Talk:Pohoy

Spanish relations with the Indians
"All of the indigenous groups in peninsular Florida had acknowledged the Spanish king as their overlord by the early eighteenth century." I find this very difficult to believe. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "The documents confirm that all of the south Florida Indians mentioned in them had become allies of the Spaniards." Hann 1995: 184.
 * The Indians mentioned in the "documents" include Pojoy, Bomto, Mayaca, Amacapira, Jororo, Calusa, Maymi, and Jega. By this time (1738) Uchize ("Lower Creek") parties had been raiding the full length of the peninsula for some 35 years. The Indians had no one but Spain to turn to. -- Donald Albury 02:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Were there not interior tribes? What about the Seminole? I also wonder what the "documents" are that confirm this? A Spanish report? Might be self-serving. Were the Spanish in contact with all of Florida's tribes? How many tribes were there in the interior? It's a pretty big area with some remote areas. I'm not an expert, but I find the statement begs a lot of questions and it certainly strike me as doubtful without very strong evidence. I didn't doubt it was sourced. You've done an excellent job expanding the article. WOuld it be possible to say "According to XYZ documents All of the indigenous groups in peninsular Florida had acknowledged the Spanish king as their overlord by the early eighteenth century"? At the very least I would like to know what documents these are. You've peaked my interest. :) Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Maymi (or Mayaimi, originally living around Lake Okeechobee), Mayaca (living next to Lake Okeechobee in the 1730s), Bomto (previously unheard of, so probably living in the interior), Jororo (related to the Mayaca, originally living along the upper St. Johns River) were interior tribes. By the 1730s all of the indigenous peoples in Florida had been severely affected by Uchize ("Lower Creek") raids. As early as 1710, refugees from southern Florida, including Calusa and "Maimi", had fled to Cuba. Other than the Calusa, it looks like none of the remaining groups in peninsular Florida had established territories. The Mayaca and Jororo, who lived on the St. Johns River just south of Lake George in the 16th and 17th centuries, had relocated to St. Augustine, and then in the 1730s, moved down into the interior of south central Florida. The Pohoy and Alafaias, originally from the Tampa Bay area, had also moved to St. Augustine, and then to the interior of south central Florida. The Calusa had dominated southern Florida, even receiving tribute from, or at least being allied with, the Ais on the Indian River, and sent a large force to attack the Mayaca near Lake Okeechobee in 1738. Even the though the Bomto were previously not mentioned in Spanish reports, the Bomto chief assures a scout sent by the Spanish governor that he was not a "rebellious Indian", and would continue to support the Spanish on the coast,(Hann: 196) which implies a previous relationship.
 * The earliest use of "Seminole" (Cimaronnes) as a name for a group of Native Americans was applied by the Spanish to Cowkeeper's band, which migrated into Florida and settled around the Alachua Prairie (Payne's Prarie) in 1740 (and that is in northern Florida). Even a century later, during the Second Seminole War, there was no single tribe of "Seminoles", but rather Alachua Seminoles, Tallahassees, Mikasukis, Yuchis, Yemassees, and, reportedly, Alabamas and Choctaws (the current Seminoles deny that there were ever any Choctaws in southern Florida). Prior to about 1740, none of the ancestors of the Seminoles (and Miccosukees) had settled in peninsular Florida (which, sadly, was used as justification for dispossessing them from Florida).
 * You can read Hann's article for yourself. If you have access to JSTOR, you can read it here. If not, go to here, select Browse Collection, select Table View, go to page 13 in the table, and click on the PDF link to Volume 74, Issue 2. -- Donald Albury 12:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's some good stuff, Donald. Thanks for sharing. Zeng8r (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been surprised to find out how many displaced groups were running around in Florida from 1700 to 1763. I thinks that is in part because a lot of that history has been recovered only in the last 50 years (which means after I was in high school). And, of course, there is no telling what a historian may yet find in the Spanish archives (there apparently are very large piles of uncatalogued and unsorted records lying around in those archives). I've learned a lot about the early history of Florida while researching for Wikipedia over the last 6 1/2 years. I know now that stuff I put in 5 or 6 years ago is incomplete or even wrong. I need to go back and rewrite what I contributed then, but it is hard to dig back and find the precise source for stuff I remember, but didn't use at the time or didn't cite carefully enough. -- Donald Albury 02:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Very interesting Donald. Thank you very much for your efforts and for addressing my concerns. I'm still wrestling with the findings. :) I wasn't aware that Spain had so much presence and control over Florida. Outside of St. Augustine, the coastlines and bays, I didn't realize that they penetrated the entire interior. When I get a chance I am going to look into this more. I would have expected more evidence of their presence to be left behind. The research results also seem to show that the indigineous peoples in the southern parts of the state lived a relatively simple existence without agriculture and were limited in other technologies. I wonder why this is. Was Florida inhospitable? Wouldn't trade have brought these influences in from outside? My apparently mistaken impression on the difficulty of subduing and controlling the tribes is also a reflection of what I've read about how much the Seminoles and some other indigineous peoples held out in isolated areas, but I understand this was later after the Spanish had left and after these peoples had retreated to the area from elsewhere. A tangled and interesting web to unravel. Interesting stuff and I appreciate your work to enlighten us. Take care. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree; it's fascinating stuff, and I've been learning a lot myself.

Speaking of revisions, I'm thinking that with the new info about more chiefdoms around Tampa Bay, "Safety Harbor culture" should be built into a separate article instead of just redirecting to Tocobaga. Thoughts? Zeng8r (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about it, just haven't taken the time to do anything about it. Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida by Jerald T. Milanich has a chapter of 24 pages on the Safety Harbor culture. Milanich's Florida's Indians from Ancient Times to the Present has 7 1/2 pages on Safety Harbor, probably largely duplicating Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. I see a PhD dissertation, Redefining Safety Harbor : late prehistoric/protohistoric archaeology in west peninsular Florida, on line here. Jerald Milanich was the director for that dissertation. There's "Tocobaga Indians and the Safety Harbor Culture", by Ripley P. Bullen, in Tacachale: essays on the Indians of Florida and southeastern Georgia during the historic period, edited by Jerald Milanich and and Samuel Proctor (I've used that as a source a few years ago, and can check it out again). There are a number of articles available here. I think we have enough sources to build a decent article. I have to do some things with the Education Program in the next few days, I start at a new job location tomorrow, and I'm starting a new project at the local history museum this week, so I doubt I'll contribute anything about Safety Harbor culture for a few days. -- Donald Albury 00:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Found some more sources:
 * "Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area", by George M. Luer and Marion M. Almy, inThe Florida Anthropologist, 34:3, September 1981.
 * Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) notice regarding Tatham Mound.
 * Survey of Historic Resoruces in Charlotte County
 * Gulf Coast archaeology: the southeastern United States and Mexico / edited by Nancy Marie White. In my local library, I'll take a look at it. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about deleted "nation" infobox
The study of ancient and historic indigenous peoples in the Americas has been increasingly well-developed, and there are academic classifications and conventions about documentation through archeology and written records. For instance, peoples who are identified through archeology are generally referred to as participating in an archeological culture. There may be chiefdoms and groups of bands, such as the Uzita or Pohoy, but they do not comprise a nation state in any contemporary meaning of the word. It is Original Research, prohibited on Wikipedia, to make up a new way to classify them, as was done on a previous infobox. This approach is not supported by Reliable Sources, which we as editors are required to use. Editors need to read enough to understand the context for materials on the indigenous peoples.Parkwells (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)