Hist Arch https://doi.org/10.1007/s41636-018-0148-1 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Glass Beads and Spanish Shipwrecks: A New Look at Sixteenth-Century European Contact on the Florida Gulf Coast Mark Allender Accepted: 14 November 2017 # Society for Historical Archaeology 2018 Abstract Despite the considerable amount of research españoles se presentan tradicionalmente como el princi- devoted to the study of 16th-century contact between pal medio de contacto de los europeos con los indígenas Native Americans and Spaniards in Florida, little atten- en Florida y como la fuente principal de los objetos tion has been given to the impact of Spanish shipwrecks europeos, tales como cuentas de vidrio. Esto ha creado on the lives and material culture of the Florida Indians. una impresión engañosa de lo que realmente estaba Spanish land-based expeditions are traditionally pre- sucediendo en Florida durante el siglo XVI. Al sented as the principal means of European contact with examinar las rutas de navegación de los españoles, los Native Americans in Florida and as the primary source tipos de artefactos recuperados arqueológicamente de for European objects, such as glass beads. This has los sitios de naufragios de buques españoles en camino created a misleading picture of what was really happen- a casa, y las actividades de salvamento de los indios de ing in Florida during the 16th century. Examination of Florida, se revela que los naufragios españoles Spanish sailing routes, the types of artifacts recovered probablemente eran la fuente de la mayoría de los archaeologically from the wreck sites of homebound artefactos históricos encontrados en sitios arqueológicos Spanish ships, and salvage activities of the Florida In- de Florida con componentes europeos del siglo XVI. dians reveals that Spanish shipwrecks were probably Esto sugiere que las interacciones entre los españoles y responsible for most of the historical artifacts found on los indios de Florida tuvieron una mayor intensidad y Florida archaeological sites with 16th-century European complejidad que generalmente se ha pensado. components. This suggests that the interactions between Spaniards and Florida Indians had a far greater intensity Résumé Malgré le grand nombre de recherches and complexity than has generally been supposed. consacrées à l’étude du contact entre les Amérindiens et les Espagnols en Floride au 16e siècle, l’impact des Extracto A pesar de la considerable cantidad de naufrages espagnols sur la vie et la culture matérielle des investigación dedicada al estudio del contacto, en el Indiens de Floride a attiré peu d’attention. Les expédi- siglo XVI, entre los indígenas y españoles en Florida, tions terrestres espagnoles sont traditionnellement pré- se ha prestado poca atención al impacto de los sentées comme le principal moyen de contact européen naufragios españoles en la vida y la cultura material de avec les Amérindiens de Floride et la première source los indios de Florida. Las expediciones terrestres de los d’acquisition d’objets de l’Europe, dont des billes en verre. Cela a dressé un tableau trompeur de ce qui se ’ * passait réellement en Floride au 16e siècle. L examen M. Allender ( ) ’ PO Box 14422, Gainesville, FL 32604, U.S.A. des routes maritimes espagnoles, des types d artefacts e-mail: [email protected] archéologiques recueillis des épaves des navires Hist Arch espagnols en partance pour l’Europe et des activités de Glass beads are the primary focus of this analysis, conservation des Indiens de Floride révèle que les since they are among the most numerous and diagnostic naufrages espagnols représentaient probablement la types of historical artifacts found on Florida archaeolog- principale source d’approvisionnement des artefacts ical sites having 16th-century European components historiques découverts dans les sites archéologiques de and are especially useful for providing chronological Floride renfermant des éléments européens du 16e dates. As a rule, when glass beads are found on archae- siècle. Cela suggère que les interactions entre les ological sites they are perceived as quintessential objects Espagnols et les Indiens de Floride étaient plus intenses of trade and have become synonymous with the term et complexes que ce qui est généralement supposé. “trade beads.” Commonlyusedterminologies,suchas“contact Keywords glass beads . Spanish shipwrecks . Florida sites,”“contact material,”“trade beads,” and “trade Gulf Coast . 16th century. Spanish entradas . contact kits,” have often masked the diversity of ways in which period sites . burial mounds . rock crystal . sailing routes . Spaniards and Florida Indians interacted in the 16th New Spain . Calusa . Old World disease . Renaissance century, as well as the ways in which European objects jewelry. gold artifacts . silver artifacts were acquired. Since Spanish ships wrecked with great frequency on the Florida coast, native peoples had re- peated opportunities for contact with large numbers of Introduction Spanish shipwreck survivors. The result was a greater intensity and complexity of interaction than has tradi- Traditionally, most archaeologists and historians have tionally been portrayed. While the primary focus here is characterized the contact or interaction between Span- on European and European-derived artifacts recovered iards and Native Americans in 16th-century Florida as from archaeological sites in counties bordering the Flor- taking place primarily within the context of periodic ida Gulf Coast, these implications are relevant for cul- Spanish land-based expeditions. These overland expe- tural and historical dynamics elsewhere in coastal Flor- ditions, or entradas,havebeenportrayednotonlyasthe ida and the Southeast. major means of contact between Spaniards and Native Americans, but also as the primary source of European artifacts, or “contact material,” found at Native Ameri- Conventional View can archaeological sites having 16th-century European components. Most notably, these expeditions include It is widely accepted by most researchers that nearly all those of Pánfilo de Narváez in 1528, Hernando de Soto of the European artifacts found on southeastern U.S. in 1539, and, to a lesser extent, Tristán de Luna y archaeological sites dating to the first half of the 16th Arellano in 1559. century originated from Spanish overland expeditions, The perspective presented here is that Spanish ship- primarily those of Pánfilo de Narváez and Hernando de wrecks offer a different and probably better explanation Soto. This is based on the idea that the historical metal for the presence of the majority of European materials and glass artifacts recovered from these sites were found at Florida archaeological sites commonly known brought along by the Spaniards and traded to the In- as 16th-century “contact sites.” In most written works, dians. These artifacts then have been used as evidence when shipwrecks are mentioned at all, they are usually for indicating points of contact between Spaniards and treated as minor players contributing little to the histor- Native Americans, often as a way of reconstructing or ical archaeological record. Yet, throughout the 16th refining the routes followed by the expeditions. Ohlson century, Spanish ships were wrecking on the Florida (2014:34), for example, notes: “Archaeologists are cau- coast year after year and often multiple times a year, tious about designating a site as one of De Soto’s providing the Indians with a wide array and regular steppingstones across the Southeast, because getting supply of European materials of every description. one site wrong can throw off the rest of the route.” These objects were traded widely or sent as tribute from In a study of archaeological and historical sites in the one Indian village to another all across Florida, making Florida Panhandle, Marrinan et al. (1990) suggested that it nearly impossible to connect specific European arti- the European artifacts from St. Marks Wildlife Refuge facts with Spanish expeditions. Cemetery site (8WA15) were introduced by the Hist Arch expedition of Pánfilo de Narváez. Marvin Smith possibly the only recorded occasion of a Spaniard giving (1987:45) wrote that, within the interior Southeast, Eu- away an object containing precious metal was in ropean artifacts from contact sites dating to 1525–1565 present-day South Carolina, where it was said that De would include only goods introduced by the expedition Soto gave a native chief a feather plume decorated with of Hernando de Soto. Jeffrey Brain (1975), Hudson et al. silver (Bourne 1904:90). (1989a), Milanich and Hudson (1993), and many others Griffin and H. Smith (1948:30) discussed this notion have identified a wide variety of European artifacts as of separate origins for precious metals and glass beads evidence of Native American contact with De Soto that when they wrote that European artifacts from the can be used to trace his path more accurately through the Goodnow Mound (8HG4) “suggest trade rather than Southeast. Hudson et al. (1989b), Langford (1990), and salvage from shipwreck; this is particularly true of the Linden (2013) have identified certain historical artifacts, quantities of small glass beads. The silver may, however, including an Aztec-crafted copper plate, as originating represent salvaged material.” This interpretation is af- from the expedition of Tristán de Luna y Arellano. firmed by Mitchem (1989a:510), who, in making a link Glass beads have often been the artifact category between European artifacts from Tatham Mound most closely