• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Cover
 Publication Information
 Table of Contents
 Editor's Note
 Preshistoric Land-Use and the Distribution...
 The Blackwater Pond (8He66) Site,...
 Newman's Garden (8Ci206): A Seminole...
 Some Observations Concerning the...
 A Spontoon Tomahawk from Dixie...
 Florida's Unmarked Human Burial...
 Current Research: Preliminary Report...
 Current Research: Radiocarbon Dates...
 Book Review
 Membership Information






Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00022
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Anthropological Society
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
Publisher: Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Frequency: quarterly[]
two no. a year[ former 1948-]
quarterly
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Summary: Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- May 1948-
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027829
Volume ID: VID00022
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Cover
        Cover
    Publication Information
        Unnumbered ( 3 )
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Editor's Note
        Unnumbered ( 5 )
    Preshistoric Land-Use and the Distribution of Longleaf Pine on the Ocala National Forest, Florida: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
    The Blackwater Pond (8He66) Site, Hernando County, Florida
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
    Newman's Garden (8Ci206): A Seminole Indian Site Near Lake Tsala Apopka, Florida
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
    Some Observations Concerning the July, 1913 Seminole Census Taken By Agent Lucien Spencer
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
    A Spontoon Tomahawk from Dixie County, Florida
        Page 224
        Page 225
    Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Bill
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
    Current Research: Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Fossil Site (8Da2001) in Southern Florida
        Page 231
        Page 232
    Current Research: Radiocarbon Dates from the Tatham Mound (8Ci203)
        Page 233
        Page 234
    Book Review
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
    Membership Information
        Page 239
        Page 240
Full Text





COPYRIGHT NOTICE

2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.


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


all rights to the
and shall be
and images of


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

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

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.













r;e




~



s










i

1I


















I-












































































i!







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

VOLUME 39 NUMBER 3 PART 2

SEP-r. 1986

PUBLISHED BY THE


FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.




CONTENTS PAGE

Editor's Page by Louis D. Tesar . . . .... .182

Prehistoric Land-use and the Distribution of Longleaf Pine on the Ocala
National Forest, Florida by Paul J. Kalisz, Alan W. Dorian & Earl Stone 183

Post Printing Correstions for FASP # 12 by George Luer, Guest Editor 193

Society of Ethnobiology 10th Annual Conference Call for Papers . .. .193

The Blackwater Pond (8He66) Site, Hernando County, Florida by Theodore
Whitney . . . . ... . . ..... 194

Newman's Garden (8Ci206): A Seminole Indian Site Near Lake Tsala Apopka,
Florida by Brent R. Weisman . . . .. .. 208

Some Observations Concerning the July, 1913 Seminole Census Taken by
Agent Lucien Spencer by James W. Covington . . .... 221

A Spontoon Tomahawk from Dixie County, Florida by Paul M. Lien .... .224

Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Bill by James J. Miller . ... 226

CURRENT RESEARCH: Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Fossil
Site (8Da2001) in Southern Florida by Robert S. Carr . ... .231

CURRENT RESEARCH: Radiocarbon Dates from the Tatham Mound (8Ci203)
by Jeffrey M. Mitchem . . . . ... ..... 233

BOOK REVIEW: Review of "Bibliography of Florida Archaeology Through 1980"
by Gregory Toole, Nelson Rowan Comer-Tesar and Mary LePoer (pp. 1-148);
and, "Index to Bibliography of Florida Archaeology Through 1980" by
James J. Miller, Yvonnee Gsteiger and David Bradley (pp. 149-235). In
Florida Archaeology, Number 1 (1986). Reviewed by Louis D. Tesar 235

BOOK REVIEW: The North American Indian (21-volume series).
Volume 1. "The Antiquity and Origin of Native Americans," edited by
Clark Spencer Larsen . . . . ... ....... 236
Volume 2. "A Northern Algonquian Sourcebook, papers by Frank G. Speck,"
edited by Edward S. Rogers . . . . . 236
Volumes 3-5. "An Iroquois Sourcebook. VOLUME ONE: Political and Social
Organization; VOLUME TWO: Calendric Rituals; and, VOLUME THREE: Medicine
Society Rituals," edited by Elizabeth Tooker . . .... 237
(All reviewed by Louis D. Tesar)(To be Continued)

FIND NEW MEMBERS: EARN BACK ISSUES CREDITS (Program and Form) . .. .239

BACK ISSUES ORDER FORM . . . . ... ..... 240








EDITOR' S PAGE


This issue contains a series of articles,
book reviews, and current research which
I believe will be of interest. The arti-
cles are generally descriptive. However,
I draw your attention to the article by
James J. Miller on Florida's Unmarked
Human Burial Bill. This article discusses
efforts by Native Americans, anthropolo-
gists and others to reach consensus on
this important, sensitive issue. The re-
sult is the draft bill included in this
article. Its passage is important.

Finally, please note the new backissues
purchase credit program implemented to
reward members who get others to join our
Society. Increasing our membership will
allow us to retain our low dues/subscrip-
tion rates in the face of continuing in-
flation. The added revenues will permit
us also to produce bigger and better
publications for your money. Finally,
as a scientific-educational organization
focusing on anthropological, historic
preservation and related issues, we wish
to reach as many people as possible to
create a greater understanding and aware-
ness of our historic and prehistoric
heritage. Your cooperation and assistance
is needed.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP.
DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE DUES ON OR
BEFORE JANUARY, 1987.


Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist
September 11, 1986


47 _


-' "TC







PREHISTORIC LAND-USE AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF
LONGLEAF PINE ON THE OCALA NATIONAL FOREST, FLORIDA:
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SYNTHESIS
Paul J. Kalisz, Alan W. Dorian and Earl L. Stone


INTRODUCTION

The distributional patterns of
plant communities across the land-
scape, and the factors controlling
these patterns, are subjects of long-
standing ecological and anthropo-
logical interest. In some cases, the
juxtaposition of contrasting plant
communities can only be understood in
light of evidence concerning past
human use. Within South African
savannas dominated by Burkea africana
trees and the unpalatable grass
Eragrostis pallens, 2-10 ha patches of
Acacia spp. trees and the palatable
grass Cenchrus ciliaris have been
attributed to increased soil fertility
resulting from past cattle herding
with its consequent imports of
nutrient from grazing lands to penning
areas in the vicinity of now-abandoned
village sites (Walker 1981). In
mountainous eastern Kentucky, normal
forest community patterns are
disrupted by small (usually < 2 ha)
stands of Liriodendron tulipifera
(yellow-poplar), distinguished from
surrounding areas by both species
composition and surface soil chemical
properties, that occur on old fields
cultivated 100 years ago during an
episode of shifting-cultivation
(Kalisz 1986). Past human use of fire
-- "the first great force employed by
man" (Stewart 1956) -- is the activity
that has most often been related to
present vegetation patterns. The
occurrence and distribution of
isolated patches of oak woodland in
the Northeast USA (Day 1953), montane
pine forests in the Phillipines (Kowal
1966), caatinga scrub in Amazonia
(Anderson 1981) and prairies world-
wide (Sauer 1950; Stewart 1953) have
been attributed to the burning pat-
terns of early inhabitants in these
areas.


This paper is a synthesis of
information concerning the relation-
ship between prehistoric land-use
patterns and the distribution of
longleaf pine on the Ocala National
Forest, Florida. Archaeological,
ethnographic, geographical and
ecological evidence show that the
simplest hypothesis that accounts for
the patchy distribution of longleaf
pine is based on prehistoric settle-
ment patterns and the use of fire by
early humans in the area.


BACKGROUND

Plant Communities
Sand pine (Pinus clausa) is
unique to Florida and small portions
of coastal Alabama. The largest
continuous stand of this species in
the world occupies approximately
80,000 ha in the center of the Ocala
National Forest (Figure 1). Longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris) occurs on
approximately 21,000 ha in the
interior of the forest, and on 17,000
ha in the lake region along the
western and southern perphery (Figure
1). Approximately one-half, 11,000
ha, of the longleaf pine in the
interior occurs in isolated patches,
or "islands", surrounded by a sea of
sand pine. Nine distinct islands
ranging in size from 6.0 to 4000 ha
are located in the northern part of
the forest (Figure 2).
Sand pine typically occurs in
even-aged stands with a "scrub"
understory of small trees, evergreen
shrubs, and dwarf palms. Grasses and
herbs are absent, and the stands are
uniform and xeric in appearance.
Longleaf pine, in contrast, naturally
occurs in open, park-like stands with
a rich herbaceous flora and a


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2


Sept., 1986











OCALA NATIONAL FOREST
Florida
1 -- 4
5km
^ Sand Pine Zone

[Il1 Lake Zone
E Longleaf Pine Zone
I Flatwood and
Hardwood Zones
N
I


Map showing the approximate boundaries
of the Ocala National Forest, Florida.
Zones have been combined for clarity.
National Forest.


of the five vegetative zones
The Flatwood and Hardwood
Inset: Location of the Ocala


Figure 1.


184












#2)


#1


Riverside


LAKE
GEORGE


-


LAKE


I Pats


I
I"----


12 34 5

Kilometres


Locations of nine longleaf pine islands in the northern portion
of the Ocala National Forest, Florida. Islands are labelled
with numbers or names; archaeological sites are marked with "x";
and concentric isolines of opal mass (mt/ha in the upper 60 cm
of soil) are shown surrounding central core areas that have high
contents of soil opal (see text for details).


Figure 2.


185








continuous ground cover of wiregrass
(Aristida stricta). The present
boundaries between the two communities
are well-defined, and were apparently
even more so at the time of European
settlement (Vignoles 1823; Nash 1895).

The longleaf and sand pine
communities both depend on fire for,
their perpetuation, but the nature of
the dependence differs markedly
(Christensen 1981). Sand pine, with
its thin bark, and fine twigs and
needles, is easily killed by fire.
Fire, however, opens the closed cones
characteristic of Ocala sand pine,
kills the scrub to the ground, and
prepares a favorable seed bed. Since
sand pine is short-lived, seldom
living much past 100 years, fire at
intervals of 20 to 70 years is
generally believed to be necessary in
order for this species to successfully
regenerate. Fires are not easily
started in sand pine stands, but, once
ignited, often burn cataclysmically
(Webber 1935).

Longleaf pine, on the other hand,
is long-lived and superbly adapted to
survive fires (Wahlenberg 1946). This
tree requires ground fires at inter-
vals of 1 to 3 years in order to
prevent encroachment of less fire-
resistant but more competitive
species. Without frequent fires to
eliminate competition and prepare a
seed bed, longleaf pine regenerates
poorly. Likewise, without frequent
fires, the herbs and grasses charac-
teristic of the longleaf pine
community are buried by litter accumu-
lations or suppressed by invading
shrubs and trees.


Previous Work
The striking contrasts in species
composition and appearance, and the
sharpness of the boundary between the
longleaf and sand pine communities
attracted the attention of early
observers (e.g., Vignoles 1823; Nash
1895). From the beginning, attempts


were made to account for the marked
difference in composition and the
interspersion of the two vegetations.
The central role played by fire in
the ecology of both longleaf and sand
pine was recognized (Nash 1895;
Webber 1935), but fire was not
explicitly considered as a factor in
the long-term stability of the two
communities. In addition, the
possible role of prehistoric fire was
unmentioned.

Based partly on settlers'
reports that crops could be success-
fully grown on longleaf pine soils
but not on sand pine soils (Whitney
1898), and partly on some early
investigations (Mulvania 1931; Kurz
1942; Laessle 1958), it was generally
concluded that differences in the
physical or chemical properties of
soils accounted for the occurrence of
longleaf pine in the matrix of sand
pine scrub. It was implied that
subtle variations in soil fertility
and water-holding-capacity effec-
tively altered competitive relations,
and hence controlled distribution of
the two communities.

Recent intensive field work on
the forest examining soils to 5 m
deep has shown that there are no
consistent differences in the
physical or chemical properties
between longleaf and sand pine soils
(Kalisz and Stone 1984a). Soils with
relatively high nutrient concentra-
tions and somewhat finer textures
occurred more frequently as scattered
inclusions on longleaf versus sand
pine sites, but the areal extent of
such soils was small, and their
distribution was not related to
vegetation boundaries. Differences
in soil profiles under the two
communities, although visually
impressive, can be accounted for by
variations in the normal processes of
soil development acting on a more-or-
less uniform parent material. The
dark surface horizon of the Astatula,
dark surface, soil series under long-


186







leaf pine results from the addition
and incorporation of finely-divided
charcoal associated with frequent
fires and an abundant soil-mixing
fauna. Under sand pine, the bleached
surface horizon of the Paola series
results from a sparse soil-mixing
fauna together with leaching beneath
an accumulation of litter, whereas the
nondescript profile of the regular
Astatula series suggests that neither
mixing nor leaching dominates (Kalisz
and Stone 1984a, 1984b).

Similarly, a greenhouse bioassay
resulted in no significant difference
in rye yields between longleaf and
sand pine soils (Kalisz 1982). The
exceptions were the Paola series: low
yields were obtained on soils
consisting entirely of the bleached
surface horizon of this series. Since
Paola soils occur on approximately
15,000 ha in the forest, chiefly under
sand pine, this latter result may at
least partially explain the early
reports that crops could not be grown
on sand pine soils.

Kalisz and Stone (1984a) also
examined both the mass and the shape
of plant-derived opal (hydrated Si02)
in longleaf and sand pine soils as
indices of the stability of community
boundaries. If the present boundaries
had been stable over long periods of
time then both the mass of soil opal
and the relative abundance of
"panicoid" opal shapes, diagnostic of
wiregrass, should be much greater on
the longleaf pine side. In fact,
neither mass nor the abundance of
panicoid opal was consistently related
to present island boundaries. Rather,
both indices attained maximum values
in the core areas of the four islands
studied, and isolines of opal mass
were concentrically banded around
cores, showing gradual declines into
sand pine remote from the boundaries
(Figure 2). The only plausible
explanation of these results is that
longleaf pine island boundaries have
expanded and contracted episodically


over the past millennia; high opal
zones would thus indicate soils that
have supported the longleaf pine
community for long periods of time.

The coincidence of longleaf pine
islands and permanent sources of
water, together with the occurrence
of archaeological sites in the
vicinity of many of the islands (as
recorded in the site files of the
Florida Division of Archives,
History, and Records Management)
suggest that islands may owe their
origin, or at least maintenance, to
prehistoric patterns of settlement
and burning (Kalisz 1982).


ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Early archaeological work in the
vicinity of the Ocala National Forest
was largely limited to riverine
sites, particularly freshwater shell
middens and sand mounds, along the
St. Johns and Oklawaha Rivers and
their major tributaries (e.g., Wyman
1875; LeBaron 1884; Moore 1894).
Since 1977, however, approximately
28,000 ha in the interior of the
forest have been archaeologically
inventoried by the National Forests
in Florida Cultural Resource Program
(Dorian in press) (Table 1). Surface
surveys, with transects spaced at 30-
50 m intervals, were carried out
prior to ground disturbance or timber
harvest, or following prescribed
burns when ground visibility was
high; surface surveys were supple-
mented by shovel tests in areas of
particular interest or reduced ground
visibility.

The results of this inventory
are summarized in Table 2 for the
five vegetation zones found on the
forest. The late Archaic Tradition
(Mt. Taylor and Orange Phases, 6000-
3000 BP) and the Transitional Period
(3000-2500 BP) were represented by
five sites in the Hardwood Zone.
Similarly, 93% of all recorded multi-










Total Inventoried

Vegetation Zone Area Area



------------------ ha ---------------

Sand pine 78,902 10,125

Lake 24,647 5,265

Longleaf pine 21,324 7,695

Flatwood 15,756 5,063

Hardwood 14,081 608


Table 1. Areas occupied by the various plant communities of the Ocala National
Forest, Florida, and areas that were archaeologically inventoried
during the period of 1977-1984.



Sand Longleaf

Period Pine Pine Lakes Flatwood Hardwood



----------- Number of sites (% of period total) ----------

Multi-component 0 0 2(7) 0 25(93)

Early/mid Archaic 0 0 0 0 0

Mt. Taylor 0 0 0 0 2(100)

Orange 0 0 0 0 3(100)

St. Johns 1(1) 16(20) 36(44) 7(8) 22(27)

Non-diagnostic 0 13(17) 33(42) 20(26) 12(15)

(solitary lithics)


Table 2. Prehistoric archaeological sites recorded in the various vegetation
zones of the Ocala National Forest, Florida, during the period of
1977-1984.


188







component sites were in this vegeta-
tion zone. This result is in accord
with the observation that Archaic and
multi-component sites (i.e. sites used
for long periods of time) are most
commonly located adjacent to major
streams.

The St. Johns Periods 1(2500 -
1200 BP) and 11(1200 BP contact)
(SJ), in central Florida a time of
relatively stable ceramic technology
and subsistence base, were marked by
an increase in the occurrence of
archaeological sites in the interior
of the forest away from major streams
and spring runs (Table 2). In
particular, 64% of the recorded SJ
sites were located in the Longleaf
Pine and Lake Zones, generally within
400 m of non-flowing water sources.
This temporal shift of prehistoric
populations to the uplands coincides
with the time suggested for the
introduction of horticulture in the
region (Goggin 1952). Corncob-
impressed ceramics from this period
document the cultivation of maize in
the central Florida area (Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980).

All of the Longleaf Pine Zone and
approximately 70% of the Lake Zone are
currently dominated by vegetation
typical of the longleaf pine commu-
nity. Thus there is a coincidence
between land-use patterns during the
SJ Period and the present distribution
of longleaf pine. Pollen analysis has
shown a major regional shift from
hardwood to pine vegetation approxi-
mately 5000 years BP (Watts 1969).
The species of pine(s) is unknown,
hence the observed coincidence between
SJ sites and areas presently occupied
by longleaf pine is purely spatial,
and different vegetation(s) may have
occupied the Longleaf Pine and Lake
Zones during the SJ Period. In any
case, these data (Table 2) show a
concentrated SJ use of areas presently
supporting longleaf pine relative to
areas of sand pine, where only a
single prehistoric site (8Mr225) was
recorded.


A more detailed description of
SJ archaeological sites recorded in
the vicinity of the nine longleaf
pine islands in the northern part of
the forest follows (approximate
locations are shown on Figure 2):

1. RIVERSIDE ISLAND. A surface and
subsurface SJI site (8Mr502),
approximately 1.5 ha in area, occurs
near the island center along the
western arm of Lake Delancy (Dorian
1983:51a). The artifact display
included St. Johns Plain and Dunns
Creek Red sherds, and non-diagnostic,
often thermally altered, lithic
debitage. The nature and distribu-
tion of the artifact assemblage
suggest a village site. An
associated non-diagnostic lithic
scatter (8Mr159) is located about 200
m north of this occupation site.

Another SJ site (8Mr754) occurs
immediately adjacent to an elongated
clay-bottomed depression in the
north-central part of the island
(Dorian 1984:73a). Soil character-
istics and field observations
indicated that this depression
retains water in all but the driest
years. Artifacts found were St.
Johns Plain and Check-Stamped
ceramics, and non-diagnostic lithic
debitage. This site probably repre-
sents a temporary or satellite camp,
and is located within an area charac-
terized by high opal content in the
soil (Figure 2). Both sites are
adjacent to more-or-less permanent,
non-flowing bodies of water.

2. SALT SPRINGS ISLAND.
Archaeological sites have been found
only in the extreme eastern portion
of the island which contains about 35
small lakes in an area of 440 ha.
St. Johns I ceramics were found at
eight locations, and non-diagnostic
lithics at four locations within 50 m
of water (Wisenbaker 1979; Dorian
1982:32a, 1983:45a, 1984:62a). Given
the abundance of lakes in this part
of the island, and the proximity to


189








archaeological sites (e.g. shell
middens 8Mrl-8MR4) along Salt Springs
Run, this area may have attracted
regular use of a nature and intensity
different from other longleaf pine
areas in the forest.

3. HUGHES ISLAND. The assemblage of
SJ artifacts recorded on this island
represents the most extensive
occupation of the Longleaf Pine Zone
yet documented on the forest. A low
sand mound and associated ceramic and
lithic scatters (8Mr240) occur within
300 m south of a permanent pond in the
center of the island (Dorian 1981:7).
Surface (8Mr456) and subsurface
(8Mr252) ceramic scatters including
St. Johns Check-Stamped, Linear Check-
Stamped, and Plain body sherds were
also found near the perimeter of the
pond (Dorian 1981:10, 1982:25a).
Additionally, unretouched chert flakes
and St. Johns Plain sherds (8Mr233)
occur along a 300 m length of the
northern boundary of the island
(Dorian 1981:5). This latter site
lies approximately 50 m south of a
small spring and associated peat, and
is adjacent to a system of depressions
that continues southward through the
center of the island, including the
central pond.

The cluster of sites near the
center of the island lie in the middle
of a zone of high soil opal, and the
single site in the northern part of
the island lies on the periphery of
this zone (Figure 2). All sites are
in close proximity to more-or-less
permanent sources of water.

4. PATS ISLAND. Surface and
subsurface investigations near the
central sinkhole and former spring
(now buried by erosional deposits)
yielded a single Pinellas point,
unretouched flakes, and St. Johns
Plain body sherds (8Mr227) (Dorian
1981:2,6). An additional site
(8Mr257) with St. Johns Plain ceramics
and non-diagnostic lithics is located
just north of Bells Ponds in the
southwestern corner of the island.


Site 8Mr227 is within a zone of
high soil opal (Figure 2). Both
sites are near permanent sources of
water.

5-9. NORWALK, KERR, SYRACUSE, #1,
AND #2 ISLANDS. Little archaeo-
logical information is available on
these five islands. Prehistoric
archaeological sites have not been
recorded on Kerr or Norwalk Islands,
although several (8Pu37, 8Pu38, and
8PU69) are located within 200 m east
of Norwalk. As of 1982, two
prehistoric sites (8Pu40 and 8Pu41)
were recorded in the Hardwood Zone
within 1200 m of Syracuse Island.
More recently, a SJ ceramic scatter
(8Mr748) was found in the north-
eastern corner of the island (Dorian
1984: 72a). Island #1 ("Indian
Bluff" of Moore 1894) lies within 200
m of five prehistoric mounds and
middens (8Mr9, 8Mr10, 8Mr77, 8Mr78,
8Mr79) located in the Hardwood Zone
along the Oklawaha River. Island #2
lies within 900 m of mound and midden
sites (8Mr5-8Mr7), and a possible
village site (8Mr107), located along
the river in the vicinity of Cedar
Landing.


SYNTHESIS

... fires are set almost every
day throughout the year in some
part or other, by the Indians,
for the purpose of raising the
game, as also by the lightning
... (Bartram 1791, along the St.
Johns River, Florida, p. 139).

Evidence concerning the distri-
bution of the longleaf and sand pine
communities on the Ocala National
Forest, and their relationship to
prehistoric land-use patterns can be
summarized as follows:

1. The pollen record indicates
that pine has predominated over the
last 5000 years after succeeding oak
and grass (Watts 1969). The species
of pine(s) is not known.


190








2. The present longleaf and sand
pine communities differ in species
composition, physiognomy, and rela-
tionship to fire. The longleaf pine
community on the forest is similar to
that which occurred on some 20 million
hectares of the southeastern coastal
plain and peninsular Florida at the
time of European settlement, and still
occurs on sandy uplands in the region.
Sand pine-scrub is unique to central
Florida and some coastal areas.

3. These two communities
coexist, separated by boundaries that
are remarkably well-defined and
abrupt. Based on General Land Office
Surveys (1820-1860) and other maps
(MacKay 1839), these boundaries have
been stable for at least the last 150
years, and even when overrun by sand
pine and oak their former positions
are still evident. Boundaries between
the two communities do not coincide
with any differences in soil physical
or chemical properties except as
surface horizons have been darkened
under longleaf pine or bleached under
sand pine.

4. Soil opal contents are
markedly higher under longleaf pine
remote from present boundaries
although soils from paired samples
adjacent to present boundaries do not
consistently differ in opal contents.
Schematic isolines of total opal
content are grossly concentric about
core areas of islands, but do not
necessarily conform to present island
boundaries. This concentricity
suggests that island boundaries have
expanded and contracted irregularly in
the past.

5. The extensive sand pine
forest of the Ocala National Forest
probably owes its existence to the
nearly continuous firebreak formed by
the St. Johns and Oklawaha Rivers and
the lakes and wetlands along the
perimeter. Longleaf pine islands
within the sand pine forest, like
longleaf communities elsewhere, could


only have been maintained by fires at
intervals of 1-5 years; historical
records indicate that this community
is rapidly invaded by sand pine upon
cessation of burning. Today, annual
ignitions by lightning strikes
average only 1.7 per 10,000 ha on the
forest (S. Holscher, personal
communication, 1982). This is far
too infrequent to provide the
necessary regularity of burning on
isolated islands as small as 60 to
300 ha.

6. Repeated burning was a
general practice among Indians of the
historic period, and apparently had
been for long periods in past.
Ethnographic and archaeological
evidence demonstrates the presence of
humans in the Ocala region for at
least as long as pine forests have
predominated, and the specific
evidence presented in this paper
shows a concentrated prehistoric use
of longleaf pine areas.

The totality of this evidence
leads to the hypothesis that the
longleaf pine islands were maintained
through annual or frequent burning by
early humans; longleaf pine islands
are prehistoric cultural features.

This hypothesis implies that
prehistoric populations were at-
tracted to areas presently supporting
the longleaf pine community, possibly
by the presence of dependable water
sources and well-drained soils suit-
able for horticulture. Regularly-set
fires were restricted to the easily
ignited wiregrass and pine litter
under longleaf pine; these fires
seldom spread into the non-flammable
litter under sand pine. Once
established, boundaries between the
two communities could remain stable
under a regime of frequent fire due
to the contrasting fuel charac-
teristics. Variations in climate and
human use over the past millenia
almost certainly caused differences
in fire frequency and intensity.


191










Such variations in fire regimes likely
controlled the expansion and
contraction of islands.


Maintenance of boundaries by
Indian fires nevertheless leaves the
question of origin unanswered. It is
likely to remain a wholly speculative
matter unless future distinction
between longleaf and sand pine pollen
in the fossil record indicates which,
if either, predominated 5000 years ago
when pine replaced oak and grass in
the region. In any case, the present
disjunct distribution of longleaf pine
on the Ocala National Forest is
explainable only in light of the
central role of fire, and of
prehistoric humans as the agents of
ignition.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The authors were variously
supported by a National Science
Foundation Fellowship (PJK), the
Cooperative Research in Forest
Fertilization Program (PJK, ELS), the
Department of Soil Science of the
University of Florida (PJK, ELS) and
the US Forest Service (AWD). A. W.
Dorian expresses special thanks to
Sandi Forney, Archaeologist for
National Forests in Florida, for her
professional and administrative
support. Preparation and publication
of this paper was supported by the
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
Station, Journal Series No. 85-8-207.

REFERENCES CITED


Anderson, A.B.
1981 White-sand vegetation of Brazilean Amazonia. Biotropica
13:199-210.

Bartram, W.
1791 The travels of William Bartram, edited by M. Van Doren.
(1955) Dover Publications, New York, New York.

Christensen, N.L.
1981 Fire regimes in southeastern ecosystems. In Fire regimes
and ecosystem properties, edited by H.A. Mooney, T.M.
Bonnicksen, N.L. Christensen, J.E. Lotan, and W.A.
Reiners. United States Forest Service General Technical
Report WO-26:112-136.

Day, G.M.
1953 The Indian as an ecological factor in the northeastern
forest. Ecology 34:329-346.


Dorian, A.W.
1981 Cultural Resources Status Reports 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10.
United States Forest Service, Tallahassee, Florida.

1982 Cultural Resources Status Reports 25a and 32a. United
States Forest Service, Tallahassee, Florida.

1983 Cultural Resources Status Reports 45a and 51a. United
States Forest Service, Tallahassee, Florida.

1984 Cultural Resources Status Reports 62a, 72a, and 73a.
United States Forest Service, Tallahassee, Florida.

In A cultural resources overview of the Ocala National
Press Forest, Florida. United States Forest Service,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Goggin, J.M.
1952 Space and time perspective in northern St. John's
archeology, Florida. Yale University Press, New Haven,
Connecticut.

Kalisz, P.J.
1982 The longleaf pine islands of the Ocala National Forest,
Florida. PhD Dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.

1986 Soil properties of steep Appalachian old fields.
Ecology.

Kalisz, P.J., and E.L. Stone
1984a The longleaf pine island of the Ocala National Forest,
Florida: a soil study. Ecology 65:1743-1754.

1984b Soil mixing by scarab beetles and pocket gophers in
north-central Florida. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 48:169-172.

Kowal, N.E.
1966 Shifting cultivation, fire, and pine forest in Cordillera
Central, Luzon, Phillippines. Ecological Monographs
36:389-419.

Kurz, H.
1942 Florida dunes and scrub, vegetation and geology. Florida
Geological Survey, Geological Bulletin 23:1-154.

Laessle, A.M.
1958 The origin and successional relationships of sandhill
vegetation and sand-pine scrub. Ecological Monographs
28:361-387.

LeBaron, J.F.
1884 Prehistoric remains in Florida. Smithsonian Institution,
Annual Report for 1882. pp. 771-790.

MacKay, J.
1839 Map of the northern portion of the country between the
Oklawaha and St. Johns Rivers. National Archives,
Washington, DC.

Milanich, J.T., and C.H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida archeology. Academic Press, New York, New York.

Moore, C.B.
1894 Certain sand mounds of the St. John's River, Florida,
Parts I and II. Journal of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia 10:129-2-6.

Mulvania, M.
1931 Ecological survey of a Florida scrub. Ecology 12:528-
540.

Nash, G.V.
1895 Notes on some Florida plants. Bulletin of the Torrey
Botanical Club 22:141-161.

Sauer, C.O.
1950 Grassland climax, fire, and man. Journal of Range
Management 3:16-21.

Stewart, O.C.
1953 Why the Great Plains are treeless. Colorado Quarterly
2:40-50.






1956 Fire as the first great force employed by man. In Man's
role in changing the face of the earth, edited by W.L.
Thomas, Jr. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois. pp. 115-133.
Vignoles, C.
1823 Observations upon the Floridas. Bliss, New York, New
York.
Wahlenberg, W.G.
1946 Longleaf pine, its use, ecology, regeneration,
protection, growth and management. Charles Lathrop Pack
Forestry Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Walker, B.H.
1981 Is succession a viable concept in African Savanna
ecosystem? In Forest succession: concepts and applica-
tions, edited by D.C. West, H.H. Shugart and D.B.
Botkin. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. pp. 431-
447.
Watts, W.A.
1969 A pollen diagram from Mud Lake, Marion County, north-
central Florida. Geological Society of American Bulletin
80:631-642.
Webber, H.J.
1935 The Florida scrub, a fire-fighting community. American
Journal of Botany 22:344-361.
Whitney, M.
1898 The soils of Florida. US Department of Agriculture
Bulletin 13:14-27.
Wisenbaker, M.
1979 A preliminary survey of lakes in the Salt Springs tract
of the Ocala National Forest. Manuscript on file, United
States Forest Service, Tallahassee, Florida.
Wyman, J.
1875 Freshwater shell mounds of the St. Johns River. Peabody
Academy of Science, Memoir 1:1-94.


Paul J. Kalisz
Department of Forestry
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40546-0073

Alan W. Dorian
Star Route 2
Box 24
Deland, FL 32720

Earl L. Stone
Dept. of Soil Science
McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611


POST-PRINTING CORRECTIONS FOR FASP #12
(FA 39(3 pt. 1), July, 1986)

There were several errors in the last
issue of The Florida Anthropologist.
The corrections for these errors are
underlined words in the following
listing:

page 99: ... as indicated in Figure 1.
page 105: Bullen 1971 (site 4);
page 111: ... in creating a ....
(note: delete "of")
page 125: ... Bullen found more speci-
mens from nearby ... while
analyzing materials dug from
the shell mound .... (note:
field work was performed by
county-supervised crews, not
by Bullen)
page 140: ... has seen perforated
quahog valves (Figure 9) ....
page 153: Total right valve material
332 4192 496 3968
Total quahog shell material
954 8593 1587 9546
page 157: 41)*Strader ...
(note- add asterisk)
Other changes: The numbering should be
decreased by one for the textual figure
references beginning with "Figure 9" on
page 134 and including those on pages
138, 141, 143, 145, 148, and 152. As
a consequence of mis-numbering, the
figures from Figure 9 onward are placed
ahead of corresponding text.
Submitted by George Luer
August 31, 1986

SOCIETY OF ETHNOBIOLOGY
10TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
CALL FOR PAPERS

The 10th Annual Conference of the
Society of Ethnobiology will be held
March 5-8, 1987 at the Florida State
Museum, University of Florida. Papers
are invited on the following and re-
lated topics: cultural ecology, plant
and animal domestication, ethnozoology,
zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, archeo-
botany, palynology, ethnopharmacology,
human diet and nutrition, folk taxonomy.
For further information please write to
Elizabeth S. Wing, Florida State Museum,
Gainesville, FL 32611.
(Telephone (904) 392-1721).
193





194


Introduction

The Blackwater Pond site (8He66), about
2.6 ha in size, occupies a crescent
shaped area around the eastern end of a
sink hole-like pond and swamp in the
NWS of S30, T23S-R20E, Hernando County,
Florida (Figure 1). The site, which is
located about 42 km (25 mi.) inland
from the Gulf of Mexico and several
kilometers from any sizeable streams,
is situated in a gently sloping (about
6% E-W slope) sandy hollow and seems to
be quite protected from the strongest
winds. It must have been a pleasant
spot when occupied three or four
thousand years ago. The contour map of
this region shows many rolling hills,
ponds and swamps, and this site may be
one of a larger complex of sites;
although, no research has yet been
directed toward locating associated
sites.

The soil survey map for the site area
in Hernando County, Florida (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service 1977) indicates a
very deep soil with good drainage,
fairly favorable to growth of grasses,
hardwoods, conifers, openfield plants
and herbs, and a suitable habitat for
woodland wildlife except in the area
immediately adjacent to the pond
(Figure 2). In years without freezes,
the land was especially suited to the
growth of oranges indeed site 8He66
is located in a sandy field at the
junction of an orange grove and the
pond. If there were rock outcroppings
in the vicinity, they are either
located at some distance from the area
under excavation or are now deeply
buried in the sandy-basined pond, if it
was once a sink hole with exposed rock
outcroppings during drier times.

Background Statement

Archaeologists generally subscribe to
the premise that no site should be
excavated if there is a good chance
that it can be preserved in situ.

Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2 THE FLORIDA


While this sounds good as a philosophy,
there are problems with its successful
accomplishment. Natural forces, in
most cases, do not endanger a site. It
is man with his industrial, residential
and avocational activities that moves
earth from its original position and
stratification to a new condition of
inversion and confusion.

Also, the information from even a
stable site may be needed in the
current time to clarify or compliment
the existing ongoing archaeological
record. Whenever possible in a site
excavation, if the site area is not
scheduled for complete alteration, a
portion should be left intact for the
archaeologists of the future to
investigate when techniques will be
much more advanced.

(However, if a site is in public owner-
ship or set aside as a public park in a
private development where it can be
protected it should be left alone, and
individuals illegally digging on such
sites reported. Excavation efforts
should be concentrated on unprotected
sites in private ownership, when the
owner has not set them aside for
preservation and where future develop-
ment, including agricultural activities
and uncontrolled artifact collecting,
will lead to the loss of the informa-
tion which they contain. Also, please
remember that owner permission is
required to collect artifacts on
private land, especially if excavation
is proposed -- whether formal or
informal artifact mining/"pot-hunting,"
unless one wishes to risk being
arrested for trespass. Editor's Note).

We chose to research and excavate on
the Blackwater Pond Indian site for
several reasons. It was and is being
exploited by large numbers of treasure
hunters who want only attractive
artifacts and keep no enduring records
of their activities, nor of the
provenience of the items recovered
underground. To some of them it is


ANTHROPOLOGIST


THE BLACKWATER POND (8He66) SITE, HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA
Theodore Whitney


Sept., 1986





\ I 0
S I / ... j i





\N "?" .... ,
'I-/ .. AI, -- ^.L _


SIa n
I/ '' I' ,- ,.





/r(s -/ ,i
_













0 M







- Figure 1. Contour Map of area of Heinaido County, Florida
Containing tlt Blackwater Pond (8He66) site.


Figure 2. Detail from Soil Survey, Hernando
County, Florida (1977) showing site
8He66 and associated soils: Arredondo Fine Sand
(#6); Blichton fine sandy laom (#12); and, Sparr
fine sand. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.








even a commercial venture, for in 1985
Indian artifacts sell at prices that
are ridiculously high, a situation in
which buyer is as guilty as the seller.

The author has had some experience
working with good professional archae-
ologists in the Northeast on site
excavations in which house structures,
hearths, palisades, pits, middens and
post molds were dealt with. The
opportunity to apply some of these
techniques to this Florida site was a
real challenge. The author has also
had experience in writing project
reports.

From the beginning of the field work in
March 1984, plans were made to collect
available information into a prelim-
inary report for distribution to
historical and archaeological agencies
and to interested co-workers, both the
professional and the amateur. All
maps, notes, artifacts and the photo-
graphs acquired will be preserved
in an area museum.

The focus of the project would be the
recording of our activities with
conclusions limited by the amount of
artifacts recovered and by the absence
of good physical features in the
ground. It would also be limited by
our lack of background experience and
training in Florida archaeology.
However, this site was only about ten
minutes drive from our seasonal home in
Florida, and could be worked in shorter
periods of time, a consideration of our
physical limitations. This was a plus
factor. The excavation of one square
meter in each sixty-four square meters
would affect only 1.5% of the site,
thus leaving an ample area undisturbed
for any research project in the future;
although, it is noted that artifact
hunters have and are disturbing a large
portion of the remaining site area. We
felt that our damage to the site would
be minimal and acceptable as scientific
procedure. It has to be confessed that
the aesthetic attractiveness of the


Florida lithic material also contri-
buted to our decision to attempt a
systematic excavation on the Blackwater
Pond site.

Owner Permission Obtained

To start our project on the Blackwater
Pond site we had to get the permission
of the landowner. This was difficult
because it belongs to the Evans Packing
Company, which has extensive areas of
orange groves and other properties. It
was such a trivial matter that they
apparently did not wish to be bothered
by my request. Finally, the owners
referred me to their friend and amateur
archaeologist, Attorney William Dayton
of Dade City, who approved our activity
on the site. The permission to pursue
our planned excavation of site 8He66
is very much appreciated.

Excavation Strategy

At the site we placed a rather
centrally located and arbitrarily
chosen datum, or central grid point,
where we drove an iron pipe about six
feet down into the deep sand. Such a
point could be located at any time in
the future, by a metal detector if
necessary. At some later date we may
try to tie this datum to some permanent
natural features on the periphery of
the site area to facilitate its relo-
cation in the future. We designated
this datum NOEO, and placed wooden
stakes along a grid which we esta-
blished from this point. While some of
our wooden grid stakes were removed by
later visitors to the site, our datum
remained unmoved and we could always go
back to it to relocate our grid stakes.

We established from this datum a
transit line north and south, and one
east and west. From these lines we
established our excavation grid (Figure
3). In our subsequent rechecking it
became apparent that our transit was in
error and that our grid was oriented
16" west of north or at an azimuth of


196






all WD.l l"I Ew l 1 w1_ 6_f ; E E I 'V e- 8 fV s
N







F- -



k,3 I- - -- -
PI



t 9i 48






s I _ _
? f ri2 r
F3 F __ ___ I F_ ____3
-- - -- -ly -- -- -- A-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -






K L - - N _2 F F I








A 11h #F1 I I I I :
AF 6 F- F- ; F A-


,-,X Z. I
F31 FI u ( : j


A a
~ \ -, "r. A T' k Lf. - -
--- ----- _- R 2" S p h




F- p F F.





L rp V4 rS


--F-
1.f F --
)~ LA- 3- 3 -<













Figure 3. Map of field excavations. One square
meter units, eight meter grid, at site
8He66 in Hernando County, Florida.
'- -- - -- L" A __ -- __I i












8He66 in Hernando County, Florida.


East Wall


Disturbed Gray
50cm 55cm




Light Gr

30cm
---'Bright Yellow Tan

45cm
20cm


Y)7EI N&,El



East Wall

Disturbed Gray
With Tan Inclusions 33cm






Bright Yellow Tan 48cm




9ci
GrayBrown w/ C etions
E 3E s-ieq


Figure 4.


VI w31


East Wall

Mixed Light and Darker
Gray Sandy Duff
60cm







Yellow Brown 22cm


Dark Brown Sand
w/ 2cm Friable Concretions
S737 7lom
Al7j W 7 v7.?w7


Examples of recorded profiles at site 8He66 in
Hernando County, Florida.


N/Ow31


~ __








344Q. This error was in no way crucial
in our later work. We decided that a
grid of eight meter intervals would
likely expose any major site features
or material concentrations. The
southwestern square meter of each eight
meter grid was to be excavated well
into sterile soil, this being usually
about one meter in depth below the
present ground surface. We kept
detailed field work sheets for each
unit excavated.

Excavation Results

While we observed a great variety of
stratification profiles and excavation
level floor patterns, we found none
that we could attribute to any modifi-
cation by the native occupants of the
site (Figure 4). For example, in
square N40E8 three small dark spots
were somewhat aligned like post molds,
but further excavation and cross-
sectioning showed them to be only humus
leachings from ancient root channels.
In square S56E0 a very dark feature,
about 20 cm in diameter, was followed
down optimistically for 28 cm where it
bifurcated into a definite root
pattern. A number of areas of dark
grey ash and scattered charcoal were,
after careful examination, attributed
to more modern burning activities in
the grove. They lacked in concen-
tration and in any associated Indian
artifacts. From square N56W8 at 70 cm
depth, six fragments of fractured rock
nodule were reassembled. There were no
marks of percussion blows on them so
they may be the result of fire cracking
from a native hearth.

Our profiles did show some increase in
the depth of the light grey sandy duff
surface layer from east to west indi-
cating some sheet erosion or tillage
displacement in the past. On the east-
west base line, square NOE40, the last
excavated unit up the slope, had 25 cm
of the light grey layer, while the last
one to the west (NOW32), except for a
thin darker lense, had only light grey


colored soil to 100 cm depth.

From a study of our profile sheets
there appears to be no great correla-
tion between this upper stratum of
light grey and the plow zone. Lacking
a Munsell soil color chart, we can only
describe some of the many variations in
sand color. There was almost white,
light grey, grey and dark grey, grey
with tan inclusions, bright tan, tan,
dark tan, brown, light orange, red
orange, and dark red orange. As indi-
cated above, the occupied surface layer
was grey, the less heavily occupied
intermediate layer was variations of
tan and orange, and the sterile base
was dark red orange or red brown with
minute to large sand concretions.
Deepest recovery of both pottery and
flint was 75 cm in the intermediate
zone with the most recovered from
surface to 40 cm depth. We did not
find any definite middens, but we did
little work in the periphery area.

It is unfortunate that this site has to
be studied almost entirely from its
lithic remains. In the whole exca-
vation, only a couple of calcined bone
fragments occurred among the thousands
of flint flakes. The land was probably
somewhat acidic as shown on the soil
chart on Figure 3, but it still seems
that more bone fragments should have
survived if they were present. Lacking
refuse bone we must base our premise of
a woodland hunting subsistence on the
presence of stone game procuring and
processing tools.

Always trying to reconstruct the life
of the aboriginal inhabitants, we were
excited when we first found a group of
oyster shells, partly on the surface
and some partly buried. However, in
later conversation with one of the
artifact collectors working the site,
it was revealed that a group of these
diggers one day had an oyster bake
there, discarding the modern shells at
the picnic site. Even though the
distance from the Gulf would not have







been prohibitive to native excursions
there, as far as our operations to date
were concerned, there were no shells of
coastal origin present in the artifac-
tual recoveries from the occupation
area.


Artifact Analysis

Lacking familiarity with Florida arti-
facts, we relied primarily on the fol-
lowing sources for their identifica-
tion: Bullen (1975), Milanich and
Fairbanks (1980), Robinson (1979) and
Willey (1949), as well as various local
collectors. To offset the possibility
that we may have accidentally misiden-
tified some of our artifacts, thus
potentially lessening the usefulness of
this report, we have illustrated key
artifacts so that more knowledgeable
researchers may assign appropriate
designations.

A heavy percussion flake, celt-like
artifact (Figure 5a) was found at the
site. It could have been used in
processing meat, bone, vegetable plants
or wood. It seems to be a finished
tool and not a piece in an intermediate
stage of manufacture. The other arti-
facts illustrated in Figure 5b-d seem
to be exhausted cores or rejects that
may have been utilized in this form.
Figure 5e illustrates a uniface,
chipped into a servicable knife form.

The blade forms shown in Figure 6 could
have been finished knife forms or a
late stage of projectile point manufac-
ture. An addition of the notches could
have made Figure 6a, c and d into
Lafayette, Citrus or Culbreth types.
Figure 6b and e, however, seem to be
knives and not an intermediate stage of
point manufacture.

Two points were found by collectors in
our presence. They kindly let us do on
the spot tracings of these artifacts
(Figure 7a and b), but their names did
not get recorded. Figure 7c is a
uniface teardrop form that was found by


my colleague, Henry Wemple, and resem-
bles the Tampa type but with a thinner
cross section. Figure 7d-f illustrates
points classified as Culbreth, and this
type of broken basewas common in all of
the collections we examined. It is
wondered if this fracturing is any
indication of the usage they were
subjected to.

Seven projectile points and three
varieties of stemmed perforators or
drills are illustrated in Figure 8, and
Figure 8a, c and e represent our best
examples of the Newnan-like point.

In the collections we viewed, we found
the stemmed uniface scraper prominent
(Figure 9). We did not attempt to
classify the bases as to types, but
they seemed to vary as did the
projectile points.

Two examples with a beveled edge are
illustrated in Figure 10 b-c. We
consider them to be an untyped example
of faulty material or of erratic chip-
ping, and they were probably used as
knives.

The asymetrically notched base
perforator (Figure 10d) is not unique,
as this type of base occurred on some
projectile points (i.e., Figure 6i).

The artifact shown in Figure 10g was
traced from a collector's find on the
site, and is our best example of the
Clay type. Figure 11 illustrates a
variety of mainly Late Archaic types.
Along with the stemmed scrapers (Figure
9), there were many thumb and spall
scrapers (Figure 12). Figure 12m shows
a carefully made end scraper that may
have been planned for hafting. None of
the spall scrapers were observed to
have graver spurs, as do some Paleo and
very Early Archaic forms.

Figure 13j shows one unique point, a
Hernando type, which is a later type
that may be intrusive to the site.

In our study we took many photographs,


199































A B


Z k








D 0 1 2 3 4 5E
Scale in meters
/7.-//






D 0 1 2 3 4 5E
Scale in centbneters


Figure 6. Thin Chipped Blades from Site 8He66.


~~


Figure 5. Heavy Chipped Blades from


Site 8He66.











0 1 2 3 4 5
Scale in centimeters


B C


D E


in
,/


A'


D I




Al


G H J

0 1 2 3 4 5
Scale in centimeters


Figure 7. Traced and Partial Points from Site 8He66.


Figure 8. Projectile Points and Stemmed Scrapers
Site 8He66.


from

























































Figure 9. Stemmed Uniface Scrapers from Site 8He66.


B





C


A#








D E



F

0 1 2 3 4 5
Scale in centimeters


Figure 10. Projectiles, Beveled Knives, Stemmed
Perforator form Site 8He66.






















A B


G H


I J K L


0 1 2 3 4 5
Scale in centimeters


Projectile Points and/or Knives from
Site 8He66.


Figure 12.


Thumb, Spall, End and Side Scrapers from
Site 8He66.


N Figure 11.
o
CD


L


C D









A



C


P Q


0 1 2 3 4 5
Scale in centimeters


B




G


D


R S


Figure 13. Projectile Points from Site 8He66.


C




H


E

E





Figure 14. Pottery Sherds from Site 8He66.









traced artifacts on the spot, and
borrowed artifacts for analysis. This
is less than ideal because an artifact
needs to be re-examined in minute
detail for the most reliable identifi-
cation. We tentatively identified 40
points as follows: 2 Clay-like, 19
Culbreth, 1 Hernando, 12 Lafayette, 5
Newnan-like, and 1 Tampa-like. With
the exception of the Hernando and
Tampa-like points, these would fit well
into the Late Archaic and Transitional
Periods.

We checked 200 random flakes under
magnification and found 14% to show use
wear. This seems to be a fairly high
useage of lithic waste. Our experience
with Archaic material in the Northeast
has previously shown a smaller percen-
tage.

As we began to excavate we were intri-
gued with flint color. Subsequent
checking with a professional archae-
ologist, Dr. "Jerry" Milanich, dis-
closed that this material was Florida
coral rock.

We kept all debitage by squares and
made a permanent chart of color
samples. We matched each of 1275
samples and tabulated them. While
minor variations occurred, we were
satisfied that our results could reveal
if a deliberate preference was made for
certain colors.


Color Chart of Debitage


Code Color


Percent


A Glossy Milk White, Opaque
B Slightly Yellowed, Wt. Opaque
C Milk White with Black Streaks
D Dirty Grey, Dull, Opaque
E Translucent Medium Tan
F Dull Opaque Light Tan Chert
G Glossy Light Lavender,
Translucent
H Dark Amber Cloudy Shades,
Translucent


12.3
12.5
1.3
9.2
8.7
17.4

2.3

1.7


I Pink Translucent with
Dark Spots
J Opaque Medium Dark Tan
with Darker Streaks
K Glossy Opaque Grey Stippled
with Pink
L Opaque Light Tan, Pink
Sploshed
M Opaque Pinkish Tan
N Dark Pinks Streaked with
Dark Grey, Opaque
0 Milk White Streaked with
Yellow, Opaque
P Mottled Translucent Grey
Q Translucent Dark Grey
R Stippled Pink, Opaque
S Mottled Medium Grey Glossy,
Translucent
T Dark Grey to Black, Opaque
U Translucent Dark Red
V Dark Opaque Tan
W Translucent Light Grey
X Translucent Very Dark Amber
Y Translucent Pink with
Red Blushes


2.3

0.3

0.5

1.7
2.1

1.8

1.0
1.3
3.7
1.3

1.6
3.7
2.1
5.1
5.1
1.3

0.9


Our conclusion was that availability,
rather than color, was the basis for
selection. Also, it could be that in
nodules selected, the interior colors
were not visible.

Although pottery was found in 22 of the 68
excavated units, it does not seem to be a
major artifact of the site. Only 71 sherds
were found in a total of 22 worked artifacts
and 1835 flint chips. The proportion of
pottery sherds to lithic debitage is lower
then usual, and this may denote a later ar-
rival of pottery making people to this site.
One small sherd found at a depth of 75 cm in-
dicates that it was an integral, not purely
intrusive element.

An examination of individual sherd temper-
ing revealed the following: (1) sand, grit,
fiber and clay inclusions, (2) sand and very
sparse fiber, (3) sand and granitic parti-
cles, and (4) sand and sand concretions.
All sherds felt sandy to the touch. All
rim sherds indicated a low bowl-like ves-
sel (Figure 14e-f). No evidence of coil
construction appeared, but lamination

205









was clear in some cross-sections. The
sherds illustrated in Figure 14a-d were
tentatively identified from photographs
only by a professional archaeologist as
Orange design. Even with the wide
variation in tempering, the pottery
fits well into the Late Archaic and
Tansitional provenience.

On Figure 3, the map of excavations, we
used symbols to show the presence of
lithic debitage (F), pottery (P) and
lithic artifacts (A). It can be read-
ilty seen that there were no sterile
units and that a somewhat uniform occu-
pation occurred.

Conclusions

We are not prepared to make many
conclusions from the evidence
which we collected about the
occupation of the Blackwater
Pond site. The elements which
we sought -- settlement pat-
terns, bone refuse, strongly
diagnostic items -- were not
recovered. The inventory we do
have suggests a woodland hunting
subsistence of Late Archaic and
possible Transitional times of
around 2000 B.C. to 500 B.C. It
is evident that more work needs
to be done on the site and the
surrounding area.

In this project very few
artifacts were recovered in our
excavation units. It was thus
necessary to use materials from
other collections in our illus-
trations. The following indi-
viduals cooperated in this
effort:

1. Gary Smith, Brooksville,
kindly allowed us to view,
photograph and use his materials
from the site as follows:
Figures 6c-e, 8h-j, 9a-1 and n-
o, 10c, lla-g, 12a-i, 13(all)
and 14a-d.


2. Robert Gaulding, living on
the site, provided: Figures 5a-
c, 6b, 9m, 10b and llh-l.

3. Ruby Whatley, former resident
of the site provided Figure 8c-
g.

4. Butch Jordan, provided Figure
10f.

5. Don Matteson, Norwich (from
Whatley Coll.), Figures 7e and
9p.

6. John Sykes, Tampa, Figurel2m.

We wish treasure hunting col-
lectorswould take a different
approach to their hobby, but we
appreciate their cooperation.
We have held to a theory that
many professional archaeologists
make a mistake in taking a com-
plete rejection and exclusion
attitude toward the relic
hunter. Such an attitude will
not put an end to the collec-
tor's activity, and will only
serve to eliminate any hope of
changing their attitudes. We
belong to two amateur archae-
ological groups, neither of
which has restrictive membership
requirements. We have seen
cases in which with encourage-
ment and education, a total "pot
holer" has become quite disci-
plined in archaeology and
contributed well to the group
effort.

Acknowledgements

The author expresses special
appreciation to Henry Wemple.
He is the other component of the
"we" used so f reely in this
paper and has shared in the
planning, layout and mapping of
the excavation as well as
actually digging and recording.
He is a fellow member in


206









the Chenango Chapter, NYSSA,
Withlacoochee River Archaeologi-
cal Council, FAS, and Hernando
Archaeological Society.

On the site help and visiting
came from many. Eugenia
Kratzer, a fellow member of WRAC
excavated several units. Donald
Matteson of the Chenango
Chapter, NYSAA, visited the
site, assisted and lent some
artifacts given to him by Ruby
Whatley. Several members of our
New York Chenango Chapter
visited the site with the author
and assisted, namely Stan
Breward, Dick Bennett, Charlie
Leeuw. Hugh Saxton of the
Saxton Rock Shelter project in
Pennsylvania came out. From our
41 Trailer Village I had help
from Buerl Guernsey, Sid
Gallagher, Stub Chase, Jerry
Thomson, Russ and Marge Connon,
and George Harris. There is
pleasure to be found on a sunny
site with friends.

An earlier draft version of this
article was distributed to the
Chenango Chapter of the New York
State Archeological Association.
While the nonenclature changes
with the area, some of the pro-
cedures are applicable to any
region. There are far more
similarities between the Florida
culture sequence and that of the
Northeast than there are dispari-
ties.

References

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

Millanich, Jerald T. and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. New World Archaeo-
logical Record, Academic Press, N.Y.C.
Robinson, George D.
1979 Outlines and Other Data on West Central
Florida Projectile Points. Central Gulf
Coast Archaeological Society, Tampa.


U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service
1977 Soil Survey of Hernando County, Florida.

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


Theodore Whitney
6130 Broad Street
Lot 19
Brooksville, FL 33512


207








NEWMAN'S GARDEN (8Ci206): A SEMINOLE INDIAN SITE
NEAR LAKE TSALA APOPKA, FLORIDA

Brent R. Weisman


Introduction

Florida Seminole history is accessible
through a variety of documentary means;
traveler's accounts, treaty narratives,
military records and a virtual panoply
of sundry testimony all serve to pro-
vide a chronological backdrop against
which all Seminole relations with the
Spanish, British and American dominions
of Florida can be evaluated (see
Sturtevant 1958 for an excellent review)
The culture history of the Seminole is,
however, somewhat less discernable.
Despite the insightful use of existing
documents as combined with the meager
archaeological record (see Craig and
Peebles 1974; Fairbanks 1978) towards
the aim of reconstructing culture his-
tory, many uncertainties remain with
respect to the formation of the Seminole
tribe, the development of an unique
Seminole identity, and the origins of
such cultural institutions as have pro-
vided ethnic continuity through time.

An admitted difficulty in the archae-
ological reconstruction of the Seminole
past is that the toil of documentary
research has only rarely netted the
actual identification of sites
(Fairbanks 1974:11; Fairbanks 1978).
Once archaeological sites are identi-
fied and their chronology established,
synthetic and processual concerns may
be addressed. What follows is one
such attempt, albeit nascent.

The concerns here will be with the
development in the early nineteenth
century, of the matrilocal clan camp --
a form of social organization that was
to persist well into the ethnographic
present (MacCauley 1887:507; Spoehr
1941; Garbarino 1972:69), and of a
nativistic element in Seminole society,
whose precursors may be traceable to
the "prophet" tradition expressed in

Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2 THE FLORID


Creek culture ca. 1811-1814 (Nunez
1958; Fairbanks 1978:182).

The site to be described is called
Newman's Garden (8Ci206) (see Weisman
1986:15-18), that, based on evidence
to be presented, is a single compo-
nent Seminole habitation site dating
ca. 1823-1836. The terminal occupa-
tion of the site is coincident with
the early years of the Second
Seminole War (1835-1842, see Mahon
1967), which then raged in this por-
tion of central Florida, known as
the "Cove of the Withlacoochee"
(Figure 1).

Historical Background

There are two primary historical
accounts that are pertinent to our
study. The first is the diary of
Lt. Henry Prince, who was active in,
the Withlacoochee campaigns of 1836
and 1837, and who produced, in the
latter year, a series of maps detail-
ing the environs of the Withlacoochee
Cove for the purposes of General
Thomas S. Jesup. Careful examina-
tions of the combined maps (Record
Group 94, Misc. File 285, Records of
the Adjutant General 1780-1917,
National Archives, Washington) indi-
cate that they are a rather loose
interpretation of the facts actually
gathered by Prince. Fortunately,
some of Prince's primary data are
recorded as survey field notes in-
cluded in his diary, now available
for study in the P. K. Yonge Library
of Florida History in Gainesville.

On April 22, 1837, Prince, a black
guide named Ansel, and a party of
eight rode from Fort Cooper (see
Baker 1976 for an archaeological
description of this site) (Figure
1), skirted Lake Tsala Apopka to


A ANTHROPOLOGIST


208


Sept., 1986
























































Location of Newman's Garden, including the
Withlacoochee River and Lake Tsala Apopka.


Figure 2. The plow scars revealed at the
bottom of Zone A excavations at
Newman's Garden (8Ci206).


Figure 1.
Ir>








the north, camped at Fort Clinch,
then turned south through the Cove
on a course paralleling the
Withlacoochee River. After break-
fasting over a fire kindled by the
boards of an abandoned Indian cabin
(which might have been in the vicin-
ity of the Ruth Smith mound, see
Mitchem and Weisman 1984) on the
25th, Prince and his party pressed
further south, entering the aban-
doned Powell's Town (the Osceola
site, see Weisman 1986:12-15)
around noon.

After a brief foray to the banks
of the river, the party turned
southwest and picked a hesitant
course back to Fort Cooper, hoping
to reach the enclosure by night-
fall. Sometime late in the after-
noon, Prince and his men ascended
an oak scrub ridge, on the crest
of which was "a large town of
board houses." The ridge was dis-
sected by the flow of a "perfectly
black creek" -- on the other side,
connected by a footbridge, was the
other half of the town (diary
entry for April 25, 1837).

It was based on the above Prince
description that the Newman's
Garden site was identified by sur-
face collection, in the summer of
1984, by Don and Marsha Sheppard
and the author. At the same time,
across the "perfectly black creek"
to the west, we identified the
Zellner Grove sites as the other
half of the town.

The other important account is that
written by W. P. Rowles, who was
attached to that command of Creek
volunteers which, under the direc-
tion of Capt. J. F. Lane, success-
fully assaulted the interior of the
Cove in October 1836. The Rowles
document will be discussed in
greater detail in later sections
of this report.


The 1984 Excavations


The Newman's Garden site is located
in a vegetable garden that has been
under cultivation for eight years.
Initially, the Newmans cleared the
site of brush and hired a tractor to
deep plow the area. The plowscars
and tractor tire imprints that result-
ed from this single episode were clear-
ly visible in our excavations, begin-
ing at depths from 10-15 cm below the
ground surface (Figure 2). The plow
scars in general were 60 cm apart,
and were up to 15 cm in width.

The site itself is located approximately
in the center of the garden (Figure 3),
and is contained within a dark soil stain
that measures 31 m in length (N-S) and
about 17 m in width (E-W). The first
surface collections at the site netted
quantities of Seminole brushed pottery,
bottle glass shards, and iron objects,
all from within the area of the dark
colored soil.

The Newmans permitted excavation for three
days in August 1984, during a brief hia-
tus in their crop rotation system. The
work was performed through the able as-
sistance of the Withlacoochee River
Archaeology Council with the author's
direction. A 2 m grid was staked out
over the dark soil, and eventually eight
full units and one half unit were exca-
vated (Figure 3). Approximately 50% of
the suspected site area was excavated.
In addition, four shovel trenches were
extended into the garden beyond the
limits of the stain, to delimit better
the dimensions of the site. Excavation
was conducted in 10 cm levels, and all
soil was sifted through 0.635 cm (1/4")
mesh stationary screens.

Stratigraphy and Features

Three human-induced processes are record-
ed in the stratigraphy at the site.
First, there was an extensive burning of
logs, timber, and brush, which date to


210





























Bone Fragment
4


Iron
Fork "


Cow
Tooth '


Glass
Sherd


a


/


C) Post Hole
Post o Tooth
Hole

SPossible
Hearth


526N
498E I


Newman's Garden
8 Ci 206


/6~


CHARRED WOOD
CONCENTRATIONS


0 1
meter


Site plan of the Newmans Garden (8Ci206) site.


526N
503E

N








524N
504E











522N
504E


520N
498E


Figure 3.


211







the military campaign of 1836-1837, or
to a second, minor search and destroy mis-
sion conducted in 1841 (Clark 1841).
Second, the deep plowing that occurred in
1977, which intersected and disturbed the
zone of cultural remains. Third, the fre-
quent rototilling of the upper 10 cm or so
of the garden soil, which has served to
mix thoroughly materials within this zone.
Hence, we have two clearly defined soil
zones at the site: Zone A of dark, homo-
geneous brown loamy sand; and, Zone B of
tan sand (with plow scars). Mixed through-
out Zone A are numerous portions of burned
and charred wood, and quantities of arti-
facts (especially near the bottom). Zone
B is virtually sterile of artifacts, except
those (with bits of charcoal) that were
translocated by the plow. The living floor
of the site at the time it was occupied by
the Seminoles was probably about 10 cm
below the present ground surface, or within
the area of the modern plow zone.

A possible shallow fire pit was located in
the central portion of the site; its top
and eastern dimensions lost due to plowing.
A suggested diameter for this feature is
about 70 cm. The pit was lined with char-
coal and contained light gray and white
colored ash. Just to the north and west of
the pit were the remains of two possible
postholes, with diameters of about 20 cm.
We might infer from this a tripod suspen-
sion over a cooking fire, a reconstruction
which is, in fact, supported by the arti-
facts themselves, and illustrated in
observations of early twentieth century
Seminole encampments.

The Artifacts

At the time of this writing there are no
known collections from war period Seminole
villages upon which to base comparative
studies. Therefore, the following discus-
sion will be descriptive, and, finally,
speculative. Two things we surmised at the
outset of the investigation were that the
Seminole would have incorporated for their
use captured items of military origin when
they could, and that the recovered artifact
classes would differ in either quality or
quantity from pre-war assemblages.


The identification of the artifacts was
greatly aided by the use of three excel-
lent reports that contain descriptions of
items commonly in use in the Florida
Indian trade and by the military from ca.
1763-1840. These reports have been issued
on: the Fort Pierce collection of Seminole
War military artifacts (Clausen 1970), the
Spaulding's Lower Store trading outpost,
in business on the lower St. Johns River
from 1763-1784 (Lewis 1968), and the Fort
Brooke cemetery, which contained Seminole
graves dating to the period of wartime
deportation (Piper and Piper 1982).

Based on artifacts contained in the above
collections, and from such Seminole sites
as A-296 (8A1296) near Payne's Prairie
(Sears 1959) and Oven Hill (Craig and
Peebles 1974), the artifacts recovered
at Newman's reflect those typically in
use by civilians, military, and Indians
during the period from the 1770s through
the early 1840s. More precise archaeo-
logical dating of the site is afforded
by the recovery of several military
style buttons, one in particular an army
"great coat button" (Wyckoff 1984:85)
from Zellner. Furthermore, documents
suggest that the area was not inhabited
by the Seminoles prior to 1825 (American
State Papers Vol. 6 1972:458).

Pottery

A total of 577 pottery sherds attribut-
able to Seminole manufacture, including
12 rim sherds, were recovered in the
1984 excavation. Of these, 540 (94%)
were distinctly "brushed" in surface
treatment. The remaining sherds were
plain, on a compact, sandy paste similar
to that of the brushed sherds. Iron-
bearing inclusions also occasionally
are present in the paste.

Brushed pottery is an accepted cultural
marker of Seminole presence in Florida.
Goggin's (1958) typological study of
Seminole pottery continues to be the
definitive work, with minor revisions
(Lewis 1968:63). Chattahoochee Brushed
and Winter Park Brushed are the two
major types, the major difference being


212








that the latter ware is tempered with
limestone and the former with sand. In
practice, the two types are less distinct
than their type designations imply.
Chattahoochee Brushed is found also in
eighteenth and early nineteenth century
Creek contexts in Georgia and Alabama,
while Winter Park Brushed appears not to
be found outside of north-central Florida.
Both types include several vessel forms,
with a variety of rim and lip punctations
and "ticking".

The brushed pottery from Newman's is prob-
ably a variant of Chattahoochee Brushed
(Figure 4). I would like to emphasize
this classification here, because in an
earlier publication (Weisman 1986:9) this
pottery was identified as Winter Park
Brushed based on comparison with other,
incorrectly identified collections. Sherds
are generally thick (up to 10 mm) and have
been clearly wiped or brushed in two direc-
tions on their surfaces. Brushing appears
to stop just short of the vessel rim.

On the basis of the collected rim sherds,
it appears that at least two vessels are
represented. The first was a brushed jar
with a punctated or "notched fillet"
(Dickens 1979:126) style of rim treatment.
The second was a plain bowl, with a plain
direct rim. The notched fillet rim is a
shared trait with the Alabama Creeks of
Horseshoe Bend, and does not appear to be
distributed elsewhere in Florida (e.g.,
8A1296 in Alachua County, and Oven Hill
on the Suwannee). It is possible that the
appearance of this rim treatment in Florida
corresponds to the movements of defeated
Creeks into the peninsula after the Andrew
Jackson campaign of 1814. The various
incised types that persist into the nine-
teenth century, evidenced at Horseshoe Bend
(Dickens 1979:123) and at Tallapoosa Phase
Tukabatchee (Knight 1985:200, 201) appear
not to have made the trip to Florida at
this time. It appears that the brushed
pottery from Newman's Garden and Zellner
Grove derived from Alabama, being in every
way more similar to known Creek types than
to any assemblage, historic or prehistoric,
in Florida.


Here we should consider that the rims col-
lected from Newman's Garden are different
than those from the nearby Zellner sites
(Weisman 1986:17, see Dickens 1979 for
Creek examples) in their manner of notch-
ing. Rim sherds from both Zellner Grove
and Newman's Garden again are distinct
from rim sherds collected at Powell's
Town and the Flying Eagle Ranch (Weisman
1986:9, 14, 17). In short, although the
sample is small, it appears that no site
contains rims like those found at another
(Figure 5). What social pattern would
produce such a distribution?

It is known from a variety of sources
that Seminole (and Creek) women were the
potters (in fact the persistence of brush-
ed pottery well into the historic period
has been used to argue for female conserv-
atism, or differential acculturation, see
Fairbanks 1978:166, 176), so it is reason-
able to suppose that matrilocal residence
would tend to concentrate traits associat-
ed with female activities. It also can be
reasoned that the matrilineages expressed
in residence would endeavor to distinguish
themselves from one another through vari-
ous means, and in fact certain variations
in Seminole decorative culture have been
discussed from this perspective (Goggin
1951:11, 12; Sears 1958:29). In this view,
notched rims would be associated with one
lineage (or, more likely, clan), ticking
with another, and so on.

Reasoning from the above, we next can
infer that the distributions of sites
across the Zellner Grove and Newman's
Garden sites are in fact what are refer-
red to in this century as clan camps.
Ethnographers of the Seminole (Spoehr
1948:10, 14; Garbarino 1972:69) have re-
marked upon the fundamental and durable
nature of the camp, but earlier documents
do little to reveal its origin. There
were, without question, Creek antecedents;
the talwa organization of the historic
period included both the squareground town
and its outlying family farmsteads
(Swanton 1928:242, 290). But the more
immediate cause may well lie with the
social conditions of the times; namely


213

















o0 L
I "IN


Chattahoochee Brushed sherds and piece of
possible daub (bottom center).


Seminole rim sherds from Withlacoochee Cove sites.
Top, notched fillet type from Newman's Garden.
Center left, punctated from Wild Hog Scrub (Powell's
Town), right, notched (fingernail ?) from Zellner
no. 1. Bottom, notched from Zellner no. 2. Vessel
interiors to the right. Sherds drawn 2x actual size.


Figure 4.


I


S


Figure 5.


214


;:,.







that disparate bands pioneered the area
more or less under duress. Thereafter
they solved the dual needs for communi-
cation and defensibility by loosely ag-
gregating themselves into the archaeo-
logically-recognized pattern.

Glass

From the 1760s on, glass bottle shards
are common components of archaeological
sites in Florida from this era. Bottles
were obtained by the Seminoles from
British (generally by 1770) and American
traders (early decades of the 1800s).
The two most common bottles were a dark
green ("black") glass bottle for holding
liquor, and a smaller, more gracile
light green bottle designed for holding
wine.

Both types of bottle are represented at


a


Newman's Garden, probably by one specimen
each. The "black" glass bottle, common
during the 1820s (Clausen 1970; Hume
1976), is represented by several rim
shards and a portion of the shoulder
(see Baker 1976:39 for bottle shards re-
covered from Fort Cooper). Oven Hill
Florida State Museum collections) con-
tained bottles of both types, although
slightly different in style than the
examples from Newman's Garden. Our
excavation yielded a total of 65 bottle
shards, including three rim pieces.

Metal

Metal artifacts are represented at
Newman's Garden by items of iron, brass,
and lead. The most pleasing finds were
those of a brass button, a brass tack,
portions of an iron knife and fork, and
a single lead shot (Figure 6).


T


j 4 CM

SIN


Figure 6. Metal
fork.
tack,


artifacts from Newman's Garden. Top, iron
Bottom left, lead shot, center, brass
right, brass button.


215








The brass button was plain, 21 mm in dia-
meter, with the words "EXTRA PLATED"
stamped on its underside. This button is
a type "G" in the Olsen taxonomy (Olsen
1963:553) and was manufactured between
1785 and 1800 for civilian, military, and
Indian use (Olsen 1963; Clausen 1970).
Similar buttons are in the Fort Pierce
collection; apparently it was common for
the United States Army and state militias
to use buttons well beyond their dates of
manufacture. This particular button was
probably of military origin: Osceola was
reported wearing a uniform jacket in an
engagement near the Withlacoochee (Mahon
1967:111), as were other Seminoles
(Prince 1836, diary entry of March 1).

The iron fork is very similar to speci-
mens recovered at the British trading
post of Spaulding's Lower Store (Lewis
1968:98). Evidently, forks, knives, and
spoons were common items of Indian trade.
A similar fork is pictured also by Hume
(1976:182) in a colonial setting. It is
likely that the Newman's Garden fork was
hafted upon a bone handle, although no
traces of this appendage remain. The
iron knife blade, measuring 36 mm in
length and 24 mm in width, was probably
hafted in a similar fashion. Also recov-
ered was an iron flat file (measuring 54
mm in length and 25 mm wide) similar to
the one found with the Seminole burial
at the Zetrouer site in Alachua County
(Goggin et al. 1949).

We also found a brass dome head tack, of
the type commonly used to ornament gun
stocks (Piper and Piper 1982:253; Lewis
1968:72). The tack measures 13 mm in
length, with a head diameter of 10 mm
(Figure 6).

A spherical .48 caliber (11 mm) lead shot
was found, possibly part of a buckshot
load (Clausen 1970:16). Alternatively,
this may have been an ad hoc (and under-
sized) load for the typical .69 caliber
weapons of the day (Clausen 1970:16),
or of "home" manufacture. However, in
the early years of the war at least, the
Seminoles seem not to have been in short
supply of powder and shot. Prince re-


marked upon a dead warrior dragged into
his camp that he had a "powder horn of
the very best rifle powder. Leather
haversack containing large quantity of
bullets" (1836, diary entry of March 1).

Also recovered were various pieces of
sheet brass, rolled or cut for unknown
purposes. Clausen mentions similar
pieces from Fort Pierce (1970:18). About
a dozen iron nails were excavated, all
of which could be of mid-nineteenth to
mid-twentieth century manufacture.

Faunal Remains

In general, Seminole sites in Florida
lack faunal remains, at least in any
quantity. The Seminole themselves may
be partly to blame for this situation,
since the documents report the ritual
care with which they cleaned their vil-
lages every year, disposing of the
rubish at some distance (Bartram 1955:
169). The Seminoles also appear not
to have relished the stuff of which
middens are made, i.e., snails, mussels,
oysters and the like. Therefore, in
general, their sites are not marked by
these remains.

Pigs, cattle, rice and corn appear to
have been the staple foodstuffs of the
Seminole during the war era, based on
military documents (Prince 1836, diary
entry of Feb. 17; Potter 1836:94;
Clarke 1841). What is not known is if
the Seminoles subsisted in ways that
escaped documentary notice, for example,
by foraging.

Unfortunately, the Newman's Garden
faunal data shed no further light on
this question. Several identifiable
cow bones (several phalanges and por-
tions of teeth) were recovered in the
cultural strata. Nothing, however, was
recovered that would indicate the
Seminoles' use of the "wild" resources
around them.

Wood

On the basis of bulk, the largest volume


216









of remains recovered at the site was
that of charred wood. Ms. Lee Newsom,
who graciously identified a sample of
the specimens, says that they are pri-
marily oak species (Quercus virginiana
Mill.) and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.).
These may represent the remains of fire-
wood from local vegetation in the vicin-
ity of the habitation (recall the Prince
description); although, some of the oak
also may represent some portion of a
burned structure (as discussed below,
documents only partially support this
interpretation).

Here I will insert the primary testimony
of Rowles, mentioned earlier. It will
be remembered that Rowles was with Capt.
Lane and the Creek volunteers as they
sought to engage the Seminole in the
southern portion of the Cove. Rowles
recounts (1841:115):

Within a short distance from the
margin of the lagoon we entered a
town, consisting of huts made by
planting four forks in a quadrang-
ular form, over these poles were
laid a roof of the bark (Pinus
mitis and P. strobus, the P. rigida
is also found) or boards split from
the Pine or Castanea vesca, or
American Chestnut. The walls were
formed by bark or boards tied with
splits or poles leaned against the
evebeares. Fires were found burn-
ing and victuals cooking in several
of the huts.

Clearly this description is of a "board
house", so often mentioned in the Prince
diary, and clearly it was not of oak con-
struction, at least in its roof and sid-
ing. There does, however, remain the
possibility that the support posts and
"rafters" were made of the oak recovered
in our excavation. Because there were
no substantial postholes found, we can
reason also that the structure was of
the board cabin type, as was noted for
the Creeks and early Seminoles (Bartram
1955:168; Swanton 1946:633; Young 1934:
90). This should not be confused with
the familiar "chickee" of recent times.


The recovery of several small pieces of
daub supports the cabin idea, because
the Seminole were known to chink such
cabins to keep out insects and related
vermin (King 1978:14), as well as rain
and cold weather.

Interpretation

We now have the documentary and archaeo-
logical means at our disposal to breathe
life back into the Newman's Garden re-
mains. The Rowles account indicates that
Seminole houses of this era were bark-
roofed and board-sided, and that separate
structures were used for cooking. Archae-
ology at the Newman site suggests that the
recovered remains may be those of one such
structure, with its hearth, tripod posts,
and concentration of pottery, glass, and
bone (collected from two contiguous
squares; 8 m sq) representing the nearby
cooking area.

The site inventory indicates that native
pottery was still in use (one bowl and
one jar), liquids were used and/or stored
in glass bottles (at least two), foods
were consumed with the aid of iron forks
and knives, and clothing items were at
least in part American-derived. Subsist-
ence revolved around cattle and vegetable
produce, although evidence of the latter
has not survived. The quantity of remains
recovered suggests the site was used by a
limited number of people; perhaps members
of a matrilocal extended family. So far
this picture is congruent, or nearly so,
with what we might already expect of
Seminole domestic economy, based on his-
torical accounts and related archaeology.

But we must also confront the unexpected,
in this case the complete absence at the
site of European tablewares. It has be-
come well established in the archaeolog-
ical literature (Fairbanks 1978:184) and
as folk wisdom that sherds of creamware
and pearlware become common in Seminole
assemblages during and after the British
period (beginning dates ca. 1763), and
in fact come to dominate the assemblages
in later years to the degree that
Seminole remains become indistinguishable


217








from American homesteader remains.

If we look at other Seminole sites,
such as Genius, or Mizell (80r14) in
Winter Park, various locales collected
by Neill in the vicinity of Ocala
(Florida State Museum collections),
and assemblages identified by Mullins
(1978) and others from the rim of
Payne's Prairie near Gainesville (all
of which the author suggests were oc-
cupied no later than ca. 1820) we
see that in general the above assump-
tion stands -- European tablewares
are important constituents of Seminole
archaeological sites. This makes
their absence both striking and sig-
nificant.

We might immediately surmise that the
supply of European tablewares simply
dried up. This explanation is parti-
cularly appealing in light of the fact
that the Cove Seminole at this time
were at war with the United States,
and we might expect some interruption
of normal trade relations. Unfortu-
nately, this explanation does not
hold up to historical scrutiny; there
appears to have been a variety of
legitimate (that is, government sanc-
tioned) and quasi-black market sources
(clustering particularly in the vicin-
ity of Tampa Bay, see for example the
activities of one Captain Bunce, men-
tioned in the Prince diary, Jan. 14,
1837, and Mahon 1967:203) through
which the Seminole bartered for goods
up to and including the period of
hostility. The Seminole also engaged
in sporadic raiding of what planta-
tions and homesteads there were in
north peninsular Florida at this time,
and presumably carried off with them
what they wanted and needed.

Therefore, it is tempting to suggest
that tablewares are not present at the
Newman's Garden site (and in fact have
not appeared at any other Seminole
site in the Cove) by choice; that is,
there exclusion from the inventory was
purposeful, by means of a cultural
equation in which tablewares became


the symbolic equivalent of American
dominence (oppression). A look at the
related Creek assemblages in Alabama
helps to clarify this process from a
comparative perspective. In the
Tukabatchee area, European ceramics
were ubiquitous such that "any native
family would have possessed pearlware
or whiteware plates, platters, saucers,
serving bowls, and even teacups"
(Knight 1985:180). Yet at the mili-
tant, prophet-directed Red Stick en-
clave at Horseshoe Bend (Tohopeka)
these ceramics are virtually absent
(Dickens 1979:157). For the Creek
area, the activities of prophets have
been identified, most notably Tecumseh
and Francis (Nunez 1958) and their
directives have been used to explain
the nature of the archaeological
record at certain sites (Fairbanks
1962:48). Indeed, we might expect
that nativistic or revivalistic move-
ments would find some degree of
material expression, because they are
often founded to counter prevailing
technological trends (Wallace 1956).

In the Withlacoochee region, evidence
for a "prophet motive" is at present
shadowy at best. We have no names,
only scanty archaeology and indirect
historical references to somewhat un-
expected behaviors on the part of the
Seminole. For example, again refer-
ring to Rowles (1841:116) we learn
that upon entering one of the Cove
villages in 1836, Capt. Lane's com-
mand "found a large quantity of the
herb from which they decoct their
black drink, a number of recent
scalps, and other appendages of the
grand dance." The Creek nativistic
movement was also associated with a
"grand dance", known as the "Dance
of the Lakes" (Nunez 1958:8). For
the present, the Withlacoochee
prophet, if indeed such an individ-
ual existed, must remain anonymous.
However, I suggest that the activ-
ities of the legendary Osceola,
known to have been a strong figure
in this area during the early years
of the war, be reexamined in light


218










of the literature on nativistic
movements.

Conclusion

Newman's Garden (8Ci206) is an important
site because it helps us to characterize
Seminole Indian material culture at about
the time of the Second Seminole War.
From the excavated remains we can draw
the following inferences: Seminole soci-
ety of the time was organized into family
or clan camps, or compounds, and that
their material culture was undergoing
change in response to a renewed interest
in group identity, or social boundaries.
At the very least, the archaeological
experience at Newman's Garden holds out
the promise that fairly intact Seminole
Indian sites may indeed be located in
the future.

Acknowledgements

The fieldwork portion of this project
was completed with the financial assis-
tance of the Wentworth Foundation, and
the generous manual assistance of the
Withlacoochee River Archaeological
Council. Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd and Shirley
Newman of Floral City deserve special
thanks -- it is not everyone who would
permit archaeological havoc to reign in
their own backyard.

References Cited


Baker, Henry A.
1976 Archaeological Investigations at Fort
Cooper, Inverness, Florida. Florida
Department of State, Bureau of Historic
Sites and Properties Bulletin No. 5,
pp. 21-46. Tallahassee.

Bartram, William
1955 Travels of William Bartram. Mark van
(1791) Doren, editor. New York: Dover.

Clarke, N.S.
1841 Scouting on the Withlacoochee. Keenan-
Brown manuscript collection. P. K.
Yonge Library of Florida History,
Gainesville.

Clausen, Carl J.
1970 The Fort Pierce Collection. Florida
Department of State, Bureau of Historic
Sites and Properties Bulletin No. 1,
pp. 1-21. Tallahassee.


Craig, Alan K., and Christopher Peebles
1974 Ethnoecologic Change Among the Seminoles,
1740-1840. In Man and Cultural Heritage,
Papers in Honor of Fred B. Kniffen, H. J.
Walker and W. G. Haag, eds. Geoscience
and Man (5):83-96.

Dickens, Roy S., Jr.
1979 Archaeological Investigations at Horseshoe
Bend National Military Park, Alabama.
Alabama Archaeological Society Special
Publication no. 3.

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1962 Excavations at Horseshoe Bend, Alabama.
The Florida Anthropologist 15(2):41-56.

1974 Ethnohistorical Report of the Florida
Indians. New York: Garland Publishing,
Inc. (Identical to the 1957 presentation
before Indian Claims Commission, Dockets
73, 151. Washington).
1978 The Ethno-Archeology of the Florida
Seminole. In Tacachale: Essays on the
Indians of Florida and Southeast Georgia
during the Historic Period. Jerald T.
Milanich and Samuel Proctor, eds.
Ripley P. Bullen Monographs in Anthro-
pology and History no. 1. Gainesville:
University of Florida Presses.

Garbarino, Merwyn
1972 Big Cypress, A Changing Seminole Community.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Goggin, John M.
1951 Beaded Shoulder Pouches of the Florida
Seminole. The Florida Anthropologist
4(1-2):2-17.

1958 Seminole Pottery. In Prehistoric Pottery
of the Eastern United States, James B.
Griffin, ed. Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.


Goggin,

1949


John M., Mary E. Godwin, Earle Hester,
David Prange, and Robert Spangenberg
An Historic Indian Burial, Alachua
County, Florida. The Florida Anthropo-
logist 2:10-25.


Hume, Ivor Noel
1976 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

King, R. T.
1978 The Florida Seminole Polity 1858-1978.
PhD. dissertation on file, Department of
History, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Knight, Vernon J., Jr.
1985 Tukabatchee, Archaeological Investiga-
tions at an Historic Creek Town, Elmore
County, Alabama, 1984. Office of
Archaeological Research, University of
Alabama, Report of Investigations 45.

Lewis, Kenneth E., Jr.
1969 History and Archeology of Spaulding's
Lower Store (Pu-23), Putnam County,


219









Florida. M.A. thesis on file, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Florida State
Museum, Gainesville.

MacCauley, Clay
1887 The Seminole Indians of Florida. Fifth
Annual Report of Bureau of Ethnology,
pp. 469-531. Washington.

Mahon, John K.
1967 History of the Second Seminole War.
Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. and Brent R. Weisman
1984 Excavations at the Ruth Smith Mound
(8Ci200). The Florida Anthropologist
37(3):98-109.

Mullins, Sue Ann
1978 Archeological Survey and Excavations in
the Payne's Prairie State Preserve. M.A.
thesis on file, Department of Anthro-
pology, University of Florida.

New American State Papers 1789-1860
1972 Volume 6. Wilmington: Scholarly
Resources, Inc.

Nunez, Theron
1958 Creek Nativism and the Creek War of 1813-
1814. Ethnohistory 5:1-47.

Olson, Stanley
1963 Dating Early Plain Buttons By Their Form.
American Antiquity 28(4):551-554.

Piper, Harry M., and Jacquelyn G. Piper
1982 Archaeological Excavations at the Quad
Block Site, 8Hi998. Piper Archaeological
Research, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida.

Potter, Woodburne
1836 The War in Florida, Being an Exposition
of its Causes and an Accurate History of
the Campaigns of Generals Clinch, Gaines,
and Scott. Baltimore.

Prince, Henry
1836 The Prince diary. Manuscript on file,
P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History,
Gainesville.

1837 Map no 3. Record Group 94. Records of
Adjutant General Office, National Archives,
Washington. (Also in collections of Citrus
County Historical Society, Inverness, Fl.)

Rowles, W. P.
1841 Incidents and Observations In Florida in
1836. On file, P. K. Yonge Library of
Florida History, Gainesville.

Scott, Winfield
1837 Proceedings of the military Court of
Inquiry in the case of Major General Scott
and Major General Gaines. On file, P. K.
Yonge Library of Florida History,
Gainesville. (Identical to Senate Document
224, 24th Congress, 2nd Session, March 2,
1837.


Sears, William H.
1959 A-296 -- A Seminole Site in Alachua County.
The Florida Anthropologist 7(1):25-30.

Spoehr, Alexander
1941 Camp, Clan, and Kin Among the Cow Creek
Seminole of Florida. Field Museum of
Natural History Anthropological Series
22(1):1-27.

Sturtevant, William C.
1958 Accomplishments and Opportunities in Florida
Indian Ethnology, in Florida Anthropology,
Charles H. Fairbanks, ed. Florida Anthro-
pological Society Publication no. 5.

Swanton, John R.
1928 Social Organization and Social Usages of the
Indians of the Creek Confederacy. Forty
Second Annual Report of the Bureau of
American Ethnology, pp. 23-472. Washington.

1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United
States. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 137. Washington, D.C.

Wallace, Anthony F. C.
1956 Revitalization Movements. American Anthro-
pologist 58(2):264-281.

Weisman, Brent
1986 The Cove of the Withlacoochee: A First
Look at the Archaeology of an Interior
Florida Wetland. The Florida Anthropologist
39(1-2):4-23.

Wyckoff, Martin A.
1984 United States Military Buttons of the Land
Services 1787-1902. McClean County
Historical Society, Bloomington, Illinois.

Young, Hugh
1934-1935 A Topographic Memoire on East and West
Florida With Iteniaries. Florida
Historical Quarterly 13.



Brent Weisman
Department of Anthropology
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611


220








SOME OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE JULY, 1913 SEMINOLE CENSUS
TAKEN BY AGENT LUCIEN SPENCER

James W. Covington


Throughout the later part of the nine-
teenth and all of the twentieth centur-
ies there were attempts to give an ac-
curate count of the Seminoles who re-
mained in Florida. These efforts were
hampered by the white American's lack
of knowledge of the interior part of
southern Florida and the lack of ob-
servers who knew the whereabouts of the
Indians and had their confidence.

One of the first counts was made in
1841 by Emigrant Agent John Casey, who
listed the males within several bands
(Covington 1968). In 1879, First
Lieutenant Richard H. Pratt was in-
structed by Commissioner of Indian
Affairs E. A. Hayt to make a full in-
vestigation regarding the status of
the Indians at that time. In his re-
port he stated that there were prob-
ably 292 Seminoles in Florida, but
admitted that he did not make an ex-
act head count of the Indians
(Sturtevant 1956). In making the
census Pratt interviewed white per-
sons who had been friends of the
Indians and visited a few villages
himself. In contrast to the figure
submitted by Pratt, the 1880 Federal
census listed 180 Indians (Bureau of
the Census 1883).

A more comprehensive survey was con-
ducted in 1880-1881 by Clay MacCauley
for the Bureau of (American) Ethnology,
Smithsonian Institution. Like Pratt,
he lists three Mikasuki speaking vil-
lages: Catfish Lake, Big Cypress, and
Miami; and, two Creek speaking villages:
Fisheating Creek and Cow Creek. He
counted 208 persons (MacCauley 1887).

Since most of the 1890 census records
were destroyed by fire and the remain-
ing fragmentary returns provide an un-
reliable estimate of 171 persons, it


was the 1900 census that provided the
first detailed enumeration of the
Indians. J. Otto Fries, the county
surveyor of Brevard County, was selec-
ted to provide an accurate count of
the Indians (Kersey 1981). He was
helped by Archibald Hendry, who knew
the location of several villages.
Hendry was able to ascertain names of
the adult men, but had problems with
their ages. He counted the children
but did not list names as the Indians
reportedly did not name their children.

Three hundred and thirty-nine Indians
were enumerated; although, no blacks
living among the Indians were listed
in the tabulation. Judging from the
numbers compiled by Spencer in 1913,
the 1900 census made by Fries was not
accurate. Ten years later in the
census of 1910, the rather startling
and probably misprinted figure of 74
Indians was recorded (Bureau of the
Census 1913).

In March, 1913, Lucien Spencer was
appointed special commissioner in
charge of the Seminole Indians, a
post he held until his death in 1931.
Operating from his home base in Miami,
Spencer had to check his wards who re-
sided in 28 camps scattered over an
expanse of 9000 square miles (Covington
1976). Although the government owned
18 separate reservation tracts, ranging
in size from 40 to 16,000 acres, only
one Indian family lived on the federal
land reserved for them.

Within four months of his appointment,
Spencer was obliged, like the other
Indian agents, to make a census of his
charges. Compared to more exacting
ones compiled in recent years, this
census (completed during July, 1913)
was unusual; although, it was the most


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


221


Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2


Sept., 1986









complete census done for the tribe as
of that date. All of the Indians and
blacks living with the Indians, 567
persons, were counted. The names of
the adult males were listed, as were
their ages if known. Only 10 adult
females were listed by name, the rest
were designated as squaws. Children
were listed as "child" with no desig-
nation of sex. The dividing line be-
tween adult and child may have been
18 or 21 years of age.

The adult male Indians used a wide
variety of names. Popular names in-
cluded Billy (44 individuals), Charley
(22 individuals), Tiger (19 indivi-
duals), Doctor (12 individuals), and
Tommie (6 individuals). At least
three men were named after Indian
traders: Joe Bowers (entry 257 on
Spencer's list), Frank Stranahan (223)
and Girtman Billy (230). Several bore
the names of famous whites, e.g., Ben
Franklin (78), Jackson Charley (302),
Billy McKinley (79), Charley Ingraham
(166), Billy Harney (64), George Hendry
Jim (233), Ingraham Tiger (283),
Ingraham Billy (281), and two Henry
Clays (275 and 279).

Some names indicated geographical areas
such as Lake Wilson (375), Miami Billy
(418), Miami Jimmy (425), Tallahassee
Chipco (470), John Miami Tiger (333),
and Tom Devil's Garden (481). Others
indicated physical stature, age, or
illness, e.g. Blind Tom (36), Little
Doctor (396), Tom Smallpox (492),
Smallpox Tommie (469), Old Jumper (443),
and Old Polly Parker (424). There were
also rather unusual names such as Henry
Homespun (250) and Ginger Snaps (232).

Of the men named in Spencer's list,
only two, Fi-lan-a-hee (225) and Hauttee
(246), did not have at least one English
name. Some, such as Billie Conepatchie
(43), Charley Osceola (125) and Billy
Buskenuggee (88), bore both Indian and
English names.

Few women were identified beyond the
designation squaw or child. Those who


were identified included a black woman,
Funke (216), Lucy Bowles (288), Old
Polly Parker (424), Ruthie Parker (449),
and Etta Tiger (210). Five women,
Sho-y-o-chee, Tehim-cha (463), Bi-sun-
gee (464), Matollnee (516), and
Ster-l-h-eeh (465), were identified
only by Indian names and two, Marilee
(517) and Mary Lee (518), were identi-
fied only by English names.

Other women were identified only in
terms of their relationship to men.
For example, we find Nellie (515)
daughter of Willie John, Nancy Tiger
(423) squaw of Little Tiger (406),
Dan Parker's Mother (206), Billy
Smith's Daughter (26), Charley
Tigertail's Mother (155), and Charley
Tigertail's Sister (156).

Probably Spencer was the first census
taker to indicate the number of blacks
living within the Seminole community.
They included such persons as Charley
Dixon (114), a half-black who married
a full-blooded Seminole and had three
children. Dixon's black mother (119)
was also listed as was Funke (216), a
black woman.

With his listing of every known
Seminole, Spencer had probably com-
piled the most accurate census to that
point and his work makes earlier
figures somewhat suspect. It does
not seem possible, even when the addi-
tion of blacks is taken into account,
that the Seminole population given by
Fries, 339 in the 1900 census, could
have grown to 567 by 1913. Even the
figures given by MacCauley, 208 in
1881, and Pratt, 292 in 1880, seem
unrealistic, although at least one
recent critic has observed that
MacCauley's figures appear to stand
up to scrutiny better than Pratt's
figures.

However, Lucien Spencer left a few
stones unturned in his 1913 census.
He did not bother to obtain the names
of ten widows and orphans, which he
just listed as a number at the end of


222










his enumeration. Very few women are
listed by name. Although the census
form had a space for the Indian name
first, Spencer almost completely ig-
nored this directive. Very few ages
are given for the women. Of the men,
7 were born between 1830-40, 4 between
1840-50, 7 between 1850-60, 8 between
1860-70, 15 between 1870-80, 29 be-
tween 1880-90, and 35 between 1890-
1900. These ages are suspect, but
Billie Conepatchie told Pratt that he
was born in 1860 and this date is
given in the 1913 census by his name
(43).


Starting with the 1913 census, Lucien
Spencer conducted a yearly census of
the Florida Seminoles that led to the
most reliable counts of the tribe
(Spencer et al. 1913-1940). This work
continued the excellent beginning
which he made in 1913.


References Cites
Bureau of the Census
1883 Compendiu of the Tenth Census (June
1880) Compiled Pursuant to an Act of
Congress Affirmed August 7, 1882,
Part I, Washington, 1883:341.

1913 Thirteenth Census of the United States
taken in the Tear 1910. Washington
1913:82.

Covington, James W.
1968 A Seminole Census: 1847. The Florida
Anthropologist 21(4):120-122.

1976 Dania Reservation: 1911-1927. The
Florida Anthropologist 29(4):137-144.

Kersey, Harry A., Jr.
1981 Florida Seminoles and the Census of
1900. Florida Historical Quarterly
60(2):15-160.

MacCauley, Clay
1887 The Seminole Indians of Florida.
Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology 469-531.

Sturtevant, William C., Presentor and Annotator
1956 Pratt's Report on the Seminoles in 1879.
The Florida Anthropologist 9(1):1-24.

Spencer, Lucien et al.
1913-1940 Indian Census Roles, Indians of
Florida, Seminoles of Florida, M595,
Microfilm Rolls 486-487, submitted by
Superintendent in charge of Agency
Records, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
National Archives, Washington.

James W. Covington
Dana Professor of History
University of Tampa
Tampa, Florida 33606-1490


223








A SPONTOON TOMAHAWK FROM DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA


Paul M. Lien


Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to describe
a spontoon pipe tomahawk, which was re-
covered underwater by the author some
years ago.

The Site

The site with which this specimen is as-
sociated is the Oven Hill Complex (8Dil5)
located on the west bank of the Suwannee
River. The high bank that skirts the
river in this area is being eroded by
boat traffic causing approximately 0.3-
1.0 m of sand to cover most of the shore
bottom. Fanning through this cover has
produced many early Seminole artifacts,
including bottles, guns, pipes and an
array of refuse.

Early work on the Oven Hill site was
done from 1958-62 by Goggin and students
from the University of Florida (Gluckman
and Peebles 1974). Since the artifact
reported in this paper was found down
river from the site, it is assumed that
it was associated with the Seminole oc-
cupation of this area. Dredging of this
area by WPA for sand to produce area
roads has disturbed the bottom of the
river.

The Specimen

The name for the spontoon is derived
from its resemblance to "the military
espontoon, a polearm carried during
most of the eighteenth century by
commissioned officers who fought on
foot" (Peterson 1965:24). A resem-
blance to a fleur-de-lys was noted
in the design leading to the assump-
tion that they were of French origin.
While this reasoning is a bit far-
fetched, since the fluer-de-lys was
widely used in Europe, a French ori-


gin is supported by the fact that
almost all of the earliest specimens
are found where French influence was
strong (Peterson 1965:25). However,
popularity with the Indians
seemed to encourage their manufacture
by the British and certainly by the
Americans (Peterson 1965:25).

Early spontoon tomahawks were func-
tional. In most instances, these
were made from one piece of iron
looped over a bar and welded to form
the eye. These tomahawks were
weapons, not cutting tools, and very
few have sharpened edges. Peterson
(1965:26) concludes:

Since later specimens seem to have
been primarily ceremonial in use,
they also required no edge, and
plain iron remained entirely suf-
ficient for the Indian needs. For
those specimens combined with
pipes, other metals such as pewter
and brass, were commonly used from
at least 1750 through the end of
the 19th century, but for these
simple hatchets without pipes,
iron remained standard.

The specimen described in this report
is a combination pipe-tomohawk, which
was the more common form (Figure 1).
Its spear-point blade is symbolic due
to its unsharpened edges. The pipe
bole was drilled through to the
wood handle, and the wood preserved
with the metal exhibits a hollow
center hole which could have served
as a pipe stem. The metal was cast
as a single piece from a non-ferrous
metal identified as pewter by the
Florida Department of State, Bureau
of Archaeological Research conserva-
tion lab in Tallahassee (Levy 1986,
Personal Communication). Most of


Sept., 1986


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


224


Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2




225


the later (1750-1780) spontoons
were ceremonial. While this speci-
men's bowl is damaged, it is un-
likely that it was willfully dis-
carded by the Seminole. However,
any explanation of how it came to
be lost in the river and damaged
would be speculative at best.

References Cites

Gluckman, Stephen J. and Christopher S. Peebles
1974 Oven Hill (Di-15), A Refuge Site in the
Suwannee River. The Florida Anthropo-
logist 27(1):21-30.

Levy, James
1986 Personal Communication, Tallahassee,
Florida.

Peterson, Harold L.
1965 American Indian Tomahawks. In Contri-
butions from the Museum of the American
Indian Heye Foundation Vol. XIX.



Paul M. Lien
11506 North Rome Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33612


Figure 1.


Spontoon pipe-tomahawk from
site 8Dil5 in Dixie County,
Florida.


"'k1iW"'WMMM0000A









FLORIDA'S UNMARKED HUMAN BURIAL BILL


James J. Miller


Over the past several years the treatment
and disposition of Native American burials
has become a matter of great concern for
Indians and anthropologists. Put plainly,
many American Indians object to the exhu-
mation, analysis, and curation of Indian
skeletal material, while archaeologists
and physical anthropologists consider such
remains a critically important source of
information. Both groups are united, how-
ever, in their concern for burial sites
that are disturbed and destroyed whether
by vandals and unscrupulous collectors or
by irresponsible development activities.
Although there have been calls for a
national policy on Native American
remains, the laws concerning treatment and
disposition of human remains are largely
state statutes. The nature of debate
within states has ranged from acrimony to
cooperation, and the range of solutions
embodied in various state laws is
similarly broad. Despite the differences
among states and interest groups, one fact
is clear: everyone interested in
archaeological sites will be affected in
some way by decisions that are now being
made about how human remains are to be
treated.

The first legislative proposal for a buri-
al law in Florida was drafted by Mr. Don
Sharon in 1985, but was not passed out of
legislative committee. At that time
representatives from the Florida
Governor's Council on Indian Affairs,
Florida State University Department of
Anthropology and the Florida Division of
Historical Resources agreed to work
together with other interested parties to
draft a revised bill for consideration by
the 1986 legislature. This effort
involved a series of meetings, letters,
proposed drafts, revisions, and, finally,
agreement on all issues discussed in the
bill.

By the time a final draft was completed,
the following organizations had partici-


pated in the discussions: Florida
Governor's Council on Indian Affairs,
Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek Indians,
Seminole Tribe of Florida, Miccosukkee
Tribe of Indians of Florida, Pine Arbor
Tribal Town, Northwest Florida Creek
Indian Council, Poarch Band of Creek
Indians Florida Archaeological Council,
Inc., Florida Anthropological Society,
Florida State University Department of
Anthropology, Florida State Museum
Department of Anthropology, Florida
Medical Examiners Commission, Piper
Archaeological Research, Archaeological
Consultants, Inc., and Division of
Historical Resources including the Bureau
of Historic Preservation and the Bureau of
Archaeological Research.


Needless to say, the participation of such
a large number of people took some time,
and a final resolution was not achieved
until after the opening of the legislative
session. Due to the late date it was not
possible to file the bill in the House,
although the Senate version was filed,
eventually passed, and sent to House com-
mittees. In the inevitable rush of the
closing week of the session, the bill was
not heard on the House floor. It will be
reintroduced in the 1986-87 legislative
session. Our experience in committees and
on the Senate floor showed that there was
good support for the bill and no strong
opposition.


The text of the bill, including amendments
suggested by legislative committees, is
reproduced below. It is based on a model
drafted for the State of Iowa; similar
laws in other states are already in place
and are working well. This bill, should
it become law, will offer a strong means
of protection for all types of human buri-
al sites, and provide a responsible proc-
ess for determining how human remains will
be treated once they are discovered.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


226


Sept., 1986


Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2






A bill to be entitled

An act relating to human graves and buri-
als; creating s. 872.05, F.S.; authorizing
the Division of Historical Resources of
the Department of State to assume respon-
sibility for and jurisdiction over certain
unmarked human burials; requiring notifi-
cation of certain authorities when a
burial is discovered or disturbed;
requiring that certain authorities be
notified when a burial is discovered
during an archaeological excavation;
providing duties and responsibilities for
the State Archaeologist regarding a newly
discovered unmarked human burial;
requiring certain reports; providing for
the loan of burial artifacts for
educational purposes; requiring the
division to adopt rules regarding the
public display of human remains; providing
that excavation of a burial is not
required except under certain
circumstances; providing penalties;
amending s. 872.02. F.S.; including burial
mounds and certain monuments in the provi-
sion prohibiting the disturbance of graves
or tombs; providing an effective date.


Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the
State of Florida:

Section 1. Section 872.05, Florida Stat-
utes, is created to
read:

872.05 (1) LEGISLATIVE INTENT.--It is
the intent of the Legislature that all
human burials and human skeletal remains
be accorded equal treatment and respect
based upon common human dignity without
reference to ethnic origin, cultural back-
ground, or religious affiliation. This
section applies to all human burials,
human skeletal remains, and associated
burial artifacts not otherwise protected
under a state law and s. 497 and found
upon or within any public or private land
in the state, including submerged lands.

(2) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this
section:


(a) "Archaeologist" means a person who
is registered by the Society of Profes-
sional Archaeologists with an emphasis in
field research or who, in the judgement of
the State Archaeologist, meets the train-
ing and experience requirements necessary
for such registration.

(b) "District medical examiner" means a
person appointed under s. 406.06 or s.
406.17.

(c) "Division" means the Division of
Historical Resources of the Department of
State.

(d) "Human skeletal analyst" means a
person who possesses a postgraduate degree
in human skeletal biology, human forensic
osteology, or other related area of physi-
cal anthropology and who has a minimum of
1 year of laboratory experience in human
skeletal analysis and reconstruction.

(e) "State Archaeologist" means the per-
son employed by the division pursuant to
s. 267.061(4).

(f) "Unmarked human burial" means any
human skeletal remains or associated buri-
al artifacts or any location where human
skeletal remains or associated burial
artifacts are discovered or believed to
exist on the basis of archaeological or
historical evidence, but which are not
included under s. 872.02.

(3) NOTIFICATION.--

(a) Any person who knows or has reason
to know that an unmarked human burial is
being disturbed, destroyed, defaced, muti-
lated, removed, excavated, or exposed
shall immediately notify the local law
enforcement agency with jurisdiction in
the area where the unmarked human burial
is located.

(b) Any law enforcement agency that
finds evidence that an unmarked human bur-
ial has been disturbed shall notify the
district medical examiner pursuant to
subsection (4).


227







(4) DISCOVERY OF AN UNMARKED HUMAN BURI-
AL.--When an unmarked human burial is dis-
covered other than during an archaeologi-
cal excavation authorized by the state or
an educational institution, all activity
that may disturb the unmarked human burial
shall cease immediately, and the district
medical examiner shall be notified. Such
activity shall not resume unless specifi-
cally authorized by the district medical
examiner or the State Archaeologist.

(a) If the district medical examiner
finds that the unmarked human burial may
be involved in a legal investigation or
represents the burial of an individual who
has been dead less than 75 years, the
district medical examiner shall assume
jurisdiction over and responsibility for
such unmarked human burial, and no other
provisions of this section shall apply.

(b) If the district medical examiner
finds that the unmarked human burial is
not involved in a legal investigation and
represents the burial of an individual who
has been dead more than 75 years, he shall
notify the State Archaeologist, and the
division may assume jurisdiction over and
responsibility for the unmarked human bur-
ial pursuant to subsection (6).

(c) When the division assumes jurisdic-
tion over an unmarked human burial, the
State Archaeologist shall consult a human
skeletal analyst who shall report within
15 days as to the cultural and biological
characteristics of the human skeletal
remains and where such burial or remains
should be held prior to a final disposi-
tion.

(5) DISCOVERY OF AN UNMARKED HUMAN BURI-
AL DURING AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION.--

(a) When an unmarked human burial is
discovered as a result of an archaeologi-
cal excavation and the archaeologist finds
that the unmarked human burial represents
the burial of an individual who has been
dead less than 75 years, the archaeologist
shall notify the district medical examin-
er, and all activity that may disturb the


unmarked human burial shall cease until
the district medical examiner authorizes
work to resume.

(b) If such unmarked human burial repre-
sents the burial of an individual who has
been dead more than 75 years,
archeaological activity may not resume
until the State Archaeologist has been
notified of the unmarked human burial.

(c) Within 15 days after the discovery
of an unmarked human burial, the
archaeologist conducting the excavation
shall report to the State Archeologist his
opinion regarding the cultural and biolog-
ical characteristics of the unmarked human
burial and where human skeletal remains
and associated burial artifacts should be
held prior to a final disposition.

(6) JURISDICTION; DUTIES OF THE STATE
ARCHAEOLOGIST.--The division may assume
jurisdiction over and responsibility for
an unmarked human burial in order to ini-
tiate efforts for the proper protection of
the burial and the human skeletal remains
and associated burial artifacts. Whenever
the division assumes responsibility for an
unmarked human burial, the State
Archaeologist shall:

(a) Determine whether the unmarked human
burial is historically, archaeologically,
or scientifically significant. If the
burial is deemed significant, reinterment
may not occur until the remains have been
examined by a human skeletal analyst des-
ignated by the State Archaeologist.

(b) Make reasonable efforts to identify
and locate persons who can establish di-
rect kinship, tribal, community, or ethnic
relationships with the individual or indi-
viduals whose remains constitute the
unmarked human burial. The State
Archaeologist shall consult with the clos-
est related family member or recognized
community leaders, if a community or
ethnic relationship is established, in
determining the proper disposition of the
remains found in the unmarked human
burial.


228







(c) If he is unable to establish a
kinship, tribal, community, or ethnic
relationship with the unmarked human
burial, determine the proper disposition
of the burial and consult with persons
with relevant experience including:

1. A human skeletal analyst.

2. Two Native American members of
current state tribes recommended by the
Governors Council on Indian Affairs,
Inc., if the remains are those of a Native
American.

3. Two representatives of related commu-
nity or ethnic groups if the remains are
not those of a Native American.

4. An individual who has special
knowledge or experience regarding the
particular type of the unmarked human
burial. If the State Archaeologist finds
that an unmarked human burial is
historically, archaeologically, or
scientifically significant and if the
parties with whom he is required under
this subsection to consult agree, the
unmarked human burial including the human
skeletal remains and the associated burial
artifacts shall belong to the state with
title thereto vested in the division.

(7) REPORT REQUIRED.--The archaeologist
and human skeletal analyst involved in the
archaeological excavation and scientific
analysis of an unmarked human burial shall
submit a written report of archaeological
and scientific findings as well as a sum-
mary of such findings, in terms that may
be understood by lay persons, to the State
Archaeologist within 2 years after comple-
tion of an excavation. The division shall
publish the summary within 1 year after
its receipt and shall make such report
available upon request.

(8) PUBLIC DISPLAY.--

(a) Associated burial artifacts may be
made available on loan by the division for
educational purposes to institutions that
have demonstrated an ability to provide
safe, proper, and respectful care.


(b) The division shall develop guide-
lines and adopt rules regarding the public
display of human remains. Such guidelines
and rules shall not restrict legal, medi-
cal, or educational use of human skeletal
remains, or the display of human skeletal
remains in a manner not objectionable to
groups with a kinship, tribal, community,
or ethnic relationship to the individual
whose remains are displayed.

(9) EXCAVATION NOT REQUIRED.--This sec-
tion does not require excavation of an
unmarked human burial unless circumstances
require excavation to prevent destruction
of the human burial remains.


(10) VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES.--

(a) Any person who willfully and know-
ingly disturbs, destroys, removes, vandal-
izes, or damages an unmarked human burial
is guilty of a felony of the third degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.
775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Any person who has knowledge that an
unmarked human burial is being disturbed,
vandalized, or damaged and fails to notify
the local law enforcement agency with ju-
risdiction in the area where the unmarked
human burial is located is guilty of a
misdemeanor of the second degree, punisha-
ble as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083,
or s. 775.084.

(c) This subsection does not apply to
any person acting under the direction or
authority of the State Archaeologist or
the division.

Section 2. Section 872.02, Florida Stat-
utes, is amended to read:

872.02 Injuring or removing tomb or mon-
ument; disturbing contents of grave or
tomb; penalties.--

(1) A person who willfully destroys,
mutilates, defaces, injures, or removes
any tomb, monument, gravestone, burial
mound, earthen or shell monument contain-


229








ing human skeletal remains or associated
burial artifacts, or other structure or
thing placed or designed for a memorial of
the dead, or any fence, railing, curb, or
other thing intended for the protection or
ornamentation of any tomb, monument,
gravestone, burial mound, earthen or shall
monument containing human skeletal remains
or associated burial artifacts, or other
structure before mentioned, or for any
enclosure for the burial of the dead, or
willfully destroys, mutilates, removes,
cuts, breaks, or injures any tree, shrub,
or plant placed or being within any such
enclosure, is guilty of a misdemeanor of
the first degree, punishable as provided
in s. 775.082 of s. 775.083. However, if
the damage to such property is greater
than $100 or if any property removed is
greater than $100 in value, then he is
guilty of a felony of the third degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.
775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) A person who willfully and knowingly
wantonly and mali iosly disturbs the con-
tents of tomb or grave is guilty of a fel-
ony of the third degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.
775.084.

Section 3. This act shall take effect
October 1, 1987.


James J. Miller, Chief
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399


230









CURRENT RESEARCH


PRELIMINARY REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS AT THE CUTLER FOSSIL SITE (8Da2001)
IN SOUTHERN FLORIDA

Robert S. Carr


In 1979, David and Wonda Simmons climb-
ed into a solution hole location south
of Miami along Biscayne Bay, and col-
lected a large number of fossil bones
and teeth. Fortunately, the Simmons
quickly called the Dade County Historic
Preservation Division and the author
was able to visit the site and persuade
them to discontinue collecting and ex-
cavating at the site. The site was re-
ported to Florida's Division of Archives,
History and Records Management* and re-
corded in the Florida Master Site File
as the Cutler Fossil Site, site number
8Da2001. (*Ed. Note: The Division was
reorganized in July, 1986, as the
Division of Historical Resources. Its
historic preservation functions remain
unchanged.)

The site remained unpublicised and un-
publicised and undisturbed until 1985,
the year that Dade County and the State
of Florida worked cooperatively towards
acquiring the historic and environment-
ally significant Charles Deering Estate
in which the Cutler Fossil Site was
located. Through available Conservation
and Recreation Lands (CARL) trust fund-
ing 368 acres of the Deering Estate was
acquired for $22.5 million dollars.
Ironically, the 35 acre parcel that in-
cluded the fossil site was excluded from
the final purchase plan. One month
after the closing of the sale in August,
1985, the site was seriously vandalized
by a collector who dug two deep holes
from which he removed hundreds of fossil
bones during a one week period. Fortu-
nately, the vandal was caught and the
illicit digging stopped before the
site's integrity was seriously impaired.

Since the site could not be adequately
protected and because of the threat of


further damage, the Danielsons and the
Campbells, who are the owners of the
site, invited the author to begin
archaeological salvage excavations at
site 8Da2001. With the support of the
Archeological and Historical Conserv-
ancy Inc. of Florida, a full time crew
was hired. On October 15, 1985, exca-
vations were begun at the Cutler Fossil
Site.


A base line grid was established on the
site and 22 one meter squares were map-
ped encompassing the entire site. Thus
far, fourteen of these one-meter squares
have been excavated to various depths -
most to approximately 1.5 to 2 meters in
depth. Probing has indicated that an
additional three meter depth of sediment
still remain below the bottom of our
deepest excavated pits.


Three discrete areas of cultural mater-
ials and features have thus far been
identified at the site. First, and most
conspicuous, at an average depth of 1.25
to 1.65 cm below the sediment surface is
an extensive layer of limestone rocks.
Many of these rocks are burned, and in-
termixed among this rock layer, are
hundreds of faunal bones. A large num-
ber of these bones had been burned or
charred. In addition, scores of arti-
facts manufactured from bone, oolitic
limestone, and chert were recovered.
These included two projectile points,
specifically a Dalton-like point and a
Bolen Beveled Corner Notched point.
Some charcoal associated with the hearth
also has been collected, and one sample
subjected to C-14 accelerator dating was
determined to have an age of 9,760 + 120
B.P.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


231


Sept., 1986


Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2









Directly beneath this rocky hearth layer
is a layer about 40 to 50 cm in thick-
ness, of faunal bones. These bones are
generally disarticulated, fragmentary
and cemented with the adjacent soil to
form a rock-hard concretion matrix.

An ongoing analysis of faunal bones from
this level, as well as from other parts
of the site, by Gary Morgan and Steve
Emslie of the Florida State Museum has
identified between 70 to 80 different
species. Fauna include extinct horse,
bison, camel, sloth, peccary, jaguar,
Florida lion and a significant number
of dire wolves. Fine screen sifting
has recovered smaller fauna, such as
shrews, snakes, rats, bats, birds and
the spadefoot toad -- many of which
are sensitive indicators of the micro-
environment of the site and adjacent
area. Morgan and Emslie suspect that
this bone layer represents the floor
of a carnivore's den -- with the dire
wolf being among the best candidates.

Of particular interest to archaeol-
ogists is the fact that this bone
layer has produced no artifacts. How-
ever, some cultural associations at
this deeper level are suggested by
several areas of charred bones and
the recovery of four human teeth.
Some of the charred bones from this
level might be that of extinct bison,
but final identification has not yet
been made.

It is important to note, however,
that burnt bones from the hearth
layer above have been partially
analysed by Steve Emslie, and thus
far, most of these are from extant
species -- with a predominance of
deer and cottontail rabbit.

The third area of culturally relat-
ed material is located directly be-
neath the solutions hole's southern
ledge along the more disturbed
slope of the sediment cone. Arti-
facts and disarticulated remains of
at least two humans have been un-
covered. These bones are directly


associated with extinct fauna, in-
cluding horse and condor, but con-
sidering the possibility of dis-
turbances from animals or digging
from a burial pit, the final demon-
stration of their age will have to
await C-14 dates currently under-
way at the University of Arizona.

It is important to note that dur-
ing the entire time of excavation,
no artifacts diagnostic of the
more recent Tequesta Indians have
been found, and it is the author's
hypothesis that all of the cultural
features and associations date from
ca. 9500-11,000 B.P.

The author would like to take this
time to acknowledge the excellent
support of the Deering Family and
the Archeological and Historical
Conservancy, the field crew under
the supervision of Bill Johnson
and Mark Duda, the field lab super-
vised by Bill Steele, Ruth Gustand,
and the invaluable assistance pro-
vided by the Florida State Museum.


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

April 12, 1986


232









CURRENT RESEARCH


RADIOCARBON DATES FROM THE TATHAM MOUND (8Ci203)

Jeffrey M. Mitchem


Three radiocarbon dates were recently
obtained from samples collected during
the fall, 1985 field season of excava-
tions at the Tatham Mound (8Ci203) in
eastern Citrus County, Florida. The
excavations were conducted by the
Florida State Museum with a crew of
University of Florida students and
volunteers from the Withlacoochee
River Archaeological Council, a
Chapter of the Florida Anthropological
Society. Two of the samples consisted
of charcoal fragments and the third
was partially burned bone from a cre-
mation. One of the charcoal samples
was from the cremation.

The first charcoal sample yielded a
radiocarbon age of 930 70: A.D. 1020
(Beta-15496). This sample was collect-
ed from among secondarily deposited
human bones at or near the interface
between the top two strata of the
mound, and consisted of 11.1 g of
charred wood.

The bone sample from the cremation
yielded an age of 320 60: A.D. 1630
(Beta-15497). The sample was composed
of 388.3 g of partially burned human
bone. In the laboratory, it yielded
1.5% organic carbon, which is consi-
dered an adequate percentage for
dating bone (Murray Tamers, personal
communication 1986). The charcoal
sample from the same provenience pro-
duced an age of 700 + A.D. 1250 (Beta-
15498). This sample consisted of 11.3
g of charcoal. The cremation was
located either at the bottom of the
uppermost mound stratum or on top of
the stratum beneath this.

The dates were somewhat surprising,
especially the 380 year discrepancy


between the bone and charcoal from
the same provenience. Spanish beads
(Nueva Cadiz and faceted chevron
varieties) found with burials in
the top stratum clearly date from
the period A.D. 1500-1560 (Smith and
Good 1982), and all three of the
samples came from the approximate
interface between the uppermost two
strata of the mound.

The two charcoal dates would be ex-
pected from a provenience such as
the base of the mound, where
Englewood Incised pottery has been
recovered. A ceramic thermolumi-
nescence (TL) date from the ground
surface beneath the mound was re-
ported last year (Mitchem 1985).
This age of 740 t 100: A.D. 1210
(Alpha-1940) is similar to the
radiocarbon date on the cremation
charcoal. Another TL sherd sample
in the top mound stratum yielded
a date range of 330 + 50: A.D. 1620
(Alpha-1939). This is within the
range of carbon dates from the bone
sample.

These dates suggest at least two
possible interpretations. The
first is that construction of the
mound was begun in early Safety
Harbor (Englewood) times, with
several episodes of construction
following. Burials were deposited
for a period of time (the mound
being built up rather rapidly),
then the mound was abandoned until
after European contact, at which
time it was used a final time. In
this scenario, the A.D. 1020 date
and another radiocarbon date from
1985 (A.D. 1220; Beta-12678) give
us an approximate date range for


233


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


233


Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2







the temporary abandonment of the
site. The TL date from the sub-
mound surface and the charcoal
from the cremation would have to
be considered anomalous, with the
radiocarbon age of the cremated
bone and the TL date from the top
stratum considered valid and dating
the final episode of mound construc-
tion after a hiatus of several cen-
turies.

The second interpretation (which I
consider more plausible) also would
place the initial stages of mound
construction in early Safety Harbor
(Englewood) times, but with a more
gradual addition of stages to the
mound. The TL date from the sub-
mound surface would be considered
valid as a general date for the
beginning of mound construction.
However, the radiocarbon ages of
the three charcoal samples from the
mound top would be considered
anomalous due to the "old wood"
problem (Johnson et al. 1986),
which refers to accidental inclu-
sion or intentional burning of a
very old post or wood fragment in
the mound fill or cremation pit.
The bone radiocarbon date and the
TL date from the top stratum would
complicate matters in this instance.
They could both be viewed as erring
slightly on the more recent side of
the true date, or they could repre-
sent correct dates for the top
stratum, which was added more re-
cently than previously thought
(Mitchem 1985, 1986; Mitchem et al.
1985:40-41). This final view would
indicate that the people buried in
the mound had curated the glass
beads for at least one or two gen-
erations, which is possible.

More data are needed from the
lower strata of the mound in order
to accurately interpret the mean-
ing of the dates obtained from the
site so far. A third season of ex-
cavations in the fall of 1986 should
clarify the situation.


References Cited

Johnson, R.A., J.J. Stipp, M.A. Tamers, G.
Bonani, M. Suter, and W. Wolfli
1986 Archaeological Sherd Dating: Com-
parison of Thermoluminescence Dates
with Radiocarbon Dates by Beta
Counting and Accelerator Techniques.
Radiocarbon, in press.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1985 New Dates from Eastern Citrus County.
The Florida Anthropologist 38:247-248.
1986 Tatham Mound Excavation Results
(Current Research) The Florida
Anthropologist 39:84-85.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M., Brent R. Weisman, Donna L.
Ruhl, Jenette Savell, Laura Sellers, and Lisa
Sharik
1985 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the
Tatham Mound (8Ci203), Citrus County,
Florida: Season I. Miscellaneous Project
Report Series No. 23. Department of
Anthropology, Florida State Museum,
Gainesville.

Smith, Marvin T. and Mary Elizabeth Good
1982 Early Sixteenth Century Glass Beads in
the Spanish Colonial Trade. Cotton-
landia Museum Publications,
Greenwood, Mississippi.

Submitted by Jeffrey M. Mitchem
Florida State Museum
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611


234







BOOK REVIEW


Review: Florida Archaeology, Number 1.

The Florida Department of State, Division
of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archae-
ological Research has begun a new publica-
tion series, Florida Archaeology. This
review is of the first issue of that
series:
"Bibliography of Florida Archaeology
Through 1980" by Gregory Toole, Nelson
Rowen (sic. Rowan) Comer-Tesar and Mary
LePoer (pp. 1-148); and, "Index to Bibli-
ography of Florida Archaeology Through
1980" by James J. Miller, Yvonne Gsteiger
and David Bradley (pp. 149-235) in
Florida Archaeology Number 1, 1986.
ISSN 0888-4277.

I will begin and conclude this review by
stating that this is an important refer-
ence work that anyone interested in
Florida archaeology should not be without.
That said, I have two distracting comments
First, the second author of the biblio-
graphy, my former spouse, is a capable
researcher who had a legal name change
to Rowan Fairgrove in 1982 following her
move to California, and had begun publish-
ing under that name at the time she worked
on the bibliography. It is an unfortunate
oversight that her name did not appear as
Rowan Fairgrove in this publication's
authorship. Second, the original bibli-
ography project had a 1979 cut-off date.
The addition of 39 citations out of around
200 or more for 1980 does not merit the
claim that the bibliography is inclusive
"through 1980." That said, I will return
to my review comments.

This bibliography and index represent an
important effort. The bibliography is
organized by author in date order follow-
ed by the article title and publication
information or the repository for un-
published manuscripts. Since the text was
produced and sent to the printers prior to
the passage of a 1986 law reorganizing the
Division of Archives, History and Records
Management and renaming it the Division of
Historical Resources effective July 1,


Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2 THE FLORID.


1986, all references to the Division as
the repository for manuscripts should be
read as its current name.

The index comprises around 7500 entries
ordered by county, region and subjects
that occur in titles. It is not intended
to be exhaustive. It does, however,
serve as a useful key for researchers
conducting studies on archaeological
cultures, on artifact types, on site
types, and on various topics.

As indicated above, I recommend acquisi-
tion of this publication: by libraries,
cultural resource management firms and
planning agencies, professional and
avocational archaeologists, anthropo-
logy students and others. This publi-
cation may be ordered by writing to:
FLORIDA ARCHAEOLOGY, Division of
Historical Resources, Department of
State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL
32399. The cost is $8.00 plus 5%
(40) sales tax for Florida residents
payable by check or money order in
advance. Add $1.00 postage for the
first copy, and $0.30 for each addi-
tional copy. A discount is available
to qualified vendors for resale.

Please note that work has already begun
on the next edition. Please advise the
Bureau of Archaeological Research of
any omissions or errors in the first
volume and any publications or manu-
scripts on Florida archaeology which
you have written since 1980. If you
maintain a Florida archaeology biblio-
graphy on cards, or preferably on com-
puter, please call Jim Miller at (904)
487-2299 to discuss the possibility of
incorporating your references in future
supplements. By working together, all
of us benefit.


Reviewed by: Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist
August 15, 1986


A ANTHROPOLOGIST


235


Sept., 1986








THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN is a 21-volume
set reproducing "in facsimile over 370
of the most important articles on a num-
ber of topics in Indian studies." Each
Volume Editor provides an introduction
to the articles in the volume and a
bibliography for further reading. Many
of the reproduced articles are extremely
rare. The volumes in this series are
printed on acid-free, 250-year-life paper.
David Hurst Thomas is the General Editor
for this series, which is published by
Garland Publishing, Inc., 136 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10016.(202) 686-7492.

This is an important series which will be
an asset to any reference library, and
will be of interest to many of our readers.
Reviews of the individual volumes will be
presented in clusters over the next several
issues of The Florida Anthropologist.

Volume 1. The Antiquity and Origin of
Native North Americans, edited with an in-
troduction by Clark Spencer Larsen.

Contents:

I Abbott 1 C L ]ence. I ie u c .r ol Palaeolthi Man in the
[el .1 K anar l\ c \il]]r\ I i Is' l
2 It 'nm I aederl .I:J PaIlao lthc Man in I atern and Central northh
A\mer a \I 1-cu-ion I ,t l e the l oston Societ\ ol Natural Histor\.
lSS7- I \'-IN ISo,
PLtnamr Frrdei \i\ar Remark 9 \lade on Presentation b\ F \Ir lk on
Ith RnI e \ t eeloem t'\ ,i tme'. iP-\ 11\ E l'b.
4 Rus-ell Frank Human iI .n'I m the Tenton I ravIel- A \ (1 )
l5 Home1 Illam ii ] C \ h\ hi 11".' TiYr es oI l,iacil Man :. nhe Trenton
C,ratel j I l'^" i
')n I olin ',\ i; n I';I 1 \l.n In the Dlela- re \a AA
7 tlih1 ikiI Ale, Il._ L i o Ienl. n.\ e\ aind he.- Bc arin
upon Ith \ntol th o \lin i ; h i e0on A\'HH ( nt 102
S trdlick Ale- 'skeletIl 1R m rs lle inl or Attributed F, Earsk V n
S irdlika ,eo:: e Human nur an, Parietal it na Trenoni
[',\l I9 9 I I )
I 1 I Irdhl i ]i I \ I q,
12 V ce/<. I \A I), i;,' wn I ,I } klulx k : the t < I ]e ctior- of the
l] l'hamIi lal. I t ac I'. .1 M n, l '
I L id I X ot Qa I'ie :1 n sll l on1 l -
14 H lo es \iliham Henri I ', hllin r\ r, e\ l ion o, tle Elide.ce RelatIm t,
A urteio s C'L a\e l an in cahlornia \A LI 15 Barcena M1 Ile o .s l \ an t i'e n i \ ,, '" A I
II Bahrbour, F H and It H ard I)c, .eri an arl Type \o: klan in
17 \\ard, i I I'euha4ite~ 01 the \ i'ra-ka \lan I'utM (N '
IS l, orn I enr\ EaL cid [I l sT o\e'\ 'It a I .:ppo-edl\ PIrii '.e a e o,
Vk n in \c baska \1 (11 I)
Sl Irdhka .Ale, I'relmn nan lepor! on Iinnd- it Suppo, eli Ancient
iuman Rema -ns at! \eo !N, Ja I, 1411
2 lir dlik Ales -. ho haped leth \11'illA 120)
21 Ihdhka \!e- ihe I ]n k n)1 i .[ l *\ lLi l\ o, i \lan in Anieic, \ \MNAi
( 112,S)
512 page- I i 4-,42 |B\ 0 -S241l.-S7_- -,0

With the "discovery" of the Americas by
Europeans in the late fifteenth century
came the question: Who were its native
peoples and where did they come from?
Dr. Larsen has gathered a sampling of


historical and scientific literature
that addressed this question.

This volume provides valuable background
on this inquiry. It was the scientific-
ally verifiable work of physical anthro-
pologists, like Ales Hrdlicka, that pro-
vided sufficiently convincing evidence
on the Asiatic origin of Native Americans,
suggested a reasonably certain period for
their arrival in the New World, and dis-
counted the speculative origin theories
variously attributing Atlantis, India,
Scandanavia and Isreal as the source.

The articles in this volume have been
ordered to provide a sense of the his-
tory of the development and resolution
of this issue. They provide a perspec-
tive which would be difficult to obtain
by reading them in isolation, as many
of us have done with those which were
available for use in regional studies,
such as early man in Florida.



Volume 2. A Northern Algonquian Source-
book, papers by Frank G. Speck. Edited
with an Introduction by Edward S. Rogers.


Contents:
I An !n,:ident in lIntagnais W inter lite NatH (1926)
2 Culture Pronhbems in Northeastern North America. PAPS (1926)
3. The Famill Hunting Band as the Basis of Algonkian Social Organization
AA 1915)
4 Game Totems Among the Northeaster ^I_. ..1. (1917)
5 The Social Structure of the Northern .* .-.I. I ---12 (1917).
6 Kinship Terms and the Family Band Among the Northeastern Algonkian
9 11948)
SCorrection to Kinship Terms Among the Northeastern Algonkian. AA
S Moio, Algonkian Scapulmancv from the North and the Hunting Territory
Question thnos (1939)
Sand I oren C Eiselev ) cl-ni fl- n'- f Hunting Territory Systems of the
Algonkian in iSocial Tht I ',
10 The Eastern Algonkian WVabanaki Confederacy AA (1915)
I 1 "Abenakl" Clans-Never' AA (1935)
12 Month anais Naskapi Bands and Early Eskimo Distribution in the
Labrador Peninsula. AA (1931)
13 i-aml\h Hunting Territories and Social Life of the Various Algonkian
Bands of the Ottawa Valley Memoir 70, ....,i. i ; i Series No 8,
Canada Department of Mines C- 1 1 ... I t ,'i
14 Boundaries and Hunting Grou: I r Desert Algonkian. MAIlHFIN
15 -amnil Hunting Territories ot the Lake St John Montagnals Anthropos
(1q_27)
16 Mlistassin Ilunting Territories in the Labrador Peninsula AA (1923)
17 (and Loren C. Eiseley). '1 .-a -,:.-..- I -, Bands and Family Ii;,,i..;.
D1strncts of the Central ., i Ir. I .brador Peninsula. I
(1942)
1S (and WS Hadlock). A Report on Tribal Boundaries and Hunting Areas
of the Malecite Indians of Newv Brunswick AA (1946). Permission
pending
364 pages LC 83-47630 ISBN 0-8240-5876-3 $50

Frank G. Speck (1881-1950), who collected
data among more than 25 Native American
groups, is an ethnologist to whom North
American anthropologists and students of


Sept., 1986


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


236


Vol. 39 No. 3 Pt. 2


BOOK REVIEW







culture in general owe a great debt.
While producing many short descriptive
articles, he never published a full-
length ethnography describing the Northern
Algonquians -- boreal forest "nomads"
participating in the classic fur-trade
economy of the Subartic at the time of
Speck's fieldwork.

Dr. Roger's introductory essay puts
Speck's data and interpretation within
a broader anthropological perspective.
He has assembled Speck's key writings
on the Algonquians of the Eastern
Subartic, primarily the Ojibwa, Cree,
Algonquian, and Montagnais. This
volume, in effect, constitutes the
ethnography Speck never assembled. It
is an important compilation which will
be of interest to researchers of
Eastern Subartic ethnography, history
and aspects of the fur trade in that
area.



Volumes 3-5. An Iroquois Sourcebook.
Edited with an Introduction to each
volume by Elizabeth Tooker.

This sourcebook is presented in three
volumes. In them, Dr. Tooker brings
together a series of significant
articles dealing with Iroquois culture
and society. Preference is given to
original field observations, and the
emphasis throughout is on ethnography,
rather than historical documentation.
Dr. Tooker writes that "the intent of
these three source books is to make
accessible a number of the most sig-
nificant articles on Iroquois culture
and society that have appeared since
the publication of Lewis H. Morgan's
classic League of the Ho-de-no-sau-ne
or Iroquois (1851).

VOLUME ONE: Political and Social
Organization

Contents:
1 Fenton, William N l'roilems Arising from the Historic Northeastern
Position of the Iroquois. SMC (1940).
2 Hewvitt, ].N B. A Constitutional League of Peace in the Stone Age of
America: The League of the Iroquois and Its Constitution. ARSI 1918
(1920)
3. Hale, Horatio. A Lawgiver of the Stone Age PAAAS (1881)
4 Hewitt, I.N.B. 1 ..- of the Founding of the Iroquois League. AA (1892)
5. Henning C.L I.. '. ngin of the Confederacy of the Five Nations
PAAAS (1898)
6. Beauchamp, WM Hi-a-\vat-ha JAF (1891)
7. Hale, Horatio. An Iroquois Condoling Council. A Study ot Aboriginal
American Society and Government PTRSC (1895)


6 Beauchamp, W\M An Iroquois Condolence JAF (1895).
9 Fenton, Wiliamn N An Iroquois Condolence Council for Installing
Ca uga Chiefs in 1145 iWAS (1946)
10 Fenton, William N. The Funeral of Tadodaho Onondaga of Todav IH
(1970)
11 tHewitt, ) N B. The Requisc ...... .1 I of the League of the Iroquois.
In Holimes Aim wersan, H/i ',... .. 1916)
12 Heistt, J.N B, and William N -enton Ihe Requickening Address of the
Iroquois Condolence Council JiWAS (1944).
13 1 ec itt, N B and Wi\lliam N. Fenton. Some Nnemonic Pictographs
Reating to the Iroquois Condolence Council JWAS (1945)
14 Fenton, William N The Roll Call of the Iroquois Chiefs. A Study of a
Mneimonic Cane from the Six Nations deserve SMC(1950)
15 Beauchamp, \illiam M Wampum used in Council and as Currency
AmAnt (1898)
16 Fenton, \illiam N The Ne\ '\trk Wampum Collection: The Case for the
Integrity of Cultural Treasures PAPS (1971)
17 MIorgan, Le\ is H la3s of Descent of the Iroquois PAAAS (1858)
18 Goldenweiser, AIle\ander A On Iroquois iWork, 1912. SRGSC 1912 (1913)
19 Golden ciser, Ale\ander A On Iroquois Work, 1913 14 SRGSC 1913
(1914)
20 Fenton, William N Locality as a Basic Factor in the Development of
Iroquois Social Structure PAEB (1951)
496 pages LC 83-47634 S55 ISBN 0-8240-5877-1

One cannot study American history with-
out reference to the Iroquois confeder-
acy, the League of Five Nations, which
played a dominant military and political
role in the Northeast during the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries. They
controlled the Mohawk Valley, one of two
gateways through the mountains to the
furs of the west, and had easy access to
the other gateway, the St. Lawrence
Valley. However, they could not have
taken advantage of this strategic loca-
tion if the five (later six) tribes had
not united to form the confederacy.

This volume pulls together the primary
literature on their mode of political
and social organization. As with the
other volumes in this series, emphasis
is placed on articles and papers that
appeared in journals and material
available in few libraries. In her
introduction and supplemental bibli-
ography, Dr. Tooker directs the reader
to other more readily available sources.

VOLUME TWO: Calendric Rituals; and,
VOLUME THREE: Medicine Society Rituals.

Contents:

1 Boyle. Da id he Pagan Iroquois Annul ', I .; I Report,
Minister of Education, Ontario for 1898 ( -
2 Hale, Horatio The Iroquois Sacrifice of the White Dog. AmAnt (1885).
3. Beauchamp, Willianm The Iroquois White Dog Feast AmAnt (1885)
4 Beauchamp, William M Onondaga Customs JAE (1888)
5. Beauchamp, William M. Iroquois Notes. JAF (1891)
6. Beauchamp, William M Iroquois Notes JAF (1892)
7 Beauchamp, William M Notes on Onondaga Dances JAF (1893)
8 Beauchamp, William M. Onondaga Notes. JAF (1895).
9 Beauchamp, William M. Iroquois Games JAF (1896)
10. Smith, DeCost. Witchcraft and Demomsm of the Modern Iroquois JAF
(1888) -
11. Smith, DeCost Additional Notes on Onondaga Witchcraft and Hon-do-i
JAF (1889).
12. Smith, DeCost. Onondaga Superstitions: JAF (1889)
13 Kurath, Gertrude P Onondaga Ritual Parodies. JAF (1954) Permission
14 1.,i,..I John Cavuga Midwinter Festival. NYFQ (1946)
15. Converse. Harriett Maxwell Folk-lore Scrap-book JAF (1891).


237







16. Fenton. Wlliam N. The Seneca Green Corn Ceremony. Cons (1963)
17. Fenton. William N. An Outline of Seneca Ceremonies at Coldspring
Longhouse YUPA (1963)
18 Fenton William N. Tonawanda Longhouse Ceremonies Ninety Years
after Lewis Henry Morgan BAEB (1941)
352 pagcN LC 83-47635- $40 ISBN 0-8240-5878 X


Contents, Volume Three
1. Parker. Arthur C. Secret Medicine Societies of the Seneca AA (1909).
2 Dodge, Ernest S. A Cavuga Bear Societ, Curing Rite 1M (1949)
Permission ,.l-..
3 Harringtoni 'l f i. Dark Dance of Ii-ge-onh. Mas (1933)
4 Speck, Frank G Ho%, the De%\ tl'F C,-letv of the Allegany Seneca
Cured Gahehdagowa (FG S ) PI' I :
5 Speck, Frank The Seneca io Coldspring Longhouse, Allegany
Reservation, N.' Another Fagle Dance for Gahehdagowa (FG.5 ) PM
(1949)
6. Harrington, M R. A Dream of Masked Dancers. Mas (1952)
7 Skinner, Alanson Some Seneca Masks and Their Uses.IN-HF (1925)
8 Keppler, Joseph Comments on Certain Iroqauois Masks MAI-HFC (1941)
9 Fenton, William N The Seneca Society of Faces SM (1937).
10 Fenton, William N Masked Medicine Societies of the Iroquols ARSI 1940
(1940)
11 Fenton, Wi.lliam N Some Questions of Classitication, Tvpology, and
Style Paised by Iroquois Masks TN\AS (1956)
12 Fenton, William N, and.Gertrude P Kurath The Feast of the Dead, or
Ghost Dance at Six Nations Reserve, Canada BAEB (1951)
13 Fenton, W'illam N. Sonr s tor the lroquois Longhouse: -,. notes s for
an Album of American Indian Music from the astern !i1-.
Smithsonian Pubhlcation 3691 (1942)
14 Conklin, Harold C and W.illiam C. Sturtevant Seneca Singing Tools at
Coldsprrr I ,_ I .. PAPS (1953)
15 Skinner, I. .. .... Seneca Tobacco Customs IN-HF (1925).
16 Fenton, William N Medicinal Plant Lore ot the Iroquois: Chauncey
Johnny John and James Crox Instruct Ie-lost-a-bet in the Use of Native
Plants LUSN) BS (1949)
17. Fenton, William N Contacts Betw een Iroquois Herbalism and Colonial
Medicine ARSI 1941 (1f42)
18 Hrri,,t.,i MN R, Some Seneca Corn-foods and Their Preparation. AA
19. Hewitt, ) N B. Iroquois Game iof La Crosse AA (1892)
20 Parker, Arthur C Sno\-Snake as Plaved by the Seneca-Iroquois AA
(1909)
21. Deardorff, Merle H The Religion of Handsome Lake Its Origin and
Development BAEB (1951)
360 pages LC 83-47634 S50 ISBN 0-8240-5879-8

The second and third volumes deal with
Iroquois religion. The first collec-
tion focuses on calendric rituals, em-
phasizing the dicotomy between papers
written in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. The second collection ap-
proaches Iroquois religion from the
perspective of medicine society rituals.
Unlike calendric rituals, which are held
in the Longhouse, many rituals of the
medicine societies are held in private
houses. Consequently, data on the more
public ceremonies of the former are
more complete than the latter. Both
volumes assemble primary data on the
Iroquois, and present that data within
the chronological framework in which
they were collected.

An Iroquois Sourcebook is an important
reference work for anthropologists,
sociologists, historians and political
scientists. All three volumes in this
set are worthy of acquisition.

This ends the first in a series of
reviews of the issues in the 21-volume
series, THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN.


This is an important series whose acqui-
sition is recommended. It is noted that
the cost of these permanent volumes is
about what it would cost to photocopy
the individual articles.

To order any of the above cited volumes,
please write or call:

Garland Publishing, Inc.
136 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
(212) 686-7492

European Representives Office:
Garland Publishing
15 Bolton Street
London W1Y 7PA
Tel: 10 493-7642



Individual volumes may be purchased. A
4% shipping cost should be added to the
volume list price. The entire set may
be purchased for $1200. If the complete
set is purchased prepaid, then purchasers
will receive a 10% discount and the ship-
ping charges will be waived. Thus the

complete set may be purchased for $1080
prepaid.


Reviewed by: Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist


238









FIND NEW MEMBERS: EARN BACK ISSUES CREDIT


The Florida Anthropological Society now has a program for its members and
chapters to earn credits toward back issue purchases by getting new members to
join our Society. The membership application form has been changed to include
a space for new members to indicate how they found out about our Society.

A $2.50 credit toward back issue purchases will be given for each new member
who joins and who indicates that you were the person or chapter that got them
to join. (If you wish you may identify yourself in the proper space on forms
which you provide to potential members). This credit will be in addition to
the 10% member's discount for back issues purchases. For FAS Chapters, who
wish to use this program to build chapter libraries, the $2.00 postage and
handling charge will be waived (since there is no 10% chapter discount) when
applying the new member finder's credit for back issue acquisitions. Every
two months, participating members and chapters will be notified of credits
earned during that period. A record of such credits will be maintained by the
Editor.

While membership in our Society is from January through December of each year,
tabulations will be kept from April through March so that certificates may be
awarded at the FAS annual meeting for those individuals or chapters credited
with finding the most, second most and third most new members during that
period. They will also receive $15, $10 and $5 bonus credits respectively to
be used towards back issue purchases.

JOIN/REJOIN THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY

If you are interested in archaeology, ethnology, physical anthropology,
cultural anthropology and associated topics with a focus on Florida and
surrounding areas in the southeastern U.S. and Caribbean, then The Florida
Anthropologist, the journal of the Florida Anthropological Society, and the
papers presented at our annual meeting will be of interest to you. If you
wish to join with professional and avocational archaeologists and others in
efforts to preserve and protect our historic and cultural heritage, then join
the Florida Anthropological Society to achieve that goal. You do not have to
be a resident of Florida to belong to our Society. Your membership fee
includes your subscription to the Society's journal and newsletter. We are a
non-profit organization founded in 1948.

NAME TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP:
ADDRESS NEW RENEWING
CITY REGULAR($12)*
STATE/COUNTRY ZIP FAMILY($18)*
F.A.S. Chapter affiliation INSTITUTIONAL($15)*___
If gift membership, name of donor SUSTAINING($25) _
If new member, indicate how you learned about PATRON($100)
our Society LIFE($150 until Dec.31,1986;
$200 effective Jan.1,1987)
Mail Application to: Membership Secretary,FAS *Foreign subscribers add
P.O. Box 1013 $5 US for postage, etc.
Tallahassee, FL 32302

Make check or money order payable to: Florida Anthropological Society






BACK ISSUES ORDER FORM


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



FA 1(1-2) 1(3-4) OUT OF PRINT
FA 2(1-2)** $10 I 1 -
FA 2(3-4) OUT OF PRINT
PASP No.1 OUT OF PRINT
FA 3(1-2)** $10 x 1 -
FA 3(3-4) $10 x 1 _
PASP No. 2 OUT OF PRINT
FA 4(1-2) $10 x 1 -
FA 4(3-4)** S10 x -
FASP No. 3 OUT OP PRINT
FA 5(1-2)-6(1) OUT OF PRINT
FA 6(2) ** $5 x 1 -
FA 6(3)** S5 x 1 -
FA 6(4)-9(3-4) OUT OF PRINT
FASP No. 4 OUT OF PRINT
FA 10('-2)-11(4) OUT OF PRINT
FASP No. 5 OUT OF PRINT
FA 12(1)-12(3) OUT OF PRINT
PA 12(4)** $5 x 1 -
FA 13(1) OUT OF PRINT
FA 13(2-3)**4--. O(T OF: Pi ,
FA 13(4) **$5 x _
FA 14(1-2)**$10 x 1
FA 14(3-4) *$10 x 1
FA 15(1) $5 x I -
FA 15(2) $** 5 z 1 _
FA 15(3)** 55 x i -
FA 15(4) OCT OF PRINT
FA 16(1) OLT OF PRINT
FA 16(2)1* $5 x 1 -
FA 16(3) OUT OF PRINT
PA 16(4)"* S5 x 1 -
FA 17(1)-18(4) OUT OF FRIN7
FA 19( )*" 55 x 1 -
FA 19(2-3)* $S10 x *
FA :9()** S5 x 1 _
FA 20('-2)-21(') OUT OF PRINT
FA 22(:-4)5 10 x 1 _
FA 23(.)** 55 1 -
FA 23() -l -)l/- OF 1 *
PA 23(3)** $5 1
FA 23(-) OLT OF PRINT
FA 24(:) OLT OF PRINT
PA 24('_'" 8... OUT O0, '//,,VT
FA 24(3); $ 55 1 -
FA 24-(4)" $5 x -


Society.


FA 25(1)** $5 x I -
FA 25(2, Pt. 1)**55
FASP No. 6/FA 25(2,
$7 Ix
FA 25(3)-26(1) OUT


x 1 ___
Pt. 2)

OF PRINT


FA 26(2)'*$5 x 1 -
FA 26(3)**S5 x 1 -
FA 26(4) *-"- 37 O (~ i/
FA 27(1) OUT OF PRINT
FA 27(2)"*$5 x i -
PA 27(3) OUT OF PRINT
FA 27(4)**S5 x 1 -
FA 28(1)**S5 x 1 __
FA 28(2)**$5 x 1 -
PA 28(3, Pt. 1)**$ 5 x 1 -___
FASP No. 7/FA 28(3, Pt. 2) **

FA 28(4)**5 x 1 -
FA 29(1)**$5 x 1 -
FA 29(2, Pt. 1)**S5 x 1 -
PASP No. 8/FA 29(2, Pt. 2) **
$7 x 1 _______________
FA 29(3)**$5 x 1
PA 29(4)**S5 x 1 -
FA 30(1) OUT OF PRINT
FA 30(2)* $5 x 1 -
FA 30(3)* $5 x 1 -
FA 30(4)* $5 x 1 _
FA 31(1)* $5 x 1 -
PA 31(2, Pr. 1)*$5 x 1 -
FA 31(3) $5 x -
FA 31(4. Pt. i)*$5 _-
FASP No. 10/FA 31(4, Pt. 2)
$7 x 1 -
PA 32(1) 55 z -
FA 32(2) $5 x -
PA 32(3) S5 -
FA 32(4) $5 x_-
FA 33(1) 53 z -
PA 33(2) $5 x_
FA 33(33 55 z --
FA 33(4) $5 __
FA 34 ( ) S5 -
FA 3'(2) 55 x_
FA 34(3) $5 x -
FA 34(4) S5 z -


FA 35(1) $5 x -
FA 35(2) $5 x -
FA 35(3) $5 x -
FA 35(A) OUT OF PRINT
FA 36(1-2)510 x -
FA 36(3-4)$10 x -
FA 37(1) $5 x -
FA 37(2) $5 r
FA 37(3) $5 x_
FA 37(4) $5 x
FA 38(1-2, Pt.l) $10 x
FA 38(1-2, Pt.2)/FASP No. 11
$7 x
FA 38(3) $5 x
FA 38(4) $5 x
FA 39(1-2)$10x
FASP No. 12/FA 39(3 Pt.l)
$7 x
FA 39(3 Pt. 2) $5 x =



SUBTOTAL

(less 10% members discount)
(less 10% discount for orders
totalling $100 or more)
(less applicable new member
finders credits)

SUBTOTAL

PLUS postage and handling for
orders under $100 $2.00

TOTAL

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


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.


City


State/Country Zip


Send order to: Editor, Florida
Anthropological Society
Post Office Box 1013
Tallahassee, FL 32302

Make check or money order payable to
Florida Anthropological Society


Please allow 4 to 6 weeks
delivery. Questions should
addressed to the Editor.


for
be




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