Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page
 The salt works of Salt Island Florida...
 Preliminary investigations at the...
 Two platform pipes from southern...
 A guide to surface survey techniques,...
 Back Cover

Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00002
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Anthropological Society
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
Publisher: Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Frequency: quarterly[]
two no. a year[ former 1948-]
Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
Summary: Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- May 1948-
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027829
Volume ID: VID00002
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Editor's page
        Page 62
    The salt works of Salt Island Florida (8Lv133): A site survey and historical perspective - M. F. Dickinson and G. W. Edwardson
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    Preliminary investigations at the Hornsville site (8Ja387) in Jackson county, Florida - Larry Benson and Richard Allen
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
    Two platform pipes from southern Florida - James McLellan
        Page 83
    A guide to surface survey techniques, artifact recording and curation, and type collection preparation for the amateur archaeologist - Louis D. Tesar
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text



cx -.-
--,I-:- ;--- )

e~P r
ii) t i j b;. ~,L ';'
~E~ W

~'o~ '"
2819s4 ~


I "'
~a c


3T Inc

JUNE 1984

\ .

1 Ky

_ _-

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published quarterly by the Florida Anthropological Society
Inc., P.O. Box 1013, Tallahassee, FL 32302. Subscription is by membership in the Society for
individuals, families and institutions interested in the aims of the Society. Annual dues are
$12 (Individual), $18 (Family), $15 (Institutional), $25 (Sustaining), $100 (Patron) and $150
(Life). Foreign subscriptions are an additional $4 U.S. currency to cover added postage costs
for individual, family or institutional membership categories. Requests for information on
the Society and membership application forms, as well as notifications of changes of address,
should be addressed to the Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer.
Requests for copies of the Editorial Policy and Style Guide (re. FA 37(1)), orders for back
issues, submissions of manuscripts for publication and notices of non-receipt or damaged
issues should be sent to the Editor. Newsletter items should be sent to the President.
Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 days prior to the mailing of the next issue. The
Post Office will not forward bulk rate mail.


PRESIDENT: Claudine Payne
P.O. Box 1013
Tallahassee, FL 32302

SECRETARY: M. Katherine Jones
406 Westwood Drive North
Tallahassee, FL 32304

John W. Griffin
Route 5 Box 19
St. Augustine, FL 32084

John F. Scarry
P.O. Box 1013
Tallahassee, FL 32302

Joan Deming
1839 Pine Cone Circle, #28
Clearwater, FL 33520

AGENT: Ruth Thomas
545 Bayberry Drive
Lake Park, FL 34403


(Three Years): William Goza
Florida State Museum
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

(Two Years): Mitchell Hope
1113 Sunset Drive
Sebring, FL 33870

(One Year): Mary Lou Watson
229 Woodlawn Drive
Panama City, FL 32407


EDITOR: Louis D. Tesar
Route 1 Box 209-F
Quincy, FL 32351

TYPIST: Kathy Poppell
P.O. Box 1013
Tallahassee, FL 32302


Robert S. Carr
Historic Preservation Division
Office of Community and
Economic Development
Warner Place Suite 101
.111 Southwest Fifth Avenue
Miami, FL 33130

George M. Luer
3222 Old Oak Drive
Sarasota, FL 33579

John W. Griffin
Route 5 Box 19
St. Augustine, FL 32084

James J. Miller
Division of Archives, History
and Records Management
Florida Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301-8020

John F. Scarry
Division of Archives, History
and Records Management
Florida Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301-8020

William H. Marquardt
129 Florida State Museum
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

Morgan R. Crook, Jr.
Department of Sociology
and Anthropology
West Georgia College
Carrollton, GA 30118

COVER ILLUSTRATIONS: (FRONT) Conceptual drawing of a typical late 1800s salt making camp,
such as that on Salt Island, Florida. Courtesy of Louis D. Tesar. (BACK) "THIEF OF TIME"
poster. Reproduced courtesy of the Florida Department of State, Division of Archives, History
and Records Management, Bureau of Archaeological Research in Tallahassee. Design by John
Locastro, illustration by Bill Celander of the Museum of Florida History in Tallahassee.




JUNE 1984


Editor's Page . . . . . .. 62
The Salt Works of Salt Island Florida (8Lv133): A Site Survey
and Historical Perspective by M.F. Dickinson and
G.W. Edwardson . . . . .. .63
Preliminary Investigations at the Hornsville Site (8Ja387) in
Jackson County, Florida by Larry Bensonand Richard Allen 75
Two Platform Pipes from Southern Florida by James McLellan 83
A Guide to Surface Survey Techniques, Artifact Recording and
Curation, and Type Collection Preparation for the
Amateur Archaeologist by Louis D. Tesar . .. 84


This is my second issue as the Editor of
The Florida Anthropologist. The new
format introduced in Volume 37(1) has
been well received. The "Ceremonial
Tablets and Related Objects from Florida"
article which appeared in that issue will
be an important reference work for future
research activities in South Florida. It
is my pleasure to acknowledge receipt of a
$300 donation from the Southwest Florida
Archaeological Society. This donation to
the Florida Anthropological Society was
earmarked specifically to "defray the
cost of Volume 37 Number 1." We appre-
ciate this gesture of support from the
Southwest Florida Archaeological

While on the subject of donations to help
support publication costs and other
Society activities, the art auction at
the 1984 FAS Annual Meeting was a suc-
cess. The group of five Central American
reproductions provided by the Palm Beach
Society raised $75; John Beriault's Key
Marco Cat God(dess) raised $150; Wesley
Colman's shell adze, $21; Hermann
Trappman's South Florida Indians illus-
tration, $200, Chris Hierholzer's cer-
amic pot, $100; and, Louis D. Tesar's
brass tablets (2) and photographs (9),
$51, $31 and $45 respectively. This
money has been used to help pay the
publication costs for this issue.

In the present issue we have a mix of
articles by both amateurs and profes-
sionals. The lead article, "The Salt
Works of Salt Island Florida (8Lvl33): A
Site Survey and Historical Perspective,"
provides an excellent historical overview
of the importance of salt and its manufac-
ture in the middle to late 1800s. It also
demonstrates the amount of interpretive
information which can be obtained from
non-spectacular, special-use sites with
few artifacts IF careful survey methodo-
logy, recording, and analysis techniques
are used. The cover illustration is
based on information provided in that
report and period illustrations.

The second article, "Preliminary Inves-
tigations at the Hornsville Site (8Ja387)
in Jackson County, Florida," demonstrates
the kinds of information which can be
obtained from a small prehistoric archae-
ological site when careful survey-methodo-
logy is used in combination with detailed
field notes.

"Two Platform Pipes From Southern Florida"
is included to provide information on a
category of artifact for which we have
little information. It is hoped that its
publication will encourage other indivi-
duals to report similar artifacts to
professionals conducting research in their
area of the State.

The final article, "A Guide to Surface
Survey Techniques, Artifact Recording and
Curation, and Type Collection Preparation
for the Amateur Archaeologist," is pub-
lished in response to the many requests we
have had to include "how-to" or "educa-
tional" articles. It continues the effort
begun with the "Editorial Policy and Style
Guide" for authors published in Volume
37(1). Similar articles will be included
in future issues; although, they will not
occur in every issue.

I hope that you will enjoy this issue which
focuses on archaeological survey activities
by both professionals and non-professionals.
I also hope that our Chapter members use the
information included in the editorial style
guide and the present survey, etc. guide as
a focus for Chapter activities, including
Chapter sponsored surveys, publication of
same, and type collection assembly. With
enough type collections (with associated
site data) from every area and culture
period in Florida and adjacent areas, we
can begin to re-evaluate the artifact types
and better understand Florida's prehistoric
and historic heritage.

Louis D. Tesar
May 15, 1984



M. F. Dickinson and G. W. Edwardson


Salt Island is located within Waccasassa
Bay State Preserve, a coastal marsh area
extending from Cedar Key, Florida, south-
east to the mouth of the Withlachoochee
River. The preserve and adjoining high
ground southwest of Highway 19/98 are
known as Gulf Hammock (Figure 1). The
precise location and function of the
nineteenth century salt works on Salt
Island have not been previously described.
Local informants believe the works were
operated during the Civil War.

Eight weekend trips were made to the Gulf
Hammock area in the spring of 1977 to
conduct an archaeological site survey and
historical reconnaissance. The site
survey included a determination of the
extent of the site, surface collecting,
and an extensive search for an associated
campsite. Historical records and inter-
views with local informants contributed to
a better understanding of nineteenth and
early twentieth century Gulf Coast econom-


The antebellum South depended heavily upon
Northern and English imports to supply
most of its salt. However, southern salt
consumption is difficult to quantify and
evaluate due to the lack of surviving
bills of sale and the prevalence of barter
systems in rural areas. It is estimated,
on the basis of ship manifests, that
100,000 tons of salt were imported annual-
ly through the port of New Orleans (Lonn
1933). Salt was produced commercially in
Florida, Virginia and Texas, but the
typical pattern of coastal Southern salt
production was that of a plantation or
family farm providing for its own salt
needs as time and conditions allowed.

While a plantation or farm near a source
of salt water or brine could be self
sufficient in this respect, a tanner or
meat wholesaler needed immense quantities
of salt that, in most cases, could only be
obtained from sources outside of the

On the Gulf Coast of Florida, salt making
was an important part of the coastal
economy. In the fall, groups of people
living near the coast would congregate at
a favorite spot to fish and, at the same
time, make the salt that would be used to
preserve the catch and serve their need
for salt during the remainder of the year.
These part-time fishermen would barter
their surplus fish for farm goods brought
to the coast by inland farmers. This
barter system persisted along the Florida
Gulf coast until well after the Civil War
(Yearty 1932; Garner 1977).

The process of distilling salt from
seawater or tidal ponds is similar to the
production of cane syrup. Iron kettles,
large wooden ladels, and an abundant
supply of firewood were the basic tools
and resources common to salt and syrup
making. Fires were lit under kettles
filled with salt water. As the water
boiled off the salinity increased, causing
the boiling point to rise. Thus, the
brine had to be ladeled off into smaller
kettles where the temperature could be
brought even higher to boil off the
remaining water. A fine sense of timing
was required to avoid cooling the solution
too soon, or worse, not cooling soon
enough, thereby scalding the salt.
Saltmaking was grueling and dangerous work
(Lonn 1933).

With the onset of the Civil War, the
Florida Gulf littoral became the focus of
several lucrative enterprises, specifically,


June 1984

Volume 37 Number 2


intensive salt production, blockade
running, and coastal shipping. Ironi-
cally, Florida was considered a geographic
and economic liability by early
secessionists. The stark facts of the
South's economic vulnerability changed the
belief of some, but not all, Confederate
officials. Through the course of the war
the Confederacy's dependence on Florida
salt increased. The Federal capture of
Vicksburg and New Orleans in 1863 denied
the South all of its western sources of
salt. With the loss of Saltville,
Virginia in 1864, Florida became the
eastern Confederacy's only domestic
commercial source of salt.

There were three distinct sectors of the
Civil War salt industry in Florida.

1. Confederate Government Salt Works at
Lake Ocala and Kent Works near St.
Andrews Bay (Figure 1),
2. Large privately-owned salt works, and
3. Small family groups that produced salt
primarily for their own consumption.

The geographic distribution of Civil War
coastal salt works extended along the Gulf
coast roughly from Choctawhatchee Bay to
Tampa Bay, Florida (Figure 1). The
greatest concentrations of salt works were
around St. Andrew Bay and St. Marks Bay.

0 5 10 15 MI

20 KM

5 10


Waccasassa Bay

Cedar Keys


FIGURE 1. Map of Florida Showing Areas of Civil War Activities. Inset: Waccasassa Bay Area
Showing Location of Salt Island and Cedar Keys

(37(2), 1984)


The larger salt works departed from the
use of cane syrup kettles by improvising
huge containers. In some instances
steamship boilers were scavenged for use
in salt production. However, most salt
works differed little from their
antebellum predecessors, except for the
increased concentration of these works in
some areas.

In Florida, as in the rest of the South,
the distribution of salt tended to be
controlled by profiteers and Confederate
commissary agents. Salt shortages were
particularly acute in east Florida and
Apalachicola where the market was cornered
by a few individuals (Johns 1963).
Predictably, as salt became unattainable
for the local population, forged
commissary requisitions became popular.

Simultaneous with the increase in produc-
tion of salt in late 1861, was a sharp
increase in hoarding and price; although,
the rate of salt price inflation in
Florida lagged behind the rest of the
Confederacy in 1861. In Florida the
pre-war price of 65C/bushel had risen to
$3/bushel by year's end while in the rest
of the Confederacy salt was selling for
$20/bushel. By the fall of 1862 the price
of salt in Florida was consistent with the
rest of the South at $20/bushel. Although
the price of salt generally stabilized at
$20/bushel, prices reached as high as
$50/bushel (Eaton 1954).

SThe importance of salt to the Confederacy
was perceived by speculators who quickly
took advantage of the expanding market.
The Florida General Assembly opened vast
tracts of state-owned coastal land for
sale to private enterprise. Most of the
capital used to develop large salt works
in Florida originated out of the state,
particularly from Alabama and Georgia. In
the spring of 1862, the governors of
Alabama and Georgia, pleading their own
states' paucity of salt, asked Florida's
Governor Milton to permit their citizens
to product salt in Florida. Florida
accommodated its neighbors in December of

1862 with the passage of Resolution 13 in
the twelfth session of the Florida General
Assembly (Johns, 1963).

Attendant with the rash of salt
profiteering in Florida was a growing
business in land speculation.
Out-of-state speculators would purchase
large tracts of land, ostensibly for salt
production and then subdivide the coastal
tracts and sell them at a profit to
Floridians interested in making salt.
Public resentment of the speculator's
profit eventually led to termination of
the sale of all state-owned land.

In October 1862, the Confederate govern-
ment inadvertently provided a powerful
incentive to enter the salt making busi-
ness by exempting from military service
all workers in government-owned plants, as
well as all laborers on contract to the
government. Contracts to deliver consign-
ments of salt to state and Confederate
governments increased. For many, the
appeal of military exemption even out-
weighted the desire for profit. Governor
Milton bitterly complained about conscript
dodgers who would contract to deliver salt
and then produce none for extended periods
(Johns 1963).

The sudden infusion into Florida of
out-of-state speculators, exempted from
conscription while their lives and proper-
ty were protected from Federal incursions
by state militia and Confederate troops,
generated strong resentment among native
Floridians. In order to appease public
opinion, the Florida General Assembly
transferred the responsibility of defend-
ing the salt works to the saltmakers
themselves in the fall of 1862. By
January 9, 1863, 498 men with "42 guns in
good condition" had been organized by the
saltmakers to defend the area between St.
Marks Bay and the Suwannee River. This
action may have alleviated some public
resentment against the saltmakers but it
was ineffectual in defending the Gulf
coast salt industry against Federal Navy
raids (Davis 1913).



The lack of Confederate troops to defined
Florida's salt works was often lamented by
state politicians and the salt workers
themselves. There were probably not
enough troops in the entire Confederacy
effectively to garrison the salt works.
An effective landward defense of the salt
works would have required concentrating
the works in a small area. Paradoxically,
such a concentration would have nullified
the largely intrinsic geographical defense
of the works, widely dispersed along a
coast of shallow bays and tidal creeks.

The impact of the Federal Navy blockade in
the Cedar Key area was first felt in 1861.
The East Gulf Blockade Squadron was
primarily responsible for the blockade of
the Florida Gulf Coast from Key West to
Pensacola, and the West Gulf Blockade
Squadron conducted overlapping raids on
salt works as far east as St. Andrews Bay.

The Confederate garrison of 23 men as-
signed to Cedar Key just west of Salt
Island in early 1862, was "placed there as
a sort of police force, to protect the
inhabitants of the Key from bands of
marauders." Federal military action did
not seem to be the primary concern until
January 16, 1862, when a Federal Navy
raiding party landed in Cedar Key, burning
several small craft loaded with turpentine
and cotton, as well as destroying the
wharf of the Florida Railroad. The
Federal then "withdrew and went to sea"
(Scott 1882).

After that engagement, in which 15 of the
garrison were captured, the inhabitants
petitioned the local Confederate military
commander, Brigadier General Trapier, to
send more troops to garrison Cedar Key
because the Federal raid apparently
rekindeled local rivalry between
anti-secessionists and confederates (Scott

The level of salt production in the Cedar
Key area is difficult to assess accurate-
ly. The 150 bushels/day production level
of 1861 (Lonn 1933) pales in comparison to

the 400 bushels/day level described at one
site in St. Andrew Bay in December 1863
(Moody 1894). Cotton and turpentine were
apparently the predominant economic
activity at Cedar Key, which was an
isolated and divided community of "some 80
or 100 persons" in 1862 (Scott 1882)

When raids on salt works began in earnest,
larger salt works were, of course, the
most attractive targets for the Federal
Navy. In September of 1862 the concen-
tration of salt works around St. Joseph
Bay and St. Andrew Bay were destroyed by
sailors and marines of the Federal Navy.
In October, the salt works in Suwannee Bay
and the inventory in nearby Cedar Key and
Depot #4 were destroyed as Federal troops
proceeded to occupy Cedar Key.

Before the Federal raid, salt works on
Cedar Key, at Depot #4, Way Key, and Sea
Horse Key had produced as much as 150
bushels of salt per day (Lonn 1933). The
extent of destruction of these salt works
in unclear. Federal raiding parties did
"destroy" salt works at all four locations
during 1862; however, Federal sailors only
briefly occupied Cedar Key and were loathe
to make many excursions into outlying
areas (Scott 1882; Moody 1894).

The resiliency of the saltmakers all along
the Florida Gulf Coast was a continuing
source of consternation to the Federal
Navy. The works destroyed around St.
Andrew Bay and St. Joseph Bay in September
1862 were back in full operation by
November. The inability of the Federals
to occupy the salt works they had de-
stroyed forced a pattern of repeatedly
successful search and destroy missions in
the same localities. Thus, the Federal
Navy seriously disrupted salt production
along the Florida Gulf coast but was not
successful in the permanent destruction of
any large salt works until 1865.

Raids on salt works in the Cedar Key area
apparently ceased after 1862. Federal
Naval operations on the central Florida
Gulf Coast were exclusively directed at

(37(2), 1984)


interdicting coastal shipping and inter-
cepting occasional blockade runners. The
steamer U.S.S. Fort Henry was stationed
off Cedar Key as the major component of
the Federal blockade for Waccassasa Bay
and Cedar Key from 1862 until early 1864.

No mention of Salt Island appears in the
Official War Records or in any other
source examined in this study. None of
the operations recounted in the annals of
the East Gulf Blockade Squadron can be
construed to have taken place in the
immediate vicinity of Salt Island. A U.S.
Coast Survey Map, compiled in 1851, does
depict an unnamed area of coastal hammock
that generally conforms to Salt Island's
present configuration and location (Figure

The salt works at Salt Island were of such
small scale that their operation would
seem to be associated with either a
plantation or group of local farms. At
present, the archaeological evidence is
insufficient to establish the salt works'
provenience or even to distinguish the
works as an antebellum or Civil War site.
The historical significance of the salt
works at Salt Island seems slight unless
considered in the light of its possible
associations. These salt works do,
however, provide an opportunity to inves-
tigators seeking to unravel the history of
the nineteenth century Florida Gulf coast.


Salt Island is one of several wooded
hammocks scattered in the marsh along the
north shore of Waccasassa Bay in Levy
County, Florida. The marsh is presently
owned by the State of Florida under the
administration of the Department of
Natural Resources. The Waccasassa Bay
coastline forms a square corner in the
Gulf of Mexico and the Florida mainland.
The north shore runs east-west with Cedar
Key at the west end and the Waccasassa

River on the east side. The eastern shore
runs north-south with the Waccasassa River
at the north and the Withlacoochee River
to the South This coastline is uninhab-
ited with the exception of Cedar Key
(Figure 1).

Salt Island Creek provides the closest
water access to the island. At its mouth
on the Waccasassa Bay, the creek is broad
and shallow, narrowing and continuing to
remain shallow as it disappears in the
marsh near Salt Island. The creek ebbs
and flows with the tide, having no appar-
ent fresh water reservoir. Its bottom is
littered with rock, oyster, and mud bar
that are exposed at low tide. The creek
flows south with numerous meanders and
oxbows before it reaches Waccasassa Bay.
The nearest dirt road is 4.8 kilometers (3
miles) to the north of the island. With
the landward approaches limited by broken
ground and intermittently inundated marsh,
Salt Island appears to be as inaccessible
by land and sea in the twentieth century
as it was in the nineteenth century.

Salt Island, though surrounded by a marsh
of Juncus or black rush, and often dry
land, is really only in a sense an island.
The Florida limestone bedrock makes a
slight rise in the salt marsh humus; this
rise forms Salt Island and is apparent
from the numerous limestone outcrops on
and around the island. The island is best
defined by the oak, cedar, and cabbage
palm vegetation known as a hammock. There
are several small ponds and one relatively
large pond on the southwest fringe of the
island. During the spring of 1977, the
drought was such that over a period of
three weeks all of the ponds on the island
went dry, with the exception of the large
pond to the southwest.

The marsh forms a cresecent-shaped border
to the southeast of the island within
which is a sandy, rocky, salt barren up to
100 meters in width. Approaching the
island from the southeast, or seaward,
five vegetation changes are evident.



(37(2), 1984)

The iit1 lines connect paintts f tnarujnglton. hich Lcn be ocauqiLr
the bnrcen lines connect those which it i. proposed to octupy iffi'wtd
preticatble .

3Th Soowdaius axe expressed, un teeth. au show the depths at mnen law t*tan
Th.. I, k J.rathcrm aurres of tAe bottom, an presented v doettsd, lites,
the number of dotsjiruped tether indie rtb.iq the number of fthoms .

Sea iorserJey isthe site proposed for aLihtfou we

tM A I


\ l 'e.e '.'-. .. S
^ ,? 4 _27_ .... .. -- / ,-
ri- -: -...- --- ,

.r xi .,4 ....c...w.. ..s... B o Ba "t -^ ,, ,

e" i

"" 9'
S..ah or.,," ker ,,
r- :br --^ :..*.


S- -. ..9

.... '-- W-..t.locni, l -
VK.-' tj 26 C; E AA

. ii ..t ti 14 s / ..

i IC i.S .

/ite f r a

:*- Sit. fbr aBhoV



C' C

' f


A.D.Bache Superintendent


.. ", ? i'" /",, -.


,' ..... o \ '. .

S" t o r 3 c.'
) re. i
*" ~ ~ ** :, 2/
f'fa ovw

'V \


RteconnoissanceofVicinityof CEDAR KEYS


-}l. Genrlf.Assst. .S. Coast Surney

1S.ae 51

DepZtKiypla4 ajd : 'i53 'eS'7 e ""I: ees. ClS. t.Sure .
Offfcurr '^s5d6 s jd^frwlahtV m U.S.r>y Eqr .-:
u'K.fe S58 235osd CaI le IWSC. C 3S ny :.
Inarhtm n ,oS 8' 5 8 "' 5 s' .. S-r
De. 8is''27 -

[ . . . .

The extensive t t called, SAUX. SO1)AL .v nno-,' .-sioth
rd troatl dsrV'ptepn ai.d inrtbHnatwe, rfeeit'ed fritm
liapt ..Johltson Branch Pilot. Sr AJLtlT'LS' R-EFi
is ver' shoal gend fil a uzt'dacerotn' a /l<~rF, Isrtu o'rl.rh
are bare. It "rtRind fra-n. d6 t ItO rrfles tlrestw'etard frm
thte..hore, and aohmt 3/1 milte. Soutthwanrd towarl.ds th
dnelrote kexee.

Statute Miles
---~- n l

FIGURE 2. 1851 U. S. Coast Survey

r ----~-----~-----,
I .~LnRorrs. i


First, an expanse of black rush, inter-
spersed with tidal creeks and ponds,
continuously extends from the Gulf of
Mexico around the island and on to the
Florida mainland proper. The extent and
height of the rush is sufficient to hide
activities at the site from observation
from the Gulf. For example, during the
survey fishing craft in the Gulf could be
heard but not seen. The closest tidal
ponds to the island are some 300 meters
southeast of the island's tree line in the
black rush. The major marsh vegetation
change occurs 200 to 300 meters out from
the island. Cord grass and glasswort
replace black rush in narrow bands 10 to
40 meters in width. The next change
approaching the island from the southeast
consists of barren, rocky, mud flats that
vary in width from 25 to over 100 meters.
Just above the rocky barren is a band of
savannah-like, knee-high grass, with
occasional cabbage palms grading into
larger palms and southern red cedars.
This strip forms the tree line which is
the border of the island proper. Continu-
ing into the center of the island, the red
cedars increase in size and large live
oaks and cabbage palms form a somewhat
open hammock with scattered stumps and
downed trees.

The remnants of two possible furnaces were
located (Figure 3). Furnace #1, or the
main furnace, is located on the cord grass
strip with parts of the kettles scattered
up onto the higher salt barrens. The
furnace location today has the appearance
of a grassy-topped knoll in the cord grass
flats, except for scattered kettle re-
mains. The furnace is a half meter tall
at its highest point in relation to the
surrounding mud flats. A small oak-like
shrub is located on the east end, while
the rest of the higher portion is covered
with grass. The muddy edges contain out-
crops of loose rock that form the base of
the furnace. Rocks lie up to two meters
away from the furnace, but most are still
wedged in the base (Figure 4).
Mixed within the rocks of Furnace #1 are
kettle remains and all the evidence of

early occupation of a site associated with
salt production. There are two large
kettle remnants, MS-1 and MS-3 (MS refers
to mapped specimen), and three medium
sized ones mapped as MS-10 through MS-12
(Figure 5). MS-1 is the most complete and
is located some 30 meters to the northwest
of the main furnace. This kettle is out
in the sandy flats where the tide fre-
quently intrudes. The projected diameter
is about 1.2 meters at the rim by 43
centimeters deep; the volume is approxi-
mately 148 liters, or 40 gallons. Because
of it flatness and its relatively large
rim, this pot resembles a British World
War 1 helmet, more so than-the larger pots
used in the industry elsewhere (Figure 6).

The second-largest kettle remnant, MS-3,
is on the north side of the main furnace.
It is less complete, with a smaller
portion of the body and rim intact than
MS-1. The remains appear to be of a
smaller volume kettle than MS-1. However,
the fragment is too incomplete for an
accurate estimate of kettle size. Three
other kettle body sherds were mapped to
the south, approximately three meters from
the main furnace edge. It was not possi-
ble to tell which of the two kettles they
may have come from or if they might have
come from a third kettle obscured among
the many fragments. Smaller fragments
(less than 15 centimeters) are scattered
among the rocks and out onto the mud flats
up to three meters from the fire box. In
addition to being small, they are
exfoliated, making it even harder to judge
where they might have fit in the more
complete kettles.

Possibly the most diagnostic artifact
recovered at Salt Island was a short red
clay pipe stem and portion of the bowl.
It was found in the rocks next to the main
furnace and it is 3.5 centimeters long by
2 centimeters in diameter. The pipe
fragment is chipped on the base of the
stem and has several "burn marks" that do
not appear to be associated with use. The
color indicates that it has been bleached
by the sun, tide, and perhaps fire; it



FIGURE 3. Vegetation Association and Furnace Locations


-. -


fA r'


; I

o ': "_ n"

F R 4.. Man; F' c
'.'" ,*,,. ^,:, . -. !

FIGURE 4. Main Furnace Facing West, MS-3 is Located in the Right Central Foreground

.9" ''
I T" i
~D u-r~~-nual -r.

j .b

(37(2), 1984)



, =*






sI iIt It n 6 S 1 tMt N I

-+ E
ELY. 2.02


MS-1 Kttte
MS-2 Rd Clay Pip Stm
MS-3 Kttle Sherd
MS-4 GIn Splrltl Gra Shed
MS-S Gren Splrlts Gl ShiMd
MS-4 GrnSp.ttsG lsShtId
MS-7 GOen Sprtl Glm Sherd
MS-8 Iron Hook
MS-9 Brown Ber BottleSherdo
MS-10 Kttle Sherd
MS-11 StllI K-4ols Sht4r
MS-12 KMttl Shrd
0. Mknr Contot Bsiod on B o ArbtltrOy 0tum Point

SI L 4 0 Io

+ A




* MS-7

El +

+g-110 eMS-10



E V..96

1 o I05 s10 1;S 200

FIGURE 5. Main Furnace

0 5 10 20 30 40 50


___ -7
_____________ *

FIGURE 6. Reconstruction of Mapped
Specimen Number One





does not appear to have been glazed or
decorated. We estimate the original
length to be 5 centimeters from the base
to bowl front. It most closely resembles
the heavy stems in production in nine-
teenth century America as shown in
Artifacts of Colonial America (Hume

Approximately 10 meters north of the
furnace, four green glass sherds were
scattered in a crescent. All of these
sherds are green-black (spirits bottle
glass) and of varying thickness with
numerous air bubbles. The glass is
heavily patinated on the body walls with
lighter varying degrees of patienation on
the breaks indicating different ages of
the breaks. Approximately 20 meters
northwest of the main furnace, a small
hookshaped piece of iron (MS-8) was found,
about two centimeters long, with a verti-
cal hole in the hank. MS-6 and MS-7 are
modern brown spirits glass fragments.

The actual process of salt making at the
site is unclear. There is no evidence
around Furnace #1 of any kind of holding
pond or even a depression that would hold
the water during low tide. It is possible
that the brine was obtained from the pond
100 meters southeast of the furnace.
There is no evidence of a direct path from
the furnace to the pond, but there is a
slight decline in the height of the black
rush some 50 meters to the east of the
furnace. This low dip appears to be
slightly higher in ground elevation than
the surrounding black rush. It is also
visible on aerial photos as a dark line
connecting the cord grass with the tidal
pond out in the marsh (Figure 3).

Furnace #2, about 250 meters to the west
of Furnace #1, is located on a slight rise
in the limestone bedrock with loose,
scattered rocks on the surface. The loose
rocks form an elevated trench running
east-west, with their apparent burnt white
faces to the center. The center is only 5
of 15 centimeters higher than the sur-
rounding bedrock. The furnace is less

than three meters long and one meter wide
in the burnt area. The vegetation sur-
rounding Furnace #2 is the same as Furnace
#1, with the tide frequently flooding to a
depth of 5 centimeters. No cultural
material was found on or around Furnace
#2. Again, there is no evidence of water
entrapment or holding ponds, and at this
site there is no nearby marsh pond to
provide the brine. Salt Island, at the
extreme of tidal fluctuation, is subject
to only intermittent high tides. Thus,
for extended periods the flats may remain
dry. This tidal situation would argue
against dependence on simple salt water
entrapment and suggests the use of the
ponds on the island itself for brine.

Water samples were taken from the pond
behind the main furnace and the main
inland pond in hopes of showing that the
tidal ponds were of a higher salt content
than the one on the island. The reverse
was true; the larger island pond on the
southwest fringe had a slightly higher
salt content than the tidal pond. How-
ever, the higher salinity at the island
pond is suspected to result from drought
conditions. Further tests during normal
conditions would probably indicate the
higher content to be out in the marsh
ponds and, thus, support the original idea
of a furnace location between the two raw
materials, brine, and fuel for the fur-
nace. By extrapolating the salinity test
results, it was determined that 150 liters
(40 gallons) of pond water yield roughly
0.1134 kg ( pound) of salt.

The eastern side of the island was exten-
sively searched for an occupation site on
the assumption that the operators would
camp close to the furnaces to keep an eye
on them during slack times. No surface
evidence was apparent, except that associ-
ated with the recent modern hunting camps
of the pre-preserve years of the early
1970s. The eastern shore area was
searched visually and with the aide of a
metal detector, while the rest of the
island to the northwest and south was only
searched visually.

(37(2), 1984)


Salt Island now (as well as in times past)
has an excellent stand of red cedars, as
the numerous stumps bear witness. Whether
these stumps are left from salt-making or
the result of lumbering for the famous
pencil factories of Cedar Key is not
known. As a fuel red cedar produces a
hot, relatively smokeless fire.

Our perspective on site location may have
been prejudiced by present environmental
conditions. The site is now located on an
almost flat (0.16% slope) barren strand.
This slightly sloping area near mean sea
level would be significantly influenced by
sea level changes. An approximately 10 cm
rise in sea level over the past 100 years
(based on one millimeter per year
(Lisitzin 1974) would be reflected in a
60-meter horizontal change in the present
high tide boundary. The observed high
tide on May 22, 1977 (Figure 3) would have
reached only the edge of the black rush
marsh in the mid-1800s. It is reasonable
to assume that the location of vegetation
cover types (hammocks, savannah grass, and
black rush) would have changed in response
to changed environmental conditions (tidal
elevations). Therefore, the hammock may
have extended 60 meters closer to the
furnace, and the furnace would have been
located then on the edge of the
savannah-like grass and not in the mud
flat. The black rush would then have been
60 meters to the south with the marsh pond
at an elevation that might allow for
evaporation. These vegetation changes are
further supported by the presence of
solitary, mature sabal palms appearing as
relict individuals in the savannah grass
out from the hammock. These conditions
would further suggest location of a
temporary campsite closer to the furnace.


In conclusion, the survey information
supports the local oral history accounts
that the site has existed on Salt Island
since the mid- to late nineteenth century
and possibly during the Civil War. But by
no stretch of the imagination was the site

a major contributor to the Confederate war
effort, as were the salt-making operations
to the west and north at Cedar Key and St.
Andrew Bay. If the works existed during
the Civil War, Salt Island may have served
as a local (Waccasassa area)
salt-producing sites as a direct result of
the inflationary prices of salt and meat.
The works would have been located on Salt
Island for a number of reasons:

1. Union activity (particularly the
raids) on the Waccasassa Bay and river
posed a threat to any site located
near the Waccasassa River.

2. Access to the island by water is
relatively simple, especially with
local knowledge of which creeks to use
in reaching the island.

3. A raiding party of any size would be
easily observed in the bay by a
look-out. The chest-high black rush,
intersected with its numerous creeks
and the ease with which movement can
be spotted, would provide the
defenders with cover and the advantage
of a warning notice.

4. Adequate supplies of the raw
materials, wood and brine, were
available nearby.

The salt works of Salt Island fit the
picture of a small, clandestine operation
or a remotely located processing site.
Their preservation and further study is


We are indebted to the following indivi-
duals for their hard work and pleasant
attitude in some times unpleasant sur-
roundings: Thomas Des Jean and Jeff
Mitchem for field survey; Alan Brooks for
aerial photography; Stan Solamillo and
Rebecca Burns for graphics; and Cindy
Carter for the initial word processing.



Thanks are also due to Ellison Hardee and
Dave Randell of the Florida Department of
Natural Resources for their cooperation
and enthusiasm, particularly in providing
transportation to the site of our last
field trip.

Dr. Jerald T. Milanich of the Florida
State Museum was very helpful in securing
the proper permission from the involved
state agencies and providing the necessary
equipment for the survey. We are grateful
to Dr. Samuel Proctor, also of the Florida
State Museum, for his advice in our
historical reconnaissance. And most
important, we express our appreciation to
Dr. Charles H. Fairbanks of the University
of Florida, Department of Anthropology for
his timely advice and cooperation, without
which this report would not be possible.

Lonn, E.
1933, Salt as a Factor in the
Confederacy Walter Neale, New

Moody, W.H.
1894 Official Records of the Union and
Confederate Navies in the War of
the Rebellion, Series I, Vol. 17,
Washington, D.C.

Scott, R.W.
1882 Official Records of the Union and
Confederate Armies, Series I, Vol.
6, Washington, D.C.

Yearty, W.S.
1932 Unpublished manuscript deposited
at the P.K. Yonge Library, p. 8,
University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.


Davis, W.W.
1933 The Civil War and Reconstruction
in Florida. Columbia University,
New York.

Eaton, C.
1954 A History of the Southern
Confederacy. The Free Press, New

Garner, I.
1977 Personal Communication at Bronson,

Hume, N

A Guide

Dickinson, Martin F.
Water and Air Research, Inc.
Post Office Box 1121
Gainesville, Florida 32602

Edwardson, George W.
3281 S.E. 19th Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32601

to Artifacts of Colonial
Alfred A. Knopf, New

Johns, J.E.
1963 Florida During the Civil War
University of Florida Press,

Lisitzin, E.
1974 Sea Level Changes Elsvier
Scientific Publishing Co., New

(37(2), 1984)


Larry Benson and Richard Allen


The purpose of this article is to describe
the results of a preliminary survey of the
Hornsville site (8Ja387) located on the
Marianna Lowlands in the extreme north-
eastern corner of Jackson County, Florida,
near the Florida-Georgia-Alabama state
lines. The site was first discovered in
October of 1980 by Jerry Lee of
Graceville, Florida, while deer hunting
along the western banks of the
Chattahoochee River.

Artifacts collected on the surface by
Jerry stimulated four inexperienced but
enthusiastic amateur archaeologists to
undertake several trips to survey the site
during January and February of 1981. The
members of the survey team included Jim
and Dorrine Tomlinson and the authors.
All of us are members of the Apalachee
Anthropological Society, a Chapter of the
Florida Anthropological Society.

The first trip in January involved addi-
tional random surface collecting of flint
and pot sherds in the hope of gathering a
sufficient sample for probable identifica-
tion of the cultural period represented.
Based upon 20 identifiable pottery sherds
including several rim pieces, B. Calvin
Jones, a professional archaeologist
employed by the Division of Archives,
History and Records Management in
Tallahassee, tentatively established the
cultural period as early Weeden Island
(ca. A.D. 400/500-650).

Following discussions with archaeologists
at the Division of Archives, History and
Records Management and some background
reading, including works by Milanich
(1974), Percy (1976), Percy and Jones
(1976), Williams (1977) and Willey (1949),
four trips were taken to the Hornsville
site during February with four main
objectives in mind: (1) to determine the

location of the site for reporting and
recording in the Florida Master Site File;
(2) to ascertain the size and shape of the
site; (3) to recover additional artifacts
so that a more definite cultural statement
could be made; and, (4) to formulate some
hypotheses about possible uses of the area
under study.


The method of "dead reckoning" was em-
ployed for locating the site and plotting
it on the Steam Mill, Georgia-Florida
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Sheet (1954). Dis-
tances were read on the odometers of the
team's two vehicles and bearings were
determined by sight readings over hand
held compasses. Measurements and di-
rections obtained agree with the mileage,
compass points and terrain represented on
the Steam Mill Quadrangle. The site was
named Hornsville after a nearby settlement
(Figure 1, Upper Right).

The midden area straddles a dirt logging
road which intersects the east side of
State Road 271 sixteen miles north of
Sneads, Florida. Three other known sites
are located south and southwest of the
Hornsville site. Two sites, 8Ja321 and
8Ja322, date from the Weeden Island period
while the cultural affiliation of the
third, 8Ja323, is unknown (Figure 1, Upper

The Hornsville site (8Ja387) is located 90
feet above mean sea level on a low knoll
which is slightly higher than a surround-
ing marsh-like area (Figure 1, Lower
Left). It rests on a probable ancient
floodplain of the Chattahoochee River cut
during some earlier meanderings before
receding to its present location
four-tenths of a mile to the east (John
Ryan, personal communication, 1981). To
the west, clay hills rise above the 100
foot contour line and that elevation
appears to be the limits of the river's


Volume 37 Number 2

June 1984


(37(2), 1984)

/ N / Posthole Test f


% 50cm

-\--i- / 55cm

1': J ^ ^flg^IP p ond
.- -. I P60cm

KEY: Excavation Trench

Site Boundary (8Ja387) Humus
Posthole Transect m Loose Soil
"0_ 1 20 30 :" ": Compact Soil with
Disturbed; Road Clearing me0e20 30 ... Posmpiaod
metes : "" P5stm5ld
i lS Brush Pile; Debris

Figure 1. Hornsville Site (8Ja387). Upper Right: General Vicinity Map.
Upper Left: Segment of topographic map showing relationship of
8Ja387 to nearby sites. Lower Left: Detail of site boundary
with transect locations. Lower Right: Detail of Feature 2
postmold pattern.


meanderings. When the site was
surveyed, large scattered pines, mixed
hardwoods and brush covered the site with
leaf fall and other accumulated humus
forming a layer averaging eight
centimeters deep on the forest floor.


After establishing an arbitrary datum
marker, site size and shape were de-
termined by posthole testing along six
compass headings from the datum (Figure 1,
Lower Left). Testing was also conducted
toward the Southeast, but discontinued
when a brush pile associated with the
construction of the logging road was
reached. Because of road construction
disturbance, tests were not conducted
toward the Southwest.

Along each of these six directional
points, postholes were opened at intervals
of every ten paces (approximately 7.5
meters) Each crew of two removed only as
much soil as was necessary to find at
least one artifact then the holes were
filled and their location and content
recorded. Holes were dug until artifacts
were found or culturally sterile clay or
sand was encountered. When no artifacts
were encountered the team returned five
paces (approximately 3.75 meters) and dug
another hole. The last hole in which
artifacts were discovered was considered
to represent the outermost perimeter of
the site.

Results of this investigation revealed an
oval shaped midden oriented along the
northwest-southeast axis.

The oval shape of the site conforms to the
general configuration of the knoll appear-
ing as the 90 foot contour line on the
quadrangle map. Although the area of
higher ground extends farther to the
northwest beyond the suggested site
perimeter, test samples showed no arti-

facts beyond 80 meters in that direction.
Nevertheless, further more intensive
investigation is needed to establish the
exact northwesterly perimeter.


The third objective was to collect addi-
tional artifacts in some reasonable manner
so that a more definite cultural statement
could be made. The results are presented
in Table 1.

During testing along the north line from
the datum, at 42 meters, the Tomlinsons
encountered a particularly heavy concen-
tration of ceramics, lithics and shell
(Feature 1). A one square meter test pit
was opened at this point (Figure 1, Lower
Left). Pottery sherds, lithics and
charcoal began to appear as soon as the
humus layer (0-8cm) was removed.

The midden soil was a loamy mixture of
dark brown silt, sand and clay, extending
to a depth of 61cm where brownish-yellow
culturally sterile sand appeared. Al-
though levels were not assigned, field
notes suggest a separation of soil tex-
tures. The upper half (30cm) seemed to be
less compact and contained most of the
potsherds, flint debitage and charcoal.
In the bottom half, the soil was more
dense and hardpacked and contained
freshwater mollusc shells, deer and bird
bones, and potsherds. This seems to infer
that plowing or other agricultural prac-
tices may have occurred in the area of
Feature 1 or, perhaps, throughout the
entire midden and the area subsequently
allowed to become wooded. Further testing
of an area larger than one square meter
would be needed to determine if any
undisturbed stratigraphy with artifacts
and site features remains.

Feature 1 was divided into quarters with
each team member troweling one section of
the square. Artifacts were encountered in


Swift Creek Complicated Stamped,
late variety
Wakulla Check Stamped
Weeden Island Punctated
Carrabelle Punctated
Carrabelle Incised
West Florida Cord Marked
Mound Field Net Marked
Weeden Island Plain (or residual)
Unidentified complicated stamped
Unidentified punctated
Unidentified incised
Unidentified sherd fragments
Pottery coil

Projectile point (type Ichetucknee)
Projectile point, fragment (type ind)
Chipping debitage
Freshwater turtle (?)











Body/Rim Total

Per Cent




Table 1. Cultural remains collected from Features 1 and 2 of the Hornsville (8Ja387)





Per Cent















* j.,.-. .*' -j



Figure 2. Representative artifacts from the Hornsville (8Ja387) site.
a and b. Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, late variety rim sherds;
c. Wakulla Check Stamped rim sherd; d. Weeden Island Plain rim
sherd; e. Carabelle Incised body sherd; f. Weeden Island Incised
body sherd (incising at bottom of sherd, zone filled punctation);
g. Mound Field Net Marked body sherd; and, h. Ichetucknee projec-
tile point sketch and photo. Scale almost actual size.


4r~4' \
i -

r .
i~ i ; ,


F 13



such quantities that material was exposed
almost with each scrape of the trowel. A
total of 476 specimens were observed and
collected from Feature 1.

Plain potsherds of the Weeden Island (or
residual) types accounted for 51.2% of the
ceramics collected. Along with Swift
Creek Complicated Stamped, late variety
(11.3%) and Wakulla Checked Stamped
(10.2%), these make up the majority
(72.7%) of the identifiable types. About
one-fifth (22.5%) of the recovered ceram-
ics were too small to be identified.

In the northeast corner of Feature 1
freshwater mollusc shells appeared between
30cm and 61cm. The shell refuse looked as
if it had been intentionally buried in a
small circular pit, 45cm in diameter with
a rounded bottom. Although time did not
permit an exact count to be made, it is
estimated that 150 shells were present,
including freshwater mussels, clams and

Fifteen bone fragments were taken from
Feature 1, and later identified as the
remains of deer (10), small birds (3),
possible freshwater turtle (1), and
unidentified sliver (1). Also, burned
clay (daub?), abundant charcoal residue,
and one complete and one partial
projectile point were found.

The complete point is similar to the
Ichetucknee type named by Goggin (1953)
and described by Bullen (1975:9). It is a
lanceolate point with excurvate base and
excurvate blade 3.3cm in length. Maximum
width measured 1.6cm while the maximum
thickness is 0.6cm measured at a point
2.0cm from the distal end. The point then
tapers off to a slightly rounded base
which measures about l.lcm in width
(Figure 2h).

The partial point has straight blade
edges, one edge measuring 2.9cm and the
other 2.3cm. The overall length is 3.1cm
measured from the distal end with a

maximum width of 2.0cm and maximum thick-
ness of 0.7cm. The partial point was
broken at the base and could not be

Preliminary study of these artifacts,
especially the ceramics including rep-
resentative rim samples, places Hornsville
within the Weeden Island culture, possibly
within one of the earlier phases (B. Calvin
Jones, Personal Communication, 1981).


During the last visit to the site in late
February 1981, humus was removed in a
one-half meter square at the highest
visible elevation within the midden area.
The location selected (Feature 2) was
about 25 meters southeast of the datum
where a posthole was dug to a depth of

Along the north wall of the test hole a
vertical tube of yellow-brown coarse soil
was discovered starting 23cm below the
surface. Careful troweling revealed what
appeared to be a postmold about five
centimeters in diameter running to a depth
of 33cm with a round bottom. As the test
area was enlarged in all directions,
hardpacked soil ran horizontally at a
depth of 23cm. A second postmold was
found 50cm to the northeast and a third
55cm to the southwest. In all six similar
postmolds, averaging 5.0cm in diameter and
33cm deep, were uncovered. Distances
between the postmolds averaged 58cm and
ranged from 50 to 70cm (Figure 1, Lower

The postmolds appeared to form an arc,
leading the team to believe they represent
the vertical posts of a wall of a circular
or oval structure of sizeable proportions,
perhaps as large as 7-10 meters in diame-
ter. Similar structural evidence has
been discussed by Milanich (1974) for a
Weeden Island site in nearby Gadsden
County, Florida.

(37(2), 1984)


(**EDITOR'S NOTE: These postmolds are very
small for a sizeable structure and very
shallow, relative to a presumed floor
beginning at 23cm below surface. It is
suggested that the past plowing activities
suggested earlier may account for the
presumed loss of the upper levels of this

Ceramics and flint debitage were found in
association with the postmolds (Table 1).
Over half (54%) of the ceramics were
identifiable Weeden Island types, includ-
ing Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, late
variety, Wakulla Check Stamped, Weeden
Island Punctated and Weeden Island Plain
(or residual) (Willey 1949). The majority
of the pottery sherds (perhaps 80-90%),
all of the flint chips, and the deer bones
were encountered along the concave part of
the arc representing the inside of the
suggested structure. To avoid further
disturbance to this potentially signifi-
cant find, exploration was halted, the
postmolds marked, and the opening
refilled. (**EDITOR'S NOTE: Within a few
months after these preliminary investiga-
tions were completed, timber was cut over
the entire site, the soil was deeply
plowed and pine seedings planted thus
negating the opportunity to conduct
further studies of 8Ja387).


A preliminary statement about the four
original objectives of the survey can be
made: (1) a previously unknown Weeden
Island site was identified, reported and
recorded in the Florida Master Site File
located at the Florida Division of Ar-
chives, History and Records Management in
Tallahassee; (2) the size and shape of the
midden area has been generally defined
from artifacts encountered during testing;
(3) sand tempered body and typical rim
pottery sherds bearing incising and
complicated stamping permit a tentative
identification of the cultural period as
early Weeden Island, ca. A.D. 400/500-650.

The fourth objective, formulation of
hypotheses about possible uses of the
Hornsville site by Weeden Island people, i!
possible only in the context of these
preliminary observations. From appear-
ances and from artifacts recovered, it
seems reasonable to infer the following:
(1) the inhabitants were preparing,
cooking and eating food including deer,
birds and shellfish, making or reworking
flint tools, points and scrapers; (2) a
number of pottery vessels were utilized
and broken, but probably not manufactured
on the site; (3) this particular location
was selected for habitation because of its
proximity to the Chattahoochee River which
would provide transportation, fresh water
for drinking and other uses, and
freshwater shellfish in abundance.

Unfortunately, no statement can be made at
this time about agriculture, gardening or
wild plant gathering since flotation
testing and soil screening were not
conducted during testing.

A curious observation is the difference in
depths at which artifacts were found in
Feature 1 (61cm) and the shallower level
to the bottom of the six postmolds re-
vealed in Feature 2 (33cm). Conjectural-
ly, the authors suggest that Feature 1 was
a refuse dump dug in soft sand where
debris including broken pottery, empty
mollusc shells, flint debitage and food
remains were intentionally buried.
Controlled excavation of a larger area
would be necessary to verify this sug-


The team gratefully acknowledges the
encouragement and assistance of B. Calvin
Jones, M. Katherine Jones and George W.
Percy of the Florida Department of State,
Division of Archives, History and Records
Management. The work undertaken, methods
used as well as the preliminary results



presented in this report remain the
responsibility of the survey team and the
authors. (**EDITOR'S NOTE: With the
exception of the sample artifacts removed
for inclusion in a type collection to
assist the authors in identifying
ceramics found during future surveys, the
artifacts found during this survey have
been conveyed to the Division of Archives,
History and Records Management in
Tallahassee where they will be available
for future study).


Bullen, Ripley P.
1975 A Guide to the Identification
of Florida Projectile Points,
Revised Edition. Kendall



Stephen (ed.)
The Waring Papers, The
Collected Works of Antonio J.
Waring, Jr. Peabody Museum
Papers, No. 58.

Benson, Larry
1832 Jean Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida


Allen, Richard
806-A Buena Vista Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Jerald T.
Life in a 9th Century
Household. A Weeden Island
Fall-Winter Site on the Upper
Apalachicola River, Florida.
Bureau of Historic Sites and
Properties, Bulletin 4:1-44.

Percy, George W.
1976 Salvage Investigations at the
Scholz Steam Plant Site
(8Jal04), a Middle Weeden
Island Habitation Site in
Jackson County, Florida.
Miscellaneous Project Report
Series No. 35. Bureau of
Historic Sites and Properties.

Percy, George W. and M. Katherine Jones
1976 An Archaeological Survey of
Upland Locales in Gadsden and
Liberty Counties, Florida.
Florida Anthropologist,

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archaeology of the Florida
Gulf Coast. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, No.

(37(2), 1984)

James McLellan

Although ceramic platform pipes have been
found as far south as Lake Okeechobee (Sears
1982:32-37), few have been recovered in the
extreme southern portion of Florida. It is
the purpose of this article to report on two
examples found at two southern Florida sites.

The first example (Figure 1) was found at
8Da76 (Hialeah #2) by the author in 1972. The
hammock and adjacent tract had been cleared
for construction of condominiums. Dan Laxson
(Laxson 1953:95) reported this site asa black
dirt midden "in the north-central portion of
a roughly oblate shaped hammock, 500 feet NE-
SW and 325 feet N-S," and sloping gradually
to the north and west, but droppingoff sharply
east and southeast.

After the bulldozers exposed the lower levels
of the hammock, a test pit measuring approxi-
mately 50cm x 50cm was quickly dug on the
western slope. The test pit revealed the
mouth piece of a platform pipe and the bowl
section within several centimeters of each
other. The mouth piece (Figure la) is 2.3cm
in length and 1.4cm thick, with a tube hole
diameter of 5mm. The bowl section (Figure Ib)
is 6.6cm in length, 3cm in width and 3cm in
height, with a tube hole of 4mm. The inside
diameter of the bowl is 1.7cm, the outside
diameter is 3cm, and the depth is 1.2cm. Other
artifacts found in the test pit include Strom-
bus celts, a shell plummet, a bone pin fragment,
a shell pin fragment, a perforated shark tooth,
and numerous St. Johns Plain and St. Johns
Check Stamped sherds.
The second example was discovered by Wesley
Coleman on a black dirt midden in Everglades
Conservation Area III in Broward County. The
Coleman pipe (Figure 2) is complete and mea-
sures 7.2cm in length and 3.5cm in height, with
the inside bowl diameter at 1.6cm and the out-
side diameter at 2.5cm. The width of the base
is 1.8cm and the width of the mouth piece is
1.2cm. The tube hole is 4mm and the length of
the tube hole is 2.5cm.
In both cases, no burials or evidence of such
were found. Whether these artifacts were used
for ceremonial or mortuary purposes is not known
due to the circumstances in which they were found.
The paste and finish of both pipes appears to
be like that of Belle Glade plain pottery.
Artifacts of this kind are not common in the
Glades region, and their presence may repre-
sent a possible northern trade connection.

B (Side view)

B (Top View)

Figure 1. Side and top views of 8Da76 pipe.
Not to scale.

r I

Figure 2. Side and top views
Not to scale.

of Coleman pipe

Coleman, Wesley F.
1983 Personal Communication. June, 1983.
Laxson, Dan D.
1953 "Further Excavations at Hialeah,
Florida." The Florida Anthropologis
6(3):95-99, Gainesville.
Sears, William H.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site
the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Universi
of Florida Presses, Gainesville.

James B. McLellan
10090 NW 80th Ct. #1242
Hialeah Gardens, FL 33016


June 1984

Volume 37 Number 2



Louis D.



This paper is, in part, the result of a
series of Amateur/Professional Cooperation
Workshops which have been held (for the
last three years: 1982, 1983 and 1984) as
part of the Annual Meeting of The Florida
Anthropological Society. It is also based
on various technical readings and
professional training; although, it is
derived from memory rather than direct
citations. Its style is intentionally
conversational and it is directed
specifically to our amateur readers,
interested in learning proper field
methodology and artifact recording and
curation techniques.

Before beginning our discussion, some
general background information seems
appropriate. Archaeology, which is a
subfield of anthropology, depends upon the
systematic collection of artifacts and the
careful recording of finds and obser-
vations. Archaeological surveys and
associated artifact collecting are not
random activities. There are definite
"DOs" and "DON'Ts," which when carefully
followed result in useful data and give a
greater significance to the artifacts
collected, than they would have without
such data.

A shoebox or shelf full of "arrowheads"
and other artifacts is a collection of
objects and may be interesting, but
without adequate cataloguing and associ-
ated data its value is limited and it is
often scientifically worthless, or only of
very limited scientific value. That same
collection properly recorded has an
informational value much greater than the
objects themselves, and that value is not
subject to loss should anything happen to
the collector.

Because of the years of training required
to learn the detailed excavation and
analysis methodology necessary to properly
conduct archaeological site excavations,

it is strongly urged that non-
professionals, and even "professionals"
with inadequate training, restrict their
activities to surface survey. Excavation
methodology and analysis techniques are
being constantly improved and that which
was considered quite acceptable 10-20
years ago is now considered unacceptable
and, if you will forgive the term,
"amateurish." Soil and pollen analysis,
excavation in natural zones, and the like
require careful, more rigorous techniques
then the older technique of simply
excavating in arbitrary levels and
tabulating artifact frequencies. This is
not to say that the older techniques are
no longer used, but rather that they are
used only when circumstances preclude the
use of the more refined techniques and
that the use of less rigorous techniques
must be justified.

Amateurs should try to satisfy their
desire to excavate on an archaeological
site by participating as a crew member on
a project supervised by a qualified
professional. Recognizing that there are
many conscientious amateurs wanting such
experience, professional archaeologists
planning site excavations should make
every effort to involve the amateur
members of the Florida Anthropological
Society as crew member and lab assistants.
This is not a new concept, and there are
several examples of amateur crews on
professionally supervised projects.
Furthermore, amateurs should try to take
courses providing instruction in archae-
ological survey and excavation methodolo-
gy, lab analysis, artifact recording and
curation, report preparation and the like.
By doing these things both the amateur and
the professional archaeologist will
benefit. By conscientiously using the
knowledge which they gain amateurs can
make an important contribution toward
understanding and protecting our prehis-
toric and historic archaeological re-
sources, while at the same time enjoying
their collecting activities. (Please note


Volume 37 Number 2

June 1984


that identifying and protecting signifi-
cant historic structures are also impor-
tant, but they are not the subject of this

Archaeological sites, both prehistoric and
historic, and associated artifacts are not
like flowers, seashells, insects, and
other commonly collected natural objects
which nature reproduces by the millions.
You cannot grow another site. Each one is
unique and irreplaceable. Indeed, an
artifact's significance is determined as
much, if not more so, by its position
within the site's stratigraphy and intra-
site distribution, including its asso-
ciation with other artifacts and features,
as by its material, manufacturing tech-
nique, use wear, and form. The in situ
contextual information is lost when the
artifact is plowed-up or eroded, or
exposed as a result of construction or
mining or other excavation, but the
artifact still has some informational
value based on its association with other
artifacts within the site in general, and
even more so when its location within the
overall site area is recorded. However,
an artifact collected from a site without
any record of the site location and its
eventual mixing with artifacts from other
sites until it is only one of many such
artifacts from such-and-such county or
state, but for which there is uncertainty
concerning its site of origin...well you
get the picture.

All of this is not to say "Don't Pick-up
Artifacts." However, it is to say DON'T
DIG unless you are properly trained or
supervised. It also means to say "go
ahead and surface collect artifacts IF you
are willing to KEEP RECORDS of where you
find them and use some kind of artifact
recording system to avoid forgetting where
they were found." Be scientific, not just
an "artifact collector." Report site
locations to the State. The temptation to
keep secret a good location at which to
collect artifacts is very strong, but it
may be that the site is of scientific and
historic importance. The State cannot do
anything to try to prevent its loss to
development or other types of land clear-
ance or mining or whatever if the site
remains unrecorded. Let a professional

or informed amateur help you decide.


By now it should be apparent that the most
important part of site surveying (during
artifact collecting activities) is a
conscientiously kept set of records.
These records are in many respects more
valuable than the artifacts collected.
The preparation of survey field notes
should be a regular activity of every
amateur and professional archaeologist.
Indeed, without records supporting the
data observed and artifacts found during
an archaeological investigation, the
entire activity is generally considered by
professionals to have been a waste of
time. The difference between a mere
collector (or worse, a "pot-hunter") and
an amateur (or professional) archaeologist
is that the serious amateur (or profes-
sional) keeps good field notes. (The
"pot-hunter" is little better than a
"thief of time," a vandal tearing the
pages out of the history book written in
the layers and contents of an archaeologi-
cal site. A pot-hunter is at the
opposite extreme from the collector or the
amateur archaeologist).

For the amateur archaeologist who is
primarily involved in surface collecting,
the recording of locality data is the
primary need. Basic information should be
recorded on the spot in a field notebook.
This field notebook will become a perma-
nent record of your activities. A bound
pocket-size book with lined or unlined
pages is best. While spiral-bound or
looseleaf notebooks may be used, because
of the wear that they will receive, they
are generally considered unsuitable and a
sturdy, cloth-backed book, such as those
available at engineering supply stores, is

The basic information which should be
recorded consists of date, locality,
collector, names of other collectors
accompanying you (or known to collect the
site), list of materials collected from
the site (sketches or traced outlines of
projectile points or other interesting



artifacts), site description (including
notes on identifying or unique features)
and condition. Make a sketch map showing
permanent landmarks which could be used to
relocate the site. Write anything that
you think may be important, such as kinds
of trees, types of soil (e.g., sandy,
clayey, silty, loamy; brown, black, grey,
reddish-orange, yellow), anything about
the site that seems different from the
surrounding non-site area: also, record
the landowner's name, addresses, telephone
numbers. For this last entry PLEASE
REMEMBER that you must have the permission
of the persons) in charge of the property
on which you are collecting, UNLESS you
wish to risk being arrested for trespass-

An example of a survey field notebook
entry might be:

April 1, 1984, B. Calvin Jones and Nick
Fallier. Surface collection on Dog
Island, with permission from Real Prop-
erties, Inc. Located site in small
cleared field on sand ridge on
Apalachicola Bay side near west end. Much
oyster shell and other shell midden
remains. Lots of Weeden Island sherds,
mostly check stamped and plain; one
greenstone celt fragment; two projectile
points (sketched below). Worth another
trip after next rain. Most of the materi-
al found toward end of ridge near spring
on west side of site. Red cedar, hickory
nut, and oak trees located on site area in
uncleared woods. Pine trees and palmettos
in non-site areas. No evidence of site
remains or artifacts found in adjoining
fields to east. See sketch map of area
surveyed and area believed to represent
site. Lettered marks indicate the approx-
imate location of key finds, see list.

Your notes do not have to be quite so
detailed, or they may be even more de-
tailed. The most important thing is that
you keep notes. If you do you will find
that your notetaking will improve with
time AND you will begin to notice a
pattern in the kinds of data repeatedly
associated with site locations with the
result that you will improve your chances
of finding artifacts for your collection.

Site surveys may be conducted as informal
individual efforts or as planned group
efforts. Each has its merits.

In the former, one, two or more individu-
als get together to collect known sites or
look at new areas. These surveys are
generally unstructured and generally not
planned much in advance of their implemen-

In the second, a group of amateurs and/or
professionals will survey a specific tract
or geographic area. Joan Deming, at last
year's workshop, presented an excellent
outline of a planned survey strategy. Her
outline, "Responsibilities of the Archae-
ological Investigator: Site Survey -- The
CGCAS Citrus County Example" (1983), is
reproduced here with permission of the

Outline of Survey Strategy

I. Preliminary Planning
A. Site survey committee formed to
perform the following
1. Check for previously
recorded sites in study
area. Plot locations and
record data.
2. Plot location of potential
site areas as per information
from local informants
3. Arrange for lodgings, food
and transportation
4. Contact local informant. Get
as survey guide, if possible.
5. Obtain permission from land
owners) or property manager
to conduct survey activities
on their property.

B. Site survey committee strategy
session to discuss the following
1. Results of background
2. Arrangements made for
lodgings, food, etc.
3. Specific survey tactics
a. Crew leaders selected
b. Survey routes and poten-
tial site area plotted
c. Fieldwork tasks outlined
4. Notification of survey

(37(2), 1984)


participants concerning where
to meet, when, and what to

C. Final pre-survey crew meeting
1. Divide group into survey
2. Assign specific tasks to each
participant as follows (one
per each team):
a. Photographer
b. Person to sketch site area
c. Person to measure areal
extent of site, record
stratigraphy, etc.
d. Collection keeper (make
surface collection, record
areas of concentration,
record noteworthy fea-
e. Person to describe envi-
ronmental data (flora,
shell types, etc.) as
well as site condition
f. Person to plot site loca-
tion on quadrangle map and
provide directions to
reach site
3. Explain general survey
tactics to crew members

II. Field Survey
A. Meet or pick up local informant

B. Load vehicles with supplies

C. Agree on quitting time and
emergency procedures

D. Survey
1. Locate and assess previously
recorded sites
2. Locate and describe new site
areas as per informants
3. Locate and describe previously
unrecorded and/or unreported

III. Collation of Data and Exchange of
A. Meeting of individual teams to
put together field notes, check
site locations, check all
artifact bags for correct
labelling, summarize team

findings, etc.

B. Assembly of all survey
participants from both teams to
exchange the results of
individual team efforts, to
assess future survey needs, and
to plan follow-up lab work and
assign reporting tasks.

IV. Laboratory Work
A. Clean, catalog and analyze
cultural materials recovered

B. Curate specimens

V. Reporting
A. Fill out Florida Master Site File
forms and prepare locational maps
(to be forwarded to the Division
of Archives, History and Records

B. Prepare summary report of survey
1. Present findings at regular
meeting for general membership
2. Disseminate survey findings
via society publication (i.e.,

C. File all field notes and artifact
inventory sheets in permanent
repository (i.e. society

While Joan's outline is focused on planned
group (F.A.S. Chapter) survey activities,
it also contains useful information on
survey methodology for anyone planning
individual surveys.

Since record keeping is so critical to
site location and collecting activities,
obtaining a suitable reference map of the
area to be surveyed is important. The
maps most frequently used by profession-
als, including those maintaining the
Florida Master Site File (FMSF) -- the
State's centralized inventory of known
archaeological and historic sites--is the
7.5 min. U.S. Geological Survey
Quadrangle. Township-Range-Section and
UTMS are used to record site location
coordinates. These location data are
taken from the USGS quadrangles. Site



location direction narratives are used to
supplement this information.

In addition to the USGS quadrangles, the
serious collector and any groups planning
a systematic survey of an area should also
obtain copies of the soil survey maps
prepared by the U.S. Department of Ag-
riculture, Soil Conservation Service and
Forest Service. These documents are,
however, only available for around 30 of
the 67 counties. They consist of a series
of aerial photographs of an entire county.
The soil types (not surprisingly) and
Township-Range-Sections are marked on the
aerials. These photographs show roads,
trails, structures, streams, cleared
fields and woods, and so forth which serve
as important reference points for the
surveyor on the ground to use in knowing
exactly where she or he is located. You
should obtain two copies, if possible:
one for carrying into the field and the
other for leaving home to use as a perma-
nent clean record. In your field copy
mark the areas in which you have looked
for sites, AND mark where sites have been
found (try to keep the shaded area to
scale). You can number your sites and
make brief reference notes to them in the
margin. In your permanent record copy,
you can use a light colored artist's
pencil (e.g., green blue, orange) to
LIGHTLY shade the area surveyed, and a
darker colored pencil (red, dark green) to
more heavily shade the areas in which a
site is located or artifacts have been
found. DO NOT use a felt-tip or
ball-point marker. The purpose is to know
where you have looked and where you have
found something WITHOUT blotting out the
features shown on the photograph, and, if
necessary, to permit you to correct

Over time, regardless of whether you use
just the USGS quadrangles or use the soils
maps, you will begin to see a pattern
emerge on site locations in association
with specific physiographic features,
soil types, water source (spring, pond,
lake, stream, river) and distances to
water and the like. You will also see its
opposite in a pattern of similar
information on where sites are NOT found.
Individual surveys will form a patchwork

of locations which may eventually merge,
while planned group surveys will yield
site location data for an area much more
rapidly. With such information,
previously unsurveyed areas can be
reviewed and the expected locations of
unknown sites predicted with a fair degree
of accuracy.


In the past you may have collected arti-
facts from a site without making a note of
where they were found, and there are few
of us, amateur and professional alike, who
have done so. Those who say they haven't
generally either have short memories, or
haven't done very much surveying. How-
ever, information on the artifacts which
have come from a site, particularly
diagnostic artifacts which are the ones
generally collected, is critical to
adequately interpreting a site's function
and assessing its significance and chrono-
logical position. The record of the
artifact's provenience, then, is as
important as the artifact itself.

If you have collected artifacts without
making a record of how and where they were
found, and the information is still
clearly remembered by you, then you should
record what you remember. However, please
DO NOT GUESS if you are uncertain, since
if you guess wrong and report the arti-
fact(s) as being collected from the wrong
site then it will confuse the record and
interpretation of the activities and
function of that site.

All artifacts collected from a site should
be kept in a bag (preferably plastic or
cloth as they are less likely to break or
tear than paper, especially if the arti-
facts are wet). You should have suffi-
cient bags to hold separate collections of
artifacts from different sites, or from
subareas of a large site if it is possible
to distinguish such areas. Never mix
artifacts from more than one site in the
same field collection bag. The bags
should be marked in the field as soon as
possible with a permanent marker or a
identifying card placed in each bag AND
the associated information recorded in
your field notebook.

(37(2), 1984)


Materials from different sites should be
kept separated until they have been washed
and properly marked. When you get home,
if you do not immediately process your
collections, then store them in a safe
location to prevent accidental damage or

Except for fragile artifacts, as soon as
possible remove dirt from artifacts by
soaking them in fresh water and using a
soft bristled brush. A tooth brush is
sometimes used for this purpose. Care
must be taken to avoid damaging an arti-
fact. If you cannot clean it without
damaging it then leave it dirty. Do not
leave your artifacts unwashed for any
length of time, as they are harder to
clean if you let them dry out, than they
are when they are fresh from the field.
Set washed artifacts aside to dry, being
very careful not to mix artifacts from
different sites. Hardware cloth or
aluminum window screens make good drying

When the specimens have dried they should
be marked in the manner described below
and, if necessary, transferred to clean
storage bags or boxes. The information
should also be transcribed to your note-
book and your site form copies.

You may obtain blank Florida Master Site
File forms by writing to:

M. Katherine Jones
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Archives, History and
Records Management
Department of the State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8020

If you send a copy of the completed form
to Kathy she can tell you if the site is
recorded or not. If it is a previously
unrecorded site, you will be listed in the
FMSF as its reporter/recorder.

artifacts from different sites be mixed
for comparison, or removed for display or
inclusion in a type collection. In the
latter two instances, a note indicating
which artifacts have been removed should

be placed in the artifacts storage bag and
recorded in your notebook and/or catalog.
Broken artifacts may be glued together
using ("Duco" cement or "Elmer's" glue.
Duco cement is soluble in nail polish
remover, while Elmer's glue is soluble in
warm water. Both dry clearly. Other
GLUES are not recommended.

Never alter or "improve" artifacts. A
nearly perfect projectile point with only
the tip broken off should be left that
way. An artifact should NEVER be further
damaged (which is what you do when you
"retouch" it) just to improve its appear-

While it is important that artifacts be
marked or stored in individually marked
and sealed containers if too fragile or
small to mark, it is just as important
that the artifacts not be damaged by the
marking process. It should be possible to
remove the marking, if necessary, while at
the same time having the marking durable
enough to prevent accidental removal.
Tags should only rarely be used, such as
when attached to a string of beads too
small to mark individually. Stick on
labels should not be used since they can
come off or stain the artifacts. Finally,
the marking should be as brief as possi-
ble, with more detailed information
included on a catalog form and/or in your

The catalog form (Figure 1) may be written
on a 12.7x20.3cm (5"x8") note card. It
should contain spaces for entering the
catalog number, description of the arti-
fact or collection of artifacts, name and
location of site from which the artifacts
were obtained, artifact condition, general
remarks, date of recording, recorder,
location of artifacts catalogued. Attach
any photographs or drawings of artifacts
to the card. While techniques may vary,
artifacts are generally marked by writing
a code number on the object in indelible
India ink. Never use a ball point or felt
tipped pen. A coat of clear nail polish
should be applied to the spot selected for
writing the catalog number. The number is
then written on the spot and, when dry, a
second coat of nail polish is used to seal



Catalog No.: LDT- 007
Date: APRIL 1, 198'Q
Recorder: L ovs P. 7'efA

Site Number and Name: NF4I/2. FMSF No.: 8Fr 69
Site Location: -THS -R2W-SEc. 6 -NW/V (Dos



Description of Artifact(s): SHERDS: WAKVU.LA CHecK S-rA&*ir ( 7,v/f/i.M); Weere
\i, AZAJ PL AIJ (57aon1,/19I9,m): C1RAAse,9LLe PcwA-re (I7 soDY/2 r/l). WeEper/ /ss/e

Powy (-seser ,Sr or scA,). A Artifact Condition: G oo, e~ve P./ r~irver' tw V,/ /er Erewt c-vi 7v r 'Afese~X.
Location of Artifacts: "eTI nssee POi~, Pf exG c "e /M swe-HP
KCe6 A04 ZryWe cotercv 'res Oy of *A Sra/ c .s / ve; To S Ti47;.

General Remarks: Co.LL.e -&, s5,em oPAY 4s CAtjyIN Jov&5s ,4w' /M/ci< FIaLi/.
/1r -r CHEPu.L ep ,Fo DYiE,.PM E- 70 //-., Z CP., ke '/0 1I C EL.S,
She.C4L ro.s A7yP Sos Se A 1r 4,P j C -r/.L C 4,v'1r'j /q Y'E Be e lFoi-
ArT C/1 -/SSTre Jovess, FefA A DV1SAjqA

Figure 1. Sample Catalog Card, front (top) and back (bottom).


iuzr~ -~--- --- ------- -- -- -- -

(37(2), 1984)

evA sses ( I'/ soo>/g ris) M/ecorw i ; Larwics: ?"Yet exessee


the ink. (The reason for using the first
coat of nail polish is to be able to
remove the catalog number with nail polish
remover if a new number system is later
selected or if you make a mistake. If you
write directly on the artifact then ink
cannot be easily removed.)

The catalog number should be placed in an
insignificant spot and not on the side
which you will display or photograph.
Black ink is generally used for most
objects. However, for dark objects you
may use white ink or as an alternative you
may place a spot of "liquid paper" over
the nail polish spot and write with black
ink on that spot before sealing with more
clear nail polish. This latter method is
also good for coarse stone or sherds as it
provides a smoother surface upon which to

Catalog numbers are generally letter-
number codes. The letters may be your
initials, while the numbers (at least
three numbers) should designate the site
and may be coded to reference a particular
artifact within the site. For instance,
"LDT-007-04" would stand for Louis D.
Tesar-site number seven-artifact number
four. Not all artifacts will be indi-
vidually designated -- only those which
you might wish to display or for which
you might wish to maintain a special
record. Most artifacts from the site
would only have "LDT-007" written on them.
You can use any other system which works
for you, just so long as it is
Artifacts with numbers that only you can
interpret and for which there is no
written record are little better then
unnumbered artifacts.

Write your number system in your field
notebook and/or on an introductory card
describing the information included on the
catalog forms which you can prepare for
your own use. When your sites are record-
ed with the State, you may wish to
cross-reference your site designations
with the ones recorded in the FMSF.

The centralized site recording system used
by the State consists of a number ("8"
which signifies "Florida" in the nation-

wide site inventory system) followed by
two letters (which indicate the county,
such as "Le" for Leon County) and finally
another set of numbers (which are serially
assigned as sites are recorded). 8Le4
designates the fourth site recorded in
Leon County, Florida.

However you choose to catalog your
artifacts, keep it simple, be consistent,
keep a record and USE YOUR SYSTEM, espe-
cially on artifacts which you remove from
a site collection storage bag or box for
display or type collection purposes
(Figure 2).


After the artifacts collected from a site
or series of sites have been recorded and
analyzed, one of the most useful continu-
ing functions which they can serve is to
be included in type collections. The type
collection serves two purposes. First, in
its preparation it makes the preparer
think about the artifacts which she or he
has collected and, thereby, forces that
person to study the types of artifacts
collected until he or she is certain of
their identification. Second, once
prepared, the collection will serve as a
teaching tool for others, and a continuing
reminder of the type designations for the
individual who helped assemble it.

A Chapter type collection should contain
artifacts which are typical of the types
represented, and may contain more then one
example of a type in order to show the
range of variation in the type (Figures 2
and 3). The collection may also focus on
a representative sample of artifacts from
a single site (Figure 5), or may focus on
artifacts typical of a culture period or
phases in an area (Figure 4). Because of
regional variation, you should not mix
artifacts from distinct regions in the
same collection. Indeed, regional col-
lections should be prepared in order to
see better the differences in paste, form
and decoration which occur within the same
"types" regionally.

A preliminary requirement for preparing a
type collection is the reading of books
describing artifact types in your area.



0 10
WMEn ::: -71
Cent meters

Figure 2. Examples from the Projectile Point Type Collection in the
Florida State Museum at the University of Florida in
Gainesville. Note the catalog numbers on the artifacts,
particularly the specimen in the upper left corner as it
also has the type name written on it. Photograph courtesy
of James S. Dunbar.

(37(2), 1984)

4 .



Figure 3. Examples from the Projectile Point Type Collection at the Florida State Museum in
Gainesville. Photograph courtesy of James S. Dunbar.


(37(2), 1984)





of. -



Figure 4. Portion of the Ceramic Type Collection in the Florida State
Museum at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Photo-
graph courtesy of James S. Dunbar.



1--, -

- U

*e U





U ~v b

I. I


i- ,








, \ / \ 7

Ki MI -,
KKr 1- LL


i '- >



Sire To, s ,,asn



8 rv43
SAY Co ,-rv, FLA.

L4G e-

-.T ,.Ferte "-X




RI Co"

D' Elf

r i

~ /$1

; |-

{ ;" ,
, 1
L ?er
f i i



Figure 5.

Type collection from the Palm Court Site (8By43) in Bay County, Florida. This type collec-
tion, along with the associated report prepared by Dan F. Morse and the author: "A Micro-
lithic Tool Assemblage From A Northwest Florida Site," in The Florida Anthropologist,27 (3):
89-106 (1974), has assisted many professional, and non-professional, archaeologists.

'I I J
kID 114

' i 4 .

Pp 66 C

M a 0 P Q
wtrir vBca w #An ta O r ntFCroy

__ IC


: f

1 ss


f C

ww xx Wy AI A
./ \i Q.> nf

/j M
i 'i

1'' son c*
WA~t 77K


Over the years, The Florida Anthropologist
has served as one source of information.
Of course, publications such as Willey's
"Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast"
(1949), Cambron and Hulse's "Handbook of
Alabama Archaeology, Part 1: Point Types"
(1964), and the "Guide to the
Identification of certain American Indian
Projectile Points," Oklahoma
Anthropological Society Special Bulletin,
No. 1-4 (Bell 1958 and 1960 and Perino
1968 and 1971) are among the many avail-
able publications with specific artifact
type descriptions. The information in
these published sources should be supple-
mented by that of knowledgeable amateur
and professional archaeologists belonging
to each Chapter.

Once selected, type specimens should
either be placed in a sealed clear plastic
bag with an identifying type description
written on a cardboard card either firmly
affixed to the outside of the bag or
placed within the bag; or, they should be
glued on a cardboard backing or board
(with Duco cement or Elmer's glue) and
appropriate labels placed on the cards
with the artifacts; or, if the artifacts
are large enough the artifact type name
may be written on the artifact itself
using the same technique as that used when
affixing catalog numbers (Figure 2, Upper
Left). They should NOT be placed loosely
in boxes, since specimens so placed are
frequently returned by accident to the
wrong boxes, or seem to evaporate and
become lost. Individually identified
specimens in your own private collection
may be left loose for shelf or case
display, rather then glued down as in the
more frequently handled Chapter
collection. Some photographs of examples
in a type collection are included with
this paper to provide you with an idea of
what type collections may look like.

It is my suggestion that the preparation
of type collections become a regular
activity of the various Chapters of the
Florida Anthropological Society. These
type collections, as noted, may be used to
familiarize Chapter members and visitors
with artifacts found in your area. It is
my hope that duplicate type collections
will be provided by the Chapters for

inclusion in a Master State Type Col-
lection in Tallahassee, and that this
latter collection serve as a basis for
preparing artifact identification booklets
and, if needed, revising extant type
descriptions. Other type collections may
be placed at local museums which cooperat-
ed with your Chapter. Arrangements should
also be made to find a permanent
repository for the remaining artifacts
collected from sites and not used in type


Bell, Robert
1958 "Guide to the Identification of
certain American Indian
Projectile Points," Special
Bulletin No. 1 of the Oklahoma
Anthropological Society.

1960 "Guide to the Identification of
certain American Indian
Projectile Points," Special
Bulletin No. 2 of the Oklahoma
Anthropological Society.

Cambron, James and David Hulse,
1964 "Handbook of Alabama
Archaeology, Part 1: Point
Types," David L. DeJarnette,
Editor. Archaeological
Research Association of
Alabama, Inc.

Perino, Gregory
1968 "Guide to the Identification of
certain American Indian
Projectile Points," Special
Bulletin No. 3 of the Oklahoma
Anthropological Society.

1971 "Guide to the Identification of
certain American Indian
Projectile Points," Special
Bulletin No. 4 of the Oklahoma
Anthrpological Society.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf
Coast. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, Vol.

(37(2), 1984

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST publishes original papers in all subfields of anthro-
pology with an emphasis on archaeology. Contributions from allied disciplines are
acceptable when concerned with anthropological problems. The journal's geograph-
ical scope is Florida and adjacent regions. While authors are not paid for their
articles, twenty-five reprints (without covers) of each published article are
provided. Preference is given to submissions by Society members.

Manuscripts should be double-spaced and typed on one side only of 84 x 11 inch
paper. Authors should refer to the Editorial Policy and Style Guide published in
Volume 37(1). Manuscripts submitted in styles other than that presented in the
Style Guide will be returned to their authors. Authors should submit the original
and four copies of their manuscript for review. Manuscripts submitted to THE
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST should not be under consideration by any other journal or
other publication at the same time or have been published elsewhere. Individual
copies of the Editorial Policy and Style Guide may be obtained by writing the
Editor and remitting $1.00 to the Florida Anthropological Society for single copies
or $5.00 for packets of ten copies for postage and handling costs.

Receipt of manuscripts submitted for review for publication will be acknowledged
by the Editor. Copies of manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor, at least two
Editorial Board members, and when appropriate Guest Editors and/or other profes-
sionals knowledgeable in the subject or methodology presented. Review comments
will be used to determine whether or not to accept a manuscript for publication
and to prepare editorial comments. The Editor will generally notify authors of
the Editorial Staff's decision within two or three months of receipt. A manu-
script may be accepted as is or with minor revisions; rejected provisionally with
the request that the authors) rework the text and resubmit it for reconsid-
eration; or, rejected outright. In the latter instance the original copy of the
manuscript will be returned to the authorss. Authors of accepted manuscripts
will be asked to respond to Editorial Staff comments and questions, if any, and
will be provided with the opportunity to review galleys of their articles prior to


Back issues of THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST may be purchased from the Editor for
$5.00 for single numbers and $10.00 for double numbers. Order forms are available.
Mail orders include an added postage and handling charge of $2.00. Checks should
be made payable to the Florida Anthropological Society. The following issues are
out of print: Volumes 1; 2:3-4; 5:1-4; 6:1,4; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12:1-3; 13:1; 16:1,
3; 17:1; 18:1; 20:1-2, 4; 21; 24:1; 25:3-4; 26:1; 30:1 and 35:4.

Volume 35, Number 4, the Third Bahamian Conference issue, is available for $10.00.
Orders for this issue should be sent to CCFL, 292 S.W. 34th Street, Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida 33315 and NOT to the Editor.

may be purchased for $7.00 each from the Editor. Mail orders include an added
$2.00 postage and handling charge. Checks should be made payable to the Florida
Anthropological Society. Numbers 6, 7, 8, and 9 are available. Numbers 1 through
5 are out of print.

Please allow six to eight weeks for delivery of mail orders. The Society offers a
resale discount for purchases of 10 or more copies of individual issues on a
quantity available basis. Inquiries should be addressed to the Editor.

Reprints of back issues may also be obtained for Johnson Repint Corp., 111 Fifth
Avenue, New York, NY 10003. Vols. 1-13 are available for $20.00 per volume,
$10.00 per double numbers, and $4.50 per single number. Numbers 1-5 of the
PUBLICATIONS are $5.50 per number.





I 'A

.J ,^ *' ---A^'
`!": i i~

,-> '
/ :- ^ *

s r
*, **** ," :

-- ,,- ,; _,-\,^

"* .? *.1*' '
"I .

'' -"- '" ^ ... .

i .F ,

-- .

i 5

.. ..
'"-':' ^ .


NonProfit OrgAinzation
Tallahassee, Florida

I' -

'-- I. w-.r ,- ; ". -- n-r "; C L'; !

Si ,i ; p r historic
S ic c..',l.:- : b .long to all of us.
.- : l; and archaeological sites are
S.* .--' t clues about the past forever.
S -r,-,:> artiiiacts and sites on
-- ::.r.lz lands.


,i.- ,, ,,c t. your Iocal law
* -, -i ;.'-ancy and ite Division of
i.r-. nd Records Management.
f', 1,



~-b-. II

~---"r? ~-~.
r -.i

I. i"

I I I .. '. .

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs