Membership Information
 Editor's Page
 A Partial Archaeological Survey...
 An Atypical Projectile Point/Knife...
 A Preliminary Model of Hunter-Gatherer...
 An Update on Some Ceremonial...
 The Importance of Sites Related...
 Archawological Site Survey Reports:...
 Preshitoric Circular Earthworks...
 Book Review
 Membership Information
 Editorial Questionnaire
 Information for Authors

Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00009
 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: VID00009
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
    Membership Information
        Unnumbered ( 3 )
        Unnumbered ( 4 )
    Editor's Page
        Page 252
    A Partial Archaeological Survey of the William Beardall Tosohatchee Preserve
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
    An Atypical Projectile Point/Knife from the Withlacoochee River
        Page 260
    A Preliminary Model of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement in Central Florida
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
    An Update on Some Ceremonial Tablets
        Page 273
        Page 274
    The Importance of Sites Related to the Naval Stores Industry in Florida
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
    Archawological Site Survey Reports: A Non-Professional's Guide to their Preparation
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
    Preshitoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
    Book Review
        Page 302
        Page 303
    Membership Information
        Page 304
        Page 305
    Editorial Questionnaire
        Page 306
    Information for Authors
        Page 307
        Page 308
Full Text


2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.

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

all rights to the
and shall be
and images of

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

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

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.



~1 ~ ..; ;N,

-/, 6 7







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 subscriptions are an additional $5 U.S. currency to cover added postage costs
for individual, family or institutional membership categories. Requests for information on the
Society and membership application forms, as well as notifications of changes of address,
should be addressed to the Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer.
Requests for copies of the Editorial Policy and Style Guide (re: FA 37(1)), orders for back
issues, submissions of manuscripts for publication and notices of non-receipt or damaged issues
should be sent to the Editor. Newsletter items should be sent to the President. Address
changes should be made AT LEAST 30 days prior to the mailing of the next issue. The Post Office
will not forward bulk rate mail.


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

Elizabeth Horvath
7404 12th Street N.
Tampa, FL 33604

(Three Years):
Jeffrey Mitchem
Florida State Museum
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

M. Katherine Jones
Bureau of Archaeological
Dept. of State, 4th Floor,
R.A. Gray Building
Tallahassee, FL 32301-8020

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


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

Harold Cardwell
1343 Woodbine Street
Daytona Beach, FL 32014

AGENT: Joan Haas
1602 Alabama Drive, Apt. 304
Winter Park, FL 32789

(One Year):
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
3222 Old Oak Drive
Sarasota, FL 33579

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

Kathy Poppell
P.O. Box 1013
Tallahassee, FL

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

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


Gandy Printers, Inc.
1800 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301

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

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

COVER ILLUSTRATION: An atypical projectile point/knife from the Withlacoochee
River. See article by Paul Lien on page 260 for a description. Illustration
courtesy of Louis D. Tesar.






Editor's Page . . . .... ..... .252
A Partial Archaeological Survey of the William Beardhall
Tosohatchee Preserve by Marilyn C. Stewart . 253
An Atypical Projectile Point/Knife from the Withlacoochee
River by Paul M. Lien . . ..... 260
A Preliminary Model of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement in
Central Florida by I. Randolph Daniel, Jr. . 261
An Update on Some Ceremonial Tablets by George M. Luer 273
The Importance of Sites Related to the Naval Stores
Industry in Florida by Sandra Jo Forney . .. 275
Archaeological Site Survey Reports: A Non-Professionals
Guide to Their Preparation by Louis D. Tesar 282
Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida
by Robert S. Carr . . . . .. 288
BOOK REVIEW: Report on the Mound Explorations of the
Bureau of Ethnology, CYRUS THOMAS. Classics of
Smithsonian Anthropology, Reprint reviewed by
John Scarry . . . . . 302



This issue completes my second year as
the Editor of The Florida
Anthropologist. During this period I
nave tried to provide a broad range of
topics in a tighter magazine format.
To provide more information to our
readers, I have used smaller type and
reduced cables, figures and references
cited as a space saving measure.
Without increasing our membership, I
will not be able to make other changes,
such as increasing the size from its
present average of 50 pages per
issue/200 pages per year. This year
we were able to publish more through
the receipt of a grant and donations.
It would help if our professional
members at universities and other
institutions would encourage their
colleagues and students to join; and, if
our non professional members would
encourage other non-professionals to
join. Gift memberships would also
help. To encourage this, for $25 (see
last page of this issue) we will add to
our 1986 individual membership new
members identified on the gift
membership form and send to those new
members the regular issues from 1983,
1984 or 1985 (e.g. FA 36(1-2 & 3-4); FA
37(1, 2, 3, 4); or FA 38(1-2 pt 1, 3,
4)), whichever year you designate. The
1986 individual membership is $12 and
purchase of any set of the above
volumes as back issues would be $20
plus $2 postage and handling for an
undiscounted total of $34. If you act
promptly, we can send them in your name
as a Yule, Christmas, or belated
Hanukkah gift.

Murphy's Law struck again last issue.
In preparing the galleys of George
Luer's article, I reversed the captions
for Figures 1 and 2 on page 237. I
apologize for any confusion which this
may have caused.

Also, Kathy Poppell, our typist through
last issue, is no longer able to assist
me in this activity. Kathy spent many

an evening and weekend putting past
issues together. If this and future
issues appear more ragged, it is
because I am back to doing my own
typing. I will miss Kathy's
assistance, but retain her friendship
and advice.

This issue contains a variety of
articles, from Marilyn Stewart's
Tosohatchee survey on the Florida East
Coast and her proposed settlement
pattern model for that area to Randy
Daniel's Archaic settlement pattern
model for the Central Florida area to
Bob Carr's Prehistoric Circular
Earthworks in South Florida. Sandi
Forney provides an excellent summary of
the turpentine industry in Florida and
the importance of associated
archaeological sites in better
understanding that industry. George
Luer provides us with an update on some
of the Ceremonial tablets reported in
FA 37(1), while Paul Lien reports on an
unusual projectile point/knife which he
found in the Withlacoochee River. Paul
has shown marked patience or
resignation. He originally submitted
his short article to Bob Carr, who as
the outgoing Editor forwarded it to me.
In 1983 I wrote to Paul and asked him
to provide a better photograph or
illustrations and additional des-
criptive information. Subsequently, we
arranged for him to bring the specimen
to the April 1984 FAS meetings for me
to sketch. I then misfiled those
illustrations, which did not resurface
until recently. Somewhat belatedly and
with much relief his article appears in
this issue and his artifact as the
cover illustration.

I hope that you enjoy this issue.

Louis D. Tesar
October 19, 1985


December, 1985

Volume 38 Number 4



Marilyn C. Stewart

When the State of Florida acquired the
Tosohatchee private hunting park in
1977 for use as a state preserve, it
was rumored that about 45 Indian mounds
were scattered among its 28,000 acres
of woodlands and marshes. In 1981 the
author, through Rollins College,
obtained permission from the Division
of Archives, History and Records
Management, Florida Department of
State, and the Division of Recreation
and Parks, Florida Department of
Natural Resources to conduct a limited
archaeological reconnaissance survey to
locate and classify these sites, and to
reinvestigate known sites on the St.
Johns portion of the preserve (Stewart
1982a). The project was funded by a
grant from Rollins College and assisted
by volunteers from the Central Florida
Anthropological Society, a Chapter of
the Florida Anthropological Society.
The sites we found, small sand mounds
almost exclusively occupied during the
St. Johns I Period, represent a
settlement pattern that was probably
widespread and characteristic of the
small drainages feeding into the St.
Johns. These sites were almost
certainly part of a settlement system
which included the larger sites on the
St. Johns River.

The Environment

The William Beardall Tosohatchee State
Preserve (Figure 1) occupies a low-
lying wetlands area along the Upper St.
Johns River in the Eastern Valley
(Florida Geological Survey
Physiographic Map, Puri and Vernon
1964). Three boggy creeks make their
way across the tract through flatwoods
and marshes to the river. Elevation
ranges from less than 1.5 to 8 m. The
edge of the Osceola Plain to the west
is about 4.5 m higher than the land in

the preserve. Vegetation communities can
be described in five zones: freshwater
marsh, pine flatwoods, cypress and
hardwoods swamp, "slough," and oak and
cabbage palm hammocks (Soil Conservation
Service, General Map of Ecological
Communities 1978).

The St. Johns floodplain is characterized
by freshwater marsh, described as
"dominated by pickerelweed, arrowhead,
fire flag, cattail, spikerush, bullrush,
maidencane, or sawgrass," (Soil
Conservation Service Map 1978). While no
archaeological sites have been located in
this zone, the potential for now-inundated
Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic sites, or
for normally perishable artifacts
associated with nearby upland occupation
sites, cannot be dismissed.

The marsh is bordered by pine flatwoods,
described on the same map as "scattered
pine trees with an understory of saw
palmetto, other shrubs, and grasses." The
saw palmettos are as high as 2 m and very
dense in places (e.g., along Tiger Branch,
northwest of Jim Creek). No sites have
been located in this zone, although
limited occupation sites and isolated
finds cannot be ruled out (see Luer and
Almy 1982:39).

Cypress swamp and swamp hardwoods along
Tootoosahatchee and Jim Creeks (and
probably Taylor Creek as well) reach out
from the St. Johns marsh through the pine
flatwoods. Cypress swamps are dominated
by bald cypress, while swamp hardwoods are
"thick stands of deciduous hardwoods such
as maple, blackgum, and sweet-gum" (Soil
Conservation Service map 1978). Most of
the archaeological sites were found on
hammocks (zone 5, below) within the
cypress swamp and swamp hardwood zone.

A large slough, "a long, narrow, open
(expanse) of grasses, sedges, and rushes"


Volume 38 Number 4

December, 1985





0 2km

I .- .

1 5 *12
11, *6-" -.:'+ .++''+ ^
'T 10'8- : ,s,:


.1 ,13 HOLE
,-+' "" 1 *12

004 J IM .-, -
*1 "

40 3

"- '4
~~ 1

Figure 1. (Lower Left) General map showing the location of the
Tosohatchee State Preserve (shaded area) in eastern
Orange County, Florida. (Upper Right) Tosohatchee
State Preserve 1981 Archaeological Survey Area --
numbers correspond to identified site areas.





0 10 km

. I

(Soil Conservation Service map 1978),
parallels the Jim Creek swamp. The
slough is directed by a road and two
drainage canals, which have no doubt
greatly altered its configuration. No
sites were found in this zone, though
several sites are located on its

Oak and cabbage palm hammocks populated
by live oak, other oaks, pines, cabbage
palms, and myrtle occur within the
cypress and hardwood swamps and along
the slough. All of the known sites are
on hammocks, either in the cypress
swamp and swamp hardwood zone, or
bordering the slough, or on the St.
Johns River.

Previous Studies

Both C.B. Moore and Irving Rouse
visited sites in what is now the
William Beardhall Tosohatchee State
Preserve area during their surveys of
the St. Johns River. Moore (1892,
1893a, 1893b, 1894) excavated at Long
Bluff (80r6, 80r7, and 80r8) and at
Mulberry Mound (80r9 and 80r10) around
the turn of the century. Rouse (1951)
reexamined these sites and reevaluated
Moore's findings. Sites 80r6, 80r7,
80r9, and 80r10 are shellmounds,
occupied on and off from Orange through
St. Johns I times. Site 80r9 also has
a burial mound dating to St. Johns IIC
(Spanish Contact), and 80r8 was a
burial mound of undetermined date.

Survey Methods and Results

The goal of the survey was to locate
and test reputed archaeological sites
reported by members of the former
Tosohatchee Hunting Club. The hunters
had mapped the locations of about 45
mounds on U.S.G.S Topographic Maps on
file in the preserve office. We began
with the mounds in the lowest areas,
because these were likely to be flooded
by summer rains, and with sites that
had been visited by the preserve

supervisor, at that time Lt. Randy
Hester. Four areas were selected: Jim
Creek, Bonnet Hole, Tiger Branch, and
Myrtle Point (Figure 1). Thirty sites
were reputedly located in these four
areas. About 20 days were spent
conducting the survey and an additional
seven days were spent excavating
stratigraphic tests of the Long Bluff
(80r6) and Mulberry Mound (80r10)

The hunter's map locations were very
rough. Finding the sites in the field
involved a good deal of scouting back
and forth until we came close enough
(within about 5m) to see the "mounds."
Once a site was located it was tested
by means of one, or sometimes two,
shovel test pits, about 50 cm in
diameter. Surface collections were not
made because these sites generally lack
surface remains. The soil was screened
through 0.635 cm mesh and all cultural
material, including fauna and charcoal,
was saved.

We found and tested 16 mound-like
features (Figure 1, Table 1), nine of
which appear to be archaeological sites
(survey nos. 1-5, 9, 13, 15, and 16),
while the remainder appear to be
natural features with no evidence of
prehistoric occupation. We were unable
to find eleven reputed sites in the
Tiger Branch area, three in the
Whetrock area, near Bonnet Hole, and
one on Tootoosahatchee Creek. Except
for 80r435 (survey no. 16), no reputed
sites south of the Jim Creek area were
examined. No attempt was made to find
subsurface sites. Their presence is
unlikely, however, given the wetlands

All but one of the sites found were in
the Jim Creek Bonnet Hole area.
Nearly all of these mounds and the
additional mounds on the hunters' map
are along the 4.5 m contour, which is
the edge of the St. Johns marsh and of
sloughs extending from the marsh. The
only exception is an isolated Westo
projectile point in the marsh itself


Survey no. 1 2 3 4 5 9 13 14 15 16
80r no. 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435
St. Johns I x x x x x
St. Johns II x
Habitation x x x x
Nonhabitation* x x x x x
Size (m)
Length 9 15 11 19 12 18 15 10 15 14
Width 9 13 11 17 12 18 15 10 12 14
Height .5 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 .5 .5 .5 1
Orange 1
Unid. Plain 18
St. Johns Plain 47 56 110 45 17
St. Johns Incised 1
St. Johns Checked 3 29
Flakes x x
Shell* x
Charcoal x x x x
Bone x x x x
Shell*** x x x
Shark tooth x x

Sno cultural remains found but appears artificial
Unio, Viviparus

Table 1. Jim Creek-Bonnet Hole Sites.

Site 80r6 80r7 80r8 80r9 80r10
Archaic x
Orange x x x
St. Johns Ix x x
St. Johns II x
First Spanish x x
Shellfield x x
Shellmound x x
Burial x x
Size (m)
Length 29.11 86.87
Width 29.11 38.10
Height 2.51 5.64
Orange x x x
St. Johns Plain x x x
St. Johns Checked x
Proj. point xx
Shell* x x x
Bone x x
Stone x
Spanish beads, iron x
Bone x x x
Shell" x x x x

* Strombus celts, Busycon picks
I* Unio, Viviparus

Table 2. C. B. Moore's Sites.


(80r436, survey no 17) which, however,
was found on a spoil bank. The fact
that all but one of the datable mounds
are of the same period, St. Johns I,
suggests that the 4.5 m contour
represents the river edge at the time,
or perhaps the high water line for
floods that were fairly regular. The
Jim Creek sites would have been
islands. It is fairly certain that
Long Bluff and Mulberry were islands.
In fact, Mulberry was an island when
Moore excavated there in the 1890s.
Heavy concretion in the lower levels of
80r429 (survey no. 4) and 80r432
(survey no. 13) suggests that these
sites may be earlier than the others,
previous to a time of high floods.

An estimated 15 to 30 reputed sites
remain to be investigated in the
Tosohatchee Preserve. Now, after
several years of heavy rains and
removal of levees to restore the
natural drainage system, the survey
will probably have to be completed by
canoe. The yield in artifacts is not
likely to be high, but settlement data
will help to fill a significant gap in
St. Johns prehistory.

C.B. Moore's Shell Mounds

Four sites previously recorded from
C.B. Moore's (1892, 1893a, 1893b, 1894)
reports and Rouse's (1951) survey were
examined: Long Bluff (80r6 and 80r7)
and Mulberry Mound (80r9 and 80rl0).
The burial mound, 80r8, was not found.

The Long Bluff sites, 80r6 and 80r7,
are "shellfields" (Rouse 1951) or
shallow shell scatters on a natural
ridge along the west bank of the St.
Johns River north of Lake Poinsett. We
located but did not test 80r6. A
shovel test pit in 80r7 revealed two
heavily cemented layers and provided
the data for Table 2.

In Moore's and even in Rouse's time,
Mulberry Mound was an island, two miles
from shore. Today it can be reached by
car on a dike built by the Army Corps

of Engineers. It is clear from Moore's
(1893b, 1894) reports that 80r9 was a
shellmound upon which a burial mound
was later constructed (Table 3), though
it is impossible to date either
component. Shallow graves were later
dug into the burial mound during the
first Spanish Period, probably between
A.D. 1650 and 1700 (Rouse 1951:134).
Site 80r9 is severely damaged. Moore
"virtually demolished the portion of
the mound containing burials" (quoted
in Rouse 1951:131) and subsequent
looters have taken their toll. The site
should be retested for chronological

We spent five days mapping and testing
80rl0 (Figure 2; Table 4). Moore's
excavations, in 1892-3 and 1894,
covered about 74 sq. m to a maximum
depth of 5 m, the water table at that
time. The mound has been heavily pot-
holed, but is by no means ruined. In
order to add to Moore's findings rather
than duplicate them, we began at the
bottom and worked up, digging first a
test pit from 4.82 to 6.64 m, then one
from 3.05 to 5.18 m, and finally one
from 0.91 to 1.52m. We were able to
confirm Moore's stratigraphy from 3.05
m down, and to uncover an underlying
Archaic level.


Nearly all of our present knowledge
about Central Florida prehistory comes
from sites on the St. Johns River. We
know virtually nothing about the
activities and organization of groups
on the small streams and lakes. The
present study is an attempt to begin to
remedy this situation.

The culture history of the Tosohatchee
Preserve as represented in the sites
investigated in this study differs from
that of the St. Johns as presently
understood in several important
respects. Perhaps most obvious is
that, with the exception of 80r10, the
Tosohatchee appears to have been
uninhabited until Orange and Tran-


Stratum 1 Brown sand, with some shell, numerous intermingled
0 0.99 m burials. The top 0.5 m contained burials with artifacts
of Spanish and prehistoric periods. Spanish artifacts
consisted of small white glass beads, a pair of shears, a
copper or brass wire ornament, a sheet of glass, friable
glass beads, a pressed clear glass bead, a glass button,
and iron tools.

Stratum 2 Black mud and sand, sterile except for a few burials which
0.99 1.3 m appeared to have sunk into the top of the muck. Moore
(1894) believed the muck layer was a prepared surface for
the burial mound (Stratum 1).

Stratum 3 Loose shells, crushed and whole, containing "the regular
1.3 1.9 m debris of the shell heap" (Moore 1894, quoted in Rouse

Stratum 4
1.9 2.51 m

Stratum 5
2.51 3.12 m

Table 3.

Stratum 1
0 3.05 m

Cemented shell and scattered human bones.

Sandy loam and crushed shells, containing plain (probably
St. Johns I) pottery.

Mulberry Mound 80r9 Strati-
graphy (after Rouse 1951:

Loamy sand with shells (mostly .Unl). Bones are
primarily deer and turtle, with alligator, black bear,
raccoon, red lynx, catfish, and gar also represented
(listed in Rouse 1951:135); Check-stamped, plain, incised,
and red-painted pottery; bone and shell tools; a clay
pipe stem; stone celts; St. Johns II.

Stratum 2 Plain pottery; projectile points (not described); bone
3.05 4.0 m and shell tools; a Busycon pick; a shell pendant; St.
Johns I.

Stratum 3 Bones of fish, turtle, deer, snake, and rodents; fiber-
4.0 5.03 m tempered pottery; Orange.

Stratum 4 Bones are mostly fish and turtle, with some snakes and
5.03 5.64 m deer. Near the bottom were two deer ulnas with interior
smoothing, some cut bone, and several deer antlers; Pre-
ceramic Archaic.

Below 5.64 m Sterile white sand.

Table 4.

Mulberry Mound 80rl0 Strati-
graphy (after Rouse 1951:
135-136; Stewart 1982a:12).

Figure 2. Mulberry Mound in 1981.


/ 80 r9


0 O10m

j3 Pothole

* Testplt

sitional times. This contrasts with
the St. Johns area as a whole, which
shows repeated use by Archaic peoples,
with a substantial residential
population in Mt. Taylor times. Even
more striking is the near absence (the
exceptions being 80r10 and 80r435,
survey no. 15) of St. Johns II
components, at a time when populations
on the St. Johns were expanding. In
fact, the only substantial occupation
of the Tosohatchee seems to have been
during St. Johns I. This is true also
of Long Bluff (80r6 and 80r7) and
Mulberry 80r9. Mulberry 80r10, on the
other hand, fits the general pattern of
gradual population increase beginning
in the Archaic.

The Tosohatchee sites also reveal a
distinctive settlement pattern. Site
80r10 is a large shellmound indicating
a fairly large group and of long term
use. In contrast the sites on Jim
Creek and Bonnet Hole are small sand
mounds representing small populations
and limited, short term use. The Long
Bluff shellfields and Mulberry 80r9
fall in the middle in both respects.
The settlement data from the 1981
Tosohatchee partial survey, and from a
similar survey on the Wekiva River in
the newly acquired Rock Springs Run
State Preserve (Stewart 1982b), are
beginning to form a pattern of small
St. Johns I sand and shell mounds
located at regular intervals along the
smaller waterways. This pattern
suggests a system of base camps on the
St. Johns, with numerous temporary
camps for hunting and gathering in the
smaller drainages occupied almost
exclusively during St. Johns I. The
apparent absence or near absence of
this pattern for the Archaic and also
for St. Johns II has important
implications for understanding
population shifts during the emergence
of horticulture in the St. Johns Area.

It has been suggested (Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980:157) that St. Johns I
represents the time of early
horticulture experimentation. It would

seem that the small drainages,
virtually unused by the previous
Archaic peoples, became important
during this time. This pattern
suggests two alternative hypotheses:
(1) that early horticulturists
expanded into the small drainages; or
(2) that hunter gatherers were pushed
by expanding horticulturists into the
small drainages. The small drainages
were virtually abandoned before St.
Johns II, the inhabitants probably
moving back to large sites on the St.

The current data base for testing such
hypotheses is extremely limited. Much
more work is needed on the small
drainages in Central Florida as well as
elsewhere in the State. It is
fortunate for archaeology that the
small unimportant looking sites of the
Tosohatchee and Rock Springs Run
Preserves have thus far escaped
obliteration. Let us hope that the
protection of the State will be
sufficient to preserve them for future
study as groups, so that we may come to
appreciate more fully the overall
system of the prehistoric Indians of
Central Florida.


I am grateful to all the members of the
Central Florida Anthropological Society
who helped, especially Nita Mutispaugh,
Ann Bungart, Nancy Patterson, Maxine
Harding, Edward Spencer, and my field
assistant, Art Dreves.


Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy
1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture.
The Florida Anthropologist 35(1):34-58.

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


Moore, Clarence B.
1892 Certain Shell Heaps of the St. Johns
River, Florida, Hitherto Unexplored
(First Paper). The American
Naturalist 26(11):912-922.

1893a Certain Shell Heaps of the St. Johns
River, Florida, Hitherto Unexplored
(Third Paper). The American
Naturalist 27(7):605-624.

1893b Certain Shell Heaps of the St. Johns
River, Florida, Hitherto Unexplored
(Forth Paper). The American
Naturalist 27(8):708-723.

1894 Certain Sand Mounds of the St. Johns
River, Florida, Parts I-II.
Journal of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadephia, second
series 10(1-11).

Puri, Harbans S. and Robert 0. Vernon
1964 Summary of the Geology of Florida and
a Guidebook to the Classic Exposures.
Florida Geological Survey, Special
Publication No. 5 (revised).

Rouse, Irving
1951 A Survey of Indian River Archaeology,
Florida. Yale University Publication
in Anthropology 44.

Soil Conservation Service
1978 General Map of Ecological Communities.

Stewart, Marilyn C.
1982a An Archaeological Survey of the
Tosohatchee State Preserve, Orange
County, Florida. Ms. on file at
Rollins College and the Division of
Archives, History and Records

1982b Report to the Orange County Planning
Department on the Archaeological
Significance of the Rock Springs -
Wekiva Proposed Purchase Under the
CARL Program. Ms. on file at
Rollins College and the Florida
Division of Archives, History and
Records Management.

Marilyn C. Stewart
Department of Anthropology
Rollins College
Winter Park, FL 32789

Paul M. Lien

A number of years ago a large
atypical projectile point/knife
(see cover illustration) was re-
covered from the Withlacoochee
River in Citrus County. This
site has produced a number of
projectile points dating back to
Paleo-Indian times.

The subject projectile point/knife
is 270mm in length; has a maximum
width of 58mm; an average thick-
ness of around 13mm; and, a Morrow
Mountain-like base. There is no
apparent basal edge grinding and
no apparent use wear. The chert
from which the specimen is made
appears to be of local origin and
has a tannin-iron oxide (?) stain
typical of river exposed specimens
in this area of Florida.

Any information regarding similar
specimens would be appreciated.

Paul M. Lien
11506 North Rome
Tampa, FL 33612


Volume 38 Number 4


December, 1985



I. Randolph Daniel, Jr.


The purpose of this paper is to present
a preliminary model of Archaic period
settlement in central Florida. This
proposed model is largely based on
current paleoenvironmental information
and the recent excavation results in
Hillsborough County conducted by the
Bureau of Archaeological Research of
the Florida Division of Archives,
History and Records Management, as part
of the 1-75 Highway Salvage Program
conducted in cooperation with the
Florida Department of Transportation
and Federal Highway Administration (see
Jones and Tesar 1982). Some implica-
tions of the model are suggested for

Traditionally, the primary viewpoint in
the differences between Paleo-Indian
and Archaic settlement has been from
the perspective of a readaptation from
Pleistocene to Holocene environments
(e.g., Caldwell 1958; Cleland 1976).
Clearly it has been the environment and
environmental changes that have played
a determining role in such models.
Moreover, this is still true today in
current archaeological models of
hunter-gather settlement as primarily
proposed by Lewis Binford. The earli-
est (Binford and Binford 1966) was
basically a maintenance/extractive task
dichotomy model. That is, maintenance
or extractive activities were differen-
tially distributed across the landscape
relative to resources. Based on
artifact assemblages and locational
variables, two general site types could
be identified: base camps and work
camps. This model has been used either
explicitly or implicitly to generate
test implications for all the sites in
the 1-75 Highway Salvage program. The
results of this work suggest that this
model does apply; however, we knew that
to a certain extent before we started

digging. More recently Binford (1980)
has suggested more detailed principles
of hunter-gather organization against
which the 1-75 excavation sites can be
better tested.

Binford (1980) has suggested two basic
principles of organization employed by
hunter-gathers in carrying out their
subsistence strategies as different
responses to different environments.
These are residential and logistical
mobility, otherwise referred to as
foragerss" and "collectors." Foraging
strategies are generally applied to
homogeneous or largely undifferentiated
ecological areas of resources. Fora-
gers "move consumers to goods with
frequent residential moves" (Binford
1980:15). A distinctive characteristic
of a foraging strategy is that foragers
generally do not store foods but gather
foods daily. A logistical strategy, on
the other hand, is adapted towards a
spatial or temporal incongruence of
resources. They move near one resource
and procure the others by special work
groups. Collectors "move goods to
consumers with generally fewer residen-
tial moves" (1980:15). They have
logistically organized food procurement
strategies and may even store food for
part of the year.

Binford also notes the various types of
sites that can be expected from the
differing hunter-gatherer organiza-
tions. Foragers produce two types of
sites; a residential base and a loca-
tion (a place where extractive tasks
are carried out). Collectors, in
addition to residential and location
sites, produce field camps, stations
and caches (1980:5-12). Finally, it
should be noted that collecting and
foraging should not be viewed as
opposing principles but as alternatives
that may be employed in varying mixes
in different settings (1980:14). This


December, 1985

Volume 38 Number 4


10 0 10km

.: :! .,-: I .-. .;.

j O -. '. Liti

-" :' Q" :.' ':'- .

Figure 1.

Physiographic Map of Tampa Bay Area


10 miles

""'- l

is an important idea, because it
relates significantly to the model
presented in this paper.

A comparison of these expectations with
the paleoenvironmental record of the
late Pleistocene to middle Holocene
provides a framework in which to study
the nature of changes in hunter-gather-
er adaptation in central Florida
discussed below.

Study Area

For purposes of this paper, the study
area is restricted to the northern
portion of the Central Peninsula Gulf
Coast (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:22).
This area includes much of the drainag-
es of the Hillsborough, Alafia, and
Little Manatee Rivers (Figure 1).
Together these rivers drain an area
approximately 3421 square kilometers,
with the Hillsborough River drainage
covering approximately half of that
(Conover and Leach 1975). This area
includes most of Hillsborough County,
the western portion of Polk County and
a small northern portion of Manatee
County. Physiographically, the area is
characterized by broad uplands and
marine terraces. The surface topogra-
phy is directly related to the former
sea stands that covered much of the
state and subsequently retreated,
exposing the area to erosion. The
resulting physiographic features are
briefly discussed below.

The Gulf Barrier Chain constitutes most
of the present day coastline. Tidal
inlets major estuaries, and segments
that join the mainland intermittently
break the chain. Elevations on the
barrier chain rarely exceed three
meters above present day mean sea
level. The Gulf Coastal Lagoons
separate the Gulf Barrier Chain and the
Gulf Coastal Lowlands. The lagoons
widen toward the mouth of Tampa Bay and
narrow toward the coastline (White

A major portion of the study area
around Tampa Bay includes the Gulf
Coastal Lowlands. It is an area of low
relief, generally less than twelve
meters in elevation above present day
sea level created by the former marine
terraces mentioned above. To the east
of the Gulf Coastal Lowlands is the
Polk Upland which encompasses the
western half of Hillsborough County and
much of the eastern half of Polk
County. The Polk Upland has an eleva-
tion between 30 and 40 meters above
present day mean sea level, with
several areas of greater local relief
that are to the west of the study area.

Portions of two other physiographic
areas must be mentioned. These are the
Zephyr Hills Gap in northern
Hillsborough County. The Zephyr Hills
Gap is the southern opening of the
Western Valley between the Brooksville
Ridge and the Polk Upland. The
Hillsborough River flows through this
region to Tampa Bay. The portion of
the DeSoto Plain of concern here lies
at the Hillsborough and Manatee County
border, where the Little Manatee River
begins to finger into the Polk Upland
(White 1970).

Present day vegetation reflects these
physiographic features (Davis 1967;
Lakela et al. 1976). Mangroves and
coastal marshes occur along the coast-
line in tidal areas that vary from
saline to brackish. The coastal strand
is also present just inland and is made
up of dune formations and sandy soils
with vegetation consisting of many
herbs and shrubs.

The coastal lowlands are predominantly
vegetated as pine flatwoods. These are
open woodlands dominated by longleaf
pines. Areas of cypress swamps and saw
palmetto also occur. These cypress
swamps occur on low flooded grounds.
Bayheads are also common and are
characterized by red bay, black gum,
loblolly bay and sweet bay. Grasslands
(wet praries) and dry prairies are also


present in the lowlands. Both are
characterized by grassess and sedges,
but wet prairies also have a number of
aquatic species present.

The uplands are characterized by
xerophytic pine-oak woodlands or
sandhill communities. This includes
slash or longleaf pine and scrub oak
found in well drained areas. Surface
drainage is more pronounced than in
other portions of the study area.

This present day environment, however,
is a result of vegetational, climatic
and sea level changes during the last
5000 years. Based on pollen studies
(Watts 1975, 1977), a general picture
of a sclerophyllous or scrubby oak-
hickory woodland with prairie-like
openings essentially without pine
existed in most of central Florida
between about 13,000 and 5,000 B.P.
Moreover, much of the area had a dry
climate and a generally lower regional
water table. The Hillsborough River
was probably dry for most of that time,
containing only pools of perched water
in low lying depressions (Dunbar 1982).
Overall the late Pleistocene in the
Southeast has been characterized as a
climate of decreased seasonality,
reduced differences between winter and
summer temperatures, and increased
dryness (Carbone 1983). This
environment probably characterized the
Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic periods.
It was not until sometime after 5,000
B.P. that the modern environment
described above began to emerge. This
change is presumably linked to a
resumption in the general rise in sea
level. Therefore, roughly speaking,
the environmental change equates to
sometime in the Middle Archaic.

This environmental and climatic change
is postualted to have favored a change
to a better adapted seasonal round with
a shift in subsistence strategies from
a primary dependence on animals in the
late Pleistocene to a greater depend-
ence on plant resources by the middle

Settlement Hypothesis and Model

Based on the above discussion and
certain sketchy environmental knowl-
edge, it is suggested that settlement
patterns in the study area during the
late Pleistocene to middle Holocene can
generally be characterized as exhibit-
ing a hypothetical trend from systems
emphasizing logistical mobility in the
Paleo-Indian period to adaptations
approaching a more foraging one some-
time in the Archaic. Since logistical
strategies result in fewer residential
moves, we should expect a decrease in
the degree of residential permanence
through time (i.e., the number and
length of base camp occupations) from
the late Pleistocene to the middle
Holocene (cf. Claggett and Cable 1982;
Anderson and Schuldenrein 1983). As
noted elsewhere: "This expectation
opposes the prevalent viewpoint that
sedentariness was a gradually increas-
ing process through the course of the
Holocene" (Clagett and Cable 1982:13).

If the stone tool technologies recov-
ered as part of the 1-75 Highway
Salvage Program are presumed to reflect
settlement adaptations, then the more
formal (curated) unifaces of the
Suwannee technology (Daniel and
Wisenbaker 1984a, 1984b) generally
contrast with the more informally made
or expedient unifacial tools that are
predominately recovered from Archaic
sites. This is a pattern noted in
early stone tool assemblages elsewhere
in the southeastern United States and
it should be of no surprise that a
similar pattern is now being found in

The postualted logistical organization
for the Paleo-Indian groups of Florida
is presented elsewhere (Daniel and
Wisenbaker 1984b). Briefly, however,
present evidence suggests a somewhat
restricted settlement pattern in central
Florida, probably "tethered" to water
sources. Moreover, evidence also
suggests that geographic mobility was
more restricted for Paleo-Indian groups


in Florida than elsewhere in the
continental United States. This is
probably related to the restricted land
mass of the peninsula; although due to
lower sea levels the state would have
been much larger than it is presently.
Generally, "territories" in central
Florida may have been oriented along
drainages crossing the Gulf Coastal
Lowlands and the Polk Upland borders,
and probably included land areas
presently underwater in Tampa Bay.
Such an east-west orientation would
naturally restrict mobility on the
peninsula. Beyond the mentioning of
now drowned sites in Tampa Bay, little
thought has been given to the effect of
a restricted land mass on Paleo-Indian
or Archaic settlement patterns on the

Leaving such issues aside, the present
paper concerns the presentation of a
settlement model and some data from
Florida Archaic sites.

It is suggested that the prehistoric
inhabitants of the central Florida
Archaic were organized in bands that
were territorial or at least occupied
exclusive territories (Williams 1974:4;
Wobst 1973:151). Wilmsen (1973:5)
notes that the functional basis of
territorial divisions is to ensure that
essential resources are apportioned to
all segments of a population.
Moreover, he presents the following
general statement:

Spatial allotments to each
band unit appear to be
demarcated in such a way that
access to several different
plant producing areas is
assured. Compensation is thus
made for fluctuations in area
productivity, and consequently
each group has an appreciably
better chance of meeting its
requirements for this type of
resource (Wilmsen 1973:8).

It should also be noted that while
there are "territories", i.e., habitats

or areas used regularly, the in-
habitants using these places sometimes
change due to geographic fluidity in
the regional population as a whole. In
addition, a consistent pattern among
hunter-gatherers is that they exploit
drainages (Jochim 1976:86-89). There-
fore the postulated band territory in
this model conforms to both expec-
tations, i.e., it is oriented along
natural drainages that crosscut major
landforms, including the Coastal
Lowlands and Polk Upland, with each
drainage including several potential
resource zones. Currently there are no
data to suggest whether a group or band
occupied more than one drainage at a
time. This is a problem for further

I propose that the band territories
were oriented along the main drainages
to include both upland and lowland
areas, thus encompassing additional
microhabitats and chippable stone
resources. Though the specific
composition of vegetation zones may
have differed in the past, it is
assumed the zonation patterns
themselves, dependent on hydrological
variables, would be similar to those of
today. This would favor band
territories following drainages that
also have the advantage of cross
cutting resource zones. The greatest
contrast in potential resource zones
would be the uplands with relatively
greater concentrations of nut-bearing
trees as opposed to the lowland coastal
habitats, lakes and shellfish

Moreover, it is postulated that a trend
developed towards an upland/lowland
scheduling dichotomy sometime during
the Archaic, following periods of band
aggregation and dispersion. Band
societies are frequently characterized
by periods of aggregation and
dispersion which is often in response
to, among other things, a spatial
incongruity in the distribution of
resources. Therefore, it is
hypothesized that sites were seasonally


occupied to utilize specific target
resources more efficiently. Con-
sequently, sites perhaps composed of a
whole band (aggregation) were placed on
upland borders during the fall and
winter to principally hunt deer and
gather nuts. During the spring and
summer the group dispersed into small
or extended family groups behaving like
foragers employing a mobility strategy
designed for coverage, thus seeking to
maximize the "encounter" with
resources. This would be in the
lowlands utilizing lacustrine resources
and gathering wild plants, and along
the coastal rivers for fish and

In short, the transition to a more
temperate seasonal environment is seen
as a catalyst for a somewhat mixed
mobility strategy in which coverage and
positioning tactics change. Therefore,
there is a high residential mobility
foragerss) during the spring and summer
growing season in the lowlands and
reduced mobility with increasing
logistical strategy (collectors) during
the fall and winter. Seasonal
differentiation in the relative roles
of residential verses logistical
mobility has been anticipated by

It can also be shown that many
human groups may move through
seasonal phases in which their
coverage and positioning
tactics change. For instance,
in some systems people may be
dispersed in summer, behaving
like foragers by employing a
mobility strategy designed for
coverage, seeking to maximize
the "encounter" with
resources, yet during the
winter they may be living from
stores at a site which was
positioned in terms of
logistical concerns. Mobility
patterning may be both
geographically variable and
regionally complicated
(Binford 1982:11).

This hypothesis, of course, is largely
based on the use of probable subsis-
tence sources. Subsistence data for
the Archaic period in Florida are not
well known. In a review of the
prehistoric use of animals in Northwest
Florida, Percy (1974) noted that there
were no reported faunal materials for
sites of the preceramic period. This
is virtually still true today. This,
of course, is primarily due to preser-
vation factors in the interior region
of central Florida. Until sites are
found with subsistence information, we
can only suggest possible resource uses
based on limited environmental infor-
mation and by comparison from other
Archaic period sites in the south-
eastern United States.

Evidence from Archaic horizons else-
where in the Southeast (e.g., Asch,
Ford, and Asch 1972; Chapman 1975)
demonstrates a heavy reliance on
hickory nuts and to a lesser extent
acorns and seeds. This suggests that
these species were efficient food
sources that were relatively stable for
a long period of time. The dominance
of oak-hickory woodlands in central
Florida, at least during the Early
Archaic, suggests that nuts and acorns
would have also been a key subsistence
resource in this state (Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980:50). Hunting practices
most likely focused on white-tailed
deer, although migratory birds and fish
may also have been taken.

Shellfish have also long been recog-
nized as a major resource for prehis-
toric inhabitants of the state, al-
though they are better known in later
ceramic period sites. The possibility
of early shell middens now underwater
as a result of sea level rise has been
suggested for some time (Warren 1964;
Goodyear and Warren 1972) but in situ
deposits of artifacts rather than reco-
very from dredged shell piles are
necessary to support this for Tampa
Bay. Nevertheless, it is likely that
the large oyster shell deposits in
Tampa Bay are, at least in part,
prehistoric shell middens.


Preliminary evidence for coastal
seasonality is revealed at Bay Pines in
Pinellas County (Braley 1978) and the
Venice site south of Tampa Bay (Rupp&
1980). Although both these sites are
slightly later in time (4100 B.P. and
1981 B.P. respectively), they are still
important as indicators for a seasonal
coastal occupation. Faunal analysis at
Bay Pines indicates heavy reliance on
fish and shell fish along with some
turtle and species of mammal.
Moreover, based on the seasonality of
fish, a late spring to mid-fall
habitation is suggested. Further
evidence of seasonality comes from the
Venice site where recovered oysters
appear to have been harvested from
about April to November (Quick 1975;
Ruppe 1980:69). Both these sites are
indicative of a spring-summer coastal
occupation. If this is true, I believe
this seasonal pattern may have been
established during the Archaic period
in the Tampa Bay area.

Archaeological Implications

The above model has certain impli-
cations for testing and attempts to
address three important properties of
sites. Goodyear (1978:xii) has
outlined these as (1) their geographic
locations within a territory as related
to the activities carried out there;
(2) the technological and functional
contents of the assemblage and how it
relates to the overall organization of
the settlement system; and (3) the
intrasite or spatial distributions of
artifactual refuse (Figure 2).

The question of territorial site
distribution can be solved only with
adequate survey data and much of the
area under consideration here has been
surveyed. Indeed, Hillsborough County
is probably one of the most extensively
surveyed counties in the state. Most
of this, however, has been done
piecemeal as part of cultural resource
assessments and lacks any problem
orientation. In order for this

model to be addressed properly, some
systematic survey eventually must be
done, preferably along the major drain-
ages in the area.

The remaining properties of site
artifact assemblages and their spatial
distributions are addressed through
site excavation. Some preliminary test
implications focusing on the excavation
of upland verses lowland base camps can
now be presented.

I predict that aggregated Archaic base
camps are located near the borders of
the Polk Upland along the major
drainages or their tributaries. In
contrast, dispersed base camps should
have a more numerous and widespread
distribution. These should be
primarily located in the Coastal
Lowlands near drainages, lakes, and
estuaries along the coast. Since these
sites should represent seasonal
responses resulting in different
"types" of residential bases, one might
expect differing tool assemblages and
basic differences in site organization.

Because upland fall-winter "aggregated
base camps are postulated to be more
intensely occupied and probably
included a wider range of activities, a
greater quantity and, to a certain
extent, variety of functionally defined
tools should be deposited on them. The
lowland "dispersed" residential base,
on the other hand, should be more
numerous, significantly smaller and
exhibit a lower number and variety of
functionally distinguishable tools than
upland bases. This argument, of
course, assumes the presence of an
expedient or "throw-away" stone tool
technology (see Binford 1977).
Although this point has never been
explicitly demonstrated in any of the
Hillsborough County 1-75 Highway
Salvage reports, my examination of the
stone tool assemblages suggests there
is evidence for this assumption.

Based on certain ethnoarchaeological
data (Yellen 1977:81-84), a distinction



Assemblage Composition

Intra-Site Structure

Base Camps
(Multi-family or
whole bands)

Base Camps
(Single or extended

Three Properties of Archaeological Sites and their Test Implications


I. Geographic location Territory -ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
2. Technological and functional
contents of the assemblage ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION
3. Intra-Site spatial structure

Location: Polk Upland Greater quantity and variety Relatively larger site
borders along main of functionally defined area with spatial
drainages. tools. differentiation between
Tools associated with "living" and "activity" areas.
subsistence and maintenance
Location: Coastal Lowlands Lower number and variety Relatively smaller site area
along main drainages, of functionally defined tools, with less spatial differention.
lakes, and estuaries Perhaps more "cooperate" or
along coast. Tools primarily associated generalized work areas in
with subsistence activities, relation to living areas.

Figure 2.

between subsistence and maintenance
activities could also be reflected in
upland and lowland sites. John Yellen
found that the occurrence of
subsistence and maintenance tasks among
the Bushmen of South Africa was
primarily a function of the length of
the occupation. Subsistence activities
were almost always conducted daily and
only varied to the degree of the
environmental zone being exploited.
Maintenance activities, however, were
primarily a function of the amount of
time a camp was occupied i.e., the
longer a camp was occupied the greater
the chance of maintenance activities
being carried out.

Generalizing from this observation, the
chances of finding tools relating to
maintenance tasks would be greater in
upland aggregated base camps; as
opposed to dispersed camps which should
have tools primarily related to
subsistence. Moreover, assemblages in
upland base camps should reflect
emphasis on hunting deer and gathering
nuts. Given the short term occupation
and high mobility postulated for
dispersed base camps, a comparatively
narrow range of functional tool types
and a smaller number of tools should
relate to subsistence activities
directed towards aquatic and marine
resources, plant gathering, and some

Preservation bias is again a problem
since many of the above postualted
activities might easily have been
conducted without stone tools (e.g.,
plant gathering). Moreover, it is my
feeling that a reexamination should be
made of the criteria used to infer base
camps from tool types. The traditional
"wide variety of tool types" assumed to
represent base camp activities has
failed to account for the preservation
bias present in lithic sites. This
concept has implicitly been applied
only to stone tools and, therefore,
fails to account for tools that might
have been manufactured from other raw

Tantalizing evidence for this can be
seen from sites with organic
preservation such as the Republic
Groves (Wharton et al. 1981) and
Gauthier (Jones 1981) sites, where
artifacts made of wood, bone, and
antler have been recovered. Although
exact totals are not given, it is
interesting to note that tools made
from organic materials appear to
outnumber stone tool totals. It should
be noted, however, that these
assemblages are recovered from cemetery
contexts and not village occupations
per se; although it is assumed that the
burial sites are associated with base
camp occupations (see Jones 1981:86).
Moreover, these assemblages might be
influenced by a lack of stone resources
in the area, although this is unclear
at this time.

Therefore, in some instances it might
be more appropriate to generate test
implications that would account for the
relative absence of stone tools. For
example, since dispersed base camps are
postulated to be oriented towards
aquatic or marine resources and plant
gathering, it should follow that few
stone tools would be needed for such
tasks. Among other factors, including
differential preservation, this might
account for the relatively low numbers
of identified stone tools present in
some of the 1-75 Highway Salvage sites.

The final property of intra-site
distribution is perhaps one of the more
tenuous areas to deal with. Little can
be said at this point other than that
living areas of aggregated bases should
be distinguishable from other special
activity areas. The exact nature of
these have yet to be outlined.
Dispersed base camps should be smaller
and less spatially differentiated since
they are composed of one or a few
families and specialized seasonal
activities. Sites should consist
primarily of a living area with few if
any of the dispersed activity areas
postulated for aggregated base camps.
Perhaps more "corporate" or generalized


work areas in relation to individual
living areas might be expected (see
Yellen 1977).

A cursory examination of the results of
the 1-75 Highway Salvage excavations
reveals that the sites are composed of
areas containing relatively greater
concentrations of artifacts. Moreover,
these areas are usually 30 to 40 meters
in diameter, although some may be
relatively smaller or larger. The
exact nature of these areas remains
unclear. Given the above model,
however, it is suggested that the
smaller concentrations might represent
dispersed residential base camps. Much
more work, however, involving intensive
excavation of these concentrations is
necessary before this can be

Other Site Types

Although two basic site types of base
camps have been outlined above, other
categories of sites are also known to
exist and should be noted. The quarry
or lithic procurement site is one of
these. Recent work (Chance 1982; Purdy
1981) has outlined the nature of these
sites in central Florida, although much
remains to be done. Such sites were
undoubtedly utilized throughout the
prehistoric occupation of the region,
although little can be said of their
relationship to other sites or to the
model presented here.

In addition, other site types such as
extractive locations and field camps,
also probably exist. Such sites
probably occurred isolated in space and
would be difficult to detect
archeologically as they might contain
few, if any, artifacts. Plant
gathering locations, for example, are
probably below the threshold of
"archaeological visibility" (see Lee
and Devore 1968:285-286). Many of the
presently recorded isolated finds or
surface lithic scatters may be the only
evidence of former hunting locations or

camps. Although singularly unimpres-
sive, when taken as a whole, such
locations may provide evidence for
general use pattern of broad areas.

Another general site type also known
for the Archaic period is the cemetery.
While it might be argued that the
cemetery per se should be included as
part of a main habitation site, due to
its uniqueness it will be treated here
as a separate site type. It is only
recently that the existenence of such
cemeteries has been recognized. Such
sites include the Bay West Site located
in Collier County (Beriault et al.
1981:39-58); the Republic Groves Site
in Hardee County (Wharton et. al.
1981:81-89); and the Little Salt
Springs Site in Sarasota County
(Clausen et. al. 1979). All of these
cemeteries appear to date from the
early to the middle Archaic period,
although earlier cemeteries probably
exist. While all of the known Archaic
cemeteries lie outside the Tampa Bay
area, there is no reason to doubt that
such cemeteries are present within this
area (unfortunately preservation is a
problem). As Jones (1981:89) notes:
"Obviously, some of the deep sand sites
which are commonly found in the
interior parts of the state are base
camps and contain remains of
cemeteries, although this possibility
has not been adequately considered in
the past."

Moreover, the consequences of variable
site utilization and long-term land use
which are not considered here will
ultimately have to be dealt with (see
Binford 1982). Although general
geographical patterns should hold,
owing to the suggested mobility
patterns of hunter-gatherers between
sites, site variability may become
complex when viewed from the
perspective of archaeological
assemblages, i.e., a "site may be a
piece of land occupied many times
because its location made it suitable
for numerous purposes (or seasonally
repeated purposes) and, as a result, it


consists of the accumulated deposition
of myriad occupational episodes. This
point has been stressed by Schiffer
(1976) under the term site formation
processes. These are not well known
for the Tampa Bay area and should be
better developed.

content in the region. Thus, the work
in the central Florida area has only
just begun. While the 1-75 Highway
Salvage Program has contributed
significantly to our understanding of
the Tampa Bay area's prehistory, it has
also raised many more questions which
remain to be answered.


Lithic scatters or deep sand lithic
sites have suffered from a blase
attitude, generally been ignored, and
for the most part continue to be
underestimated and undervalued. I fear
the completion of the 1-75 Highway
Salvage Project will do little to
change this. This is based, in part,
on the belief that such sites are
generally regarded as having little
research value since they are unlikely
to be stratified, contain a monotonous
assemblage comprised almost wholly of
lithic artifacts, probably contain no
identifiable features, or suffer from
considerable disturbance. Even with
these shortcomings (which I feel are
exaggerated), it does not warrant a
general "writing off" of the sites in
this area. To write off such sites
because they are "just lithic scatters"
or because we have already excavated
some along the 1-75 right-of-way will
result in the construction of ill
conceived models of prehistoric
adaptation. In my opinion, this is a
pernicious trend, particularly with
regard to cultural resource management
work in the area. The problem lies not
with the archaeological resource,
rather it is with our archaeological
methodology. If we are truly concerned
with understanding human adaptation,
then such sites are significant and
warrant detailed study for they
constitute the vast majority of the
central Florida archaeological record.

We are a long way from understanding
what went on five to ten thousand years
ago in central Florida. Only a multi-
site data base will allow us to view
the entire range of site types and


This is a heavily revised version of a
paper originally written as part of the
work involved with the 1-75 Highway
Salvage Program of the Bureau of
Archaeological Research, and given at
the 35th annual meeting of the Florida
Anthroplogical Society in Tallahassee,
Florida in 1983. As part of this
project I am grateful for the comments
of certain staff members including
Calvin Jones, Michael Wisenbaker, John
Scarry, and Marsha Chance. I also
appreciate the editorial comments of
Louis Tesar and two anonymous re-


Anderson, David G., and Joseph Schuldenrein
1983 The Early Archaic Components at The Rucker Bottom
Site, Elbert County, Georgia. The North American
Archaeologist 4:177-261.

Asch, Nancy B., R.I. Ford, and David L. Asch
1972 Paleoethnobotany of the Koster Site: The Archaic
Horizons. Illinois State Museum Report of
Investigations, No. 24. Springfield.

Beriault, John, R. Carr, J. Stipp, R. Johnson, and J. Meeder
1981 The Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site,
Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist

Binford, Lewis R.
1977 Forty-seven Trips: A Case Study in the Character of
Archaeological Formation Processes. In Stone Tools
as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and
Complexity, edited by R.V.S. Wright, pp. 178-188.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
1980 Willow Smoke, and Dog's Tails: Hunter-Gatherer
Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site
Formation. American Antiquity. 45:4-20.
1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology. 1:5-31.

Binford, L.R., and S.R. Binford
1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in
the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. American
Anthropologist 68:238-295.


Braley, Chad 0.
1978 Cultural Resource Data Recovery at the Bay Pines
Veterans Administration Center, Florida. Ms.
Sumitted to SEAC-NPS by the Department of
Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Caldvell, J.R.
1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern
United States. American Athropological Association,
Memoir Number 88.

Carbone, Victor A.
1983 Late Quaternary Environments in Florida and the
Southeast. The Florida Anthropologist 36:3-17.

Chance, Marsha A.
1982 Phase II Investigations at Wetherington Island: A
Lithic Procurement Site in Hillsborough County,
Florida. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeo-
logical Reports Number 3, Bureau of Historic Sites
and Properties, Tallahassee.

Chapman, Jefferson
1975 The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Point Tradition
Report of Investigations, No. 14 Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable (assemblers)
1982 The Hay River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at
Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Peidmont.
Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Report No. 23386,
Prepared for Wilmington District Corps of Engineers.

Clausen, C.J., A.D. Cohen, C. Emiliani, J.A. Holman, and
J.J. Stipp
1979 Little Salt Springs, Florida: A Unique Underwater
Site. Science. 203:609-614.

Cleland, Charles E.
1976 The Focal-Diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective
on the Prehistoric Cultural Adaptations of the Eastern
United States. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology

Conover, C.S., and D. Leach
1975 River Basins and Hydrologic Unit Map of Florida.
Florida Bureau of Geology of Map Series. No. 72,

Daniel Jr., I. Randolph and Michael Wisenbaker
1984a Excavations at the Harney Flats Site in Hillsborough
County, Florida. In Current Research, edited by
Jim I. Mead, pp. 5-7. Orono, Maine.

1984b Salvage Excavations at Harney Flats: A Paleo-Indian
Base Camp in Hillsborough County, Florida.
Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research,

Davis, John H.
1967 General Map of Natural Vegetation of Florida.
Institute of Food and Agriculture Services,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Dunbar, James
1982 The Effect of Geohydrology and Natural Resource
Availability on Site Utilization at the 8Hi393c/uw
Site in Hillsborough County, Florida. Manuscript
on file. Bureau of Archaeological Research,

Goodyear, Albert C.
1978 Forward, xii-xiv. Windy Ridge: A Prehistoric Site
in the Interriverine Piedmont of South Carolina
Anthropological Studies 3, Occasional Papers of the
Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University
of South Carolina, by John H. House and Ronald W.

Goodyear, A.C. and L.O. Warren
1972 Further Observations on the Submarine Oyster Shell
Deposits of Tampa Bay. The Florida Anthropologist

Jochim, Michael A.
1976 Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement. New York:
Academic Press

Jones, B. Calvin
1981 Florida Anthropologist Interview with Calvin Jones
Part II: Excavations of an Archaic Cemetery in Cocoa
Beach, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist. 34:81-89.

Jones, B. Calvin and Louis D. Tesar
1982 An Update on the Highway Salvage Program.
The Florida Anthropologist 35:59-62.

Lakela, Olga, Robert W. Long, Glenn Flemming, and Pierce
1976 Plants of the Tampa Bay Area. Banya Books, Miami.

Lee, Richard B., Irven Devore
1968 Man the Hunter. Aldine Press, Chicago.

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

Percy, George
1974 A Review of Evidence for Prehistoric Indian Use of
Animal in Northwest Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites
and Properties Bulletin No. 4. Tallahassee.

Purdy, Barbara A.
1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology. University
of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Quick, Joe A.
1975 Discoveries in Oyster Biology Used by Archaeologist.
Florida Conservation News 10. No. 5, Tallahassee.

RuppA, Tricia A.
1980 Analysis of the Mollusks From the Venice Site.
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin
No. 6. Tallahassee.

Schiffer, Michael B.
1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Warren, Lyman 0.
1964 Possible Submerged Oyster Shell Middens Of Upper
Tampa Bay. .The Florida Anthropologist 17:227-230.

Watts, W.A.
1971 Postglacial and Interglacial Vegetation History of
Southern Georgia and Central Florida. Ecology

1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie
South-central Florida. Geology 3:344-346.

Wharton, B.R., G.R. Ballo and M.E. Hope
1981 The Republic Groves Site, Hardee County, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 34:59-80.

White, W.A.
1970 The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula.
Florida Bureau of Geology, Geological Bulletin
No. 51, Tallahassee.

William, B.J.
1974 A Model of Band Society. Memoirs of the Society for
American Archaeology No. 29.


Wilmsen, Edwin N.
1973 Interaction, Spacing Behavior, and the Organization of
Hunting Bands. Journal of Anthropological Research

Wobst, H. Martin
1973 Boundary Conditions for Paleolithic Social Systems: A
Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 39:147-148.

Yellen, John E.
1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present. Academic
Press, New York.

I. Randolph Daniel, Jr.
Rt. 5 Box 358-6D
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

George M. Luer

More information is now available about
a few tablets reported in the 1984
article "Ceremonial Tablets and Related
Objects from Florida" (see The Florida
Anthropologist, vol. 38. no. 1). These
specimens are metal tablets (MT#3,
MT#4, MT#6, MT#7) and a stone tablet

MT#3 and MT#4 were not acquired by
Frank Hamilton Cushing and they are not
from 8LL7 (see catalog entries in
Allerton, Luer, and Carr 1984:22). The
inaccurate information in these two
entries was from secondary sources,
namely Goggin (1949) and accession
cards at the Museum of the American
Indian where the specimens are housed.
The following accurate information was
obtained recently through the author's
research and is mostly from primary

Frank M. Johnson and his sons unearthed
MT#3 and MT#4 in 1890 near the Johnson
homestead located on 8LL2. They found
various "relics" and at least one
burial at no greater than "2 1/2 feet
below surface, on a shell mound" in a
small area "of 9 ft. diameter" (Johnson
1890b). Joseph Willcox of Media,
Pennsylvannia, encouraged this digging
by purchasing some of the Johnsons'
finds and by arranging for the
University Museum of the University of
Pennsylvannia (the Free Museum of
Science and Art) to buy additional
material from them (Johnson 1890a;
Willcox 1890a, 1890b). Joseph Willcox
(1829-1918) was a member of the
American Philosphical Society and of
the Academy of Natural Sciences of

Philadepnia as well as a trustee of the
Wagner Free Insitute of Science of
Philadelphia; he was a naturalist who,
with Angelo Heilprin, explored the Gulf
coast of central and southern Florida
in the late 1880s (Leidy 1887; Heilprin
1887; Cushing 1897).

In 1891 MT#3 and MT#4 were purchased
from Frank Johnson and given accession
numbers of 8191 and 8192 (University
Museum catalog cards). The following
year, artifacts found by the Johnsons,
apparently including the two tablets,
were sent to Spain as part of the
University of Pennsylvannia's exhibit
at the Columbian Historical Exhibition
in Madrid (Read 1893; Culin 1895). By
1896 the artifacts had been returned to
the University Museum where Cusning
mentions having inspected them (Cushing
1897:20). Probably around that time
and in preparation of Gushing's
unfinished manuscript on Key Marco, the
composite tablet drawing based in part
on MT#4 was made. (This drawing
appears on this journal's title page;
also see Luer 1984, Tesar 1984:123 for
additional comments.)

In 1917 MT#3 and MT#4 were "sent on
exchange to George G. Heye" at the
Museum of the American Indian and they
were reported to have come from "Punta
Rassa Florida" (Archives of the
University Museum, American Section,
File Box 263-U). This location was
applied to the tablets and to other
Johnson specimens perhaps because
Johnson had headed his letters to the
museum with "Punta Rassa, Lee County,

Volume 38 Number 4




December, 1984

Florida" which, at that time, was the
nearest post office and the most widely
known name and landmark in tnat general
vicinity. On the basis of tnis name,
Goggin (1949) mistakenly assigned the
tablets and the rest of the Johnson
materials (accession number 6869-6879
and 8182-8280) to 8LL7 instead of to
8LL2. Thus some metal plummet pendants
(Goggin 1954) are really from 8LL2 as
are Goggin's (n.d.) original Punta
Rassa Tear Drop Pendants. Even the
coin beads pictured by Fairbanks (1968)
are from 8LL2 rather than 8LL7 (their
accession number, 8193, immediately
follows those of tne tablets).

Regarding two other metal tablets,
8MT#6 and MT#7, their 1984 catalog
entries omit the fact that they were
recovered sometime "during the 5 months
of the fall of 1895 and of the winter
of 1895-1896..." (Moore 1922:7). Thus
they were found before MT#5 was found.

Finally, ST#3 was not pictured nor was
its size reported in the catalog. The
figure given here is a tracing of a 1:1
sketch made by Goggin (1945).


Figure 1. Obverse and side views of ST#3.


I would like to thank Mrs. Baker,
Librarian at the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia. At che

University Museum of the University of
Pennsylvania, I would like to thank Dr.
Bryce Little, Archivist of the American
Collection; the assistance of Dr. Lloyd
Daly, volunteer at the Archives and of
Irene Romano, Acting Registrar, was
appreciated. I am grateful also to the
helpful personnel at the Baker Library,
Dartmouth College.


Allerton, David, George M. Luer, and Robert S. Carr
1984 Ceremonial Tablets and Related Objects from Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 37:5-54.

Culin, Stewart
1895 Archaeological Objects Exhibited by the Department
of Archaeology and Palaeontology, University
of Pennsylvania, Pniladelpnia. Government
Printing Office. Wasnington D.C.

Cusning, Frank H.
1897 A Preliminary Report on the Exploration of
Ancient Key-Dweller Remains on the Gulf
Coast of Florida. Proceedings of the American
Pnilosophical Society 35. Philadelphia.

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1968 Florida Coin Beads. The Florida Anthropologist

Goggin, John M.
1945 Museum Notes. Fieldbook on file, P.K. Yonge
Library of Florida History. Gainesville.
1949 The Archaeology of the Glades Area, Southern
Florida. Unfinished MS on file at the Yale
Peabody Museum.
1954 Historic Metal Plummet Pendants. The Florida
Anthropologist 7:27.
n.d. Untitled and unfinished bead manuscript. On
file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc.

Heilprin. Angelo
1887 Explorations on the West Coast of Florida and
in the Okeechobee Wilderness. Transactions of the
Wagner Free Institute of Science of Pniladelphia 1.

Johnson, Frank M.
1890a Letter to Joseph Willcox dated August 15, 1890.
On file, Archives, University Museum, University
of Pennsylvannia.
1890b Letter to Charles C. Abbott dated November 10, 1890.
On file, Archives, University Museum, University of

Leidy, Joseph
1887 Introduction. Transactions of the Wagner Free
Institute of Science of Philadelphia 1.

Luer, George M.
1984 (Untitled). Tne Florida Anthropologist 37:1.

(Continued on page 281)



Sandra Jo Forney
U.S. Forest Service

Sites related to the naval stores
industry in Florida have consistently
been undervalued. By using a
combination of historical and
archaeological data, this paper
demonstrates the research potential and
significance of these properties.

The production of naval stores, along
with lumbering, was the first major
industry of the southern pine forests.
The industry extracted resin from pine
trees and distilled it to produce
rosin, turpentine, pitch, tar and other
products. Over the past three
centuries, naval stores have been used
in the construction of ships, paper
sizing, and the manufacture of
perfumes, adhesives, pharmaceutical
supplies, plastics and paints.

Like other forest products, the naval
stores industry provided employment for
Blacks leaving the plantation system
during the Reconstruction Era.
Archaeological investigations in other
areas of the Southeast have provided
glimpses of the social and economic
nature of the plantation system (Otto
1975, 1977, 1980; Singleton 1980).

Since the lumber and turpentine
industry was essentially an extension
of the plantation system (Shofner 1974,
1981a, 1981b) relationships similar to
those among the plantation owner, the
overseer and slave or indentured
servant and later sharecropper may be
expected among the workers of a naval
stores operation. The following
discussion, adapted from historical
research of primary and secondary
sources, forms the basis for
establishing the potential significance
of archaeological sites related to the
naval stores industry in Florida.

Over the years the turpentiners evolved
a distinct society due to their usual
isolation (Hickman 1962). During the

latter 19th and early 20th centuries,
naval stores was an industry with a
routine of labor, language and life
that was distinct and often viewed as

A typical day's work for a turpentiner
was from "kin to kant" (dawn to dark).
He would rise about 4:30 a.m., eat a
quick meal prepared the night before,
and head into the woods at first light.
Between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. the
turpentiners ate a light meal which
also was prepared and packed the night
before. They worked until nearly
sundown, then walked back to their
quarters for supper and home chores.
This ritual was performed five or six
days per week depending on how fast
each got his prescribed job done
(Schultz 1981:38).

As in the plantation system, naval
stores operations also had an overseer
or foreman. This individual, who made
his rounds on horseback, was called a
"woodsrider". Woodsriders were
generally Caucasian and their duties
were to inspect and supervise the work
at a turpentine stand. The Black
workers were under the complete control
of the woodsrider. In fact, it was
said that the woodsrider, sporting a
pistol and whip, was the law in those
isolated areas.

The workers usually received company
scrip or metal tokens as wages. These
were only redeemable at the operator's
commissary which was usually located at
the turpentine distillery. Other forms
of money could be acquired by trading
the scrip at a discount, however, for
most workers, access to areas outside
the turpentine camp or distillery was
forbidden. Saturday was generally
payday at the turpentine camp. Male
workers were paid about $10 per month,
while female workers received $2 less
(about $8 per month). The woodsrider,


December, 1985

Volume 38 Number 4

however, received around $30 per month,
which was usually paid in real currency
rather than scrip.

Goods were usually purchased on credit
from the commissary whose keeper
affixed a high interest charge. Thus,
the workers were usually indebited to
the company store, making their ability
to leave the turpentine camps for other
employment even less likely. The
commodities supplied by the commissary
system suggest that most meals of the
workers probably consisted of
cornbread, bacon, black coffee and an
occasional treat of baking powder
biscuits (Pridgen 1921:104). Local
game and fish were no doubt taken as
so-called leisure time became available
(Hickman 1962:150). Berries, grapes,
persimmons, nuts and other edible wild
plant foods were probably also gathered
in season.

Housing and water were furnished as
part of the workers' compensation.
Because the trees began to lose their
productivity after several years,
turpentine camps were occupied
temporarily, usually for a period of
five years. Most of the early trees
were worked near rivers for easy
shipment. Side camps and distilleries,
where the resin was processed into
turpentine, began moving into the
interior portions of the forest when
railroad lines were completed in the
late 19th century.

Most turpentine workers lived in shacks
or quarters grouped closely together or
in rows to prevent the social isolation
inherent in living alone in the woods,
and to provide a better means of
overseeing and controlling workers
activities. These rough lumber
shanties, occupied by both workers and
the woodsrider, were located at side
camps and at the distillery.

Early shanties for the workers were
often one-room pole structures with no
floor or windows. If a worker's family
was large, a lean-to was often added
along one wall for additional sleeping

space. Each shanty occupant or family
probably had a small garden of
vegetables to supplement their diet.

Data compiled during a land acquisition
appraisal of a Liberty County turpen-
tine camp in the 1930's, provides an
indication of status differentiation in
the camp (USDA 1934). In addition to
27 box and frame quarters to house 157
occupants and their families, the camp,
encompassing 640 acres (one square
mile), included a combination church
and school, commissary, and cemetery.

The workers' shanties valued at $10
each were 6.7m x 7.3m wood frame with
at least two rooms. Housing for the
foreman, however, consisted of a six
room dwelling measuring approximately
6.7m x 12.1m and was valued at $50.
The appraised value of the stable, shed
and garage was equal to that of the
workers' shanties in the camp.

With few exceptions, archaeological
remains from occupational areas of the
side camp differ little from those of
the distillery site, since most
commodities at both types of sites were
purchased at the company commissary.
Glass and ceramic remains constitute
the majority of the utilitarian
materials associated with these sites.
Kerosene lantern globes and bases,
beverage and medicinal bottles, and
ornate cut-glass dinnerware are the
most common types of glass artifacts
reflecting life at the turpentine site.
The greatest percentage of utilitarian
ceramics collected from these sites are
ironstone with other types in lesser
frequencies. The material remains
associated with a turpentine stand
include isolated objects such as
beverage bottles, cups, tools, and
other equipment used during the
operation of gum collection, as well as
an occasional domestic item.

The socio-economic conditions of
turpentine workers remained constant,
despite a number of technological
advances which improved harvesting and
processing techniques. One of the


major developments which drastically
changed the industry was the intro-
duction of the clay collecting cup.

Initially, the gum or resin was
collected in "boxes" or collecting
basins chopped into the bases of trees
with a broadaxe. A "streak" or wedge-
shaped groove was then cut into the
face of the tree above the box to allow
gum to flow. Each week a new streak
was cut to increase this flow. The box
cavity was found to weaken the tree at
the base, leaving it vulnerable to
disease, wind, and fire and to lessen
the value of the tree as timber for

Although the boxing method remained in
common use until about 1915, Charles
Herty's 1904 invention of the clay cup,
initiated a new method for collecting
pine resin. A streak was made in the
tree and then an incision was cut into
the face where a gutter was fastened to
direct the flow of resin into the
collecting cup which was hung in place
below the the gutter by a single nail.
The use of clay increased the quality
of resin by avoiding many of the
impurities which tended to collect in
the open box cavity.

Stylistic changes in turpentine
collecting cups are a major source for
determining the chronology of a naval
stores related site in Florida.
Distinctions in the physical
characteristics of collecting cups may
be due to functional, temporal or
spatial considerations. The relative
dates and possible ranges for the
manufacture and use of these cups were
derived from a number of sources,
particularly previous research
conducted by Ralph Clements at the
Olustee Forest Experiment Station.

Turpentine cups now in the Museum of
Florida History collection in
Tallahassee beautifully illustrate
variations in 20th century clay and
metal cups. Because they were much

cheaper to purchase than metal, clay
cups were almost exclusively used in
Florida, except in the northern part of
the state where clay cups could easily
break during a freeze.

The Herty cup was the most common style
on the market (Figure la). Established
in 1904, the Herty Turpentine Cup
Company of Daisy, Tennessee, produced
at least 60,000 cups per day until
about 1914, when the advent of gal-
vanized iron cups forced a decrease in
the demand for ceramic cups. These
cups were marketed exclusively in
Alabama, Georgia and Florida (Smith and
Rogers 1979).

Major ownership in the Herty Cup
Company was with the Consolidated Naval
Stores Company of Jacksonville from
1910 until 1942 when the company was
voluntarily dissolved. These dates
correspond nicely with the major era of
naval stores production in the state,
particularly, in the Jacksonville area.

Another variety of clay collecting cup
was connected to the tree by a metal
fastener at the rim instead of being
hung by a nail (Figure lb). The exact
purpose of this unique attachment is
not currently known. These cups were
probably used in Florida between 1910
and 1925. Reminiscent of the Herty
cup, due to its fluted exterior and
similar red paste, this cup may also
have been made at the Tennessee plant.

A clay cup curved to fit the shape of
the tree was also on the market during
the first quarter of the 20th century
(Figure Ic). Although the location of
manufacture is presently unknown, a
patent date of July 10, 1910 is
indicated on the bases of some of these

Several varieties of yellow clay cups
were apparently being made and used
almost exclusively in the Escambia
County, Florida area during the early
1930's (Figure Id). Although their





Figure 1. Examples of ceramic turpentine cups.


Figure 2. Examples of glass and metal turpentine cups.



paste was consistent, shapes and sizes
varied greatly suggesting temporal
distinctions in the styles or perhaps
different manufacturers.

An unnamed Jacksonville company,
possibly associated with Charles
Herty's business, manufactured a cement
cup in the mid 1930's (Figure le).
Experimental glass cups were also made
in Jacksonville during the late 30's
(Figure 2a).

As early as 1914, galvanized iron cups
were on the market. Styles included
the flower pot shaped Birdeye cup, the
trapezoid shaped Buzzard wing cup, and
a variety of metal oblong boxes (Figure
2b). During the 1920's and 30's an
array of tin, galvanized iron and
aluminum cups were being manufactured
for use in collecting pine resin
(Figure 2c).

In a final attempt to produce quality
resin free of leaf litter and other
debris, steel oblong boxes with a fired
enamel finish were used during the
waning years of the industry (Figure

Another source of data for establishing
a chronology of the naval stores
industry in Florida is the developemnt
of specialized tools used in chopping
and dipping the pine gum. Five
technological innovations occurred in
the industry between 1700 and 1865.
Most of the changes that occurred in
the industry's peak years between 1900
and 1935 were in collecting cups.
During the latter 50 years of the
industry at least 38 new tools,
equipment and extraction methods were
adopted and accepted, over half of
which occurred between 1942 and 1958.


0 6"

Figure 3. Examples of tools used by the turpentine industry.




~1~1_ _~_l__l__l__qll__ll__IC_3C1~

The common chipping tool known as a
hack replaced axes and single bevel
hatchets in the first half of the 19th
century (Figure 3d). Further
advancements were made in design during
the early 20th century with the
introduction of the No. 2 hack in 1900,
the No. 0 hack in 1910, and the
detachable blade hack in 1915 (Figure
3c). These early hacks, which were
attached to a handle and weight,
continued in use throughout the course
of the industry.

To accompany the new extraction
methods, a broadaxe for mauling the
incision into the streak was introduced
in 1908 to replace the boxing axe in
use since 1700. A puller, invented in
1865 to chip high streaks, was still in
use in at least the late 1930's (Figure

In 1918, the hogal was invented to
smooth the bark for gutter insertion
and chip subsequent streaks. Chipping
paddles to prevent chips from falling
into the cup were introduced during the
late 1920's. Scrape boxes and various
styles of scraping tools were also in
use as early as the latter 1920's
(Figure 3a). Two styles of specialized
buckets and dip paddles were invented
in the 1930's to replace the dip spoon
previously in use since 1750 (Figure

It is apparent from the preceding
discussion, that historic
archaeological sites related to the
naval stores industry provide a
potentially important source of data
for the study of status differentiation
and the evolution and geographical
distribution of harvesting technology.
Unfortunately, a review of the results
of cultural resources inventory and
assessment surveys and survey reviews
conducted during the past several years
indicates that sites associated with
the naval stores industry, with few
exceptions, have been "written off" as
an insignificant cultural resource. It
is urged that future investigations

conducted in Florida and other states
make every effort to more appropriately
consider and evaluate this valuable
historic resource during the inventory,
compliance and preservation process.


I would like to thank both the Museum
of Florida History, Florida Department
of State, and Dave Parrish, U.S.D.A.
Forest Service Designer/Photographer
for the illustrations which appear in
this report.


Clements, Ralph W.
1979 Personal Communication, Naval Stores Research Special-
ist, USDA Southern Forest Experiment Station, Olustee,

Hickman, Nollie
1962 Mississippi Harvest, Lumbering in the Longleaf Pine
Belt, 1840-1915. University of Mississippi.

Otto, John Solomon
1975 Status Differences and the Archaeological Record: A
Comparison of Planter, Overseer, and the Slave Sites
from Cannon's Point Plantation (1794-1861), St.
Simon's Island Georgia. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of Florida,
1977 Artifacts and Status Differences Comparison of
Ceramics from Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites
on an Antebellum Plantation. Research Strategies
in Historical Archeology, edited by Stanley South.
New York: Academic Press. pp. 91-118.
1980 Race and Class on Antebellum Plantations. Archaeo-
logical Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited
by Robert L. Schuyler. New York: Baywood Publishing
Company, Inc. pp. 3-13.

Pridgen, Albert
1921 "Turpentining in the South Atlantic Country'. Naval
Stores, edited by Thomas Gamble, Savannah.

Schultz, Robert P.
1981 "The Original Slash Pine Forest-An Historical View".
Proceedings of the Managed Slash Pine Ecosystem
Symposium, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Singleton, Theresa Ann
1980 The Archaeology of Afro-American Slavery in Coastal
Georgia: A Regional Perception of Slave Household
and Community Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,


Shofner, Jerrell H.
1974 Nor Is It Over Yet: Florida in the Era of Reconstruc-
tion 1883-1972. Gainesville Press.

1981a "A Postscript to the Martin Tabert Case: Peonage as
Usual in the Florida Turpentine Camps". Florida
Historical Quarterly 60(2):161-173.

1981b "Forced Labor in the Florida Forests, 1880-1950".
Journal of Forest History 25(1:14-26).

Smith, Samuel D. and Stephen T. Rogers
1979 A Survey of Historic Pottery Making in Tennessee.
Division of Archaeology, Tennessee Department of
Conservation, Nashville.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
1934 Status Atlas Records, Apalachicola National Forest,
Tract A-i, p. 3.

Sandra Jo Forney
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Post Office Box 13549
Tallahassee, FL 32308

(Continued from page 274)

Moore, Clarence B.
1922 Additional Mounds of Duval and Clay Counties,
Florida. Museum of the American Indian, Indian
Notes and Monographs 26.

Read, Charles H.
1893 Report on the Historical Exhibition at Madrid
on the occasion of the Fourth Centenary of
Columbus in 1892. British Museum. London.

Tesar, Louis D.
1984 Our Past, Our Present: An Overview and Index
of Publications of the Florida Anthropological
Society. The Florida Anthropologist 37:120-149.

Willcox, Joseph
1890a Letter to Stewart Culin dated July 7, 1890. On
file, Archives, University Museum, University of

1890b Letter to Charles C. Abbott dated September 16, 1890.
On file, Archives, University Museum, University
of Pennsylvannia.

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



Louis D. Tesar

This is another of the F.A.S. educa-
tional/how-to articles. It was ini-
tially prepared as part of the fourth
annual Florida Anthroplogical Society
Non-professional-Professional Coopera-
tion Workshop, but upon participant
request is published here. It is di-
rected to those readers who want to
report their findings, but are unsure
of how to go about it. It is focused
on archaeological site location data
reporting, and is not as detailed as
the more rigorous archaeological site
assessment survey reports expected of
professionals conducting studies to
satisfy the historic preservation im-
pact questions asked of developers
under various environmental protection
laws. It encourages professionals to
continue providing advice or otherwise
to assist and cooperate with non-pro-
fessionals in this effort.

In an earlier issue (see FA 37(2)) we
provided a guide to conducting archaeo-
logcial site location surveys. That
guide was prepared following the third
annual Florida Anthropological Society
Non-professional-Professional Coopera-
tion Workshop. Its purpose is to as-
sist our non-professional readers in
better understanding the kinds of loca-
tions in which archaeological sites may
be found. Its purpose also is to en-
courage our readers to record informa-
tion on the locales in which they have
searched for artifacts and the results
of those activities. Three key ele-
ments in that guide are 1) the use of
soils and/or U.S.G.S. topographic maps
to accurately record areas investi-
gated and locations where artifacts are
found, 2) the keeping of a journal-like
field note-book in which survey areas
conditions, are investigated, types of
artifacts found, names of other collec-
tors visiting identified sites and
other information is recorded, and 3)
the separate bagging of collections of
artifacts from each site until they can

be cleaned, catalogued, analysed, and
then displayed or studied by the
collector or others. It was also
suggested that F.A.S. Chapters plan
Chapter survey projects, and that
professionals assist in these efforts.

While following the survey methodology
outlined in that guide will help
improve artifact collecting efforts, it
also provides information that is
needed to protect significant sites, as
well as to contribute further toward
our understanding of an area's history
and prehistory. However, it can only
do so if you complete site forms and
either forward them along with copies
of your field notes and a map of survey
areas with site locations to the State
or write an archaeological site loca-
tion survey report with attached site
forms and forward a copy to the State.
In Florida, you should send such
information to the Coordinator of the
Florida Master Site File at the Florida
Department of State, Division of
Archives, History and Records Manage-
ment, Bureau of Archaeological Research
in Tallahassee 32301-8020. Ultimately
all such information will be used in
preparing or updating the archaeologi-
cal components of the Statewide Compre-
hensive Historic Preservation Plan, as
well as the historic preservation
elements of regional, county and local
comprehensive plans, and in individual
State land and other management plans.
It may even be used and cited by
authors of regional or local history
texts used in schools and elsewhere.
All of this is to help convince you
that by writing your survey report you
do make a contribution toward helping
us better understand and protect
Florida's and other states' culturally
valuable, non-renewable archaeological
and historic resources.

In addition to their use in historic
preservation planning, land management,


December, 1985

Volume 38 Number 4

and environmental protection activi-
ties, archaeological site survey
reports prepared by our members serve
as an excellent means of helping other
F.A.S. Chapter members, public offi-
cials, and others become more aware of
the types of archaeological resources
in their area and their significance in
Florida's cultural heritage. (Our out-
of-state members may substitute your
State's name every time you see a
reference to the State of Florida, if
you wish). Furthermore, surveys of
architecturally and historically
significant structures are also
important; however, while our members
are encouraged to assist in such
surveys, they are not the subject of
this presentation.

By now, you may be enthusiastically
looking forward to writing your own
site survey report and seeing it
published. However, it should be
clearly understood that the great
majority of archaeological and historic
site survey reports, whether written by
non-professionals or professionals, are
not published in The Florida Anthropol-
ogist, or any other professional
journal or book. This does not lessen
their importance as a contribution to
our understanding of Florida's and
other states' prehistoric and historic
heritage (if you make them available to
the State and other researchers and
planners), but it is a fact that should
be recognized. Indeed, such limited
distribution manuscripts (by profes-
sionals and non-professionals) make up
a major portion of the research docu-
ments in the Florida Bureau of Archaeo-
logical Research and Bureau of Historic
Preservation Library, and a similar
situation exists at many other institu-

While they may not be published in The
Florida Anthropologist, they would be
ideal topics for publication in F.A.S.
Chapter bulletins and newsletters.
This is not, however, to say that such
survey reports should not be submitted

to the Editor of The Florida Anthropol-
ogist for consideration, since it is
partly to that end that this guide is

Speaking of writing, there are two
guides which you probably should
consult. The first is the Style Guide
published in FA 37(1). It must be
followed for submissions to the Editor
of The Florida Anthropologist, and may
be used when writing for other purpos-
es. The second is "Guidelines for
Archaeological and Historic Site
Assessment Survey, Test Excavation,
and/or Mitigative Excavation or Histor-
ic Documentation Field Methodology and
Report content for Projects Conducted
in the State of Florida." The title
says it all. That document was pre-
pared by the Florida Department of
State, Division of Archives, History
and Records Management, Bureau of
Historic Preservation in consultation
with the Florida Archaeological Coun-
cil, a state-wide organization of
professional archaeologists in Florida.
It is more rigorous than that which
will be presented in this report as it
outlines what is expected of profes-
sionals conducting and reporting site
assessment surveys in Florida to
fulfill environmental impact review
requirements for development under
Federal and State laws and regulations.
A simple site location survey report
contains insufficient information for
site assessment purposes. Copies may
be obtained by writing either the
Bureau of Archaeological Research or
the Bureau of Historic Preservation at
the following address:

Division of Archives, History
and Records Management
Florida Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8020

Alternatively, if enough of our members
request that we do so, we can publish
those guidelines in a future issue of
The Florida Anthropologist or in our


Newsletter. In the meantime, it should
be noted that this guide, for reasons
of consistency, has liberally used
information presented in that
guideline, which the author helped
write while Chairperson of the F.A.C.
Standards Committee.

In preparing to write an archaeological
site survey report, the best place to
start is prior to conducting your
survey; or, if you have kept systematic
field notes and information as dis-
cussed in FA 37(2), once sufficient
incremental information has been
obtained. In the former instance, as
suggested in FA 37(2), F.A.S. Chapters
may choose to conduct archaeological
site location surveys of selected
geographical locales. Sicne a survey
report is the logical and expected end
product, background information and
data collection and analysis should be
directed to that goal. The profession-
al members of F.A.S. Chapters should
assist in these efforts.

If you have been holding your breath
waiting for me to finally get around to
describing how to go about writing a
survey report, by now you are probably
feeling dizzy and turning blue in the
face. Well, you may ask what should an
archaeological site survey report
include? This is both a simple and
difficult question to answer, and its
non-resolution is a reason many of our
readers have not written reports on
their findings. Part of the answer
lies in the purpose of the report you
plan to write.

The purpose of such reports IS NOT to
sound "scientific" by including as many
technical words as possible, when
perfectly acceptable everyday words are
available. This is not to say do not
use such words if you are comfortable
using them, but rather that their use
is not necessary for you to write a
perfectly acceptable report. The
purpose of such reports also IS NOT to
compete with other writers in length or
complexity or whatever. The purpose

IS to assemble information which you
individually or cooperatively with
others possess. The purpose IS to
convey your information so that others
will better understand the cultural
resources in the areas) which you have
investigated; and, so that the
information will not have been forever
lost. As a fringe benefit, you will
discover that in the process of trying
to explain your site data to others you
will develop a better understanding of
that data yourself.

We finally come to the actual writing
of your site survey report. You should
consider the following:

1. You should be aware of the fact
that there is nothing mystical about
writing archaeological and historic
site location reports;

2. You should read some well-written
reports to obtain an idea of proper
format and style before writing your
own first report;

3. You should not expect to write an
acceptable first draft final report;

4. You should make an outline of what
you want to write, and follow it;

5. You should write a double-spaced
first, draft fleshing out that outline;

6. You should put it aside for a few
days, and then read it pretending that
you know nothing about the subject.
Make notes in the margins, correct
sentences, and add any omitted material
(in the space between the double-spaced
lines, or as cut-and-paste inserts for
longer additions) or delete redundant

7. Write a second draft, make copies
and let others familiar (or unfamiliar)
with the area you are writing about
read your draft and offer comments. If
you are a non-professional have a
professional read it. If you are a


professional, have a non-professional
read it. In general, the professional
can help with content, the non-profes-
sional can help with understandability.
Let them play Editor. Don't be sensi-
tive to criticism. After all its only
a draft and its generally much easier
to review and comment on something than
to put it together yourself;

8. Take the several "edited" drafts
and your original draft and page-by-
page read the review comments and make
any changes that you believe will
contribute to improving your final
draft and ignore those that will not.
After all, you are the author so it is
your decision on what goes into your
manuscript at this stage at least.

9. Prepare a final draft manuscript
with a survey area map and any other
graphics or tables you want. Remember
to follow any applicable style guides
of possible publishers (such as that in
FA 37(1));

10. Submit your reworked manuscripts
to the Editor of The Florida Anthropol-
ogist or to another journal, newsletter,
or bulletin for consideration as an
article, or make and distribute your
own copies to whomever you wish but
please make sure that you provide a
copy to the Florida Division of
Archives, History and Records
Management in Florida, and in other
states to their respective archaeo-
logical research library. That's what
I did with my first site location
survey report as a non-professional in
1965, and look what it did for me. Uh!
Well perhaps you should use another
example. The point is that if no one
knows it exists or has access to your
report for comparative research and
other purposes, it is almost the same
as if you never wrote it.

11. (Hopefully) you will receive a
favorable response from the editor to
whom you submitted your manuscript.
Make the suggested changes and address

any problem areas or questions and
prepare a revised manuscript. Yes, you
should expect to have to make some
changes. Editors are like cats in a
litter box. If they don't mess with
your manuscript, they don't feel that
they have done their job. And if you
choose not to make the "suggested"
changes, you are unlikely to get it
published, at that source, at least.
After all, if you feel strongly about
the original text and format of your
report you may submit it elsewhere; but
be prepared for similar review com-

12. Resubmit you revised manuscript
(if you want it published) and await
its (favorable) review;

13. In journals such as The Florida
Anthropologist you will need to help
proof the galleys (final typed copy) of
your article, so that you can share the
blame with the Editor for any over-
looked errors; and,

14. Experience the satisfaction of
receiving your copy (copies) of your
published article and distribute it to
whomever can use it, to relatives, or
simply to friends;

Finally, as a postscript, begin working
on your next project and use the above
experience as a guide to avoid repeat-
ing any obvious style or content
mistakes when you write your next

Returning to the beginning, preparing
an outline of what you are going to
write about is important. Initially,
you should prepare a written outline.
However, after you have written a few
reports and grasped what elements
should be included in every report you
may use a mental outline. If you wish
to write a concise, organized, non-
rambling report, you should prepare an
outline beyond the sub-heading level to
the paragraph content level.


Every site location survey report
should contain, at least, the follow-



This subsection contains a statement of
when and why the project was done.
(This may not apply to reports based on
cumulative, informal data). It should
mention the project location, including
a general project location map (You may
refer to the map included in the
environmental background section); it
provides a general description of the
nature and extent of the project; and,
any other information deemed appropri-
ate by the author.


This review should generally list any
previous studies in and around the
project area. Its purpose is not to
review the historical development of
archaeological and historical studies
in Florida. Rather, its purpose is to
demonstrate an awareness of the kinds
and character of sites found in the
survey area so that you may discuss how
your findings support or differ from
that data. If you are not aware of any
previous studies or if none have been
formally conducted then indicate their


This subsection should contain a
description of the project location and
area in terms of township, range,
section and parts of sections and
include a project location map. The
map should show within the overall
project area the smaller surveyed areas
(if owner permission was not obtained
to look at all areas, or if only
selected locales were searched). It
should also include archaeological site
and isolated finds locations, but they
are discussed later in your report. In

some instances your map may be part of
a U.S.G.S. topographic map or a soils
map upon which you plotted this infor-
mation. Your discussion, if possible,
should note the topographic features,
drainage, water sources, soils, and
general vegetation (e.g., pine flat-
woods, mesic hammocks, etc.) in your
study area. However, you may limit
your discussion of these topics, to a
general statement of the area you
investigated if it is a topic with
which you are unfamiliar.


Many factors influence survey methodol-
ogy and research design. These factors
include the size of the study area, its
location (rural vs. urban; uplands vs.
wetlands vs. coastal vs. submerged),
access restrictions, vegetative cover,
seasonal weather conditions, present
(and recent past) land uses, and
personal bias. It is particularly
important to describe how you conduct
your survey (i.e., random search,
walked rows in plowed fields, or
whatever) and the manner in which site
limits were determined. It is also
important to describe survey limita-
tions, including access (DO NOT TRES-
PASS! Remember that you need owner
permission to investigate private land
and a permit to investigate Federal and
State lands), poor ground visibility or
other environmental limitations such as
flooding, snowstorms, hurricanes, wild
hunters and attack dogs.


This subsection need not be as compli-
cated as the subtitle may sound. It
may be briefly stated or be a more
detailed presentation. However, it
should contain information on how you
processed (cleaned and accessioned-
catalogued) and sorted your artifacts
into different classes and types,
including citations of any reference
works or type collections you used.
Photographs or line drawings of arti-


fact types, and tables of artifacts
recovered should be included in the
next subsection on survey results, not
here. This should simply be a para-
graph stating what you did.


This subsection should describe what
was found. It should consist of a
brief description of each site and the
kinds of material collected. Florida
Master Site File site forms should be
completed for new sites and updated for
known sites in Florida (and appropriate
forms completed for other states), and
included as an appendix to the copy of
your report forwarded to the State and
included in F.A.S. Chapter files.
However, your report should be able to
stand without the site forms for
general distribution. It should be
remembered that information on "isolat-
ed find" locations and areas in which
sites are NOT found are as important as
locations with sites.


This subsection will contain a summary
of survey results, including comparison
of the types of sites found, their
location, and chronological placement
both within the survey area and outside
the area. This is the place where site
location models are presented or if
your survey was to test such models -
supported, modified or refuted. On the
other hand, you may choose not to
attempt site model presentations. If
so, you may simply state what further
study may be needed, what sites you
believe are important and in need of
protection, or whatever you wish to


This subsection will contain references
cited. It is not a bibliography of
sources which were and might have been

Well, there you have it. While I have
used the subsections above you do NOT

have to do so and you may choose to
combine some of them into a single
subsection. Their purpose here is to
give guidance on the order and kinds of
information which may be presented.
Also figures, tables, detailed site
maps and the like may be included as
you like. Finally, if you only want to
provide a brief report stating what was
surveyed, how you did it, what sites
were found where and include a laundry
list of artifacts only with a survey
area and site location map, and do not
feel comfortable trying to analyze or
interpret what you found, then please
write the briefer type report and let
someone else worry about the rest. The
important thing is to record what you

Helping to locate and record archaeo-
logical and historic sites is one of
the most important contributions that
the non-professional archaeologist can
make. Please note that I stress the
word one above. Non-professionals
contribute to historic preservation
efforts in many ways. Surveys are but
one way. However, site location survey
reporting contributes more to our
understanding of an area's history and
prehistory that any other non-profes-
sional activity.

It is important that professionals
recognize and support non-professional
site location survey and reporting
efforts, and continue cooperative
efforts to involve more non-profession-
als on their projects and to provide
advice to interested non-professionals.
Working together we can study and help
protect Florida's fragile, non-renewa-
ble archaeological resources.


I wish to thank Mike Wisenbaker, Bob
Carr, Alan Dorian, and James J. Miller
for reading and commenting on an
earlier draft of this paper. It has
benefited from their suggestions;
although, I remain responsible for its


Robert S. Carr

Excavations at the Fort Center site
near Lake Okeechobee by William Sears
have provided the first extensive
archaeological investigations of an
earthworks complex in the Lake
Okeechobee area (Sears 1971, 1982). He
hypothesized that the site's
earthworks, specifically the narrow
linear ridges with their associated
sand mounds, and the large circular
ditches were constructed as drain-
fields for maize agriculture. His Fort
Center work resulted in a stream of
hypotheses concerning the introduction
of maize cultivation to the Southeast,
and in his belief that the earthworks -
maize complex of the Fort Center site
was directly introduced by native
people from northern South America in a
series of unrelated migrations (Sears
1977). Sears' work has stimulated a
number of students and researches to
consider pertinent questions of
agricultural development and diffusion
in the Southeast.

Dr. Sears' hypothesis (1977:7), based
on corn pollen recovered within the
largest circle at Fort Center, is that:

The function of these earth-
works was most certainly to
drain the water inside the
circle into the ditches to
permit the growing of corn.
We have enough corn pollen
from several locations to give
this interpretation high
probability, but not enough to
prove it absolutely, the
problem being associations.

Sears (1982) reiterates this belief
when he states that his Fort Center
excavations within the circle produced
no artifacts (except in association
with a riverbank midden) nor any
evidence of structures. He further
states (1982:178) that the:

Use of them (circles) for
ceremonialism or forti-
fication, or anything else,
would have left some evidence.
It is not there ... the circle
ditches were built for an
economic function, to aid in
maize production.

While a graduate student at Florida
State University, Sears' work at Fort
Center had a profound effect upon me,
and served as the primary stimulus for
my decision to conduct a systematic
survey, largely based on aerial
photographic interpretation, to locate
and to inventory other earthworks
within the seven counties adjacent to
Lake Okeechobee. This survey was to be
my graduate thesis project, and Dr.
Sears met with me several times to
review the progress of work. The
unexpected opportunity to conduct
several archaeological projects for
Florida's Division of Archives, History
and Records Management in the Lake
Okeechobee area allowed me to field
inspect many known sites in the area,
and to ground-truth some of the
"targets" I had discovered as a result
of my aerial survey. However, in 1975,
as I compiled my inventory and
classification of earthworks, the
graduate program of the Florida State
University, Department of Anthropology,
temporarily dropped its thesis
requirements, urging its graduate
students to take their comprehensive
examinations and to be graduated by the
end of 1976. Consequently, the thesis
was never completed, and this paper is
presented as a partial report of my
research during that time period.

As a result of my survey, I located and
recorded a large number of earthwork
sites, most of them not previously
recorded. I also discovered various
earthwork and mound components

Volume 38 Number 4


December, 1985


associated with many recorded sites
that had not been previously suspected.
As a result of this inventory I was
able to classify the earthworks of the
Lake Okeechobee area into three general
classes based on their shape and forms.

Linear Ridges

These are narrow ridges or embankments
often constructed in parallel pairs or
as a single ridge from soil borrowed
from an adjacent ditch(es). These
earthworks vary in length from as
little as 15m to as long as 730m, as in
the case of the eastern linear
embankments of the West Okeechobee
Circle (8G157). These linear ridges
can occur individually, in groups, or
in association with circular or semi-
circular earthworks. Those linears
ridges associated with circular and
semi-circular earthworks (i.e., Fort
Center, Tony's Mound) are classified as
part of the class of earthworks
described below. All of the linear
earthworks that I am familiar with
occur in savannahs or flood-plains,
areas that would have been subject to
periodic flooding during late
prehistoric times. No broad base of C-
14 dates has been accumulated for the
various linear ridges other than those
at Fort Center which dates from ca.
A.D. 600 1400. The Fort Center
linear ridges, incidentally, I believe
are more accurately included within the
second class discussed below.

Circular-Linear Earthworks

These earthworks are characterized as
semi-circular, crescent, or horseshoe-
shaped embankments or ridges. These
site types often have linear ridges
extending outward from the crescent.
Tony's Mound (8Hn3) and Big Mound City
(8PB48) are typical of this site class.
At least eight such circular-linear
earthworks, all in the Lake Okeechobee
area, were located during the author's
survey. Many of these circular-linear

earthworks are large, often en-
compassing dozens of acres. The Fort
Center site includes a circular-linear
earthworks (Figure 2). Sears, however,
interprets the linear ridges as being
isolated and not attached to a crescent
ridge. He believes the crescent
component appears on the aerial photo
as a result of a cow trail and other
factors (Sears 1982:132), an
interpretation with which I re-
spectfully disagree. Sears believes
these elevated linears were used for
cultivating maize, although no direct
evidence of that function was
discovered in association with those
ridges during his excavations.
Circular-linear earthworks probably
date from the time span of ca. A.D.
600 1400, as indicated by Sears'
dates from Fort Center.

Circular Earthworks

These features are circular or nearly
complete circular ditches, often
associated with embankments borrowed
from the adjacent ditch. These circles
vary in diameter from as small as 61m
to as large as 366m. The only circular
earthwork that has been subjected to
extensive, professional archaeological
examination is the one associated with
the Fort Center site (Figure 2). Sears
believes these circles were used as
drain fields for corn agriculture.
Based on C-14 dates from the Fort
Center Circle, these sites date from
ca. 1000 B.C. 450 B.C., almost 1000
years earlier than the first two
classes of earthworks.

The circular earthwork type is of
particular interest to the author. It
is a type distinctive in form and age
from the two previous earthwork classes
described above and, based on Sear's
work at Fort Center, this class of
earthworks may predate the previous two
classes by at least a thousand years.
At present, circular earthworks seem to
provide the strongest case towards
supporting Sears' hypothesis for



Hn 320

0 10 20 30
I I ",

/ "Ot r1 j A

'. r .. r'- ,' '

S' *., ,

.. 'r"
t^' "' c~

r ..^-.
-^^f L ^lI~ =
^/' *:^

600 FT
183 M '-


Q mound

Figure 2. Map of the Fort Center site. Map is
based on Carr's interpretations of
aerial photographs and site maps by
William Sears (1982:4, Fig. 1.1).

Figure 1. Map of Prehistoric Circles of Southern

agriculture. However, as the following
description of eight circular earthwork
sites across southern Florida (Figure
1) demonstrates, serious questions are
raised regarding an agricultural
interpretation or any explanation of
function that ignores other types of
possible activities associated with
these circular earthworks.

Fort Center (8G112-24) site is probably
the best known of all of the Lake
Okeechobee earthworks. It is situated
on the south bank of Fisheating Creek.
A number of features are encompassed by
the site, including a large circular
earthwork 366m in diameter (Figure 2b).
Sears' excavations within the circle
demonstrated the existence of two
smaller circles, each, he believes,
constructed at an earlier time (prior
to ca. 500 B.C.) than the encompassing
larger circle. The larger circle has a
moat 7.5-9m wide and is 2m deep. It is
crossed on each of its southern and
eastern arcs by an earthen causeway.
The moat had been excavated by the
Indians to a depth beneath the
underlying impermeable hematite hard-
pan, thus, according to Sears, allowing
for the effective drainage of the
encompassed land within the circle.
Sears addresses the possibility that a
sand mound might have existed near the
center of the larger circle (1982:176).
However, after extensive excavations of
the feature without yielding artifacts,
he concluded that the feature was not
an artificial mound. Two black-dirt
middens were located on the creek levee
near the northern quadrant of the
circle. It is not clear if they were
coeval with the circles; although, a
radiocarbon date of 450 B.C. + 105 was
recovered from the lowest midden lenses
by Fairbanks (Sears 1982:178) suggests
the possibility of their association
with the largest circle.

The Lakeport Circle (8G150) site is
located north of Fisheating Creek
(Figure 3), but based on the site
features that still exist, the circle

had a diameter of about 275m. The
construction of a road and structures
also have contributed to the
destruction of this site.

The Glades Circle (8G138) site (Figure
4) was originally located by John
Goggin during a flight over the area.
However, the site was not visited by an
archaeologist until the author hiked to
it in 1974. The circle is 150m in
diameter, encompassing an area of about
1.8 ha. The ditch is 4.6m wide
(Figure 5) and is at least 0.6-1.Om in

The Caloosahatchee Circle (8G133) site
(Figures 6 and 7) is located adjacent
to the Caloosahatchee River. Prior to
recent drainage the area around the
site would have been subjected to
periodic flooding. This was probably
the most distinctive of all the circle
earthworks. Located in a treeless
prairie, the circle is about 9m wide.
The northern quadrant of the ditch does
not complete a circle. Rather, two
forked ditches extend from each end of
the wider circumscribing ditch. A
single earthen causeway crossed the
ditch on the circle's southern

The author visited the site 8G133 in
1974 prior to it being leveled to
facilitate the construction of
homesites. The author observed a
number of distinctive features
associated with the site. First, at
the very center of the circle was a
circular artificial pond 15m in
diameter (Figure 7c). Directly
northeast of the pond was an oval sand
mound of similar size (Figure 7d),
apparently constructed from the soil
removed from the pond. An amorphic
artificial mound was situated directly
south of the pond (Figure 7b). A small
circular pond or borrow area was
located on the eastern side of this
mound. A crescent-shaped mound was
situated about 120m northeast of the
central pond (Figure 7e). Finally, a
small oval mound (apparently a midden)



.: ...

.,^ ," a
"' ... '- ;

bl r .: .;
. .I A- LI

0oo F T.
44 M
.- ti-sit

- U


at- ...


Aerial photograph of the Glades Circle
(8G138) site.

Figure 3. Aerial photograph of
Circle (8G150) site.

S br r :






275 FT
84 M

Figure 4.

the Lakeport



.k C-~lb~i)i~'PSibY t. r+
r. 1
ilII r
IV 1
:rF.J: 'I. .L.
( *r~rr I ,II

.; oIs 'j.7. .

Figure 5. Photograph looking South from within Glades Circle (8G138)
at ditch. (Courtesy of Florida Department of State,
Division of Archives, History and Records Management).

Qr .%
a t: l *I4

2 400 F T., .
122 M M

Figure 6. Aerial photograph of the Caloosahatchee
Circle (8G133) site.





' -


GI 33



, I I

i I

0 80
I ,




Figure 7. Map of the Caloosahatchee Circle (8g133) site.




-~ --=
..1. -*
I '' 'C
~L` -rl


r.. c.
i. -.




Figure 8.


*'* .

i'. 450 VTtr
137 M

Aerial photograph of West Okeecho-
bee (8G157) site. A modern ditch
(a) bisects the circle. The linear
earthworks (b) extend beyond the
view of the photograph.

Figure 9. Map of West Okeechobee
Circle (8G157) site.

W r I,'

f .

% L' !
I i

S .i ".

F m 4 ''
'*^*?., .1^,^
I ^ 1
^ '
f '_ ,

I* I."


*e p

I I-

** I

<* *- ,, .e ,
.. (

5 1 ,5 .
,I ,

*Iw l e ;
i 'm

S ". V 9 .

Aerial photograph of .
Hendry Circle (8Hn32)C A
site. (a) is the cir-
cle's embankment, (b) "
is the borrow ditch
for the embankment. _



* 'C

* I '
p ,

e I
p *

* *

k -

t* 4


'p .
.w .

- a1. -


200 F T.
61 M.

. I

Figure 11. Aerial photograph of Dade Circle (8Dal642) site.




Figure 10.



'-t -


Figure 12. Map of Dade Circle (8Dal642) site.
Figure 12 ap of Dae C-- rcle a sie

(Figure 7f) surrounded by a borrow
ditch, was situated 46m northeast and
outside of the great circle. Prior to
construction clearing, these mounds
were about 1 to 2 meters in elevation
above the surrounding terrain.

Possibly the most intriguing feature
associated with tnis earthwork complex
was a smaller nearly complete circle
about 38m in diameter and about 168m
west of the larger circle (Figure 7g).
Like the larger circle, it does not
complete a full circle. It is,
however, open on its eastern quadrant
rather than on the north like the
larger circle. Tne aerial photograph
also suggests a small oval feature that
is possibly a mound at the center of
this smaller circle. One or two
possible smaller circle ditches are
also in evidence on the aerial
photograph, but their signature is less
distinctive making it unclear whether
their origin is natural or man-made.

SThe West Okeechobee Circle (8G157) site

was discovered during the author's
aerial photographic survey (Figure 8).
The circle is situated in an open
savannah a short distance west of an
elevated palm an oak hammock. A field
inspection in August, 1974 revealed
that the site was in good condition,
with both concentric circles and their
associated embankments being visible.
The ditch is shallow, approximately
0.5m in depth, and between 2m to 3m
wide. This is the only known earthwork
with two concentric circles (Figure 9).
The outer circle is an estimated 120m
in diameter and the inner circle is
about 60m in diameter. This site is
also distinct from all other circles
described in this report because it has
two sets of linear ridges associated
with it, one group extending from the
circle's eastern quadrant and the other
from the southern arc of the outer
circle. The eastern set of linear
ridges are 730m in length, by far the
longest earthwork ridges that I have
ever observed. The southern linear
ridges extend southward 460m. However,


it is noted that these linear ridges
are not easily seen on the ground.
Interestingly, these ridges traverse a
variety of environments that includes
grassy savannahs, ponds, and even an
upland hammock.

One might argue that this earthwork
should be included in the second
category of earthworks that were
described earlier because of the
associated linear ridges. It is
included here because it appears more
similar to the Transitional Period
circles than to the more recent
"circle-linears" typical of Tonys Mound
and Big Mound City.

The Hendry Circle (8Hn32) site was
located during the author's aerial
photographic survey and was not field-
checked. The circle is located at
least partially in a swamp. The circle
is estimated to the between 180-215m in
diameter. although partially obscured
by buggy trails, the site's shape is
suggested as the trails traverse the
circle's embankment (Figure lOa) and
the more darkly toned ditch (Figure

The Dade Circle (8Dal642) site was
discovered during the author's
archaeological survey of Dade County in
1979 (Carr 1981). The site was
discovered on a 1925 aerial photograph
(Figure 11), and is located in what was
once an Everglades prairie near the
headwaters of the Miami River. The
edge of the upland ridge, which is part
of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, is less
than 60m south of the circle. The
circle was about 180m in diameter, and
in the aerial photo, the site's
northern quadrant appears obscure by
erosion or soil deposition. The circle
is presently under fill and urban
development within the city of Miami in
the vicinity of N.W. 7 Street and 42nd

p The Miami Circle (8Da2148) site
represents a second possible circle
associated with the Miami River. It

was discovered in 1845 by government
surveyor George McKay, while he was
conducting a section line survey.
McKay described it as an "old redoubt
encircled by a ditch." He observed
central embankments in the form of a
cross. He reported the circle's
diameter as being 200 feet (60m). No
archaeologist has ever observed this
site. Presently, the site location is
beneath the paved streets and
structures that crowd against the south
bank of the Miami River. It is not
known whether any part of the site has
survived beneath these developments.
This particular circle may be distinct
from the other circles described in
this report because McKay's field notes
suggest that it was located on the
upland ridge rather than the adjacent
flood plain. Unfortunately, based on
the available data, this important
point regarding the circle's exact
location can not be resolved.


Most of South Florida's circle
eartnworks occur in the vicinity of
Lake Okeechobee. However, there are at
least two exceptions located in
southeast Florida near the Miami River.
Other circular earthworks in addition
to the eight described here undoubtedly
exist. During the author's aerial
photographic survey, several other
possible circle sites were discovered,
including two east of Lake Okeechobee,
but they are not described in detail
here because their exact identification
is uncertain. The apparent geographic
distribution of circle earthwork's
could be a survey bias caused by a
number of factors, such as the
intensive urban development that would
have destroyed or obscured such sites
near the southeast Florida coast, and
the fact that the relatively
undeveloped Lake Okeechobee prairies
and savannahs provide an ideal terrain
for aerial photographic interpretation.
In addition, those areas of southern
Florida that are undeveloped tend to

298 .

have more trees, another factor that
would make aerial photographic
detection difficult for the coast.
Despite all of the factors that tend to
bias this survey, there is little doubt
that the Lake Okeechobee region was the
focus of this particular earthwork

All of the circular earthworks occur in
environments that, previous to
drainage, were inundated (with the one
possible exception of 8Da2148).
Research by Stephen Hale has
demonstrated that relationship of
drainage patterns and soil types to the
Lake Okeechobee earthworks in general
(Hale 1984:173-187). All of the
circles are located near elevated
hammocks or other upland environments.
These upland locations are of interest,
because most of them afforded well-
drained sandy soils that could have
provided an alternative location for
cultivation. The major disadvantage of
these upland locations was the lack of
organic sediment that would nave been
more likely to occur in the wetlands.
These organic soils might have been a
rich source of nutrients for the drain-
field agriculture hypothesized by
Sears. To date, there have been no
archaeological hypotheses or tests
directed toward the use of these upland
environments, such as their having been
utilized for cultivation.

There can be little doubt that Sears'
hypothesis for an economic-agricultural
function for the circle earthworks has
great appeal. It provides in economic
terms an explanation for the relatively
large number of circles in the
Fisheating Creek Basin (8G112, 8G138
and 8G150). Although admittedly, we do
not know if these circles were coeval
in time. However, Sears' total
rejection of any ceremonialism
associated with the Fort Center Circle
is premature, particularly wnen one
considers the mound and pond features
(Figure 7c-d) of the Caloosahatcnee
Circle that are highly suggestive of
mortuary activity areas.

The possibility of mortuary activities
being associated with the Fort Center
Circle can not yet be ruled out. It
should be noted again that a suspected
sand mound near the center of the Fort
Center Great Circle was excavated by
Sears in 1967. He reported that the
mound was a low rise, about two feet
(0.6m) nigh, and composed of leached
white sand. He states that the mound's
sand was placed there artificially, but
that his excavations uncovered no
indication of its function. In
retrospect, Sears reconsidered its
possible function and concluded that
the mound was actually a spoil remnant
from one of the smaller circle ditches

My point in raising the presence of
this particular "mound" within the
Great Circle is that, since the feature
is suspiciously similar to the central
mound of the Caloosahatchee Circle, one
wonders if the paucity of data
uncovered by Sears is a function of
inadequate preservation which is
generally not good in leached sands,
particularly in a feature that would be
highly disturbed and approximately
2,000 years old. In 1950, John Goggin
visited the Fort Center site and
designated the central mound as 8G120
or Mound "Y". He described this mound
as being disturbed by plowing, and
having dimensions of 75' diameter and
being 2' in elevation (1951) (23m x
0.6m). I believe Goggin's observations
reinforce the probability that the
mound was intentionally constructed.
In defense of Sears' extensive work at
Fort Center, one might argue that the
amount of excavation was certainly
sufficient to have uncovered relevant
data within the circles that might
indicate any mortuary or other
specialized activities. But, what if
such activities had been tightly
confined to relatively small artificial
mound or pond features as suggested by
those of tne Caloosahaccnee Circle? If
such features had been obscured by
erosion or other forces, then only a
testing strategy that adequately


sampled all areas within the circle
would locate them. Again, this is not
an indictment against the amount of
work already completed by Sears and
those excavations by Charles Fairbanks
within the Great Circle because their
work, which included a 1,000 foot
(305m) trench, smaller trenches, and
pits represents a major effort.
Rather, my point here is that if the
Caloosahatchee Circle could have been
used as a predictive model, then these
smaller features that represent less
than 2% of the area within the
Caloosanatchee Circle could have been
deliberately (investigated) in tne Fort
Center Circle.

Of potential significance to the
question of mortuary activities is a
feature perculiar to the Fisheating
Creek Circles (8G112, 8G138 and 8G150).
At each site a pond is located on the
southwest quadrant of each of the
circles. It seems more than
coincidental, particularly since the
ponds are located almost precisely in
the same portion of the circle, and
because those at 8G138 and 8G150 appear
artificially constructed.

The importance of the Miami circles
relative to Sears' hypotheses is that
southeast Florida, like the rest of
Goggin's Glades Culture Area, has been
traditionally defined by archaeologists
as nonagricultural. Sears' work at
Fort Center has characterized the Belle
Glade people of the Lake Okeechobee
area as having a subsistence based on
fishing, hunting, and gathering with
the important inclusion of maize
cultivation. Obviously, if the Miami
circles are drain fields for
cultivation, then southeastern Florida
will have to be considered as an area
that also participated in agriculture.

The interpretation of the Miami
earthworks as drained fields presents
serious problems for prehistorians
studying South Florida. First, there
are no ethnographic or historic
accounts that indicate that either the

Tequesta of southeast Florida or the
Calusa of southwest Florida were
utilizing maize agriculture during the
time of European contact. In fact,
known accounts suggest that there was
no maize, as indicated by Fontaneda's
narrative in which he described native
hunting, fishing, and the gathering of
roots after having spent 17 years as a
Spanish captive of the South Florida
Indians (1944:13). A detailed
ethnobotanical analysis of plant
remains from the Granada site at the
mouth of the Miami River has yielded
not evidence of corn (Griffin et al.
1984), nor has any other archaeological
investigation in extreme southern
Florida. In short, evidence of maize
in prehistoric South Florida is
lacking. One might argue that
agriculture occurred in the Miami River
area only during the time of ca. 1000
B.C. 450 B.C., the time period
indicated by radiocarbon dates from the
Fort Center Circle, and that this
adaptation disappeared from
southeastern Florida after this time.
But if this were the case, this shift
in subsistence will need to be

Assuming that the maize hypothesis is
correct, then the exact chronological
relationship between the Lake
Okeechobee circles and those of Miami
might indicate the direction of
diffusion of these traits. A coastal
origin for the earthworks maize
assemblage might seem to lend itself
nicely to Sears' theories on seaborne
contacts from South America (1977:1-
15), but frankly, I do not think the
evidence will bear it out. Recent
excavations of Late Archaic Period
sites (8Dal082, and 8Dai058) in Dade
County strongly suggest a north Florida
connection as demonstrated by St. Johns
pottery, fiber-tempered sherds and
limestone projectile points modeled
after similar points of chert and flint
typical of north and central Florida
(Carr n.d.).

While I have raised many problems and


questions, I have few clear solutions
to offer towards a correct
interpretation of the circular
earthworks of South Florida.
Obviously, additional field work is
necessary. This additional work should
be directed toward retesting Sears'
hypothesis of maize agriculture, as
well as testing for other types of
cultigens. Another avenue of research
suggested to this author by the
Caloosahatchee Circle is to develop
hypotheses of mortuary ceremonialism
and to test adequately these ideas at
some of the better preserved circles
that still exist. The invitation to
uncover conclusive evidence of maize
agriculture or other cultigens or
evidence about other significant
activities associated with the circle
ditches will undoubtedly attract new
archaeological excavations over the
next decade, and these results will be
a welcome contribution towards
resolving the questions raised by
Sears' work, and towards a fuller
understanding of prehistoric adaptation
in South Florida.

McKay, George
1845 Field notes on file at the Metro-Dade County
Department of Public Works, Miami.

Sears, William H.
1971 Food Production and Village Life in Pre-
historic Southeastern United States.
Archaeology 24:322-329.
1977 Seaborne Contacts between Early Cultures in
Lower Southeastern United States and Middle
through South America. In The Sea in the
Pre-Columbian World, edited by E. Benson,
pp. 1-15. Washington: Dembarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.
1982 "Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the
Lake Okeechobee Basin," Ripley P. Bullen Mono-
graphs in Anthropology and History, Number 4.
University Presses of Florida. Gainesville.

Smith, Buckingham
1944 Memoir of Hernando de Escalante Fontaneda
Respecting Florida, Written in Spain about the
Year 1575. (Translated and Annotated by
Buckingham Smitn, Edited by David 0. True).
University of Miami, Coral Gables.

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


Carr, Robert S.
1981 Dade County Historic Survey Final Report:
Tne Archaeological Survey. On file at the
Metro-Dade Historic Preservation Division,

n.d. Lost and Found: The Archeology and Pre-
Urban History of Dade County. Book in

Goggin, John M.
1951 Fort Center site forms on file at Florida
Master Site File with Florida Division of
Archives, History and Records Management,

Griffin, John W. and Sue B. Richardson, Mary Ponl,
Carl D. McMurray, C. Margaret Scarry, Suzanne Fish,
Elizabeth S. Wing, L. Jill Loucks, Marcia K. Welch
1984 Excavations at the Granada Site. Volume 1.
Florida Division of Archives, History and
Records Management, Tallahassee.

Hale, Stephen H.
1984 Prehistoric Environmental Exploitation
Around lake Okeechobee. Southeastern
Archaeology 3(2):173-187.



Report on the Mound Explorations of the
Bureau of Ethnology. CYRUS THOMAS.
Introduction by BRUCE D. SMITH.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Classics
of Smithsonian Anthropology, Washington,
D.C., 1985. 19 + 742 pp., figures,
tables, plates, references, index.
$25.00 (paper).

Reviewed by John Scarry

This book is a photographic reprint of
the first edition, originally published
in 1894 as an accompanying paper to the
Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology, 1890-91. Its publication
makes this seminal work available once
again to scholars and others interested
in the archaeology of the eastern United
States and the history of American archae-
ology. There can be no doubt about the
importance of Thomas' work. Brian Fagan
calls it one of the great monographs of
19th century American archaeology. In
his informative introduction to this
reprint, Bruce Smith hails it as marking
the beginning of modern archaeology in
the New World. It really is a "classic."

The work reported in this volume was
funded by a special appropriation from
the U.S. Congress, which allotted $5,000
to "continuing archaeological investiga-
tions relating to moundbuilders, and
prehistoric mounds." A new division, the
Division of Mound Exploration, was formed
within the Smithsonian Institution in 1891.
However, it was not until 1892, when John
Wesley Powell, the Director of the Bureau
of Ethnology, hired Cyrus Thomas, that the
Division's program really began.

The most important task of the Division
was to answer the question, "were the
mounds built by the Indians?" This ques-
tion was resolved beyond any reasonable
doubt by the Division's investigations.
In fact, Thomas so completely refuted the
myth of the mound-builders that it has not
been seriously considered by professional
archaeologists since.

Thomas expanded the Division's work beyond
this one question to include the develop-
ment of a classification system for the

mounds of the eastern United States,
the description of various modes of
mound construction, establish a
system of archaeological areas re-
flecting the distribution of the
different mound types, and obtain
representative artifact samples
from the mounds. All of these goals
were achieved, although subsequent
work has superceded the various
classificatory schemes.

While the specific classificatory
schemes he developed have been
superceded, Thomas' contributions
to the resolution of the mound-
builder question and to the develop-
ment of archaeological methodology
have endured. Thomas constructed a
long-term research project with an
explicit problem orientation. He
deliberately sought those classes
of data that would aid in the reso-
lution of his problems and he util-
ized a sampling strategy and stan-
dardized data recovery techniques
that produced the data he needed.
All students of archaeology should
learn from Thomas' work.

The bulk of the Report on the Mound
Explorations of the Bureau of Ethno-
logy, and one of its most enduring
contributions, consists of descrip-
tions of the mounds that the Division
investigated throughout the eastern
U.S. Many important sites are de-
scribed, including the Cahokia site
in Illinois, the Menard and Pecan
Point sites in Arkansas, the Etowah
and Hollywood sites in Georgia, the
Towasaghy and Power's Fort sites in
Missouri, and the Newark, Hopeton,
Baum, and Great Serpent Mound sites
in Ohio. For many sites the Report
of the Mound Explorations, is not
only the definitive source of in-
formation, it is the only source of
information available to us.

Unfortunately, the Division of Mound
Explorations did relatively little
work in Florida, although John P.
Rogan did conduct field work here
between July, 1892, and June, 1894.


December, 1985

Volume 38 Number 4

Thomas reports that "nothing deemed worthy
of notice was observed except the construc-
tion and contents of two mounds..." The
two mounds described by Thomas were the
Job Smith mound and the Snowdon mound,
both in Alachua County. Thomas also de-
scribes mounds at Satsuma and Enterprise
based on an account by W.H. Ball.

If you are interested in the history of
American archaeology, you should but this
book. If you are seriously interested in
the late prehistory of the southeastern
United States, you should buy this book.

It is not only an extremely important his-
torical document, it is the definitive, and
frequently only, source of data on many
southeastern sites. I highly recommend it
to all.

To order write the Smithsonian Institution
Press, Post Office Box 1579, Washington,
D.C. 20013.

John Scarry, Bureau of Archaeological
Research, Department of State,
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301-8020


If you are looking for the perfect gift for that special person, we have an offer which is
hard to resist. In order to better serve you and to reach a broader audience with infor-
mation on the importance of our archaeological and historical resources, and related topics
we are providing the following time limited offer. For $25, you can give an individual
membership in the F.A.S. for 1986 AND have the regular issues for 1983, 1984 OR 1985,
whichever year you designate, mailed to that NEW member in your name as a Yule, Christmas,
or belated Hanukkah gift. The 1986 individual membership is $12 and purchase of any set
of the above volumes as back issues would be $20 plus $2 postage and handling for an
undiscounted total of $34. For.an additional $6 (a total of $31) you may give a gift
family membership. Simply complete the following form. YOU MAY COPY THE FORM AND GIVE

To: Name



From: Name







Select year of back issues gift by checking membership category :


1983 (includes FA 36 (1-2) & (3-4)). ....... ($25)

1984 (includes FA 37 (1, 2, 3, & 4)) . .


1985 (includes FA 38 (1-2 pt 1, 3 & 4)) . ($25)

1985 (above issues PLUS FA 38 (1-2 pt 2)) ..

Please make check or money order payable to
the Florida Anthropological Society. This
offer ends January 31, 1986. If you act
promptly, we will try to get your gift
issues in the mail in time to arrive by
Christmas or Yule.






Mail Gift Subscription Order forms to:

Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 1013
Tallahassee, FL 32302




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 be
addressed to the Editor.

FA 1(1-2) 1(3-4) OUT OF PRINT
PA 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 -_
PA 5(1-2)-6(1) OUT OF PRINT
PA 6(2) ** $5 x 1 -
FA 6(3)** $5 x 1 _
FA 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 z 1
FA 13(4) **$5 -
FA 14(1-2)**$10 x 1
FA 14(3-4) *$10 x 1 -
FA 15(1) ** $5 x 1 -
PA 15(2) ** $5 x 1 _
PA 15(3)** $5 x 1 -
FA 16(2)** $5 x 1 _
FA 16(4)** $5 x 1 -
FA 17(1)-18(4) OUT OF PRINT
FA 19(1)** $5 z 1 -
FA 19(2-3)**$10 x 1 -
FA 19(4)** $5 x 1 -
FA 20(1-2)-21(4) OUT OF PRINT
FA 22(1-4)**$10 x 1 -
FA 23(1)** $5 x 1
PA 23(2)** $5 x 1 0 OM PA^T
FA 23(3)** $5 x 1 -
FA 24(2)** $5 x 1 -
FA 24(3)** $5 z 1 -
PA 24(4)** $5 x 1 -

PA 25(1)** $5 x 1 I
FA 25(2, Pt. 1)**$5 x 1 -
FASP No. 6/FA 25(2, Pt. 2)
$7 x ___
FA 25(3)-26(1) OUT OF PRINT
FA 26(2)**$5 x 1 -
FA 26(3)**$5 x 1
FA 26(4)**$5 x I -
PA 27(2)**$5 x 1 -
PA 27(4)**$5 x 1 _
PA 28(1)**$5 x 1 -
PA 28(2)**$5 z 1 -
FA 28(3, Pt. 1)**$ 5 x 1 ____
FASP No. 7/FA 28(3, Pt. 2) **
$7 x 1 OVuT OF P/,A,'r
PA 28(4)**$5 x 1 -
FA 29(1)**$5 x 1 -
FA 29(2, Pt. 1)**$5 x 1 -
FASP No. 8/FA 29(2, Pt. 2) **
$7 ___ -
PA 29(3)**$5 x 1
FA 29(4)**$5 x I -
FA 30(2)* $5 x 1 _
FA 30(3)* $5 x 1 _
PA 30(4)* $5 x 1 "
FA 31(1)* $5 x 1 -
PA 31(2, Pt. 1)*$5 x 1 _
FA 31(3) $5 x "
FA 31(4, Pt. 1)*$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 x-
FA 33(3) $5 x _
PA 33(4) $5 x _
FA 34(1) $5 x -
FA 34(2) $5 x -
FA 34(3) $5 x_
FA 34(4) $5 x_

FA 35(1) $5 x ___
PA 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 -
FA 37(2) $5 x _
FA 37(4) $5 X-
FA 37(3) $5 x -
FA 38(1-2, Pt. T $10 X
FA 38(1-2, Pt. 2) $7 X
FA 38(3) $5 x _=
FA 38(4) $5 x =

(less 10% members discount

PLUS postage and handling $2.00

Please enter the name and address to
vnich the order should be sent.

City s rae -ip
Send order to: Editor, Florida
Antbropological Society
Post Office Box 1013
Tallahassee, FL 32302



(38, 1985)


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 our
Membership Secretary 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. You membership serves as your subscription to this

Please remember to renew your membership in January to be sure that you receive
your March issue on time. Also, please remember to notify us promptly if you
have changed or will be changing your address in February-March, May-June, August-
September or November-December to avoid a delay in receiving your issues of The
Florida Anthropologist as they will be returned postage due to us and then must
be forwarded to your new address. Also, please notify us if you will be placing
a temporary hold on your mail during that time as issues sent to members with
temporary mail holds have been returned to us as undeliverable, and must be re-
mailed at a later date. Your cooperation and support is appreciated.

( ) New membership ( ) Donation or Gift

( ) Payment of annual dues ( ) Change of address



City State Zip

Chapter affiliation (if any)

Name of recipient if gift membership


City State Zip

Type of membership:

( ) Regular ($12.00) ( ) Sustaining ($25.00) Mail Application to:
Membership Secretary
( ) Family ($18.00) ( ) Patron ($100.00) Florida Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 1013
( ) Institutional ($15.00) ( ) Life ($150.00) Tallahassee, FL 32302

Please note that you may copy the information off of the above form
and include it in a hand-written or typed letter, if you do not have access to a
photocopier. You only need to copy the information for the back issues which you
want to order. By doing this you will not need to damage this issue by tearing
out the page. Thank you for your interest.
Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist


(38, 1985)


Here is your chance to tell the Editor what you think of The Florida Anthropologist;
what changes you would like; what you wish to remain unchanged; what kinds of
articles you would like to see in future issues; and, so forth. Your comments, both
positive and negative, will help me to better serve you. Simply copy this question-
naire, fill it in, and return it to the Editor. You may use continuation sheets, if

What do you think of the current style or format? Should it remain as is? If not,
how should it be changed?

What do you think of the types of articles which appear in our journal? What kinds
of subjects would you like to see published in future issues?

Should we have more longer, in depth articles, or more shorter, concise articles?

What do you like or dislike about our journal?

Are you a professional archaeologist/anthropologist?
professional/amateur archaeologist? ; other/what?

; student? ; non-

Are you a member of the FAS?

How old are you? 10-20

; a Chapter of the FAS?

20-30 ; 30-40 ; 40-50

; both?

; 50-60 ; 60+

What region of Florida or what state do you live in?

How long have you been interested in the subject of archaeology/anthropology?

(OPTIONAL) Name and address:

Send questionnaire to:
Editor, The Florida Anthropologist
Post Office Box 1013
Tallahassee, Florida 32302

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST publishes original papers in all subfields of anthropology with
an emphasis on archaeology. Contributions from allied disciplines are acceptable when
concerned with anthropological problems. The journal's geographical 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 8h 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

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 professionals 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 manuscript may be accepted as is or with minor revisions;
rejected provisionally with the request that the authors) rework the text and resubmit it
for reconsideration; 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 the Editorial Staff comments and questions, if any, and will be
provided with the opportunity to review galleys of their articles prior to publication.


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; 5:1-2; 6:1, 4; 7; 8; 9; 10; 12:1-3; 13:1-3; 15:4; 16:1, 3; 17; 18; 20; 21; 23:2, 4;
24:1; 25:3-4; 26:1; 27:1, 3; 30:1 and 35:4.

Copies of the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS, a monograph series, 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 8, 9, 10 and 11 are available. Numbers 1 through 7 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 from Johnson Reprint Corp., 111 Fifth Avenue,
New York, NY 10003. Vols. 1-13 are available for $20.00 per volume $10.00 per double
numbers, and $4.50 per single number. Numbers 1-5 of the PUBLICATIONS are $5.50 per


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