From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply


Sorry about the earlier post to the main page. It was meant to go in the discussion page. Why not have either the Miccosukee and or the Seminole provide a dna test to determine if there are relations between them and the spanish Indians, the Maya Indians, etc. Former U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno's mother was reporter for the Miami Herald. She was quoted Co-Chairman Howard Osceola of the Miccosukee Seminole Nation the following:

"The term Seminole is misleading. What does it really mean? 

    Well, you hear it, most books say it's "run away."    But I asked Howard Osceola once:  "What does Seminole Mean?"

And he said: 

    "Well, my daddy told me that back yonder when they were chasing them all, when they were chasing all the Indians, some white soldiers said to one of our fellas, one of the Miccosukees, "Who are those Indians we see out there way away, out on the horizon?  We can never catch up with them, the ones that are always running away,  Who are they?"

  "And our fellow said 'Seminolay!'  It's a word of our language, the Miccosukee language, that means wild, a seminolay pig, a seminolay horse, wild, not fenced in, feral.  It really doesn't mean run away, it means a wild hog, a wild horse - a free man!"

There are some distinctions, aren't there, between Muskogee Seminoles and Miccosukee?

    That's kind of fascinating.  There are remnants of two Indian tribes here now, Miccosukee and Muskogee, and they speak two different languages.    But not too long ago Howard Osceola said to me, "Jane, you know, there are still some Spanish Indians in the Everglades."

    And I said, "Really?"  You know, the Spanish Indians, the ones we read about in history, are Calusa.

    And Howard said:

"They say there are some still out there - of course this is historical legend - that don't speak any language we know. I've never seen one but my mother and daddy did. And there are supposed to be some living out there on the hammock." 

    But originally the Indians of south Florida had nothing to do with anything called Seminole,  They were Calusas - Spanish Indians.  At least it's a legend with people who are my contemporaries, a little young.  But, these guys, they came down, they were two separate and distinct tribes.  The Muskogees were Creeks, and the Miccosukees were initially found around north Florida, in the Panhandle north of Tallahassee.  And they were pushed down and down and down, and they speak quite a different language.  Their language is, their words are, not the same.  They have no written language.  Any written language they have is somebody's interpretation.  Source: The Hell With Politics, The life and Writings of Jane Wood Reno.

Could it be that the Miccosukee are the Calusa and they've been concealing their identity? I notice, for example, that Buffalo Tiger wrote a book entitled, A Life in the Everglades. He states that the Miccosukee's language is not called Miccosukee. The former chief says that his people speak a language called, Eeloponkee. So, I called Co-Chairman Bill McKinley Osceola and asked him, "What does Eelponkee mean?" He said it means the language that 'we' speak. So, I asked him if Ilopango had a meaning. He said it did. He said that Ilopango means the language that 'I' speak. I asked him these questions because I believed there was a connection with the caldera in El Salvador named Ilopango. By the way, the Co-Chairman did give me authorization in writing to conduct a DNA test between he and my son, who is of Maya descent. Before I go, consider the fact that all Native American burial remains, pottery, etc. are older in antiquity to the south (South America). I also spoke with leading scientists conducting research with the Human Genome Diversity Project. Their original maps were indicating that humanity came up from the south and not down from the north. I believe there is a massive conspiracy taking place to revise the historic facts. As that great authority on Indian Affairs, United States Congressman Joshua R. Giddings, summarized in 1858 the actions of the United States in the introduction to his treatise, The Exiles of Florida (at p.vi):

"Florida was purchased; treaties with the Florida Indians were made and violated; gross frauds were perpetrated; dishonorable expedients were resorted to, and another war provoked. During its protracted continuance of seven years, bribery and treachery were practiced towards the Exiles and their allies, the Seminole Indians; flags of truce were violated; the pledged faith of the nation was disregarded...Men who wielded the influence of Government for the consummation of these crimes, assiduously labored to suppress all knowledge of their guilt; to keep facts from the popular mind; to falsify the history of current events, and prevent an exposure of our national turpitude......"

I will reveal the DNA study in the near future. But for now, trust me...the Calusas are alive and well on planet earth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PurseSword ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply
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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply
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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

I agree with your edit. Good work.-- Cúchullain t/ c 18:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I'm looking for more relevant material for all opf the article. -- Donald Albury 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

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

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) reply

Mr. Ashbury this may be true. As a Florida Native from several generations and also descendant of Creek-Seminole Indians. I have done and studied much research; am an historian of Florida history (FSU grad). And I still find it quite astounding that the quote from Hodge also states that these "Indians maintained their distinct...language". How is it possible to maintain their distinct language if they were just "Spanish Indians"? Let alone the fact that there are verified and distinct Calusa songs and tales still readily heard today amongst the Seminoles. This wouldnt be possible if there hadn't been interaction and intermixing among the two groups. I am very aware that there is a tendency among so called history scholars today to paint the Seminoles as just Creek (and so forth) "newcomers" whose ancestors/predecessors had moved to Florida from Georgia, Alabama...Tennessee and other states. The motive for this is unclear. Perhaps it may be to underhandedly justify white settlers' bloody efforts to remove them from Florida. However, the evidence clearly shows that many groups that became the Seminoles (including the Calusa) predated the Spaniard explorers like Ponce de Leon. I am substantiating this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.220.165 ( talk) 16:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Point us to reliable sources that say that. I contend that the Hodge book is not a reliable source for this subject. Hodge was the sole author of a book covering every tribe and group in the United States and Canada. He obviously was not an expert on all of those groups. Ne apparently was relying on another source for what he said about the Calusa, but he doesn't say where he found the information. The current assessment of the history of the Calusa is based on archaeology and research in Spanish archives and elsewhere. Much of the this research has been performed since Hodge wrote his book. I also refer you again to Chakaika and the "Spanish Indians': Documentary Sopurces Compared with Seminole Tradition, which was based on interviews with older Seminoles in the 1950s. I quote from the Conclusion of that paper:

The documentary and traditional material given here shows that there were several different Indian groups in southwest Florida in the first part of the 19th Century. There were certainly "Seminole" bands, and individuals with mixed Spanish and Indian ancestry. There was probably a small group of "Choctaws," although present Florida Seminole tradition states that the Choctaw were never in Florida. There was probably a Calusa settlement, the town of Caloosahatchie, at least in the earlier part of the period. There was certainly also a band of "Spanish Indians" whose association with the Seminole was at first even weaker than the loose connections between different Seminole bands. These Spanish Indians were perhaps Choctaw, perhaps Calusa remnants, or perhaps a more independent Seminole band. The last hypothesis is considerably strengthened by the apparently unanimous present Seminole opinion that Chakaika and his band were Mikasuki Seminole. The group existed only a little more than a century ago, and there are definite Seminole traditions of other, non-Seminole bands in Florida ("Bad People," Yuchi, and perhaps Koasati). Furthermore, the Seminole recognize the fact that their ancestors were associated, at a much earlier period before entering Florida, with still other groups speaking neither Muskogee nor Mikasuki (e.g., Choctaw, Shawnee, Osage). There is considerable evidence that at first the ties were very tenuous between the numerous Indian bands which entered Florida and later more or less amalgamated into the Seminole. Thus it is possible that the Spanish Indians were a group of Mikasuki speakers who reached South Florida somewhat earlier than the other Seminole, and had closer relations with the Spanish in South Florida and Cuba. Seminole traditions probably can cast no more light on the subject-but they at least emphasize that this is an as yet unsolved problem. The solution may come from archeological investigation in the Charlotte Harbor region or at Chakaika's Island, or more likely from a search of historical documents in Washington, Cuba, or Seville.

The timing of the probable Caloosa settlement at the town of Caloosahatchee is not clear, but bands of the people that coalesced into the Seminole tribe were in south Florida well before the Spanish left. The so-called "Spanish Indians" led by Chakaika are the only group in Florida in the 19th century that I've heard of that was supposedly Calusa, and the above quote makes it clear that Seminole tradition is clear that Chakaika's people were Mikasuki speakers. Find a reliable source more recent than Hodge that says otherwise, and we can discuss it. -- Donald Albury 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply


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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply
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) reply

Move back to Calusa?

This article was moved without any discussion, and with no clean-up. I think that it would be better moved back to Calusa, where it had been for years. If it stays at Calusa people, then several other articles need to be fixed. I would ask that nothing be done to those other articles until we can discuss moving this article back. -- Donald Albury 00:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Alleged contradiction on extinction dates

There is a difference between the extinction of of the tribe and of the language. The tribe was destroyed in the first half of the 18th century as the result of persistent raids by people of the Muscogee Confederation. The Spanish evacuated some survivors to Cuba at various times, but Calusa survivors were living at the site of the abortive Spanish mission at Miami in 1743. Any remaining Calusas in Florida were taken to Cuba by the Spanish in 1763. However, individual speakers of Calusa may have survived in Cuba for some years after that, so it is reasonable to give the end of the 18th century as the date by which all speakers of Calusa may be presumed to have died. Donald Albury 17:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

That makes sense, logically, assuming we have good sources. Still, I'd argue that the article prose should be clearer on the matter about the end of the Calusa.
In fact, although I did not flag it, I found it really odd that the article lede did not talk at all about the end of the Caluss or the timeframe of their end. {although it did use past tense in this phrase: "...were a Native American people of Florida's southwest coast." But a lede, which summarizes the article, should have some brief summary prose that clarifies for the reader when it was that this people group ceased to be in Florida. (the length of time for the end of the language seems, to me, a rather secondary point for this article, which subject is the Calusa people.) Probably good if both are clear in the article body prose, and the lede has a brief summary. — N2e ( talk) 04:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, the sources (at least as I recall) do not say much about the end of the Calusa. The Spanish had only sporadic contact with the Calusa. We do know that Calusa (and other peoples of Florida, a little over 200 in total) who had taken refuge in the Keys were evacuated to Cuba in 1711, where most of them quickly died. We also know that some Calusas were living with other refugees near the Miami River in 1743. We know that the various peoples living near Miami and in the Keys were periodically raided by Muscogees at least up to that year. The Spanish evacuated all of the Florida Indians they could find to Cuba (and Mexico) when they surrendered Florida to Great Britain in 1763, and there are no credible reports of Calusa remaining in Florida after that, although some authors suspect a few may have joined Seminole bands, or stayed as workers at Spanish-Cuban fishing ranchos on the Florida coast. I have not, however, seen any account of when or how the Calusa towns were attacked and abandoned, or what surviving Calusas did after being displaced from their homes, aside from the above mentioned instances. Pending discovery of forgotten documents in Spanish archives, we just simply do not know what happened to the Calusa early in the 18th century. Donald Albury 13:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Calusa&oldid=1195050698"