Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page
 The human remains from the Quad...
 The Sowell Mound, a weeden island...
 A late archaic cemetery in south...
 Human bones for the non-physical...
 Book reviews, current research,...
 Back Cover

Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00005
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Anthropological Society
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
Publisher: Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Frequency: quarterly[]
two no. a year[ former 1948-]
Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
Summary: Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- May 1948-
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027829
Volume ID: VID00005
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Editor's page
        Page 154
        Page 155
    The human remains from the Quad Block site (8Hi998), Tampa, Florida
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
    The Sowell Mound, a weeden island period burial site in Bay county, northwest Florida
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
    A late archaic cemetery in south Florida
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
    Human bones for the non-physical anthropologist: an aid in their identification
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
    Book reviews, current research, and comments
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text





-- -. i

* .

--~t .c1

*.-.-~-~.-Z -





'V .





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published quarterly by the Florida Anthropological
Society, Inc., P.O. Box 1013, Tallahassee, Florida 32302. Subscription is by
membership in the Society for individuals, families and institutions interested
in the aims of the Society. Annual dues are $12 (Individual), $18 (Family), $15
(Institutional), $25 (Sustaining), $100 (Patron) and $150 (Life). Foreign sub-
scriptions are an additional $5 U.S. currency to cover added postage costs for
individual, family or institutional membership categories. Requests for infor-
mation on the Society and membership application forms, as well as notifi-
cations of changes of address, should be addressed to the Membership Secretary.
Donations should be sent to the Treasurer. Requests for copies of the Editorial
Policy and Style Guide (re: FA 37(1)), orders for back issues, submissions of
manuscripts for publication and notices of non-receipt or damaged issues should
be sent to the Editor. Newsletter items should be sent sent to the President.
Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 days prior to the mailing of the next
issue. The Post Office will not forward bulk rate mail.


Claudine Payne
1820 NW 10th Street
Gainesville, FL 32601

M. Katherine Jones
406 Westwood Drive, N.
Tallahassee, FL 32304

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

John W. Griffin Joan Deming
Route 5, Box 19 1839 Pine Cone Circle #28
St. Augustine, FL 32084 Clearwater, FL 33520

John F. Scarry AGENT: Ruth Thomas
P.O. Box 1013 545 Bayberry Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32302 Lake Park, FL 33403


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


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


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

George M. Luer
2 Piper Lane RFD
Lyme, New Hampshire

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

James J. Miller
Division of Archives,
History & Records
Department of State
The Capitol

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

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

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

Tallahassee, FL 32301-8020

John F. Scarry
Division of Archives,
History & Records
Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301-802

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

COVER ILLUSTRATIONS: (FRONT) Illustration courtesy of Louis D. Tesar. This
skull was part of several skeletons and caskets recovered by L. Ross Morrell in
the mid-1960s as a result of drainage ditch excavation near Fort St. Marks,
Florida. The skeletons are the remains of soldiers who accompanied Andrew
Jackson in his invasion of Florida. Following their analysis, the remains were
reburied near the museum at Fort St. Marks State Park in Wakulla County, Flori-
da. (BACK) Reprint of Thief of Time Poster first printed in FA 37(2). The
poster is reprinted as a reminder that improper excavation of archaeological
sites robs us all of the opportunity to better understand the burial customs
contained in the remains of such sites. Art work courtesy of the Florida De-
partment of State, Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Bureau
of Archaeological Research in Tallahassee. Design by John Locastro, illustra-
tion by Bill Celander of the Museum of Florida History in Tallahassee.





Editor's Page . . . . . . 154
The Human Remains From The Quad Block Site (8Hi998), Tampa,
Florida by Curtis W. Wienker . . . 156
The Sowell Mound, A Weeden Island Period Burial Site In
Bay County, Northwest Florida by R. C. Dailey and
Dan Morse, M.D. . . . . .. ... 165
A Late Archaic Cemetery In South Florida by Robert S. Carr,
M. Yasar Iscan and Richard A. Johnson . . 172
Human Bones For The Non-Physical Anthropologist: An Aid In
Their Identification by Louis D. Tesar . .. 189
Book Reviews, Current Research and Comments . ... 203
"Handbook of Forensic Archaeology and Anthropology," edited
by Dan Morse, Jack Duncan and James Stoutamire,
Reviewed by Louis D. Tesar . . .... 203
(Current Research) .New Radiocarbon Dates From Withlacoochee
River Shell Middens by Brent Weisman . . .. 204
(Current Research) Spanish Mission Research by Gary Shapiro 206


This ends my first year as Edi-
tor. While the last issue,
which was rushed to meet the
publication deadline, had by far
too many typographical errors
and was not as well edited as it
should have been, I hope that my
overall performance and that of
my Editoral Staff has been ac-
ceptable. I will continue to
work during the coming year
toward further improving our
journals; and, believe that you
will find the next two issues,
one focusing on St. Augustine
archaeology and the other on
Northwest Florida and adjacent
areas, to be informative.

In this issues, as you probably
guessed from the cover illustra-
tion, we feature three physical
anthropology reports. A brief
descriptive article on human
bone identification and defini-
tions of some physical anthro-
pology terms is also included to
assist those of our readers
unfamiliar with this subject to
better understand the first
three articles.

"The Human Remains From The Quad
Block (8Hi998), Tampa, Florida"
by Curtis W. Wienker provides an
analysis of skeletal remains
excavated by Piper Archaeologi-
cal Research, Inc, from a ceme-
tary associated with the Fort
Brooke site in compliance with
federal historic preservation
laws and regulations. It is an
informative report which pro-
vides useful comparative data,
in spite of the deteriorated
condition of much of the materi-

The Quad Block Site (8Hi998)
project also touches upon the
sensitive issue of dealing with
human skeletal remains in ar-

chaeological contexts where such
remains can be associated with a
living people. While there has
been a sensitivity shown for the
remains of Europeans, there has
been a general lack of similar
treatment for the remains of
other cultures. This is an
ethical problem which we must
continue to address.

The Quad Block project serves as
an example of the successful
resolution of this issue. Ar-
rangements were made with the
Seminole in advance of excava-
tion for the treatment and dis-
position of the remains. The
archaeological excavation of the
site followed. Piper, Hardin
and Piper (1982:135-136) report

After conservation and analysis,
all skeletal material and arti-
facts recovered from the Quad
Block excavation were turned
over, by prior contract, to the
City of Tampa. Subsequently,
pursuant to a contract between
the City and the Seminole Tribe,
the City transferred the
Seminole skeletal remains to the
Tribe for reinterment. The non-
Seminole remains were reinterred
into a Tampa cemetery. All
Seminole artifacts were perma-
nently loaned by the City to the
Tribe for display and curation
in a Tribal Museum on Orient
Road east of Tampa, while the
non-Seminole artifacts are cur-
ated at City Hall, Tampa.

Thus, this project demonstrates
that the concerns of Native
Americans for the disposition of
their ancestors' remains can be
met while at the same time per-
mitting their recovery and anal-
ysis by capable professionals so
that valuable data is not lost.



The City of Tampa is to be com-
mended for their cooperation in
this matter.

"The Sowell Mound, a Weeden
Island Period Burial Site from
Bay County, Northwest Florida"
by R.C. Dailey and Dan Morse,
M.D., provides an analysis of
skeletal remains from a site
believed to have been previously
excavated by C.B. Moore. In
addition to providing important
comparative data on human re-
mains for Weeden Island period
peoples in coastal Northwest
Florida, the report concludes
that important data may yet be
obtained by re-excavating sites
which were previously dug with
methodology unacceptable by
today's standards, and errone-
ously reported as "destroyed" or
"completely disturbed." While
the recovered remains are very
deteriorated and fragmented,
much has been learned from this

"A Late Archaic Cemetery in
South Florida" by Robert S.
Carr, M. Yasar Ican and Richard
A. Johnson provides important
data on South Florida Late Ar-
chaic period burial customs.
The authors compare their find-
ings to those from other Archic
sites in the region.

"Human Bones for the Non-Physi-
cal Anthropologist: An Aid to
Their Identification" by Louis
D. Tesar is directed to those of
our readers who have not had any
physical anthropology courses or
training. It is part of our
continuing "How-to" and "Educa-
tional" information effort, and
is intended to assist our non-
professional readers in better
understanding the specialized,
technical terms used by physical
anthropologists and the bones to
which they apply.

The final selection in this
issue is "Book Reviews, Current
Research, and Comments." It is
a new section which is being
added to the journal in response
to member requests. It is in-
tended to serve as a forum for
short, informative topics. This
issue contains a review of
"Handbook of Forensic Archaeolo-
gy and Anthropology" (1984),
edited by Dan Morse, Jack Duncan
and James Stoutamire; and infor-
mation on current research by
the Florida State Museum and the
Withlacoochee River Archaeology
Council, and by the Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Divi-
sion of Archives, History and
Records Management, Florida
Department of State. There are
no comments as this is a newly
introduced topic.

If you have any informal com-
ments, suggestions, criticisms,
or whatever concerning my edi-
torship, or The Florida Anthro-
pologist in general, please
write. However, my response may
be slow since the Editor's posi-
tion is a volunteer, after-hours
job in which producing the jour-
nal takes first priority, re-
sponding to back issues requests
is second, and all other activi-
ties follow.

Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist
November 30, 1984

Piper, Harry M., Kenneth W. Hardin and
Jacquelyn G. Piper
1982 "Cultural Responses to Stress:
Patterns Observed in American
Indian Burials of the Second
Seminole War," in Southeastern
Archaeology 1(2).


Curtis W. Wienker
Department of Anthropology
University of South Florida


The Quad Block site (8Hi998)
in downtown Tampa was excavat-
ed during the summer and early
fall of 1980 by Piper Archaeo-
logical Research, Inc. Lithic
materials suggest that the site
was occupied as early as the
Archaic Period (Ballo 1982:72).
However, the overwhelming major-
ity of the archaeological mate-
rials are dated to approximately
1824-1846, which encompasses the
Second Seminole War.

The human remains reported here
are undoubtedly associated with
the military installation of
Fort Brooke and the early commu-
nity of Tampa (Piper and Piper
1982:308). These remains do not
represent the entire cemetery.
One account (Thomsen 1982) sug-
gests that some graves were
previously relocated to another
nearby cemetery. Furthermore,
some remains are reportedly
located under White Street to
the south, while other graves in
the cemetery remain to the east
of the excavation area (Piper
and Piper 1982:57). The number
of these graves is indeter-

This report focuses only on the
99 individuals who were ethni-
cally identifiable. For over a
score of other graves either the
cultural material, skeletal or
dental remains were so scant or
absent as to make assessment of
individual characteristics im-
possible. Virtually all of the
skeletal remains excavated from
the site were in a state of
deterioration, often crushed,
warped and highly friable. The
poor preservation was due to the
acidity of the soil, the
flucuating high water table, and

over a century of human occupa-
tion and activity above the
ground in which the bodies were

The remains reported here are
those for which some meaningful
demographic data can be derived.
In all but 11 cases, demographic
parameters were estimated on the
basis of osteological and/or
dental characteristics. Of
those 11, ten were identified
ethnically on the basis of cul-
tural material found in the
graves. The sex of one individu-
al was estimated from similar
data. All of the individuals
were interred in wooden coffins
of one sort or another. Several
of the coffins, which did not
appear to be disturbed, yielded
no osteological evidence, proba-
bly due to disintegration of the
human remains. The extreme
deterioration of the skeletal
material meant that meaningful
osteometrics could only be ob-
tained from a few specimens
using only a few measurements.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
statistics reported here pertain
only to individuals of known
ethnicity, age and sex.

Demographic Profile

Fifty seven individuals (57.6
percent) are non-Amerindians.
Of the 57, 9 are probably Anglo-
Americans and 2 are probable
Afro-Americans or African. The
ethnicity of the other 46 non-
Amerindians could not be specif-
ically determined. Forty-two
individuals (42.2 percent) are

As Table 1 indicates, the non-
Amerindians are overwhelmingly
adult males. This suggests that
most of them were probably asso-
ciated with the military



36-45 6 (W,4N,1I) 11.1 6 (W,4N,lI) 6.6
26-35 13 (3W,6N,4I) 24.1 II 6.25 14 (3W,6N,5I) 15.4
17-25 31 (3W,B,21N,6I) 57.4 14(W,7N,6I) 87.50 45 (4W,B,28N,12I) 49.5
10-16 II 6.25 II 1.1
5-9 71 7.7
0-4 II 1.9 121 13.2
Adult 3 (2N, II) 5.6 3 (2N,1T) 3.3
Subadult 3N2 3.3

Total 54(7W,B,33N,13I) 100.13 16(W,7N,8I) 100.00 91 (8W,B,43N,39I) 100.13

1. B = Afro-American/African; W = Anglo-American; I = Amerindian; N = Non-Amerincian.
2. Individuals estimated to be 15-20 years old are included in the 17-25 group.
3. 18 Amerindian and 3 Non-Amerindian subadults are of indeterminate sex.
4. Difference from 100 percent due to rounding.
TABLE 1. Age composition of individuals from 8Hi998 of known ethnicityI and sex or age.

Amerindian 4 13.8 3 42.9 7 19.4
Non-Amerindian 17 58.6 3 42.9 20 55.6
Anglo-American 7 24.1 1 14.3 8 22.2
Afro-American/African 1 3.4 0 -- 1 2.8
Total 29 99.91 7 100.1 36 100.0

1. Difference from 100 percent due to rounding.
TABLE 2. Demographic profile of adult osteometric sample

of known ethnicity and sex.

FIGURE 1. Double shoveled maxillary incisors from adult Amerindian male
(Feature WL14).



installation instead of with the
community of Tampa. The slight
preponderance of males in the
Amerindian sample is possibly
due to the presence of 900 non-
Seminole Amerindian volunteers
at Fort Brooke during the latter
part of the Second Seminole War
(Foreman 1932:348).

The series is overwhelmingly
composed of young adults; less
than 25 percent are sub-adult
(younger than 17 years of age),
only one of which is of determi-
nate sex. The great majority of
sub-adults are Amerindian chil-
dren 2 to 7 years old at death.
Most of the mature individuals
are young adults; individuals
17-25 years old at death com-
prise over half of the adult
series. No individual over 45
years is present. The adult
non-Amerindian population is
slightly older than the adult
Amerindian population.

The lack of Amerindian individu-
als 10-16 years old is not
surprising. Typically such
individuals are infrequent in
archaeologically derived skele-
tal populations. Bennett
(1973:6) notes that infancy and
the female reproduction years
are characterized by relatively
high death rates in nearly every
prehistoric population.


Table 2 presents the demographic
profile of skeletons from which
osteometric data were gathered.
All individuals are minimally 17
years of age at death. Discus-
sion focuses only on Anglo-Amer-
ican and other non-Amerindian
males because they are the only
groups with a sample size great-
er than four. Table 3 shows the
statistical profiles of osteome-
trics, for demographic groups

with n > 4 for any particular


Stature data are sparse. Al-
though sample sizes are for the
most part too small for
meaningful statistical treat-
ment, they suggest a profile
typical of recent humans. Males
are somewhat taller than fe-
males; non-Amerindians are some-
what taller than Amerindians
(Brues 1977). The non-
Amerindian male sample average
(n=14) for stature is 175.1 cm,
s.d.=8.25 cm.

The Dentition

The dental remains are incom-
plete in terms of the material
available for this analysis;
moreover, some of the teeth are
in a state of virtual disinte-
gration. The dental variation
displayed in these remains is
both marked and interesting.
Genetic and environmentally
based variation is manifest;
especially evident are missing
teeth, dental caries and differ-
ent patterns of atypical crown

Some typical patterns of dental
phenomena evident in the sample
include marked shoveling of the
central maxillary incisors and
attrition of the molar crowns;
both are Amerindian traits (Bass
1971). One example of atypical,
yet non-pathological, variation
is a set of double-shoveled
maxillary incisors (Fig. 1).
Such a morphological pattern
occurs occasionally in
Amerindians (Bass 1971:235).

Isolated cases of caries, abces-
ses, antemortem missing teeth,
broken teeth and atypical enamel
wear due to malocclusion and/or


(37(4), 1984)


overbite are present in males
of each ethnic group. One
Anglo-American male displays
evidence of treatment of caries
with several gold-foil
fillings;one Amerindian female
has a pronounced overbite; one
non-Amerindian female has a
broken molar crown and another
is missing a mandibular molar,

By far, the dentitions of the
non-Amerindian males are the
most atypical and pathological
of the entire series. They
display the greatest frequency
of dental caries, antemortem
missing teeth and atypical enam-
el wear due to malocclusion
and/or overbite. Of 34 individ-
uals identifiable only as non-
Amerindian males, 9 dentitions
(26.5 percent) display evidence
of antemortem tooth loss, pri-
marily molars. Six (17.6 per-
cent) display evidence of pro-
nounced atypical enamel wear due
to malocclusion and/or overbite,
and 7 (20.6 percent) display
evidence of dental caries.
However, none are characterized
by widespread caries. Typically
each of the 7 has 1 to 3 carious
teeth, primarily molars.

Evidence of dental crowding is
infrequent, probably due to the
deteriorating condition of the
remains. A few individuals
display slightly atypical wear
in the area of the incisor edg-
es, perhaps suggestive of indi-
vidual behavioral traits such as
the habitual use of a pipe or

Osteopathologies and Anomalies

Twelve of the 99 individuals
(12.1 percent) represented oste-
ologically displayed some skele-
tal evidence of pathology or
anomaly. However, this is prob-
ably an underestimate of osteo-

pathology in this series because
of the extremely poor preserva-
tion and deterioration of the

Of the 12 individuals displaying
evidence of osteopathology
orosteoanomaly, 8 are male, 2
are female and 2 are of
indeterminate sex. Eleven are
adults, or over the age of 17
years at death; 5 are non-
Amerindian, 1 Amerindian, 2
Anglo-American, 1 Afro-
American/African and 3
ethnically indeterminate.

The femora of Feature 21, a 5-7
year old Amerindian of indeter-
minate sex, are atypically
curved. The distortion in the
proximal area of the bones is
perhaps a congenital deforma-
tion, or perhaps rachitic in

The calvaria of Feature 85 is
highly unusual; the top of the
brain case is separated from the
rest of the cranium (Fig. 2).
The separated portion, the en-
tire top half of the calvaria,
consists of major articulated
portions of both parietals and
the frontal bone. The separa-
tion between the top and bottom
halves of the calvaria is quite
straight and symmetrical. The
top portion appears to have been
separated at death or post-
mortem; no signs of healing
occur along the juncture surfac-
es, which appear to have result-
ed from chiseling with a sharp
instrument. The juncture lines
are consistent with those which
result from a modern autopsy
procedure which uses a Stryker
saw to remove the top of the
braincase. Although no evidence
exists to suggest a plausible
case of death for Feature 85,
the calvaria suggests that she
was the subject of an autopsy.

The best evidence of trauma in




2 4
Anglo-American MML Rt. Hum. 341.00 25.11 4
Anglo-American Nasal Ht. 49.60 3.19 5
Anglo-American Nasal Br. 22.79 1.47 7
Anglo-American Nasal Aper. Ht. 38.84 2.82 5
Non-Amerindian MML Rt. Hum. 338.07 21.41 7
Non-Amerindian MML Rt. Fer. 479.63 39.68 4
Non-Amerindian May. Diam. Rt. Fem. Hd. 45.75 1.04 4

1. Based upon estimates. 3. All measurements in mm.
2. Maximum Morphological Length. 4. MML Rt. Hum. x Ethnicity: t= .206, 9df, .90>p>.80.

TABLE 3. Osteometric profiles for measurements having n < 4, males only3

PARAMETER 8Hi998 Fort St. Marks Comparison

X S.D. N X S.D. N t df p
Max. Diam.
Fer. Head 46.7 .75 6 47.4 1.89 18 .485 22 >.60
MML-Femur 472.6 38.15 5 456.6 34.47 18 .899 21 >.30
MML-Humerous 339.4 19.48 14 322.6 18.01 16 2.454 28 <.05
Nasal Ht. 49.6 3.19 5 52.0 3.90 12 1.211 15 >.20
Nasal Br. 22.8 1.47 7 24.6 1.56 12 2.476 17 <.05

1. All measurements in mm.

TABLE 4. Osteometric1 comparisons between 8Hi998
St. Marks, Florida series (ca 1820).

Non-Amerindian Males and the Fort

V. I
Ri -.4,

FIGURE 2. Endocranial view of cplvaria
portion from a 15-20 year old Ango-
American female (Feature 85). The coro-
nal suture (horizontal, midphotograph)
and saggital suture (vertical, bottom
center) are evident. Note the sharp
symmetrical edges of the calvaria rim.

FIGURE 3. Top view of skull, Feature 115,
a 17-25 year old non-Amerindian, sex
indeterminate, showing trauma along the
saggital suture. To the left of the gash
is the coronal suture.


(37(4), 1984)


the entire series appears in
Feature 115 (Fig. 3). The prob-
able cause of death is a deep
beveled gash in the saggital
suture, approximately 9 cm in
length and 15 mm at its greatest
width. The wound shows no evi-
dence of healing. It appears to
be the result of a blow from a
sharp object such as a hatchet.

Aside from the conditions noted
above, the entire series mani-
fests few other signs of osteo-
pathology. Among them are two
possible cases of syphillis (a
17-25 year old female of inde-
terminate ethnicity and a 26-55
year old non-Amerindian male),
two cases of pyogenic osteomye-
litis (an adult male and a fe-
male 17-25 years of age, both of
indeterminate ethnicity), two
cases of healed mandibular frac-
tures (an Afro/American male
aged 26-35 years at death and a
non Amerindian male aged 26-35
years at death), a mild case of
lumbar spinal arthritis (Anglo-
American male aged 26-35 years
at death) and a shoulder dislo-
cation (non-Amerindian male 27-
35 years at death). Although the
entire series appears to have
been relatively healthy from an
osteological point of view (ac-
knowledging the poor preserva-
tion state of most features),
non-Amerindian males clearly
manifest the most pathological

Comparative Notes

Little of scientific signifi-
cance can be learned by compar-
ing the data from these remains
to other skeletal/dental series,
for two reasons. One, there is
only one meaningful published
data set for comparison. The
remains from 8Hi998 are of rela-
tively recent historic vintage;
yet they are not contemporary.

Second, the sparse number of
osteometric measurements from
the 8Hi998 remains preclude
meaningful statiscal comparison
with published series, except
for a few isolated osteological

These remains can be compared to
12 Anglo-American young adult
males (Harvard University stu-
dents) measured for stature in
1858 (Damon 1968), 33 male and
48 female modern Seminoles from
the Florida Everglades
(Pollitzer et al. 1970) studied
for a variety of morphological
traits, and 20 apparent Anglo-
American skeletons from an early
19th century military cemetery
at Ft. St. Marks, Florida
(Dailey et al. 1972).

The adult Amerindians from
8Hi998 do not differ in a mean-
ingful way from the modern adult
Seminoles studied by Pollitzer
et al. (1970) for the variates
common to both series: stature,
nasal height and breadth, and
cephalic length and breadth. In
fact, for the few data which are
comparable, the two series are
highly compatible. However, by
no means is this proof that the
8Hi998 Amerindians are
Seminoles. Simply put, the few
osteometrics derived from
Amerindian remains from 8Hi998
fall within the range of varia-
tion displayed by modern

The non-Amerindian males (in-
cluding Anglo-Americans) do not
differ meaningfully from the
1858 Harverd University students
described by Damon (1968) with
respect to stature. The Harvard
series (n=12, X=176.0 cm, s.d.=
6.9 cm) and the 8Hi998 series (n
=14, X=175.1 cm, s.d.=8.25 cm)
are not significantly different
(t=.301, 24 df, .80>p>.70).

When the osteometric series of




Anglo-Americans and non-
Amerindian males and females is
compared to that of Ft. St.
Marks (Dailey et al. 1972),
marked similarity is evident.
For 22 individual variates of
five craniometric parameters
(cranial length and breadth,
bigonial breadth, nasal height
and nasal breadth) taken from
the 8Hi998 series, only 2 fall
outside of the Ft. St. Marks
series range of variation, and
those 2 (both nasal breadth) by
only 2 mm at most.

For seven different post-cranial
osteometrics (Maximum Morpholog-
ical Lengths of radii, femora,
humeri, tibiae and fibulae, and
maximum diameters of femoral and
humeral heads) including 68
individual variates, only 8 of
the measurements from the 8Hi998
non-Amerindian males and fe-
males, including Anglo-Ameri-
cans, fall outside the range of
variation manifested in the Ft.
St. Marks series. Two of the
eight are from females.

The non-Amerindian (including
Anglo-American) osteometric
series is statistically compared
to the Ft. St. Marks series in
Table 4. The five parameters
compared are those for which n>5
in both samples. The data from
each series are not perfectly
comparable. Dailey et al.
(1972) do not make note of-
whether their osteometrics are
averages of right and left meas-
urements, or just from one side
of the body (when bilateral
features are studied). The
8Hi998 data include "rights,"
"lefts" or averages of both, as
the osteometric series permit.
As noted earlier, the non-
Amerindian sample from 8Hi998
may include some individuals of
Afro-American/African ethnic
ancestry. It should also be
noted that the Ft. St. Marks

series includes one individual,
judged by the investigators as
"Caucasian," with shovel-shaped

Several possible factors may be
responsible for the significant
differences in humerus length
and nasal breadth which appear
in Table 4. They include possi-
ble commingled ethnicity as
discussed above, errors in mea-
surement, and small sample siz-

The 8Hi998 non-Amerindian males
are quite similar in dental
pattern to the Ft. St. Marks
sample. As noted earlier, the
8Hi998 non-Amerindian males
evidence dental caries and ante-
mortem missing teeth. The same
is true for the Ft. St. Marks
sample; 10 of 17 dentitions
reported display antemortem tooth
loss and nine are carious.
While the 8Hi998 non-Amerindian
males display high frequencies
of atypical enamal wear due to
malocclusion problems, the Ft.
St. Marks sample is character-
ized by high frequencies of
dental abcesses and peridontal
disease. The condition of the
8Hi998 remains obscures obvi-
ous traces of peridontal
disease and some dental ab-


For a more detailed treatment
of the human remains from
8Hi998, consult Wienker (1982).
The two sets of remains dis-
cussed here, Amerindians and
non-Amerindians (most of whom
are presumably Anglo-Americans),
have demographic profiles con-
sistent with what would be ex-
pected of Fort Brooke's cemetery
during the Second Seminole War.

The Amerindians consist of a-
dults of both sexes, with a


(37(4), 1984)


slight preponderance of males
and significant numbers of sub-
adults, primarily children.
This demographic structure sug-
gests a "free-ranging" popula-
tion engaged in hostilities, or
such a group after subjugation.
Conversely, the non-Amerindians,
which outnumber the Amerindians,
are overwhelmingly young adult
males; only a few adult females
and subadults are present, pro-
portionately. This demographic
profile is consistent with what
one would expect of a large
military installation associated
with a small civilian community.

Only rarely do the osteological
or cultural remains derived from
the graves suggest a cause of
death. In fact, Sprague (1964)
notes that the overwhelming
majority of military deaths at
or near Fort Brooke during the
Second Seminole War were due to
apparent tropical diseases.
Such diseases are not among
those which typically leave
osteological evidence (Ortner
and Putschar 1981).

Unfortunately, accurate histori-
cal accounts of direct rele-
vance as to who wasinterred in
this cemetery, and why, have not
yet been found. However, de-
spite the deplorable condition
of the human remains, every
inference that can be derived
from them is highly plausible
when one considers the avail-
able pertinent historical infor-


The author is greatful to Penny
Seabury and George Ballo for
photographic assistance. Thanks
also for the assistance of Harry
and Jacqueline Piper.

References Cited

Ballo, George
1982 Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Component Artifacts: Lithic
Analysis. In Archaeo-
logical Excavations at the
Quad Block Site, 8Hi998.
Harry Piper and Jacquelyn
Piper. Piper Archaeological
Research, Inc., St.
Petersburg, Florida, pp. 64-

Bass, William
1971 Human Osteology. Missouri
Archaeological Society,

Bennett, Kenneth
1973 "The Indians of Point of
Pines, Arizona." Anthro-
pological Papers of the
University of Arizona, No. 23.
University of Arizona Press,

Brues, Alice
1977 People and Races. Macmillan
Publishing Company, New York.

Dailey, R., L. Ross Morrell and W.A.
1972 "The St. Marks Military Cemetery
(8Wal08)". Bureau of Historic
Sites and Properties Bull. 2.
Division of Archives, History
and Records Management,
Florida Department of State,

Damon, A.
1968 Secular Trends in Height and
Weight Within Old American
Families at Harvard 1879-1965.
I. Within Twelve Four-
Generation Families. American
Journal of Physical
Anthropology 29(1): 45-50.

Foreman, Grant
1982 Indian Removal: The
Emigration of the Five
Civilized Tribes of
Indians. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Ortner, D. and W. Putschar
1981 "Identification of
Pathological Conditions in
Human Skeletal Remains."
Smithsonian Contributions to
Anthropology No. 28,
Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C.

Piper, Harry and Jacquelyn Piper
1982 Archaeological Excava- tions
at the Quad Block Site,
8Hi998. Piper
Archaeological Research,



164 ium rf.* UA ANTHROPOLOGIST (37 (4), 1984)

Inc., St. Petersburg,

Pollitzer, W.D. Rucknagel, R. Tashian,
D. Shreffler, W. Leyshon, K. Namboodiri
and R. Elston
1970 The Seminole Indians of
Florida: Morphology and
Serology. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology
32(1):65- 81.

Sprague, J.
1964 The Origin, Process and
Conclusion of the Florida
War. University of Florida
Press. Gainesville.

Thomsen, Mark
1982 Historical Documentary
Review. In Archaeological
Excavations at the Quad Block
Site, 8Hi998. Harry Piper
and Jacquelyn Piper. Piper
Research Inc., St.
Petersburg, Florida. pp. 20-

Wiener, C.
1982 The Human Remains from
8H1998. In Archaeo-
logical Excavations at the
quad Block Site, 8H1998.
Harry Piper and Jacquelyn
Piper. Piper Archaeological
Research Inc., St.
Petersburg, Florida. pp.

Curtis W. Wienker
Department of Anthropology
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida 33620


R. C. Dailey and Dan Morse, M. D.
Department of Anthropology
Florida State University

This is a brief report of the
excavation of the Sowell Mound
(8By3), believed to be the mound
first reported and described by
Clarence B. Moore (1902:167-
174). The field work described
here was done during the summers
of 1969 and 1970. The project
was under the direction of the
late Hale G. Smith and R. C.
Dailey. The purpose of this
paper is to describe the condi-
tion of the mound and the human
skeletal remains which it

Named after a previous property
owner, the Sowell Mound is lo-
cated on the southwest side of
St. Andrew Bay, opposite Panama
City in Bay County, Northwest
Florida (Figure 1). The mound
is situated approximately 70 m
from the edge of the bay on land
occupied by the Naval Coastal
Systems Center. A large strati-
fied midden adjoins the mound
and contains rich cultural
deposits at least one meter in
depth (cf Willey 1949:66).

The mound was well known even in
Moore's day and had already been
disturbed when he began work
there. Indeed, in addition to a
trench (3.5 m) wide extending
from the northern margin to the
center of the mound, he reported
a "great depression whence the
sand from the mound had been
taken" at its southern margin
(Moore 1902:167).

From time to time a number of
amateur and professional archae-
ologists have worked at the
Sowell (8By3) site and collected
cultural and skeletal material,
particularly the former. Among
the professionals who worked
there are Gordon R. Willey,
Charles H. Fairbanks, David S.
Phelps, and Hale G. Smith.

FIGURE 1. Location of Sowell Site
(8By3) near Panama City
in Bay County, Florida.

In his Archeology of the Florida
Gulf Coast, Willey classified
the mound as "definitely Weeden
Island, possibly only Weeden
Island II" (1949:231), and the
middent as "mixed" (1949:401).

After the U.S. Government ac-
quired the property no further
excavations were permitted with-
out a Federal antiquity permit.
An exception, however, was the
work of W. Lamar Gammon, then
the Personnel Director at the
Naval Coastal Systems Center
(then Mine Defense) laboratory.
It was through his efforts that
the mound was saved from total


December, 1984

Volume 37 Number 4


destruction when the U.S. Navy
began experimental activities in
the area. Gammon recovered some
6,000 potsherds and larger parts
of broken vessels, some of which
he was able to restore. He also
recovered 12 faceless crania and
secured a C-14 date of A.D. 610
+ 125 years for this site. In
1968, Gammon arranged for the
U.S. Navy to convey the entire
collection to the Florida State
University, Department of An-

During the summer of 1969, stu-
dents in the Department of An-
thropology's summer field school
collected bone fragments and
pottery from the surface of the
mound. They also mapped the
site and excavated a number of 3
m squares on the eastern and
southern perimeter of the mound
area, seven of which were com-
pletely excavated. The follow-
ing summer, work continued on
the southern perimeter and sev-
eral trenches were dug, one
through the center of the mound,
and the other at right angles to
it. This was done in an effort
to locate the base of the origi-
nal mound. No mound strata were
ever located suggesting, as had
been suspected, that Moore had
literally replaced the original
mound with a new one; although,
it is acknowledged that it is
very difficult to detect
stratigraphic zones in the
Pleistocene beach sand with
which the mound was formed.

When Moore conducted his inves-
tigation of the mound in 1902 he
stated that it was 50' (15 m) in
diameter ande 4.5' (1.4 m) high.
In 1969 when the mound was again
mapped, pottery and bone frag-
ments were found to encompass a
somewhat circular area more than
twice the size of the one Moore
excavated in 1902 and though
irregular and full of holes, the
highest point on what remained

was about one meter above the
surrounding area. Admittedly,
the extent to which Moore exca-
vated his sites is always open
to question, but in this case
the mound fill seemed to be
totally disturbed. Aside from
the scattered bone, no "flexed
skeletons, bunched burials, or
masses of bones" including
crania, as he described them
(1902:167), were found. Pottery
and bone fragments were
completely mixed in the mound
fill. There was no suggestion
of stratigraphy and the skeletal
material was without
articulation. Moore reports
that he was unable to count the
number of burials because of
"the difficulty to determine
where one ended and another
began forced us to limit our-
selves to a tally of skulls
only" (1902:167). According to
his count he found 121 crania.
Today there is no record of the
whereabouts of any of this skel-
etal material including the one
crania illustrated in his report
(1902:168). We have assumed
that most of the faceless
crania found in 1969 and 1970
excavations are some of those
originally counted by Moore and
then discarded in his backdirt
because they were faceless, and
therefore, incomplete.

Bone preservation in the mound
was found to be exceptionally
good primarily because it was
well drained and also there was
a large amount of broken shell
mixed in the mound fill. A
totla of 22,000 bone fragments
were recovered of which about
4,000 belonged to the cranial
and the remaining 18,000 to the
postcranial skeleton. Some
10,000 of the latter have been
identified, but restoration
proved to be very difficult.
Only a handful of undamaged long
bones were recovered. For exam-
ple, there were two femora, one


(37(4), 1984)


tibia, one humerus, one radius,
and no ulnae or fibulae. Not a
single complete innominate bone
was found. Sternal fragments
were conspicuously absent, and
even metatarsals and metacarpals
were often without their proxi-
mal or distal ends. A few of
the larger bones have been re-
stored; e.g. the number of
femora was increased to five,
tibiae to three, fibulae to two,
humeri to four and ulnae to
eight. But there remain 741
unmatched femoral fragments, 303
tibial fragments, 247 fibular
fragments, 311 humeral fragments
and 361 ulnar fragments.

Efforts to reconstruct the
crania fared little better.
Gammon (as noted above) arranged
to have the Navy convey to the
Department of Anthropology 12
faceless crania. Another face-
less cranium was donated by a
person who had participated in
one of the excavations prior to
1969. After an extended effort,
an additional 39 cranial vaults
were restored in our laboratory
bringing the count to 52. All
the crania represented are a-
dult, all are faceless and all
but one show fronto-occipital
flattening, some extremely prom-
inent (Figure 2). Of the 23
crania for which sex estimates
could be hazarded, 14 were con-
sidered to be male on the basis
of criteria such as degree of
muscle relief, size of mastoid
process, and prominence of the
inion. Nine crania were consid-
ered to be female. Ages for 27
of the cranial vaults were de-
termined by observing the degree
of suture closure. While this
method of estimating cranial age
is unreliable except at the
extremes, it was the only one
that could be used in this in-
stance. Ages were found to
range between 18 and 50 years.

No crania were recovered with

any of the upper dentition in
place. There were, however, 39
left maxillary fragments and 46
right fragments recovered.
Twenty-one complete mandibles
were found but none could be
articulated with any of the
crania. Of the 1381 teeth re-
covered, 1,084 were loose and
removed from the screens used in
the excavation, while the other
297 teeth were in the mandibular
and maxillary bones. The teeth
were analyzed in the early
1970's and the results reported
in a paper given at the 27th
annual meeting of the Florida
Anthropological Society.
(Goodwin 1975 unpublished)

In order to determine the size
of the skeletal population re-
covered since Moore's time, we
proceeded as follows. The
counts of the cranial and post-
cranial bones were considered,
particularly the proxial and
distal ends of the long bones.
The proximal ends of the femora
had the highest count 74 for the
right and 77 for the left. Of
the cranial bones the petrous
temporal is the most durable and
here the count was 162 for the
right side and 167 for the left.
These counts included those of
the 52 crania, restored or
transferred, which contained
petrous temporal bones. It is
also highly likely that some of
the 121 crania which Moore re-
ported and discarded in his
tally are included in the 167
individuals for which we have
evidence a surprisingly large

Pathological evaluation was
performed on all the fragments
large enough to be identified,
but as no complete skeletons
were found gross studies were
impossible to perform. Aside
from the extensive postmortem
breakage of the skeletal remains
(presumed to be in large part




the result of past excavation
activities), the general health
of the population seemed to be
good. The cortex in most frag-
ments appeared to be of normal
density and there was no filling
of the marrow spaces that would
suggest severe anemia. A few
long bones, which otherwise
looked normal, showed mild to
moderate osteoclerosis as did 23
of the 52 cranial vaults. This
finding along with the almost
total absence of dental caries
(four out of 1381 teeth) sug-
gests a possible excess of flou-
rine in the supply of drinking
water, yet no plaque was ob-
served on any of the teeth exam-
ined (Adler 1970:207).

A traditional measure of the
general health of a population
is the presence of growth arrest
lines in the ends of long bones.
These lines indicate the pre-
valence of childhood diseases.
Radiographs of 949 ends of long
bones indicated there were 41
instances of this condition with
lines ranging in number from one
to 16.

Traumas were surprisingly rare.
Only four instances of healed
fractures were observed. Radio-
graphs indicated satisfactory
healing with no infection or
resultant disability. These
fractures occurred in the proxi-
mal end of a left humerus, the
mid-shaft of a right radius, the
mid-shaft of a right tibia and
the proximal end of a right
tibia. Where present, none of
the joints showed changes that
would suggested unreduced dislo-
cations. No crushing injuries
were found. Bone wounds made by
sharp instruments or osteoscler-
osis as a response to trauma
were absent.

Bone inflammation can be useful-
ly divided into three catego-

ries: mild, moderate and marked.
Mild inflammation is periostitis
alone. Moderate is periostitis
with some osteitic changes.
Marked is severe osteitis with
evidence of marrow cavity in-
volvement (osteomyelitis). It
is sometimes difficult to dis-
tinguish normal changes from
mild inflammations because the
line of separation of the two is
not sharp. In the collection
475 long bone fragments were
inflamed, possibly caused by the
high percentage of fluorides in
the water (Figure 3). Of these,
278 were considered mild, 105
moderate, and 92 marked. The
bones most frequently involved
were the femora, 158; tibiae,
121; and ulnae, 52. Some of
those inflammations classified
as moderate or severe,
especially those with sinus
tracts, could have been caused
by a purulent osteitis or
osteomyelitis. Some of the
milder forms of inflammation
also could result from adjacent
soft tissue infection.
Treponematosis is also a possi-
bility, particularly involving
the frontal bone, but no gumma-
tous lesions were noted in the
frontal or parietal fragments.
In the Sowell collection there
were 76 indentifiable frontal
bone fragments along with 36
partially complete vaults with
complete frontal bones. Of
these 122 possibilities only 12
instances of periostitis were
observed. One of these (Figure
4) showed a circular area of
healed periostitis but with
sharply defined borders, but
this would seem to favor a soft
tissue infection.

Arthritis also appears to be
abnormally rare. In the entire
sample there were only eight
bone ends suggesting the pres-
ence of degenerative arthritis.
These include mild lipping on

(37(4), 1984)


Severe fronto-occipital
flattening (cradle-board


Localized area of infection.

564-- 4 5i

Periostitus and osteitis on long bone fragments.




L r --rl --




the proximal end of a right and
left humerus, presumably unre-
lated, the proximal end of a
right radius and the distal end
of a third left metacarpal.
Moderate osteophytosis was seen
on the distal ends of three
first metatarsal bones and on
the proximal ends of a distal
phalanx of a toe. No evidence
of traumatic or infectious ar-
thritis was seen. Of approxi-
mately 1800 identifiable verte-
brae, vertebral osteophytosis
was seen as mild lipping on the
bodies of 17 and moderate osteo-
phytosis on only four.

One definite tumor was found.
Gross and radiographic-
examination showed numerous
punched out holes in both the
inner and outer tables of this
vault (Figures 5 & 6). Most
likely it is a case of multiple
myeloma as we reported it in the
Bulletin of the New York Academy
of Medicine (Morse, et al.
1974:447). The only other pos-
sibility would be an osteolytic
carcinoma resulting in the re-
moval or loss of calcium. A
search for other bones of the
same individual proved fruit-
less. Six other long bones,
because of localization of the
lesion and surrounding bone
regeneration, could be inter-
preted as tumor, but there was
no way to differentiate them
from the possibility of infec-

No bone dysplasias were ob-
served. There were, however, a
number of septal apertures in
the distal ends of the humeri.
One case of a bifid sacrum was
seen, two cases of sacralization
of the fifth lumbar vertebrae
and a spondylolysis of a fifth
lumbar was also found. Finally,
there were nine instances of ear

FIGURE 5. Multiple myeloma.

FIGURE 6. Radiograph of multiple myeloma
showing numerous areas of
From this examination of the
skeletal remains from the Sowell
mound it is reasonable to con-
clude that the inhabitants of
this site were generally heal-


(37(4), 1984)


thy, had no significant dental
caries, and did not suffer from
many childhood diseases. They
do not appear to have been "ac-
cident prone" and arthritis was
not a serious problem, but a
number of bone inflamations were


In this paper we have reviewed
the most recent excavation of
the Sowell Mound (8By3) first
described by C.B. Moore and
thought to have been excavated
by him in 1902. Since the skel-
etal remains recovered by Moore
were never fully analyzed this
more recent investigation pro-
vides a sample that represents a
more extensive review and dis-
cussion of the Sowell Mound
population and their physical
biology. The skeletal condition
of the remains recovered are
described along with some of the
pathology. An obvious conclu-
sion is that perhaps re-excava-
tion of any of the mounds dug by
Moore could yield valuable data.


Adler, P.
1970 Fluorides and Human Health.
World Health Organization,

Goodwin, R. Christopher
1975 "Human Dental Remains from
Sowell Mound, Bay County,
Florida." Paper presented at
the 27th Annual Meeting of the
Florida Anthropological
Society (unpublished).

Moore, Clarence B.
1902 Certain Aboriginal Remains of
the Northwest Florida
Coast. Journal of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia. Vol. 12, Part
II, 127-355.


Willey, Gordon R.
1982 Archaeology of the Florida
Gulf Coast. Florida Book
Store, Inc., Gainesville,
Florida (reprint 1949

R. C. Dailey and Dan Morse, M.D.
Department of Anthropology
Florida State University
G-34 Bellamy Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Dan, R.C. Dailey and Jennings

Prehistoric Multiple Myeloma.
Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, Second
Series, 50:447-458.




Robert S. Carr, M. Yagar Ipcan and Richard A. Johnson


The purpose of this paper is to
present information on and an
analysis of a Late Archaic
Period burial site. The excava-
tion at the Santa Maria cemetery
(8Da2132) was significant for
several reasons. First, the
site is among the earliest known
prehistoric sites in south-
eastern Florida. Approximately
six sites that date from the
Late Archaic Period (ca. 4000 -
3000 B.P.) have been recorded in
Dade County during the three
year survey of the County's
archaeological sites by the
Metro-Dade Division of Historic
Preservation. The Santa Maria
site is one of three known Late
Archaic Period Dade County sites
which include human burials (a
report on the salvage
excavations of the other two
cemeteries is currently in
progress by authors Carr and

Second, there has been a paucity
of reports on the physical
anthropology of prehistoric
Indian populations in South
Florida. Although human burials
have been frequently encountered
during excavations (e.g., Laxson
1959; Williams and Mowers 1977),
information on the physical
characteristics of these
populations was lacking. This
deficiency has been, in part,
the result of a lack of
available expertise to analyze
the skeletal remains (Iscan and
Miller-Shaivitz 1983).

The Santa Maria site was
discovered in November, 1980,
by the Metro-Dade Historic
Preservation Division. Surface
collections and uncontrolled
subsurface testing revealed a
small quantity of prehistoric

artifacts. In April, 1981, the
developers began removing trees
and author Carr observed a
concentrated quantity of both
prehistoric material and early
19th century historic artifacts
on the southeastern corner of
the tract. Subsequent test
excavations indicated the
presence of an early 19th
century home site and a
prehistoric habitation site upon
the bluff adjacent to the bay.

Much of this site was destroyed
when developers began
excavations for the construction
of a high-rise condominium.
These construction activities
were monitored to record any
additional archaeological
features that might be
uncovered. It was soon apparent
that at a distance beginning 50
m west of the habitation site,
prehistoric human burials were
being uncovered and destroyed
during bulldozing. Despite
cooperation from construction
workers, little information
could be recorded regarding
these destroyed burials. Only a
portion of one of these burials,
designated Feature R, was
observed in situ and this
material was collected for
radiocarbon dating. There is no
estimate of the number of
burials lost in the vicinity of
Feature R (Figure 1).

Subsequently, in July 1981, two
femora and several other
fragmentary bones were noticed
protruding from the south wall
of the construction pit. The
bones were situated within a
deep natural solution hole at a
depth of 92 cm below the present
ground surface. Although most
of the skeleton had already

been removed

by a backhoe,





December, 1984

Volume 37 Number 4


undertaken in an undisturbed area
within the solution hole feature.

In addition to the partial burial,
the test excavation yielded the
remains of four other individuals.
All of these burials were situated
below piles of limestone rocks that
appeared to have been intentionally
placed upon the graves (Figure 2).
The partial remains of another
skeleton, designated as Feature R,
were uncovered earlier by the
bulldozer in an area approximately
50 m to the NE of the other
burials. The skeletons, after
being studied in situ, were
transported to the Physical
Anthropology Laboratory at Florida
Atlantic University (Boca Raton)
for further analysis. Organic
materials, associated with the
grave, were sent to the
Geoarchaeology Research Center at
the University of Miami for
radiocarbon dating.

Site Description

The Santa Maria site is located
about 2.5 km south of the mouth of
the Miami River on the oolitic
limestone ridge that lies adjacent
to Biscayne Bay. The limestone is
a Pleistocene formation and the
bluffs were once a conspicuous
feature of the Atlantic Coastal
Ridge of Dade County. The rock
bluff is about 3 to 5 m above the
bay at this location and is among
southeastern Florida's highest

The limestone, within the vicinity
of the site, was covered by a
relatively thin mantle of
organically-rich black soil. The
depth of this soil generally varied
from 10 to 30 cm; however,
sediments were as deep as 125 cm in


Map of 8Da2132 site area.
(Note: The map being pro-
vided by the authors was
lost in the mail and un-
available at press time.
This substitute map was
prepared from information
in the text on the relative
locations of the midden,
Feature R and the Grave



Feature R

- Im ( r _55,_m




many of the solution holes that
occurred throughout the

The site was situated within a
hardwood hammock.During historic
times this hammock extended from
the Miami River southward to
Coconut Grove, a distance of 11
km. Most of the vegetation had
been cleared from the tract
before the time of the survey.
In the early 1900s, sediment
from the bottom of Biscayne Bay
was pumped onto the tract,
particularly along the eastern
side of the bluff. This sandy
fill had an extensive admixture
of lucine (Lincina spp.) shell,
a factor which could have added
confusion to the archaeological
interpretation since lucine
shells are often associated with
coastal prehistoric sites in the

Radiocarbon Analysis

Five radiocarbon dates were
determined for the site. The
samples were composed of human
bone, soil and marine shell
(Table 1). The dates indicated
a chronological range of ca.
2780 B.P. 3110 B.P. for the
burials. The only date outside
of this range was the charcoal
used for test sample UM-2409,
which provided a corrected date
of 4890 + 100 B.P. However,
these charcoal flecks were
intermixed with the burial pit
soil, and may have been the
result of a fire that predated
the time of burial. The other
two radiocarbon samples from
this burial were elements which
are obviously part of the
interment, human bone and a
marine shell tool, and their
dates were consistent with the
date range described above.

Radiometric age was calculated
relative to 0.95x the NBS oxalic
acid radiocarbon dating
standard. Quoted precision is
one standard deviation and
include only the counting errors
on the unknown sample,
background and modern standard.
Ages were calculated using a
Libby C-14 half-life of 5568
years. Stable isotope ratios
were measured relative to PDB
and the corrected age took into
account C-13 fractionation in
nature by normalizing to -25 per
mil. A 410 year reservoir
correction was applied to the
carbonate sample in order to
offset the postulated depletion
with the well-mixed layer of the
ocean in these latitudes. The
chronological' range stated above
reflects interpretations of C-14
dates using recent
dendrochronological revisions
(Klein et al. 1982). The
complete set of radiocarbon
samples is presented in Table 1.

Burials and Human Remains

The salvage excavation of this
site produced human remains of
six individuals. Five of these
were uncovered within the test
pit situated within a deep
solution hole. The burials
removed during the test pit
excavation were located south of
the southern wall of the
construction pit. Construction
activities had removed and then
refilled about one-third of the
area within the test pit. The
depth of the burials ranged
between 83 cm to 117 cm below
the surface elevation. The top
of the upper level of limestone
rocks placed above the graves
was about 55 cm below the


(37(4), 1984)


UM-2406 Soil from cranium 3000f110 -18..89 0/00 3100*110
of Individual No. 3

UM-2407 Soil adjacent to
cranium of No. 2

UM-2409 Charcoal from
Feature R

UM-2410 Human Bone from
Feature R

287060 -20.13 0/00 295060

4890100 -24.97 0/00 4890100

285070 -13.47 0/00 304070

UM-2411 Strombus tool from 299070 0/00 2990801
1. No C-13/C-12 ratio measured. Assumed 0 0/00 (marine shell). When
combined with reservoir correction for South Florida correction
factors cancel.

TABLE 1. Radiocarbon Sample, Location and Corrected C-14 Age.

Cranial Length
Cranial Breadth
Minimum Frontal Breadth
Maximum Frontal Breadth
Basion-Bregma Height
Porion-Bregma Height
Left Parietal Thickness
Bicondylar Breadth
Bigonal Breadth
Gonion-Symphysion Length
Cranial Index

Mean Porion-Height Index

Fronto-Parietal Index

No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
(female) (female) (male)
(25-30 yr.) (30-35 yr.) (25-36 yr.)
-- 180 174
134 141 135
-- 88 82
127 116 104
-- 133() --
109 114 102
5 5 9

118 --
78.33 77.59
71.03 66.02
(Medium) (Low)
62.41 60.74

TABLE 2. Measurements (in m) and Indices of the Santa Maria Crania.



No. 3
MD1 6.9 3.5 4.2 4.1 4.1 9.23 8.9 8.2
7.5 8.5 9.2 11.3 10.1
BL 3.5 1.5 2.5 1.9 1.6 2.9 4.1
No. 5
MD 10.2 8.8 9.2
BL 12.0 12.5 11.0
CH 3.8 3.6 5.0
No. 2
MD 7.1 9.7
BL 5.8 10.1
CH 2.9 3.1
No. 3
MD 4.1 4.3 4.0 8.6 8.2 9.5
BL 6.1 6.6 9.8 9.0 9.9
CH 3.8 1.8 1.7 0.2 0.2 4.2
1. MD refers to mesio-distal; BL to bucco-lingual; CH to crown height
2. Peg-shaped incisor.

3. Taken from the right side; others taken from the left side.

TABLE 3. Dental Measurements (in mm) of the Santa Maria Crania.

Burial 1

This burial contained the
remains of one individual,
catalogued and mapped as
Individual No. 1. This skeleton
was represented by only two
femora and several metatarsal
bones (Figure 3). The rest of
the burial had been removed by a
backhoe. Unfortunately, these
remaining bones were removed by
the property's security guard
(who was trying to be helpful)
before a full osteological
analysis was made. However, the
original observations indicated
that this individual was buried
in a prone (primary extended)

Burial 2

This burial was located about
1.5 m south of Burial 1. The
skeleton of this burial was not
disturbed by the construction
activity. The body (Individual
No. 2) was situated along an
east-west axis, with the face
turned eastward. The grave soil
was a black humic type similar
to the surrounding sediments and
no grave pit could be
delineated, although the rocks
on top roughly approximate an
outline of the burial. Though
severely fragmented, the bones
were sufficiently articulate to
indicate a primary, partially
flexed interment. The only
artifacts associated with this
individual are two bone beads,
one situated upon the top of the
skull (possibly a forelock
bead), the other near the chest.
A small fossilized shark's tooth
about 3 cm in length, without
any apparent modification, was
found 10 cm south of the

Following reconstruction, a

partial skull and a few




I -

Is: i -




K :r


t Y AL,


I ___L 1 I




,. t ;% \
.~ '.-


r It;



Individual No. 2. Cranium.
Norma verticalis.

- -~ r -m




Individual No. 2. Cranium
Norma lateralis.
r7-- .-

Individual No. 3.
Norma verticalis.


S --

1I ,


FIGURE 6. Individual No. 3 (lower)
and No. 4 (upper) in situ.


Individual No. 3. Cranium.
Norma lateralis.











(37(4), 1984)


Individual No. 3. Cranium.
Norma facialis.


Individual No. 3. Maxillary and
Mandibular dentition.

*J ** '


o .-.5"-:

,'* "' i
J a.
S. I 'h
'," "'
\ '-


FIGURE 11. Individual No. 4, Cranium. FIGURE 12.
Norma verticalis.

Individual No. 4. Cranium.
Norma lateralis.



v.-. ~ a .
,/ L '



It .). --



postcranial skeletal elements
were available for measurement
and analysis (Figures 4 and 5).
The reconstructed skull is
composed of both parietal bones,
the occipital, the right
temporal and the posterior half
of the frontal bones. The face
and mandible are too fragmentary
to mend. All teeth, except a
mandibular molar and premolar,
are missing. The post-cranial
skeletal remains are composed of
long bones, without corre-
sponding epiphyses, and a few
hand bones. Based on this
evidence, the sex is suggested
to be female with a possible age
range of 25-30 years, as
estimated from the degree of the
dental attrition and the cranial
sutural closure.

Burial 3

This primary interment was found
about one meter below the
present surface. It contained
two individuals (Nos. 3 and 4)
whose remains had been disturbed
by construction activities. The
bones of the lower extremities
had been removed by the backboe.

The position and association of
the two individuals is of
particular interest. During the
excavation, it was observed that
the cranium of No. 4 was placed
upon the lower chest of No. 3
(Figure 6). Individual No. 3
was partially within the tan
pamlico sand that underlies the
black humic soil and the bones
are relatively well preserved.
The right hand of No. 3 was in
close proximity with the cranium
of Individual No. 4. This
latter individual is represented
by only a skull, which includes
the entire cap and the temporal
sides. The mandible and face
were missing.

The only artifact associated
with this grave is a flat
oolitic limestone rock 13 cm in
length and 2 cm thick, which
appears to have two flattened
knobs at each end. The general
form of the artifact suggests a
pendant, but its condition was
so eroded from leaching by
ground water that it could not
be removed intact. It was
located about 20 cm north of the
skull of No. 3.

A portion of a grave pit outline
was revealed during the
excavation. The outline of the
pit suggested the grave for
Individuals Nos. 3 and 4 had
been dug separately from that of
Individual No. 2. The lowest
depth of the former grave was
117 cm below the present surface

Of the two individuals found in
this burial, No. 3 is better
preserved than No. 4. The skull
of No. 3 includes all the bones
except the zygomatic arches, the
orbitual regions and the base
(Figures 7, 8, and 9). The
mandible is also complete
(Figure 10) except for the right
condylar process. Of the
postcranial skeleton, the
proximal half of the right and
the distal half of the left
humeri, and fragments of the
forearm are present. Several of
the right and left metacarpals
are also relatively well
preserved. This individual is
identified as a female based on
attributes of the cranial and
postcranial skeletal remains.
The skull is pedomorphic and has
developed parietal and frontal
eminences. Mastoid processes
are small. The supramastoid
crest is intermediate in size.
Estimation of the age is about
30 to 35 years as determined
from the degree of the cranial




suture fusion and dental wear.

The second individual (No. 4) in
this burial is identified as
a male of 30 to 35 years
(Figures 11 and 12). As
stated previously, this
individual is represented only
by a partial skull; no post-
cranial elements were present.

Burial 4

This burial was located on the
edge of the construction fill
area. The existence of an indi-
vidual (No. 5) was determined
from the presence of three
isolated maxillary molars and
several unidentifiable bone
fragments. These specimens were
originally suspected to be
associated with No. 4. However,
careful evaluation of the soil-
stained color of the bones,
approximate age, dental wear and
pattern and location in the
burial site indicated that this
individual is different from the
others. This specimen is of an
undetermined sex with a possible
age of 25-30 years, as suggested
from the tooth size and the
degree of dental attrition.

Feature R

This burial contained one
individual represented by a
single tibia and several
fragments of foot bones. As
pointed out earlier it was
originally discovered when a
bulldozer destroyed the other
parts of the skeleton. An in
situ analysis of this burial was
carried out and the remains were
photographed and recorded. A
heavily eroded Strombus celt or
scraper was recovered about 5 cm
from the tibia. Fish bones were
intermixed with the burial pit

Physical Characteristics

All of the available standard
osteometric measurements were
taken of the skulls of Nos. 2,
3, and 4 (Table 2). All of
the specimens are mesocranic
(round headed), as might be
expected. However, earlier
Indians of the New World
appeared to be more
dolichocranic (long headed) than
the more recent ones (Hoyme and
Bass 1962). The findings
corresponded with the sample
from the Republic Groves site,
also an Archaic Period Indian
burial site (Saunders 1972;
Wharton et al. 1981). Among the
measurements and indices, the
most interesting one is the
relationship of the cranial
height (porion-bragmon) to the
length and breadth of the skull.
Individuals Nos. 3 and 4 differ
from each other. The former
specimen has a greater cranial
height than the latter.
Furthermore, the height of No. 2
is similar to that of No. 4.

Dental dimensions of Individual
Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were taken from
the available teeth (Table 3).
As seen in this table, No. 2 is
represented by a left mandibular
first premolar and first molar.
Individual No. 3 has all of the
maxillary teeth except the left
first molar which was
extracted during life and all
of the mandibular teeth with
the exception of the loss of
the left third molar and
the central incisors. As
the odontometric dimensions
indicate, there was little
sexual dimorphism in this
population. This finding agrees
with measurements recovered for
Indians of later periods in
Florida prehistory (Brilliant
and Ipcan 1982). Further

(37(4), 1984)



analysis of the dental
dimensions indicated that first
molars of the maxilla and the
third molars of the mandible are
larger than molars of the other.
The second molars of both jaws
are in general smallest. In
general, the size of the teeth
of the Santa Maria individuals
is smaller than some of the more
recent prehistoric Indians of
peninsular Florida. (Snow 1962;
Brilliant and Ican 1982).

Dental wear, as measured by the
height of the crown, ranged from
moderate to extreme. The teeth
of the two females (Nos. 2 and
3) are worn more than the male
(No. 5). Age difference might
account in part for this sexual
variation. This extreme
attrition has been commonly
observed in other Indian
populations (Saunders 1972;
Hoyme and Bass 1962). Dental
wear and health will be
discussed later in the paper.

The post-cranial sketetal
morphology and dimensions could
only be analyzed from the
remains of Nos. 2 and 3.
Individual No. 2 is the most
complete of the two. Based on
the femur (lacking the
epiphyses), the stature of this
female is estimated to be about
149 cm calculated by the
regression formula developed by
Steele (1970). Midshaft
dimensions of the femur are 24
mm (anteroposterior) and 23 mm
(transverse). The same
dimensions taken from the
nutrient foramen level of
the tibia are 29 mm and
19 mm, respectively. The
tibial dimensions provided an
index of flatness of 61.4,
classifying the individual as
platycnemical. Such a flat
tibia was observed in about 25
percent of an inland Archaic

population of Central Florida
(Saunders 1972). Although the
real cause of bone flattening is
still being investigated,
inheritance, muscular activity,
pathology and even habitual
squatting or kneeling are among
the hypotheses so far proposed
(Brothwell 1981; Oetteking
1930). For No. 2, this could
have been because of a
pathological condition. Most of
the long bones suffered from a
sever infectious disease, as
described later in this paper.

The post-cranial skeleton of No.
3 consists of fragmentary long
bones of the upper extremity.
This individual appears to have
a body size similar to No. 2,
although cranial morphology
varied. Individual No. 2 has a
relatively small skull with
smooth muscle attachment areas,
while that of No. 3 is somewhat
more robust. Individual No. 3
had a well-developed occipital
chignon, large mastoid processes
and pronounced skull. The same
female (No. 3) also has a
greater cranial height than the
male (No. 4). The male skull
has smoother muscle attachment
areas and a more curved
occipital region.


The health status of this sample
population is analyzed in three
general categories dental
pathology, osteopathology and
environmentally induced

The dental health can best be
determined from Individual No. 3
(Fig. 10). An analysis of this
individual indicates that four
teeth mandibularr central
incisors and left second
incisor, and maxillary left,
first molars), were extracted



during life. All the remaining
teeth show extreme dental wear,
the degree of which is rated to
be at Stage 3 or 4 according to
the scale developed by Anderson
(1968). The wear pattern in the
teeth of Individuals No. 2 and
No. 5 is rated to be at Stage 2
(crown flattened). The dental
wear in a similar age category
seems to be less in the Archaic
population of the Republic
Groves site (Saunders 1972).
Although the individuals of the
present site do not show any
evidence of caries and
hypercementosis, periodontal
disease and abscesses were
common. The individual which
shows clear evidence of
peridontal disease and apical
abscess is No. 3. In this
individual, bone resorption was
observed around the alveoli of
all the teeth and the distance
between the enamel of the crown
and the alveolor process
averaged 5 mm indicating the
severity of the peridontal
lesion. This amount of
resorption was about twice that
of a normal contemporary
individual. In the same
individual, apical abscesses
were observed in the alveoli of
the left second molar and right
first molar in the mandible and
left second molar and right
first molar in the maxilla.

Another interesting aspect of
the dentition was seen in No. 3
(Figure 10). In this
individual, the first right
maxillary molar is worn from the
buccal side and the buccal half
of the occlusal surface more so
than the lingual surface. This
wear pattern was a result of the
shifting of the crown from the
normal position to the lingual
side of the jaw. In the
mandible of the same

shift is not as pronounced as
the maxillary one. Such a wear
pattern was also described in
the Republic Grove site
(Saunders 1972). However, the
direction of wear was at the
opposite side; that is, the
buccal side was less worn than
the lingual side.

The dentition of No. 5 shows the
presence of an interproximal
groove between the second and
third molars. This small groove
usually has been attributed to
the habitual process of removing
the debris of meat and other
fibrous food by a toothpic or a
similar device, a procedure that
was frequently observed among
the American Indians (Schultz
1977; Ubelaker et al. 1972) as
well as postulated for Florida
Archaic Indians (Saunders 1972).

Although the number of
individual skeletons is small,
several specimens have lesions
worth considering. The
paleopathology of the sample is
best illustrated by the
condition of No. 2 (Figures 13
and 14). The most obvious
disease is represented by the
presence of a nonspecific
infection affecting the femora,
tibiae, left ulna and frontal
bone. The condition was
morphologically very similar to
osteomyelitis, a disease that
includes osteomyelitis itself,
osteitis and periosteitis
(Steinbock 1976; Ortner and
Putschar 1981).

The general characteristics of
these long bones included a
subperiosteal new bone mass
caused by bone apposition
indicating the presence of
involucrum. Every affected bone
showed multiple cloacae or
crater-like drainage holes
through which pus could enter

(37(4), 1984)


individual the

opposing molar


FIGURE 13. Individual No. 2, Osteomyelitic lesion involving femora,
tibia and ulna.


Individual No. 2. Probable osteomyelitic lesion of the
frontal bone and several depressions of the frontal bone.




~'Z .


other tissues. However, no
sequestrum was observed. From
these multiple cloacae and
involucra, it is obvious that
the disease was in a chronic
stage of development.

This suppurative osteomyelitis
has been associated with
Staphylococcus aureus (Steinbock
1976). The organism enters the
body indirectly (hematogenous
osteomyelitis) through the
bloodstream into the nutrient
artery of the long bones or
directly as a result of trauma
(e.g., fracture of a bone) or
hemorrhage. In general, the
focus of infection is at the
metaphysis of a long bone. From
this point, the disease can
spread into the epiphysis and
the adjacent synolvial cavity.
This kind of infection is caused
by an indirect exposure of an
individual to bacteria
(Steinbock 1976).

In Individual No. 2, this
indirect exposure causation was
not the case since the
metaphyses of the affected areas
seem normal but the shaft itself
was affected. This observation,
as also pointed out by Steinbock
(1976), may have been due to
direct exposure to bacteria. As
can be judged from the severity
of the lesion, the point of
infection was probably both the
left femur and left ulna. In
addition, individual No. 2 also
has various small circular
structures with a diameter of
about 3 to 5 mm and more than a
millimeter in depth. These
circular depressions are present
in all of the bones affected by
osteomyelitis and yet no
clearcut relationship could be
established. It is possible
that these circular structures
are the result of a post-mortem
condition, such as from insects.

Arthropathology is probably the
most commonly observed skeletal
problem in human history
(Brothwell 1981). Presence of a
degenerative joint disease was
reported for several sites in
Florida (Saunders 1972; Snow
1962). In the Santa Maria
collection, a severe case of
osteophytosis was seen in the
left inferior articular facet of
the atlas of Individual No. 3
(Figure 15). The degree and the
morphology of the lesion suggest
that there was a bone-to-bone
contact with the axis and other
cervical vertebrae. This
specimen also lacked the other
vertebrae. From this
observation, it is possible
that the osteomyelitic lesion
and cervical arthropathy were
related, although both
conditions could have occurred
independently of each other.

Another interesting aspect of
this sample is the cranial
trauma in Individual No. 4.
This individual is represented
by only a partial cranium. The
cranium was broken in such a way
that violent trauma may explain
the condition (Figure 16). The
right parietal bone near the
lambdoid suture seems to be cut
in a posterior-anterior
direction. The cut mark is
about 12 cm long running from
the squamosal suture to the
sagittal suture. The affected
area on the reconstructed skull
and loose bone fragments does
not show any bone healing
reaction, indicating that the
individual died soon after the
trauma. Furthermore, the cut
pattern in this skull is similar
to those made by a sharp
instrument (Brothwell 1981).
This cranium was found as an
"artifact" in association with
Individual No. 3. It should
also be mentioned that a skull

(37(4), 1984)






Individual No. 3. Osteo-
arthritic atlas. Inferior
articular facet.


Individual No. 4. Evidence
of possible trauma on the
right parietal bone.

|-i ". b- ,-*' -.. .- '
~- *.-

'. L
-.L A'~ p"






V -


* ."~ NL



Individual No. 4. A canal
penetrating through the
supramastoid crest.


Individual No. 3. Incomplete
tunnels forming a circular
pattern on the left parietal



cap artifact is described by
Willey (1949) from the Belle
Glade site. At the Belle Glade
site, the entire calva was
removed and posteriorly sawed
just below the occipital
protuberance. This description
does not coincide with the skull
of this study.

In addition to the cranial
trauma and dental peculiarities,
the Santa Maria site presents
several other challenging
problems that deserve analysis.
Circular structures, mostly
visable on the crania, are
present in the forms of holes
(No. 4), tunnels (No. 3), and
depressions (No. 2). The
depressions were described in
the paleopathology of the latter
individual. Since an
association between the disease
and the structures has not been
established, other factors need
to be considered as possibly
having caused these structures.
However, roots and insects are
not thought to be responsible
for the depressions, since these
factors would cause a different
type of deterioration on the
skeleton. The holes of cranium
No. 4 were observed in the right
parietal and left temporal bone
near the parieto-mastoid suture
(Figure 17). Both of the holes
penetrated into the cranial
cavity and caused extensive
damage in the interior surface
of the bones involved. It is
thought that these structures
were made by plant roots. This
view is based on the presence of
several rootlets in the holes.

Individual No. 3 is the most
interesting of all. This
individual contained six
incomplete tunnels on the left
parietal bone (Figure 18). The
tunnels formed an oval or
rectangular shape and appeared

to have been made by "drilling."
A survey of the literature did
not yield any archaeological or
ethnographical examples to
suggest a cultural origin for
these drilled "tunnels" (Iscan
et al. 1982). The only study
that described similar "tunnels"
was made by Miller (1975).
Although Miller's study did not
show any illustrative support,
the tunnels were also smoothly
made and he considered them man-
made. In the case of Individual
No. 3, tunnels were first
thought to be made by insects
(Ican et al. 1982). However,
this possibility seems remote
since the skull was not an ideal
place for insects to lay eggs or
to nest because of the hardness
of bone tissue. Plant roots,
also, are not thought to be the
causative factor since the
tunnels are incomplete and the
bone was not damaged in any way.

Discussion and Conclusion

South Florida's prehistoric
mortuary patterns have been
briefly discussed by Goggin
(1949), who noted a wide variety
of patterns that included both
primary and secondary interments
within both burial mounds and
middens. The Santa Maria
burials present mortuary traits
quite distinctive from those
previously known in South
Florida. First, these burials
were deliberately interred
within natural solution holes.
Afterwards, oolitic limestone
rocks were piled on top of the
graves. Possibly, the rocks
upon the graves were markers or
used to keep predators from
disturbing the bodies.

The Santa Maria cemetery
includes mortuary traits that
raise questions about ritual
mortuary behavior. First the

(37(4), 1984)



only complete skeleton,
Individual No. 2, is missing her
feet. Despite careful
excavation and observation of
the area of the burial pit where
the feet should have been
situated, there was absolutely
no evidence of any bones,
deteriorated or preserved,
within that area of the pit. It
is the authors' belief that the
feet were removed prior to
interment (but it is not known
whether this removal was by the
individuals conducting the
interment or the result of enemy
groups killing individuals and
removing their hands and feet
for placement as trophies, on
sticks). Second, the cervical
vertebrae were missing from all
of the burials. This general
absence of vertebrae is also
true of burials from two other
Late Archaic cemeteries, 8Dal082
and 8Da1053, the remains from
which are now being analyzed
by Carr and Iscan. The absence
of the vertebrae and the
feet may be attributed to
ritual behavior of unknown
significance. However, one
possibility is that it was an
attempt to "cripple" or deter
the dead from any return to the
world of the living. These
speculations are offered here to
encourage other investigators to
consider these types of mortuary
patterns when excavating South
Florida cemeteries.

Perhaps the most intriguing
element of the Santa Maria
burials is the cranium that was
situated in front of the lower
chest of Individual No. 3. This
cranium (Individual No. 4) may
have been an ancestral heirloom
such as from a relative of
Individual No. 3. It could
also represent a trophy skull, a
murder victim resulting from
tribal conflict. This latter
hypothesis is given an increased

possibility of being accurate by
the nature of the trauma on the
cranium that suggests death by a
blow to the head. Additionally,
the distinct morphology of this
cranium suggests it may be from
a population that is different
from the other interments of the
cemetery. The custom of
retaining single skulls as
trophies within burials is also
proposed by Sears (1956) from
the Kolomoki site in Georgia.


The authors are indebted to
Olymia and York Corporation and
John Fullerton for having
provided permission to conduct
the excavation of the site.
Valuable field assistance was
given by T. Bara, N. Mazey, J.
Trimble, M. Duda, J. Southward,
C. Willig, J. McGuire and J.
Winter. We also appreciate the
survey work by T. Riggs and the
proofreading of the draft
manuscript by W.E. Ican and
David M. Allerton and typing of
the draft manuscript by M. Wolf.
Appreciation is also expressed
to Heidi Katz for providing the
finished ink map drawings.

References Cited

Anderson, James E.
1968 The Serpent Mounds Site
Physical Anthropology. Art
and Archaeology, Occasional
Paper II. Royal Ontario
Museum, Ontario.
Brilliant, R.M. and M.Y. Iscan
1982 Dental Morphology of a Southeast
Florida Population. Abstract
in Florida Scientist 45
(Supplement 1):15.
Brothwell, D.R.
1981 Digging Up Bones.
Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Goggin, John M.
1949 The Archaeology of the
Glades Area, Southern Florida.
Manuscript on file at the Yale
Peabody Museum.




Hoyme, Lucile E. and William M. Bass
1962 Human Skeletal Remains from the
Tollifero (Ha6) and
Clarksville (Mcl4) sites, John
H. Kerr Reservoir Basin,
Virginia. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 182:329-

Ipcan, M.Y., G.J. Goss and R. Carr
1982 Cranial Abnormality in Archaic
Florida Indian Crania.
Abstract in Florida Scientist
45 (Supplement 1):13.

Ipcan, M. Yapar and Patricia Miller-
1983 A review of Physical
Anthropology in The Florida
Anthropologist. The Florida
Anthropologist 36 (3-4):114-

Klein, J., J.C. Lerman, P.E. Damon and
E.K. Ralph
1982 Calibrations of Radiocarbon
Dates. Radiocarbon 23:103-

Laxson, Dan
1959 Excavations in Dade County
During 1957. The Florida
Anthropologist 12:1-8.

Miller, George J.
1975 A Study of Cuts, Grooves and
Other Marks on Recent and
Fossil Bone: II Weathering
Cracks, Fractures, Splinters,
and Other Similar
Natural Phenomena. IN Lithic
Technology. Edited by Earl
Swanson, pp. 211-226. Mouton:
The Hague.

Oetteking, Bruno
1930 Pilasterism and
Platycnemism. Indian Notes

Ortner, Donald J. and Walter G.J.
1981 Identification of
Pathological Conditions in
Human Skeletal Remains.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.

Saunders, Lorraine P.
1972 Osteology of the Republic
Groves Site. M.A. thesis,
Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton, Florida.

Schultz, Peter D.
1977 Task Activity and Anterior
Tooth Grooving in Prehistoric
California Indians. American
Journal of
Physical Anthropology 46:87-


(37(4), 1984)

Sears, William H.
1956 Excavations at Kolomoki: Final
Report. University of Georgia
Series in Anthropology 5.
Athens, Georgia: University of
Georgia Press.

Snow, Charles E.
1962 Indian Burials from St.
Petersburg, Florida.
Contributions of the Florida
State Museum, 8. Gainesville,
University of Florida.

Steele, D. Gentry
1970 Estimation of Stature from
Fragments of Long Limb Bones.
IN Personal Identification in
Mass Disasters. Edited by T.
Dale Stewart, pp. 85-97.
Washington D.C.: National
Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution.

Steinbock, R. Ted
1976 Paleopathological Diagnosis
and Interpretation: Bone
Disease in Ancient Human
Populations. Springfield
Illinois: C.C. Thomas

Ubelaker, D.H., T.W. Phenice and W.M.
1972 Artificial Interproximal
Grooving of the Teeth in
American Indians. American
Journal of Physical
Anthropology 35:467-475.

Wharton, B.R., G.R. Ballo and M.E. Hope
1981 The Republic Groves Site,
Hardee County, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 34:59-

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Excavations in Southeast
Florida. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology,
42. New Haven: Yale University

Williams, Wilma and Bert Movers
1977 Markham Park Mound No.
2, Broward County, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist

Robert S. Carr
Metro-Dade County Historic
Preservation Division
111 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 101
Miami, Florida 33130

M. Yascar Icpan
Department of Anthropology
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Richard A. Johnson
Geoarchaeological Research
Department of Geology
University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida 33124


Louis D. Tesar

This article is intended to
assist the non-physical anthro-
pologist in learning to identify
human bones, as well as to un-
derstand the specialized terms
used by physical anthropolo-
gists, including those used in
the proceeding three articles.
Many of you may already be fa-
miliar with all or much of the
information presented. This
article is directed to others
who are not as familiar with
such information. It is not,
however, a definitive nor a
comprehensive presentation. It
is a brief, general presenta-
tion. It is part of our contin-
uing effort to provide "How-to"
and "educational" information
for our readers; not a begin-
ner's guide to analysing human
remains, since it requires years
of study to acquire sufficient
knowledge to attempt such work,
and this presentation is limited
to the general identification of
bones and some of their features
but not their analysis.

The interested reader who wishes
to go beyond this brief intro-
ductory presentation is directed
to the following texts:

Anderson, J.E.
1962 The Human Skeleton: A
Manual for Archaeo-
logists. National
Museum of Canada.

Bass, William M.
1971 Human Osteology: A
Laboratory and Field
Manual of the Human
Skeleton. Missouri
Archaeological Society,
Special Publications,
University of Missouri,

Hutchinson, Thomas C.
1976 Laboratory Methods In
Physical Anthropology.

University of Missouri-
Columbia, Miscellaneous
Publications in
Anthropology, Number 5.

Of these, I prefer Bass' presen-
tation. There are, of course,
many other sources available on
this subject; although, most of
them are not for beginners.
Indeed few physical anthropology
publications are directed to the
beginner as the subject is a
specialized, technical field of
study. However, if you wish to
go beyond this brief beginning,
please contact the Anthropology
Department at your nearest Uni-
versity as most of them have
physical anthropologists on
their staff.

The illustrations used in this
article were prepared by the
author. They vary from those
used in most manuals and texts
dealing with the identification
of human bones. Most publica-
tions on this subject show views
of the bones in strictly anatom-
ical positions: front, back,
top, bottom or side, while these
illustrations are oriented so as
to show the most identifying
features. Furthermore, since
the focus of this article is
simply bone identification, not
all bones are illustrated, nor
are examples showing distin-
guishing sex or age differences.
The reader is again directed to
the more comprehensive sources
cited above.

While the bones illustrated in
this article are complete, well
preserved examples, in most
instances preservation in ar-
chaeological contexts is so poor
that the physical anthropologist
must work with fragments and
incomplete or partially decayed
skeletons. This is amply
demonstrated in the first three
articles in this issue. Thus,


** iTmrTTT^rrr ^^T% /^ ^/* *m

T.i^wmk v I QOA


while information can be
gathered from bones themselves,
proper in situ measurements,
illustrations and/or photo-
graphs,and recording of the
context in which they are found
is critical to their in-
terpretation. This is further
discussed in the "Handbook of
Forensic Archaeology and Anthro-
pology" (Morse et al, editors,
revised 1984).

However, if you are not a pro-
fessional archaeologist, and
find human skeletal remains in
archaeological contexts please
DO NOT excavate them. Please
recover them with dirt and
notify the professionals in your
area. Aside from the skill and
knowledge necessary to properly
excavate such remains without
loosing important data, in most
states it is against the law.
In Florida, for instance, you
would be in violation of Chapter
872, Florida Statutes ("Offenses
Concerning Dead Bodies and
Graves"). In addition, if it is
on state-owned or controlled
land you would be violating the
provisions of Chapter 267, Flor-
ida Statutes, and may also be
charged with trespass and van-
dalism on state-owned or private
land. Finally, various federal
laws apply to the unauthorized
excavation of burial sites on
federally owned lands. Indeed,
unless the remains can be pro-
fessionally excavated and anal-
ysed, if they are not threatened
by proposed construction or land
clearance, they should be left
alone and undisturbed.

Regardless of which laws are
being violated, on a more
personal level, it is the au-
thor's opinion that Native Amer-
ican and other burial sites
should be protected and pre-
served; that they should not be
excavated except to address

specific research questions or
to recover threatened remains;
that such excavation should only
be conducted under the direction
of a trained professional; that
their analysis should be per-
formed in a professional and
timely manner; that they should
be handled, in so far as possi-
ble, in a manner respecting the
belief systems of the involved
individuals' culture; and, that
following analysis and report
preparation the remains, of
historic populations at least,
should be properly reburied in a
manner in keeping with the be-
lief systems of the identified
culture from which the remains
originated. I have found the
double standard of generally
providing a means of reburial
for identified christian burial
remains while retaining those of
non-christian pagans for contin-
ued, indefinite study to be
personally offensive. Thus,
while my own belief system has
no continuing tie to my physical
self following death and ex-
presses a desire to return those
remains to Mother Earth as nu-
trients for other growing
things, I believe that we should
respect the belief systems of

I hope this presentation proves
informative, while at the same
time not encouraging our reader-
ship to entertain a desire to
obtain their own examples for
comparative analysis. The il-
lustrated specimens are in the
physical anthropology collec-
tion of the Department of Anth-
ropology at the Florida State
University in Tallahassee where
they are used for teaching
purposes. They were illustrated
while the author was a student.
The majority of the terms used
in the glossary are from notes
taken as part of a physical
anthropology course taught by

(37(4), 1984)


Dr. R. C. Dailey. Any lacking
or errors are attributable to
poor note-taking and not to a
failure in presentation by Dr.


There are generally 206 bones in an
adult skeleton; although, additional
accessory bones may also occur. Not
all bones and terms are included in
this presentation, which focuses
primarily on bones and terms included
in the proceeding three articles.

Alveolar Processes: The tooth
bearing regions of the maxilla
and mandible.

Antemortem: means "Before Death",
and refers to something which
occurred while the individual
was still alive.

Anterior (or Ventral): A point or
region which lies in front or
toward the front surface.

Articular Facet: A surface to which
two bones articulate, such as a
rib head to the facet on a
thoracic rib.

Articulated: Refers to bones joined
or lying in the position in
which they were joined in life.
For example, a primary interment
has an articulated skeleton.

Atlas (Figure 2): The first cervical
vertebra. It articulates with
the base of the skull and the
axis, upon which it pivots. To
allow the head to turn from side
to side.

Auditory Meatus (Figure 1): The ear
canal in the side of the skull.

Axis (Figure 2): The second cervical
vertebra. The axis is distin-
guished by an upward thumb-like
projection (the dems or
odontoid process) upon which
the atlas pivots.

Basiom: The most anterior point on
the edge of the foramen magnum of
the skull in the mid-sagittal

Bifid Sacrum: A sacrum (see figure
6) in which the bone covering
over the spinal cord is incom-
plete. Individuals with this
condition risk paralysis of the
lower body if the "unpro-
tected" spinal cord is pinched
or otherwise damaged as a result
of this condition.

Bigonal Breadth: The greatest
breadth between the onions of
the mandible measured from the
mid-point of the angle formed by

the posterior margin of the
ascending ramus and the interior
margin of the body.

Bone Reabsorption: As a result of
trauma, calcium deficiency, or
disease the body may reabsorb
bone. Examples include the
absorbed bone resulting in the
exposed tooth roots in the skull
(illustrated in Figure 1).

Buccal: This refers to the side of
pre-molar and molar teeth which
faces the cheek.

Bunched or Bundle Burial: This re-
fers to a form of secondary
interment in which the flesh has
been removed and the cleaned
bones placed, in many instances,
in a basket or other container
which is then buried or rebur-
ied. Typically the skull will
be at one end, the pelvic girdle
at the other, the long bones on
either side or both sides and
the remaining bones in the

Brachycephalic: Broad or round head-
ed. (see cranial index)

Bregma (Figure 1): The point at
which the frontal and two parie-
tal bones of the skull meet at
the intersection of the coronal
and sagittal sutures.

Calva or Calotte: The braincase or
skull-cap alone.

Calvaria: A skull lacking the lower
jaw and facial region.

Calvarium: A skull lacking only the
lower jaw.

Caries: Another word for "cavities"
in teeth.

Carples (Figure ): The wrist bones,
consisting of two rows of four
bones each.

Cephalic Length and Breadth (Figure
1): Cephalic Length (Figure 1)
is obtained by measuring from the
Glabella (at the brow ridge) to
the pisthocranion on the
occipital bone along the mid-
sagittal plane where the maximum
diameter is obtained. Cephalic
Breadth is the maximum
transverse diameter of the

Cervical Vertebra (See Figure 2): In
addition to the Atlas and Axis
there are five other cervical
vertebra composing the neck

Clavicle (Figure 3): The collar
bone. It is elongated and
slightly S-shaped.

Cloacae: Crater-like drainage holes.

Coccyx (Figure 7): The tail bone,



Coronal Suture

Frontal Bone




/Parietal Bone

Squamosal Suture


Temporal Bone

"-Auditory Meatus

%Mastoid Process

J.. Coronoid



Masal Bteht!
V..e1 Br.abth.
Vaza1 Nreadtb

Figure 1. (Upper Left) Cranium or Skull (oblique top lateral view);
(Lower Left) Mandible (oblique top cateral view); (Upper
and Lower Right) side and front view of skull showing
points of measurement.


(37(4), 1984)



4th Cervical

Figure 2. Vertebrae (all upper left posterior views).




(Anterior View)

(Posterior View)

(Anterior View) (Right Side View)



i' -- 'C o r tical

Glenoid Cavity

" Neckk


Lateral Margin

Superior Border


(Dorsal Surface)

(Costal Surface)

Figure 3. (Upper Left) Right Clavicle or Collar Bone; (Upper Right)
Sternum; (Lower) Right Scapula or Shoulder Blade.


(37(4), 1984)

Lar.*_ -T


which is composed of four reduced
vertebrae extending downward from
the apex of the Sacrum.

Condyle: Smooth, rounded, articulat-
ed eminances or processes.

Condylar Process (Figure 1): The
rounded projection on the upper
portion of the jaw or manidible
where it articultes with the

Coronal Suture (Figure 1): The su-
ture between the frontal and
parietal skull bones.

Coronoid Process (Figure 1): The
crow's beak shaped process on the
upper forward part of the ramus
of the mandible.

Cranial Breadth (see Figure 1): The
maximum transverse diameter of
the skull.

Cranial (or Cephalic) Index (see
Figure 1): Cranial Breadth times 100
divided by cranial length. A
value of 74.9 or less indicates a
narrow or long headed skull
(Dolichocranial or Dolichoce-
phalic); 750 79.9 indicates
an average or medium shaped
skull (Mesocranial or
Mesocephalic); 80.0-84.9
indicates a broad'or round headed
skull (Brachycranial or Brachyc-
ephalic); and, 8J. or greater
indicates a very broad skull
(Hyperbrachycranial or

Cranial Height (see Figure 1): The
distance from the Basion to the

Cranial Length (see Figure 1): The
distance from the Glabella to

Cranium (Figure 1): The skull, the
head, face and lower jaw.

Dental Attrition: Tooth wear.

Distal: The lower end or point far-
thest from the joint connecting
it to the body. This term is
usually used with long bones,
except the digits (fingers and

Dolichocranic: (see Cranial Index).

Epiphysis: A bone extremity expanded
for articulation.

Exostoses: A bony tumor on the sur-
face of a bone.

Femur (Figure 8): Thigh or upper leg

Fibula (Figure 8): Lower leg brace

Flexed Burial: Is a primary inter-
ment in which the body is bent,
often into a fetal position,
rather than fully extended.

Frontal Bone (Figure 1): The bone
forming the forehead and top of
the eye orbits.

Fronto-occipital Flattening: This is
an artificial flattening of the
skull caused by fastening a
cradle board against an infant's
forehead and back of skull while
it is still playable and forming.
The result is a flattened, broad
head (Hyperbracbycephalic).

Glabella (see Figure 1): the most
prominent point separating the
brow ridges in the mid-sagittal
plane, and above the fronto-nasal
suture of the skull.

Rip or Innominate Bone (Figure 7):
Is formed by the fusing of the
Illium, Ischihm, and Pubis Bones.

Humerus (Figure 4): The upper arm

Inferior: A point or region which
lies below another point or
region in the normal articulated

Inion: The base of the external
occipital protuberance in the
mid-sagittal plane.

Lambdoidal Suture: The suture be-
tween the parietals and
occipital skull bones.

Lumbar Vertebrae: Lower back verte-

Mandible (Figure 1): Lower jaw bone.

Mastoid Process (Figure 1): Either
of the two, breast-like
projection at the base of either
side of the skull.

Maxilla (Figure 1): Upper jaw bone.

Nesocranic: (see Cranial Index).

Metacarples (Figure ): Palm or lower
hand bones.

Metatarsals (Figure 9): Lower foot

Nasal Bone (Figure 1): Nose bone.

Hasion (Figure 1): The point of
juncture of the fronto-nasal and
inter-nasal sutures of the skull
between the eyes.

Occipital Bone: The bone at the base
of the head.

Occipital Protuberance: The rounded
eminence on the occipital bone at
the back of the skull. This




Proximal End


Radius Ulna Process

- -. -Trochlea ,
Distal End
Lateral Epiconoyle (Lateral
(Anterior View) (Posterior View) View) (Anterior View)

Figure 4. (Left) Right humerus or upper arm bone; (Right) Right
radius and Ulna or lower arm bones.


(37(4), 1984)




S (Digits or Phlanges)


P /

--Wrist Trapezium Pisiform

S, Triquetrum
\Lunate Capitate

Scaphoid Trapozold

Figure 5. Right Hand.(Left) Palmer View; (Right) Dorsal View. P =
Proximal Phalanx; M = Medial Phalanx; D = Distal Phalanx.

Proximal Phalanx; M = Medial Phalanx; D = DistaI:Phalanx.


(37(4), 1984)

.- Articular Surfaces

I'1 \

(Dorsal View)

Figure 6. Sacrum.

feature is more prominent in
males than females.

Occipito-mastoid Suture: The suture
separating the Occipital bone
from the mastoid region of the
temporal bones of the skull.

Odontosetric: The metric measurement
of teeth.

Opisthoeranion: The point of the
occipital bone at the greatest
distance from the Glabella.

Orbital Regions: Boney eye sockets.

Osteometrics: The metric measurement
of bones.

Osteomyelitis: Severe bone inflama-
tion with evidence of marrow
cavity involvement.

Osteolytic Carcinoma: A condition of
bone degeneration resulting from
the removal or loss of calcium.

(Anterio-Distal View, Left Side)

Osteitis: A general term referring to
(vascular) inflammation of bone.

Osteopathology: Bone diseases; or,
the study of bone diseases.

Paleopathology: The study of
diseases of prehistoric and early
historic peoples.

Parietal Bones (Figure 1): The bones
on the side to crown of the

Parieto-mastoid Suture: The suture
between the parietal and mastoid
skull bones.

Pathology: The science of the nature
of disease, its causes, process-
es, development, and
consequences .

Periostitis: Mild inflammation of the
bone restricted to the periosteum
of the outer layer as a result of
external injury.


(Medial View) (Lateral View)
(Lateral View)

Transverse Process

(Pelvic View)

Figure 7.



Medial "-'1Q -
Facet Apex
(Posterior View)

(Upper) Right Ilium and Ischium or Hip Bone; (Lower Left)
Coccyx or Tail Bone; (Lower Right) Right Petella
(Dorsal View)


Head Greater


.\ Trochanter


Petellar Surface

Lateral Medial Int
Styloid Condyle Condyle
Process ,-


f \ Tuberosity

Fibula Tibia



(Anterior View) (Posterior View) (Posterior (Anterior View)

Figure 8.










Leg Bones (Left) Right Femur; (Right) Right Fibula and
Tibia. Medial Malleous


(37(4), 1984)



,Ist Cuneiform
2nd Cuneiform
3rd Cuneif

i C '

\Navicular Cuboid



(Bottom View)


(Dorsal View) (Top View) (Bottom View) o
Figure 9. Right Foot (Left) Articulated, (Right) Tarsal Bones, Except left talus
& calcaneous, P = Proximal Phalanx; M = Medial Phalanx; D = Distal



Petella (Figure 7): Kneecap.

phalanx (Figures and 8): Finger and
toe bones.

platycnemic: Flat tibia.

Porion (Figure 1): The most superior
point in the upper edge of the
external auditory meatus.

Porion-Bregma or Bregna-Porion:
Cranial height (see Figure 1).

Post-Cranial Skeleton: The approxi-
mately 177 bones below the

Posterior (or Dorsal): The point or
region lying near the back sur-

Post-Mortem: After death.

Proximal: The upper end or point
nearest to the joint connecting a
bone to the body. Usually used
with long bones, except digits.

Primary Interment: The burial of an
articulated body, as represented
by the skeleton being recovered
in anatomical position.

Radius (Figure 4):
the two lower
the Ulna, the
larger end of

The smaller of
arm bones. Unlike
distal end is the
the radius.

Ramus (Figure 1): The upward pro-
jecting sides of the jaw or

Sacrum (Figure 6): The roughly tri-
angular shaped bone formed of
five fused vertebrae which form
the posterior wall of the pelvic

Sagittal Suture: The suture separat-
ing the parietal bones at the
top of the skull.

Scapula (Figure 3): Shoulder blade.

Secondary Interment: Refers to the
remains of a body which have been
buried in an unarticulated con-
dition, indicating exposure or
exumation and reburial. Usually
refers to bundle burials.

Shoveling of Incisors: An inherited
trait associated with Native
Americans or Esquimos in which
the posterior side (inside) of
the incisor teeth is concave.

Sphenoid (Figure 1): The skull bone
forming the anterior portion of
the base of the vault, portions
of the orbits and portions of the
walls anterior to the temporals.

(37(4), 1984)

Squamosal Suture (Figure 1): The
suture separating the parietal
bones from the superior portion
of the temporal bones of the

Sternum (Figure 3): Breast bone.

Superior: The point or region which
lies above another point or
region in a normal articulated

Sutures: are the regular lines
joining the skull bones.

Synovial Cavity: Sinus cavity.

Tarsals (Figure 9): The group of
seven bones forming the base or
instep of the foot.

Temporal Bones (Figure 1): The bones
on the side of the skull below
the parietals, and having the
auditory meatus and mastoid
process as two identifying fea-

Thoracic Vertebrae (Figure 2): The
vertebrae at the back of the
chest area to which the ribs

Tibia (Figure 8): The shin bone of
the lower leg.

Ulna (Figure 4): The larger of the
two lower arm bones. It is
distinguished by the hook-like
process at the proximal end.

Zygomatic Arch (Figure 1): The cheek

Louis D. Tesar
Bureau of Historic Preservation
Division of Archives, History
and Records Management
Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida


In response to member requests,
this will be a regular feature
of future issues. The success
or failure of this section will,
of course, depend on member

Book Reviews should be submitted
to the Editor. They should be
kept short and concise, address
anthropological and related
topics which would contribute
further to our members' under-
standing of the history and
prehistory of Florida and sur-
rounding areas, and provide
information on the cost and
locations or source where our
readers could obtain copies.
They will be subject to
editorial review and acceptance,
and will be published on a
space available basis. If space
is not available, as an option
they may be forwarded to the
President for consideration to
be included in the FAS

Current Research submissions
should be submitted to the Edi-
tor. They will be subject to
editorial review and acceptance,
and will be published on a space
available basis. If space is
not available, they will auto-
matically be submitted for con-
sideration for inclusion in the
FAS Newsletter. They should be
brief, and where appropriate
should indicate whether field
schools, amateur participation,
or public visitation may occur
and, if so, whom to contact.

Comments is intended to be simi-
lar to the "Discussion and De-
bate" section in the American
Athropologist. Submissions
should be submitted to the Edi-
tor, and will be subject to
Editorial review and acceptance.

Comments should be brief,
substantive, and pertain to
topics addressed in The Florida
Anthropologist or Florida An-
thropological Society Publica-
tions. If they are critiques of
previously published articles,
the authors of such articles
will be given an opportunity to
respond to such critiques and
responses will be jointly
published. Comments will be
published on a space available

The format of submissions to
this section should follow the
same procedure established in
the Editorial Policy Guidelines
(cf. FA 37(1)) for manuscript
submissions. Questions should
be directed to the Editor (see
inside front cover).


"Handbook of Forensic Archaeolo-
gy and Anthropology," edited by
Dan Morse, Jack Duncan and James
Stoutamire. Copyright 1983
(Reprinted and Revised 1984).
240 pages, 87 illustrations, 20
tables 8 1/2 x 11" paperback.
Published by the Florida State
University Foundation, Inc.
Library of Congress Catalog Card
Number 82-62911.

This is a very readable publica-
tion designed as a text/handbook
describing how archaeological
field methods can be useful in
death investigations, and as a
teaching aid in forensic archae-
ology, anthropology and crime
scene training. It contains
chapters on search techniques,
excavation and recovery, under-
water crime scene investigation,
osteology for the investigator,
identification of the vicim, the
skeletal pathology of trauma,



Volume 37 Number 4

December, 1984


and principles of evidence in
interpretation. I recommend
this publication to our readers
interested in the techniques
used to recover and analyse
human remains and associated
data found in archaeological
contexts, and the broader
application of these techniques
in crime scene investigation.
This publication is available at
the Museum of Florida History
Gift Shop in Tallahassee for

Reviewed by:
Louis D. Tesar

While not a book review, this
seems to be an appropriate place
to notify our readers that the
Museum of Florida History Gift
Shop carries recent issues of
The Florida Anthropologist be-
ginning with Volume 36 (1-2),
the Paleo-Indian issue. If you
or your friends are planning to
visit Tallahassee, please sched-
ule a visit to the Museum Gift
Shop. Your purchases will help
encourage their continued sup-


New Radiocarbon



New radiocarbon dates from two
Withlacoochee River shell mid-
dens are contributing to a
better understanding of prehis-
toric culture chronology in this
little-investigated region of
Florida's north peninsula Gulf
coast. Many of the shell mid-
dens along this section of the
Withlacoochee River, just east
of Lake Tsala Apopka, are
wellknown to local amateur
collectors. Others have been
recently discovered and recorded

FIGURE 1. Map of Cove of the Withla-
coochee area showing loca-
tions of sites 8Ci192 and
8Ci195 in Citrus County.
in site surveys of the area
conducted by the Florida State
Museum (FSM) and the
Withlacoochee River Archaeology
Council (WRAC). The only two
Withlacoochee middens previously
investigated by professional
archaeologists (Bullen and Askew
1965, Cantrell 1955) were
assigned to culture periods on
the basis of seriations pro-
duced from decorated midden

In November 1983, FSM personnel
and WRAC volunteers conducted a
limited excavation of the Board
Island midden (8Cil95) (Figure
1), in which 1.5 cu.m. of a 500
cu.m deposit were unearthened

(37(4), 1984)




and water-screened over a period
of three days. To date, analy-
sis of the recovered materials
has focused on one level, 15-50
cm below the midden surface,
which also contained a charcoal
sample adequate for radiocarbon
dating. This sample yielded a
date of 1570+ 130 B.P. (Beta
9434) funded by the Inverness
Rotary Club), suggesting a late
Deptford or proto-Weeden Island
period occupation (Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980:23).

Analysis of Board Island pottery
indicates that limestone tem-
pered plain Pasco series wares
are in the majority, followed by
sand tempered plain sherds of an
unknown type. Several punc-
tated and incised Perico type
rim sherds were found, of both
sand tempered and limestone
tempered pastes. Two of these
sherds wee recovered from the
dated 15-20 cm level, suggesting
the utility of Perico pottery as
an upper time marker for the
Deptford period inland, Pre-
liminary examination of the
faunal material suggests that
the Board Islanders were
primarily fisher folk, although
the freshwater snail Viviparus
georgianus (Say) and the mussels
Elliptio buckleyi and Lampsilis
teres (Rafinesque) were impor-
tant in the diet as well. Plant
remains, although undoubtedly
present, have yet to be

In May 1983, FSM archaeologists
excavated approximately 25% of
the 352 cu.m Flying Eagle Ranch
midden (8Ci192), one of a ring
of nine middens located in an
oak hammock peninsula 800 m west
of the present bank of the With-
lachoochee River. A charcoal
sample suitable for radiocarbon
dating was obtained from a depth
of 70 cm below the midden sur-
face (total midden depth 1 m),
which produced a date of 1430+

40 B.P. (Beta 6921) funded by
the Wentworth Foundation). This
date indicated an occupation
somewhat later than at Board
Island, during the early Weeden
Island period.

Analysis of 8Ci192 materials has
not yet been comparable to the
Board Island effort, but it
appears that fish, snails, and
mussels were still important
dietary staples. The pottery
recovered was exclusively lime-
stone tempered Pasco Plain. On
the basis of several partially
reconstructed vessels, we can
surmise that much of this pot-
tery was in the form of large,
open bowls.

These new dates allow us to
firmly establish the riverine
focus of interior north peninsu-
lar Gulf coast populations
through at least the sixth cen-
tury A.D. No sites of similar
age are known in the area that
are not in close proximity to
the river. Until we can estab-
lish contemporaneity, or the
lack of it, for the many sites
in the Withlacoochee drainage,
we will be prevented from
testing assumptions that seek
to explain site location in ways
not directly related to
subsistence needs. If the
median dates can be accepted,
there is the hint of a subtle
process of change underway
between A.D. 380 (Board Island)
and A.D. 530 (Flying Eagle
Ranch) in the Withlacoochee
region. This would account for
the observed differences
between the two middens,
especially in terms of pottery
and site location in relation to
resources. These differences
may represent the Deptford -
Weeden Island transition for the
interior Gulf coast, if this
concept proves to be either
valid or significant.




Bullen, Ripley and Walter Askew
1975 Tests At The Askew Site,
Citrus County, Florida. The
Florida Anthro- pologist
Cantrell, B.C.
1955 Reports on Excavations
conducted by the 1955 Summer
Archaeological Field Session
of the Unversity of Florida.
Manuscript on file, Department
of Anthropology, Florida
State Museum, Gainesville.
Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles H.
1980 Florida Archaeology.
New York: Academic

Submitted by:
Brent Weisman
Florida State Museum
University of Gainesville
Museum Road
Gainesville, Florida 32611

Spanish Mission Research

For the past five months, the
Florida Bureau of Archaeological
Research has conducted broad-
scale archaeological testing at
San Luis de Talimali (8Le4).
San Luis was the seventeenth
century capitol of the Spanish
mission effort among the power-
ful Apalachee Indians. More

than 1,400 subsurface tests (20
cm auger holes placed every ten
meters) enabled the production
of computer-generated maps that
show the distribution of several
categories of artifacts and daub
across the site. More than
30,000 topographic readings,
spaced every two meters, provid-
ed data for a detailed topo-
graphic map. In conjuction with
artifact distribution maps, the
topographic map illustrates what
is apparently a plaza and vil-
lage arrangement. On the north-
west side of this probable pla-
za, there is a heavy concentra-
tion of pottery and daub that
may prove to be the location of
the mission and church complex.
A similar artifact and daub
cluster marks the location of
the fort and blockhouse, which
were partially excavated by John
W. Griffin, Hale G. Smith, and
Charles H. Fairbanks during the
late 1940's and mid- 1950's.

Resistivity surveys in the pre-
sumed village area (more than
18,000 readings thus far) sug-
gest the locations of several
structures. A series of 2 x 2 m
test pits are currently being
excavated to assess variability
in artifact assemblages and
faunal-floral preservation a-'
cross the site. These broad-
scale testing techniques set the
stage for block excavations
scheduled to begin in February

Gary Shapiro
Bureau of Archaeological
Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida


(37(4), 1984)


Back issues may be ordered by
copying and completing this
form, or simply writing a letter
including the necessary informa-
tion. Do not forget to include
the $2.00 postage and handling
charge, or to subtract any ap-
plicable discounts. Orders for
back issues should be sent to
the Editor (see inside of front
cover) along with a check or
money order made payable to the
Florida Anthropological Society.

A 10% discount is given to all
members ordering back issues.
In addition, a 10% discount is
given to both members and non-
members ordering 10 or more
example, ten copies of FA 36(1-
2) at $10.00 each cost $100.00
less $10.00 for a subtotal of

$90.00. However, ONLY ONE OF
EACH may be ordered for issues
with a ** or (10 or less, and
20 or less copies in stock re-
spectively) since so few copies
remain before they become out of
print. Out of print issues may
be ordered from Johnson Reprint
Corp. (see inside back cover).

When ordering, please fill in
the form by writing the number
of copies ordered, then multiply
by the price per issue and enter
the subtotal (less any applica-
ble discount for orders of ten
or more) in the space beside the
issues being ordered.

Please allow 4 to 6

weeks for

delivery. Questions should
addressed to the Editor.

PA 1(1-2) 1(3-4) OUT OF PRINT
FA 2(1-2)** $10 X 1 -
FA 3(1-2) $10 x 1 -
FA 3(3-4) $10 x 1 -
FA 4(1-2) $10 x 1 -
FA 4(3-4) $10 x __
FA 5(1-2)-6(1) OUT OF PRINT
FA 6(2) $5 x 1 -
FA 6(3)** $5 x 1 I
PA 6(4)-9(3-4) OUT OF PRINT
FA 10(1-2)-11(4) OUT OF PRINT
FA 12(1)-12(3) OUT OF PRINT
FA 12(4)** $5 x 1 -
PA 13(2-3)**$10 x 1 -
FA 13(4) $5 x_
FA 14(1-2)**$10 x 1 -
FA 14(3-4) *$10 x 1 -
FA 15(1) $5 x 1 -
FA 15(2) $5 x 1 -
FA 15 (3)** $5 x 1 -
FA 15(4)** $5 x 1 -
FA 16(2)** $5 x 1 -
FA 16(4)** $5 x 1 -
FA 17(3)** $5 x 1 -
FA 17(4)** $5 x 1 -
FA 18(2)** $5 x 1 -
FA 18(3, Pt. 1)** $5 x 1 "
FA 18(3, Pt. 2) OUT OF PRINT
FA 18(4)** $5 x 1 -
FA 19(1)** $5 x 1 -
FA 19(2-3)**$10 x 1 "
FA 19(4)** $5 x 1 -
FA 20(3-4)**$10 x 1 =
FA 21(1)-21(4) OUT OF PRINT

PA 22(1-4)* $10 x 1
FA 23(1)* $5 x 1 -
FA 23(2)** $5 x 1 -
FA 23(3)** $5 x 1 -
FA 24(2)** $5 x 1 -
FA 24(3)** $5 x 1 -
FA 24(4)** $5 x 1 -
FA 25(1)** $5 x 1 -
FA 25(2, Pt. 1)**$5 x 1 -
FASP No. 6/PA 25(2, Pt. 2)
$7 x
FA 25(3)-26(1) OUT OF PRINT
PA 26(2)**$5 x 1 -
PA 26(3)**$5 x 1 -
FA 26(4)**$5 x 1 -
FA 27(2)**$5 x 1 -
FA 27(3)**$5 x 1 -
PA 27(4)**$5 x 1 -
PA 28(1)**$5 x 1 -
FA 28(2)**$5 x 1 -
PA 28(3, Pt. 1)**$ 5 x 1 -
FASP No. 7/FA 28(3, Pt. 2) **
$7 x 1 -
FA 28(4)**$5 x 1 -
PA 29(1)**$5 x 1 -
FA 29(2, Pc. 1)**$5 x 1 -
FASP No. 8/FA 29(2, Pt. 2) *
$7 x 1 -
FA 29(3)**$5 x 1 -
FA 29(4)**$5 x 1 -
FA 30(2)* $5 x 1 -
FA 30(3)* $5 x 1 -
FA 30(4)* $5 x 1 -
FA 31(1)* $5 x 1 -
FA 31(2, Pt. 1)*$5 x 1 -
FA 31(3) $5 x -
FA 31(4, Pt. 13-~5 x -
FASP No. 10/FA 31(4, Pt. 2)
$7 x 1 -
FA 32(1) $5 x -
FA 32(2) $5 x -
FA 32(3) $5 x -
FA 32(4) $5 x ---

FA 33(1) $5 x ___
FA 33(2) $5 _
FA 33(3) $5 x -
FA 33(4) $5 x -
FA 34(1) $5 _x
FA 34(2) $5 x -
PA 34(3) $5 x-
FA 34(4) $5 x _
FA 35(1) $5 x__
FA 35(2) $5 x
PA 35(3) $5 x -
FA 36(1-2)$10 x -
FA 36(3-4)$10 x -
FA 37(1) $5 x -
PA 37(2) $5 x ___
FA 37(3) $5 x -

(less 10% members discount

PLUS postage and handling $2.00
Please enter the name and address to
which the order should be sent.


- IY



For Those of you who are not yet members of our Society, I have included a
copy of our membership application form which may be photocopied and sent to
the membership secretary (see inside front cover) along with a check or money
order made payable to the Florida Anthropological Society. You do not have to
be a resident of Florida to belong to our Society.

HERE IS A GREAT GIFT IDEA! Why not give someone a gift subscription to
The Florida Anthropologist by completing the membership application below. If
you include a card we will place it in an envelope with the first issue of 1985
so that they will know who to thank for this wonderful birthday, Hanukkah,
Christmas, Yule, friendship, or whatever gift. What could be better than
helping to make people aware of historic preservation concerns by providing
them with a unique and informative publications which they can read and use for
years to come? And, by helping us to increase our membership, you will also
help provide the means of further improving our journal.

( ) New membership

( ) Payment of annual dues

( ) Donation or Gift

( ) Change of address



State Zip

Chapter affiliation (if any)

Name of recipient if gift membership


State Zip

Type of membership:

( ) Regular ($12.00)

() Family ($18.00)

( ) Sustaining ($25.00)

( ) Patron ($100.00)

( ) Institutional ($15.00)

( ) Life ($150.00)

Please note
page and include
to a photocopier.
you want to order
issue. Thanks fc

that you may copy the information off of this and the proceeding
it in a hand-written or typed letter, if you do not have access
You only have to copy the information for the back issues which
.By doing this you will not have to tear this page out of this
)r your interest.
Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist




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

Manuscripts should be double-spaced and typed on one side only of 8 x 11 inch
paper. Authors should refer to the Editorial Policy and Style Guide published in
Volume 37(1). Manuscripts submitted in styles other than that presented in the
Style Guide will be returned to their authors. Authors should submit the original
and four copies of their manuscript for review. Manuscripts submitted to THE
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST should not be under consideration by any other journal or
other publication at the same time or have been published elsewhere. Individual
copies of the Editorial Policy and Style Guide may be obtained by writing the
Editor and remitting $1,00 to the Florida Anthropological Society for single copies
or $5.00 for packets of ten copies for postage and handling costs.

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


Back issues of THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST may be purchased from the Editor for
$5.00 for single numbers and $10.00 for double numbers. Order forms are available.
Mail orders include an added postage and handling charge of $2.00. Checks should
be made payable to the Florida Anthropological Society. The following issues are
out of print: Volumes 1; 2:3-4; 5:1-4; 6:1,4; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12:1-3; 13:1; 16:1,
3; 17:1, 2; 18:1, 3, Pt. 2; 20:1-2; 4; 21; 23:4; 24:1; 25:3-4; 26:1; 27:1; 30:1 and

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

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

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

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


Non-Profit Orgnization
Tallahassee. Florida

He's Stealing From You!

The remains of prehistoric
and historic cultures belong to all of us.
When artifacts are stolen and archaeological sites are
destroyed, we lose important clues about the past forever.
Strict laws protect artifacts and sites on
State and Federal lands.

Report violations to your local law
enforcement agency and the Division of
Archives, History and Records Management.
(904) 487-2333

S:,- r r, i : i .1 '- ,;.' George Firestone, Secretary of State

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