Topographic mapping and archaeological reconnaissance of Mound Key State Archaeological Site (8LL2), Estero Bay, Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Topographic mapping and archaeological reconnaissance of Mound Key State Archaeological Site (8LL2), Estero Bay, Florida
Physical Description:
viii, 46 leaves : maps ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Torrence, Corbett McP
Chapman, Samuel J
Marquardt, William H
University of Florida -- Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies
Koreshan Unity Alliance, Inc
Publisher:
Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Archaeological surveying -- Florida -- Mound Key   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Mound Key (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Maps, Topographic -- Mound Key (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 44-46).
Statement of Responsibility:
Corbett McP. Torrence, Samuel J. Chapman, William H. Marquardt.
General Note:
"August 1994."
General Note:
"A report submitted to Koreshan Unity Alliance, Inc. by the Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 45847771
ocm45847771
sobekcm - AA00007139_00001
System ID:
AA00007139:00001

Full Text






TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING

AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF

MOUND KEY STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (8LL2),

ESTERO BAY, FLORIDA







Corbett McP. Torrence

Samuel J. Chapman

William H. Marquardt





A Report Submitted to Koreshan Unity Alliance, Inc.

by the

Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies

Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611


August, 1994











TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING

AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF

MOUND KEY STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE (8LL2),

ESTERO BAY, FLORIDA







Corbett McP. Torrence

Samuel J. Chapman

William H. Marquardt





A Report Submitted to Koreshan Unity Alliance, Inc.

by the

Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies

Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611


August, 1994






TABLE OF CONTENTS


LIST OF FIGURES iii

LIST OF TABLES iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1

CULTURAL BACKGROUND 1

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 9

METHODS OF DATA RECOVERY 12

Topographic Mapping 12

Archaeological Reconnaissance 16

Surface Collections 18

Subsurface Excavations 20

Preparation for Analysis 22

SAMPLING'RESULTS 23

Topographic Mapping 23

Surface Collections 26

Subsurface Excavations 27

CONCLUSIONS 34

RECOMMENDATIONS 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY 44







LIST OF FIGURES


1. Location of Mound Key 2

2. Location of topographic features, Mound Key 14

3. Location of surface collection stations 19

4. SURFER image, looking eastward towards Mound 1 (the "King's Mound")

and Mound 2 ("The Court of the Kings") 24

5. Location of subsurface test excavations .30





LIST OF TABLES



1. Location of Survey Stations 17

2. Summary of Excavation Results 28

3. Generalized Chronology for Caloosahatchee Area and Immediate

Environs, Based on Summaries by Griffin (1988), Widmer

(1988), and Cordell (1992), updated according to results

of recent unpublished work at the Pineland and Mound Key sites 35






ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document reports the results of topographic mapping and archaeological

reconnaissance of the Mound Key State Archaeological Site in Lee County, a study

conducted by the Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Florida

Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville. Samuel Chapman served

as Assistant Field Director, Corbett Torrence as Field Director, and William Marquardt as

Principal Investigator. Larry Fooks, Koreshan State Historic Site manager, and Koreshan

Unity Alliance, Inc. President Bill Grace and members Gloria Sajgo and Charlie Weeks

were local project coordinators. The field work on Mound Key was conducted from

December 6, 1993 through April 15, 1994. The project was sponsored by the Koreshan

Unity Alliance, Inc. (KUA), the official non-profit Citizen Support Organization of the

Koreshan State Historic Site.

The project was financed in part with historic preservation grant assistance

provided by the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Florida Department of State, assisted by

the Historic Preservation Advisory Council. However, the contents and opinions do not

necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Florida Department of State, nor does the

mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or

recommendation by the Florida Department of State.

We owe a debt of gratitude to numerous companies and individuals who

contributed money or materials to continue the project beyond the boundaries of its

original funding. Michael Hansinger, Sue Morrow, Jim Long, William Neuder, Tracy

Cheatham, and two donors who wish to remain anonymous contributed funds to extend the






field work and laboratory analysis. Charlie Weeks and Estero Bay Boat Tours, Mike's

Marina, Marine Lumber, Cellular One, Westinghouse-Pelican Landing, Estero River Bait

and Tackle, Johnson Engineering, and Arden Arrington all provided invaluable services

and materials to the project. We thank the various private land owners of Mound Key

who permitted surveying to take place on their property. The McGee family is

particularly thanked for permission to conduct test excavations on their property.

Personnel of the Koreshan State Historical Site and the Southwest Florida Project of the

Florida Museum of Natural History provided much appreciated assistance. Charlie

Weeks, Carl Johnson, and the other boat captains of Estero Bay Boat Tours are especially

thanked for their more than generous assistance to the project, and endurance of yet

another set of specialists who in a short time were required to become experts on an

aspect of their Estero Bay home. We hope that we do them justice in. the interpretation of

its history.

We express special appreciation to Gloria Sajgo, who served as Koreshan Unity 41 (tc~ 4 t

liaison to the project. She facilitated the project in every possible way and made a

number of constructive recommendations that improved this report. Karen Walker also

provided valuable suggestions on the draft report.

Finally, without the aid of over two hundred volunteers, many of them members of

the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society, who donated over 7,000 hours of labor,

primarily in brush clearing, the difficulties encountered during this project would have

been insurmountable. Volunteers for the Mound Key project included Valarie Alker;

Dave and Ginny Andrews; Gloria Andrews; Betty and Jim Anholt; Sarah Angelotti; Mark






Appleby; Debbie and Arne Amason; Joe Arya; Janet Avello; Scott Avery; Jean Bacig;

Linda Ballou; Patti Bartlett; Bob Bartone; Gerald Bearry; Richard Beattie; Toni and Jean

Belknap; Susan Bellinger; Jeff Belton; Chuck and Joan Bennett; Dorothy and Roy

Bennett; Bonnie Bibas; Fran Black; Chuck Blanchard; Lucille and Marvin Bohlman; Bob

and Sue Brault; Marilyn Brown; Jean Bub; Darren and Naomi Burridge; Nan Byrne;

Joshua and Benjamin Canady; Matt Carey; Dick Carline; Betsy Carlson; Carl Caudil;

Doug, Teal, and Russ Chadwick; Tracy Cheatham; Celia Childs-Hampton; Chris

Clement; Paul Corbin; Eleanor Coster; Cheryl Cramer; Frank'Craparo; Ricky Crary;

Marge Crescenzo; Blaine Crouch; Dana Davis; Helene Davis; Kris DeArmond; Bob

DeMao; Barbara Dobbs; James Donovan; Debbie Duncan; Donna Duncan; Barbara and

Bill Dupuis; Alan and Jason Dwane; Bob Easton; Ruth Ann Ebbing; Charles Ebinger; Bob

Edic; Tom Elmer; Frank Englund; Lana Engquist; Kevin Faiano; Mike Farris; Stephanie

Fiedler; Monica Flowers; Ed Frehafer; Tetsya Fujita; Bill Gauger; Ginny Gewin; Anne

Gibson; Tina Giese; Harry Gleitz; Paul Goldstein; Barbara Green; John and Nathaniel

Grey; John Grimm; Rotem Grosman; Don Harayda; Bill and Joann Harding; Val Hardtke;

Fran Hart; Paul Hill; Jack Homer; Bud and Shirley House; Richard and Martha Hulet;

Harvey Ingles; Mary Jakelvic; Charlene Johnson; Arnold and Kathy Keberle; Charlie

Kellenberger; Lee Kelley; George and Mark Kellner; Carole and Don Kelly; Bill Kemper;

Rowena Kitzmiller; Robin Krivanek; Judy Lawlor; Art Lee; Donna Lindahl; Sarah Liotta;

Rich Little; Kevin Lollar; Jim Long; Max and Phyllis Long; Mary Ludington (mother);

Mary Ludington (daughter); Jack McAllister; Dean McGill; Brian and Mark McGinnis;

Kelli McGregor; Rudy Magyari; Greg and Ares Manos; Chuck Marble; Bob Mark;






Kimberly Martin; Don and Patty Martindale; Dana Meador; Karen Meier; Keith Melton;

Ava and John Mina; Sue Morrow; George and Jo Mullins; Lynda Murray; Ruth Murray;

Pete Nash; George and Dina Nelson; Jeannette Nielsen; Charlotte Noel; Dianne

O'Malley; Brenda and Mario Ordonez; Leonard Page; Norma and Norman Panall; Marge

Pedersen; Lynette Pittman; George, Kerri, and Rose Porth; Ann Pratt; Dean Quigley;

Juliette Rallo; Laura Randell; Thomas Randolph; Karen Reeves; Joan Reilly; Pam

Riberdy; Tony Rodriguez; Linda Rogers; Gene Rossman; Leo Ruble; Amanda Sachkar;

Patty Saldivar; Dorothy Savadel; Ray Seguin; Dee Serage; Don and Mary Shontz; Shirley

Siedel; Miles and Kristi Sigal; Glenna Simpson; Alicia Singletary; Jo and Frank Slaton;

Scott Slessman; Jack Smith; Rosemary Squires; Gary Stanford; Jerry Stanford; Ramona

Stephenson; Krista and Shanon St. John; Anna and Ray Stober; Johnny and Joy Stokes;

Dawn Sypniewski; Don Taggart; Priscilla and William Taylor; Max and Nathan Thoman;

Doris Threlkeld; Gene Toncray; Barbara, Reed, and Jim Toomey; Lee Tracy; Fred Tyers;

Peggy Vechiotti; Frank and Joan Von Dauch; Mike Welchman; Alanna and John

Wetherington; Howard Wilson; Wendy Wilson; Ken and Kathy Wishlow; Dick and Elaine

Wismer; Marty Wolt. Without the assistance of these volunteers in the field, the project

could never have been completed. We also thank several people for help in identifying,

cleaning, and cataloging artifacts. Several members of the Southwest Florida

Archaeological Society processed over 2,000 artifacts at the Society's Craighead

Laboratory in Naples. Betty and Jim Anholt and Barbara and Reed Toomey processed the

remainder of the artifacts and catalogued them. Kathleen Deagan, Ann Cordell (Florida

Museum of Natural History), and several members of the Historical Archaeology





Laboratory, Florida Museum of Natural History, helped with identification of the

historical artifacts. Field notes, collections, oral history tapes, and other pertinent data

are curated in the Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History,

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611.







PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the project was to obtain data needed to create a detailed

topographic map of Mound Key and to establish a metric grid system over the island.

Secondary objectives included reconnaissance-level archaeological testing and the

integration of previously known archaeological materials and historical documents relating

to the site.

The project also provided educational opportunities to the public regarding the

research being conducted on Mound Key. This included the utilization and training of

volunteers for field work and the presentation of the research results to the interested

public. Over 200 volunteers assisted in the field work, and 10 public talks were given in

the area by Torrence and Chapman. The field research was featured several times in local

television news programs and newspapers. A color brochure incorporating the project

results was written and designed by Claudine Payne. It includes photographs by William

Marquardt and Corbett Torrence and art work by Merald Clark.



CULTURAL BACKGROUND

Mound Key, a 125-acre (51-hectare) island located in Estero Bay (Figure 1), is one

of Florida's most significant historical sites. Contained within its dramatic ridges and

mounds are archaeological clues that demonstrate that Mound Key has long been a place

of habitation. Native Florida Indians, Spanish fisherfolk, and twentieth-century Euro-

Americans made their homes here, each group altering the landscape in its own way.



















: .. .....

4 4*


4


.4p
4.** '


4 4*


*l "..*

^ I ......'




"'."'


4 4;

""


a,


r


4**..


... .
4" *


s C AI.


o s Wf lm.


Figure 1. Location of Mound Key.







Estero Bay is rich in estuarine resources, including an abundance of fish and

shellfish. Many of the mangrove islands in the bay are home to a multitude of different

birds and many other types of wildlife ranging from mangrove crabs and small lizards to

gopher tortoises, marsh rabbits, snakes, and raccoons. The diversity of plant species is

even greater than that of animals and one can easily find orchids, bromeliads, cactus,

yucca, and many fine specimens of trees.

Over twelve thousand years ago, American Indian groups called Paleo-Indians

moved into Florida from the north. They lived near the end of the Pleistocene epoch, a

period in the earth's history when the climate was colder and glaciers advanced from the

poles. During this time, large animals such as mastodons and giant ground sloth roamed

Florida's cool grassy steppe. Paleo-Indians hunted big game, but more commonly lived

off plants and smaller animals.

By 7000 B.C. the earth's climate had become warmer, and American Indian

groups adapted to the changing environment. As sea levels rose and the climate became

warmer and wetter, fresh water became more abundant. Rivers and streams increased in

size. The mixing of fresh and salt waters formed rich estuaries along the Florida Gulf

coast.

Coastal Indians developed a thriving culture based on the many resources the

estuaries provided. These people were accomplished fishers; many species were eaten.

Some fish were netted, while others were taken by hook and line or bow and arrow.

Shellfish were also gathered and eaten. Certain shells were saved and used to make a








wide variety of tools and ornaments, including net gauges and weights, sinkers, hammers,

celts, dippers, pendants, and beads.

Though these people depended on the estuaries, they did not overlook the many

other resources available to them. Plants and terrestrial animals continued to be important

resources in daily life. Nets were woven from palm fibers, and the leg bones of deer

were used to manufacture tools such as fishing gear and arrow points. Around 1500

B.C., Indians of southwest Florida began to make clay vessels of many sizes and shapes.

These were used for cooking and storage.

American Indians were probably living on Mound Key by A.D. 100, perhaps

earlier. They discarded their food shells, fish bones, broken tools, and pots, forming

large garbage heaps called middens. Some of the middens were deposited in a specific

manner to form mounds, platforms, terraces, and ridges. Some of the mounds attained

remarkable heights, over 30 feet (9 meters) tall.

When Europeans first came to southwest Florida in the 1500s, the Indians were

known as Calusa (Hann 1991; Marquardt 1987, 1988). The Calusa were a powerful

group whose influence reached over the entire southern half of the Florida peninsula.

Other Indian groups paid tribute to them from as far away as Lake Okeechobee, Miami,

and the Florida Keys. Their "cacique," or king, was believed to have influence over the

natural world. Nobles had special privileges denied to commoners, such as access to

particular foods.

Throughout the world, very few groups have achieved this level of organization

without an economic base of farming. The abundant forms of plant and animal life in the








rich estuarine environments allowed the Calusa to harvest their food from the natural

world instead of having to labor to grow it.

The first official contact between the Spanish and the Calusa was in 1513, when

Ponce de Le6n and his crew sailed into the area exploring the region for possible mineral

resources and slaves. They found no gold or silver, but instead encountered the Calusa,

who knew of the Spaniards from previous unofficial visits and did not welcome them. On

June 5, 1513, 80 Calusa war canoes attacked the Spanish flotilla and demolished the

vessel that was closest to shore.

In 1567 the Spaniards established a fort and Jesuit mission, San Antonio de Carlos,

in the capital town of the Calusa (Lewis 1969). The purposes of the fort/mission were to

protect shipwrecked Spaniards from the Indians and convert the Calusa to Christianity.

Calusa resistance to conversion and mounting tensions between the two groups resulted in

conflict.

In an attempt to bring the Indians under control, the Spanish soldiers stationed at

the mission executed the Calusa king and two high-ranking nobles. This did little to

change the deeply rooted problems and later the Spaniards executed the new Calusa king

and many other leaders. After witnessing the murder of a second king, the remaining

Calusa burned their village and abandoned it. Shortly after this, the Spaniards abandoned

the mission.

One hundred thirty years later the Calusa king traveled to Cuba and requested that

a new mission be established in his capital. Franciscan friars eventually arrived in 1697.

Though the Calusa claimed to be interested in conversion, when they learned that gifts did








not accompany the conversion to Christianity and that the friars demanded that they

renounce their own sacred beliefs, relations quickly deteriorated. Interactions between the

Franciscans and the Calusa became hostile in less than three months. Finally, the Calusa

stripped the friars of all their possessions and marooned them in the Florida Keys (Hann

1991:157-205).

Many researchers believe that Mound Key was "Calos," the capital town of the

Calusa. Geographically and archaeologically, the island meets a number of requirements

that other southwest Florida archaeological sites lack. The Spaniards described the capital

town as a village of a thousand people situated on an island in the middle of a bay two

day's sail from Havana. This places the capital somewhere between Key Marco and

Punta Gorda. Key Marco, Mound Key, Galt, Demorey, Josslyn, Pineland, Useppa

Island, and Big Mound Key are the only sites of sufficient size to contain such a village.

Of these sites, only Mound Key and Useppa are located "in the middle of a bay,"

however, Spanish artifacts dating to the sixteenth-century mission period have been found

in significant quantities only on Mound Key.

The Spaniards describe the island as having a circumference of "half a league"

(Lewis 1969:7). This suggests that the island might be more or less circular, which

Mound Key certainly is. Although there are several kinds of leagues used in Spanish

writings of the period, one would need to increase the circumference only by twenty

percent to fit the size estimate based on long-shore leagues (Lewis 1969:7).

The writings of Jesuit father Rogel and geographer I.pez de Velasco reveal that

the first mission was set up "in the court of the kings, ... two arquebus shots from the









north shore" (Lewis 1969:6-7; see also Hann 1991:309). When the 1567 mission was

established, the Spaniards probably moved into 36 Indian houses and built one house of

their own. A "thicket fence" was constructed around the compound delineating the fort of

San Antonio de Carlos in the capital of the Calusa (Lewis 1969:6).

Assuming that the Calusa capital remained in the same location until the Franciscan

mission attempt in 1697, the location of the latter mission may be the same as that of its

Jesuit predecessor. The Franciscans tell of building their church near the house of the

cacique, and other Spanish chroniclers note that the missions were in identical locations.

As in 1567, the 1697 missionaries estimated that approximately 1,000 people inhabited the

capital town.

What actually happened to the 1,000 Calusa people who lived in the village of the

king remains a mystery. What is known is that after the Calusa left, Cuban fishing

families inhabited Mound Key throughout the 1700s and early 1800s. These people set up

their residences on the western fringe of the island, probably because deeper waters

provided access for their boats there. Some of these fishing people likely lived on

platform houses situated adjacent to the shore.

In the late 1800s, Frank and Mollie Johnson settled on Mound Key. Mollie

Johnson's generosity and healing knowledge established her as a living legend. Locally

known as "Grandma" Johnson, she was born of a white settler's daughter and a Cherokee

Indian named Bill Whitton, who had escaped when his tribe was moved west (Briggs

1976:7). It is said that Grandma Johnson's medicines cured many, including wealthy








aristocrats who drove to the docks on the mainland where she would meet them. She

protected the archaeological deposits on the island -- sometimes with a shotgun, it is said

-- because of her belief that they ought not to be disturbed (Elmer Johnson, personal

communication, 1994).

On November 9, 1891, Frank and Mollie Johnson were granted the entire island of

Mound Key. Their homestead certificate, number 9353, was signed by President

Benjamin Harrison. Within 25 years there were 17 families living on Mound Key and the

small community had its own school house. Most of the houses were simple single-room

structures. A cook house was constructed separately so that sleeping quarters would not

be overheated. Black mangrove wood was smoked in the sleeping quarters before bed

time. The small houses were then shut tightly for protection against mosquitos and biting

gnats.

Some of the settlers were members of the Koreshan Unity, a turn-of-the-century

communal society formed in Chicago. In 1894, led by founder Dr. Cyrus Teed, the

Koreshans established a utopian community by the Estero River. Eventually they acquired

portions of Mound Key, which is located at-the mouth of the river. The Koreshans

acquired land along the island's southern rim and constructed a house and a concrete

cistern. Other families lived along the west and northwest edges of the island. Although

the Koreshans were primarily farmers, most others on Mound Key made their living from

both farming and fishing. Despite temporal and cultural separation, the twentieth-century

residents of Mound Key lived remarkably similar lives to those of their Calusa

predecessors.








In her old age, Mollie Johnson moved off of Mound Key and sold her land

holdings for $1,000. Eventually the forces of nature, particularly the hurricanes of the

1920s, convinced people to move off the island. By the late 1940s, only a single man

who raised goats inhabited the island. In 1961, with their numbers dwindling, the last

Koreshans, represented by then Koreshan Unity M" president Hedwig Michel,

donated 139 acres of their original settlement grounds on the banks of the Estero River

and all of their Mound Key property to the State of Florida for preservation into the

future. The settlement grounds are today known as the Koreshan State Historic Site. The

former Koreshan Mound Key property is known as the Mound Key State Archaeological

Site; it is a detached portion of the Koreshan State Historic Site and is managed by the

Historic Site's personnel.



PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

Although state records indicate that only one survey and several impromptu surface-

collections have been made on Mound Key, documentary sources reveal that the island has

been visited for archaeological purposes several times since the late 1800s. Perhaps the

best known and most widely referred-to source on Mound Key is Rolfe Schell's book

1,000 Years on Mound Key (1962, revised 1968). Schell's work contains interesting and

pertinent data, but must be read critically due to numerous unverified speculations.

Mound Key was first reported by Douglass, but Cushing (1897:347-348) was the

first professional archaeologist to visit the island, then known as "Johnson's Key," during

his harbor reconnaissance in May, 1896. Cushing reported several mounds and some








Spanish artifacts. C. B. Moore (1900:366-367) investigated the site in 1900, hoping to

duplicate Cushing's Key Marco finds. Moore excavated in some of the canals and lower

areas of the island, but recovered little of what he considered of value and discontinued

his work there. His findings of pottery and a shell tool are listed in the state records at

the Florida Site File.

The next survey, which included some historical research and archaeological

surface collections, was made by Goggin and Hahns of the University of Florida in 1950.

Their findings include aboriginal, Spanish, and later ceramics, as well as shell, lithic, and

metal artifacts. These are listed in the state records at the Florida Site File, along with a

general synopsis of the research. The results of this survey are more fully discussed in

"The Calusa: A Stratified, Non-Agricultural Society (with Notes on Sibling Marriage)" by

Goggin and Sturtevant (1964).

In this article, Goggin and Sturtevant discuss the possibility of Mound Key's being

the former town of Calos, capital of the Calusa and location of San Antonio de Carlos.

Goggin reports a fragment of Isabella Polychrome majolica and several fragments of

early-style olive jar dating to the sixteenth century. Because artifacts of this type and time

period were unknown from other sites within southwest Florida, Goggin inferred that

Mound Key was the location of the early mission. Since Spanish documentary sources

indicate that the mission was established within the capital town of the Calusa, locating the

mission would also identify this important settlement.

State records list artifacts from surface collections made by Joseph Willcox and

David O. True. The collections were made previous to 1971 (the revision date on the









documents), but nothing further exists in the records as to provenience or discussion of

these artifacts. Moore (1900:368-369) notes that Joseph Willcox had transferred "many

relics" of European manufacture found on Mound Key to the Museum of Science and Art

of the University of Pennsylvania prior to 1900.

The next surveys were made by Clifford M. Lewis of Wheeling College in 1967

and 1968. Lewis did additional historical research and conducted several surface

collections on the island. He also interviewed several of the original white settlers who

had occupied the island from around the turn of the century to the 1940s. Based on

Goggin's work and his own discovery of several early-style olive jar fragments, Lewis

also concluded that Mound Key was the former Calos. A detailed account of his work is

in an unpublished document entitled The Spanish Jesuit Mission of 1567-69 in Southwest

Florida: Search for Location. Additional information pertaining to his work on Mound

Key can be found in the article "The Calusa" in the book Tacachale (Lewis 1978).

A survey was conducted by G. Huggins of Edison Community College in 1972-

1974. Five Fort Myers News-Press articles give general summaries of his work, but

apparently continuation of his work was disallowed by the State due to a failure on his

part to report his findings. According to the articles, Huggins mapped two-thirds of the

island and conducted numerous excavations. However, besides the newspaper articles, no

results of Huggins' work are available, so far as we know.

In 1991, two different mapping surveys were initiated on Mound Key. James

Marshall surveyed a portion of the island using a transit-level, covering about 10% of the








island. John Beriault of the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society produced a

schematic map of the island using a compass and measuring tapes.



METHODS OF DATA RECOVERY

In this section we present the specific sampling strategies employed during

archaeological reconnaissance on Mound Key from December, 1993 to April, 1994.

These include topographic mapping, surface collections, and subsurface test excavations.

Questions at the site level included aspects of site structure, content, use, and temporal

affiliations.



Topographic Mapping

The primary objective was to map the 125-acre island with a high degree of

accuracy and to establish a vertical and horizontal grid system. This was accomplished by

taking elevation readings from known points and leaving reference markers in the field.

Prior to the initiation of topographic data recovery it was necessary to determine the scope

of the project and establish a survey strategy. To this end, aerial photographs were

analyzed and major vegetation zones were mapped.

The island is comprised of three major vegetational zones delineated by elevation.

The first zone, which we call the Normal Tidal Zone (NTZ), is observed between 0.0 and

0.9 m a.m.s.l.; it is dominated by red and black mangrove trees. Daily tidal fluctuations

periodically inundate the entire NTZ. The second zone, situated between 0.9 and 1.3 m

a.m.s.l., is called the Upper Tidal Zone (UTZ). It is generally devoid of vegetation,








though organic matter accumulates along the high tide line. It is inundated only during

extremely high tides. The third zone, called the Back Shore Zone (BSZ), is found above

1.3 m a.m.s.l. This zone is inundated only during extreme storms.

Walkovers of the site were used to gain familiarity with the main features. Aerial

photographs were studied and systematic ground truthing of identified features was

undertaken. This knowledge allowed us to generate a schematic topographic map.

Prominent topographic features were identified and numbered (Figure 2). This enabled

reference to topographic features in the field prior to the completion of the final map.

At a broad scale, the site is comprised of two major shellwork complexes and a

series of ridge clusters, isolated mounds, canals, and courts. Complex I and Complex II

are situated on the southeastern and northwestern sides of the central canal, respectively.

The complexes themselves are comprised of ridges, mounds, and platforms. Platforms, in

turn, contain lesser mounds and ridges. The distinction between a ridge, mound, and

platform is inevitably gradational. However, these references are useful in analysis and

interpretation because they allow distinction of discrete topographical features without

functional interpretations.

During the topographic survey a Topcon laser transit was employed to determine

the location and elevations of specific points. This instrument provides accurate readings

within one millimeter (1/25 inch). In order to function, the Topcon requires a clear line

of sight to a prism, which reflects the instrument's impulse laser back to the machine to

calculate a variety of readings. Therefore, lines of sight must be established for

topographic mapping. Over 4,000 person hours were spent clearing sight lines through











MOUND KEY


C= CANAL
M: MOUND
P: PLATFORM
R: RIDGE
W=WATER COURT


Figure 2. Location of topographic features, Mound Key.


.-0








dense vegetation. Chainsaws, folding saws, machetes, and loppers were used for

trimming brush.

Radial clearing patterns were selected instead of the Cartesian grid technique for a

variety of reasons. First, the number of elevations required to define a feature varies

proportionally with its degree of topographic undulation. By using radials, the number of

survey points gathered from a station could easily be increased or decreased by changing

the number of radials to be cleared from the central survey station. Second, radials can

be judgmentally situated to optimize coverage of significant points and features, whereas

the grid system is more restrictive. Third, radials can be cleared along paths of least

resistance. Thus, sight lines can be situated where vegetation is less dense, and where

rare and endangered species can be easily avoided without interfering with the mapping

process.

In the center of each radial, a survey station was established by pounding a two

foot length of rebar flush to the ground surface. A central point was marked on each

piece of rebar. A wooden decoy stake was painted orange, labelled prominently, and

placed near the actual survey station. This gave vandals something.to kick over without

damaging the permanent grid. Each survey station was referenced numerically.

Topographic mapping was initiated from an arbitrarily placed station on the top of

the highest mound, called Station 1. Station 1 is situated 871.514 meters magnetic north

and 648.689 meters magnetic east of Bench Mark 4, located on the island's southeastern

shore. A magnetic north-south base line was established off of Station 1 on December 6,








1993 with a conventional transit. No further magnetic compass readings were taken and

all subsequent angles were made in relationship to the established base line.

Over 5,700 readings were recorded from 72 different survey stations. Raw survey

data were entered into a Hewlett Packard LX100 palmtop computer in LOTUS

spreadsheets. Files were downloaded to a Hewlett Packard personal computer, where

records were manipulated to calculate south and east grid locations and elevations.

Elevations were recorded in meters above mean lower low water, which is zero elevation,

i.e. "mean sea level," on the coastal geodetic survey. Grid points and their elevations

were then loaded into the SURFER program, which generated two- and three-dimensional

maps. A list of survey stations and their locations is presented in Table 1.



Archaeological Reconnaissance

Sampling is an inevitable aspect of archaeological research. It has been

demonstrated that a direct correlation exists between the intensity of coverage of any given

area and the number of sites or find spots located (Grossman and Cavallo 1982). Thus the

archaeologist must examine any given area as intensively as the research design permits in

order to evaluate the cultural resources effectively.

Surface collections and subsurface test excavations were employed during the

archaeological field work on Mound Key. The specific techniques employed during

surface collections and subsurface excavations are presented below.









Station
1
2
3

5
S 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35


Sourn
871.513
832.520
820.121
911.773
878.439
921.743
949.291
829.096
797.929
971.518
1020.566
913.053
972.988
914.294
952.500
930.920
906.532
869.302
946.697
919.912
937.952
884.161
941.025
886.487
877.532
943.627
896.587
761.956
741.142
809.146
826.982
953.018
733.761
735.119
864.855


East
648.689
683.996
720.936
717.118
689.707
776.575
735.479
600.417
582.116
758.525
720.310
685.706
780.363
807.682
820.405
842.925
838.431
823.035
874.566
867.431
901.208
746.080
690.444
785.047
768.373
808.353
772.190
633.894
586.643
533.516
548.974
756.192
648.465
14. 120
so .453


Eiv.
8.973
2.244
3.823
4.939
3.049
2.490
6.083
1.064
6.530
5.492
2.382
5.917
5.558
2.246
5.964
4.605
3.090
2.569
4.942
4.995
4.364
2.499
4.439
2.674
2.188
4.141
1.725
4.790
6.690
6.438
6.823
4.709
1.432
6.595
1.519


n.8.O.
1.027
7.156
6.177
5.061
6.951
7.510
3.917
8.936
3.470
4.508
7.618
4.083
4.442
7.754
4.036
5.395
6.910
7.431
5.058
5.005
5.636
7.501
5.561
7.326
7.812
5.859
8.275
5.210
3.310
3.562
3.177
5.291
8.566
3.405
8.481


Table 1. Location of Survey Stations.


Station
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
61
68
69
70


South
758.132
704.421
718.144
807.891
865.897
789.832
779.702
989.973
785.517
761.891
753.739
704.608
863.447
881.592
701.544
974.420
683.906
657.347
617.335
745.236
722.512
695.116
745.463
722.422
855.141
588.752
704.411
844.639
887.362
905.343
891.814
724.096
721.170
693.540
814.958


East
518.458
636.880
670.886
623.424
570.732
669.558
724.829
801.261
756.159
758.857
798.434
757.734
523.199
505.886
456.122
824.601
401.935
385.208
367.153
830.806
814.054
697.809
871.903
887.102
638.661
353.414
927.259
660.111
605.972
922.141
882.915
527.643
392.064
555.869
773.115


Ely.
7.331
0.911
6.565
1.118
0.793
0.833
0.772
1.871
1.113
1.863
0.906
0.817
5.081
4.067
1.646
4.375
0.835
1.246
0.912
1.396
0.842
0.942
2.324
0.797
9.375
1.002
0.864
9.147
3.317
3.307
2.547
6.318
1.851
1.618
0.910


n.B.O.
2.66?
9.029
3.435
8.882
9.207
9.167
9.228
8.129
8.887
8.137
9.094
9.183
4.919
5.933
8.354
5.625
9.165
8.754
9.088
8.604
9.158
9.058
7.676
9.203
0.625
8.998
9.136
0.853
6.683
6.690
7.453
3.682
8.149
8.382
9.090








Surface Collections

Surface collections were conducted along the southern margin of the island in the

upper tidal zone (UTZ), along the eastern side of Mound 3 in the UTZ, and in the

backshore zone (BSZ) on the east side of Complex I and the west side of Complex II (see

Figure 3).

All artifacts collected from the surface were associated with known grid points by

angle and distance. Three variations of artifact collection were employed. Along the

southern margin of the island in the UTZ, artifacts were identified during intensive

surface examinations. The primary objective was to collect 100 percent of ceramics over

two centimeters in maximum dimension. Artifacts were marked with pin flags and then

associated with collection stations by angle and distance using a Brunton pocket transit and

nylon survey tape. A total of 3,250 proveniences were recorded from 15 collection

stations.

On the east side of Mound 3 and the west side of Complex II, the same procedure

was employed except that artifact collection consisted of shell artifacts only. Shell

artifacts were also collected on the east side of Complex I. Artifacts were associated with

the grid in the same fashion, but pre-existing survey stations were used in conjunction

with surface collection stations. On the east side of Complex I, 97 shell artifacts were

collected from 12 survey stations. These include collection stations 16-20 and survey

stations 6, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, and 27.
















MOUND KEY


:!.
IN




COLLECTION STATIONS I-1
COLLECTION STATIONS I1 -1 t
COLLECTION STATION 20
SURFACE SURVEY STATIONS' :*.


E200 E 300 E400 E500 E 00
I I I I a I I I


S 800-





a soo-
81]00-





1I000-





*1100-


: "
*9 O











.'

'~.: r.W T
o .. .''*'"


E 700
, I


EMOO
IE 00
. I


EMO
S I


EVAL Lir


ELEVATMSI iTIi L..S1.L

E 000
S i T


Figure 3. Location of surface collection stations.


l 100-
a oo-





S300-





S400-





S 00-





S600-





8 TOO-


I I I








A total of 22 artifacts were collected incidental to the topographic survey because

they were either of particular scientific value or they were easily visible in high traffic

areas, making them susceptible to illegal collection by visitors.



Subsurface Excavations

During the subsurface testing, the meter square was the basic unit of excavation.

Each meter square was designated with an numerical reference. In this fashion, each unit

was referenced with its operation and unit number. Thus, the first meter square excavated

is referenced A-i, and the next contiguous square A-2. The next non-contiguous meter

square would be B-l, and so forth.

In one situation this system was not followed. Operations A-1 and A-2 are not

contiguous, but because they are situated on a topographic feature that is spatially distinct

it made sense to visualize excavations in this area as a single operation. Although

Operations E through K are also situated on topographically distinct features, sequential

numerical references were employed because we hope that future excavations in this area

will be referenced by the established grid coordinate system rather than the system

employed here. This would be advantageous because the grid coordinate reference

includes locational information and large numbers of alphabetical operational references

will in time become cumbersome and difficult to locate.

All excavations were conducted in arbitrary 10 centimeter (3.94 in) levels within a

horizontal grid. Each level is numbered in relation to a master site level system beginning

at a zero point 10 meters above mean lower low water (a.m.s.l.). In this manner,






21

artifacts recovered from a level situated between 1.0 and 1.1 m a.m.s.l. in Operation A-1

is referenced A-1-90. The next lower level, between 1.0 and 0.9 m a.m.s.l., is A-1-91,

and so on.

Excavations were by trowel and all sediment was sifted through either eighth- or

quarter-inch-mesh metal hardware cloth. Quarter-inch hardware cloth was utilized for

operations A-i, A-2, B-l, and C-1. Eighth-inch hardware cloth was used for Operations

E-l, F-l, G-l, H-l, I-1, J-1, and K-l, areas predicted by various observers as being

likely places for the discovery of Spanish artifacts.

Special excavation techniques were employed in Operation D in order to excavate

below water. High organic content and saturation of the sediments inhibited artifact

visibility in the screens. Water screening could not be employed due to an insufficient

source of water. For these reasons, screening of sediments was not productive.

Excavations proceeded very slowly and objects were recovered by touch. Other problems

resulted from water seepage into the excavation unit. To combat this, sponges and a bilge

pump were employed in conjunction with terraces.

Sediment color, texture, staining, mottling, and inclusions were documented for

each excavated level. Horizontal floor plans were sketched at the base of each level. Soil

anomalies and/or stratigraphic breaks within a given level were designated as loci. Each

locus was referenced numerically by order of encounter within each level. Sediment

removed from a locus was treated as a distinct excavation unit and all cultural material

recovered was bagged separately. The first locus identified within unit A-1-90 is thus

referenced A-1-90-1, the second locus A-1-90-2, and so on. All soil anomalies identified









in the field were graphed in plan view every 10 cm and profiled in cross section.

During our excavations we collected lithic materials (chert, sandstone, limestone),

carbonized plant materials, quahog (Mercenaria campechiensis) shells possessing the umbo

(hinge) portion, bone, and manufactured materials. Manufactured materials and

radiocarbon samples were mapped in situ to the centimeter on the vertical and horizontal

grid system.

Each specimen mapped in situ was bagged and referenced separately. In this

manner, the first item mapped in situ in Operation A, Unit 1, Level 90 is referenced A-1-

90/1. Note that the in situ artifact number is preceded by a slash, not a hyphen. This

creates a distinction between loci and plotted specimens. For example, if a tool is

encountered in Locus 1 of Level 90 in Unit 1 of Operation A, then it is called A-1-90-1/1.

Some bulk samples were also recovered for possible zooarchaeological and

archaeobotanical analysis in the future. These samples consisted of a predefined volume

and will be processed by fine screening.



Preparation for Analysis

All materials recovered are currently being processed for analysis. This includes

the washing of artifacts and the placement of catalogue numbers on each of the artifacts.

Lithic, shell, and bone specimens are being washed in regular tap water and dried, while

ceramic and floral materials are being dusted clean with a soft brush. All artifacts will be

curated at the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville.








SAMPLING RESULTS

The topographic mapping provides a frame of reference for future archaeological

data collection and elucidates geographical references contained in historical documents.

Surface collections yielded information regarding spatial distributions of archaeological

components and furnished ceramic specimens for preliminary analyses. The subsurface

excavations addressed issues of site structure, content, and integrity.

The objectives of this research were to gain preliminary information that would

establish a point of departure from which future research can be initiated. Funding will

be sought to enable intensive analysis of the materials and information recovered during

the past field season, but such an endeavor is beyond the budgetary scope of this project.

Sampling results are preliminary, but informative. The discussions of sampling results

that follow are reported according to method employed.



Topographic Mapping

One topographical feature, Mound 2, is of particular historical interest, because it

is the only single feature on the island large enough to have contained the fort/mission of

San Antonio de Carlos. Its broad and level summit could have easily contained the "36

Indian structures in the court of the King" (Lewis 1969:6; see also Hann 1991:256).

This "court" area is situated directly across the central canal from Mound 1, the

highest mound on the island, which overlooks the level summit of Mound 2 (see Figure

4). Mound 1 may have been the site of the king's house and Mound 2 may have been

"the court of the King."









































Mound Key


Figure 4. SURFER image, looking eastward towards
Mound") and Mound 2 ("The Court of the Kings").
3.5X).


Mound 1 (the "King's
Vertical exaggeration








25

Another topographic feature warrants discussion at this time. Situated immediately

adjacent to the north side of Mound 2 is a large depression that extends northwesterly to

the north landing at the trail's end. This feature was excavated with heavy equipment by

a man named May in the 1920s. The shell removed was shipped by barge to the mainland

and used for road fill. Later a man named Furren excavated more shell fill from this

area. Combined, the two men obliterated about ten percent of the archaeological deposits

on Mound Key. Elmer Johnson (personal communication, 1994) describes the area prior

to impact as being characterized by a low ridge and platform area with no high mounds or

prominent features.

The Johnson home of the early twentieth century was situated on top of Mound 2.

The Johnsons had two structures: a sleeping quarters and cooking house. The cooking

house was situated south of the sleeping quarters. Archaeologically, one of the two

structures, probably the sleeping quarters, is easily visible. The extent of the foundation

is roughly defined by a dense growth of mother-in-law's tongue.

The Koreshans built a large house (in the words of Elmer Johnson) and a concrete

cistern on the southeast side of the island on top of Platform 3. The cistern is plainly

evident today, but there are no obvious surface indications of the house.

Homesteads were also situated along the western shore north of the canal and along

the edge of Canal 2 near the northwestern shore. According to Elmer Johnson, these

structures sat on pilings and thus were somewhat elevated. We identified structural

remains in both areas. On the western side of the island north of the canal is at least one








cistern and possibly the remains of what was another cistern. Artifacts from these

occupations, such as metal, glass, ceramics, and boards are evident.

On the southeast side of Canal 2 are two distinct clusters of structural remains

characterized by piles of partially decayed boards. Lewis states that the U.S.G.S.

quadrangle map of 1927 shows 11 structures on the island. Elmer Johnson (personal

communication, 1994) also recalls 11. These include his family's two houses on Mound

2, the Koreshans' structure to the south, and four in each of the other two aforementioned

locations.

Elmer Johnson also made reference to several Cuban families that migrated on and

off the island seasonally. He said that these people lived along the north shore, but

whether or not he is referring to the same people who lived adjacent to Canal 2 is unclear.



Surface Collections

As mentioned above, systematic surface collections were conducted in three

discrete areas and other collections of individual specimens were made on a judgmental

basis. Systematic surface collections were conducted in two environmental zones: the

upper tidal zone (UTZ) and the backshore zone (BSZ). In the UTZ artifacts were

collected from the southwest margin of the island and the eastern margin of Mound 3

adjacent to Water Court 1. In the BSZ, shell tools were collected from a portion of

Platforms 1 and 4.

A total of 3,250 artifact proveniences were recorded from the southwestern shore

in the UTZ from Collection Stations 1-15. Preliminary field observation and






27

identifications indicate that this portion of the site was intensively utilized by both Native

American and Euro-American peoples. Temporally diagnostic artifacts of American

Indian origin include Sand-tempered Plain, Belle Glade Plain, St; Johns Check Stamped,

Glades Tooled, Weeden Island, Safety Harbor, and Jefferson Plain (after Willey

1949:492-493) ceramics. Other unidentified aboriginal sherds were also recovered,

including a solid conical pod.

Spanish artifacts recovered from Collection Stations 1-13 included olive jar

fragments and six majolica sherds. One of the majolicas has been identified as Santo

Domingo Blue on White, dating to the late sixteenth century (Deagan 1987:59-61). The

remaining sherds are attributable to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.

In the other three surface collection areas, only shell artifacts were collected; 97

were recovered. Analysis has not been initiated, but field observations identified both

cutting-edged tools and hammers, with Type C hammers being the most common (see

Marquardt 1992).

During surface walkovers, human remains were identified on Mounds 6 and 7,

indicating that these features were used as places of burial.

The locations of surface collection stations are presented in Figure 3.



Subsurface Excavations

A total of 13.6 cubic meters of sediment was excavated from 12 1-x-l-meter

square units (see Table 2). Operations A through D were situated judgmentally and

represent reconnaissance-level survey tests. Operations E through K were oriented on the















Table 2. Summary of Excavation Results.


Minimum Elevation
Cubic Elevation Max. Minimum Post- Elevation, Structural
Meters of bottom Depth Elevation, Contact Post- Structural Remains
Exca- Elevation of Below Aboriginal Artifacts Contact Remains First
Unit vated of surface excavation Surface Artifacts Present? Artifacts Present? Encountered


A-1 1.37 1.89 0.52 1.37 0.52 N Yes 0.71

A-2 0.99 1.51 0.52 0.99 0.52 Y 1.30 Yes 1.14

B-1 2.06 2.66 0.60 2.06 0.80 N Yes 0.89

C-1 3.26 3.76 0.50 3.26 0.60 N -Probable 1.30

D-1 0.80 0.90 0.10 0.80 0.10 N No --

E-1 0.60 6.20 5.60 0.60 5.60 Y 6.00 Yes 5.80

F-1 1.04 6.44 5.40 1.04 5.40 Y 6.10 Yes 6.08

G-1 0.48 6.18 5.70 0.48 5.70 N No -

H-1 0.76 6.26 5.50 0.76 5.50 Y 6.10 Yes 5.70

I-1 0.84 5.94 5.10 0.84 5.10 Y 5.80 No -

J-1 0.59 6.29 5.70 0.59 5.70 Y 5.90 Yes 6.00

K-1 0.96 6.36 5.40 0.96 5.40 Y 6.10 Yes 6.00








horizontal grid system and were situated to evaluate a portion of Mound 2 (Figure 5).

The following summary of the excavations is divided by operation in alphabetical

sequence. In instances where more than one excavation unit was used to evaluate a

topographical feature, the discussions of the survey results are combined.

Operations A-1 and A-2 were situated on Mound 4, which is located in the central

canal just east of Mounds 1 and 2. Operation A-1 was excavated to a depth of 1.36

meters below surface and A-2 to 0.99 meters below surface. Both units were terminated

slightly below the water table, although the archaeological deposits continued below it.

Operations A-1 and A-2 revealed that Mound 4 is comprised of

at least three major stratigraphic zones. All three strata are characterized by fine sand and

shell matrix containing varying quantities of faunal, floral, and other cultural materials.

The dominant cultural materials included Strombus alatus Type G shell hammers (see

Marquardt 1992) and Sand-tempered Plain pottery. Other noteworthy artifacts included a

ceramic platform pipe fragment from A-1-92/1, a carved petrified bone from A-2-91/2,

and numerous proximal ends of deer tibia fractured just below the elements' point of

constriction below the articular surface.

Two probable post molds were identified, one each in the lower two strata. One

was encountered in the south profile of A-i at a depth of 1.18 meters below surface and

the other was identified in the east profile of A-2 at 0.37 meters below surface.

Operation B-1, situated just south of Mound 4 on top of Ridge 12, was excavated

to a depth of 2.07 meters below ground surface and was terminated just below the water

table in Level 94. A total of five stratigraphic zones were identified. The basal zone is
















MOUND KEY


S300
I I


E 400


E500
tw


E 600
a I


S700
I


IO
1


E 00
I


$ o00-





S800-














8 30-




















00-
8 00-
$ 700,











0 8 00





.'.-1000-


S81100-







maOUR WITV*L LUe


SI I
1 1 1 I


Figure 5. Location of subsurface test excavations.


E200
I






31

characterized by a thick accumulation of predominantly oyster shells that began just above

the water table and extended well below it. No cultural material was identified in the

oyster deposit. The overlying stratigraphic zones are characterized by a fine sand and

shell matrix that contained varying quantities of cultural material. Temporally diagnostic

materials are limited to Sand-tempered Plain ceramics. Structural remains identified

included two post molds associated with Level 91.

Operation C-1 was situated west of B-1 on a platform feature on Complex I, just

east of Mound 1. Operation C was excavated to a depth of 3.16 meters below surface and

terminated 0.10 meters below the water table in Level 95. Excavations revealed nine

stratigraphic zones comprised of a fine sand and shell matrix containing varying quantities

of cultural material. The deepest zone is characterized by a predominantly oyster deposit

capped by a thin layer of surf clams in Level 93. Both of these deposits were devoid of

cultural material. Between Levels 93 and 88, five distinct stratigraphic zones were

encountered and three more zones were encountered between Level 88 and ground surface

at Level 63. A possible fire pit was encountered in Levels 89 and 90.

Belle Glade and Sand-tempered Plain pottery was recovered from Levels 63-88,

representing the upper three stratigraphic zones. Below this depth Belle Glade Plain

pottery was not found, but Sand-tempered Plain sherds were recovered from Levels 88

through 93. Other notable artifacts include a shell dipper with an associated stone bead in

Level 85.

Throughout the excavations of C-l, high quantities of bone were recovered

compared to the excavations of A-i, A-2, and B-1. Of further interest is the fact that the






32

deer bone represented elements above the tibia, including teeth, mandibles, scapulae, and

vertebrae, a noticeable contrast compared to the deer elements recovered from the

Operation A units on Mound 4.

Operation D was situated at the west end of Water Court 1 at the base of Mound

3. The surface of this unit was situated only a few centimeters above the high tide line

and thus the unit was located in the UTZ. This unit was initiated in the hope of

evaluating the potential for the preservation of highly perishable remains such as plant

fibers and carved wood.

Operation D was excavated to a depth of 0.74 meters below ground surface, but no

distinctive stratigraphic variability was evident in the unit profile. In general, the matrix

was comprised of a rich organic muck with cultural inclusions. Temporally diagnostic

materials included Sand-tempered Plain and Glades Tooled ceramics.

Operations E-l, F-1, G-l, H-l, I-1, J-1, and K-1 were excavated on the summit of

Mound 2 on a rise situated centrally along the southern flank of the mound above the

central canal. These units were excavated to an average depth of 0.78 meters below

surface with a minimum depth of 0.59 meters below ground surface in Operation 0-1 and

a maximum depth of 1.04 meters below ground surface in Operation F-1.

Stratigraphically these units were varied and complex. A plow zone impacting the

upper 0.10 to 0.15 meters of each unit was the only zone that could be definitively

identified in each of the seven units. Stratigraphic zones were characterized by a fine

sand and/or shell matrix with varying quantities of other cultural inclusions. Structural

remains comprised of living floors and/or post molds were encountered in five of the








seven units (see Table 2). Of particular note was a square post mold encountered in

Operation F-1.

In some of the living floors, characterized by organically rich fine sands with small

amounts of crushed shell and other artifactual remains, the quantity of bone was so great

that their collection from the eighth-inch screens would have compromised time allowed

for excavation. In these cases, in particular Operation F-1-38, bulk faunal samples were

recovered for future analysis.

Artifacts of Native American origin came from all units on Mound 2. The ceramic

inventory includes Sand-tempered Plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, Belle Glade Plain, and

grog-tempered sherds. In Operation H, several notched sherds were associated with a

concentration of perforated ark shell (Noetia ponderosa) net weights, suggesting that the

notched sherds may also represent fishing gear, perhaps sinkers.

Other noteworthy aboriginal artifacts include a copper bead, bulbous stone

plummets or weights, retouched chert fragments, worked columellas, Type C gastropod

hammers, shell spoon/scoops, a small circular shell disk (similar to objects identified as

"mask eyes" by Gilliland [1976:184]), shell and bone beads, bone points, carved bone

fragments (probably pins or points), a barbed bone point, and two specimens of carved

petrified wood and/or bone.

Artifacts attributable to Spanish origin, at least in part, include late seventeenth-

and eighteenth-century majolica pottery fragments, late seventeenth- to eighteenth-century

olive jar fragments, wrought iron nails, glass seed beads, and a lead sinker fashioned like

an aboriginal shell sinker. Depths for Spanish-period artifacts are included in Table 2.









CONCLUSIONS

Mound Key is an extremely significant and well preserved site. Cultural materials

from all major pre-contact and post-contact periods known in southwest Florida from 500

B.C. to the present were identified at Mound Key. These periods are presented in Table

3.

The exact extent of the pre-contact components on Mound Key is as yet unknown

due to limited archaeological testing. Radiometric dating was not included in this initial

phase of work. However, based on previous excavations in the Calusa area (e.g.,

Marquardt, ed. 1992) and the preliminary results of this survey, we can infer that portions

of the site likely date as early as the Caloosahatchee I period (500 B.C. to A.D. 500).

This interpretation is based on the observation that inundated archaeological components

were unexplored in Units A-1 and A-2, whose excavated portions could be assigned to the

Caloosahatchee IIA period (A.D. 500-800) based on the artifacts found.

Further evidence of Caloosahatchee I components can be hypothesized for the

deposits in Ridge 12 and the basal portions of Operation C-1 east of Mound 1. In both of

these contexts, Belle Glade pottery, a marker of Caloosahatchee II period deposits, was

absent.

Caloosahatchee II period components were encountered in Mound 4 based on the

artifact assemblages from Operations A-1 and A-2. Here the association of Strombus

alatus Type G hammers with Sand-tempered Plain ceramics hints at an occupation dating

to this period.













Table 3. Generalized Chronology for Caloosahatchee Area and Immediate Environs, Based on Summaries by
Cordell (1992), Griffin (1988), and Widmer (1988), updated according to results of recent unpublished work
at the Pineland and Mound Key sites.


Date Period Present at Some Diagnostic Artifacts

Mound Key, Big Mound Key, European artifacts (e.g., metal, beads,
A.D. 1500-1750 Caloosahatchee V Gait Island and Pineland Burial olive jar sherds)
Mounds, Useppa Island

Mound Key, Pineland, John Safety Harbor, Glades Tooled, and
A.D. 1350-1500 Caloosahatchee IV Quiet, Buck Key Pinellas Plain pottery present; Belle
__ Glade Plain diminishes

Mound Key, Buck Key, Gait St. Johns Check Stamped, Englewood
A.D. 1200-1350 Caloosahatchee ID Island, Josslyn Island, Pineland ceramics; Belle Glade Plain prominent


Mound Key, Big Mound Key, Belle Glade Red present; Belle Glade
A.D. 800-1200 Caloosahatchee IIB Gait Island, Josslyn Island, Plain prominent
Pineland, Useppa Island

Mound Key, Cash Mound, Gallt Beginning of Belle Glade Plain and
A.D. 500-800 Caloosahatchee IA Island, Josslyn Island, SPCB ceramics; Glades Red; thinner
Pineland, Useppa Island ceramics

Mound Key, Cash Mound, thick sand-tempered plain pottery, with
500 B.C.-A.D. 500 Caloosahatchee I Josslyn Island, Useppa Island round and chamfered lips













Based on the identification of Caloosahatchee II artifacts, including Belle Glade

pottery, as well as St. Johns Check Stamped pottery, it can be stated that Caloosahatchee

II (A.D. 500-1200) and III (A.D. 1200-1350) deposits are present on the island.

Ceramic markers for the Caloosahatchee IV period (A.D. 1350-1500) include

Safety Harbor and Glades Tooled types. Glades Tooled ceramics were identified over

large portions of the site, including the controlled surface collections at Collection Station

10, Operation D-l, and Operation F-1. There can be little doubt that this period is well

represented at Mound Key.

Caloosahatchee V (A.D. 1500-1750) components are also represented on Mound

Key based on the recovery of diagnostic Native American and Euro-American materials.

Specifically, Jefferson Ware ceramics and the Spanish majolica and olive jar fragments

recovered from the surface collections and on Mound 2 are in sufficient numbers to imply

occupations dating to both the early seventeenth and the early to middle eighteenth

centuries, and a Santo Domingo Blue on White sherd dates to the late sixteenth century.

Previous archaeological information, the historical research of Hann (1991) and

Lewis (1969, 1978), and the research conducted during this investigation all support the

hypothesis that Mound Key was indeed Calos, the capital of the Calusa. If so, it is also

the site of the fort/mission of San Antonio de Carlos, the first Jesuit mission built in this

hemisphere to serve and convert the Indians.






37

A number of other observations can also be gleaned from our preliminary research.

First, there are at least two burial mounds on the island based on the identification of

human remains. These are Mounds 6 and 7.

The matrix of Mound 7 is characterized by fine sand, with numerous scallop and

small crown conch shells. Belle Glade ceramics were also identified, indicating a

temporal affiliation somewhere between A.D. 500 and 1500. Numerous dippers, all

punctured, were evident over the surface. The mound has been badly disturbed by illegal

excavations.

Mound 6, previously known as 8LL3, also has been badly disturbed by illegal

digging. Here only Sand-tempered Plain sherds were observed during walkovers. In

contrast to Mound 7, Mound 6 is comprised primarily of fine sand and oyster shells.

Mound 5 is also likely a burial mound based on form, content, and location.

Elmer Johnson, who was born on Mound Key in 1908, indicates that the ridges and

possibly the muck areas of the site were also used as places of burial. More specifically,

he states that hundreds of human bones were unearthed in one of the northerly ridges off

of Complex II and that one burial was encountered during the excavations by May in the

early twentieth century (Elmer Johnson, personal communication, 1994).

Second, contrasting faunal assemblages were recognized in our limited testing.

These may be attributable to the utilization of areas by Native Americans of different

social status. Fontaneda (1944) makes clear reference to high-ranking members of Calusa

society having differential rights to particular food resources. The distinction in deer bone

elements between the excavations in Mound 4 (Operations A-1 and A-2) and Operation C-








1 could also be explained as differential usage of deer bones for tool manufacture.

Similarly, the matrix distinction (oyster versus scallop and crown conch) between Mounds

6 and 7 may have to do with the social status of individuals who-lived on or were buried

in these features, or may be due simply to deposition at different time periods.

Third, evidence of structural remains was identified in eight of the twelve

excavation units. Based on historical records and local informants who lived on Mound

Key, the Euro-Americans who inhabited the island after the contact period did not

construct fences. This information, combined with the stratigraphic associations, suggests

that structural remains such as post molds are attributable to the pre-contact and early

post-contact periods. Furthermore, several of the structural remains are clearly

attributable to Native American origin, indicating that information on aboriginal structures

is potentially available at least for Caloosahatchee periods III through V.

Finally, at the base of Operations B-1 and C-l, below the apparent extent of

cultural deposits, dense oyster shell deposits were encountered. These deposits may

represent a natural accumulation of oyster bars on which the initial occupations of Mound

Key began to accumulate. In concert with the research of Karen Walker (1992), these

deposits and other proxy environmental data available on Mound Key could contribute

significantly to our understanding of environmental dynamics related to sea-level change

and human cultural adaptation in the region (see Walker, Stapor, and Marquardt 1994).

In contrast with the spatially extensive Native American deposits, the Euro-

American components are restricted to the western side of the island. This is not

surprising when combined with the topographical data for two major reasons. First, the








waters on the east side of the island are too shallow to enable boat access in any vessel

other than a canoe, whereas the west side is accessible in most tidal situations to a wide

variety of water craft. Second, the east side of the island is dominated by mangrove

swamps, while 1he western side is higher, facilitating Euro-American land use practices.

During the post-contact period, Spanish access to the eastern side of the island may have

been restricted by the Calusa for spiritual reasons.

The earliest Euro-American components probably date to the first mission of San

Antonio de Carlos established in 1567. A single sherd of Santo Domingo Blue on White

majolica was recovered from the southwestern shore. Numerous other artifacts can be

attributed to this time period, though not exclusively. The evidence in support of the

mission being situated on Mound 2 of the Mound Key site is compelling, though

circumstantial.

Surface collections along the southwestern shore suggest that at least this region of

the site was occupied by Euro-Americans in the mid-eighteenth century, shortly after the

demise of the Calusa, if not during this transitional period.

Historical documents indicate that itinerant Cuban fisher folk inhabited the island

throughout the early and late nineteenth centuries and into the Homestead period which

began sometime in the late 1800s. Numerous accounts and documents elucidate the

lifeways and land-use practices of the Mound Key homesteaders, and archaeological

remains of their habitation are extensive.

It is evident from documents, newspaper articles, local informants, and our own

surface evaluations undertaken during this project that extensive amounts of archaeological








material have been removed from Mound Key. Southwest Florida historical materials

collected during the 1890s are curated at the Smithsonian Institution and at the University

of Pennsylvania Museum, catalogued simply as "Punta Rassa." It is likely that these

artifacts came from Mound Key (George Luer, personal communication, 1990), and were

mailed from the Punta Rassa post office, accounting for the catalogue assignment to that

locality.

Years of public and scientific surface collection have removed a vast quantity of

"obvious" artifacts from the island. By obvious we mean decorated pottery sherds and

artifacts of precious metals. (One informant, Robert Porter, donated to the Florida

Museum of Natural History a gold bead he had found on the island as a teenager in 1927.

His desire was that it be properly curated and analyzed. And James Kenefick wrote from

Connecticut to inform us of his surface collections and digs on the island in the 1940s.

We are attempting to obtain photographs of Mr. Kenefick's Mound Key collections.)

Even more distressing are the extensive looters' pits that pock the surface

everywhere. Nowhere is this more evident than in Mounds 6 and 7. In Mound 7 there is

a single pit more than three meters square and a meter deep. In all, the open pits on

Mound 7 represent more earth removal than was accomplished during this entire project.

Furthermore, illegal excavations were initiated during our presence on the island and on

three occasions our excavations and decoy reference markers were vandalized.

Nonetheless, the present extent of damage has not destroyed the overall

significance of the site. Mound Key is still one of the best preserved archaeological sites

in the Calusa domain.








RECOMMENDATIONS

The extent of the different components on Mound Key is not known at this time.

The way the site is interconnected by canals, courts, and ridges suggests that it functioned

as a contiguous whole during its zenith. Under these conditions, it makes sense to refer

to the site as a single multicomponent deposit rather than arbitrarily carve it up into a

myriad of spatially limited sites, each with its own state number. How would one

determine where one site ended and the next began?

When the site was first assigned a number in the state files, two small features on

the island were referenced under two separate site numbers, 8LL2 and 8LL3. Today

there is confusion as to which features these numbers refer to. To clarify matters, 8LL3

is definitely the same as Mound 6.

Site number 8LL2 appears once to have referred to a small rise located south of

Mound 1, however the current 8LL2 site file has been enlarged to encompass the entire

island with the exception of Mound 6 (8LL3). As per conversations with personnel with

the State Site File, all future research will utilize the 8LL2 number, including any work

conducted on Mound 6. This will alleviate many headaches in the future, but researchers

should be aware that previous collections from Mound 6 are likely to be listed as site

8LL3.



Recommendation 1. Further research on Mound Key is definitely warranted.

The excellent preservation of this site sets it apart from most sites in the region.

Our data suggest that aboriginal structural remains are well preserved along with









numerous activity areas. Wet site potential is likewise extremely high, and our research

further indicates that data applicable to sea-level fluctuation studies and dynamic models of

paleoenvironmental reconstruction are present at the site. Finally, there are significant

deposits dating to the post-contact period, including Mission, Cuban, Pioneer, and

Homestead periods.

Mound Key is the high point of Lee County in many ways. Most obviously,

Mound 1 is the highest elevation in the county at 9.79 meters.(32.12 feet) a.m.s.l.

Second, it is widely believed to have been the capital of the Calusa domain. Some

recognize that this also means it was the site where the Spaniards established the first

Jesuit mission to serve the Indians in this hemisphere. Third, it is a symbol of the more

recent past. The homesteaders who worked a living out of the estuary continued a fishing

tradition already many centuries old. The early agricultural and fishing industries

represented on Mound Key are important reminders of Lee County's heritage.



Recommendation. 2. The archaeological site should be better protected and interpreted

than it is today.

The public visits Mound Key frequently. During our five months of research, not

a single day passed without a person stopping to investigate the island. On some days,

over 50 different people would stroll across the path that traverses the island. Because of

this extensive public interest, the State of Florida should take responsible action to protect

and interpret the island.









43

Primarily because of the unsubstantiated (and in fact refuted) legends of Gaspar the

Pirate, which have been published in such works as Rolfe Schell's book 1000 Years on

Mound Key, extensive illegal excavations have taken place over the site. This

misinformation continues to threaten the irreplaceable archaeological record of Mound

Key. Monitoring of the island by law enforcement personnel is desperately needed.

Considering the vandalism to our equipment and excavations during the project,

and given the high traffic on the island, we recommend that the rebar permanent survey

stations not be marked with brightly colored plastic caps, although this is technically

required by our contract with Koreshan Unity Alliance. This would draw attention to the

markers, and invite their removal. The rebar markers can be easily found using a metal

detector, so it does not make sense to mark them conspicuously.



Recommendation 3. Trails should be stabilized to prevent further erosion and

deterioration.

The heavy foot traffic over the island is exacerbating erosion of the mounds, in

particular Mounds 1 and 2. If Mound Key is to remain open to the public, then the trails

should be secured to avoid continued degradation of the site. If any excavation (e.g., for

installation of steps) is necessitated by such trail improvement, a professional archaeologist

should be on hand to monitor the work and systematically collect and interpret any

artifacts.









BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyd, M. F.
1939 Spanish Mission Sites In Florida. Florida Historical Quarterly 17(3):254-280.

Briggs, M.
1976 Pioneers of Bonita Springs. First edition, Bicentennial Publishing.

Cordell, A. S.
1992 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability in Southwest Florida. In
Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. H.
Marquardt, pp. 105-189. University of Florida, Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1. Gainesville.

Cushing, F. H.
1897 Exploration of Ancient Key Dweller Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida.
American Philosophical Society, Proceedings 35: 329-448. Philadelphia.

Deagan, K.
1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800,
Volume 1: Ceramics, Glassware and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.

Fontaneda, Do. d'E.
1944 Memoir of Do. d'Escalante Fontaneda Respecting Florida, Written in Spain,
About the Year 1575. Translated by Buckingham Smith and with editorial
comments by David O. True. Glades House, Coral Gables, Florida.

Fritz, F.
1963 Unknown Florida. University of Miami Press. Coral Cables, Florida.

Gilliland, M. S.
1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.

Goggin, J. M.
1960 The Spanish Olive Jar: An Introductory Study. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology, No. 62. Yale University Press.

1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology, No. 72. Yale University Press.








Goggin, J. M. and W. T. Sturtevant
1964 The Calusa: A Stratified Non-Agricultural Society (with Notes on Sibling
Marriage). In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George
Peter Murdock, edited by W. H. Goodenough, pp. 179-219. McGraw-Hill, New
York.

Griffin, J.
1988 The Archeology of Everglades National Park: A Synthesis. National Park
Service, Southeastern Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Grossman, J. W. and J. Cavallo
1982 The Status and Potential of Predictive Surveys in New Jersey. In New Jersey's
Archaeological Resources from the Paleo-Indian Period to the Present, edited by
O. Chesler, pp. 256-277. Office of Cultural and Environmental Services,
Trenton.

Hann, J. H.
1991 Missions to the Calusa. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Lewis, C. M.
1969 The Spanish Jesuit Mission of 1567-1569 in Southern Florida. Unpublished ms.,
Wheeling College, West Virginia.

1978 The Calusa. In Tacachale, edited by J. T. Milanich and S. Proctor, pp. 19-49.
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

L6pez de Velasco, J.
1894 Geografia y descripci6n universal de las Indias, recopilada por el cosm6grafo-
cronista Juan L6pez de Velasco desde el aiio de 1571 al de 1574 ... con
adiciones d ilustraciones, por don Justo Zaragosa. Establecimiento Tipigrafico
de Fortanet, Madrid.

Lyon, E.
1983 The Enterprise of Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Marquardt, W. H.
.1987 The Calusa Social Formation in Protohistoric South Florida. In Power Relations
and State Formation, edited by Thomas C. Patterson and Christine W. Gailey,
pp. 98-116. Archeology Section, American Anthropological Association,
Washington, D.C.

1988 Politics and Production among the Calusa of South Florida. In Hunters and
Gatherers, volume 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change, edited by Tim








Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodbum, pp. 161-188. Berg Publishers,
London.

1992 Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture and Environment in the
Domain of the Calusa, edited by W. H. Marquardt, pp. -191-227. Institute of
Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1. University of
Florida, Gainesville.

Marquardt, W. H. (editor)
1992 Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. University of Florida,
Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1.
Gainesville.

Moore, C. B.
1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West-Coast. Journal of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:350-394.

Schell, R.
1968 1000 Years on Mound Key. Island Press, Ft. Myers Beach, Florida.


Walker, K. J.
1992 The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor's Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation:
Spatial and Temporal Perspectives. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of
the Calusa, edited by W. H. Marquardt, pp. 265-366. Institute of Archaeology
and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Monograph 1.
Gainesville.

Walker, K. J., F. W. Stapor, Jr., and W. H. Marquardt
1994 Episodic Sea Levels and Human Occupation at Southwest Florida's Wightman
Site. The Florida Anthropologist 47:161-179.

Widmer, R. J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Non-Agricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest
Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.

Willey, G. R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections
113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Zubillaga, F. (editor)
1946 Monumenta Antiquae Floridae (1566-1572). Monumenta Missionum Societatis
lesu 3. Rome.