys were petitioning the Spanish authorities to let them go to Cuba. This article goes over the often contradictory evidence for Calusas remaining after the Spanish left Florida in 1765. Some of the 'rancho Indians', the mixed Spanish and Indian workers at the Spanish-Cuban fishing 'ranches' along the coast of Florida in the 19th century, may have had Calusa ancestors, but they were certainly de-tribalized. -- Donald Albury 12:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

John K. Mahon writes in his History of the Second Seminole War 1835-1842 (Revised Edition 1985, University Presses of Florida, page 263):

Chakaika was chief of a band called Spanish Indians who up to that point had taken no part in the war. They lived in the vicinity of the Caloosahatchee, and some writers have contended that they were a remnant of the once powerful Calusas. In reality they were Seminoles set apart from the other bands largely because of their remote dwelling place.

-- Donald Albury 12:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all where did you get the contention that "the Spanish left Florida in 1765"? Florida didn't even become a U.S. 'territory' until 1821 and a state until 1845. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.11.254 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, it was 1763 - History of Florida#British rule. -- Donald Albury 22:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again, Florida returned to Spain after the Treaty of Paris in 1783 and remained under Spaniard control until 1821 The New History of Florida, pp150, but the real issue here is why you persist in spreading this misinformation regarding the Calusa, which we will discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.222.35 (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources agree that almost all the remaining survivors of the original Indians in Florida left with the Spanish in 1763 (it is now known that a few Apalachee survivors went west and eventually settled in Louisiana, where their descendants now live). Almost all of the Indians who went to Cuba in 1763 died soon after in Cuba, and none of them returned to Florida with the Spanish in 1783. Now, I will check with the Florida Museum of Natural History to see what what sources they used in saying that some Calusa remained in Florida and merged with the Seminoles. Remember, however, that the Seminoles (or, rather, the various bands of Indians descended from tribes in Georgia and Alabama that eventually coalesced into the Seminoles) were already living throughout Florida by 1763. If some band of Seminoles took in a remnant of the Calusa before 1763, or even before 1821, that would be interesting and worthy of mention, but that is not the same as saying that the Calusa survived in Florida. However, speculation, or third hand reports of what may well be speculation, do not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Donald Albury 11:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I visited the Florida Museum of Natural History last weekend, and in the (outstanding) section on the Calusa, this topic was treated as an open question. Apparently, there is evidence of a remnant Calusa population living near Seminole newcomers, with a subsequent mixing of the groups. That possibility should be mentioned in the article. Zeng8r (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to go ask them what their sources are (it's kind of hard to cite a museum exhibit as a source). The scholarly sources I've been looking at either ignore the question or say the Calusas left with the Spanish. I used to wonder whether some Calusas had stayed in the Everglades and joined the Seminoles, but what I've read in the past few years had convinced me otherwise. -- Donald Albury 14:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have restored the Hodge reference, along with the Mahon quote. I will add to this after I've checked with the museum and reviewed sources at the library, which may take me a few days. I note that Hodge states that it was the Muspa branch of the Calusa that survived. The Muspa were a separate tribe which apparently was absorbed into or displaced by the Calusa around 1300. Spanish accounts indicate a Calusa town called Muspa. Contrary to many unsourced statements on the Web, Muspa was not in the vicinity of Charlotte Harbor or Pine Island, but was to the south, in the Marco Island/Ten Thousand Islands area. US troops were at times based in that area during the Second Seminole War, and it is clear that no Indians were living there at the time, so the Muspa had not "maintained their distinct existence and language in their ancient territory" as Hodge states. -- Donald Albury 12:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pending further info, the current last paragraph puts forth the various theories nicely, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I hold open the possibility that the Hodge quote represents a fringe theory, but I want to do some research (the Calusa article can use some editing and expansion, anyway). -- Donald Albury 11:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The FM of NH is arguably the most important Florida pre-history research organization. If they think the “lingering Calusa” theory is plausible enough to devote a panel to, then it’s not a fringe theory. (If you go, the panel in question is on the wall near the life-size scene of the female Calusa chief receiving gifts and trade goods from visitors from Georgia.)) Zeng8r (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The possibility that some remnant of the Calusas were absorbed into the Seminoles was already cited in the article. The theory I was referring to as possibly 'fringe' is that, "a considerable band of Calusa under the name Muspa Indians ... maintained their distinct existence and language in their ancient territory up to the close of the second Seminole war." I don't know of any evidence for that (other than the statement from Hodge), and I do know of sources that name a lot of different groups/bands/tribes of Indians in Florida living in Florida after the Spanish left, but Calusas and/or Muspas are not named in those sources. Note that the Seminoles (or, rather, the various bands that coalesced into the Seminoles) were in Florida before the Spanish left, so any incorporation of Calusas into the Seminoles could have occurred before Florida was transferred to the US. The statement in the article, "While a few Calusa individuals may have stayed behind and been absorbed into the Seminoles, there is no hard evidence for it.", is cited from a book (published in 2004) by Darcie MacMahon, Exhibits Director, Florida Museum of Natural History, and William H. Marquardt, Curator in Archaeology, Florida Museum of Natural History and Director of the University of Florida Institute of Archaeology. -- Donald Albury 14:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need the Hodge quote, it seems fairly out of place in the context of the section. Was it just a passing quote in the handbook, or did he write more on the subject elsewhere? If it's just one quote it certainly doesn't belong here in the face of all the other, newer evidence contradicting it. The survival or otherwise of the Calusa is probably worth a mention here, but it would be better to summarize fuller and more recent evidence (such as this article suggested by Donald, and maybe whatever sources the museum is using.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

John Hann, ed. & trans. Missions to the Calusa. (University of Florida Press, 1991), states: Parks noted that Bernard Romans, an English surveyor, wrote that Key West and Cow Key were the Calusa's last refuge in Florida and that "in 1763 the remnant of these people consisting of about eighty families, left this last possession of their native lands and went to Havannah" (1985:69).I'll look up Romans' book to get a quote direct from the source. -- Donald Albury 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Hodge's Handbook is available here. The full relevant quote is, "is only partially correct, as a considerable band of Calusa under the name Muspa Indians, or simply Spanish Indians, maintained their distinct existence and language in their ancient territory up to the close of the second Seminole war." As I've pointed out, modern authorities dismiss the idea that the 'Spanish Indians' were a remnant of the Calusa. It appears that the Hodge's 'Handbook' is outdated and has been replaced by the Handbook of North American Indians, in 17 volumes, published by the Smithsonian Institution. Volume 14, Handbook of North American Indians: Southeast, 2004, edited by R. D. Fogelson, includes the article "Calusa", by William H. Marquardt. Marquardt states on page 211:

Calusa society fades from the historical record in the eighteenth century, at least in Florida. Any direct descendants of the Calusa and other southern Florida native people will likely be found in Cuba. Some of the so-called Spanish Indians who inhabited the southwest Florida coastal area in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and worked there with Cuban fishermen may have been related to native south Florida people (Sturtevant 1953:64). Some scholars believe it is more likely that the Spanish Indians were descended from other northern groups whom the English called "Creeks" (Covington 1959; Hammon 1973).

I think it is clear that Hodge's statement is outdated and unsupported by modern authorities on the Calusa, and therefore amounts to a "fringe theory". I see no reason to keep any mention of Hodge's statement in the article. I am accordingly removing the last paragraph in the article. -- Donald Albury 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. Good work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking for more relevant material for all opf the article. -- Donald Albury 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The current wording makes the best of the historical uncertainty. Zeng8r (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for more details that can be added to the article, but Hann, Marquardt and Milanich are big guns in Florida archaeology these days, and pending discovery of some astounding documents in Spanish archives, I think their current opinions will hold for quite a while. -- Donald Albury 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

good article nominee?

Reading through this entry, I think it now qualifies as a good article. Thoughts? Zeng8r (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still kind of short. I see a lot of things that can be added, and a lot of room for improvement (my initial additions to articles are not always very polished). -- Donald Albury 16:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GA's are usually shorter than featured articles but are full of well organized (if condensed) info, like this one is. I'll hold off on a nomination until you think it's ready, tho. Zeng8r (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

Per Donald Albury's request

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I have about six of these, and I'm trying to upload them. The upload page is pooping out, so this may take longer than I anticipated, but keep checking back I guess... --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The window lines in the 4th image are inevitable. Feel free to alter any of these. --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Last one is Seminoles, just for giggles if anyone wants to put it somewhere. I have one more image that shows parts of wood objects representing birds and alligators, but I can't remember the word for these objects, so I can't describe it without the word. Can anyone help? --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources describe plaques and "ornamental standards", whatever those are. I don't recall a general name for animals and birds carved in the round. Plaques, anyway, seem to have been boards with animals and other designs carved into and/or painted on them.I wonder about the Calusa chickee. I've just added material to the article about the Calusa living in large communal houses that each held dozens of people. -- Donald Albury 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have images of the plaques, but as you can see, the museum is darkly lit to preserve the artifacts (I'm assuming), so most of these are slightly blurry. I did not have a tripod with me so it was a lot of deep breathing and consciously steady hands. The plaque images came out too blurry to look good at all. The objects I'm referring to are ceremonial I think, and they're long bird beaks and alligator tails made from wood. I suppose I can call them ornamental standards. I had never seen them when I went to take pictures, and unfortunately, my mindset at the time was to get something to illustrate the Indigenous people of the Everglades region article. The gator head did that nicely, so I didn't pay much attention to these other artifacts. Sloppy. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)