• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page
 Mitigation excavations at the Chestatee...
 A definition of the Manasota culture...
 An update on the highway salvage...
 Back Cover






Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00004
 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-]
quarterly
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
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: VID00004
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
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
    Editor's page
        Page 2
    Mitigation excavations at the Chestatee Site, north Georgia - Morgan R. Cook, Jr.
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    A definition of the Manasota culture - George M. Luer and Marion M. Almy
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
    An update on the highway salvage program in Florida - B. Calvin Jones and Louis D. Tesar
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text





COPYRIGHT NOTICE

2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.


The Florida Anthropological Society Inc. holds
source text of the Florida Anthropologist
considered the copyright holder for the text
these publications.


all rights to the
and shall be
and images of


The Florida Anthropological Society has made this publication
available to the University of Florida, for purposes of
digitization and Internet distribution.

The Florida Anthropological Society reserves all rights to this
publication. All uses, excluding those made under "fair use"
provisions of U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107 are restricted.

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.




U. OF F. LIBRARIES

THE FLORIDA

ANTHROPOLOGIST


VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1


MARCH 1982


MISSING NO. 3,
VOL 35


PUBLISHED BY THE


FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.


, -- '







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published quarterly in March, June, September, and
December by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., Geoarcheological Research
Center, Department of Geology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fl. 33124.
Subscription is by membership in the Society for individuals and institutions
interested in the aims of the Society. Annual dues are $10.00 ($12.00 after
March 1). Requests for membership and general inquiries should be addressed to
the Secretary; dues, changes of address to the Membership Secretary; manuscripts
for publication and orders for back issues to the Editor; and newsletter items
to the President. Address changes should be made at least 30 days prior to the
mailing of the next issue. Second class postage paid at Miami, Florida 33124.

OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY


President: Marion M. Almy
5321 Avenida del Mare
Saratora, FL 33581

1st Vice President: John Beriault
3550 Bolero Way
Naples, FL 33942

2nd Vice President: Claudine Payne
1009 Pine Street
Tallahassee, FL 32303

Secretary: Ray Williams
Department of Anthropology
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL 33620

Membership Secretary: Joan Deming
1839 Pine Cone Circle
Clearwater, FL 33520


Editor: Robert S. Carr
Geoarcheological Research Center
Department of Geology
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL 33124

Editorial Board:
Morgan Crook
West Georgia College
Carrollton, GA 30118


Kathleen A. Deagan
Historic St. Augustine Preservation
Board
St. Augustine, FL 32084


Yasar Iscan
Department of Anthropology
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL 33431


Treasurer and Resident Agent:
Ralph L. Struever
5350 Woodland Lakes Drive, Apt. 112
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Directors-at-Large

Three years: Mary Lou Watson
P. 0. Box 9566
Panama City Beach, FL 32407

Two years: Jerry Hyde
4233 Oristano Road
Jacksonville, FL 32210

One year: Karen Malesky
5312 Bay State Road
Palmetto, FL 33561


EDITORIAL STAFF


Assistant Editors:
David Allerton
Miami, FL

George M. Luer
Sarasota, FL

James J. Miller
Cultural Resource Management,
Tallahassee, FL 32303


Inc.


George Percy
Division of Archives, History and
Records Management
Tallahassee, FL 32304


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
(USPS 200880)


COVER: Karen Lynn Hartman sifting at the Chestatee Site.














THE FLORIDA i

ANTHROPOLOGIST


VOLUME 35 NUMBER 1 MARCH 1982




CONTENTS PAGE

Editor's Page . . . . 2
Mitigation Excavations at the Chestatee
Site, North Georgia
by Morgan R. Crook, Jr. . 3
A Definition of the Manasota Culture
by George M. Luer and Marion M. Almy 34
An Update on the Highway Salvage Program
in Florida
by B. Calvin Jones and
Louis D. Tesar. . . ... 59







EDITOR'S PAGE


This issue of THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST features a report by
Morgan Crook on the salvage excavation of the Chestate site in northern
Georgia. His article is an excellent example of how contract archeology
using a good research design and good field technique can result in an
informative and well-written article. This issue includes an article on
Manasota Culture by the indefatigable team of George Luer and Marion Almy.
Their research has provided an in-depth discussion of prehistoric cultural
traits within the Central Gulf coast area between Tampa Bay and Charlotte
Bay. And finally, this volume includes an article by Calvin Jones and
Louis Tesar that summarizes the status of current archeological investi-
gations on the 1-75 right-of-way directed by Florida's Division of Archives,
History, and Records Management.

This year's publication begins with the addition of two assistant
editors, George Luer and David Allerton. George, an advocational arche-
ologist, has provided the benefits of his many talents to the FA during
the past two years and it will be a pleasure to continue to work with
him. David is a student of archeology and a librarian at the University
of Miami and will be in charge of developing institutional membership
as well as taking care of back issue orders.

The editorial review board will have two new members, Morgan Crook
and Dr. Yasar Iscan. Previous board members, Dr. Kathleen Degan, Jim Miller,
and George Percy, will continue to serve throughout this year.

The FAS ended 1981 on a positive note with a 2% increase in member-
ship over the previous year Although only a modest gain, it is an opti-
mistic note during an economically tough time when so many people are
cutting memberships to amend their budgets. Inflationary pressures have
put the FAS under considerable economic pressures, and thus corporate
and individual tax-deductible contributions are welcome. The Wentworth
Foundation, Joan Deming, Hope Mitchell, Marion Almy have all made generous
contributions during this last year.

I would like to advise readers of two worthwhile new publications.
Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology by Dr. Barbara A. Purdy is available
from University Presses of Florida for $25, and The Complete Book of
Seminole Patchwork From Traditional Methods to Contemporary Uses is avail-
able from Madrona PUblishers of Seattle, Washington.


RSC










MITIGATION EXCAVATIONS AT THE CHESTATEE SITE, NORTH GEORGIA


Morgan R. Crook, Jr.


Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to make available the information gained
through excavation at a dual component Woodland-Early Mississippian Period
site in northern Georgia. The Chestatee Site (9Lu7) was first identified
during an archaeological survey of the proposed route for the Dahlonega
Connector highway through Forsyth, Dawson, and Lumpkin Counties, Georgia
(see Anderson 1976). The site is located within the flood plain along the
northern side of the Chestatee River in Lumpkin County, approximately 6 km
southeast of Dahlonega (Figure 1). The flood plain location of the site,
upon initial examination, was used as pasture and recently had been bi-
sected by a bank two-lane highway and bridge (Figure 2). The Chestatee
Site is located within the project limits of Lake Sidney Lanier and is
under the fee simple jurisdiction of the Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.

Physiographically, the Chestatee Site is situated within the southern
portion of the Dahlonega Plateau of Piedmont Georgia. This plateau forms
an irregular belt across the Georgia Central Upland just south of the High-
land Georgia section. Topography of the plateau is characterized by diverse
relief with scattered monadocks, valleys, and steeply rolling hills. River
valleys in the northern portion of the plateau, such as that of the Coosa-
wattee River, are deeply entrenched with practically no flood plain. More
southern rivers, such as the Chestatee, often are associated with broader
valleys and more substantial flood plains (see LaForge 1925:64-69).

Natural vegetation of the Dahlonega Plateau is dominated by white oak
(Quercus alba) and northern red oak (Q. rubra) with other components in-
cluding maples, hickories, and birch. This tall broadleaf deciduous forest
has been classified as "Appalachian Oak Forest" (Kuchler 1964:104), and
the Dahlonega Plateau is its southern boundary in Georgia. Beginning along
the southern edge of the plateau and extending to the fall line, the forest
becomes dominated by oaks, hickories, and pines.

It was concluded by the Georgia Department of Transportation archae-
ologists through limited subsurface testing that the Chestatee Site was
probably a single component site of the Early Mississippian Woodstock
Culture, that it was significant at a state level, and eligible for in-
clusion in the National Register (Anderson 1976:12). Initial testing at
the site consisted of five shovel tests and two Im x Im controlled test
pits. A buried cultural midden was recognized in both test pits which
contained high incidences of Woodstock-type potsherds. The total area
of the site was estimated to cover about 5 ha (12.7 acres).


VOL. 35 NO. 1 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 1982






CHESTATEE


Georgia Location Inset


r /-\ /, --- I n
0 -1000
meters
Contours at 100 ft intervals
above sea level
Figure 1. The Chestatee Site and Surrounding Environment.





CROOK 5









A W&




































Figure 2. Aerial photo of the Chestatee Site showing limits
of present investigation.






CHESTATEE


As construction of the Dahlonega Connector required that the highway
and bridge which now bisect the site-be widened to the west by two lanes,
a western portion of the Chestatee Site would be destroyed. It was decided
that excavation of the site area to be impacted was required to obtain
significant cultural information which would be otherwise lost. The area
investigated was restricted by contract to within the DOT right-of-way,
defining an area within the floodplain extending 42 m west of the existing
highway and bridge. Excavation at the site was conducted through West
Georgia College by contract with the Georgia Department of Transportation,
under Federal Antiquities Act Permit No. 79-GA-016.


Research Problems and Methods

Investigations were guided by the following research problems which
were defined based upon the conclusions from initial testing at the site.

1. Delineation of the origins) of Woodstock ceramic types as
related to the stamping tradition of northern Georgia.

2. Identification of specific activity areas and coordination
of surface-midden/subsurface cultural remains.

3. Delineation of inter-site settlement patterns, to include
palisades and domestic structures, storage pits, hearths,
and others as appropriate.

4. Evaluation of subsistence patterns and diet through analysis
of faunal and floral remains.

5. Refinement of the known chronological placements of Carters-
ville, Napier, Etowah and Woodstock through the processing
of selected carbon samples retrieved from the excavation.

The following field methods were employed in an attempt to gather
information necessary for the resolution of the stated research problems:


Phase I:



Phase II:




Phase III:




Phase IV:


Controlled surface collection of 6m x 6m units
within the project right-of-way to determine the
distribution of buried cultural materials.

Standardized excavation of 2m x 2m squares within
those areas considered to be likely locations of
cultural information as indicated by the surface
collection results.

Standardized excavation of 2m x 2m squares at
random locations within the right-of-way to provide
a randomly biased sample of cultural information
present in this section of the site.

Mechanized stripping of selected areas of the site
to expose buried cultural features for mapping and
excavation.






CROOK


The standard excavation unit used at the Chestatee Site was a 2m x
2m square. Excavation proceeded in each square by removing an overburden
consisting of silty loam and clay to the surface of the midden deposit.
The overburden from each test pit was troweled through to recover any
artifacts.

Procedures became more refined when dealing with the midden deposit.
The midden was excavated in 10 cm levels and each level was subjected to
three different recovery techniques. A strip along the southern portion
of each level, measuring 50 cm wide, 2 m long, and 10 cm deep, was screened
through inch mesh to provide a standardized recovery sample of each midden
level. Within this 50 cm wide strip, a total sample of approximately 3 liters
was recovered to be processed by water screening through 1/16 inch mesh to
recover botanical samples. The remaining portion of each level was troweled
through to recover a larger sample of associated artifacts. Excavation con-
tinued at least one level into sterile subsoil. Upon completion of each
excavation level, the fresh surface was inspected for features and upon
completion of each test pit soil profiles were recorded.


Investigation Results

Phase I.

The site area within the DOT right-of-way was plowed to expose fresh
earth and a metric grid system was established to extend parallel to the
existing highway and bridge. The grid system is oriented 300 30' east of
magnetic north, within its origin point located about 10 m north of the
Chestatee River. Grid coordinates are determined by the distance to the
north and to the left of this origin point (see Figure 3).

The plowed area of the site extended from the grid north 16 line to
the grid north 138 line and from grid line LO to grid line L54. The
southern-most section of the right-of-way strip was left unplowed to prevent
erosion of a natural levee. Also, the western side of the plowed area was
rather irregular, extending a few meters beyond the right-of-way on its
northern end and a few meters short of the right-of-way on its southern end.
The plowed area was staked in 6m x 6m squares and following a rain that
increased artifact visibility,each of the 143 squares was surface collected.

Artifact density within the plowed zone was low; however, the distri-
bution of surface artifacts does provide a pattern with spatial limits
(Figure 3). Artifacts occurred within an area extending from the grid north
36 line to the grid north 114 line. The eastern and western limits of the
distribution are not established, as artifacts occurred up to both sides of
the plowed area.

A total of 192 small potsherds were recovered during the controlled
surface collections. Of these, 7.3% were eroded and unidentifiable, 6.3%
were unidentified complicated stamped, 4.7% were Woodstock Lined Diamond
Stamped, 10.9% were Cartersville Simple Stamped, 2.6% were Cartersville
Check Stamped, and 68.2% were plain. In addition, 3 projectile point frag-
ments, 4 chert flakes, and one probably rough-chipped stone hoe were en-
countered.








CHESTATEE



0 m
cl s' 1 i 1 i


_.._._._- -,-



~~oag
-br____ O .n ----- ,,M X ----


Contour intervals at 0,5 ft intervals
above sea level
Metric Grid Cooridinates shown at Margins


Figure 3.


Numerical distribution of pottery in surface
collection units.


00











30











60











90











120


150






CROOK


Phase II and III.

The Phase II investigation consisted of the excavation of five 2m x
2m test pits in those areas judged to have information potential based upon
the results of the surface collection. Of these, four squares (42 L 12,
48 L 18, 60 L 18, 78 L 0) were placed in those locations exhibiting the
greatest concentration of pottery on the surface, i.e. those 6m x 6m units
associated with eight or more potsherds. One test pit (84 L 36) also was
excavated in an area void of pottery or other artifacts, but surrounded by
artifact-bearing units, in an attempt to determine if this void pattern had
a cultural referent such as that which might be expected from refuse depos-
ition around a domestic structure.

Two additional test pits were excavated in areas without regard to the
surface collections. One (120 L 12) was excavated in an extreme northern
portion of the right-of-way to document stratigraphy in this area. Another
(3 L 12), a 3m x 3m square, was excavated upon the natural levee as it was
felt that a deep stratigraphic sequence might be available at this location.

The Phase III investigation consisted of excavation of randomly selected
test pits within the limits of the site area as determined by the northern
and southern limits of surface artifacts. This zone covers 3780 square
meters or about 65% of the total right-of-way. Fifteen 2m x 2m random tests
were excavated in the site zone, yielding a sampling fraction of 1.59%.
Sample points were chosen from a universe defined by grid stations spaced
at 6 m intervals across the site zone so as to avoid clustering. The follow-
ing test pits comprise the random sample: 30 L 6, 36 L 36, 42 L 6, 48 L 0,
48 L 24, 54 L 0, 66 L 12, 66 L 24, 72 L 12, 78 L 6, 78 L 18, 90 L 6, 96 L 6,
102 L 112, and 114 L 12.

Excavation of the random and non-random test pits revealed a strati-
graphic sequence of from 10 cm to 55 cm of overburden, followed by 20 cm
to 65 cm of cultural midden, and concluded by sterile red clay. Strati-
graphy of the levee presents a special case which will be discussed later.
The overburden consisted of red sandy clay alluvium in the southern portion
of the site, extending from the grid north 30 line to the grid north 90 line.
Overburden in the northern-most section of the site consisted of sandy clay
alluvium mixed with colluvial deposits of sand and gravel. Between the grid
north 30 line and the levee the soil profile was disturbed, showing evidence
of massive erosion and subsequent fill with road-construction debris. The
overburden was otherwise rather uniform in the project area, with an average
depth of about 30 cm. Its thickness increased at the margin of the northern
slope and decreased along the edge of the eroded area.

Cultural material within the overburden was infrequent, but showed high
percentages of plain and Cartersville Simple Stamped pottery along with occa-
sional sherds of Cartersville Check Stamped, Dunlap Fabric Marked, Woodstock
Complicated Stamped, and Etowah Complicated Stamped. Lithic artifacts were
infrequent and limited to unutilized chert and quartz flakes (see Table 1).

Intensity of cultural material within the overburden appears to be
related to that in the surface collection; however, this relationship is
neither consistent nor absolute. The two surface units (48 L 18, 78 L 0)






CHESTATEE


associated with the greatest number of potsherds also were the locations
of the greatest number of sherds in the overburden. On the other hand,
the overburden in some test pits contained no artifacts while the surface
did. The contrary also is true.

The cultural-midden stratum was, from all indications, undisturbed
except within the southern eroded area. This stratum was composed of grey,
organic-stained sandy clay that contained dispersed charred-wood fragments
and occasional small river cobbles. The midden appears to have undulated
over the site area but was generally 30 cm to 45 cm thick with its most
extensive development along the eastern side, next to the road bank.

Upon inspection of the cultural materials represented within the midden
levels of each test pit, a rather consistent stratigraphic association was
recognized. It appears that midden accumulation occurred during two major
cultural episodes. The first is marked by deposition of high frequencies
of simple stamped, plain, and check stamped pottery. The later deposition
is associated with a higher incidence of plain pottery and the presence
of Woodstock Complicated Stamped sherds, along with decreased percentages
of check stamped and simple stamped pottery. Although these two deposition
signatures are more obvious in some test pits than others, their strati-
graphic order is consistent. The upper, more recent deposit is recognized
as the Cartersville-Woodstock midden or Midden A and the lower, earlier
deposit is considered an Early Cartersville midden or Midden B. Of course,
since the two middens are defined by analysis of stratigraphic associations
rather than by the recognition of any physical difference, a certain amount
of mixture undoubtedly obscures their integrity.

Midden A varied in thickness from 10 cm to 50 cm, but was most often
20 cm to 30 cm thick. The midden was absent or at least minimally repre-
sented in square 42 L 12, but was otherwise ubiquitous throughout the in-
vestigated area. Density of cultural material within this midden, as in-
dicated by the weight density of sherds within the screened levels of each
square, was generally high but variable across the site. Figure 4 shows
the weight-density distribution of pottery within Midden A, as determined
by standard deviations from the mean density. Based upon these data, it
appears that the primary deposition zone extends parallel to the river
between the grid north 36 line and the grid north 84 line, with density
decreasing to the north and south. This density pattern is mirrored by
data from the surface-collection units, granting allowances for plow dis-
persion to the north and south.

An inventory of cultural materials encountered within Midden A is
presented in Table 1. The pottery is represented by three major types:
Cartersville Simple Stamped, Cartersville Check Stamped, and Woodstock
Complicated Stamped; however, plain pottery was the single most frequent
ware (Figure 5, Figure 6).

While no complete vessels or large fragments of the plain ware were
encountered, most rim sherds indicate vessels with flaring to sharply turned
rims and straight to slightly rounded bodies. One incurving rim appearing
to be from a large bowl was also recognized. Vessel walls ranged from 3 mm
to 6 mm thick with 3 mm to 4 mm being most common. Sherd color ranged from
buff to dark brown and the paste contained fine sand with appreciable quan-
tities of mica.







CROOK


:~-~ ~


0


50r 1

Of o_________________________


Figure 4. Weight-density distribution of pottery within
Midden A. Grams per cubic meter represented.






CHESTATEE


The Woodstock Complicated Stamped sherds consisted of four varieties.
Woodstock Lined Diamond and Line Block Stamped were most common, followed
by Woodstock Herringbone and Woodstock Nested Diamond Stamped sherds
(Figure 6). Rim sherds indicate that globular jars with flaring rims were
the most common vessel form with straight-sided vessels with flaring rims
occurring rarely. Vessel walls ranged from 4 mm to 6 mm thick with 4 mm
to 5 mm being most common. Paste and coloration exhibited the same range
as the plain ware.

Very few rims showing check stamping or simple stamping were encoun-
tered. This probably indicates that these rims were undecorated and they
are analytically included in the plain pottery category. Of the four
simple-stamped rim sherds, three had slightly flaring rims and one a
slightly incurving rim. The two check-stamped rim sherds had slightly
flaring rims. These sherds were too small to provide an indication of
vessel form. Tetrapodal supports bearing check stamped or simple stamped
designs were common, most often extending from a squarish flat base. Thick-
ness of the check stamped and simple stamped sherds ranged from 3 mm to 7 mm,
with 4 mm to 5 mm being most common. Sherds were buff colored and infre-
quently dark brown to black. Paste contained high incidences of mica mixed
with fine sand. Occasionally, the paste also contained fine steatite frag-
ments. The check stamped and simple stamped pottery are considered to be
Cartersville types because of surface treatment and the presence of tetra-
podal supports. However, as will be discussed later, the pottery deviates
from the original type descriptions.

Lithic artifacts associated with Midden A are listed in Table 1. Pro-
jectile points were rare and consisted of two stemmed chert points (Figure
7B, 7C), two stemmed quartz point fragments (Figure 7A, 71), and one small
triangular Mississippian-type point fragment (Figure 8G). Two ground-stone
fragments, possibly from celts, also were encountered, along with a possible
slate gorget fragment (Figure 81). One drilled and scored steatite object
(Figure 9A) was recovered from Midden A; however, its function is unknown.

Botanical material recovered by water screening levels of Midden A
was restricted to charred wood fragments. No faunal remains were encoun-
tered. The absence of bone within the midden is most probably due to decom-
position resulting from acidic soil conditions (see U.S. Department of
Agriculture 1972).

Midden B varied in thickness from 10 cm to 40 cm but was most often
20 cm thick. Formation of this midden appears to be absent or at least
minimally represented in squares 30 L 6, 36 L 36, and 102 L 12. Density of
cultural material within Midden B, as indicated by the weight density of
pottery within the screened levels of each square, was far lower than that
of Midden A. Figure 10 shows the weight-density distribution of pottery
across the site area. As compared to Midden A this distribution is somewhat
more erratic, with high-density areas occurring at four separate locations.
It appears that intensive deposition zones are more dispersed across the
site; however, the basic deposition zone is located in the same general area
as that of Midden A. Primary deposition of Midden B occurs parallel to the
river between the grid north 36 line and the grid north 96 line.

An inventory of cultural materials encountered within Midden B is pre-
sented in Table 1. Pottery represented in the midden may be classified














Sqr. 3 L 12
'Overburden 0-130 cm
Midden A 130-160 cm
Midden B 185-220 cm

Sqr. 30 L 6
IOverburden 0-10 cm
Midden A 10-30 cm
Midden B Absent
Sqr. 36 L 36
Overburden 0-10 cm
Midden A 10-40 cm
Midden B Absent
Sqr. 42 L 6
Overburden 0-30 cm
Midden A 30-65 cm
Midden B 65-85 cm
Sqr. 42 L 12
Overburden 0-20 cm
Midden A Absent
Midden B 20-50 cm
Sqr. 48 L 0
Overburden 0-30 cm
Midden A 30-75 cm
Midden B 75-95 cm
Sqr. 48 L 18
Overburden 0-25 cm
Midden A 25-35 cm
Midden B 35-60 cm
Sqr. 48 L 24
Overburden 0-25 cm
Midden A 25-35 cm
Midden B 35-55 cm
Sqr. 54 L 0
Overburden 0-30 cm
Midden A 30-40 cm
Midden B 40-80 cm
Sqr. 60 L 18
Overburden 0-35 cm
Midden A 35-55 cm
Midden B 55-75 cm

Sqr. 66 L 12
Overburden 0-25 cm
Midden A 25-45 ca
Midden B 45-55 cm
Sqr. 66 L 24
Overburden 0-25 cm
Midden A 25-45 cm
Midden B 45-85 cm


i7.1 28.6


'5.0 25.C


4.0 f0.0124.0 4.0


34.216.1
32.240.3


3.6 137.81 19.832.4


13 15.4 69.2 15.
343 7.9 47.2 32.:
29 10.3 31.0 34.!


76.5 5.911.8
54.0 35.11 4.7
27.9 42.6 14.7


62.5 37.'
57.5 31.(
39.2 45.(



63.8 27.5
33.3 60.


V _W W U s4 W 0.
Si 0. -O 00l uO OO O M j.,.
' 45 0 0550 111 'a
Seoic jj' jj'.n uc 4J' j
e1 U ( 0 S 5 '"4 U 44 5 V
0 W 0 .0 o -. 0 o h 0 U rn O .
iC 0000 0 0 00 9 0
-H 0L z Q M -4 0 05 5 0
Hr H : Hf H H H


8.3A 8.3


2.5 0.21 0.2


3. 1.7


1.112.3


3.51 2.3


0.8 0.8


0
mt e~
o.4
0n 5. a)
U 4
M-1 iIM ,,1
0 el }
) -< 5 4
4'U 54.O


1 1


Other Artifacts


1 Mississippian Triangula
Projectile Point

















1 chert spall, I chert
scraper



















1 chert point w/notched
base









*also 1.2% Etowah con-
centric circle stamped


Table 1. Excavation units and recovered artifacts.


_


iI . ~


Provenience 1 o -I" -












Provenience


Sqr. 72 L 12
Overburden 0-35 cm
Midden A 35-55 cm
Midden B 55-65 cm
Sqr. 78 L 0
Overburden 0-30 cm
Midden A 30-80 cm
Midden B Absent
Sqr. 78 L 6
Overburden 0-30 cm
Midden A 30-65 ca
Midden B 65-85 cm
Sqr. 78 L 18
Overburden 0-45 cm
Midden A 45-75 cm
Midden B 75-85 cm
Sqr. 84 L 36
Overburden 0-30 cm
Midden A 30-65 cm
Midden B 65-85 cE
Sqr. 90 L 6
Overburden 0-30 cm
Midden A 30-65 cm
Midden B 65-75 cm
Sqr. 96 L 6
Overburden 0-40 cm
Midden A 40-75 ca
Midden B 75-85 cm
Sqr. 102 L 12
Overburden 0-45 ca
Midden A 45-85 ca
Midden I Absent ?


Sqr. 114 L
Overburden
Midden A
Midden B
Sqr. 120 L
Overburden
Midden A
Midden B


30
0-35 cm
35-55 cm
55-65 cm
12
0-55 cm
55-90 cm
90-110 cm


C..

o 'L


)4. r a 0 F 0-0 0
O3 O O O0 U

uC C


m

(4J 4

4- a.t 4
:I 4


- 4 I I -- '- -4 I -- 4 '- r- 4 I- I +_ I- -* + I- 4_ -


1230
435


52.028.C
49. 38.6


10.853.328.,
5.7 37. 40.9


27.7 6.!
30.0 20.(


24.5 2.(
26.9 19.


80.( 20.C
60.( 16.7
64. 7.1


90.( 10.C
48.1 8.1


2.8 2.8


0.71 2.01 2.01 2.0


1.71 6.1


1.3 4.5


1.911.3


3.6 0.9 0.9 0.9


1.4 1.4 1.4


Other Artifacts


1 perforated slate
fragment








*bowl fragment








1 quartz, stemmed
perforator






1 quartz scraper


Table 1. Continued.


18.d 0.9 1.8 10.82.7








61


Figure 5. Complicated Stamped Pottery. A. Woodstock
Lined Diamond; B. Woodstock Herringbone;
C. Woodstock Herringbone; D. Woodstock Line
Block; E. Woodstock Line Block; F. Woodstock
Nested Diamond; G. Swift Creek; H. Swift
Creek; I. Etowah Nested Diamond.


Figure 6. Other Decorated Pottery. A. Woodstock
Incised (?); B. Woodstock Incised-
Punctated; C. Cartersville Simple
Stamped; D. Cartersville Check Stamped;
E. Dunlap Fabric Marked; F. Carters-
ville Simple Stamped Foot; G. Carters-
ville Check Stamped Foot.


' <

















































Figure 7. Lithic Artifacts.


Figure 8. Lithic Artifacts.






CROOK


into two major types: Cartersville Check Stamped and Cartersville Simple
Stamped. Plain pottery also was common, but was far less frequent than in
Midden A. Dunlap Fabric Marked pottery occurred as a minority type within
the midden and Woodstock Incised-Punctated, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped,
and Etowah Complicated Stamped sherds occurred with such infrequency that
they are probably incidental inclusions. Physical characteristics of the
majority wares within Midden B conform to the descriptions given of them
in Midden A.

Lithic artifacts associated with Midden B are listed in Table 1. Chert
and quartz flakes as well as other stone artifacts were less common in Midden
B than in Midden A. Two projectile points were encountered. One was an
indented base quartz point (Figure 8B) and the other a stemmed chert point
(Figure 7E). The only other chipped-stone artifact was a small stemmed
quartz perforator (Figure 7M). A single fragment of a carved steatite bowl
also was recovered from the midden.

Botanical material was restricted to charred-wood fragments; however,
their occurrence was much less frequent than in Midden A. As with Midden A,
faunal material was absent.

Two features were exposed in the test pits, one at the base of Midden A
and another at the base of Midden B. Feature 10 was a rock-filled pit that
extended beneath the base of Midden B within square 72 L 12 (Figure 11).
This feature originated at or very near the base of the midden, 65 cm be-
neath the present surface. The pit measured 150 cm in diameter at its upper
surface, had sloping walls, and a rather flat base which terminated 20 cm
beneath the base of the midden. The pit was filled with unmodified slabs
of micaceous schist and gneiss. Such stones are common along the hillsides
near the site and were probably obtained there. The soil matrix among the
stones contained charred wood fragments and a few potsherds. Charred debris
was most concentrated in the base of the pit and a thin charred layer was
present beneath the stones.

The stones were removed from Feature 10 and the soil matrix was screened
through 1/4 inch mesh. Larger fragments of charred wood were secured for
C-14 analysis and approximately 1 liter of the charred debris was recovered
for water screening. Sixteen potsherds were encountered among the stones.
Eleven were Cartersville Check Stamped, appearing to be portions of two
vessels. Four sherds were plain and a single Cartersville Simple Stamped
sherd was represented. Botanical analysis of the water-screened sample
identified 1.95 gm of charred acorn husks (Quercus sp.)along with charred
pine fragments (Pinus sp.). C-14 analysis of charred wood fragments among
the stones yielded an age estimation of B.C. 485+/- 80 (U.M. #1676).

The most probably conclusion to be drawn about Feature 10 is that it
was an earth oven used early during the Cartersville Period. A recon-
struction of its function may be postulated. It appears that a fire made
of pine wood was built in a shallow pit and stones were placed over the
embers. Once the stones were heated, acorns were spread on top. The pit
and its contents were probably covered with skins or some other material at
this point. As water vapor expanded within the acorn husks the shells would
have exploded, leaving nut meats to parch over the hot stones. After a
period of time, the pit covering would have been removed and the cooked meats






CHESTATEE


Figure 9. Lithic Artifacts.


0 S:lml~








CROOK


0 0
--


'Opt







Qft





0.7--


8<-1 sd 30-152 gm
* -1 sd 153-477 gm
* +1 sd 478-801 gm
*>+1 sd 802-1020 gm


Weight-density distribution of pottery within
Midden B. Grams per cubic meter represented.


~V~q
L- ~


Figure 10.






CHESTATEE


recovered from among the stones. This would have been an energy-efficient
means of processing acorns.

Feature 11 originated 10 cm above the base of Midden A within square
78 L 0 (Figure 12). Midden B was undetected in this square. Feature 11
consisted of two overlapping shallow pits, designated Features lla and llb.
It was impossible to determine the construction sequence of the two pits as
the physical appearance of their fills was identical. Feature lla measured
approximately 110 cm in diameter and had rather straight sides. The base
of this pit sloped up from west to east, with the western base extending
20 cm below the top of the feature and the eastern base extending 10 cm
beneath the top. Fill was composed of dark grey humic sandy clay with
dispersed fragments of charred wood. The fill was screened through 1/4
inch mesh and approximately 3 liters of the matrix was recovered for water
screening.

Cultural material within the fill consisted of 14 plain sherds (51.9%),
8 Cartersville Simple Stamped sherds (29.6%), 2 Cartersville Check Stamped
sherds (7.4%), and 1 Dunlap Fabric Marked sherd (3.7%). A single river
cobble with abraded edges also was recovered from the fill. Botanical
analysis of material recovered by water screening showed the charred wood
fragments to be of ring porous hardwood (e.g. oaks, ashes, elms, and chest-
nuts). A small quantity (less than 0.05 gm) of hickory nut shell (Carya
sp.) also was identified.


* ,. ~- .LPa
.4V


Figure 11.


Feature 10, exposure complete, view to
the North.






CROOK


79 L 0

Expanded 3m x 3m
Test Pit


---- -- -- 0. 0
A. Overburden
B. Grey Sandy Clay, Midden A
E C. Red Sandy Clay
D. Shallow Post Hole
E. Feature lla
1 F. Feature llb
Meter G. Temporary Base of Excavation


Original 2m x 2m
Test Pit
76 L 0
77.5 L 0
77.5 L 377.5 L 0

A



B


B E

C

0 50 100
I . .Il I
centimeters

Figure 12. Feature 11



Feature lib measured 100 cm in diameter and maintained a depth of only
5 cm to 7 cm. Its fill was identical to that of Feature lla. The matrix
was screened through 1/4 inch mesh and approximately 2 liters was processed
by water screening. Eight potsherds were encountered, consisting of 3 Carters-
ville Simple Stamped, 2 Cartersville Check Stamped, 2 unidentified curvilinear
complicated stamped, and 1 plain. Botanical analysis of the water-screened
samples identified pine wood fragments (Pinus sp.) and a small quantity (less
than 0.05 gm) of hickory nut shell (Carya sp.).

Feature 11 (a and b) appears to have been refuse pits which functioned
sometime following the introduction of Cartersville type and complicated
stamped pottery. Floral material within the pits indicates that they were
repositories for subsistence debris as well as food preparation debris.
Associated pottery may indicate that the feature was used sometime late
during the Cartersville Period. Also, it should be noted that the absence
of Midden B in square 78 L 0 may be due to disturbances resulting from the
construction of Feature 11.






CHESTATEE


The final part of the controlled test pit excavations at the Chestatee
Site consisted of testing the natural levee. A single 3m x 3m square
(3 L 12) was positioned on top of the levee and excavation proceeded in 10 cm
levels using the same recovery techniques as with the previous test pits.
At a depth of 90 cm, a 50 cm wide balk was established around the sides of
the excavation to prevent slumpage, forming an interior 2m x 2m square.

The soil profile of the northern wall of the levee test pit is shown
in Figure 13. The upper 110 cm of the levee was sterile, composed of a
thin topsoil zone underlain by successive alluvial deposits. The remains



3 L 15 3 L 12


A. Brown Sandy Topsoil
B. Tan Layered Sand, Alluvium
C. Light Red Sand, Alluvium
D. Red Sand, Alluvium
E. Red Sand with Humic Inclusions


Figure 13.


F. Humic Sandy Clay, Plow Zone
G. Humic Sandy Clay
H. Grey Organic Stained Sand,
Midden A
I. Grey and Tan Organic Stained
Sand, Midden B
J. Red Sandy Clay


Soil profile of the levee north wall
of square 3L12.






CROOK


of what appears to have been an old plow zone exhibiting furrows was re-
cognized beneath these alluvial deposits. A single fragment of blue on
white pearlware was recovered from the base of one of the furrows. Pearl-
ware was quite popular during the early 19th century and decreased in pop-
ularity around 1820 (No6l Hume 1969:130). While more evidence would be
desirable, the pearlware suggests that the 110 cm of alluviation in the
levee has occurred over the past 150 or so years and that the site area was
an agricultural field during the early 19th century.

Of importance for the prehistoric occupation sequence at the Chestatee
Site, two discrete cultural middens were present beneath the old plow zone
in the levee. The first, more recent, midden was located 130 cm to 160 cm
beneath the present surface. Seven potsherds were encountered in this
midden: 4 plain, 2 Cartersville Simple Stamped, and 1 Woodstock Line Block
Stamped. This midden is considered to correspond to Midden A within more
northern areas of the site. The second, earlier, midden was separated from
the first by 25 cm of alluvial sand. This midden extended 185 cm to 220 cm
beneath the present surface. Its associated cultural material consists of
3 Cartersville Check Stamped sherds, 1 Dunlap Fabric Marked sherd, and a
single unutilized chert flake. This lower midden is considered to corre-
spond to Midden B in the northern site area.


Phase IV

As sub-surface features were encountered during the course of controlled
test pit excavation, it was decided that the potential existed for other such
features in the site area and that these could be exposed by mechanized strip-
ping. As a provision to the Antiquities Act Permit issued the project, the
decision to strip was a result of on-site review of the proposed techniques.
This review was attended by myself and representatives of the Federal Highway
Administration, Georgia Department of Transportation, Mobile District U.S.
Corps of Engineers, and Interagency Archaeological Services--Atlanta. This
meeting led to valuable exchanges of ideas concerning stripping methods. An
area of the right-of-way extending between the grid north 40 line and the grid
north 84 line was delineated for stripping, as this zone defined the area of
most intensive prehistoric occupation. In addition, a 4 m wide strip ex-
tending north of this zone to the grid north 124 line was investigated to
determine the existence of any peripheral features (see Figure 14).

Stripping proceeded in two stages. First, the overburden was removed
with a pan-loader (Figure 15) and the upper surface of the midden was in-
spected.

Feature 14 was encountered directly beneath the overburden upon the
upper midden surface. The midden surface just to the west of the feature
was inadvertently dug too deep during stripping and apparently destroyed
the western-most portion of the feature. The remaining elements of Feature
14 consisted of a hearth and several charred wooden posts (Figure 16). The
hearth-bed was oval with a slightly depressed center containing charred wood
and ashy humic grey sandy clay. The bed was formed of bright orange, heat-
altered clay. Charred wood fragments were quite dense in an area immediately
surrounding the hearth. Four in-place charred posts were located east of
the hearth, along with several pieces of charred timbers. The posts measured
4 cm to 7 cm in diameter and extended no more than 10 cm into the surface of








CHESTATEE


+L40


Extent of mechanically stripped
zone, showing locations of
cultural features.


30+4LO


120 +


130






CROOK


the midden. Botanical analysis of one of the posts concluded that the wood
was of a species of pine (Pinus sp.).

A cluster of 11 Woodstock Lined Diamond Stamped sherds, all from the
same vessel, was located just beyond the western margin of the hearth.
Sherds within this cluster were burned. Other pottery encountered on the
surface of the midden within a 2 m radius of the hearth consisted of 11
Cartersville Simple Stamped and 5 plain sherds. A small green-stone celt
(Figure 9C) was located 25 cm north of the hearth, within the surrounding
charred zone. A carbon sample from the hearth-bed was submitted for C-14
analysis and yielded an age estimation of A.D. 970 +/- 105 (U.M. #1675).

It may be concluded that Feature 14 is the remains of a Woodstock
Period structure. Indications are that the house burned and was abandoned.
The shallow depth of the remaining charred posts suggests that the house may
have been a rather insubstantial structure. Also it may be speculated that
the fire was accidental or at least unexpected, as household possessions
appear to have been in-place at the time of the fire. A final and important
indication from this feature is that it represents a terminal period of
prehistoric occupation at the site, as its location is directly upon the
upper surface of the cultural midden.


Figure 15. Mechanical stripping with a pan-loader.







CHESTATEE


47.75 L 11.25
t








---0





-50





--100
Centimeters












43 L 11.25


47.75 L 9.25
+















D D




















43 L 9.25 +


Figure 16. Feature 14 as observed at the base of the overburden.


Hearth
Charred Wood Fragments
Charred Timbers and Fragments
Recent Intrusion
Machinery Track Disturbance
Charred Post






CROOK


Figure 17. Final mechanical leveling with a road patrol.




The second stage in mechanized clearing of the site area consisted of
stripping away the midden deposit to a level near its base where additional
cultural features could be detected. Stripping of the midden proceeded
using the pan-loader. Many successive passes were made over the investi-
gation area, each removing only a few centimeters of the midden. Freshly
exposed midden surfaces were inspected as stripping progressed and exposed
artifacts were collected. Use of the heavy machinery was discontinued a
few centimeters above the midden base because the pan-loader began to mire
in the underlying clay zone. At this point a small road patrol was used to
obtain a uniform, level surface (Figure 17). Final clearing involved skim-
ming the entire surface with shovels to provide the most uniform and fresh
surface possible. All features then were mapped with an alidade and plane
table.

A large sample of potsherds and a few lithic artifacts were collected
from the stripped midden zone. Controls were too gross to allow segrega-
tion of material into the two midden levels as was possible in the test
pit excavations. Following is an inventory of the artifacts recovered as
a result of stripping the midden.





CHESTATEE


Identified Pottery (total number of sherds = 1866)
Plain 52.7%
Cartersville Simple Stamped 31.3%
Cartersville Check Stamped 8.9%
Incised-Punctated (most appear to be Woodstock) 0.9%
Dunlap Fabric Marked 0.5%
Woodstock Complicated Stamped 3.1%
Lined Diamonds 63.2%
Herringbone 15.3%
Line Block 12.3%
Nested Diamond 8.8%
Etowah Complicated Stamped 0.3%
Nested Diamond 83.3%
Concentric Circle 16.7%
Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 0.4%
Unidentified Complicated Stamped 1.8%

Lithic Artifacts

Unutilized Chert Flakes 15
Unutilized Quartz Flakes 2
Stemmed Chert Projectile Points 2 (Figure 7D, 7H)
Stemmed Quartz Projectile Points 1 (Figure 7F)
Chert Projectile Point with Notched Base 1 (Figure 7G)
Mississippian Triangular Point, Chert 1 (Figure 8F)
Indented Base Quartz Projectile Points 3 (Figure 8A, 8C, 8D)
Unfinished Chert Projectile Point 1 (Figure 8E)
Shouldered Quartz Blades 2 (Figure 7J, 7K)
Steatite Bowl Fragments 3
Scored Steatite Fragment 1 (Figure 8H)
Cobble Hammerstone 1 (Figure 9D)
Celt Fragment 1 (Figure 9B)

Material collected from the midden corresponds well to that obtained
from the controlled test pits. Considering Midden A and Midden B are not
distinguished in the stripping collection, nearly the same type percentages
are represented. This is a rather firm indication that the controlled tests
provide a valid sample of cultural material within the investigated site area.

Features encountered at the base of the midden within the stripped zone
are shown in Figure 14. Features 10 and 11 were discussed earlier. Also,
it will be recalled that Feature 14 was located at the top of the midden
rather than at the base.

Two major classes of features apparent at the midden were rather amor-
phorus charred areas and post holes. Dimensions of the charred areas ranged
from about 30 cm to 140 cm in diameter. They appear to have been the result
of fires constructed immediately above their locations. That is, their
formation was due to heat alteration of the lowest midden and subsoil. The
largest charred areas occurred in a strip extending parallel to the river
near the grid north 70 line.

Post holes were frequent in the southern portion of the stripped zone,
just north of the eroded area. These measured from 10 cm to 25 cm in dia-
meter and never extended more than 15 cm into the subsoil. There appears
to have been two major areas of construction; however, no distinct post hole
patterns are recognized. There was little construction activity north of
the strip of charred areas.







CROOK


Other than the post holes and charred areas,only one additional feature
was encountered at the base of the midden. This feature, Feature 15, was a
circular pit with a flat bottom, rather straight sides, and a flaring top
(Figure 18). The pit measured 125 cm in diameter at its top, about 80 cm
in diameter at its center, and extended 72 cm beneath the base of the midden.
Fill of Feature 15 occurred in three distinct episodes. The basal 32 cm to
46 cm of fill consisted of dark grey sandy clay containing charred wood


0 20 40

centimeters


Figure 18. Profile of Feature 15.

A. Base of Midden
B. Grey Sandy Clay with Charred Wood Fragments
C. Charred Wood Fragments
D. Dark Grey Sandy Clay with Charred Wood Fragments
E. Mixed Red and Grey Sandy Clay
F. Red Sandy Clay







CHESTATEE


fragments. This was capped by a dense layer of charred wood fragments. The
remaining upper portion of the pit contained a lighter grey sandy clay fill
which was identical to the overlying midden.

The three fill zones were screened through 1/4 inch mesh and approx-
imately 2 liters of each matrix was retained for water screening. Carbon
samples also were secured from each zone. Pottery in the upper fill con-
sisted of 17 plain, 16 Cartersville Simple Stamped, and 2 Cartersville Check
Stamped sherds. Lithic material was restricted to 5 unutilized chert flakes.
Botanical analysis of the water-screened sample identified 0.05 gm of hickory
shell (Carya sp.) and less than 0.05 gm of acorn husks (Quercus sp.). The
charred wood fragments were of pine and ring-porous hardwood.

Wood in the charred layer also was of pine and ring-porous hardwood.
In addition, samples from this layer contained 1.90 gm of hickory shell,
less than 0.05 gm of acorn husks, 3 unidentified seeds, and one seed from
a Virburnam, a genus of small trees or large shrubs which bear edible berries
during July and August. The carbon sample from this layer was submitted for
analysis and yielded an age estimation of A.D. 530 +/- 80 (U.M. #1677).

The basal level of Feature 15 contained 32 plain sherds, 4 Carters-
ville Simple Stamped sherds, and one unidentified incised sherd. One un-
utilized chert flake and a channel flake of chert which was probably
utilized as a blade also were encountered. Botanical analysis of the water-
screened sample identified 1.00 gm of hickory shell and less than 0.05 gm
of acorn husks, along with fragments of pine and ring-porous hardwood.

The original function of Feature 15 is unclear. Its final use appears
to have been as a refuse pit sometime late during the Cartersville Period.
Incidental living debris, also of the Cartersville Period, accumulated in
the partially-filled pit after it was abandoned.


Conclusions

The Chestatee Site was occupied during the Cartersville Period and
during what appears to have been an early portion of the Woodstock Period.
The Cartersville occupation was the most intensive and had the longest
duration.

Analysis of pottery from the site has permitted the identification of
an early Cartersville deposit in the lower portion of the site's cultural
midden. This deposit, referred to as Midden B, was marked by high percent-
ages of Cartersville Check Stamped and Cartersville Simple Stamped pottery.
The primary settlement zone for the early occupation was within a 60 m wide
strip beginning at a point about 40 m from the river and extending parallel
to it.

The second and more recent portion of the cultural midden was marked
by high percentages of plain pottery, along with less Cartersville Simple
Stamped and Check Stamped, and the occurrence of Woodstock Complicated
Stamped sherds. This midden, referred to as Midden A, is considered to be
a mixture of a later Cartersville component with an early Woodstock component.
The primary settlement zone associated with these components was within a






CROOK


48 m wide strip beginning at a point about 40 m from the river and extending
parallel to it.

The pottery encountered at the Chestatee Site departed somewhat from
existing type descriptions. The Cartersville Check Stamped and Simple
Stamped pottery falls within the range given in the type descriptions with
respect to form, color, and decoration; however, the inclusion of mica and
occasionally crushed steatite in the paste of the Chestatee sherds makes
them distinctive (see Wauchope 1966:47-52, i.e. "Mossy Oak and Deptford
Simple Stamped" and "Deptford Check Stamped"; Caldwell n.d.:156-158, i.e.
"Cartersville Simple Stamped" and "Cartersville Check Stamped").

The Woodstock Complicated Stamped pottery at the Chestatee Site falls
within the ranges given in existing type descriptions, including the occur-
rence of micaceous paste (see Wauchope 1966:60; Hally 1970:8; Caldwell n.d.:
113). The only variation noted in the Chestatee sherds was the presence of
an additional complicated stamped motif, the nested diamond. This motif
consisted of carefully executed diamonds with rounded corners and is pro-
bably the precursor of the Etowah Nested Diamond design element.

Little can be added beyond the above statements with regard to the
original set of research problems defined for this investigation. The C-14
age estimates provide needed information about the chronological placement
of Cartersville and Woodstock components. The early Cartersville component
is dated at B.C. 485 +/- 80, as indicated by samples from Feature 10. The
late Cartersville component is dated at A.D. 530 +/- 80, based upon samples
from Feature 15.

The B.C. 485 +/- 80 date is the earliest thus far recorded for a Carters-
ville component and perhaps should be viewed with a degree of skepticism.
However,the date does fall within the generally, although not universally,
accepted time range for the period (e.g. Baker 1970; Caldwell 1958; Fairbanks
1954; Keller, Kelly, and McMichael 1962). On the other hand,C-14 estimates
from the proceeding Kellog Phase, marked by Dunlap Fabric Impressed pottery,
include dates which overlap with the early Cartersville date. Milanich (1973)
reports Kellog dates of A.D. 100 +/- 70 and B.C. 400 +/- 60 at the Garfield
Site in northwest Georgia and Baker (1970) references Kellog dates of B.C. 540
and B.C. 636 from the Mahan Site, also in northwest Georgia. It seems obvious
that more information is required to solve the problem of when Kellog ends
and when Cartersville begins. As more C-14 estimates are made available, it
also should become obvious which of the above dates are in error.

While the early Cartersville date will be considered by some investi-
gators to be too early, the late Cartersville date of A.D. 530 +/- 80 will
be considered by some to be too recent. I would argue that this 6th century
estimate should not be dismissed. Rather, its dismissal or acceptance should
await future data from other late Cartersville sites. I suspect that the
late date is accurate. In support of this suspicion, I would point to com-
parable late dates recorded for Deptford contexts on the Georgia coast (see
Caldwell 1970; Milanich 1977).

The final Woodstock occupation at the Chestatee Site dates to A.D.
970 +/- 105, as indicated by the carbon sample from Woodstock hearth (Feature
14). This date corresponds well to the A.D. 928 +/- 40 date obtained for a






CHESTATEE


Woodstock feature at the Potts' Tract Site in Murray County, Georgia (Hally
1970).

Any evaluation of the subsistence patterns associated with the Woodstock
and Cartersville occupations is extremely limited based upon existing data.
Acidic soil conditions at the site evidently destroyed all faunal material.
We do know from the ethnobotanical analyses that hickory nuts and acorns
were exploited during the Cartersville occupation, along with Virburnam
berries.

As a final note, I wish to make a couple of observations in the hope
that future mitigation excavations may profit from the experiences of this
one. First, it is clear that initial testing at the Chestatee Site should
have been more intensive to provide a reliable indication of the cultural
material represented at the site. This would have resulted in a firmer set
of research problems which would have had a greater potential for resolution.
The second observation is that the conclusions of this investigation are
limited by the spatial restraints of the contract. Quite simply, the re-
lationship of the site area within the investigated right-of-way to the
site as a whole is unknown. Provisions should exist to circumvent purely
bureaucratic restrictions on a research universe. While it is clear that
primary attention should be paid to the direct impact area of a project,
it should be possible to gather needed information from adjacent areas if
the site is important enough to be investigated in the first place.


Acknowledgements

The Georgia Department of Transportation provided many services which
contributed to the success of the field work at the Chestatee Site. Among
the DOT personnel, I particularly thank Toni Gardner, Rowe Bowen and Pete
Malphers for their assistance. Appreciation is also extended to Elisabeth
Sheldon of Auburn University for her analysis of excavated plant remains
and to the Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory of the Department of Geology,
University of Miami, for their analysis of carbon samples.


References Cited

Anderson, Nain E.
1976 Archaeological Survey of the Dahlonega Connector /APD-056-2(1)/
Forsyth, Dawson, and Lumpkin Counties, Georgia. Report on file
in the Office of the State Archaeologist, Carrollton, Georgia.

Baker, Steven G.
1970 Observations from the Lum Moss Site: An Interpretive Field
Report. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 13:
115-118.

Caldwell, Joseph R.
n.d. Survey and Excavations in the Allatoona Reservoir, Northern
Georgia. Manuscript on file at the Laboratory of Archaeology,
University of Georgia.







CROOK


1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United
States. American Anthropological Association, Memoir 88.

1970 Chronology of the Georgia Coast. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Bulletin 13:89-92.

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1954 1953 Excavations at Site 9 HL 64, Buford Reservoir, Georgia.
Florida State University Studies, Anthropology, 16:1-26.


Hally, David
1970


J.
Archaeological Investigation of the Potts' Tract Site
(9-Mu-103), Carters Dam, Murray County, Georgia. Univer-
sity of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series, Report
No. 6.


Kellar, James H., A. R. Kelly, and Edward V. McMichael
1962 The Mandeville Site in Southwest Georgia.
27:336-355.


American Antiquity


Kichler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United
States. American Geographical Society Special Publication,
No. 36.

LaForge, Laurence
1925 The Provinces of Appalachian Georgia. Geological Survey of
Georgia Bulletin, 42:55-93.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1973 Current Research: Southeast. American Antiquity 38:504.


1977


A Chronology for the Aboriginal Cultures of Northern St.
Simon's Island, Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 30:134-141.


Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York: Alfred
A. Knoff.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
1972 Soil Survey of Dawson, Lumpkin, and White Counties, Georgia.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wauchope, Robert
1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia. Society for
American Archaeology Memoirs, No. 21.




Morgan R. Crook, Jr.
West Georgia College
Carrollton, GA 30118









A DEFINITION OF THE MANASOTA CULTURE


George M. Luer and Marion M. Almy


The Manasota culture is a newly recognized, prehistoric aboriginal
culture. The culture existed from about 500 B.C. to about A.D. 800 in the
Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region of Florida, the area around Tampa Bay
and southward to just north of Charlotte Harbor (Fig. 1). The word "Manasota"
is a contraction of the names of the two counties "Manatee" and "Sarasota,"
and reflects the geographic area in which the cultural complex was first
recognized.

In this article, specific archaeologically derived culture traits of the
Manasota culture are identified (Table 1). The development through time of
the Manasota culture is examined and the adaptations of the Manasota culture
to the surrounding natural and cultural environments are discussed. Also,
this article provides information about sites located inland from the shore
of the central peninsular Gulf coast and about the significance of these sites
to the Manasota culture.


Background

The Manasota culture was identified (Luer and Almy 1979a, 1979b) after
research disclosed that the complex of culture traits that had defined the
Perico Island culture (Willey 1948, 1949) of the central peninsular Gulf coast
was not a valid complex. "Most of the traits which Willey attributed to the
Perico Island culture are in fact of two culture periods: the Florida Transi-
tional and a 'post-Florida Transitional' period" (Luer and Almy 1979b:l). For
decades, Willey's definition of the Perico Island culture has created major
problems for archaeologists working on the west coast of Florida.

One of the first problems appeared in the 1950s and 1960s when research
showed that the original geographic and temporal placement of the Perico
ceramic series (Perico Plain, Perico Linear Punctated, and Perico Incised)
was incorrect (Bullen 1950a, 1950b, 1959; Bullen and Askew 1965). Regarding
the geographic distribution of the Perico pottery, Bullen wrote that although

Willey postulated a Perico Island Period for the
area between Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor (Manatee, Sarasota, and
Charlotte counties) work done since then has produced a
few limestone-tempered sherds, possibly Perico Plain, but no decor-
ated pottery of the Perico Series south of Tampa Bay (Bullen and
Bullen 1956,ms; Bullen 1950a, 1950b, 1951) (Bullen and Askew 1965:
214-215).

In contrast, Bullen and Askew found that "to the north of Tampa Bay the situ-
ation is considerably different," where a ". concentration of Perico
ceramics occurs in Citrus and Hernando Counties with a few finds in Pinellas
County" and he concluded that "the Perico Series must be considered a local
development in Citrus and Hernando Counties .. ." (Bullen and Askew
1965:215). Furthermore, Bullen's research disclosed that the Perico Series
VOL. 35 NO. 1 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 1982







LUER AND ALMY


actually belonged to a brief, immediately post-Archaic culture which Bullen
(1959) named the Florida Transitional Period. Thus, the only clearly defin-
itive Perico Island traits, the Perico ceramics,were not of a Perico Island
culture.

Although Bullen's work clarified the problem of the Perico ceramic
series, other problems remained with Willey's definition. Other ceramic
types whichwere used to define "Perico Island" did not characterize any
culture between Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor.

From Bullen's work at several sites in Manatee and Sarasota
counties, from Luer's work at Roberts Bay, and from Luer and
Almy's work on Longboat Key, it was found that Miami Incised,
Okeechobee Plain and Belle Glade Plain pottery, traits which
Willey had attributed to Perico Island, were not produced by
the 'post-Florida Transitional' culture (Luer and Almy
1979b:2).

Instead, excavations showed that only undecorated sand-tempered pottery was
manufactured (Bullen 1950a, 1950b, 1951, 1952, 1955, 1971; Bullen and Bullen
1956, 1976; Luer 1977a and 1977b; Luer and Almy 1979a, 1979b). Hence, the
"Perico Island" ceramic assemblage, which had been based on limited evidence
from a single site, characterized no known culture.

The other remaining traits used to define "Perico Island" were not
definitive. For example, such traits as Busycon hammers,picks, and celts,
as well as bone projectile points, awls, and daggers were shared by many
Florida prehistoric cultures. Even Willey's "Perico Island" subsistence,
burial, and settlement traits were not distinctive. Thus, the problem be-
came: how to characterize and what to call the post-Florida Transitional
culture and period of the central peninsular Gulf coast?

Archaeologists working between Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor dealt with
this problem differently. To some investigators (Bullen 1950b, 1951, 1952,
1971, 1973; Bullen and Bullen 1976; Luer 1977b), the term "Perico Island"
came to mean the post-Florida Transitional period during which

S. the manufacture of undecorated gritty pottery became well
established in the Tampa Bay area and for hundreds of years was
the only kind of pottery made (Bullen 1955:55-56).

Other investigators continued to attribute the assemblage of traits which
Willey defined for "Perico Island" to the area between Tampa Bay and Charlotte
Harbor despite the lack of evidence for the existence of such a complex
(Gagel 1976; Almy 1976; Jones n.d.; Grange and Williams 1979; Burger 1979).
All these researchers, however, retained the "Perico Island" appellation
"apparently for lack of a name for this 'post-Florida Transi-
tional' period" (Luer and Almy 1979b:2). This resulted in even more confusion
because the term "Perico Island" had come to mean different things to differ-
ent researchers.


Identifying Manasota

By the late 1970s sufficient work had been done between Tampa Bay and
Charlotte Harbor that the authors could begin to identify the post-Florida






MANASOTA


25 km


Prong I
lehem Bridge


Perico


Whitaker


Roberts Bay


MEXICO


Venice Bea,


Region


Figure 1. Locations of Sites that Have Yielded Information Pertinent to
this Article. Black dots represent sites at which Manasota
components have been identified. Circles represent sand burial
mounds mentioned in text. Triangles represent occupational
sand mounds, squares represent occupational or activity areas
many of which yield evidence of long usage.


GULF







LUER AND ALMY


Transitional culture of the central peninsular Gulf coast. Confronted with
the problem of describing the culture, the authors began an investigation:
dozens of coastal sites were visited--mostly in Sarasota and Manatee counties;
published accounts of sites from Crystal River to Mound Key were studied;
and hundreds of artifacts from museums and private collections were examined.
Also, we talked with archaeologists familiar with the area and we reviewed
our own experiences in the field. From this investigation, an article was
published in 1979 in which we made the first effort at describing this unre-
cognized cultural complex which we named Manasota:

Archaeologically, the Manasota culture is characterized by
S. sites which yield evidence of an economy based on fishing,
hunting, and shellfish-gathering. The sites yield evidence of
burial practices involving primary, flexed burials. Ceramic
manufacture was limited to sand-tempered, undecorated .. pot-
tery such as flattened-globular bowls and pots with a con-
verged orifice. Many shell tools were used including fight-
ing conch shell hammers, left-handed whelk shell 'spokeshaves'
columellae and hammers. There was little use of stone
tools. Bone tools include barbs and simple points made from
longbones (Luer and Almy 1979a:41-42).

From our field work and our analysis of published site reports, we realized
that the Manasota culture had a particular distribution in time; that is,
from about 500 B.C. to about A.D. 800 (Luer and Almy 1979a:41). Our dating
of the culture was based primarily on stratigraphic evidence, especially
ceramic inventories and carbon-14 dates.

The spatial distribution of Manasota, from around Tampa Bay southward
to near Charlotte Harbor, was determined from the occurrence of artifacts
as well as from the extent of the particular subsistence and settlement
pattern described for Manasota in which Indians combined

S. marine and hinterland exploitation. Large, shoreside
sites, on or very near the mainland, were the major villages.
The necessity of proximity and easy access to regions of
sufficient area in which food could be reliably procured dictated
that villages straddle the marine and terrestrial environments.
A hinterland of several hundred square kilometers stretched
eastward of the village sites. Food bones in midden debris,
although less conspicuous than mollusk shell, substantiate that
a hinterland provided much food for the Indians .. (Luer and
Almy 1979a:42).

We also cited evidence to show that the Manasota culture was bordered by
different cultures to the north and south.

We presented additional information about the Manasota culture in a
later paper (Luer and Almy 1979b) discussing the relationship between Mana-
sota subsistence and settlement patterns and the environments of the central
peninsular Gulf coast (Fig. 2). We spoke of the Manasota culture giving way
to other cultures and subsistence patterns to the north of Tampa Bay as the
bays and pine flatwoods of the central peninsular Gulf coast change to low-
lying, coastal marsh and hardwood hammocks and to hilly xerophytic oak and






MIANASOTA


1 i
TURKEY \
V \ i 'OAK
COASTAL

MARSH '
NAND %
D : N HARD-
\BROOKSVILLE. HARDWO PINE
HARDWOOD 'WOOD\
GULF "
U/ \.L ". HAMMOCK'F
RIDGE : FOREST ORE
FOREST:
COASTAL \ C, A S '

LOWLANDS --

I *
POLK


S UPLANDS







GULF PINE FLATWOODS,
S/ 'FOR
P ?..--.-- 1




S U. I sFOR
COCOASTAL STA ^.I :



LOWLANDS
MANGROVE


a\( b U P) -

Figure 2. Central Gulf Coast of Florida Showing Primary Physiographic Divisions
(a, left) and Zones of Natural Vegetation (b, right); modified after
Davis (1967) and White (1970). Dashed and dotted line traces approx-
imate extent of Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region which roughly
corresponds to coastal zone of pine flatwoods.







LUER AND ALMY


longleaf pine forests. We then described how, at Charlotte Harbor, the
narrow bays and well-drained shores of the central peninsular Gulf coast
change to broad and shallow bays and to low, mangrove-covered shores which
supported the different subsistence and settlement patterns of the archaeo-
logically-different Caloosahatchee region. Also in that same paper, the
Manasota culture was described as an indigeneous cultural manifestation
displaying continuity as well as change through time; the later development
of the Manasota culture, which we recognized as having been Weeden Island-
influenced, was recently suggested by Milanich to have been one of several
Weeden Island-related peninsular cultures (Milanich 1980:13; Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980:112).

During the last two years, we have refined our understanding of the
Manasota culture. We have published a detailed study of ceramics which has
shown us more about Manasota pottery, and reinterpretation of existing data
has amplified our understanding of burial practices. Also, recent excavation
of sites inland from the shore has increased our knowledge of settlement
patterns. When we first defined Manasota, we identified components of the
culture at 14 shell middens. Many of these Manasota components occur in
deep shell middens which also yield evidence of several other culture periods,
from the late Archaic to Safety Harbor. Since we identified Manasota, we
have realized that shoreside sites are only part of the overall picture.
Recent testing and excavation at sites located inland from the shore have
yielded some evidence of the Manasota culture. These new findings have been
incorporated into this definition.


Settlement and Subsistence

Shoreside sites used by the Manasota people were spread linearly and
parallel with the shoreline. Large sites, probably village sites, cover
several acres and measure several meters in thickness. Many of these shell
middens form a well-defined elevated ridge paralleling the shore (Willey
1949; Bullen 1951; Gallagher and Warren 1975; Bullen and Bullen 1976; Luer
1977b). At several of these village sites, shell midden material was used
to construct what appear to be ramps that lead to the elevated ridge from
the surrounding terrain (Gallagher and Warren 1975; Luer 1977b). Evidence
is lacking for the size, shape, number, and orientation of the houses that
characterized these villages. The large village middens are found along the
shore of the mainland or along the shore of adjacent islands at intervals of
about 5 to 10 km (Fig. 1). At each large site, both the bay and extensive
areas of pine flatwoods are readily accessible. These extensive and exploit-
able areas probably allowed large sites to be inhabited throughout much of
the year. The areal requirement for the procurement of sufficient food prob-
ably also accounts for the distance between village sites. Small sites also
are found along the shores of the mainland, adjacent islands, and barrier
island and are distributed between the large sites. These small sites border
similar exploitable areas and probably were visited intermittently.

Inland from the shore, aboriginal sites exist in the pine flatwoods.
These sites usually occur on slightly elevated ground, often on a natural
ridge, near a source of freshwater such as a creek or bayhead. Multiple
habitats, including freshwater swamp, hardwood and sabal palm hammock, and
pine-palmetto woods, were readily accessible from these sites. The sites are






MANASOTA


MANASOTA CULTURE TRAITS (Table 1)
SETTLEMENT PATTERN

Sites Along Shore
Sites along shore on slightly elevated ground
Sites (large) probably villages:
on mainland and adjacent islands from where estuaries and
large areas of pine flatwoods readily accessible
spaced about every 5 to 10 km along shore
inhabited through much of year (inferred)
Sites (small):
on mainland and barrier islands
distributed between large sites
visited intermittently (inferred)

Sites Inland from Shore
Sites in pine flatwoods often on slightly elevated ground
Sites:
near sources of freshwater from where multiple habitats
readily accessible
intersperced through pine flatwoods
occupied for brief periods (inferred)

Sites usually have evidence of long usage (evidence of other culture
periods often present)

SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES

Activities Pursued from Shoreside Sites
Fishing in both estuaries and the Gulf
Hunting on mainland and nearby islands
Collecting of shellfish and crabs from estuaries
Gathering of various wild food plants (inferred)

Activities Pursued from Sites Inland from Shore
Fishing for freshwater fish (inferred)
Hunting of available animals (inferred)
Collecting of various freshwater shellfish and crustaceans (inferred)
Gathering of various wild plant foods (inferred)

COMMUNITY PATTERN

Shoreside Sites
Villages spread linearly and parallel to the shoreline
Village sites consist of large and deep shell middens:
some shell middens form a well-defined elevated ridge
shell midden material used to construct ramps at some sites
Small sites consist of shallow shell middens
No evidence for size, shape, number, and orientation of houses

Sites Inland from Shore
Sites consist primarily of cultural remains occurring:
in low hillock or mound of sand
on sand ridge or well-drained land






LUER AND ALMY


MANASOTA CULTURE TRAITS (con't)
TECHNOLOGICAL ACTIVITIES

Manufacture of undecorated, sand-tempered, thick-walled, large vessels:
Flattened-globular bowls (early)
rim form is inward-curving
lip form is chamfered or rounded
Pots with converged orifice
rim form is slightly inward-curving
lip form is rounded
Pots with straight walls (late)
rim form is straight
lip form is rounded

Ceramic Use, Secular
Used commonly at shoreside shell middens
Used less commonly at sites inland from the shore
Used in heavy-duty activities such as cooking

Ceramic Use, Sacred
See burial activities

Shell Tool Manufacturing (well developed)
Modification of heavy marine mollusk shell
Tools made by combining modified shell with other materials
Manufacture of many kinds of shell tools including:
Strombus (fighting conch)shell hammers
Mercenaria valve anvils, "notched" implements, and scrapers
Busycon shell spoons, pounders, celts, columellae, columella
barbs, "spokeshaves," and hammers
Fasciolaria shell columella "planes"
Noetia valve net sinkers

Shell Tool Use
Abundant at shoreside shell middens:
used in preparing and obtaining food
used in woodworking
Rare at sites inland from the shore

Stone Tool Manufacturing (poorly developed)
Chert modified to make projectile points, knives, scrapers, and drills
Mineralized bone modified to make tools
Sandstone modified to make chopping tools, abraders, and smoothing stones
Chert cores, blanks, and unfinished tools rare at shoreside shell
middens but present at some sites inland from the shore

Stone Tool Use
Stone tools used in hunting, preparing food, woodworking, and other
activities

Bone Tool Manufacturing (well developed inferred)
Modification of bone to make projectile points, awls, and barbs
Modification of stingray barbs to make points
Modification of shark teeth to make tools





MANASOTA


MANASOTA CULTURE TRAITS (con't)

Bone Tool Use
Bone tools used in hunting, fishing, and other activities
Bone tools commonly used at shoreside shell middens
Bone tools commonly used at sites inland from the shore (inferred)

Wooden Tool Manufacturing (well developed inferred)
Modification of wood to make dugouts, weapons, bowls,
structures, handles for tools, and other items (inferred)

Wooden Tool Use
Wooden tools used in hunting, fishing, food preparation, and other
activities at shoreside sites and sites inland from shore (inferred)

Ornamental Activities
Manufacture of items of adornment:
Oliva shell beads
Busycon shell gorgets
Shark vertebra beads

Designs and decorations:
ceramics undecorated
bone undecorated or rarely decorated
wood decorated (inferred)

BURIAL ACTIVITIES

Burials Concentrated in Certain Areas
Burials in shell midden (early)
Burials near shell midden in burial mound (late)
Burial mound of continuous use type

Kind and Placement of Burials
Primary flexed burials in midden debris (early)
Primary flexed burials, rarely extended or semi-flexed, in burial mound
Secondary burials in burial mounds (late)

Ceremonial Activity
Sherds spread on or included in burial area (not in caches):
sherds of indigenous sand-tempered vessels (abundant)
sherds of imported, decorated and undecorated vessels (rare)
Other grave goods included in burial area (not in caches)

ITEMS OF EXOGENOUS ORIGIN

Items Include Ceramics and Lithics
Ceramics include:
Deptford Check Stamped wares (early)
Sand- and grog-tempered plain (late)
Belle Glade Plain (late)
Pasco Plain (late)
St. Johns Check Stamped (very late)
Wakulla Check Stamped (very late)
Various "Weeden Island ceramic types" (late; sacred context only)

Lithics Include:
Various projectile points: Hernando, Sarasota, and Westo







LUER AND ALMY


often evidenced by cultural debris including lithic material, charcoal, and
perhaps potsherds and occasionally some marine shell (Browning 1973; Hemmings
1975; Martin 1976: Welch 1982; Florida Master Site File). Some of these sites
occur as a small, low hillock or "mound" of sand. Some of these sand hillocks
may have been purposefully constructed whereas other sand hillocks gradually
accumulated (Piper, Piper, and Almy 1980; Almy n.d.l; Florida Master Site
File). There is yet no evidence for structures at these sites, but there is
evidence that some sites had specific and limited uses (Almy n.d.l). As
discussed below, carbon-14 dates and ceramics indicate that some of the sites
inland from the shore were used during the Manasota period and could have been
visited for brief periods as Manasota people moved inland for intermittent,
perhaps seasonal, exploitation of resources (Almy n.d.l).

The Manasota people pursued a subsistence strategy which included fishing,
hunting, and gathering and entailed movement between shoreside sites and sites
located inland from the shore. This was a general subsistence strategy shared
by many peoples of peninsular Florida, but along the central peninsular Gulf
coast, certain elements of this strategy became more important and there de-
veloped a particular way of life. The most abundant and concentrated energy-
rich food available along the central peninsular Gulf coast was the fish of
the estuarine environment, and fishing became a very important subsistence
activity. The Manasota people supplemented their diet of fish by collecting
shellfish in the estuaries and by hunting game and gathering wild plant food
in the nearby pine flatwoods. Intermittently, perhaps seasonally during the
winter when fish are less abundant (Finucane 1965:18-20; Wang and Raney 1979:
49,54), they moved inland from the shore to exploit more distant terrestrial
and freshwater resources.

There is archaeological evidence that they caught sharks and rays of
about 10 species and boney fish of more than 15 species (Luer 1977a, 1977b;
Fraser 1980:77-80). The diversity of fish indicates that fishing methods
were employed that could secure bottom fish such as flounder, grassbed fish
such as seatrout, fast-swimming fish of open waters such as mackeral, and
surface fish such as mullet. Probably spears, nets, fishhooks, and dugouts
were used in fishing and possibly the bow and arrow and fish-wier were used
also.

The estuarine waters also supported the collecting of shellfish. Arch-
aeological evidence indicates that a large variety of shellfish, including
about 25 species, was collected by Manasota people. This diversity of mol-
lusks indicates that many habitats were exploited. For example, the beaches
of barrier islands yielded surf clams, the extensive beds of turtle grass in
the bays supported the collection of bay scallops, fighting conchs, and left-
handed whelks, and the tidal flats yielded quahog clams. Oyster beds and
mangrove roots yielded king's crowns and oysters.

There is also evidence which indicates that the Manasota people hunted
a great variety of animals. They apparently utilized most available animals.
Remains from shell middens are of such diverse animals as deer, wolf, opossum,
rabbit, rat, dolphin, red-breasted merganser, bald eagle, and various reptiles
and amphibians (Luer 1977a, 1977b; Fraser 1980). There is also some evidence
that the most intensely hunted animal was the deer (Fraser 1978:77). Large
game such as deer and dolphin might have been hunted with various spears and
harpoons bearing either bone or stone points. Smaller game might have been
taken with traps, snares, or the bow and arrow. Near sites inland from the
shore, a diversity of animals probably was taken also.






MANASOTA


Technology

The Manasota people were especially proficient at employing marine
shell and apparently bone and wood in a great variety of uses. They utilized
stone less intensively than shell and they made earthenware vessels of only
a few forms and of predominately a single kind of ceramic.

One of the distinctive Manasota traits was the manufacture of sand-
tempered, undecorated flattened globular bowls and pots with a converged
orifice (Fig. 3). These vessels are easily recognized from distinctive
inward-curving rim sherds with chamfered or rounded lips (Fig. 3). Sherds
from these vessels are often more than 1 cm in thickness. The authors (1980)
have studied this pottery in detail and, using stratigraphic evidence and
carbon-14 dates, have shown that it was the predominant kind of ceramic made
from about 300 B.C. to A.D. 700 along the central peninsular Gulf coast. From
about 300 B.C. to about A.D. 400 the pottery was especially thick and cham-
fered lips were common. Gradually, around A.D. 400, pottery became slightly
thinner and only rounded lips were made. By the end of the Manasota period,
around A.D. 700 or 800, the pottery became even thinner. Vessels of this
thinner ware were simple bowls or pots with a straight rim which had rounded
or flattened lips (Fig. 3).

The Manasota people were especially proficient at making tools from marine
shell. Heavy mollusk shell was readily available along the shore and they
modified shell and combined it with wood and other materials to make tools.
Shell satisfied the need for pounding tools and for sharp-edged cutting tools.
Picks, hammers, pounders, celts, spoons, barbs, and other tools were fashion-
ed from marine shell. Most shell tools seem to have been made for tasks
specific to the exploitation of marine resources and are found predominantly
at shoreside sites. The manufacture and use of fighting conch shell hammers
was a Manasota trait. Many of these small hammers have been found associated
with the distinctive thick Manasota pottery in strata dated from about 300 B.C.
to about A.D. 700. Significantly, the authors have found that these hammers
are rare or absent after about A.D. 700 or 800.

In the manufacture of tools, the Manasota people utilized stone less
intensively than shell. Naturally occurring, rounded pieces of hard sand-
stone were apparently utilized as hand-held chopping and pounding tools.
Some pieces of hard sandstone have worn surfaces and probably served as
abraders and smoothing stones and as various scraping tools. Mineralized
bone tools, including scrapers fashioned from mineralized shark teeth and
sea cow ribs, were used. Chert and agatized coral were fashioned into pro-
jectile points, scrapers, knives, drills, and other tools. Projectile points
utilized by Manasota people include Sarasota, Hernando, and Westo points
(Bullen 1975; Luer and Almy 1979a:41), some of which may be exogenous items
obtained from other cultures. The scarcity at shoreside shell middens of
cores, blanks, and unfinished tools may indicate that most tools of chert or
agatized coral were made elsewhere, some perhaps by Manasota people at some
sites inland from the shore. In general, however, tools of agatized coral
and chert are not abundant at Manasota sites, particularly in the southern
portion of the region. This scarcity may indicate that shell and perishable
material such as wood and bone were used instead of stone for making tools.

Bone, like shell, also satisfied the need for a strong material, which
could be sharpened. The bone tools found in Manasota shell midden components
indicate that animal bone was fashioned into points, awls, and barbs, that





LUER AND ALMY


Inward-curving rim with chamfered
lip from a flattened-globular bowl
(circa 500 B.C. A.D. 400)


I


Straight rim with rounded lip from
pot with straight rim
(circa A.D. 400 into Safety Harbor)


Slightly inward-curving rim with
rounded lip from a pot with a
slightly converged orifice
(circa 200 B.C. A.D. 700)


Outward-curving rim with flattened
lip from a simple bowl
(circa A.D. 800 into Safety Harbor)


Figure 3. Changes in Vessel Form During the Manasota Period.


I







MANASOTA


stingray barbs were fashioned into points, and that shark teeth were fash-
ioned into blades for cutting tools. These bone tools and implements were
used in hunting, fishing, and other activities. Bone is seldom preserved
in sandy soils and the scarcity or lack of bone tools at sites inland from
the shore is probably due to the deterioration of the bone.

Since wood also rapidly deteriorates, wooden artifacts of the Manasota
culture have not been found, but there is indirect evidence for the use of
wood. The use of dugouts and paddles can be inferred from archaeological
evidence such as the remains of open-water fishes in shell middens. The use
of wood for tool handles can be inferred from evidence such as the holes and
notches in certain shell artifacts. Also, the use of wood in the hafting of
stone and bone artifacts, such as projectile points, drills, and knives, can
be inferred. Wood apparently was used in hafting shell celts to make tools
which in turn probably were used to hew wood. The Manasota people probably
carved various types of wood into bowls, stools, floats for nets, boards,
masks, plaques, weapons, and other items. At Key Marco, there is archaeo-
logical evidence for the manufacture of these kinds of items by a neighboring
culture to the south which produced many artifacts similar to some produced
by the Manasota culture (Gilliland 1975).

Many of the ornamental activities of the Manasota people also can be
inferred. If wood was employed in the variety of uses hypothesized above,
then many of the wooden items probably were decorated by carving and painting.
A highly developed tradition of working and decorating wood could account for
ceramics having been ignored as an artistic medium. Bone and shell, however,
like wood, could be cut and carved, and some bone and shell probably was
decorated.


Burial Practices

Manasota burial practices changed greatly during the course of the Mana-
sota period. There is evidence at shoreside sites that the early Manasota
people interred primary, often flexed burials. Primary, flexed burials were
common during the late Archaic of central Florida (Wharton, Ballo, and Hope
1981:76; Jones 1981:81) and the Manasota people could have inherited this mode
of burial. The Manasota burials, like those of the late Archaic, were con-
centrated in certain areas, perhaps cemeteries. These early Manasota burial
areas were in midden debris and have been identified at more than half a dozen
shoreside village sites between St. Petersburg and Englewood (Luer and Almy
1979a:39-40). Gradually, like many Florida Indians, the Manasota Indians
adopted continuous use burial mounds. At first, Manasota people interred
primary flexed burials in the mounds. Gradually they changed to other forms
of interments including secondary, bundle burials (Bullen 1951, 1952; Bullen
and Bullen 1976). As discussed below, there is evidence for the change to
continuous use burial mounds by about A.D. 200 or 300.

Throughout the Manasota period, few grave goods were placed with burials.
Early in the period, burials in midden debris often lack accompanying grave
goods (Luer and Almy 1979a). This custom was continued in burial mounds such
as the Prine, Thomas, and Palmer mounds where artifacts are rarely associated
with a specific burial; artifacts which do occur were apparently scattered
over small areas of a mound and not deposited in caches (Bullen 1951, 1952;







LUER AND ALMY


Bullen and Bullen 1976). At first, only sand-tempered plain sherds were
placed in the mounds. The Manasota Indians did not manufacture a special-
ized sacred or mortuary ware but they used their own undecorated sand-
tempered ware in a sacred context (Table 2). Late in the Manasota period,
they sometimes placed exogenous items such as Weeden Island ceremonial
ceramics in a sacred context.

Evidence of the gradual changes in burial practices described above was
first outlined by Bullen. He noted that around Tampa Bay there was a ". .
gradual change in burial modes with bundle burials replacing flexed inhuma-
tions" (Bullen 1952:82). He also described that, within this continuum of
change, Weeden Island decorated sherds were associated with both flexed and
bundle burials and he inferred ". that the change from flexed to bundle
burial occurred entirely within the Weeden Island period" (Bullen 1952:83).

Subsequent work by the Bullens reinforces this theory of changing burial
practices during what is now referred to as the Weeden Island-related period
of the central peninsular Gulf coast (Bullen and Bullen 1976; Bullen n.d.;
Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Based on stratigraphic evidence and a carbon-14
date from the Palmer burial mound, there is evidence that bundle burials were
the most common form of interment by about A.D. 850 (Bullen and Bullen 1976:
41-42). These bundle burials were in the uppermost layer of the mound and
were underlain by primary flexed interments. Moreover, sherds of various
Weeden Island decorated types were concentrated in the uppermost layer and
were rare in the lowermost level of the burial mound.

The Palmer burial mound also yielded evidence for dating the primary,
flexed interments. The vast majority of sherds from the Palmer burial mound
(about 81%) were sand-tempered plain and were identical to those excavated
from the nearby middens. Significantly, the Bullens noted differences in
the distribution of sand-tempered plain rim sherds from the burial mound and
wrote that "straight rims are more common near the top and incurving rims are
more common near the bottom of the mound;" even some of the inward-curving
rim sherds had chamfered lips (Bullen and Bullen 1976:44). As already de-
scribed, incurving rim sherds often with a chamfered lip were made prior to
about A.D. 400. Hence, primary flexed burials in the lowermost level of the
Palmer burial mound probably originated prior to A.D. 400. Such an early
date for the use of sand burial mounds along the central peninsular Gulf coast
is supported by similar recently obtained carbon-14 dates for Weeden Island
burial mounds in northern Florida (Milanich 1980:14-15; Milanich and Fairbanks
1980:97-98).

In summary, the available evidence suggests the following changes in
burial practices for the Manasota period: (1) primary, often flexed, burials
in midden debris early in the period (500 B.C. to perhaps A.D. 200); (2) pri-
mary, often flexed, burials in burial mounds with only thick, sand-tempered
plain pottery (from perhaps as early as A.D. 200 to about A.D. 400); (3) pri-
mary, often flexed, burials in burial mounds with sand-tempered plain pottery
and a few decorated Weeden Island ceramics (about A.D. 400 to perhaps A.D.
600); and (4) secondary bundle burials in burial mounds with thinner, sand-
tempered plain pottery and more numerous Weeden Island ceramics (perhaps A.D.
600 to about A.D. 800). The latter two burial practices occurred during the
Weeden Island-related phase of the Manasota culture (Fig. 4).








MANASOTA


SAFETY HARBOR


A.D. 800





A.D. 600






A.D. 400
i


A.D. 0


500 B.C.

'LA. TRANSITIONAL


Figure 4. Approximate Temporal Distribution of Selected Culture Traits.


~ i.
* t*) 0
( sv~

0
0


0~3

0"
v4 ;





(0


c~R0

c-r


vs. 'o
0


n


0)
vs.-+ r
v-s B
0 r


0A 0


0







LUER AND ALMY


Items of Exogenous Origin

Perhaps through trade, warfare, and marriage the Manasota people
obtained items of non-indigenous origin. Various items were obtained, in-
cluding ceramics and probably some stone tools. Some exogenous items have
been found in both secular and sacred contexts. Small quantities of exotic,
decorated Weeden Island ceramics have been found only in sacred contexts.

The projectile points used by the Manasota people include Hernando,
Westo, and Sarasota points. Projectile points of these types occur over
wide areas of Florida and were used also by other cultures. In the Manasota
culture, some of these points may be items of exogenous origin.

Ceramics of exogenous origin are most common late in the Manasota period.
Early in the Manasota period, exogenous ceramics are very rare and only sherds
of check stamped Deptford pottery have been found (Luer and Almy 1979a).
Throughout the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region and late in the Manasota
period, sherds of Belle Glade Plain and undecorated sand- and grog-tempered
pottery, the latter possibly from northeastern Florida, occur but are un-
common (Luer and Almy 1980:212-213). In the northern portion of the region,
ceramics of the Pasco series can occur in small amounts; the occurrence of
Pasco ceramics increases sharply just north of Tampa Bay at the southern
boundary of the Northern Peninsular Gulf Coast region. At the Safford burial
mound (Table 2, Fig. 1), Pasco Plain sherds comprised about 23% of the total
number of sherds and at the Cypress Creek site inland from the shore near the
Hillsborough-Pasco county line, Pasco ceramics comprised 49% of the total
number of sherds excavated (Almy n.d.2). The abundance of Pasco ceramics at
the latter site contrasts sharply with the situation at Curiosity Creek,
another site inland from the shore located just 50 km to the south (Fig. 1),
where no Pasco ceramics were found and sand-tempered plain pottery predom-
inated (Almy n.d.l).

Sherds of exotic, decorated Weeden Island ceramics occur only in burial
mounds and only late in the Manasota period. Many of these sherds have
micaceous paste, indicating the ceramics were made in northern Florida where
micaceous clays occur. As Table 2 shows, the decorated Weeden Island ce-
ramics form only small percentages of the total number of sherds from burial
mounds and the absolute numbers of these sherds decrease from north to south.
In contrast, sherds of another exogenous ware, Belle Glade Plain, decrease
in abundance from south to north in the burial mounds.


Discussion

In the foregoing pages we have described the Manasota culture as we
presently understand it. We have identified many specific culture traits,
and the sum of these traits describes Manasota. Evidence for most of these
culture traits has been derived from clearly identifiable components at
shoreside sites. Other culture traits have been incorporated based on general
evidence from sites located inland from the shore; these little-studied sites
have yielded evidence of several culture periods, including some limited
evidence of the Manasota culture.

We must discuss what we have termed "sites located inland from the
shore" and explain how we have incorporated our understanding of these sites
into the definition of Manasota. Recent research, especially cultural












Ceramic Mound Safford1 Weednd Thomas3 Prine4 Pillsbury5 Palmer6
Island

Weeden Island Punctated 556 (2.2%) 49 235 18 (0.2%) 50 (0.8%) 9 (0.1%)
Dunns Creek Red 1195 (4.8%) 0 12 69 (0.6%) 122 (2.0%) 40 (0.5%)
Swift Creek Complicated
Stamped (late variety) 286 (1.1%) 3 36 12 (0.1%) 11 (0.2%) 0
Carabelle Incised 64 (0.3%) 82 12 0 11 (0.2%) 0
Carabelle Punctated 10 ( %) 2 3 6 (0.1%) 9 (0.2%) 0
Keith Incised 29 (0.1%) 26 12 1 ( %) 2 ( %) 0
Pasco Plain 5627 (22.5%) + + 791 (7.4%) 291 (5.0%) 75 (0.9%)
Wakulla Check Stamped 446 (1.8%) 101 88 252 (2.4%) 151 (2.6%) 35 (0.4%)
St. Johns Check Stamped 315 (1.3%) 22 91 58 (0.5%) 367 (6.2%) 139 (1.6%)
Sand-tempered plain
(Includes smooth plain 9815 (39.3%) + + 6888 (64.7%) 2443 (41.6%) 6926 (80.8%)
and residual plain)
Belle Glade Plain 46 ( 0.2%) + + 93 (0.9%) 382 (6.5%) 746 (8.7%)


Table 2. Numbers and Percentages of Selected Ceramics from Six Burial Mounds along the Peninsular Gulf
Coast. Table shows that certain "Weeden Island Ceramics" become rarer from north to south
(left to right in table) whereas other ceramics become more common. Absolute numbers of sherds
for each ceramic are recorded. Percentages are of the total number of sherds excavated from
each mound. (* percentages are not computed because collections are incomplete; + figures
are not given because collections are incomplete; 1 Bullen, Partridge, and Harris 1970; 2 Willey
1949:110-111; 3 Willey 1949:119-121; 4 Bullen 1951; 5 Bullen and Bullen [n.d., Florida State
Museum accession cards for Ma-31 ; 6 Bullen and Bullen 1976).







LUER AND ALMY


resource surveys and salvage excavations, has shown that aboriginal sites
are much more numerous inland from the shore of the central peninsular Gulf
coast than previously supposed. For example, in Hillsborough county, Deming
(1980:Fig. 1) recently analyzed approximately 350 aboriginal sites of which
more than 250 are located in inland areas of the country. Very little is known
about most of these sites but a picture has begun to emerge which shows that
there are different types of sites "inland from the shore" and that many had
long usage over several thousand years just as many shoreside sites also had.

We have used the term "sites inland from the shore" for several reasons.
First, it is our interpretation that many of these sites were used by Indians
who dwelled mostly along the shore. This is suggested by 1) the evidence of
limited activities at many of these sites; 2) the proximity of these sites
to the shore (within about 30 km) and 3) the occurrence at these sites of
lithics and ceramics, and occasionally marine shells and shell tools, similar
to those found at the large shoreside sites. Secondly, the term "site in-
land from the shore" contrasts with the term "inland site" which we prefer
to use for sites situated in interior regions of the peninsula. According to
this view, interior cultural areas which have been identified, such as Cades
Pond and Alachua (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980), Okeechobee Basin (Sears 1974),
and Peace River basin (Luer and Almy 1981:149), would be characterized by
"inland sites." Admittedly, distinct boundaries between "inland sites" and
distant "sites inland from the shore" are vague, but the terms do seem useful.
Indeed, boundary areas may have been broad, overlapping zones which accommo-
dated both coastal and inland peoples.

There are different types of sites located inland from the shore of the
central peninsular Gulf coast. Several burial mounds have been located, but
most sites inland from the shore are evidenced by 1) occupational sand mounds
containing varied cultural debris such as charcoal, lithics, and sometimes
ceramics; or 2) occupational areas often on well-drained land, also contain-
ing varied cultural debris. The latter type of site includes shallow and
small areas as well as deep and large areas. There is evidence that only
limited activities such as hunting, extracting, or quarrying may have occurred
at some of these areas. Numerous occupational areas and sand mounds have
been located and include those shown on Figure 1.

Along the central peninsular Gulf coast, there is evidence that many
sites inland from the shore had long usage. That is, the use of these sites
was probably sporadic or intermittent for several thousand years. Some of
the best evidence for "long use" comes from the excavation of an occupational
sand mound at Curiosity Creek (Almy n.d.l). That excavation uncovered:
1) charcoal and marine shell which were carbon-14 dated to about 600 B.C.,
500 B.C., and A.D. 500; 2) lithics which include fragments of three Archaic
stemmed projectile points, a Hillsborough point, and Hernando points and frag-
ments; and 3) ceramics including sherds of St. Johns Check Stamped and Pinellas
Plain pottery (post A.D. 800). There are also artifacts indicative of "long
use" at some occupational areas including the West Grove site in Manatee
county and the Parking Lot site in Hillsborough county, where test pits
yielded stemmed projectile points, Pinellas points, and sand-tempered plain
sherds (Browning 1973:28-34; McCullough 1979; Wharton 1981). In Hillsborough
and Manatee counties, cultural resource surveys and inventories have shown that
many other "sites inland from the shore" have evidence of more than one culture
period (Browning 1973, 1975; Hemmings 1975; Daniel, Wisenbaker, and Fryman
1979; Piper, Piper, and Almy 1980; Deming 1980; Almy n.d.2; Welch 1982).







MANASOTA


Within this general picture of "long use" of sites inland from the
shore, there is definite evidence of use during the Manasota period. At
Curiosity Creek, the date of about A.D. 500 (Beta-1025, 1485 B.P. 70)
clearly falls within the Manasota period; the site also yielded ceramics
and lithics characteristic of Manasota such as sand- and grog-tempered plain
trade ware, a thick incurving sand-tempered rim sherd, and Hernando points
(Almy n.d.l). At other sites, indirect support for the Manasota period comes
from the finding of Hernando, Westo, and Sarasota points, thick sand-tempered
plain pottery, and various trade wares. We believe that much evidence for
the utilization of these sites during the Manasota period will be found when
researchers obtain carbon-14 dates and clearly record details about ceramics
and other artifacts.


Manasota in Broader Contexts

By about 2,500 years ago in central Florida, the life-ways of the late
Archaic and the Florida Transitional periods were giving way to more sedentary
life-ways and to regionalism (Bullen 1959, 1965, 1970; Milanich and Fairbanks
1980). One area which developed a separate regional identity was "the central
Gulf coast or greater Tampa Bay region" (Bullen 1970:57). In this region, a
more settled existence apparently became possible as peoples adapted and re-
fined their basic subsistence strategy in order to exploit extensively the
abundant estuarine resources of the central peninsular Gulf coast. This
adaption apparently allowed the post-Florida Transitional people to reside
on the shore for much of the year and to stay for short intervals at sites
inland from the shore. Thus, in this region, there developed a particular
way of life, the Manasota culture.

According to this view, the early Manasota culture was an outgrowth of
the preceding cultures of western central Florida. Evidence consistent with
such an interpretation may lie in such a culture trait as primary burials,
possibly in cemeteries. Other culture traits, such as fighting conch shell
hammers and bone points, clearly continue from the late Archaic (Bullen and
Bullen 1976:Plates III and IV).

Gradually, the Manasota people received Weeden Island influences from
the north. Apparently influences from the Weeden Island "heartland" (Milanich
1980:4) led to the incorporation of burial mounds into Manasota burial prac-
tices. Probably additional Weeden Island influences eventually led to changes
in the modes of interments in these burial mounds. The late Manasota culture
became a Weeden Island-related culture, one of three peninsular Weeden Island-
related cultures recently identified and described by Milanich (1980). These
three Weeden Island-related cultures:

S. do not include such traits as pattern burial mounds with
east-side pottery deposits and central burials; and Kolomoki-
style pedestaled effigy vessels are rare or absent. The be-
havioral patterns associated with these traits may also be
absent (Milanich 1980:14).

Further influences from the north led to the Mississippianization of the
late Manasota culture which became the Safety Harbor culture. There are many
significant continuities between the two cultures, but many changes did occur
including the appearance of temple mounds, plazas, beakers and bottles,







LUER AND ALMY


Pinellas Plain pottery, and new utilitarian vessel forms. By about A.D. 800,
the manufacture of Pinellas Plain pottery was introduced along the central
peninsular Gulf coast (Luer and Almy 1980). This ware is related to several
Mississippian ceramic types including the Ingram Plain of Georgia, which have
similar ware characteristics and even share lip-notching or "nicking" (Schnell,
Knight and Schnell 1979:283-285). Many Pinellas Plain vessels were simple
bowls (Fig. 3); sand-tempered plain pottery remained dominant, but the common
form of this ceramic became the simple bowl by around A.D. 800 (Luer and Almy
1980). A classic hallmark of Mississippian culture, the ceramic bottle, may
have appeared before A.D. 1000 along the central peninsular Gulf coast. Safety
Harbor Incised bottles resemble Nunnally Incised bottles in Georgia which
appeared by about A.D. 900 (Schnell et al.1979:279-283). Consistent with
this early date are three carbon-14 dates of about A.D. 900 (UM1742, 940 60;
UM1805, 1175 50; UM1806, 1045 65 years before present) from a burial mound,
near Charlotte Harbor, which yielded Safety Harbor Incised bottles (Luer 1980).
Recent research, which supports the introduction of temple mounds by about
A.D. 1000 along the central peninsular Gulf coast, also suggests the impor-
tance of agriculture during the Safety Harbor period (Luer and Almy 1981).

A significant continuity from Manasota, however, was that major Safety
Harbor sites remained primarily along the shore, many situated at the same
locations as late Manasota sites (Luer and Almy 1981). Also, the Safety
Harbor people continued to use many of the same burial mounds as the late
Manasota people and apparently continued the tradition of interring few grave
goods with individual burials. The few Safety Harbor burials which have been
found in temple mounds lack the accompanying paraphernalia often found with
burials in Mississippian platform mounds elsewhere in the southeast. In
summary, available evidence indicates that the late Manasota culture developed
into the Safety Harbor culture, the local manifestation of the widespread
Mississippian culture.


References Cited

Almy, Marion M.
1976 A Survey and Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in
Sarasota County, Florida. M.A. thesis on file, Department
of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.

n.d.l Salvage Excavations at Curiosity Creek: An Inland, Short-term,
Multi-period, Aboriginal Occupation in Southern Hillsborough
County, Florida. MS to be published by Florida Division of
Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee.

n.d.2 Salvage Excavations at Cypress Creek: An Inland, Short-term,
Multi-period, Aboriginal Occupation in Northern Hillsborough
County, Florida. MS to be published by Florida Division of
Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee.

Browning, William D.
1973 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Florida Power
and Light Company's Manatee Power Plant. Florida Division
of Archives, History and Records Management, Miscellaneous
Project Report Series No. 6, Tallahassee.






MANASOTA


1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Inter-
national Mineral and Chemical Company Kingsford Plant
in Hillsborough County, Florida. Florida Division of
Archives, History and Records Management, Miscellaneous
Project Report Series No. 24, Tallahassee.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1950a Perico Island: 1950. Florida Anthropologist, 3:40-44.

1950b Tests at the Whittaker Site, Sarasota, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist, 3:21-30.

1951 The Terra Ceia Site, Manatee County, Florida. Florida
Anthropological Society Publication, No. 3.

1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County,
Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Report of Investi-
gations, No. 8.

1955 Archaeology of the Tampa Bay Area. Florida Historical
Quarterly, 6:9-37.

1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. (15th) Newsletter,
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 6:43-53.

1965 Florida's Prehistory. In: Florida From Indian Trail to
Space Age, edited by Charlton Tebeau, pp. 305-316. Delray
Beach: Southern Publishing Co.

1970 Regionalism in Florida During the Christian Era. Florida
Anthropologist, 23:57-61.

1971 The Sarasota County Mound, Englewood, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist 24:1-30.

1973 Introduction in Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast.
Antiquities of the New World, Early Explorations in
Archeology. Vol. 18 AMS Press, Inc., New York, pp.
vii-xi.

1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points.
Revised Edition. Kendall Books, Gainesville.

n.d. Field notes concerning the Pillsbury site (in the possession
of Adelaide K. Bullen).

Bullen, Ripley P. and Walker Askew
1965 Tests at the Askew Site, Citrus County, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist, 18:201-217.

Bullen, Ripley P., Walter Askew, Lee M. Feder, and Richard L. McDonnell
1978 The Canton Street Site, St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida
Anthropological Society Publications, No. 9.







LUER AND ALMY


Bullen, Ripley P. and Adelaide K. Bullen
1956 Excavations on the Cape Haze Peninsula, Florida. Con-
tributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences,
No. 1.

1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society
Publications, No. 8.

n.d. Florida State Museum accession cards for Ma-31, Pillsbury
Burial Mound; on file, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.

Bullen, Ripley P., William L. Partridge, and Donald A. Harris
1970 The Safford Burial Mound, Tarpon Springs, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist, 23:81-118.

Burger, William
1979 Man in the Coastal Zone: Bishop Harbor/Terra Ceia Island,
Manatee County, Florida. Unpublished B.A. thesis on file,
New College of University of South Florida, Sarasota.

Daniel, Randy, Michael Wisenbaker, and Mildred Fryman
1979 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Seven Proposed
Recreation Resource Sites in the Lower Hillsborough River
Flood Detention Area, Hillsborough County, Florida; on
file, Florida Division of Archives, History and Records
Management, Tallahassee.

Davis, John J.
1967 General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida. Agricultural
Experiment Station, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences. University of Florida, Gainesville.

Deming, Joan
1980 The Cultural Resources of Hillsborough County: An
Assessment of Prehistoric Resources. Published by
Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board,
Tampa.

Finucane, John H.
1965 Faunal Production Report. Fish Biological Station, St.
Petersburg Beach, Florida. Fiscal Year 1965. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Circular 242:18-22.

Fraser, Linda
1980 Faunal Analysis of the Venice Site. Bureau of Historic
Sites and Properties Bulletin No. 6, Tallahassee.

Gagel, Katherine
1976 A Prehistoric and Historic Survey of the Bay Pines Veterans
Administration Hospital Property, Pinellas County, Florida.
Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Manage-
ment. Miscellaneous Publication No. 39, Tallahassee.







MANASOTA


Gallagher, John C. and Lyman O. Warren
1975 The Bay Pines Site, Pinellas County, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist 28:96-116.

Gilliland, Marion Spjut
1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida. The University
Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Grange, Roger T. Jr., and J. R. Williams
1979 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Ward Lake Project,
Manatee County, Florida. MS on file, Department of
Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.


Hemmings,
1975


Thomas E.
An Archaeological Survey of the South Prong of the Alafia
River, Florida. Florida Anthropologist 28:41-51.


Jones, Calvin
1981


n.d.


Luer, George
1977a


Florida Anthropologist Interview with Calvin Jones Part
II: Excavations of an Archaic Cemetery in Cocoa Beach,
Florida. Florida Anthropologist 34:81-89.

Phase II Archaeological Salvage Proposal for Sites Located
Along 1-75 in Hillsborough County, Florida. MS on file,
Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Manage-
ment, Tallahassee.


M.
Excavations at the Old Oak Site, Sarasota, Florida: A
Late Weeden Island-Safety Harbor Period Site. Florida
Anthropologist 30:37-55.


1977b The Roberts Bay Site, Sarasota, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist 30:121-133.

1980 The Aqui Esta Site at Charlotte Harbor: A Safety Harbor
-Influenced Pre-historic Aboriginal Site. Paper presented
to 1980 Florida Anthropological Society Meeting, Winter
Park.

George M. and Marion M. Almy
1979a Three Aboriginal Shell Middens on Longboat Key, Florida:
Manasota Period Sites of Barrier Island Exploitation.
Florida Anthropologist 32:34-45.


1979b The Manasota Culture. Paper presented to the 1979 Florida
Anthropological Society Meetings, Miami.


1980



1981


The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the Central
Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. Florida Anthropologist
33:207-225.

Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. Florida Anthropolo-
gist 34:127-155.


Luer,







LUER AND ALMY


Martin, John
1976 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Borden
Big Four Mine Properties in Southeastern Hillsborough
County, Florida. University of South Florida, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Archaeological Report No. 3.

McCullough, David L.
1979 Cultural Resource Management at the Fletcher Avenue Park,
Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South
Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological
Report No. 10.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1980 Weeden Island Studies--Past, Present, and Future.
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin
22:11-18.

Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Padgett, Thomas
1974 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the W. R.
Grace Property in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties,
Florida. Florida Division of Archives, History and
Records Management, Miscellaneous Project Report No. 20.

Piper, Jacquelyn G., Harry M. Piper, and Marion M. Almy
1980 Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of 8Mall9, The
Carruthers Mound, Manatee County, Florida. MS on file,
Piper Archaeology, St. Petersburg.

Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight Jr., and Gail S. Schnell
1979 Cemochechobee: Archeological Investigations at the Walter
F. George Dam Mound Site, 9 Cal 62, Clay County, Georgia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Mobile District and Inter-
agency Archeological Services, Atlanta.

Sears, William H.
1974 Archeological Perspectives on the Prehistoric Environment
in the Okeechobee Basin Savannah, pp. 347-351. In:
Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, P. J.
Gleason (ed). Memoir 2: Miami Geological Society, Miami.

Wang, Johnson and Edward Raney
1971 Distribution and Fluctuations in the Fish Fauna of the
Charlotte Harbor Estuary, Florida. In: Charlotte Harbor
Estuarine Studies, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota.

Welch, James M.
1982 Preliminary Report on the Mitigative Excavations of Sites
8Hi418 and 8Hi425. MS on file, Department of Anthropology,
University of South Florida, Tampa.







MANASOTA


Wharton, Barry R.
1981 Archaeological Resources of the Fletcher Avenue
Extension Tract, Hillsborough County, Florida.
file, Department of Anthropology, University of
Florida, Tampa.


Park
MS on
South


Wharton, Barry R., George R. Ballo, and Mitchell E. Hope
1981 The Republic Groves Site, Hardee County, Florida.
Florida Anthropologist 34:59-80.


White, W. A.
1970


The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Florida
Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology,
Geological Bulletin 51:1-164.


Willey, Gordon R.
1948 Culture Sequence for the Manatee Region of West Florida.
American Antiquity 13:209-218.


Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast.
cellaneous Collections, Volume 113.


Smithsonian Mis-


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

Marion M. Almy
5321 Avenida del Mare
Sarasota, FL 33581


1949










AN UPDATE ON THE HIGHWAY SALVAGE PROGRAM IN FLORIDA


B. Calvin Jones and Louis D. Tesar


This report has been prepared to provide the FAS membership with an
update on the highway salvage program of the Florida Department of State,
Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Bureau of Historic
Sites and Properties, which will be referred to as the Bureau elsewhere in
this text. This salvage program has been a cooperative effort between the
Bureau and the Florida Department of Transportation since 1966.

This report focuses on the Hillsborough County area where all of the
current highway salvage excavation activities are being undertaken. These
activities are but a part of the overall program which involves the assess-
ment of the impact to cultural resources of proposed State and Interstate
highway construction, upgrading and maintenance, including associated borrow
pit areas. Approximately 150 archaeological and historic site assessment
surveys were conducted for highway related projects during the 1980 and 1981
fiscal years, and more than 200 additional projects were reviewed and cleared
on the basis of the information contained in the Florida Master Site File,
the State's central site inventory maintained by the Bureau.

The ongoing Phase II (test) and Phase III mitigativee salvage) excava-
tion activities in Hillsborough County were preceded by a Phase I site recon-
naissance survey of the proposed 1-75 right-of-way corridor. This work was
performed by the Bureau in accordance with the provisions of a cooperative
agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida
Department of State.

Authorization to begin the Phase I survey was received in late 1977,
and the entire 41.2 mile route across Hillsborough County was surveyed by
B. Calvin Jones during February and March of 1978. With one exception, the
right-of-way surveyed was 300 to 400 feet wide. The exception lies between
the I-4 crossing of the corridor northward to the Hillsborough River. A 1320
foot wide corridor was surveyed in this area, which contains extensive arch-
aeological site remains. This wider corridor was surveyed in an effort to
locate a route which would least affect such resources. However, because it
was determined that the density and character of sites throughout this area
is essentially uniform, no change in the original right-of-way alignment was
made.

Survey methodology consisted of a physical walk-over of the entire pro-
ject area with periodic Im x 0.5m test pits being excavated in selected physio-
graphic areas, such as ridge tops, slopes, plateaus, river terraces, and
levees. One or more informal test pits were placed in selected locations.
Each pit was excavated with a shovel to at least one meter in depth by using
an oblique angle thin slicing technique. A total of 31 sites was located
within the selected right-of-way, and additional sites were found in the
larger surveyed corridor.


VOL. 35 NO. 1 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 1982







HIGHWAY SALVAGE


Thirteen sites that best represented the kinds of cultural resources
contained within the right-of-way were selected for Phase II excavation from
the thirty-one sites (see Map 1). With one exception (8Hi480), they repre-
sent Archaic period sites; although, 8Hi507 also contains a Paleo-Indian
component. These thirteen sites represent twenty-two site areas, since some
of the larger sites were arbitrarily divided into smaller sub-areas based
on physiographic conditions and gross artifact cluster patterns. One of
these sub-areas included an underwater area in the Hillsborough River.

The Phase II sample was chosen according to the following criteria:
1) a sample of sites within the three major physiographic zones traversed
by the right-of-way--the Gulf Coastal Lowlands, Polk Uplands and Hillsborough
River-Zephyrhills Gap; 2) a sample of sites within the micro-environmental
zones; 3) a sample of sites representing the various cultural phases and
periods found in each zone; 4) sites that appeared to be relatively undis-
turbed; 5) sites with the highest concentration of artifacts and/or vertical
depths; and, 6) specialized activity sites, such as quarry sites. An average
of five weeks of fieldwork was budgeted for each site area. To assist in the
analysis and artifact processing a laboratory was set up at the Department
of Anthropology, University of South Florida.

Twelve of the thirteen sites and their sub-areas have undergone Phase II
testing to date. These sites are as follows:



Site Senior Site Began
Archaeologist Fieldwork Report Status


8Hi480 M. Almy May 1979 Final
8Hi471 M. Almy June 1979 First Draft
8Hi473 M. Chance August 1979 Final
8Hi393c K. Gagel August 1979 Final
8Hi393c/uw
(underwater) J. Palmer May 1981 Final
(underwater)
Final
8Hi483a M. Chance September 1979 Fn
(by Randy Daniel)
8Hi483b K. Gagel September 1979 In Progress
8Hi99b,c L. Fisher November 1979 First Draft
(by Ken Hardin)
8Hi476a,b B. Wharton December 1979 First Draft

Hi472a In Progress
'8Hi4ab, J. Haviser March 1980 (Final Report on
c,e,g 8Hi472e Completed)

8Hi450d R. Daniel March 1980 Final
8Hi507a,b R. Daniel July 1981 In Progress
8Hi510a K. Gagel September 1981 In Progress







JONES AND TESAR


The Phase II testing has thus far revealed a number of limitations on
the information which can be retrieved from the deep sandy sites in interior
Hillsborough County, Florida. These limitations include: 1) the virtual
absence of floral and faunal material in most of these sites; 2) the virtual
absence of datable material (wood, shell and/or bone remains which can be
radiocarbon dated; although, thermoluminescent dating of chert is being con-
sidered); and 3) the relative lack of visible stratification (which is re-
lated primarily to leaching and a significant degree of bioturbation; al-
though this problem varies with each site).

Based upon the results of the Phase II testing at twelve sites, four
(8Hi472b, 8Hi473, 8Hi476a and 8Hi507) have been selected for intensive Phase
III salvage excavations. The criteria being utilized in this selection pro-
cess include: 1) the state of preservation of the site; 2) the variety an
quantity of artifacts present; 3) the nature of the functional components
present; 4) the interrelationship of the various components of the site; and
5) the position of the site in the broader Archaic period settlement--sub-
sistence systems operating in Hillsborough County. It should be noted, how-
ever, that because of tight road construction schedules, decisions for Phase
III work have had to be made within two to four weeks following the comple-
tion of Phase II testing, rather than waiting until all Phase II work is
completed, the data from all 22 site areas carefully evaluated, and compre-
hensive questions formulated on the basis of that information.

Phase III salvage excavations at 8Hi476a were completed in July 1981,
and Phase III work was completed on 8Hi472b and 8Hi473 in November 1981.
Finally, Phase III work was begun on site 8Hi507 in November 1981 and should
be completed around April 1, 1982. 8Hi476a is a Middle Archaic base camp
located east of Tampa along the edge of the Polk Uplands and the Gulf Coastal
Lowlands. 8Hi472b is an Early-Middle Archaic period lithic workshop on the
edge of the Polk Uplands near Zephyrhills Gap. Site 8Hi473, which is located
a short distance south of 8Hi472b and overlooks the Hillsborough River, is
an Early-Middle Archaic quarry site and secondary reduction area. Finally,
8Hi507 is a late Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic base camp located on the edge
of the Polk Uplands overlooking Harney Flats in the Gulf Coastal Lowlands.

The specific Phase III excavation strategies used at each individual
site, of course, depend upon the nature of the site and the categories of data
which it contains. However, combinations of the following general strategies
were or are being employed:

1) Excavations using spatially dispersed sampling designed to
clarify the interrelationships of the various site activity
areas and to obtain representative artifact samples from each.

2) Excavations of larger contiguous areas, coupled with subse-
quent spatial analyses, to determine the structure and organ-
ization of individual occupations and aid in the interpreta-
tion of functional areas.

3) Collection of representative samples of faunal, floral, and
pollen remains which, coupled with additional geological data,
will be analyzed by specialists to reconstruct the paleo-
environment and Archaic patterns of adaptation to their bio-
physical environment and to provide more accurate dating of
the various site components.







HIGHWAY SALVAGE


A synthesis of the prehistoric geological environment of Hillsborough
County is being formulated as part of the 1-75 project by Dr. Sam Upchurch.
In addition, core sampling for pollen samples from sinkholes or ponds asso-
ciated with sites 8Hi472, 8Hi476 and 8Hi510 is being initiated as a separate
project under the direction of Dr. W. A. Watts in order to aid in recon-
structing the prehistoric environmental setting. Finally, following the
completion of the Phase II and Phase III excavations, a synthesis of the
results of the 1-75 work will be prepared. This final synthesis will be a
non-technical, well illustrated report intended for non-professionals.

The 1-75 Highway Salvage Program has provided much valuable data, the
analysis of which will make the Paleo-Indian through the Middle Archaic
cultures of interior Hillsborough County, Florida among the best known in
the State. It is providing new paleo-environmental data for the area. The
location of the archaeological sites within this reconstructed environmental
framework permits a more concise interpretation and understanding of Paleo-
Indian through Middle Archaic lifeways. It is the first intensive study of
the edge area represented by the Polk Upland/Gulf Coastal Lowland/Zephyrhills
Gap area. The first systematic underwater archaeological test excavation of
a Hillsborough County site containing mastodon and Paleo-Indian (?) and
Archaic artifact remains was conducted as part of this project. It is the
most intensive study of lithic reduction and tool manufacture processes
and associated tool kits and activity areas conducted in Florida. Finally,
the work at 8Hi507 represents the most extensive excavation of an upland
Paleo-Indian site in Florida and will contribute significantly to our under-
standing of that early culture period.









B. Calvin Jones
Louis D. Tesar
Florida Division of Archives,
History, and Records Management
Tallahassee, FL







BACK ISSUES


Back issues of THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST, if available, may be pur-
chased from the Assistant Editor. Volumes 1-30 are $10.00 per volume
($2.00 for single and $4.00 for double numbers); Volume 31 and subsequent
volumes are $10.00 per volume ($2.50 for single numbers) except for
Volumes 33:3 and 34:2 which are $4.00. Volumes 25:2, pt. 2 (Publication
No. 6), 28:3, pt. 2 (Publication No. 7), and 31:2, pt. 2 (Publication
No. 9) are $2.50 each. Vol. 34:4 is $3.00. The following 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, 4;
17:1; 18:1; 20:1-2; 21; 23:2; 24:1; 25:3-4; 26:1; 27:1,3; 29:2 and 30:1.

Copies of the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS, a mono-
graph series, may be purchased as follows: Numbers 6, 7, and 9 at $3.00
each, Number 8 at $4.00. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are out of print.

Orders with remittances for any of the above should be sent to Bob
Carr (see front inside cover for address). Please allow six to eight
weeks for delivery. The Society has no resale discount for dealers or
resale agents. Please include $1.00 for postage and handling with each
order.

Back issues may also be obtained from Johnson Reprint 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.


INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST publishes original papers in all sub-
fields of anthropology with an emphasis on archeology. Contributions
from allied disciplines are acceptable when concerned with anthropolo-
gical problems. The journal's geographical scope is Florida and adjacent
regions.

Manuscripts should be double-spaced and typed on one side only of
8 x 11 inch paper. Authors should submit the original and two copies
of their manuscirpt. For matters of style and reference see a recent
issue of the journal. Text references should be similar to "(Smith
1970:44-45; Jones 1972: Pl. II, b)." Footnotes are normally not
accepted.

All illustrative material--line drawings (in India ink) and photo-
graphs--should be included in one numbered series of "Figures." Each
figure must be accompanied by a brief descriptive caption; parts of
figures are designated by lower case letters. All tabular material must
be included in a separately numbered series of "Tables." Authors should
examine a recent back issue of the journal for figure and table layouts.
Photos should be 8" x 10" or less in format.

Twenty-five reprints without covers of each article are furnished
each author or group of authors.







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