• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Cover
 Membership Information
 Table of Contents
 Editor's Page
 DeSoto, Dobyns, and Demography...
 The Mississippian Occupation and...
 Reply to Eubanks
 Response to Eubanks
 Scientific Instruments and Early...
 The Utina: Seriation and Chron...
 A Cache of Points from Bay County,...
 Use-Wear Analysis of Six Projectile...
 BOOK REVIEWS, CURRENT RESEARCH...
 ERRATA: "Aboriginal Societies Encountered...
 Announcement: 42nd Annual Meeting...
 Membership Information
 Table of Contents






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/UF00027829/00025
 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: VID00025
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
    Membership Information
        Unnumbered ( 3 )
    Table of Contents
        Page 1
    Editor's Page
        Page 2
    DeSoto, Dobyns, and Demography in Western Timucua
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    The Mississippian Occupation and Abandonment of the Savannah River
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    Reply to Eubanks
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Response to Eubanks
        Page 43
        Page 44
    Scientific Instruments and Early Explorers in the United States
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    The Utina: Seriation and Chronology
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    A Cache of Points from Bay County, Florida
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
    Use-Wear Analysis of Six Projectile Point/Knives from the Shell Point
        Page 71
    BOOK REVIEWS, CURRENT RESEARCH AND COMMENTS
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    ERRATA: "Aboriginal Societies Encountered by the Tristan de Luna Expedition"
        Page 75
    Announcement: 42nd Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society in Naples
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
    Membership Information
        Page 79
        Page 81
    Table of Contents
        Page 82
Full Text


THE FLORIDA

ANTHROPOLOGIu
VOLUME 43 NUMBER 1
MARCH 1990

Dillard
LC. Few
Nacooches

S eso ChaG
Tugalo

Simpmn's Field-
Clyde Gulley
Van Creek Rucke's Bottom
Tate Rufus Bullard
Beaverd Beaverdam Creek
Sites Group Rembert






SHolly
O


Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.


r'l
rl~~)srl
i-- -,i~9 7





THE FORID AWTHPOLOGST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society Inc., P.O. Box
1013; Tillahassee, Florida 32302. Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is
not restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the united States of america.
Membership is for the calendar year, January 1st through December 31st. Except as otherwise
noted in periodic special offers, membership may be received for any current year by remitting
dues for that year ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH of that year; although, there is a $2 discount
for dues received before February 1st and a $4 late charge for added postage and handling for
dues received after August 1st. Dues postmarked or hand-delivered on October 1st or later will
be applied to membership in the following calendar year. Annual dues are as follows: individual
$18, family $20, Institutional subscription $18, sustaining $25 or more, patron $100 or more,
and life $200. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $5 US to cover added postage and
handling costs for individual, family or institutional memberships categories. Except for back
issues purchases, copies of the journal will only be sent to members with current paid dues.

Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms and notifications of
changes of address should be sent to the Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the
Treasurer or may be routed through the Editor to facilitate acknowledgement in subsequent issues
of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to
the Edlitor. Please follow the American Antiquity style guide in preparing manuscripts for
submission to the journal, and submit five (5) copies for use in peer review. Only one set of
original graphics need be submitted. Newsletter items should be sent to the Newsletter Blitor.
Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue. The
Post Office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist.
Such mail is returned to the Society postage due. We publish the journal quarterly in March,
June, September and December of each year.


OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY


PRESIDENT:
Jerry Hyde
4233 Oristano Road
Jacksonville, FL 32210

SECRETARY:
Kate Hoffman
Florida Museum of
Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611



(Three Years):
J. Raymond Williams
Dept. of Anthropology
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL 33620


FIRST VICE PRESIDENT:
Elizabeth Horvath
P.O. Box 20688
Tallahassee, FL 32601

MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY:
Joan Deming
308 6th Street NE
Largo, FL 34640



DIRECTORS-AT-LARGE

(Two Years):
Robert Austin
P.O. Box 919
St. Petersburg, FL 33731



JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF


SECOND VICE PRESIDENT:
Chris Newman
501 Boating Club Rlad
St. Augustine, FL 32085

TREASURER AND
REGISTERED AGENT:
Richard Estabrook
106 W. Logarto Circle
Apt. B 105
Tampa, FL 33612



(One Year):
Donna Ruhl
Florida Museum of
Natural History
university of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611


EDITOR:
Louis D. Tesar
P.O. Box 1013
Tallahassee, FL
32302


EDITORIAL ASSISTANT:
Joan Deming
308 6th Street NE
Largo, FL 34640


EDITORIAL ASSISTANT:
George Luer
3222 Old Oak Drive
Sarasota, FL 34239


PRINTERS:
Gandy Printers
1800 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL
32301


James J. Miller
Div. of Historical Resources
Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250

John W. Griffin
450 Owens Ave.
St. Augustine, FL 32084


EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD

William H. Marquardt
Florida Museum of
Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

Glen Doran
Department of Anthropology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306


Morgan H. Crook
Dept. of Anthropology
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA 30303


NOTE: In addition to the above lEitorial Board members, the review comments of others
knowledgable in a manuscript's subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process.


NEWSLETTER EDITOR
William (Bill) G. Johnson
P.O. Box 13265
Gainesville, FL 32604


ANNUAL REVIEWS EDITOR
William F. Keegan
Florida Museum of
Natural History
Gainesville, FL 32611


BACK ISSUES SALES
Mickler's Floridiana, nc.
181 West Broadway
P.O. Box 1450
Oviedo, Florida 32765







THE FLORIDA

ANTHROPOLOGIST
VOLUME 43 NUMBER 1
MARCH 1990






TABLE CF CONTENDS PAGE

Editor's Page: FA 43(1) -- March 1990 . . .... .. 2

DeSoto, Dobyns, and Demography in Western Timucua. By John H. Hann .. 3

The Mississippian Occupation and Abandonment of the Savannah River
Valley. By David G. Anderson . . . .... .13

Reply to Eubanks. By Charles Hudson and Marvin Smith . ... 36

Response to Eubanks. By Roland Chardon . . . .... .43

Scientific Instruments and Early Explorers in the United States.
By Dan F. Morse . . . . ... . . 45

The Utina: Seriation and Chronology. By Kenneth W. Johnson and
Bruce C. Nelson . . . .... . . 48

A Cache of Points from Bay County, Florida. By Mary Lou Watson,
Tom Watson and Louis D. Tesar . . . .... 63

Use-Wear Analysis of Six Projectile Point/Knives from the Shell Point
Site (8BY89). By George Ballo . . . . .. 71

BOOK REVIEWS, CURRENT RESEARCH AND COMMENTS . . . .. 72

"Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use", Edited by Christopher J.
Ellis and Johnathan C. Lothrop. Reviewed by Dan F. Morse . 72

"Geological Controls on the Regional Distribution of Archaeological
Sites" Symposium, Geological Society of America.
Reviewed by Kevin McCartney. . . . . 74

ERRATA: "Aboriginal Societies Encountered by the Tristan de Luna
Expedition". Correction submitted by Caleb Curren . ... 75

ANNOUNCIEENT: 42nd Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological
Society in Naples, Florida on April 27-29, 1990; and, concurrent
Florida Archaeological Council Annual M~eting on April 27, 1990 76

Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY,








EDITOR'S PAGE: FA 43(1) -- MARCH 1990


This issue begins my seventh volume
as Editor of The Florida Anthropologist.
It continues efforts to broaden the scope
of the journal and serve as a forum for
both avocational and professional archae-
ologists/anthropologists, historians and
others interested in topics concerning the
Southeastern United States and the Carib-
bean, with a focus on Florida.
The first article, "DeSoto, Dobyns,
and Demography in Western Timucua" by John
H. Hann, reviews historical data for the
Timucua area of northcentral Florida,
critiques the population estimates of
Dobyns and Swagerty, and offers alterna-
tive conclusions. It should be of in-
terest to historians, ethnohistorians, and
anthropologists/historic archaeologists
alike.
The next three articles are
responses to criticisms raised by W. S.
Eubanks in his article "Studying de Soto's
Route: A Georgian House of Cards", which
appeared in The Florida Anthropologist
42(4):369-380. The first, "The Mississip-
pian Occupation and Abandonment of the
Savannah River Valley" by David G.
Anderson, provides the most detailed re-
sponse of the three, and contains numerous
citations to support Anderson's conclu-
sions. The second, "Reply to Eubanks" by
Charles Hudson and Marvin Smith, summar-
izes the problems which they see in
Eubanks' criticism of their work, and
notes that Anderson's article and the re-
sponse by Chardon will cover other topics
of issue. The third, "Response to
Eubanks" by Roland Chardon, as the title
indicates, is Chardon's response to
Eubanks' criticism of his work. The pub-
lishing of this issue was delayed in order
to provide time for their responses to be
conveyed and prepared for inclusion in
this issue. Copies have been sent to
Eubanks, and any forthcoming response by
Eubanks will be provided to them so that
both might be published jointly. It is
believed that this will serve to provide
the reader with a better understanding of
the issues and conclusions involved in the
First Spanish Period of our Nation's
history.


The fifth article, "Scientific In-
struments and Early Exploration in the
United States" by Dan F. Morse, was
submitted to draw attention to a fact
which seems to be overlooked frequently by
those researching early European explora-
tion in the United States. Morse points
to evidence, using the de Soto expedition
as an example, that these explorers did
not wander aimlessly in their travels.
They knew where they wished to go and used
navigation tools, such as the astrolabe,
to plot their position and routes to reach
a desired location.
The sixth article, "The Utina: Seri-
ation and Chronology" by Kenneth W.
Johnson and Bruce C. Nelson, presents
their evaluation and conclusions regarding
ceramics which they identify as diagnostic
indicators of the historic Utina of
northcentral Florida.
The seventh and last article, "A
Cache of Points from Bay County, Florida"
by Mary Lou Watson, Tom Watson and Louis
D. Tesar, is not concerned with the First
Spanish Period. Rather, it describes a
cache of Middle (?) Archaic projectile
points, which was fortuitously found by
Mary Lou Watson, an avocational archaeolo-
gist. The detailed records which Mary Lou
made are combined with an analysis of
other artifacts found at the site to bring
this important discovery to the attention
of other researchers. The article is sup-
plimented by a brief, but detailed analy-
sis by George Ballo, "Use-Wear Analysis of
Six Projectile Point/Knives from the Shell
Point Site (8BY89).
The issue concludes with: a review
by Dan F. Morse of "Eastern Paleoindian
Lithic Resource Use" edited by Christopher
J. Ellis and Johnathan C. Lothrop; a
review by Kevin McCartney of "Geological
Controls on the Regional Distribution of
Archaeological Sites" symposium of the
Geological Society of America; and, an
ERRATA: "Aboriginal Societies Encountered
by the Tristan de Luna Expedition" submit-
ted by Caleb Curren.

Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 43 No. 1


March, 1990









DE SOTO, DOBYNS, AND DEMOGRAPHY
IN WESTERN TIMUCUA

John H. Hann


Introduction

For Western Timucua as a whole and
for its distinct provinces of Ocale,
Potano, Utina, and Yustaga, there are no
early seventeenth-century estimates of the
native population such as there are for
Apalachee at various times during the
first half of the seventeenth century. For
Western Timucua, we have only Fray Martin
Prieto's figures on the population of some
of the Potano villages in 1607 and Fray
Baltasar Lopez's 1602 statement that the
village of the head chief of Timucua and
its four satellite settlements, the future
San Martin de Ayaocuto mission, contained
more than 1500 people when he began his
work there in 1597 (Lopez 1602; Ore
1936:112-114). This lack of data is most
unfortunate in view of Timucua's popula-
tion having been reduced drastically by
disease, rebellion, and flight long before
the first census-like tabulations in 1675
and 1689. For this reason, the fragmentary
demographic data provided by the de Soto
chroniclers, and from French and Spanish
accounts from the 1560s assume great im-
portance for any attempt to calculate what
the population might have been early in
the sixteenth century before contact.
It is fortunate that de Soto's trek
took him through much of the length and
breadth of the four Western Timucua pro-
vinces and that the chroniclers left rela-
tively detailed accounts of de Soto's ex-
periences in parts of that territory. It
is unfortunate, however, that the most
detailed account and the one the gives the
most specific demographic data is the work
by Garcilaso de la Vega. He is the least
reliable of the de Soto chroniclers and he
provides a particularly muddled account of
de Soto's journey from Ocale to Apalachee.
Since French and Spanish contacts
with Western Timucua in the second half of
the sixteenth century were much more
limited than were de Soto's, some of the


information they provide must be viewed
with circumspection. This is particularly
true of French reports on this inland
region, which were based on communication
rather than on observation, as there is no
indication of the adequacy of interpretive
service, if any, to which the French had
access. Cautious use of the material has
not always prevailed. That stricture is
especially applicable to the recent essay,
"Timucuan Population in the 1560s," by
Henry F. Dobyns and William R. Swagerty
(Dobyns 1983:147-211) in its sections de-
voted to Western Timucua. I intend to
present and analyze the data for Western
Timucua provided by the de Soto accounts
and French sources from the 1560s and
critique their use in the above-mentioned
essay.

De Soto Chronicles Data

The following is the information of
demographic potential provided by de Soto
chroniclers. Biedma described Ocale as a
small village, while Ranjel noted that its
surrounding countryside had a good supply
of maize (pueblo de buena comarca de
malz). The Fidalgo de Elvas also reported
that there was much maize in Ocale and
that de Soto found enough there to last
them for three months (Elvas 1932:32;
Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes 1851(I):550;
Smith 1857:48). Garcilaso was the most
effusive, observing, "Similarly, they
found this province of Ocali to be more
abundant in provisions than the others we
have spoken of, both because there were
more people in it who might cultivate the
land and because it was more fertile of
itself. And that very thing was noted in
all the provinces that these Spaniards
traversed throughout this great kingdom,
that the farther inland the land was and
the more distant from the sea, the more
heavily peopled and settled it was"
(Gonzalez Barcia Carballido de Zuniga


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 43 No. 1


March, 1990









1723:49). Garcilaso went on to note that
after traveling through 12 uninhabited
leagues, de Soto's men went through
"another seven of uninhabited land, with
few houses, scattered through the fields,
without the semblance of a village. This
manner of settlement prevailed through all
the seven leagues. At the end of them was
the principal village, named Ocali, like
the province itself and its cacique .
The village had six hundred houses .
where they found a great deal of food,
from maize and other seeds, and vege-
tables, and different fruits such as
prunes, nuts, raisins, and acorns"
(Gonzalez Barcia Carballido de Zunfiga
1723:48-49). As the Spaniards were laying
plans for bridging a substantial stream,
which served as the province's northern
boundary, more than 500 Ocale archers came
out to challenge them.
After de Soto crossed into Potano,
the next province to the north, the
Fidalgo recorded that "He went to a small
settlement called Ytara to sleep; and the
next day at another that was called
Potano, and the third to Utinama. And then
to Bad Peace" (Elvas 1932:33). At
Bad Peace many Indians surrounded the
settlement, staying close to the woods.
From there the Spaniards went to sleep at
a settlement named Cholupaha. Because of
Cholupaha's abundant supply of maize, the
Spaniards named it Fat City. In going from
Cholupaha to Aguacaleyquen, the first
village in the next province to the north,
de Soto traveled for two days through
uninhabited lands (Elvas 1932:33-34).
Ranjel described Itara as a "fine settle-
ment and with an abundance of maize"
(Ferna'ndes de Oviedo y Valdes 1851(I):
551). He then went on to mention de Soto's
passage through Potano, Utinama, Bad
Peace, and an unnamed "pretty settlement
where they found a great deal of food and
many small, very flavorful dried chest-
nuts, wild chestnuts" (Fernandez de Oviedo
y Valdes 1851(I):551). Thus, Ranjel's
account here closely follows that of
Elvas. From Cholupaha, in the Fidalgo's
account, they went forward to a river,
which served as Potano's northern boundary
and for the next two days the Spaniards
"passed through uninhabited lands" (Elvas


1932:33-34) to reach Caliquen (Aguacaley-
quen in the Ranjel and Biedma accounts).
For them, de Soto's journey from his
crossing into Potano until he reached
Aguacalequen seems to have consumed at
least seven days.
In Garcilaso's account there appears
to be no province of Potano, only 16
leagues of an unpopulated but pleasant and
well-watered land, which would be fertile
if cultivated. On crossing these 16
leagues in what seem to have been about
four days, de Soto came to a "settlement
named Ochile, which was the first one (el
primero)* of a great province that had
Vitachuco as its name. [* Note: The
Varners (1951:129) rendered this as "the
principal village of vitachuco" even
though it is obvious, from what follows,
that is was not.] This province was very
large. In the part that the Spaniards
passed through, it had more than fifty
leagues of trail" (Gonzalez Barcia
Carballido de Zuniga 1723:51). Garcilaso
described Ochile as having 50 large and
strong houses "because it was on the
frontier and a defensive post against the
neighboring province, which lay behind,
which was an enemy" (Gonzalez Barcia
Carballido de Zuf'iga 1723:52). Garcilaso
described the chief's house as "most
handsome," noting that "It was all one
room, of a length of more than one hundred
and twenty paces and forty in width .
Round about the great room, joined to it,
there were many lodgings (Aposentos) on
the outside, which opened into the inside
of the room, like workshops of it (pegados
a ella, avia por de fuera, muchos
Aposentos, los quales se mandavan por de
dentro de la Sala, como oficinas de ella)"
(Gonzalez Barcia Carballido de Zuiiga
1723:52). [Note: oficinas might be
rendered also as "offices," and it
additionally has the sense of the lower
apartments in houses, such as cellars.
The Varners (1951:130) rendered como
oficinas as "like apartments." Except for
its oblong shape, Garcilaso's structure
appears to have been a Florida council
house, which it probably was. Garcilaso
may have been using his imagination in
distorting its shape.] From what follows
in Garcilaso's account, his Ochile seems








to have been the Aguacalequen or Caliquen
of the other three accounts.
Biedma described Aguacaleyquen as "a
moderately-sized settlement (razonable
poblazon)" (Smith 1857:48). From Aguaca-
leyquen on, Ranjel observed, the land
seemed more populous and better provi-
sioned. On seeing those changes, de Soto
was both constrained and emboldened to
send at once for the force he had left
behind at Ocale with Luis Moscoso.
According to Ranjel, after leaving Aguaca-
leyquen, de Soto slept the first night at
an unnamed small settlement and then
passed on to Uriutina, described as having
a "very large council house (buhio) in the
middle of which there was a large open
space grann patio)" (Ferna'ndez de Oviedo y
Valdes 1851(1):552). Uriutina was
described also as having "a good popula-
tion in its vicinity" (Fernandez de Oviedo
y Valdes 1851(I):552). Just as Cholupaha
could well have been the future Santa Fe
mission, de Soto's Aguacaleyquen may be
the settlement that would become San
Martin de Ayaocuto mission. But in de
Soto's time, Aguacaleyquen's chief was not
head of the province, as was the chief of
San Martin when the mission was esta-
blished there. The chief of Aguacaleyquen
of the de Soto era, however, was related
to the head chief and was a leader of
importance in view of the concern express-
ed by other settlements over de Soto's de-
tention of Aguacaleyquen and his daughter.
From Uriutina, de Soto went on to Many
Waters and from there, when the rains
permitted, on to Napetuca, portrayed by
Ranjel as "a very fine (alegre) settlement
in an exquisite spot and with much food"
(Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes 1851(I):552-
553).
Of the route immediately beyond
Aguacaleyquen, the Fidalgo noted only that
in five days of travel de Soto passed some
small settlements before reaching Nape-
tuca, where the natives' resentment of
Aguacaleyquen's detention led to confron-
tation and conflict with de Soto's forces.
The Fidalgo recorded that the people at
Napetuca asked for release of Aguacaley-
quen, confronting de Soto with 400 war-
riors to lend weight to that request
(Elvas 1932:34-37). Ranjel added that


seven chiefs assembled there to press the
request, as subjects of the province's
head chief, Uzachile, who lived farther
west beyond the River of the Deer (the
Suwannee). As an enticement, the chiefs
offered that they and Uzachile would
assist the Spaniards against the Apala-
chee, enemies of Uzachile. In de Soto's
armed encounter with the 400 warriors
mentioned by the Fidalgo, 30 or 40 were
lanced by the horsemen and about 200, who
fled into the smaller of two nearby lakes
and were trapped there, were taken
prisoner. Ranjel stated only that many
were speared, but that 300 were captured
from the water, including five or six
caciques (Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes
1851(I):552-553). Biedma set the number of
native warriors at about 350, noting that
some were killed and the rest captured
(Smith 1857:48).
As I have briefly noted already,
Garcilaso's account of the march forward
from Ocale diverges sharply from the
accounts of the other chroniclers until
the Spaniards arrive at Napetuca, which
Garcilaso called Vitachuco, and whose
chief Garcilaso made chief of this pro-
vince, rather than Uzachile. But Garci-
laso's account of hostilities at Vitachuco
and his description of its environs, par-
ticularly the two nearby lakes, make it
clear that Garcilaso's Vitachuco is the
Napetuca of the other accounts and that at
this point all four accounts converge,
except for Garcilaso's use of different
names. According to Garcilaso, de Soto
traveled from Ocale to Ochile to Vitachuco
without encountering any intervening vil-
lages. [Note: During this span, the sole
convergence of Garcilaso's account with
other accounts is his having de Soto cross
two substantial rivers difficult to
bridge, one as de Soto left Ocale province
and the other before he entered Ochile,
portal to his Vitachuco Province (Gonzalez
Barcia Carballido de Zuniga 1723:51-64,
65-69).]
Garcilaso obviously confused Napetu-
ca with Apalachee's Ivitachuco, moving
Ivitachuco into Timucua territory, as
there is a void in his description of de
Soto's entry into Apalachee that parallels
Garcilaso's obliteration of Potano. And in
making his Vitachuco the head settlement,








Garcilaso probably confused it with Uza-
chile as well, although on that point he
could be talking about Apalachee's Ivita-
chuco. In the seventeenth century,
Apalachee's Ivitachuco was the head vil-
lage in prestige at least. Therefore,
except for data from the battle scenes
corroborated by the other chroniclers and
possibly the blood relationship between
the chiefs of Ochile-Aguacaleyquen and of
Vitachuco-Napetuca, there is nothing in
Garcilaso's account between Ocale and
Apalachee in which one can have confidence
that he was talking about Timucua's Nape-
tuca rather than Apalachee's Ivitachuco or
Yustaga's Uzachile, or that he was not
simply using his imagination to embellish
the narrative. The sharp divergence
between Garcilaso and the Fidalgo seems to
rule out the suggestion by David Henige
(1986:21) that the Fidalgo's account may
have provided "major orientation for
Garcilaso's writing." That seems unlikely
for this portion of the narrative at
least.
In the accounts of the Fidalgo and
of Ranjel, de Soto, after leaving Nape-
tuca, crossed the River of the Deer to
Hapaluya-Apalu, described by the Fidalgo
as "a large settlement" (Elvas 1:38). From
there de Soto went on to Uzachile and then
Asile, westernmost of the Timucuan settle-
ments (Elvas 1932:38-39; Fernandez de
Oviedo y Valdes 1851(I):553-554).
Similarly, in Garcilaso's account, de Soto
marched to a great river that marked the
boundary between two provinces. But
Garcilaso mentioned no settlement between
the river and his Osachile. For Garcilaso,
Osachile was simply another town and pro-
vince on the trail to Apalachee with no
apparent tie to his Vitachuco. For the
other chroniclers, Uzachile's chief was
paramount for all the territory between
Aguacaleyquen and Apalachee.
Garcilaso described Osachile as a
small but well-populated province. Its
head settlement lay six leagues from the
river through two leagues of "land without
woods" and then four leagues of planted
fields in which "the settlement began,
with houses scattered and distant from one
another without the order of a village .
Sup to the principal village called
Osachile" (Gonzalez Barcia Carballido de


Zuniga 1723:69). Garcilaso's Osachile had
200 large and good houses and impressive
ceremonial mounds, which he described in
detail, saying that they and the layout he
portrayed were typical of all the villages
of Florida, except where there was a
natural hill that obviated the need to
build one (Gonzalez Barcia Carballido de
Zuniga 1723:69-70).

French Demographic Data

The demographic potential of French
sources of the 1560s is represented by
statements that the king of Houstaqua was
"so powerful that he could command three
or four thousand savages in battle"
(Bennett 1975:116) and that when Chief
Outina set out to do battle with Potano,
he led 300 archers, and that Outina's
jarua or shaman-diviner told Outina that
Potano would be supported by at least
2,000 Indians (Bennett 1975:118-119, 120).
There is no indication whether the 2,000-
man estimate was based on hard intelli-
gence or on the shaman's supposed powers
of clairvoyance.

Dobyns' Demographic Calculations

With such meagre data, much of it
from very questionable sources, and, as
Kathleen Deagan (1984:214) phrased it,
some innovative and instructive methods in
using the data, Dobyns' 1983 work on
Florida demography posited a number of
estimates of Florida's possible Timucua-
speaking population in the 1560s. These
ranged from a minimum of 130,500 to about
800,000 or a little more. These estimates
appear in Essay Four, coauthored by Dobyns
and Swagerty. They designed their essay
"to cross check the population estimates
presented in earlier essays against his-
torical descriptions of the peoples of
Florida" (Dobyns 1983:148, 186, 204-208).
Earlier essays by Dobyns alone estimated
potential populations based on the land's
carrying capacity (Dobyns 1983:33-146,
passim).
One of Dobyns and Swagerty's esti-
mates presents their calculations of
"Timucuan Chiefdom Populations During the
1560s, Based on Reports of Army Size"









(Dobyns and Swagerty 1983:186). This is
the estimate that produced a minimum-range
population of between 130,500 and 144,000,
using a multiplier of five to translate
"army-size" data into total population
figures. Some of their reckonings of army
size are based on actual reports, while
others are manufactured estimates or
extrapolations based on Dobyns' "principle
of numerical parity of battle forces"
(Dobyns and Swagerty 1983:178), that is,
that in order to survive as an independent
entity, a chiefdom had to be able to
mobilize forces equivalent to those of the
enemy chiefdoms on its borders. In this
minimum estimate, for the provinces of
Western Timucua, Dobyns and Swagerty
(1983:186) postulated for

1. Ocale, 15,000 people, based on an
"estimated" army size of 3,200;
2. Potano, 10,000-16,000 people, based on
a reported army size of 2,000+ and an
"estimated" army size of 3,200;
3. Utina, 15,000 people, based on a
reported army size of 3,100;
4. Yustaga, 15,000-20,000 people, based
on a reported army size of 3,000-4,000.

Based on the experience of Wbodrow Borah
and Sherburne F. Cbok in central Mexico,
the authors felt that estimates based on
army-size reports were conservative,
noting, "COnsequently, we do not present
our estimates of Timucuan population based
upon army sizes as other than
minimal approximations ." (Dobyns and
Swagerty 1983:186).
In the belief that the above extra-
polations "may underestimate true popula-
tions" (Dobyns and Swagerty 1983:186), if
the Florida situation was parallel to
Mexico, the authors elaborated other tech-
niques yielding higher population totals.
The most extreme of those estimates the
authors based on their belief that
"Scattered European statements about
numbers of towns in certain Timucuan-
speaking chiefdoms, the number of large
dwellings in sample towns, and the number
of people residing in representative large
houses, permit the estimation of the
number of Timucuan-speakers inhabiting
northern Florida and southeastern Georgia
in the 1562-1568 period" (Dobyns and


Swagerty 1983:204). That estimate produced
the author's figure of 800,000 Timucua.
Under those criteria the authors
postulated the following populations for

1. Ocale, 60,000 people on the basis of
2+ settlements;
2. Potano, 100,000 on the basis of ?
settlements;
3. Utina, 100,000 on the basis of 40+
settlements;
4. Yustaga, 100,000 on the basis of ?
settlements (Dobyns and Swagerty
1983:205).

Comments on Dobyns and Swagerty's Wbrk

The authors have done scholarship a
service in challenging views prevailing in
the past, which set Florida's prehistoric
and early historic-era populations at very
low levels, which, they note, are still
reflected in works such as "the standard
state history" and articles published
within the last quarter century (Dobyns
and Swagerty 1983:148-149). However, one
might wonder whether the circa 1650
figures for Timucua given by James Mboney,
which they cite, are far off the mark. If
anything, Mooney's figure of 3,000 for
Potano in 1650 is very over-generous.
Unless there were many more Potano
villages than the five that we know of
when Fray Prieto began his work there in
1607, a total of 3,000 Potano would
probably be more than adequate for the
year 1607, before the epidemics of 1614-
1617 took their toll. It is worthy of note
that the five Potano mission villages
match the five settlements of the de Soto
era. Mooney's figure of 1,000 for Yustaga
circa 1650 is not unreasonable. The same
might be said for Dobyns and Swagerty's
15,000 to 20,000 Yustaga in the 1560s. But
the remainder of their calculations for
the population of Western Timucua, even
those on the conservative side, are open
to serious question.
Dobyns' work as a whole (and
jointly-authored Essay Four in particular)
has been criticized already. One reviewer
characterized their approach thus:
Accept the highest of the occasional
comments by early observers on the size of
villages, the occupancy of houses, the








population of small regions, the number of
warriors on specific occasions, and the
like, and choose multipliers that will
yield the largest total population. Adopt
the round-number estimates, including
those attributed to Indians, as if they
reflected essentially modern attitudes
toward enumeration, and do not consider
the possibility of self-serving bias in
early reports. Overlook the striking
disparities common even in modern esti-
mates, such as those of the sizes of
crowds of demonstrators in the United
States during the 1960s and early 1970s
(Sturtevant 1984:1381).

Severe as is that critique of the jointly
authored essay on Timucua in general,
Dobyns and Swagerty's conclusions for
Utina, Potano, and Ocale are even more
fundamentally flawed. Their data for Utina
derives from an uncritical identification
of the Chief Outina of the 1560s with the
Utina Province of the de Soto chronicles
and the mission era. Much of their data
for Potano proceeds from uncritical and
flawed use of data from Garcilaso's mud-
dled account of de Soto's progress from
Ocale to the Suwannee River. They com-
pounded Garcilaso's errors by treating de
Soto's progress from Ochile to vitachuco
and the conflicts at Vitachuco-Napetuca as
though they took place in Potano rather
than in Utina. For Ocale, their calcula-
tions are based largely on data from the
highly questionable Garcilaso account,
which is not corroborated in other
accounts (Dobyns and Swagerty 1983:176-
181).

Conclusions

Careful reading of the de Soto
chronicles and French and Spanish sources
for the 1560s reveals that de Soto's Utina
Province is distinct from the territory
controlled by the chief Outina of the
1560s and suggests that de Soto's Utina is
the northern Onatheaqua of French sources.
French sources' use of the name Onatheaqua
has led most authorities to posit a fifth
shadowy Western Timucua tribe bearing that
name, despite the name's absence in a near
200-year span of Spanish documents. More
cautiously, Jerald Milanich (1978:60)
suggested that as "Later documents do not


refer to such a tribe in north-central
Florida it seems best to delete them
from the list of Timucuan tribes until
there is more evidence concerning their
existence." Deletion may not be necessary.
An alternative is to identify the
Onatheaqua of French sources with the
Utina of de Soto and the mission era.
The coincidence of Cnatheaqua and
Utina has not been perceived earlier
because many authorities have mistakenly
identified Chief Outina of French and
Spanish sources from the 1560s and his
territory with the de Soto and mission-era
Utina Province, which lay farther west and
north than did the territory of Chief
Outina of the 1560s. Milanich (1978:71) is
an exception, having raised the possi-
bility "that Indians with a chief named
Utina with whom the French intrigued were
not the mission Indians of the tribe
Utina," noting that "Utina is a Timucuan
word meaning chief or king and the usage
might have been widespread through the
area in which Timucua was spoken."
In identifying 1560s-era Chief
Outina's territory with the mission pro-
vince of Utina, researchers have glossed
over the problem of that Chief Outina's
territory being described as lying south
of Potano and extending well upriver on
the St. Johns to the vicinity of Mayaca
(south of Palatka). Earlier de Soto and
later mission-era documents place Utina
north of Potano and suggest that the Santa
Fe River was that Utina's southern limit.
Authorities who place Utina territory as
far east as the St. Johns River also
ignore the differing ceramic traditions
extending back through Weeden Island times
and up through the mission era, which
distinguish St. Johns river sites, such as
the Rollestown site, from the Leon-
Jefferson-type ceramics of the Utina mis-
sions or those of the earlier McKeithen-
Weeden Island culture (Milanich et al.
1984:11, 15, 23, Figures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3;
Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:91, 149,
Figures 17, 27).
Early usage of the generic name,
Timucua, is another source of the con-
fusion of the 1560s Chief Outina with
seventeenth-century Utina Province.
Rendered as "Thimogua," the name first
appeared in French accounts of the 1560s








as applied by Chief Saturiwa to the people
subject to Chief Outina, who lived on or
close to the upper St. Johns River. The
French believed that Saturiwa used the
term to designate those people as his
enemy (Bennett 1975:66; Lorant 1946:52,
Note 6). Timucua must have had other
meanings, as Spaniards were using it by
the 1590s to designate specifically the
people of the future mission province of
Utina--clearly another restrictive use of
the term, but without the connotation of
"enemy" (LDpez 1602). These early appli-
cations of the name Timucua in a specific
sense to both the mission province of
Utina and the people of the 1560s Chief
Outina living on the St. Johns River is
doubtless a factor that has led scholars
to push aside considerations that indicate
they were not the same people.
With all its inadequacies, the Le
Moyne map (Lorant 1946:34-35) also por-
trays the distinctness of Utina Province
from the 1560s Chief Outina and is compa-
tible with the northern Onatheaqua being
seventeenth-century Utina Province. The
"Utina" of Chief Outina is considerably
south of Potanou, while Onatheaqua is
north of Potanou and associated with
Oustaca and Apalatci on the edge of the
mountains. The map makes it evident that
Le Moyne's grasp or recollection of
Florida's geography was severely defi-
cient. But the same distortion is found in
Laudonniere's written accounts on which Le
Moyne appears to have heavily depended.
Laudonniere described Cnatheaqua and
Houstaqua as "powerful and wealthy lords .
. who lived near the high mountains"
(Bennett 1975:77). Utina Province's
northward thrust into southern Georgia is
a reason why the French might have
conceived of Onatheaqua as reaching into
the mountains (Hann 1986a:381-383). Addi-
tionally, French references to Oustaca and
Onatheaqua suggest that they may have been
allies, as were the Yustaga and the Utina
in both the de Soto and mission eras.
Jacques Le Moyne's reference to the St.
Johns river Chief Outina's being kept out
of the Apalatcys mountains by the three
chiefs, Potanou, Onatheaqua, and Oustaca,
could be interpreted as indicating an
alliance between the three or two of them,
as does Laudonniere's observation that the


Indians of Onatheaqua and Oustaca painted
their faces black while the allies of
Chief Outina painted theirs red (Bennett
1975:77; Lorant 1946:48; Lussagnet 1958:
102-103).
Consequently, if Chief Outina of the
1560s represents a polity distinct from de
Soto's Utina, as seems evident that he
does, then all of Dobyns and Swagerty's
population calculations for Utina Province
of the mission era are without foundation.
Their calculations are based on data drawn
from allusions to the 1560s chief. This
conclusion is true whether or not one
accepts the identification of mission-era
Utina with Onatheaqua.
Similarly, many of their calcula-
tions for Potano, based on their flawed
interpretation of the already-flawed
Garcilaso account, are not applicable to
Potano. Careful comparative reading of the
four de Soto chronicles reveal that the
settlements Garcilaso called Ochile and
VItachuco are the Aguacaleyquen and
Napetuca of the other chroniclers, which
most authorities would agree were in the
region known as Utina Province in the
seventeenth century. In the Fidalgo and
Ranjel accounts, de Soto had passed
through Potano Province before reaching
Aguacaleyquen. Although Garcilaso never
mentioned the name Potano and described
the region north of Ocali, where Ranjel
and the Fidalgo placed Potano, as
uninhabited, Dobyns and Swagerty equate
Ochile and Vitachuco with Potano. Thus
they speak of the "Potano Headchief"
coming "out of his capitol (vitachuco) to
greet de Soto" with a 500-man "palace
guard" and as having mobilized "nearly
10,000 warriors to oppose the Spaniards"
(Dobyns and Swagerty 1983:179). If there
was any foundation in reality for
Garcilaso's inflated figures, they pertain
to Yustaga's Uzachile or Apalachee's
Ivitachuco rather than to Utina's Nape-
tuca, as the other three chroniclers agree
in giving drastically lower figures for
the warriors involved in the events at
Napetuca. By itself, Garcilaso's trans-
ferral of the name Vitachuco from
Apalachee to Timucua should have raised
doubt as to the reliability of Garcilaso's
account for that portion of de Soto's
trek.









The same strictures apply to Dobyns
and Swagerty's use of Garcilaso's descrip-
tion of Ocali as a veritable megalopolis,
in Florida terms, with its 600 dwellings.
The other chroniclers give no hint of such
a metropolis there, and Biedma actually
contradicts that image, describing Etocale
as a small village.
The authors' use of the parity prin-
ciple might be faulted for its assumption
that, for those provinces to survive,
their forces had to be at something
approaching an equilibrium. That assump-
tion seems to presume that the natives
warred against each other in all-out
struggles in the European fashion. Such a
belief does not seem to be founded on
reality. In the Southeast, Indian warfare
seems to have consisted mainly of
relatively small-scale surprise attacks or
raids on a single village for the taking of
a few scalp-trophies and capture of a few
of the enemy to sacrifice or enslave. Just
such a tactic is revealed in the disgust
of the French auxiliaries who assisted
Chief Outina in an attack on Potano; Chief
Outina insisted in breaking off the attack
and returning home to celebrate after
achieving his limited objective of in-
flicting damage on Potano. Outina was not
interested in pursuing the struggle to
defeat Potano decisively, as the French
wished to do in conformity with the
European idea of what war was all about
(Bennett 1975:117-121).

Alternative Population Estimates

The most that it is possible to do
with the demographic data from the de Soto
chronicles and French accounts from the
1560s--with the possible exception of the
figure of 3,000 to 4,000 warriors for
Yustaga in the 1560s--is to make relative
generalizations. As de Soto's forces moved
into Utina territory, they noted that the
land was much more heavily populated than
territories through which they had pre-
viously passed. Thus Utina seems to have
been considerably more heavily populated
than was either Ocale or Potano. The 3,000
to 4,000 warriors for Yustaga is not
unreasonable in view of the richness of
the Province's soil and Yustaga's possess-


ion then of the seat of the paramount
chief for Utina and Yustaga. There are no
solid figures for the other provinces of
Western Timucua in the sixteenth century.
Solid figures for Florida in 1675
challenge another of Dobyns' theses ex-
pressed elsewhere in his 1983 work. I
allude to his belief that pandemics spread
inexorably throughout the hemisphere with
equal force from the point of origin in
the Caribbean or Central Mexico or
Guatemala. Census figures for Florida in
1675 and a mid-1650s statement by
Florida's governor suggest that there was
security proportionate to one's settle-
ment's distance from the presumed center
of contagion at St. Augustine. The 1675
records show an interesting spatial-
temporal demographic pattern, indicating
that Western Timucua as a whole was in a
parlous state, with a total population of
only a little over 1330, fewer people than
were in Apalachee's San Luis. A vast
majority of those 1330+ people were
Yustaga. The four Yustaga missions con-
tained 940+ persons, compared to 220 for
the three surviving Utinan mission and 170
at Potano. Yustagan predominance was
probably even greater. Records indicate
that Yustagans may have been relocated
eastward to revive Guacara and Santa Fe in
1659. Thus, as one moved eastward along
the mission trail from Apalachee's San
Luis, the population declined steadily or
one might say abruptly, once one crossed
the Suwannee, reaching a low of 40 at
Salamototo at the St. Johns River cross-
ing. This is all the more surprising, in
view of Apalachee's occasional direct
contact with Havana, a major source of
contagion. It is as if ripples from a
pebble of contagion, dropped into the
demographic puddle at St. Augustine,
became increasingly attenuated in their
impact as they moved out from the center.
There is undoubtedly a temporal component
in this as well, since regions with the
smallest surviving populations had the
longest sustained contact with the
Spanish. Results were probably also skewed
to some degree by Governor Rebolledo's
policies of repression and relocation,
which affected Utina and Potano more
severely than they did Yustaga. Yustaga









was much more solidly represented at the
1657 general visitation than was the rest
of the region, even though Yustaga
participated in the revolt and even tried
to enlist the Apalachee as well (Hann
1986a:374-375, 378, 381, 383, 389-90;
1986b:102-106, 117, 118, 127, 128-9; Hita
Salazar 1675).
Finally, Dobyns and Swagerty's ex-
pansion of Western Timucua to include
Tocobaga as well as their inclusion of the
Mocozo among the Timucua-speakers seems
unwarranted (Dobyns and Swagerty 1983:
151). For the inclusion of the Tocobaga,
they cite Milanich (1978:63-69). Milanich
did not mention Tocobaga between pages 63
and 69. In reality, Milanich (1978:63-69)
took an opposite stance, disagreeing with
John M. Goggin's inclusion of the 'ocobaga
among Timucua-speakers. Milanich stated
that "There is no evidence, either direct
or indirect, that the central Gulf coast
Indians spoke Timucuan; rather it seems
that J.W. Powell (1891:123-124), in his
Linguistic Families of America North of
Mexico, inadvertently included the Tampa
Bay and middle Gulf Coast in his Timucuan
linguistic area. Later researchers,
referring to Powell, cited the area as
Timucuan (Swanton 1946:193; 1952:147-50)."
That Mcozo also lay beyond the range of
Timucua-speakers is indicated by the
identification of the Mayaca and Jororo,
who lived in that area, as having been
Mayaca-speakers (Ayala y Escobar 1717;
Hann 1989:185) and as being related to the
Ais of the Cape Canaveral region
(Dickinson 1981:60).

References Cited


Quotations from the de Soto chronicles are my
own translations of the parts concerning de Soto's
trek from Ccale to a little beyond Apalachee; these
translations were done in the wake of the discovery of
the de Soto site in Tallahassee. They are on file at
the Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological
Research and at the San Luis Archaeological and
Historic Site. They will be published in Charles
Ewen's forthcoming book reporting the results of
excavations at the de Soto site in Tallahassee.

Ayala y Escobar, Juan de
1717 Letter to the King, St. Augustine, April 18,
1717, General Archive of the Indies (hereinafter


AGI), Santo Domingo 843, Stetson Collection of
the P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History,
University "of Florida, Gainesville.

Bennett, Charles E. (translator)
1975 Three Vyages, Rene Laudonniere. The University
Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Deagan, Kathleen A.
1984 Review of "Their Number Become Thinned". Florida
Historical Quarterly 63:212-215.

Dickinson, Jonathan
1981 Jonathan Dickinson's Journal or, God's Protect-
ing Providence. BEited by Evangeline Walker
Andrews and Charles McLean Andrews. Florida
Classics Library, Stuart, Florida.

Dobyns, Henry F.
1983 Their Number Become Thinned. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.


Dobyns, Henry F. and William R. Swagerty.
1983 "Timucuan population in the 1560s,"
Their Number Become Thinned, 147-211.


in Dobyns,


Elvas, The Fidalgo of
1932 Rlacam verdadeira dos trabalhos q ho gouernador
do Fernddo de Souto e certos fidalgos portu-
gueses passaram no descobrimeto da prouincia da
Frolida (sic) James Alexander Robertson,
editor. Facsimile reprint. The Florida State
Historical Society, Deland. Originally published
in 1557, [Lisbon].

Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes, Gonzalo
1851 Historia general y natural de las Indias, islas
y Tierra-Firme del mar oceano. Imprenta de la
Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid.

Gonzalez Barcia Carballido y Zunfiga, Andre's
1723 Del Inca. Historia del Adelantado, Hernando de
Soto, Governador, y Capitan General del Reino de
Florida y de otros heroicos caballeros,
Espanoles, e Indios escrita por El Inca
Garcilaso de la Vega. En la Oficina Real,
Madrid.

Hann, John
1986a Demographic Patterns and Changes in Mid-Seven-
teenth Century Timucua and Apalachee. Florida
Historical Quarterly 64:371-392.

1986b Translation of Governor Rebolledo's 1657 Visita-
tion of Three Florida Provinces and Related
Documents. Florida Archaeology 2:81-145.

1989 St. Augustine's Fallout from the Yamassee War.
Florida Historical Quarterly 68:180-200.

Henige, David
1986 The Context, Content, and Credibility of La
Florida del Inca. The Americas 43:1-23.

Hita Salazar, Pablo de
1675 Letter to the Queen, St. Augustine, August 24,
1675, AGI, Santo Domingo, 839, Stetson Collec-
tion, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History,
University of Florida, Gainesville.











Lopez, Fray Baltasar
1602 Letter to the King, St. Augustine, September 15,
1602, AGI, Santo Domingo 235, Stetson Oollec-
tion, P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Lorant, Stefan (editor)
1946 The New World, the First Pictures of America
Made by John White and Jacques e yne and
Engraved by Theodore de Bry with CDntemporary
Narratives of the Huguenot Settlement in Florida
1562-1565 and the Virginia Cblony 1585-1590.
Duell, Sloam & Pearce, New York.

Lussagnet, Suzanne
1958 Les Fran en Amerique pendant la deuxieme
moitie' du&XVIe siecle** Les Francais en Floride.
Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1978 The Western Timucua: Patterns of Acculturation
and Change. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians
of Florida and Southeastern Georgia During the
Historic Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich
and Samuel Proctor, 59-88. The University
Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Milanich, Jerald T., et alia.
1984 McKeithen Weeden Island. The Culture of Northern
Florida, A.D. 200-900. Academic Press, Orlando.

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

Ore, Luis Geronimo
1936 The Martyrs of Florida (1513-1616). Translated
by Maynard Geiger. Joseph F. Wagner, New York.

Powell, J.W.
1891 Indian Linguistic Families of America North of
Mexico. In Bureau of American Ethnology, 7th
Annual Report, 1885-1886, 1-142. Government
Printing Office, Washington.

Smith, Buckingham
1857 Coleccion de various documentos para la historic
de la Florida y tierras adjacentes, 47-64. House
of Trubner and OCmpany, London.

Sturtevant, William C.
1984 Review of Their Number Become Thinned. American
Historical Beview 89:1380-1381.

Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States.
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 137.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1952 The Indian Tribes of North America. Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 145. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.


Varner, John Grier and Jeannette Johnson varner
(translators and editors)
1951 The Florida of the Inca. University of Texas
Press, Austin.





John H. Hann
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
Florida Department of State
500 S. Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250









THE MISSISSIPPIAN OCCUPATION AND ABANDONMENT
OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER VALLEY

David G. Anderson
National Park Service


Atlanta,


Georgia


Introduction

The nature and dating of Mississip-
pian occupations in the Savannah River
Valley has apparently become controversial
in recent years as a result of research
into the reconstruction of the routes of
the early Spanish explorers Hernando de
Soto and Juan Pardo. In a recent article
in The Florida Anthropologist, W. S.
Eubanks (1989) raises a number of
questions about the Mississippian archae-
ological record in the basin that warrant
response. Scientific knowledge is ad-
vanced by the examination and questioning
of fundamental assumptions. In this
regard, I welcome the opportunity to
address the scholarly questions Eubanks
has raised, leaving the readers of this
journal free to draw their own conclusions
about our current state of knowledge, and
where we need to direct future research.
Before turning to technical matters,
however, I would like to note at the
offset that I found both repugnant and
inappropriate for a scholarly journal
Eubanks' insinuation that I (and others)
had lost "sight of established and ethical
research methods" and were twisting or
falsifying data because we were motivated
by "competition for grant dollars" sur-
rounding the establishment of a DeSoto
route (Eubanks 1989:369). For the record,
I have never received funding related to
the DeSoto route, nor do I serve on any of
the various state or National Park Service
committees concerned with designating such
a route. While I maintain a strong
interest in early Spanish exploration and
ethnohistory, my primary purpose for doing
so has always been to better understand
the prehistoric Mississippian cultures of
the Southeast.
Eubanks' further insinuation that
the research efforts of a number of
Southeastern scholars (whom he calls the


"Georgians") are part of a deliberate at-
tempt to snow the PAerican public (of whom
he seems to have a low opinion) I must
call simply ludicrous. The whole point of
scientific debate is to move toward a more
accurate understanding of the world. If
our arguments are in error, scholarly
debate in conjunction with ongoing re-
search will bring this out. By publishing
our views, we are putting them out for
public consideration, not hiding them or
trying to 'snow' people. Eubanks' ad
hominin commentary thus detracts from what
might otherwise be valid questions worthy
of response. The remainder of this paper
will attempt to address his technical
commentary as best I can. Readers of this
journal can evaluate the respective
arguments and draw their own conclusions.

Mississippian Occupations in
the Savannah River Valley

For the past decade I have been
examining Mississippian occupations in the
Savannah River basin, work documented in a
number of publications (Anderson 1989,
1990; Anderson and Schuldenrein 1983,
1985; Anderson et al. 1986; Anderson and
Joseph 1988). Eubanks directs a number of
comments to a paper summarizing
Mississippian research in the Savannah
River valley prepared by myself, David J.
Hally, and James L. Rudolph that appeared
in Southeastern Archaeology in 1986.
Since that time I have produced a much
more extensive synthesis of Mississippian
archaeological record from the basin, from
which research results that follows are
drawn (Anderson 1990). Interested readers
are directed to these various
publications, and the other sources cited
in the present paper, for additional
information about the Mississippian
archaeological record of the Savannah and
adjoining areas.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


March, 1990


Vol. 43 No. 1









Basically, Eubanks has presented
three arguments in support of his belief
that the Savannah River Valley was occu-
pied in the late Mississippian period, and
hence was the location of the province of
Cofitachequi visited by De Soto in 1540
(Figure 1). These arguments are (1) the
Silver Bluff area, was occupied in the
Late Mississippian, has yielded Spanish
artifacts, and was the site of Cbfita-
chequi; (2) Hollywood and a host of other
sites such as Beaverdam Creek, Lawton
Field, and 'Reme' (sic, Eubanks' misspell-
ing of Irene) were also occupied in the
Late Mississippian, and hence the Savannah
River valley would have been a logical
place for the province of (ofitachequi;
and (3) the Mississippian chronology
developed for the Savannah River valley,
which Eubanks implies is based on a few
widely varying radiocarbon dates, is in
error to the point that local archaeolo-
gists dating of sites and assemblages is
off by hundreds of years.
As will be demonstrated, Eubanks'
arguments are based on an almost complete
lack of knowledge or understanding of the
extensive record of archaeological and
historical research that has been con-
ducted in and near the Savannah River val-
ley over the past century. Further, when
he does reference primary sources from
this area, he repeatedly misrepresents
what these authorities are saying to
support his views, exactly what he has
accused "the Georgians" of doing.

Where was the Silver Bluff Mbund Group?

Eubanks argues that a large Indian
mound group exists at Silver Bluff, that
this site was occupied in the 16th cen-
tury, and that it was the location of
Cofitachequi, as argued by Swanton (1939).
Where did the idea that Cofitachequi was
located at Silver Bluff originate, and
what is the evidence for this position?
In the mid-1770s the naturalist William
Bartram (1791:315) visited the Silver
Bluff area and noted that "various monu-
ments and vestiges of the residence of the
ancients, as Indian conical mounts, ter-
races, areas &c" were located on the South
Carolina side of the river near Galphin's


trading post. The Silver Bluff area was
thought by Swanton (1939:180-183; 1946:45)
to have been the location of Oofitachequi,
which was visited by DeSoto in May of
1540. Swanton's opinion was no doubt
influenced by a description of the nearby
Mason's Plantation mound group published
in 1873 by C. C. Jones. Jones' account
included a romantic discussion of De
Soto's visit to Cbfitachequi and an impas-
sioned plea as to the importance of the
Mason's Plantation site, whose mounds he
described as "august witnesses of the
memorable meeting between the Spanish
Adventurer and the Cacica of the Savannah"
(Jones 1873:157). The Masons Plantation
mound group has since become synonymous
with the "Silver Bluff" mounds, and has
been assumed to lie in that locality.
Efforts to locate major Mississip-
pian sites, mounds, or assemblages in the
vicinity of Silver Bluff, however, have
proven singularly unsuccessful through the
years, to the place that one investigator
concluded that the "archeological data
does not support the traditional designa-
tion of Silver Bluff as the location of
the village of Cofitachique" (Scurry et
al. 1980:77). Eubanks, to the contrary,
argues that evidence for a Spanish pre-
sence has been found at Silver Bluff, and
that major Indian mounds are present at
lower Silver Bluff, a locality a mile
downstream. Regarding Scurry et al.'s
(1980) examination of upper Silver Bluff,
and the materials found there, we can only
repeat their conclusions:

the surface treatments and rim treat-
ments exhibited on the ceramics from
Silver Bluff are not typical of those
types expected to occur on a late pre-
historic-protohistoric Indian site.
While the majority of the ceramics
were plain only .3% were incised, 2.6%
had folded rims, and no cazuella ves-
sel forms were recovered. In addi-
tion, Savannah fine cord marked and
Savannah check stamped and other
chronologically less well defined sur-
face treatments are characteristic of
earlier Woodland and Early Mississip-
pian period occupation. This suggests
that the remains of the Indian mounds









visited by Bartram in 1775, and pos-
sibly by DeSoto over 200 years ear-
lier, are located away from the pre-
sent day Silver Bluff site. ...The
aboriginal archaeological data does
not support the traditional designa-
tion of Silver Bluff as the location
of the village of Cbfitachequi. This
is indicated by both the low density
and diversity of materials and by the
early temporal affiliation of the
diagnostic artifacts recovered from
the site area. (Scurry et al. 1980:41-
42).

Scurry et al.'s artifact identifications,
it should be noted, were assisted by
Leland Ferguson, a knowledgeable South
Appalachian Mississippian scholar trained
at the University of North Carolina
(Ferguson 1971). Eubanks' (1989:370)
description of clearly identified and
illustrated English, Dutch, and Chinese
17th and 18th century ceramics (Scurry et
al. 1980:45-54) as "old Spanish majolica"
is a complete misrepresentation of their
published analysis results. The pages
Eubanks cites as containing evidence for
Spanish artifacts most clearly do not.
This problem of misrepresenting the work
of others appears repeatedly in Eubanks
paper, as we shall see. What Eubanks does
not tell the reader is that no Spanish
artifacts were identified among the 5200
historic artifacts recovered during the
investigations at Silver Bluff, a point
clearly noted in the report (Scurry et al.
1980:63; James D. Scurry: pers. comm.
1990).
Likewise, Eubanks' implication that
a mound group and village is likely
present at lower Silver Bluff "as shown by
the aerial photograph in the Silver Bluff
report" is a further distortion of Scurry
et al's actual findings, which, based on
comparison of the aerial with Jones' 1873
drawing are tentatively negative:

... the river has severely eroded this
section of the bluff and has probably
destroyed the remains of the mounds
that may have once been located there.
While the description of the mound
area is similar to the area shown in


the aerial photograph, the distance of
lower Silver Bluff from Augusta is
greater than the distance indicated by
Jones' article. More archival work to
locate Mason's plantation and an un-
derwater survey along this section of
the river are needed to determine the
actual location of these mounds
(Scurry et al. 1980:10).


Scurry and his colleagues report no mounds
at lower Silver Bluff, nor do they (or
their aerial photograph) indicate such
mounds are present. Instead, they suggest
that the location of the Mason's Planta-
tion mound group does not appear to have
been as far south of Augusta as Silver
Bluff. The actual location of Mason's
Plantation has, through recent archival
and documentary research, in fact, been
shown to lie several miles to the north of
Silver Bluff (Anderson 1990, see below).
No evidence for Mississippian remains has
been found to date around lower Silver
Bluff (I have been there), although it is
possible materials could be deeply buried
under the recent alluvial deposits that
cover the area. If Eubanks has concrete
evidence for a Mississippian occupation at
lower Silver Bluff, as he implies, he
should provide it.
The purpose of Scurry et all's
(1980:31) research, it should be noted,
was to "define the various occupations in
the area" of Silver Bluff and not support
or refute any particular position about
where oCfitachequi might or might not have
been. Eubanks' (1989:370) comment that
Scurry et al. "had been told in advance
that 'Cofitachequi was not at Silver Bluff
...' (implying they were trying to dis-
prove Swanton) is a distortion of the
actual research process that occurred. In
their review of research, Scurry et al.
(1980:31) did note that Baker (1974) had
suggested Cbfitachequi may have been along
the Wateree. Their 1979 research was
undertaken, however, to test this idea,
and not to advance a "Georgian" perspec-
tive. It was only the following year, in
1980, in fact, that DePratter, Hudson and
Smith first began giving papers placing
Cofitachequi at Camden, South Carolina
















































Figure 1. Major Missisippian Archaeological Sites in and Near
the Savannah River Basin.


Fragment of European pottery,
Hollywood mound, Georgia.










Fragment of porcelain from
Hollywood mound, Georgia.


(Source: Thomas 1894: 324- 326)


Figure 2. Thomas' 1894 Illustrations of Historic Artifacts
from the Hollywood Site (9Ril).









(DePratter et al. 1983; Hudson et al.
1984).
Eubanks' unfamiliarity with the
archaeological and historical record from
the Savannah, or even the proper use of
historical documents, is particularly evi-
dent when he takes to task our statement
that the Silver Bluff mounds "were largely
destroyed by the mid-nineteenth century"
(Anderson et al. 1986:32). Instead, he
argues that these mounds were present in
1891, and cites in support of this posi-
tion Henry Reynolds (in Thomas 1894:317)
statement that "after a special investiga-
tion of this question" they were "the most
probable site of the ancient town of
Cutifachiqui." Unfortunately, there is no
record what Reynolds' actually did beyond
this one statement. Contrary to Eubanks'
assertion, we do not even know whether
Reynolds visited Silver Bluff or Mason's
Plantation at all, or saw any mounds on
the South Carolina side of the river. It
is possible Reynolds investigation con-
sisted solely of consulting Jones (1973)
description of the Mason's Plantation
mound group, although we can never be
certain.
What we do know is that in 1873 C.
C. Jones (1873) described a large mound
group on the South Carolina side of the
river on Mason's Plantation, a few miles
north of Silver Bluff, and noted that it
was rapidly disappearing:


Thirty-five years ago this group num-
bered six mounds, but the restless
river, with recurring freshets, en-
croaching steadily upon the Carolina
shore, has already rolled its turbid
waters over two of them, while two
others have so far yielded to the
leveling influences of the ploughshare
as to be almost entirely obliterated.
Consequently but two remain, and they
only in major part, one-third of each
having been washed away by the cur-
rent, and the day is probably not far
distant when tradition only will
designate the spot once memorable in
the annals of a former race as the
site of monuments of unusual size and
interest (Jones 1873: 152-153).


Mason's Plantation thus had six mounds
around 1838. On the 1853 Gilmore naviga-
tion map of the Savannah channel only
three mounds are shown on Mason's Planta-
tion. In 1873, as cited above, Jones
reported only two mounds were left. We
have no record of any visit to the site by
Reynolds, Eubanks' assertion to the con-
trary. Finally, when C. B. Moore was
working in the Savannah River valley in
the winter of 1897/1898 he explicitly
noted that the mounds observed by Jones
had "totally disappeared" (Moore 1898:167-
168). Eubanks' position that the site was
still intact in 1891 is thus not in accord
with the historical record, although if he
can provide specific evidence to back up
his claims it would be an important addi-
tion to our knowledge.
I thus freely admit, and have taken
great pains to point out, that a large
Indian mound group was located somewhere
near Silver Bluff (Anderson et al. 1986:
32-33; Scurry et al. 1980:78). I have, in
fact, devoted considerable energy to try-
ing to find this site. Eubanks' statements
that I was unaware of its existence or
tried to somehow suppress information
about this site is a complete misrepresen-
tation of my position. In our 1986
Southeastern Archaeology paper we even
reproduced Jones' (1873:Plate 3) drawing
of Mason's Plantation (Anderson et al.
1986:Figure 2)! If we erred in our 1986
paper, which was an overview of all
Mississippian research in the valley, it
was in not going into sufficient detail
about the location of the Silver Bluff/
Mason's Plantation mound group, and the
confusion that has existed about its
location.
So what do we know about this site?
Unfortunately, at the present very little.
From Jones' descriptions, which included
partial measurements of two surviving
mounds, it appears that the Mason's
Plantation mound group may have been the
largest Mississippian center in the
Savannah River valley. The fact that the
tract is several miles north of Silver
Bluff, and ca. two miles upriver from the
Hollywood site, goes a long way toward
explaining the lack of success earlier
investigators have had locating Missis-








sippian occupations in the Silver Bluff
area. When does Mason's Plantation date?
Unfortunately, no Mississippian artifacts
have been found in reliable context in the
area of Mason's Plantation, suggesting the
site has indeed washed away, as C. B.
Moore reported. Appreciable numbers of
Mississippian artifacts, however, have
been found on sandbars in the river at and
below the presumed area of the site, that
may have originated from possible surviv-
ing village deposits. These collections
are dominated by Savannah and early Irene
motifs, suggesting a dating of from ca.
A.D. 1200 to 1350. This assumes of course,
that these ceramics indeed came from the
former mound center, and not from some
other nearby site. Given the extent of
historic alluvium in the area where the
site is suspected to lie (ca. four to five
feet, according to the current landowner),
a program of deep site testing will be
needed to confirm whether portions of it
have survived and, if so, its age. In
this regard, Eubanks is absolutely correct
that our 1986 statement that the Silver
Bluff site was abandoned by ca. A.D. 1450
(Anderson et al. 1986:47) is not supported
by evidence from the site itself. As we
shall see below, however, there are other
reasons to indicate that the central and
lower Savannah, including the area around
Mason's Plantation/Silver Bluff, was
abandoned after ca. A.D. 1450.

The Dating of the Hbllywood Mbund Site

In support of his position that
Cofitachequi was located along the
Savannah River, Eubanks (1989:371-374)
proceeded to argue that the Hollywood
mound group below Augusta, like Silver
Bluff, was also a late Mississippian site,
presumably occupied at the time of Spanish
contact. He first criticized our place-
ment of the site to the late Savannah/
early Irene time level by ridiculing our
observation that the Hollywood materials
resembled those from the Town Creek site
along the Pee Dee River in North Carolina,
where three dates suggested an age of ca.
A.D. 1250 to 1350 for the assemblage, from
which we argued that Town Creek and Holly-
wood were probably roughly contemporane-


ous. The similarity between these site
assemblages was first made by Reid (1965),
and since reaffirmed by Ferguson (1971).
I make no apologies for accepting their
observations, or for the use of extralocal
materials and radiocarbon dates in devel-
oping a Mississippian sequence for the
Savannah River valley. Cross-dating
assemblages is a highly effective method
of dating archaeological materials, and
one that is widely used in archaeology.
While disparaging our use of three
dates from Town Creek, Eubanks neglected
to discuss the other 56 dates from the
South Appalachian area that Hally and
Rudolph (1986:21-26; see also Rudolph and
Hally 1985:462-470) used to develop an
absolute time scale for the Mississippian
cultural sequence in the upper Savannah
basin. Eubanks also failed to note that
the general outlines of this Mississippian
cultural sequence, consisting of variants
of Etowah, Savannah, and Lamar, have been
in place for almost half a century, and
have been repeatedly documented through
stratigraphic excavations in the interven-
ing years (e.g., Caldwell and Waring
1939a, 1939b; Caldwell and McCann 1941;
Wauchope 1948, 1950; Fairbanks 1950; Sears
1958; Waring 1968a; DePratter 1979; Hally
and Rudolph 1986; Hally and Langford 1988;
Anderson 1990). Transitional assemblages
between Savannah and Irene that resemble
the materials found at bHllywood, in fact,
were first documented at the Irene site
almost fifty years ago (Caldwell and
McCann 1941:41). The point of this review
is that our understanding of Mississippian
chronology in the South Appalachian area
has been progressing over the past 50
years, and that there is a broad consensus
about the relative placement and absolute
dating of Mississippian assemblages. If
Eubanks wishes to toss out a half century
of research, he must offer some justifi-
cation for doing so and, more importantly,
provide an equally plausible alternative
chronological framework to account for the
evidence at hand.
While Eubanks is correct in stating
that neither I nor my colleagues have
excavated at Hollywood, we have examined
the materials recovered in DeBaillou's
1965 excavations, and a number of the










artifacts recovered by Reynolds in 1891.
These Indian artifacts are either Savannah
or early Irene in age, supporting a tem-
poral placement sometime around ca. A.D.
1200 to 1400 and, as Hally and Rudolph
(1986) would have it, between ca. A.D.
1250 and 1350. Contrary to Eubanks'
inference, one does not need to have exca-
vated a site to examine the materials from
it! Eubanks, parenthetically, perhaps
should be aware that Reid's excellent
early and somewhat prescient observation
about the similarities between the Irene,
Town Creek, and Hollywood Mississippian
ceramic assemblages was itself based on
collections analyses. Reid, contrary to
Eubanks'(1989:371) implication, did not
direct excavations at Hollywood.
Eubanks (1989:373) further argues
that Reynolds' 1891 excavations at Holly-
wood "demonstrate beyond doubt that the
site was in use during the very early
Spanish contact period" and accuses us of
deliberating ignoring this "fact" in our
1986 paper because it conflicted with our
preconceptions. That there are historic
artifacts at Hollywood is beyond doubt.
Where I differ from Eubanks is in the
identification and dating of these arti-
facts, which I place in the 18th or 19th
century. The two line drawings of his-
toric sherds in Thomas (Figure 2) simply
do not constitute sufficient basis for
Eubanks' claim (citing Calvin Jones as a
personal communication) that Spanish
majolica was present at the site! Con-
trary to Eubanks' citations, furthermore,
nowhere in the report on Hollywood does
Thomas (1894:317-326) claim these are
Spanish artifacts, nor do Seltzer and
Jennings (1940:6). Readers will have to
examine Thomas' article on their own to
affirm this, since it is too lengthy to
reprint here. What Seltzer and Jennings
actually said, however, is only:

In this upper sandy micaceous loam
were fragments of pottery decorated
with a carved-paddle stamp. With this
pottery, historic iron and porcelain
fragments were found (Seltzer and
Jennings 1940:6).


Seltzer and Jennings make no mention of
Spanish majolica. Thus, Eubanks' (1989:
373) claim that these authors report
Spanish majolica from Hollywood, like his
citations to the same effect from Thomas
and Scurry et al.'s work, misrepresent
what was actually stated.
What other evidence does Eubanks
offer in support of his claim that Holly-
wood is a late Mississippian site? We are
told that Reynolds report:

is so complete that it is not even
necessary to consider the Spanish (sic
Indian) materials from the site.
The pottery and grave goods found at
the site are definitely late Missis-
sippian period, 1400-1550 (Eubanks
1989:373).

Unfortunately, argument by flat assertion
in the absence of supporting evidence
doesn't cut it in scientific research.
Eubanks (1989:373) must have realized this
was too extreme a position to take, be-
cause he then suggested that because
copper axes were found with burials in the
lower mound, and since DeSoto reported
copper adzes in the temple at Talimeco at
Cofitachequi, that these burials dated to
the historic period. Copper adzes have
been found in archaeological contexts dat-
ing back to the Late Archaic in the
Eastern Woodlands, and throughout the
Mississippian period, rendering this argu-
ment tenuous at best (Galloway 1989;
Winters 1968). Eubanks' "evidence" that
the site dates to the Late Mississippian
appears based solely on his uncritical
acceptance of DeBaillou (1965:3) and
Reid's (1965:24) statement that the South-
eastern Ceremonial Complex (SCC) materials
from the lower division of Mound B date to
the Late Mississippian period. Since the
mid-1960s our understanding of SCC icono-
graphy and dating has improved markedly,
however, to the point that the complex is
thought to peak in ca. the 12th and 13th
centuries (Galloway 1989; Muller 1989).
So what is the story at Hollywood
where, as Eubanks rightly observes,
Reynolds found European artifacts in the









upper six feet of Mound B (the small
mound) in his 1891 excavation? The Holly-
wood site consists of two mounds and an
associated village area located approxi-
mately ten miles below Augusta in Richland
County, Georgia. In 1891 Henry L.
Reynolds of the Mound Division of the
Bureau of Ethnology conducted extensive
excavations in the smaller of the two
mounds, and in 1965 DeBaillou conducted
test excavations in both mounds.
Reynolds' work, of unrivaled competence
for the period (Waring 1968b:293), was
described at length in the 12th Annual
Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (Thomas
1894:317-326), while a summary of
DeBaillou's work appeared in 1965
(DeBaillou 1965). Reid (1965:25), in a
comparison of ceramics from Hollywood, the
Fort Watson/Scott's Lake mound in central
South Carolina, and the Town Creek site,
noted "striking similarities" between
these assemblages.
The Hollywood ceramic assemblage is
characterized by nodes and punctations
only (Reid 1965:21) suggesting a late
Savannah/initial Irene occupation, prior
to the appearance of rosettes and appli-
qued rimstrips, which are common in Irene
I assemblages. The incidence of check
stamping at Hollywood is quite pronounced,
accounting for just over 41% of
DeBaillou's mound A trench sample
(DeBaillou 1965:6). Only at Irene, where
22.6% of the primary mound sample was
check stamped (Caldwell and McCann 1941:
78) has a comparable incidence been noted
at a mound center along the Savannah
River, although a high incidence of check
stamping has been observed in the limited
samples currently available from the
Lawton and Red Lake sites. Check stamping
is rarely observed in this quantity on
Mississippian sites in the Piedmont por-
tion of the drainage. For these reasons
Hally argued for the creation of a Holly-
wood phase to accommodate early/middle
Mississippian assemblages (ca. A.D. 1250-
1350) along the central Savannah (Anderson
et al. 1986:40-41; Hally and Rudolph 1986:
62-63).

The 1891 Excavations in Mound B. At the
time of the 1891 excavation the small


mound, Mound B, was 10 feet in height, 70
feet in diameter, and conical in form, and
was located 280 feet north of the large
mound, Mound A. A small log barn had been
formerly located on it, protecting it from
looting. Two major construction stages
were documented by Reynolds, the earliest
of which contained two groups of burials.
The lower group of burials are dated to
the Savannah II/III period while the upper
group belongs to the Savannah III/Irene I
period; materials of a comparable age were
found in the 1965 excavations, which
focused on Mound A. Because of the tran-
sitional nature of the site assemblage,
which includes elements of both the
Savannah and Irene ceramic complexes, it
was given a discrete Hollywood phase
designation, dated to between ca. A.D.
1250-1350 (Anderson et al. 1986:40-41;
Caldwell 1952:319; Hally and Rudolph 1986:
62-63).
The lower stage of Mound B was 7
feet thick and rested upon a rich premound
midden deposit ca. 9 inches thick. The
stratigraphically earlier burial group was
found resting either on or just above a
well-defined premound midden surface, near
a large hearth ca. 10 feet in diameter
located just southwest of the center of
the mound (Thomas 1894:319, 322-326). The
hearth had four alternating layers of ash
and fired clay, suggesting several dis-
crete episodes of use. Seven adult ex-
tended burials were found, six to the west
of the hearth and one to the east.
Elaborate grave goods with classic 12th to
13th century SCC iconography were found
with several of these burials.
The most elaborate burial in the
lower stage was located due west of the
hearth and had a number of highly unusual,
nonlocal grave goods, including tripodal
bottle with human effigy heads for feet, a
bottle painted with a cross and sunburst
motif, a seated human effigy pipe of
soapstone, and five clay elbow pipes. The
tripodal bottle resembles forms from the
central Mississippi Valley, and may come

from there. The vessel with the sunburst
also resembles a Middle Mississippian (ca.
A.D. 1200) type from the Central Missis-
sippi Valley, specifically Sikeston Nega-
tive Engraved from southeastern Missouri









(Williams 1979). Three other pots and a
copper ax head wrapped in cloth and bark
were found a few feet to the northeast. A
second burial with unusual grave goods was
found to the northwest of the first. Near
the head of this individual were two ves-
sels, one engraved with a plumed serpent
motif. The design on this engraved vessel
has affinities with Moundville vessels as
well as vessels found at Spiro, with some
specific design motifs exactly duplicated
on artifacts found at the latter site
(Phillips and Brown 1978:194-195). Under
the engraved vessel were fragments of
copper plates of "eagle dancers" and some
mica and shell fragments, while under the
other vessel was a biconcave quartz dis-
coidal, underlain by two copper cloth and
bark wrapped celts and several large
pieces of mica.
The remaining five burials had less
elaborate but still unusual grave goods.
One had two groups of shell beads, a pos-
sible copper plated wooden earplug, and a
lump of galenite. A second had a string
of shell beads, a copper celt encased in
wood, a Busycon columella, and a piece of
glauconite. The columella may have func-
tioned as a special status marker, since
it is found with elite burials throughout
the region at this time level (Brown
1985). A third burial, found beside the
individual with the elaborate painted ves-
sels, was buried with a pipe. The fourth
burial had an owl effigy pipe, three stone
celts, five stone discoidals, a weathered
shell ornament of some kind, an amorphous
pebble, and a piece of glauconite. The
final burial had a stone celt. The burial
of these seven individuals at or near the
base of the mound suggests a cohort, per-
haps the founding elites at this center.
Construction of the first major mound
stage over these burials may have been
deferred, in fact, until all the members
of this group died. It is also possible
that one or more of the interments may may
have been retainers sacrificed upon the
death of a chief. The burials with the
single grave goods may be of this type.
Contemporaneity of interment cannot
be assumed, however, even though all the
burials were found in or within a foot and
a half above the premound midden. The


multiple filling episodes in the central
hearth may point to the existence of two
or more episodes of earth-embanked
structure or low mound stage construction
that passed unrecognized in the 1891
fieldwork. This form of public construc-
tion was observed elsewhere in the valley
at the Irene and Beaverdam Creek mound
centers, and at Beaverdam Creek a high
status burial was found in fill between
two episodes of construction (Rudolph and
Hally 1985:83-85). The graves at the base
of the small mound at Hollywood may thus
represent a single episode of interment,
or individual burials made over the course
of one or more generations.
The later burial group was placed
from one to two feet below the upper sur-
face of the first mound stage, ca. five
feet above the earlier burials and about
four to five feet below the modern ground
surface. Four extended adult burials were
found, together with 13 vessels and a
piece of copper plating with a repousse
figure on it. Because no burial pit out-
lines were recognized, the relationship of
the artifacts to the burials is uncertain.
The copper plate and two vessels, one
inside the other, were apparently associ-
ated with two of the burials. Four sets
of two vessels each were found together
that appear to represent urn burials.
Each apparently consisted of a large
"killed" jar with a smaller pot or bowl
inside. The four larger pots had been
killed by breaking a small hole in the
base, a practice observed at the contem-
poraneous Pee Dee phase Town Creek site in
North Carolina (Reid 1965:23). The pre-
sence of small bone fragments in two of
the Hollywood vessels suggests they were
urn burials, like those reported from the
Irene site. One of the urns was Pee Dee
or Irene Complicated Stamped and was
decorated with a filfot scroll motif, a
double row of reed impressed punctations
below the rim, and reed punctated nodes
(Thomas 1894:Plate 19). As with the lower
stage, the contemporaneity of these
burials cannot be assumed. While all
appear to date to the transitional
Savannah/early Irene Hollywood phase, the
interments may have taken place over
several generations during this phase.









A hearth approximately five feet in
diameter by two feet deep was found in the
center of the upper burial cluster. Three
posts were found in a line near the edge
of this hearth, and traces of fire were
seen about one of the burials. The hearth
and posts together with the occurrence of
the burials and other artifacts at this
level point to the existence of an upper
mound stage, probably surmounted by a
temple or mortuary structure of some kind.
The traces of fire further suggest that
this structure may have burned. The site,
which dates to between ca. A.D. 1250 and
1350 on the basis of associated ceramics,
was abandoned shortly after these burials
were placed in the mound, given the
absence of later Mississippian or proto-
historic Indian ceramics (Anderson et al.
1986:40-41; Hally and Rudolph 1986:62-63).
The absence of unusual extralocal vessels,
like those found in the lower stage, hint
at a decline in the authority and influ-
ence of the elites in this Mississippian
society. Minimally, their participation
in long distance exchange appears to have
declined markedly. The scattered Irene
urn burials in this upper level may be
somewhat later than the extended burials,
which otherwise resemble the earlier
interments. A situation like that
observed in the primary mound at Irene may
be occurring, with later, Irene I phase
burials interred in what was formerly a
residential/temple mound, as the society
itself was becoming more egalitarian.
The upper "stage" or strata in Mound
B at Hollywood was ca. three feet thick.
The presence of European pottery and
wrought iron nails mixed in with Indian
midden debris in the upper stage, which
was of fill of a distinctly different
character than that in the lower stage,
indicate that it is of historic origin,
and probably associated with the construc-
tion of the historic barn on the summit.
Reynolds himself stated that:

these mounds are the only land visible
above a broad expanse of water, and it
is this fact which has given rise to
the tradition among people of vicinity
that they were thrown up by some
former owner of the property to serve


as places of refuge for his cattle
during their inundations (Thomas 1894:
318).

While this may well be the kind of folk-
lore commonly attributed to Southeastern
mound sites, it is supported by the con-
tents of the upper deposits. This conclu-
sion is also reinforced by the presence of
a drawing knife and a wrought iron nail at
the juncture of the two stages, and the
presence of glass and porcelain as
apparent intrusions into the upper level
of the lower stage.
Eubanks' (1989:373) claim that "the
people who built this mound were around
long enough to add six feet and at least
four more burials" to it is directly con-
troverted by Thomas statement that

All the interments lay within the
lower division of the mound. The
absence of burial in the upper divi-
sion, the different character of the
earth, and the presence of fragmentary
pottery (N.M 135278-84) unlike that
found in the subsoil, seems to indi-
cate a subsequent addition. It also
seems to indicate that the original
builders or others who succeeded them
were disposed to utilize these their
old tombs for some purpose in connec-
tion with floods, for this additional
earth seems to have been cast upon the
mound to increase its elevation
(Thomas 1894:319).

Given the different character of the soil
in the upper mound division, and the pre-
sence of historic artifacts in its fill,
it appears that the upper part of the
mound dates to the post-contact period,
and probably after ca. A.D. 1750, when the
area was settled.

Scattered indiscriminately throughout
the soil composing the upper division
of the mound were the following arti-
cles: One stone chisel (N.M. 135271),
one stone celt, eight small pieces of
white and blue glazed European croc-
kery (N.M. 135279), many small frag-
ments of Indian ware, and five pieces
of old-fashioned rudely wrought iron








nails much oxidized (N.M. 135280).
These appeared to have been thrown up
with the earth in the construction of
this part of the mound (Thomas 1894:
319).

From this statement the upper division of
the mound would appear to have been built
during the historic period, and made use
of soil containing both European and
Indian midden debris. The absence of
native burials and the presence of
European artifacts, particularly the
crockery, which from its description alone
could as easily be delft or pearlware as
"Spanish majolica", reinforces the inter-
pretation that the upper stage is of his-
toric age. In this I am in complete
agreement with Eubanks. Unlike Eubanks,
who appears to see Spanish majolica every-
where, including several places where it
clearly isn't present, I believe the ques-
tion of the age of this material should
remain open until the artifacts from
Hollywood can be reanalyzed by competent
authorities.
Fortunately, this has been done. A
reanalysis of the specific historic arti-
facts from Hollywood at the Smithsonian,
initiated by Hudson but conducted by
parties outside the "Georgian" school,
indicates these artifacts are typical
English ceramics of the late 18th to early
19th century (Hudson and Smith n.d.).
During my own examination of DeBaillou's
collections from Mound A, parenthetically,
I observed a great number of 18th and 19th
century ceramics, indicating the site was
occupied during this period. I saw no
Spanish artifacts in the collections, but
make no claims to be able to recognize
them. I do claim some ability to identify
18th and 19th century historic artifacts
(Anderson 1975, Anderson and Muse 1983),
but acknowledge I am not primarily a
historic archaeologist.
Thus, the presence of European arti-
facts with the burials and vessels in the
upper part of the lower construction
division suggests either intrusion and
disturbance from the historic construction
division immediately above this level, or
that the native burials and associated
artifacts date to the historic period.


Given the fact that the native vessels
apparently date to the early Irene period
(ca. A.D. 1300 to 1400), and the historic
artifacts to the 18th century or later,
intrusion and disturbance is the most
likely explanation. The fact that historic
artifacts were found at and just below the
boundary between the upper and lower con-
struction divisions further supports the
dating of the upper stage to the historic
period, and the probability that the
highest deposits in the lower stage were
disturbed somewhat during the historic
period. Reynolds also found "the remnant
of some post planted on the surface of the
mound by some of its white owners" (Thomas
1984:321) running through the upper mound
and into the upper part of the lower
mound, even more evidence for historic
period intrusion, and for historic con-
struction atop the final mound.

The 1965 Excavations in Mound A. In 1965
Clemens de Baillou (1965) conducted test
excavations at Hollywood, with much of his
effort directed to opening a 70 by 10 foot
trench running from the adjoining field to
the southwest side of bMund A. This mound
had been described by Reynolds as "of the
pyramidal type", but even in 1891 was con-
sidered to be "almost entirely lost" due
to flooding and the penning of cattle on
its summit, which even at that time also
supported a barn (Thomas 1894:318). Un-
fortunately, the dimensions of this mound
have not been published, although it
appears to have been about 100 feet on a
side and several feet high. Approximately
five feet of historic alluvium was found
to cover the field around the mound,
indicating that comparatively undisturbed
village or midden deposits may be present
at the site. Possible post stains were
noted at the base of the DeBaillou's
trench away from the mound, but most were
assumed to represent historic period dis-
turbances. Savannah and Pee Dee-like
pottery were recovered, with Savannah
Plain, Check, and Complicated Stamped the
most common types reported (DeBaillou
1965:8), something I have confirmed
through my own inspection of these
materials (Anderson 1990). A decline in
check stamping and an increase in compli-








cated stamping was noted in the trench
level fill. As with Mound B, temporal
placement of the assemblage of from ca.
A.D. 1200 to 1400 is indicated.
Two stages were identified in Mound
A, and charcoal on the slope of the upper
mound stage suggested that the structures
atop it had been consumed by fire
(DeBaillou 1965:7). The inner mound was
only about half the diameter of the final
mound stage. The mound itself was resting
on a premound humus with associated
prehistoric midden debris. Two burials
were found at the base of the mound, one
associated with "a broken mortar and some
unworked stones" (DeBaillou 1965:9-10).
The absence of elaborate grave goods sug-
gest these may be relatively low status
individuals, possibly commoners from a
presumed nearby village area.
Two 10x10 ft squares were opened in
the area of the smaller mound (Mound B)
that had been previously examined by
Reynolds. The mound had been recently
bulldozed by the landowner and was assumed
to have been completely destroyed. Undis-
turbed mound fill was found at a depth of
about five feet, however, one foot above
the premound midden. From this DeBaillou
(1965:11) concluded that the edges of the
mound were intact and that future excava-
tions directed to these surviving deposits
would in all probability discover addi-
tional burials. DeBaillou also recommend-
ed using heavy equipment to strip away
overburden in the surrounding village
area. Since 1965, however, no further
work has been conducted at the site.
Hollywood therefore, contrary to
Eubanks' assertion, does not offer good
evidence for Spanish presence in the
Savannah River valley, nor for Late
Mississippian occupation. Much profitable
work can be done at the site, however,
both in the mounds and surrounding vil-
lage, and with the collections already
obtained from it.

Other 'Late Mississippian' Assemblages in
the Savannah River Valley

Eubanks (1989:Figure 1) indicates
the Lawton, Beaverdam Creek, Rembert, and
'Reme' (sic. Irene) mound groups are


Late Mississippian, and that "one has only
to note the late Mississippian Savannah
River valley (sic) sites depicted in
Figure 1 to refute" the claim that the
area was abandoned in the Late Missis-
sippian (Eubanks 1989:374). Ve have
already discussed the dating of the Silver
Bluff/Mason's Plantation and Hollywood
sites. Evidence that the latter four
sites are Late Mississippian in age is
equally lacking in Eubanks' paper, with
the exception of his comments on the three
admittedly spurious radiocarbon dates from
the Beaverdam Creek site. Here he might
have had a valid point if he could have
marshalled additional (i.e., artifactual,
contextual) evidence to support his posi-
tion. Rudolph and Hally (1985) provide
several hundred pages of description and
analysis to support their claim that
Beaverdam Creek is a Savannah period site
dating to ca. A.D. 1150 to 1300, where
three of the six dates do fall. They
explicitly discuss the context of these
dates, furthermore, and their reasons for
discounting them (Hally and Rudolph 1985:
462-470. Bad dates do happen, and part of
responsible archaeological analysis is be-
ing able and willing to recognize them.
Given the presence of tens of thousands of
Savannah artifacts in the site assemblage,
and in the absence of later Mississippian
(Rembert phase or later) artifacts, it is
difficult to accept Eubanks' (1989:372-
373) claim that Beaverdam Creek is Late
Mississippian in age.
The other three sites are also
earlier than Eubanks would like to have
them. Ceramics from Lawton, a site with
two mounds on the lower Savannah, consist
of Savannah Check Stamped, Plain,
Burnished Plain, Fine Cord Marked, and
Complicated Stamped (bullseye concentric
circles motif), with corncob impressed and
rectilinear Etowah-like complicated
stamped finishes also noted (Anderson
1990, n.d.). One rectilinear complicated
stamped sherd was recovered with a possi-
ble Irene line block motif, and one of the
check stamped sherds had a single row of
circular cane punctations impressed par-
allel to and just below the rim, a Pee
Dee-like attribute (Reid 1967). With the
exception of the line block, all the arti-








facts are classic Savannah II and Holly-
wood phase materials, dating from ca. A.D.
1100 to 1350. The line block motif, if
correctly identified, is an Irene I
decoration (ca. A.D. 1350-1450), and may
indicate slightly later Mississippian site
use, although this remains to be con-
firmed.
The F=mbert Mound Group was a
cluster of five mounds located along the
Savannah River in Elbert County, Georgia,
just above the confluence of the Broad
River. Occupied from ca. A.D. 1100 to
1450, Rembert was one of the largest
Mississippian mound groups in the Savannah
River Valley, with only the Mason's Plan-
tation group below Augusta comparable in
size. Limited archaeological investiga-
tions were conducted at Rembert in the
1880s and again in the 1940s before the
site was inundated by the waters of
Thurmond Lake in 1952 (Thomas 1894:315-
317; Caldwell 1953). The materials col-
lected during the 1948 testing were
reexamined by Hally in the early 1980s to
form the basis for a late prehistoric
Mississippian archaeological culture in
the upper Savannah, the Rembert phase,
dated to ca. A.D. 1350 to 1450 (Anderson
et al. 1986:41-42; Rudolph and Hally
1985:453-459). Ceramics were dominated by
plain and complicated stamping, the latter
characterized by filfot cross, concentric
circle, figure 8 and figure 9 motifs.
Bold incising, a hallmark of Late Lamar,
was rare. Folded rims with notches, cane
punctations, and finger pinching were
fairly common, while unfolded rims were
characterized by cane punctations,
rosettes, or cane punctated nodes. The
Rembert assemblage is similar to Early
Lamar Duvall phase materials in the Oconee
River Valley (Smith 1981) and to Holly-
wood/Irene I materials observed along the
lower Savannah. Three radiocarbon dates
from the Rucker's Bottom site support the
dating of this phase in the Savannah River
valley (A.D. 1360+60 DIC-2304; A.D.
1410+60, DIC-2305; A.D. 1450+70, DIC-2303;
Anderson and Schuldenrein 1985:8).
Irene (9Chl), the final "late


Mississippian" site advanced by Eubanks
(if this is indeed his "Reme") is a
multi-mound site occupied from ca. A.D.
1200 to 1450 and located near the river
mouth. Excavations were conducted at the
site from September 1937 to January 1940
under the auspices of the Works Progress
Administration (Caldwell and McCann 1941).
The focus of over two years of continuous
fieldwork by crews of upwards of fifty
people, the site was almost completely
excavated. The report on the excavations,
which was released less than two years
after the completion of the fieldwork,
remains one of the few comprehensive
Mississippian site reports produced from
this part of the Southeast. The work pro-
duced a Mississippian cultural sequence
for the lower part of the valley that has
remained essentially unmodified to this
day. Both mounds and almost six acres of
the surrounding center were examined
during the 1937 to 1939 fieldwork.
Eight construction stages with asso-
ciated structures were found in the large
mound at Irene, which was approximately
160 feet in diameter and 15.5 feet high in
1937. The first seven construction epi-
sodes, the first three earth embanked
structures and the next four truncated
pyramidal platform mounds, belonged to the
Savannah II/III phases, and were charac-
terized by Savannah Burnished Plain, Check
Stamped, Cordmarked, and Complicated
Stamped pottery (Caldwell and McCann 1941:
78). M3und Stage 8, a circular earthen
mound with a rounded summit, dated to the
succeeding Irene I phase, and was charac-
terized by Irene Incised, Complicated
Stamped (filfot motif), and Plain pottery.
Based on ceramic evidence, specifically
the presence of Savannah Check and
Complicated Stamped pottery, the earliest
construction episodes at Irene began
sometime around A.D. 1150-1200. No evi-
dence at all was found for historic con-
tact (Caldwell and McCann 1941:72), and on
the basis of current knowledge about the
cultural sequence, the site appears to
have been abandoned some time around or
shortly after ca. 1450 (DePratter 1979;









Anderson et al. 1986; Anderson 1990).

The Mississippian Cultural Sequence from
the Savannah River

Eubanks has implied that the cul-
tural sequence that has been developed for
the Savannah River Valley by myself and
other scholars is wildly in error. The
late prehistoric cultural sequence for the
Savannah River Valley, as currently under-
stood (Anderson 1990) is illustrated in
Figure 3. Fine-grained late prehistoric
cultural sequences have been developed in
three parts of the basin. At the present,
temporal resolution on the order of 100 to
150 year intervals is currently possible
in most areas. While these intervals will
need to be and in fact are continually
being narrowed, they are sufficiently
fine-grained enough to permit detailed
examination of local Mississippian politi-
cal and cultural evolution. Absolute
chronological control for these sequences
has been provided by a number of radio-
carbon dates (Hally and Rudolph 1986:21-
26), and the cross-dating of materials
dated in sequences developed in nearby
areas of South Carolina, Georgia, and
North Carolina.
In the South Appalachian area the
complicated stamped pottery tradition
established in the Wbodland period con-
tinued into the Mississippian, and varia-
tions in design motif, rim treatment, and
other incidental decoration have proven to
be highly sensitive chronological markers.
Rim modification has proven a particularly
sensitive chronological indicator. A
sequence of unmodified to collared rims,
to rims with rosettes or punctations, and
then to applied and pinched rim strips is
evident over much of the region (Hally and
Rudolph 1986:63; Reid 1967; Rudolph and
Blanton 1980, Rudolph 1983; Smith 1983).
While plain (unmodified) rims continue to
occur, the incidence of folded and punc-
tated, pinched, or notched rim strips in-
creases over time in the region, with the
later treatments typically larger and more
poorly executed. This phenomenon was
originally noted by Kelly (1938:48) at
Macon Plateau and by Caldwell and McCann
(1941:41) in the Irene Mound report, where


"transitional" rim forms belonging to the
period between the Savannah and Irene
occupations were illustrated. It has
recently been documented in Mississippian
assemblages from central South Carolina
(DePratter and Judge 1986; South 1973;
Stuart 1975). Finally, in central Georgia
Rudolph and Blanton (1980:16) have docu-
mented an increase in rim strip width over
time, and both Smith (1981:185-188) and
Rudolph (1983:90-93) have documented an
increase in finger pinching and a decrease
in punctation over time.
Design motifs are also useful for
identifying assemblages to specific
periods. Some complicated stamped motifs,
such as Irene filfot crosses or line
blocks, have fairly tight temporal occur-
rences. A decrease in check stamping, to
give another example, is well documented
over the course of the Mississippian along
the Savannah, both at the mouth and well
into the interior (DePratter 1979:111;
Rudolph and Hally 1985). Some caution is
essential, however. There is increasing
evidence emerging from recent work along
the upper Savannah and Oconee Rivers that
some supposedly "diagnostic" design motifs
such as nested diamonds, which are
traditionally linked with Etowah/early
Mississippian components actually occur
somewhat later in time as well (Anderson
et al. 1986:38; Hally and Rudolph 1986:37-
51; Smith 1981:182-186, 1983:75-81). Care
must thus be used when dating local assem-
blages, and large sherd samples are essen-
tial for fairly precise age determina-
tions. In spite of these limitations,
well-documented ceramic sequences have
been produced for the Savannah, upper
Oconee, and upper Wateree river valleys in
recent years (Anderson 1987; Anderson et
al. 1986; DePratter 1979; DePratter and
Judge 1986; Hally and Rudolph 1986;
Rudolph and Hally 1985; Sassaman and
Anderson 1989; Smith 1981, 1983; Williams
and Shapiro 1987).

The Mississippian Occupation of the
Savannah River Basin: Current Evidence

A tremendous amount of archaeologi-
cal survey and excavation has occurred in
the Savannah River basin in recent years,









Phases



Dates Upper Inner Coastal Mouth of the
Piedmont Plain Savannah

A.D. 1800 -

Estatoe
1700

1600
Tugalo
1500-

Silver Bluff
1400- Rembert (Provisional) Irene I

1300- Hollywood
Beaverdam n Savannah III
1200 Lawton
(Provisional) Savannah I/II

1100 St. Catherine's
Savannah I
1000 Woodstock
Interior
900 St. Catherine's
Equivalent Wilmington

800 Late Swift
Creek/Napier Interior
Wilmingtion
700 Equivalent




Source: Anderson et al.1986 (modified slightly)

Figure 3. The Mississippian cultural sequence from the
Savannah River valley.


Figure 4. Major Archaeological Survey Project Undertaken in the
Savannah River Basin through 1989
(from Anderson 1990).









much of it the result of cultural resource
management projects. The data accumulated
during this activity make it very diffi-
cult to justify extensive Late Mississip-
pian occupation in the central and lower
part of the basin. Fifteen Mississippian
mound centers, presumably the ceremonial
and political focus for life during this
period, are known from the Savannah River
Valley. These sites, proceeding inland
from the mouth of the drainage, are Haven
Home, Irene, Hudson's Ferry, Red Lake,
Lawton, Mason's Plantation, Hollywood,
Rembert, Fortson, Beaverdam Creek, Tate,
Tugalo, Estatoe, Chauga, and I. C. Few.
They include both platform and burial
mounds, with the former mound type typi-
cally much larger than the latter. Given
the century and more of local effort
directed toward finding and excavating
mounds, it is probable that most, if not
all, of the Mississippian platform mound
complexes originally constructed in the
basin have been located. The sample of
burial mounds, in contrast, is probably
incomplete, due to the small size of some
of these structures, particularly those
dating to the initial Mississippian
period, which are little more than low
rises of earth. All but two of these
sites, Mason's Plantation and Tate, have
seen fairly extensive prior professional
activity. Periods of primary occupation,
as well as individual construction epi-
sodes, have been fairly precisely deter-
mined for most sites, yielding an invalu-
able data set for the study of organiza-
tional change in the basin (Table 1; see
also Anderson 1990).
While most of the mound sites in the
Savannah River Valley have seen at least
some level of professional archaeological
examination, until quite recently compara-
tively little effort was directed to non-
mound Mississippian sites. In recent
years this pattern has changed dramati-
cally, due primarily to federal environ-
mental (CRM) legislation, which has
directed research attention to a wide
array of site types. As a result, several
Mississippian village, hamlet, and special
activity sites have also been examined in
the Savannah River basin in recent years
(Table 1). Mbst of these sites were found


in the Richard B. Russell Reservoir, and
were excavated in the 1980s (Anderson and
Joseph 1988). Given the greater concern
for comprehensive artifactual and paleo-
ecological data collection that has
characterized most recent excavations, our
knowledge of the archaeological assem-
blages at these sites is even better than
it is for many of the mound centers.
As of December 1989 over 100 major
archaeological survey projects had been
conducted in the Savannah River basin
(Figure 4). Full data about the intensity
of survey coverage, area examined, total
number of sites found, number of prehis-
toric sites recorded, number of Mississip-
pian components on these sites, and pri-
mary bibliographic references are provided
elsewhere (Anderson 1990). In localities
where numerous overlapping survey and
excavation projects had occurred, such as
in the Russell Reservoir, in the Sumter
National Fbrest, and on the Savannah River
Site, it should be noted, summary data
from recent technical syntheses of work on
these localities was employed (Anderson
and Joseph 1988; Anderson et al. n.d.;
Sassaman et al. 1989).
To date, approximately 7.5% (2058.4
square km) of the ca. 27, 450 sq. km
Savannah River basin has been surveyed at
some level of coverage (Table 2; project
numbers in the table refer to projects
located on Figure 4). Much of this survey
total comes from opportunistic, reconnais-
sance-level projects where typically only
the largest or most obvious sites were
recorded. Just under three percent of the
basin has been intensively surveyed (702
square km, or 2.6%), that is, has been
examined employing field procedures theo-
retically designed to locate and record
all possible sites. Intensive survey
projects have occurred throughout the
basin, providing at least some coverage in
all of the major physiographic zones
present, that is, in the sea island,
Coastal Plain, Fall Line, Piedmont, and
Blue Ridge provinces. While sites are
reported from most areas of the basin,
intensive survey coverage of large contig-
uous areas is restricted to a few local-
ities, typically federal lands or project
areas where coverage has been mandated by











MOUND SITE


Number


Type of Mounds


Phases of Primary


Savannah IAI

Savannah 11/111. Iren I

Savannah 11/i1l?

Savannah /1111

Savannah It11/1

Savannah Ill/Hollywood

Hollywood

Be vewdsm. Rembert

Beaverdmn

Bevoerdam

Jane. Rembert, Tugalo

Tugalo. EStaeo

Jarett. Tugalo, Esltloo


Wering 198b

Moor 1898:188. Caldwell and McCann 1941

Moore 1898:169171

Mark Willisrr personal communication 1989

Moore 1898171-172, Anderson d.

Jonre 1873:148-157. Moore 1898 167-188

Thomas 1894 317-326, DeBdlou 1965

Thomas 1884:315-317, Caldwell 1953. Rudolph end Helly 1985 453-459

Rudolph end HMlly 1985

Hutto 1970.23-25

Thomra 1984314-315, Caldwel 1956

Kelly end De Baillou 1960

Kely end Neiezl 1959, 1961


Haven Home

Ifren

Hudson' Ferry

Red Lake

Lawton

Masons Plantabon

Hollywood

Rembetr

Beaverdam Cook



Tulgao



Chauga

I C Few


NON-MOUND STES

Sale Phaes of Primary
Number Site name Site Type Occupation References

9Eb91 Rucker' Bottom Village Beavedam. Rembert Andeu n and Schuldenren 1985

9Eb357 Clyde Guley Village Jarrett Tippl and M.rquudt 1984

38An8 Simpason Field Hamlet? Beaverdam/Rembert Wood t al. 1988

9Eb92 Be.rdam Site Group Hamlet? Beverdem, Rmnbert Cunpbel and Weed 1984

9Eb207 Beavrdam Site Group Hamlet? Beverdam Cnmpbel end Weed 1984

9Eb208 Be vordem StL. Group Hamltl? Beverdam Campbell and Weed 1984

9Eb219 Boverdu Site Group Hamlet? Jarel, Beavordam Camnpbe6 nd Weed 1984

38An126 Big Genwrost Creek Hamlet? Rembert Wood et I 1986

9Eb76 Rufus Bullard Village? Bevedarm, Rnebert Anderon end Schuldnaern 1985

9Eb382 Van Creek Hun1ng Camp? Rembert Wood et a. 1986



Table 1. Mississippian Mound and Non-Mound Sites Examined in the Savannah River basin.


Locaitty
d t uth to north}


1 11 Mouth of the Drainage



12 22 Lower Coastal Plain



23 43 Inner Coastal Plain/Fall Line


Lower Piedmont



9 Upper Piedmont/Blue Ridge


GRAND TOTALS


Area # of
Exarmned Prehistoric
thal Sites


1419 4
(0 69%)


12876 3
(6 26%)


54206 4
(26 33%)


89737 5
(43 60%)


47600 7
(23 13%)


219
(5 55%)


412
(1044%)


1139
(28 86%)


1869
(47 35%)


308
(7 80%)


(100 00%) (1O 00%)


Total #
of Sites


313
(6 08%)


462
(8 97%)


1299
(25 22%)


2703
(52 49%)


373
(7 24%)


Number of Unknown
Mississippian Mississippiar
Sites Components


29
(5 24%)


79
(14 29%)


147
(26 68%)


265
(47 92%)


33
(5 97%)


2
(0 62%)


36
(11 15%)


115
(35 60%)


160
(49 54%)


Early Middle
Mississipplan Mississippia r
Components [ Components


(11 11%)


33
(26 19%)


40
(31 75%)


36
(28 57%)


3
(2.38%)


(14 05%)


34
(28 10%)


51
(42 15%)



(4 13%)


Late
Mississippian
Components

0
(0 00%)


4
(6 90%)


6
(13 79%)


23
(39 66%)


23
(39 66%)


9Tr7 550 4 563 1 323 126 5 121 5 5


(10000%) (100 00%) (10 00%)


(100 00%)


(100 00%) (100 00%)


27,450 square kilometers = size of Savannah River basin
2058 4 square km, or 7 5% of basin has been surveyed at any level of intensity
702 22 square km, or 2 6% of the basin intensively surveyed


Table 2. Mississippian Components in the Savannah River Valley By Period and Major Physiographic Zone


Mound Group


Site
N1--


9Ril

9Eb1

9Eb85

9Eb86

9S11



360c47

38Pn2


Beeverdam, Rmnbert EstatoeIGrange 1972


birru er or mounas Platform ferences


vumum 4 (Procee mq rom o


I








federal environmental legislation and
executive order. These localities include
the Wassaw and Savannah National Wildlife
Refuges, the Savannah River Site, Fbrt
Gordon, in the Clarks Hill, Russell, and
Hartwell Reservoirs, and in the districts
of the Oconee, Chattahoochee, and Sumter
National Forests. Fortunately, these
tracts are themselves dispersed along the
river, and encompass portions of all of
the major physiographic zones.
As of mid-1989, 6871 archaeological
sites had been recorded in the 35 counties
in Georgia and South Carolina that encom-
pass the Savannah River Basin. Of these,
5150 or 75.0% were found in the basin
proper during the survey projects illus-
trated in Figure 4 (Anderson 1990). The
remaining 1721 sites either lie in por-
tions of these counties outside the basin
proper, or are isolated sites reported by
amateurs or professionals that do not
derive from systematic survey coverage.
These projects thus encompass over 90% of
the sites recorded in the basin, and
almost all of the sites found through
intensive survey activity. If projects or
sites have been overlooked in the basin,
it is because information from them is not
on file in the appropriate state reposi-
tories.
Of the 5150 archaeological sites
found during survey projects in the
Savannah River basin through 1989, 3947
had prehistoric components. As part of my
research, artifact collections from 2081
of these sites were examined, in an effort
to resolve periods of occupation (Anderson
1990). Where surface collections were not
available for analysis, published descrip-
tions were used to resolve periods of
occupation where these were detailed
enough to make a precise temporal assign-
ment. Of the 3947 sites examined, 553 or
14.0% had Mississippian components (Table
2). Surface collections exist from many
of these sites and, given the detailed
cultural sequence and chronology available
for the later prehistoric and proto-
historic period, it has been possible to
date many of these assemblages fairly pre-
cisely, using ceramic design motifs, rim
treatments, and other sorting criteria.


The components identified in the
analysis were placed into one of three
major subperiods, corresponding to the
Early, Middle, and Late Mississippian
locally, and by location within the
drainage (Table 2). Subperiods, rather
than specific phase assignments, were used
to facilitate the comparison of contempor-
aneous assemblages in various parts of the
basin. In all, 305 Early, Middle, and
Late Mississippian components were identi-
fied on the 553 sites. Another 323 com-
ponents, classified as Unknown Mississip-
pian, had assemblages that could not be
accurately placed within a specific sub-
period, or else were from sites where the
collections were not available for anal-
ysis and where the published descriptions
were ambiguous. Unidentifiable components
were most common on sites with small
ceramic assemblages or where artifacts
such as Mississippian triangular points or
otherwise nondiagnostic sherds were all
that were present in the collections. The
total number of identifiable and unidenti-
fiable Mississippian components (N=628) is
larger than the number of Mississippian
sites, it should be noted, because some
sites had more than one component present.
Early Mississippian (ca. A.D. 1000
to 1250) components, which encompassed
assemblages attributable to the Savannah
II/III, Savannah II, Woodstock, Jarrett,
and Beaverdam phases, proceeding from the
mouth to the headwaters, were fairly
common (N=126; 41.3% of all identifiable
components). The greatest number of Early
Mississippian sites was observed in the
central part of the drainage, in the inner
Coastal Plain/Fall Line (N=40) and Lower
Piedmont (N=36) subareas. The greatest
proportional occurrence of Early Missis-
sippian components, however, occurred in
the lower part of the drainage, where they
account for 48.8%, 64.7% and 45.2% of all
identifiable components in each area,
respectively, proceeding from the inner
Coastal Plain to the mouth (Figure 5).
Mississippian assemblages are rare
everywhere in the basin until after A.D.
1100. Woodstock Complicated Stamped
ceramics were infrequent, and only at
Chauga were more than one or a few sherds









present. The first Mississippian assem-
blages in any quantity belong to the
Jarrett phase, and resemble Etowah II/III
materials, suggesting possible influence
from the northwest Georgia area. Charac-
teristic Etowah one- and two-bar nested
diamond motifs occur throughout the basin.
Surprisingly, only one Early Mississippian
component was observed in the survey col-
lections from the extreme upper reaches of
the drainage, even though the Chauga and
Tugalo centers were occupied at this time.
Comparatively few prehistoric sites have
been recorded in this part of the basin
(N=308), however, and the sample may be
unrepresentative. If this low density of
Early Mississippian sites holds up, it may
indicate that settlement was minimal away
from these centers. Elsewhere in the
drainage, where sample sizes are greater,
Early Mississippian sites are found in
some numbers. Details about site size and
function remain elusive for most of these
components, although the existence of both
hamlets and small villages has been
documented in the Russell Reservoir area.
Middle Mississippian (ca. A.D. 1250
to 1450) components, which encompass Irene
I, Hollywood, Silver Bluff, and Rembert
phase assemblages were also common in the
basin (N=121; 39.7% of all identifiable
components). Although they occurred with
greatest frequency in the lower Piedmont,
they were fairly common everywhere with
the exception of in the headwaters. The
low number of components in the headwaters
is a continuation of the pattern noted
during the Early Mississippian period, and
suggests occupation was fairly minimal.
Only one center, Tugalo, was occupied
throughout most of the Middle Missis-
sippian in this part of the basin, and it
was not until the very end of the period
or early in the succeeding Late Missis-
sippian period that the Chauga and Estatoe
centers were occupied.
Middle Mississippian components
occur with greatest frequency in the basin
in the area around the Rembert site, one
of the two major mound centers that
emerged in the valley during this period.
Intensive settlement around Iembert is
indicated by the survey data, and the
excavations in the Russell Reservoir have


shown that at least some of these sites
were small villages or hamlets. Very
little is known about settlement around
Mason's Plantation, the other major mound
group in the valley at this time. Given
the history of occupation at the nearby
Hollywood site, and the lack of evidence
for later components in the surrounding
area, it appears that population declined
markedly in this part of the drainage
following the Hollywood phase (ca. A.D.
1200 to 1300). This is also indicated in
the lower Coastal Plain, where Middle
Mississippian components (N=14) occur with
less than half the frequency of Early
Mississippian components (N=33). The
decline in the number of sites in the
lower Coastal Plain is probably related to
the abandonment of the Lawton and Red Lake
centers, which took place about this time.
No comparable decline was observed at the
mouth of the river, however, where a
slight increase in the number of sites is
noted, although it was during this period
that the occupation at Irene was revi-
talized.
Late Mississippian (ca. A.D. 1450 to
1750) components, which include Irene II,
Yamassee, Tugalo, and Estatoe phase assem-
blages, were appreciably less common in
the basin than components dating to the
earlier subperiods (N=58; 19.0% of all
identifiable components). Late Mississip-
pian Components were infrequent everywhere
except in the upper reaches of the valley,
above the Fall Line, where most of the
components dating to this period were
found (N=46; 79.3%). An increase in the
frequency and proportional occurrence of
Late Mississippian components was evident
in each area proceeding from the mouth to
the headwaters, although the proportional
occurrence of these as opposed to earlier
components was still quite low everywhere
but in the extreme northern part of the
basin (Figure 5). That is, while Late
Mississippian components become progres-
sively more common upriver, they remained
infrequent, and accounted for no more than
ca. 20% of the identifiable components in
any area below the headwaters. Many of
the components assigned to the Late
Mississippian period in these areas, fur-
thermore, were identified on the basis of
























Mouth Lower CP Inner CP Piedmont Blue Ridge

Physiographic Zone
Figure 5. Mississippian Components, by Period and Subarea, in the Savannah River basin:
(Number of Components per Period per Subarea).


sherds exhibiting one or a few bold
incised lines, artifacts that could very
well date to the Middle Mississippian
Irene I or Rembert phases. With a very
few exceptions, almost all the unambiguous
Late Mississippian assemblages found in
the basin with moderate or large numbers
of diagnostic artifacts occurred in the
headwaters area.
No Late Mississippian components
were observed at the mouth of the basin,
suggesting the area was abandoned after
Irene I times. The unoccupied buffer
present in this area in the 16th century,
between the Guale of the central Georgia
coast and the Orista and related groups
along the lower and central South Carolina
coast, may well have formed about this
time (see Jones 1978, Larson 1978 for more
on the Guale). Light use of the Lower and
Inner Cbastal Plain is also indicated
during the Late Mississippian period, with
only four and eight components found in
these areas, respectively. Appreciably
more Late Mississippian components were
identified in the lower Piedmont. While
23 Late Mississippian components were
identified in this area, most of them
(N=18, 78.3%) were from the extreme
western part of the basin in Oglethorpe
and Banks counties, near the Oconee River
(Freer 1989; Jefferies and Hally 1975).
These appear to reflect early historic
movement into the area by populations from


the Oconee Basin, whose expansion was
undoubtedly facilitated by the abandonment
of this part of the Savannah. Nowhere
below the Upper Piedmont/Blue Ridge area,
in fact, is there evidence for intensive
occupation during the Late Mississippian
period near the main channel. The low
incidence of artifacts on most of these
components suggests the presence of
isolated hamlets or villages or temporary
camps used by populations based elsewhere.
Only in the headwaters area are Late
Mississippian components fairly common,
accounting for 23 of the 31 identifiable
components found in this locality. Most
of these components are historic Cherokee
in age, and probably come from hamlet or
town sites like those recently documented
at Chatooga and Tomassee (Schroedl and
Riggs 1989; Smith et al. 1988). The sur-
vey data for the Late Mississippian period
thus complement the record from the mound
centers, since only Chauga, Tugalo, and
Estatoe, of all the centers in the basin,
were occupied during this period.

Conclusions

Eubanks' argument that there were
extensive Late Mississippian occupations
in the central and lower Savannah River
Valley is not supported by the extant
archaeological record from the valley.
His "evidence" supporting such a position










for the Hollywood, Beaverdam Creek, Irene,
Rembert, Lawton, and Silver Bluff/Mason's
Plantation sites is either non-existent or
relies on the distortion or misrepresen-
tation of what the archaeologists investi-
gating these sites actually said. Rather
than suppress data from the valley, as
Eubanks states I have done, I have made
every effort to accumulate and present it.
My research and data have been published,
furthermore, and are hence available to be
judged by accepted standards of scientific
research.
In contrast, as has been repeatedly
demonstrated in this paper, Eubanks is
guilty of precisely what he has accused
myself and several other authors of doing:
distorting published data to advance his
own ends. In his quest to find Spanish
artifacts in the Savannah River basin he
has misrepresented the writings of several
authors, attributing the presence of
Spanish artifacts at sites to them when
they in fact said nothing about the sub-
ject or even said exactly the opposite
(e.g., Scurry et al. 1980; Seltzer and
Jennings 1940; Thomas 1894). Such activ-
ity has no place in science or scholar-
ship.
Given the archaeological evidence
accumulated to date from the Savannah
River valley, the existence of a Late
Mississippian polity the size, power and
extent of COfitachequi is not evident.
This conclusion is arrived at from archae-
ological analysis, and thus serves as an
independent check on the documentary
evidence suggesting such an interpretation
(DePratter et al. 1983; Hudson et al.
1984). Future fieldwork in the Savannah
River valley may modify this view, and I
for one stand ready to accept arguments
and conclusions backed up by solid
evidence.

Ac knowledgements

I wish to thank Dr. Charles Hudson
for bringing to my attention the results
of the recent re-analysis of the Hollywood
mound historic artifacts. Thanks are also
due to the following people for their
advice and commentary on this article:
Chester DePratter, David J. Hally, Charles


M. Hudson, John Scarry, and Marvin T.
Smith. Louis Tesar, editor of The Florida
Anthropologist, is to be thanked for pro-
viding me with the opportunity to make
this reply, and for help in preparing it
for publication. Finally, the author
wishes to note that while he did graduate
from high school in Georgia in 1967, he
has lived in other states most of his
adult life, and in fact was in Michigan
from 1977 to 1986, when the paper Eubanks
attributes to the "Georgians" was written.
Having since moved back to Georgia,
however, he is proud to be included as a
member of this group.

References Cited
Anderson, David G.
1975 Fort Congaree on the Carolina Frontier Archaeological Investigations 1970 Through
1975 South Carolina Antiouires 7(2):1-30.
1985 The Internal Organization and Operation of Chiefdom Level Societies on the
Southeastern Atlantc Slope. An Examination of Ethnohistonc Sources. South
Carolina Antiquities 17:35-69.
1986 Comments. In Missssionip Period Archaeoloev of the Georeia Piedmont by
David J. Hally and James L. Rudolph, pp. 94-102. University of Georgia
Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 24.
1987 Prehistoric Ceramics from Four Sites Along the Middle Savannah River
38BR259, 38BR495, 38BR527, and 38BR528 In Late Archaic-Late
Woodland Adantive Stability and Change in the Steel Creek Watershed. South
arolina., by Mark J. Brooks and Glen T. Hanson. Savannah River
Archaeological Papers No. 2. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina
1989 The Mississippian in South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeoloev
Papers in Honor of Dr Robert L Stenhenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear,
IlI and Glen T. Hanson. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Anthropological Studies.
1990 Political Evolution in Chiefdom Societies: Cvcline in the Late Prehistoric
Southeastern United States. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology.
University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
n.d. The Lawton Mound Group (38AL11) Allendale County, South Carolina:
Statement of Significance. Unpublished manuscript on file at the South
Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South
Carolina. Columbia, South Carolina.
Anderson, David G. and J. W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Alone the Unper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis
of Cultural Resource Investiations. Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource
MAIa. Atlanta Interagency Archeological Services Division, National Park
Service, Russell Papers 1988.
Anderson, David G., and Jenalee Muse
1982 The Archaeology of Tenancy. An Exampte'from the South Carolina Low Country
South Carolina Antiuities 14:71-85.
Anderson, David G. and Joseph Schuldenrein
1983 Mississipplan Settlement in the Southern Piedmont. Evidence from the Rucker's
Bottom Site, Elbert County, Georgia. Southeastern Archaeologv 2:98-117.
1985 Prehistoric Human Ecology Alone the Upper Savannah Rivr. Excavations at
the Rucker's Bottom. Abbeville. and Bullard Site Grouns. Atlanta Interagency
Archeological Services Division, National Park Service, Russell Papers 1985.
Anderson. David G., David J. Hally, and James L Rudolph
1986 The Mississippian Occupation of the Savannah River Valley. Southea.isrn
Archaeology 5(1):32-51.
Baker, Steven G.
1974 Cofitachioue: Fair Province of Carolina Unpublished M A. thesis, Department
of History, University of South Carolina
Barram, Wiliam
1791 Travels through North and South Carolina. Georgia. East and West Florda.
The Cherokee Country. The Extensive Temrtones of the Muscouniles or Creek
Confederacy, and the Country of the Choctaws Containing an Account of the
Soil and Natural Production of these Regions Together with Observatons on
the Manners of the Indians. James and Johnson. Philadelphia.
Brooks, Mark J and Glen T. Hanson (assemblers)
1987 late Archaic-Late Woodland Adapntve Stability and Chanoe in the Steel Creek
Watershed. South Carolina. by Mark J. Brooks and Glen T. Hanson. Savannah River
Archaeological Papers No. 2. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina.













Brown, James A.
1985 The Mississippian Period. In Ancient Art of the American Woodland Indians,
by David S. Brose, James A. Brown, and David W. Penny, pp. 92-145. Harry
N. Abrams, Inc.. New York.

Caldwell, Joseph R.
1948 Palachacolas Town, Hampton County, South Carolina. Journal Qf
Washineton Academy of Sciences 38(10).

1952 The Archeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archeology of the
Eastern United States, edited by J. B. Griffin, pp. 312-321. University of
Chicago Press.

1953 The Rember Mounds, Elbert County, Georgia. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletnn 154:303-320.

1956 Progress Report on Excavation at Tugalo (9St1 Georgia) Unpublished Ms.
on file, Deparmnent of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.

1957 Survey and Excavations in the Allatoona Reservoir, Northern Georgia.
Unpublished Ms. on file at the Department of Anthropology, University of
Georgia, Athens.

1958 Trend and Tradinon in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. Amencan
Anthropological Association Memoir 88.

1971 Chronology of the Georgia Coast Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Bullein 13:89-92.

1974a Study of Mulberry Pottery. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.
University of South Carolina, The Notoo VI(3 & 4)-88-98.

1974b Preliminary Report Archeological Investigation of Fort Charlotte, McCormick
County, South Carolina South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolna. he Noebook VI(2):45-56.

1974c Appraisal of the Archaeological Resources of Hartwell Reservoir, South
Carolina and Georgia South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolna, Te Noteboo VI(2):35-44.

Caldwell, Joseph R. and Catherine McCann
1941 Irene Mound Site. Chatham County. Georgia. University of Georgia Press,
Athens.

Caldwell, Joseph R. and Antonio J. Wanng, Jr
1939a Some Chatham County Pottery Types and Their Sequence. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Newsletter 1:5-6.

1939b The Use of Ceramic Sequence in the Classification of Aboriginal Sites in
Chatham County, Georgia. Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Newsletter 2:6-7.

Campbell, Janice L., and Carol S. Weed
1984 The Beaverdam Group Archaeololical Investieations at 9EB92. 9EB207.
9FB208 and 9EB219 Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area, Elbert
County. Georlga. Atlanta Interagency Archeological Services Division,
National Park Service, Russell Papers.

Cook, Fred C.
n.d. Investigations at the Red Lake Site, Screven County, Georgia. Manuscript in
preparation.

Cook, Fred C., and Charles E. Pearson
1989 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex on the Georgia Coast In The
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis The Cottonlandia
Conference, edited by Patricia Galloway, pp. 27-37. University of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln

DeBaillou, Clemens
1965 A Test Excavation of the Hollywood Mound (9RJI), Georgia. Southern Indian
Snudies 17:3-11.

DePratter, Chester B.
1979 Ceramics. In The Anthronoloev of St Catherine's Island The Refuec-
Deptford Mortuary Complex, edited by D. H. Thomas and C. S. Larsen., pp.
109-132. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History
56(1).

1987 The Pee Dec Pottery Tradition- From Town Creek to the Wateree. Paper
presented at the Town Creek Indian Mound 50th Anniversary Celebration,
Southern Pines, North Carolina, April 11, 1987.

1989 The Archaeology of Cofitachequi. In Stidies in South Carolina Archaeology:
Paners In Honor of Robert L. Stehenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear, 111.
and Glen T. Hanson. South Carolina Insti':i -I .-ih ,nl and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, .... -i'. .-.' -'-' (In
Press).

DePratter, Chester B., and Marvin T. Smith
1980 Sixteenth Century European Trade in the Southeastern United States: Evidence
from the Juan Pardo Expeditions (1566-1568). In Spanish Colonial Frontier
Rearch, edited by Henry F. Dobyns, pp. 67-77. Center for Anthropological
Studies, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

DePratter, Chester B., Charles M. Hudson, and Marvin T. Smith
1983 The Route of Juan Pardo's Explorations in the Intenor Southeast, 1566-1568.
Florida Historical Ouarterly 62:125-158. (Originally presented in 1980)

DePratter, Chester B., and Chnstopher Judge
1986 Regional and Temporal Variation in Material Culture: Wateree Rier. Paper
presented at the Lamar Institute Conference on South Appalachian
Mississipplan. Macon, Georgia, May 9, 1986.

Elliott, Daniel T., and Stephen A. Kowalewski
1987 Fortson Mound, 9Ws2. Lamar Blef 10-4.

Eubanks, W. S., Jr.
1989 Studying De Soto's Route: A Georgian House of Cards. The Florida AnIhrpoiogist
42:369-380.


Fairbanks, Charles H.
1950 A Preliminary Segregation of Etowah, Savannah, and Lamar. American
Antiouiy 16:142-151.

1952 Creek and Pre-Creek. In Archaeoloyv of the Eastern United States, edited by
James B. Griffin, pp. 285-300. University of Chicago Press.

Ferguson, Leiand G.
1971 South Appalachian Mississipnian. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Freer, Jennifer A.
1989 Archaeological Settlement patterns in Oglethorpe County. Georgia. MA Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia. Athens.

Galloway, Pamnca (editor)
1989 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Artifacts and Analysis The
Cottonlandia Conference University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Goodyear, Alber C III, and Glen T. Hanson (editors)
1989 Studies in South Carolina Archaeoloev: Papers in Honor of Robert L.
Stephc.n on, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Anthropological Studies 9. (In Press).

Grange. Roger D.
1972 The I. C. Few Site (38PN2). Unpublished Ms. on file at the South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.

Gresham, Thomas H., and Karen G. Wood
1986 Archaeological Data Recovery at 38AB387 and 9EB368 Richard B. Russell
Lake. Abbeville County. South Carolina and Elbert County. Georgia. Final
Contract DACW21-86-M-0132 Report prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer
District, Savannah.

Griffin, James B. (editor).
1952 Archeoloe of Eastern United Stares University of Chicago Press.

Hally, David J.
1986 The Cherokee Archaeology of Georgia. In The Conference on Cherokee
Prehistory assembled by David G. Moore, pp. 95-121. Warren Wilson
College, Swannanoa, North Carolina.

Hally, David J., and James L. Rudolph
1986 Mississiopi Period Archaeology of the Georgia Piedmont. University of
Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 24.

Hally, David J., and James B. Langford, Jr.
1988 Mississippi Period Archaeoloev of the Georgia Valley and Ridge Province.
University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report 25.

Hally, David J., Charles M. Hudson, and Chester B. DePratter
1985 The Proto-Histonc Along the Savannah River. Paper presented at the 42nd
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Birmingham, Alabama, November 7,
1985.

Hudson, Charles M.
1986 Some Thoughts on the Early Social History of the Cherokees. In TI.
Conference on Cherokee Prehistory. assembled by David G. Moore, pp. 139
157. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa. North Carolina.

1990 The Juan Parda Exeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee.
1566-J568. Smithsonian Institution Press (In Press)

Hudson, Charles M., and Marvin T. Smith
n.d. Response to Eubanks. Paper in preparation for The Florida Anthropologist.

Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando DeSoto Expedition: From Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern
Anrhaology 3:65-77.

Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith, David J. Hally, Richard Polhemus, and Chester B.
DePraner
1985 Coosa: A Chiefdom in the Sixteenth Century United States, American Antiquity
50:723-737.

1987 In Search of Coosa: Reply to Schroedl and Boyd. American Antiquit 52:840-
857.

Hutto. Brooks
1970 Archaeological Survey of the Elbert County. Georgia. Portion of the Proposed
Trotter's Shoals Reservoir. Savannah River. University of Georgia,
Laboratory of Archaeology Series 7.

Jefferies, Richard W., and David J. Hally
1975 An Archaeolonical Reconnaissance of Structures 1.2.3 3.351.58 and 60.
Grove River Watershed. Jackson and Banks Counties. Georgia. Contract No.
654-Ga-SCS-75 Final Report prepared for U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Manuscript No. 57.
Athens.

Jones, Charles C.
1861 Monumental Remains of Georgia. John M. Cooper and Company, Savannah.

1873 Antiquities of the Southern Indians. Particularly of the Georgia Tribes. D,
Appleton and Company, New York.

1878 Ancient Tumuli on the Savannah River, Visited by William Bartram, in 1776.
Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the
Yeanr182. pp. 283-289. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Jones, Grant D.
1978 The Ethnohistory of the Guale Coast through 1684. In The Anthropolo2y o
St. Catherine's Island I. Natural and Cultural History, edited by David H.
Thomas, pp. 178-210. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological
Papers 55(2).













Judge, Christopher
1987 Aboritinal Vessel Function in Mississipoian Society: A Case Study from the
Mulberry Site (38KE12). Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Kelly, Arthur R.
1938 A Preliminary Report on Archaeological Explorations at Macon, Georgia.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 119-1-68.

Kelly, A. R., and Clemons de Baillou
1960 Excavation of the Presumptive Site of Estatoe. Southern Indian Studies 12:3-
30.

Kelly, Arthur R. and Robert S. Neitzel
1959 Chauga Mound and Village (38OC1 and Other Sites in the Hartwell Basin.
University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology, Manuscript. Athens.
Interagency Archaeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta. Library
Manuscript 771.

1961 The Chauea Site in Oconce County. South Carolina. University of Georgia,
Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report 3.

Larson, Lewis H., Jr.
1978 Historic Guale Indians of the Georgia Coast and the Impact of the Spanish
Mission Effort. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Flonda and Southeastern
Georeia During the Histonc Period, edited by Jerald T. Milaumch and Samuel
Proctor, pp 120-140. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

1980b Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeastern Coastal Plain During
the Late Prehistoric Period. Ripley P. Bullen Monographs in Anthropology
and History No. 2. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Lee, Chung H.
1976 The Beaverdam Creek Mound (9EB85. Elbert County. Georia. Unpublished
manuscript on file at Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia,
Athens.

Moore, Clarence B.
1898 Certain Aboriginal Mounds he nah Ri urna of the SavaAcdemy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Second Series 2(2):162-172.

Muller, Jon
1989 The Southern Cult. In The Southeaster Ceremonial Comlex:Artifacls and
Analysis The Cottonlandia Conference. edited by Patricia Galloway, pp. 11-26.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Phillips, Philip, and James A. Brown
1978 Pre-Columbian Shell Enravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro. Oklahoma
Peabody Museum Press, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Reid, 1. Jefferson
1965 A Comparative Statement of Ceramics from the Hollywood and Town Creek
Sites. Southern Indian Studies 17:12-25.

1967 PeeDee Pottery from the Mound at Town Creek. Unpublished MA Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Rudolph, James L.
1983 Lamar Period Exploitation of Aquatic Resources in the Middle Oconee River
Valley Early. Gorgia 11:86-103

Rudolph, James L. and Dennis B. Blanton
1980 A Discussion of Mississippian Settlement in the Georgia Piedmont. Early
Gcorgia 8:14-36.

Rudolph, James L. and David J. Hally
1985 Archaeological Investigaton of the Beaverdam Creek Site (9EB851. Elben
County. Georeia. Atlanta Interagency Archeological Services Division,
National Park Service, Russell Papers.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G. Anderson
1989 Typology and Chronology. In Technical Synthesis of Prehistoric
Investigations on the Savannah River Site. Aiken and Bamwell Counties. South
Carolna, by Kenneth E. Sassaman, Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and
David G. Anderson, pp. 143-193. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC09
81SR10749 Final Report. Savannah River Archaeological Research Program,
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Preparation.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G Anderson
1989 Technical Synthesis of Prehistoric Investieations on the Savannah River Site.
Aiken and Barnwell Counties. South Carolina Department of Energy Contract
DE-AC09-81SR10749 Final Repon, Savannah River Archaeological Research
Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Schnell, Frank T, and Newell Wright
1990 Missis sioian Period Archaeoloey of the Georgia Coastal Plain. Georgia
Archaeological Research Design Papers. (In Press).

Schroedl, Gerald F., and Brett Riggs
1989 Cherokee Lower Town Archaeology at the Chatooga Site (380cl8). Paper
presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Tampa. Florida, November 10, 1989.

Scurry, James D., J. Walter Joseph, and Fritz Hamer
1980 Initial Archaeological Investigations at Silver Bluff Plantation. Aiken County.
South Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series 168. Columbia.

Sears, William H.
1958 The Wilbanks Site (9CK5), Georgia. Bureau of American Ethnoloev Bulletin
169:129-194.

Seltzer, Frank M., and Jesse DJenmnngs
1940 Peachtree Mound and Village Site. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 131.


Smith, Marvin T.
1981 Archaeolopical Investivations at the Dvar Site. 9GE5. Wallace Reservoir.
Gergia. Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Wallace
Reservoir Contribution 5.

1983 The Development of Lamar Ceramics in the Wallace Reservoir: The Evidence
from the Dyar Site. Early Georg 11:74-85.

1987 Archaeoloev of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast:
Depopulation During the Early Historic Penod. Ripley P. Bullen Monographs
in Archaeology and History No. 6. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Smith, Marvin T. and Stephen A. Kowalewski
1980 Tentative Identification of a Prehistoric Province in Piedmont Georgia. Early
Goria 8:1-13.

Smith, Marvin T., and J. Mark Williams
1978 European Materials from the Tugalo Site, 9STI. Early Georia 6:38-53.

Srmth, Marvin T., J. Mark Williams, Chester B. DePratter, Marshall Williams, and Mike Harmon
1988 Archaeological Investigations at Tomassee (380c1861 A Lower Cherokee
Igan. South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University
of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series 206.

Swanton, John R.
1932 Ethnological Value of the De Soto Narratives. American Anthronoloeist
34(4):570-590.

1939 Final Renort of the United Stares DeSoto Commission. House Documents No.
71, 1st Session, 76th Congress, Washington, D.C.

Taylor, Richard L. and Marion F. Smith (editors)
1978 The ReLorn of the Intensive Survey of the Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake.
Savannah River Georia and South Carolina. Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Senes 142.

Thomas, Cyrus
1894 Reonr of the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. 12th Annual
Report of the Bureau of America Ethnology.

Thomas, David H. and Clark S. Larsen
1979 The Anthropology of S. Catherine's Island 2. The Refuge-Detoford Moruary
Complex. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History
56(1).

Tippitt, V Ann and Willam H. Marquardt
1984 Archaeoloelcal Investigations at Greg Shoals. A Deenly Stratified Site on the
Savannah River. Atlanta Interagency Archeological Services Division, National
Park Service, Russell Papers.

Wanng, Antonio J., Jr.
1968a The Cultural Sequence at the Mouth of the Savannah River. In The Waring
Papers: The Collected Papers of Antonio J. Waring, L, edited by Stephen
Williams, pp. 216-221. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology 58.

1968b A History of Georgia Archaeology. In The Waring Papers: The Collected
Papers of Antonio J. Warine. .edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 288-299.
Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 58.

1968c The Indian King's Tomb. In The Warine Paners: The Collected Paners of
Antonio J. Warine.Jr.. edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 209-215. Papers of
the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 58.

Wauchope, Robert
1948 The Ceramic Sequence in the Etowah Drainage, Northwest Georgia. American
Antiqulay 13:201-209.

1950 The Evolution and Persistence of Ceramic Motifs in Northern Georgia.
American Antiauity 13:201-209.

1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia. Society for American
Archaeology Memoir 21.

Williams, J. Mark, and Gary ShapLro
1987 The Changing Contexts of Oconee Valley Political Power. Paper presented at
the 44th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Charleston, South Carolina, November 13, 1987.

Williams, Marshall W., and Carolyn Branch
1978 The Tugalo Site, 9Stl. EaroGeoria 6:32-37.

Williams, Stephen
1968 The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr. Papers of the Peabody Museum
of American Archaeology and Ethnology 58.

1979 Some Negative Painted Pottery: A Possible Horizon Marker in the Southeast. Paper
presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Atlanta Georgia, November 9, 1979.

Winters. Howard D.
1968 Value Systems and Trade Cycles of the Late' Archaic in the Midwest. In New
Perspectives in Archaeologv, edited by Sally R. and Lewis R. Binford, pp.
175-221. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

Wood, W. Dean, Dan T. Elliott, Teresa P. Rudolph, and Dennis B. Blanton
1986 Archaeoloeical Data Recovery in the Richard B. Russell Multiole Resource
Area. The Anderson and Elber County Groups: 38AN8. 38AN29. 38AN126.
9EB17. 9EN19 and 9EB21. Atlanta Interagency Archeological Services
Division, National Park Service, Russell Papers.



David G. Anderson
Interagency Archeological Services
National Park Service
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303









REPLY TO EUBANKS

Charles Hudson and Marvin Smith
Department of Anthropology & Linguigtics
University of Georgia


We welcome this opportunity to
address the criticisms of our research on
the De Soto route by W.S, Eubanks, Jr.
Many of these criticisms have already been
circulated by him in letters to multiple
addressees. But the tone of these letters
has been so abusive and ad hominem we have
not been inclined to respond. Some of this
same tone is present in his paper in the
last issue of The Florida Anthropologist.
Eubanks goes beyond normal scholarly de-
bate to call our ethics into question and
to imply that north of the Florida state
line and east of the Alabama state line
there exists a sinister cabal plotting to
deceive the American public, or else a
James gang of renegade ethnohistorians and
archaeologists who are intent on pillaging
research coffers. Such accusations have
no place in scholarly debate, and we will
not respond to them. We will limit our-
selves to addressing the factual questions
he raises.
Mounds. Early in our research, we
realized that De Soto's army depended upon
pillaging Indian storehouses for corn to
feed themselves and their horses. West of
the Mississippi River, it is especially
clear that the expedition did not go in
directions which Indian informants said
were sparsely inhabited and were therefore
lacking in corn (Hudson 1987a). Hence, our
assumption all along the route has been
that De Soto and his men were most likely
to visit social centers where corn was
stored.
Although archaeologists have long
thought that the central towns of Missis-
sippian polities were located at sites
with mounds, and there is quite a bit of
evidence supporting this proposition, we
have never made the presence of mounds a
prerequisite for towns visited by the De
Soto expedition or by any other sixteenth-
century Spanish expedition. And we have
never said that mounds are the most


promising places to search for De Soto
period artifacts.
In Hudson's (1990) forthcoming book
on the Juan Pardo expeditions, he specifi-
cally argues that Guatari, one of the
polities visited by pardo, may have lacked
mounds.
The Wilderness of Ocute. Eubanks is
quite correct in realizing that a geo-
graphical delineation of the wilderness
area which De Soto encountered between
Ocute and Cbfitachequi is of pivotal im-
portance in reconstructing De Soto's route
between Apalachee and Cofitachequi. It
took De Soto and his men thirteen days to
cross this uninhabited area, and in
traversing it they had to ford three large
rivers. We are assured that traveling
northeastward from Tallahassee, there is
no more than one area that both matches
these archaeological and geographical
characteristics and was devoid of human
habitation in 1540.
Elsewhere in this issue of The
Florida Anthropologist, David Anderson has
summarized the factual evidence that the
Central Savannah River Valley was unin-
habited in 1540, and we do not need to
reiterate what he has said so well. We
would, however, like to report on what we
have learned about the "Abo type" Spanish
majolica and metal artifacts from the
Hollywood mounds. We obtained 35mm slides
of this material from the Smithsonian
Institution, where it is housed. Bruce
Smith informs us that Smithsonian archae-
ologists have never referred to these
pieces of ceramics as anything but
European porcelain, and the pieces in
question have always been so catalogued.
But to be absolutely sure, we sent the
35mm slides of this material to experts
south of the Georgia state line for
identification. Using the type collection
in the Florida Museum of Natural History,
Jerald Milanich and Maurice Williams


March, 1990


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 43 No. 1









identify the ceramics as: (1) blue and
green shell-edged pearlware, manufactured
c. 1780-1830; and (2) probable transfer-
printed blue on white ware, manufactured
c. 1795-1840 (South 1972; Hume 1976:116,
129, 131, 133). They identify the metal
artifacts as a piece of a drawknife
(probably 19th century) and assorted
nails, at least two of which are mass-
produced wire nails dating to no earlier
than the late 19th century (Hume 1976:253,
254).
What has led Eubanks to populate an
area that was unpopulated in 1540? What
has led him to transmute 19th century por-
celain into 16th century majolica? The
reason is that he realizes how crucial the
uninhabited Central Savannah River Valley
is to our De Soto route, and by the same
token, how damning it is to the route of
the U.S. De Soto Expedition Commission. If
the Central Savannah River Valley was un-
inhabited in 1540, the chiefdom of Cofita-
chequi cannot have been there, and if it
was not, then all of the Commission's pro-
posed locations further up the Savannah
River Valley also fall flat. And to
Eubanks' distress, it invalidates the
Commission's location of Guasili at or
near the Peachtree mound site near Murphy,
N.C.
The Spanish League(s). We will not
undertake to defend Boland Chardon's im-
portant work on the various leagues used
by Spaniards in the sixteenth century. He
is perfectly capable of defending himself.
[Editor's Note: Chardon's response is
included in this issue.]
But we will repeat what we have
said before. In our reconstruction of the
route of the Juan Pardo expeditions, it
was necessary to utilize a league measure-
ment. The reason is that Juan de la
Bandera, Pardo's notary, frequently speci-
fies the number of leagues they traveled
in the course of a day. He does so almost
on a day-by-day basis. In working out
Pardo's route, we came to the conclusion
that Bandera was using the league which
Chardon calls the legua comun -- i.e. 3.46
miles to the league. Using the shorter
legua legal -- 2.63 miles to the league --
we could not achieve a satisfactory fit


between the Pardo routes and the geograph-
ical and archaeological information.
The only place where Juan de la
Bandera specified which of the leagues he
was using was in recording the distance of
a crystal mine from the town of Yssa. The
sentence is in the Bandera manuscript, on
folio 22 and folio 22 versa:

[Dlespues de lo suso dho diez del dho
mes de diziembre del dho anro de mil e
quinientos E sesenta y siete anos el
senior Capitan Juan Pardo estando en
un lugar que se llama yssa fue ynfor-
mada que una legua larga del dho
lugar al rrio abaxo como salen del
dho lugar....

Translated by Paul Hoffman -- page 69 of
his manuscript translation -- to be
published in full in Hudson's forthcoming
book on the Pardo expeditions, it reads:

After the above, on December 10,
1567, Captain Juan Pardo, being in
a place which is called Yssa, was
informed that a long league from
the village, down the river as you
go from the said village....

In contrast, the De Soto chroniclers
very rarely mention the number of leagues
traveled on particular days. The Gentleman
of Elvas is the chronicler who most often
gives distances in leagues. Most of these
are estimates of travel for many days at a
time. As all researchers including Swanton
have noted, the league which the Gentleman
of Elvas used is so variable in length as
to be indeterminate (Swanton 1939:302-
304).
Hence, even if one knew which
leagues the various De Soto chroniclers
used (and they may have used several, in-
cluding a nautical league), it would not
be especially helpful in working out the
De Soto route because the chroniclers do
not give day-byday reports of distances
traveled.
The one place we have indirectly
used a league measurement in working out
our De Soto route is in setting an upper
limit on how far the expedition was likely
to travel in the course of a day. The Juan









Pardo expedition traveled five leagues (5
x 3.46=17.3 miles) on many days, and very
seldom more than that. Hence, we used 17.5
miles as the upper limit De Soto was
likely to travel in any one day.
In addition, we have used the 3.46
mile league in a few minor determinations
with regard to the De Soto route. (e.g.
Hudson et al. 1990). But we insist that
our solution to the De Soto route does not
directly depend on any numerical league
measure.
Was Guasili at the Peachtree bMund
Site? If Obfitachequi was not in the
Savannah River Valley, then it only takes
a brief exercise with a pencil and paper
to figure out that Guasili could not have
been located at the Peachtree Mound site,
near Murphy, North Carolina, where the De
Soto Commission placed it.
But Eubanks insists that it was
there. It must be there, he says, because
of the great quantities of Spanish
artifacts that have purportedly been found
there. In November, 1989, the two of us
made arrangements with the Cherokee County
Historical Museum in Murphy to examine
these artifacts. We discussed our visit
with Museum personnel several weeks prior
to our visit. During our visit we examined
the Museum's collection, the collection of
Mary Ann Thompson, and 35mm slides of
other collections assembled by Dr. Ann
Rogers. Unfortunately, some collections
were not made available to us.
We photographed the halberd on
display in the museum and subsequently
sent a 35 mm slide to Byron A. Johnson,
Curator of History at the Albuquerque
Museum of Art, History, and Science. He
reports that this halberd probably dates
to the eighteenth century and that it is
probably of English, American, or French
manufacture. And he notes that the halberd
is atypical in several respects. For ex-
ample, it shows hammer marks and a crude-
ness of manufacture that no professional
sixteenth- to eighteenth-century armorer
would have allowed. Clearly, this halberd
was not carried by De Soto's men.
One of Ann Iogers' 35 mm slides
pictures a string of shell beads strung
together with what appeared to be three
Nueva Cadiz beads -- excellent sixteenth-


century markers -- though we were unable
to examine these beads first hand.
Cne of us (Smith) has been engaged
in the study of glass trade beads for
nearly twenty years. He was selected to
analyze the beads from the Governor Martin
Site (Smith 1989), and is therefore famil-
iar with the beads from the presumed De
Soto winter camp site. He has also co-
authored the major monograph on sixteenth-
century beads in the Spanish colonial
trade (Smith and Good 1982). He thus has
extensive, first-hand knowledge of six-
teenth-century Spanish beads, and has
worked with beads of other time periods as
well.
Eubanks (1989) emphasizes that a
number of chevron beads have been found at
the Peachtree site. But, it is quite clear
that the chevron beads that we examined in
Murphy, said to be from the Peachtree
Mound site, are not of the sixteenth-
century type. There are numerous differ-
ences: (1) the Murphy chevron beads have a
hexagonal cross-section, while sixteenth-
century examples have a round or very
rarely a square cross-section; (2) the
Peachtree chevrons have five layers of
glass, while sixteenth-century chevrons
have seven; (3) the Peachtree chevrons
have no "teeth" on the inner green layer,
while sixteenth-century chevrons do; and,
(4) the chevrons of the type seen at
Peachtree are much larger than the six-
teenth-century type. There has been some
confusion in the literature about this
hexagonal type (we will use this term in
place of the longer but more precise "hex-
agonal cross-section") of chevron bead,
and now may be the time to clear up some
of that confusion.
In 1976, Fletcher Jolly and Ken
Cornett published an article describing
the hexagonal type chevron bead found in
surface collections from the Overhill
Cherokee town of Great Tellico (40Mrl2) in
Tennessee. They carefully describe the
beads and suggest that they may date to
the seventeenth century. Both blue and
green are listed as exterior colors, and
Cornett (personal communication) later
found an identical bead with a red
exterior at another nearby site in
Tennessee. Jolly and Oornett were unable









to find comparable examples in the archae-
ological literature, except for a similar
hexagonal cross-section chevron bead of
seven layers in a large collection of
beads from several sites in the Lower
Tallapoosa River valley reported by Burke
(1936, and reprinted by G.B. Fenstermaker
in 1974). Since their article was
published, additional research has located
five-layer hexagonal chevron beads at the
eighteenth-century Overhill Cherokee towns
of Chota, dated at ca. 1710-1819 (Newman
1986:427), Hiwassee Old Town (Fenstermaker
1978), and Toqua (Polhemus 1987:945); at
the site of Fort Moore/Savannah Town in
South Carolina (ca. 1680-1770) (Story
n.d.:types 223, 274); and at the site of
"Big Town", an eighteenth-century
Chickasaw site in Mississippi (Steve Cook
collection). Although some of these sites
(Toqua, Hiwassee Old Town) have earlier
components that may represent occupations
during the De Soto period, most are single
component, eighteenth-century sites. These
distributional data strongly suggest that
this bead type was traded by Englishmen
during the eighteenth century. But much
more important was the eventual excavation
of this hexagonal type of chevron bead in
good archaeological context. Green chev-
rons of this hexagonal type were excavated
in an eighteenth-century Cherokee burial
at the Citico site on the Little Tennessee
River by James H. Polhemus (Richard
Polhemus, personal communication). This
burial also contained silver ear rings of
a type first traded during the eighteenth
century. There is no doubt that this five-
layer, hexagonal cross-section chevron
bead is an eighteenth-century type. Thus,
most of the purported De Soto beads from
Peachtree are a later type.
But what about the probable Nueva
Cadiz style beads we viewed in a
photograph? These should date to the De
Soto period, but they are the only diag-
nostic sixteenth-century European material
we have seen from Peachtree. As Eubanks
notes (1989:377) and as has been pointed
out previously (Smith 1987:25-27), Spanish
material can be expected to move around
via aboriginal trade. We believe that in
1540 a native polity had its center at the
Peachtree Mound site, and these people


were able to obtain some of the new exotic
European artifacts. Just as Eubanks
argues that this is how early European
material reached eastern Tennessee
(1989:377), we would argue that it is how
it reached North Carolina. Since the De
Soto expedition was within about 50 miles
of the Peachtree bMund Site for six days
as it traveled from Tali towards Coosa, it
is not surprising that a few artifacts
found their way to the site.
We could point out that there are
many more sixteenthcentury artifacts in
Tennessee and northwestern Georgia than in
North Carolina. If total recovery were
possible, the bulk of Spanish artifacts
should cluster along the route, but given
the actualities of archaeological
recovery, finding them becomes a real
needle-in-a-haystack problem. When such
recovery problems are compounded by docu-
mented cases of Indians trafficking in
sixteenth-century Spanish material, and
thus producing a blurred distribution, we
would not be so naive as to argue that "he
who has the most artifacts wins."
What of other supposed Spanish
artifacts mentioned by Eubanks for the
Peachtree site, such as Clarksdale bells?
We would point out that Clarksdale bells
are not infallible evidence of the De Soto
dateline. They have been found in direct
gravelot association with early seven-
teenth-century glass beads at the Bradford
Ferry Site in Alabama, and they have been
found in the nearby seventeenth-century
Seven Springs Site (Smith 1977:156; 1987:
43). They have also been reported from
Santa Elena, 1565- 1587 (South, Skowronek
and Johnson 1988:142), although the illus-
trated specimen from Santa Elena does not
appear to be Clarksdale bell. Santa Elena
postdates De Soto's presence by a quarter
of a century, and these bells could not
have been heirloomed. While Clarksdale
bells were probably traded by De Soto,
they remained in the trade well into the
seventeenth century.
Other "Spanish" artifacts mentioned
by Eubanks (1989:377) include double
beads, 'striped oval beads of a type
almost always found in pre-1550 contexts';
a couple of hatchet heads; a copper axe
head and 'bullseye' pottery pieces often









associated with Spanish period sites."
Double beads are found in a variety of
time periods, and were simply a manu-
facturing defect of a hot tumbling process
to round the beads. The striped oval beads
that Eubanks refers to would presumably be
Smith and Good's Class 1, Series B, Type 3
Variety e (Smith and Good 1982), and
similar beads have been reported from
several sites in Florida which may have
been visited by De Soto (Mitchem 1989).
However, we have found no beads of this
type present among the beads from
Peachtree. To the untrained eye, perhaps
poor photographs suggest similar beads,
but there is no confusing these beads when
specimens are available for first-hand
examination by an expert. Since Smith is
the one who first described this type, we
assure the reader that he can recognize
it.
Hatchet heads are not good temporal
markers. The simple eyed axe form changed
little for hundreds of years, and to claim
that the examples illustrated by Setzler
and Jennings (1941) date to the sixteenth
century is to go beyond reason. Eubanks
should name the "Spanish experts" who see
sixteenth-century European artifacts in
the plates in Setzler and Jennings'
report. We do not see any.
Copper axes were aboriginal markers
of high status, but they were in use for
hundreds of years prior to the Soto
entrada (even thousands if Old Copper
Culture or Hopewell forms are considered),
and cannot be considered temporally
diagnostic for the De Soto dateline.
Finally, Bullseye pottery motifs have a
long period of use, beginning in Middle
Woodland (Swift Creek) times and continu-
ing into the seventeenth century. They
certainly do not, of themselves, denote a
De Soto dateline. However, Smith would
agree that aboriginal ceramics from the
Peachtree Mound site do suggest that the
site was occupied during the sixteenth
century.
Despite Eubanks' attempts to demon-
strate large quantities of sixteenth-
century Spanish material at Peachtree, the
fact remains that the European material
illustrated by Setzler and Jennings be-
longs to the eighteenth century, as does


all material we were able to examine
firsthand in Murphy. Only the possible
Nueva Cadiz beads, seen in a photograph,
appear to be genuine midsixteenth century
artifacts. We also saw a photograph of
typical mid-seventeenth-century Spanish
brass artifacts, but they postdate De Soto
by nearly a century. Thus, there is no
great concentration of Early Spanish
artifacts at Peachtree.
As a matter of discussion, Eubanks
is troubled by the lack of Spanish arti-
facts along much of our route. But Spanish
artifact recovery is a function of: (1)
length of stay of De Soto army, and,
usually (2) the number of Indian burials
excavated, since most European material is
found as grave goods. The Governor Martin
Site is an exception to rule 2, but an
excellent example of rule 1. The entrada
moved quickly through much of southern
Georgia and South Carolina, but in areas
where it stayed for some time, such as in
Coosa in northwestern Georgia, there are
abundant artifacts to mark its passage.
There simply have been very few burials
excavated in sites along much of the route
in central Georgia and South Carolina,
while the abundant artifacts documented
for Tennessee, northwestern Georgia, and
eastern Alabama are the result of nearly a
century of controlled excavations and
monitored pothunting.
It is gratifying that sixteenth-
century Spanish artifacts have so far not
been found in New Jersey, Nebraska, or
Iowa. It is also gratifying that many of
the artifacts do cluster along our route.
But some of them do not, and one cannot
simply plot dots on a map where such
artifacts have been found and then connect
the dots to construct a De Soto Boute. As
Hudson has argued elsewhere (1987b) ,
sixteenth-century European artifacts are
supporting evidence, not primary evidence
of De Soto's route.
On Doing One's Homework. Eubanks
attempts to attribute a statement that
there are no sixteenth-century Spanish
artifacts on the Hiwassee River to Marvin
Smith, citing Smith (1987:38 and 82). We
would point out that Page 38 discusses
brass discs of the seventeenth century,
and says nothing about the Hiwassee River,










and page 82 directly discusses the
presence of two Period A (1525-1565) sites
on the Hiwassee River, i.e. the Rymer and
Ledford Island sites in Tennessee.
Eubanks' first reference to Smith's work
is erroneous, while the second takes a
statement out of context and warps it.
Eubanks apparent motive is an attempt to
challenge Smith's seeming failure to men-
tion the Peachtree site in North Carolina.
If Eubanks had done his homework, he would
have seen that Smith's discussion clearly
related to Tennessee, or if that discus-
sion was too difficult for him to follow,
he should clearly have seen that Smith's
specified study area (1987:Figure 1.1) did
not include the mountainous portion of the
Hiwassee River drainage, but only that
portion of the Ridge and Valley province
in eastern ITnnessee. Smith did not say
that no sixteenth-century European
artifacts were found on the Hiwassee
River; indeed, he pointed out those two
instances in his study area and did not
consider the remainder of the drainage.
The Whiteside Mountain Inscription.
What about the "Spanish contact" site on
the top of Whiteside Mountain, mentioned
but not described by Eubanks? It is not
an archaeological site at all, but an
inscription on a granite outcropping. The
inscription reads: "T.T." UN LUEGO SANTA A
LA MEMORIA. It seems to mean:"to the
memory of a future saint," and "T.T." is
presumably the initials of the saint in
question. Eubanks believes that this
inscription was made by a member of the De
Soto expedition.
In fact, the inscription was made
early in this century by one Herman Miles
Alley, who was once a Baptist minister in
Highlands, North Carolina (Dunlop 1966).
As Herman later revealed to his nephew,
Howard E. Alley, he made the inscription
on a whim or a co@pulsion, and
subsequently spoke of it to no one.

Conclusion. With such muddled,
misidentified evidence Eubanks proposes to
overturn our De Soto route. Our route has
been set forth for all to read, and like
any piece of research, it is subject to
testing and disproof. But Eubanks'
flailing and ill-considered attack does


nothing to carry legitimate debate
forward. We would hope for a higher level
of scholarly discourse in the future.

References Cited

Burke, R. P.
1974 Check List of Glass Indian Trade Beads: A
descriptive analysis of material found in
Tallapoosa Valley of Alabama. Reprint of 1936
original by Gerald B. Fenstermaker, Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.

Dunlop, Florence Harrison
1966 Mystery of the Spanish Inscription Appears to be
a Mystery no Longer. Ashville Citizen Times,
November 6.

Eubanks, W. S., Jr.
1989 Studying De Soto's Route: a Georgian House of
Cards. The Florida Anthropologist 42:369-380.

Fenstermaker, Gerald B.
1978 Tennessee Colored Bead Charts. Archaeological
Research Booklet Volume XIII, Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.

Hudson, Charles
1978a An Unknown South: Spanish Explorers and South-
eastern Chiefdoms. In Visions and Revisions:
Ethnohistoric Perspectives on Southern Cultures,
edited by George Sabo and William Schneider.
proceeding in the Southern Anthropological
Society 20:6-24. University of Georgia Press,
Athens.

1978b The Uses of Evidence in Reconstructing the Route
of the Hernando de Soto Expedition. De Soto
Working Paper #1. Alabama De Soto Commission.

1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the
Carolinas and Tennessee. With new translations
of the Pardo documents by Paul Hoffman. Smith-
sonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hudson, Charles, John Worth and Chester DePratter
1990 Refinement in De Soto's Rute through Georgia
and South Carolina. Pages 91-108 in Cblumbian
Consequences Probing the Spanish Borderlands
East, edited by David Hurst Thomas. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

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

Jolly, Fletcher, and Kenneth Cornett
1976 Chevron-Type Glass Trade Beads from the Historic
Overhill Cherokee Town of Great Tellico (40Mrl2)
Tennessee Archaeologist 32:33-38.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1989 The Ruth Smith, Weeki Watchee, and Tatham
Mounds: Archaeological Evidence of Early Spanish
Contact. The Florida Anthropologist 42:317-339.

Newman, Robert
1986 Euro-American Artifacts. Pages 415-468 in










Overhill Cherokee Archaeology at Chota-Tanasee,
edited by Gerald F. Schroedl. Tennessee valley
Authority Publications in Anthropology 42.
Norris, Tennessee.

Polhemus, Richard R.
1987 The 'Iqua Site: A Late Mississippian Dallas
Phase Town. Tennessee Valley Authority Publica-
tions in Anthropology 44 (2 Vols.). Norris,
Tennessee.

Setzler, Frank, and Jesse Jennings
1941 Peachtree Mound and Village Site, Cherokee
county, North Carolina. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 131. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.

Smith, Marvin T.
1977 The early historic period (1540-1670) on the
upper Coosa river drainage of Alabama and
Georgia. The Conference on Historic Site
Archaeology Papers 1976 11:151-67.

1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the
Interior Southeast: Depopulation during the
early historic period. University Presses of
Florida, Gainesville.

1989 Glass beads from the Governor Martin site. MS
on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research,
Division of Historical Fesources, Tallahassee,
Florida.

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

South, Stanley A.
1972 Evolution and Horizon As Revealed in Ceramic
Analysis in Historical Archaeology. The
Conference of Historic Site Archaeology Papers
6:71-116. Institute of Archaeology and Anthro-
pology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

South, Stanley, Russell Skowronek and Richard E.
Johnson
1988 Spanish Artifacts from Santa Elena. Anthro-
pological Studies 7. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.

Story, C. E.
n.d. Trade Beads and other relics of historical
interest found at Fort Moore (Savannah bTwn) and
Silver Bluff. MS on file, Augusta-Richmond
County Museum, Augusta, Georgia.

Swanton, John R.
1939 Final report of the United States DeSoto Expe-
dition Commission, 76th Congress, 1st Session,
House Document No. 71. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.


Charles Hudson
Department of Anthropology and Linguistics
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602

Marvin Smith
Department of Anthropology and Linguistics
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602









RESPONSE TO EUBANKS

Roland Chardon
Professor Emeritus
Louisiana State University


A copy of W.S. Eubanks criticism of
my work, pages 374-376 in The Florida
Anthropologist 42(4), was sent to me.
While it was rather short notice, the
tenor of Eubanks' article is such that I
needed to respond promptly, and was
assured that the journal's editor would
print my response.
I'm confused about Eubanks' criti-
cisms of my works. I don't see how he
could have read, much less really studied,
the papers I wrote. These were based on
some 10 years' research on the linear
league, and cover analyses of several
hundred maps and documents, including a
summer's examination of the extensive
collection at the John Carter Brown
Library, a large number of maps at the
Library of Congress, and annotated refer-
ences to sources, many published in my
Notes and Bibliography on Geographic
Linear Measures (Baton Rouge: 1988) which
Eubanks apparently has not seen. Some of
these sources are, however, cited in my
Annals article (Chardon 1980b), whose main
value lies in its distillation of the
citations in that article. Eubanks would
have a better basis for criticism had he
addressed these sources, if he seriously
wishes to question the length of a partic-
ular league.
Here are my comments on the
following, referring to Eubanks' FA arti-
cle, p. 374:

1. I never studied the league from the
Mississippi Valley point of view, and
can't imagine why Eubanks would write that
I did.

2. I appreciate Eubanks' mention of "the
existence of the second two articles" I
wrote (Chardon 1980b, 1980c), but then he
blithely (and conveniently) ignores the
more crucial of them in his ensuing
discussion. In the second of these two
articles (and in Chardon 1980a) I demon-
strated, scientifically and rather con-


vincingly I thought, the use of the "legua
Comun" in Yucatan at the end of the 16th
century.
Why doesn't Eubanks discuss this
research? Perhaps because it shows, in
one of the few areas of the world where it
can be shown on the basis of topographical
and historical evidence, that the league
of 3.46 miles (English statute, that is)
was used in an official, albeit church,
late 16th-century Spanish land route
report. The situation in the St. Johns
River area of Florida is hardly analogous;
there are no topographic or settlement
controls by which to determine, even
statistically, the length of any linear
measure. I've not seen Eubanks' reference
to his own work (1989a:A-III), and he has
certainly not written me about it, but,
since it does not appear to have been
reviewed and re my comments below, I
wonder how much credibility his work can
have.

3. Nor do I understand Eubanks' comments
about the Texas league. He writes (p.
374) that we only have two sources in
common. One that I used was Virginia
Taylor's The Spanish Archives of the
General Land Office of Texas (Chardon
1980a:148, note 81). Does Eubanks object
to this source? I also listed nine other
sources for the Texas league (Chardon
1980b:148-149). The Supreme Court case
Eubanks claims (p. 374) I cited in that
article (Chardon 1980b:149, note 89)
refers to Florida, not Texas; I never
cited a Supreme Court case for the Texas
league or vara.

4. I did not "choose" (p. 374) the term
"legua comun" for the 3.46-mile league of
Spain. The term is repeatedly found in
dozens (probably hundreds) of sources,
both primary and secondary, often cited in
contrast to the "legua legal". Again,
Eubanks should read my articles more care-
fully.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 43 No. 1


March, 1990








5. I don't understand Eubanks' paragraph
starting with my having "but one 'source'
for [my] 3.46-mile league" (p. 374) and
ending with: "Nowhere else is this state-
ment confirmed." (p. 375). Eubanks appar-
ently did not even glance at my refer-
ences. In one of my "second articles"
that he cites, I have a specific refer-
ence, not to Garcia Franco, but to the
Recopilacion de las Leves de Castilla
(Chardon 1980c:466, note 10). I suggest
Eubanks read this article and cite the
correct source. And, if he doesn't like
that source, he should tell us of a better
one; I certainly can't.
As for my "one source", Garcia
Franco, I shall simply refer Eubanks to
the eight (count them, eight) citations in
Chardon (1980b:137-138). And these were
representative of many more.

Referring to Eubanks' page 375, may
I make the following comments:

6. I've not seen the "brief but thorough
refutation of [my] assertion" in the
Bargrett Library, but if it is based on
only one map constructed in 1692, Eubanks
really needs some elementary instruction
in historical cartography. Surely he
doesn't believe that one map's legend is a
refutation of what is found in dozens of
others! Also, I've rarely seen the "legua
legal" specifically called the "common
league" in any source, so I don't know
what Eubanks' "many sources" are. Again,
he cites himself in a yet-to-be-published,
non-refereed reference, so it's difficult
for me or anyone else to address this
particular point seriously. I'd like to
see this reference (Eubanks 1989a).

7. I've already addressed the issue of the
"official" measure in the article cited by
Eubanks, as well as in my Comment 2 above.
The evidence Eubanks provides for his
position is pretty weak.

8. From a tenuous "most likely" in one
sentence to a pretty specific "De Soto
party based their distances on..." in the
next, Eubanks moves on to the length of a
stride. If he is going to follow this
argument, he must then consider the league


in terms of an hour's walking, which leads
directly to the "legua comun". I don't
see how Eubanks can have it both ways.
The "legua legal" was extremely specific,
even if the vara was not; the "legua
comun" was not, initially.

Eubanks clearly has not done his
homework and has turned out a shoddy
piece. I don't know why he's so angry,
but emotions alone rarely lead to reasoned
and careful scholarly analysis. Eubanks
should study the linear league much more
carefully than he has, if he wants
credibility when criticizing the work of
other. He has very little of that credi-
bility so far as I'm concerned.
I do not know if the "legua comun"
was actually used in the De Soto expe-
dition, but there is overwhelming evidence
of its use as an itinerary and official
league in the New World. Thus it could
have been, and may well have been, used on
that expedition. That league is certainly
worth applying to the De Soto route if one
wants to reconstruct that party's travel
route. If it fits, so much the better!


Roland Chardon
15010 N. 59th Ave., Apt. 233
Glendale, Arizona 85306









SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS AND EARLY EXPLORATION
IN THE UNITED STATES

Dan F. Morse


Until recently, it was believed that
the de Soto expedition of 1539-1543 into
"La Florida" (which began in Tampa Bay,
Florida, explored ten modern United States
states, and ended in Panuco, Mexico) was
guided only by dead reckoning and Indian
guides. The expedition consisted of 500+
Europeans and up to 500+ Indian bearers
and translators going into unexplored and
hostile territory, and was financed by a
partnership which included de Soto's very
substantial share of the booty gained by
Pizarro's conquest of Peru. It, there-
fore, seems more reasonable to assume that
the best scientific instruments of the
time and individuals capable of using them
would be part of the expedition planning.
Reexamination of the existing accounts
with this question in mind has revealed
that an astrolabe (a navigational instru-
ment which was the forerunner of the sex-
tant) was in the possession of a person
capable of using it throughout the four
years of the expedition.
The de Soto expedition took place
almost 450 years ago. There are plans to
commemorate (not "celebrate", because of
the expedition's extreme cruelty to the
Indians) the event as one of truly impor-
tant feats during the age of European ex-
ploration. States participating in this
commemoration are Florida, Georgia, South
and North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama,
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and
Texas. These states and the National Park
Service plan to appropriately mark the
trail as determined by Dr. Charles Hudson
assisted by a research team which includes
state appointed members of the De Soto
Trail Commission and the NPS Trail Study
Advisory Committee. It has been generally
agreed that markers can be moved in cases
of mistaken identity, but the anniversary
date of 1989-1993 cannot be moved. Many
other projects are also planned for the
1989-1993 period, including the publica-


tion of important scientific and histori-
cal aspects of the expedition and the ter-
ritory it explored.
There is relatively little known
about the expedition given its importance.
Extant documents include eyewitness ac-
counts by Biedma (official recorder), Ran-
jel (de Soto's private secretary) and an
anonymous gentleman from Elvas, Portugal
(Bourne 1922); a romanticized account
based on interviews and some fragments of
other eyewitness accounts by Garcilaso de
la Vega (Varner and varner 1951); a tran-
script of the trial of a lawsuit against
de Soto's business partner by his widow;
an extensive study by Swanton 1939;
reprinted 1985) who was Chairman of the
United States De Soto Expedition Commis-
sion in Commemoration of the 400th An-
niversary of the Expedition; and, a number
of papers produced as the 450th anniver-
sary approaches which incorporates new
data, both archaeological and historical.
It has become increasingly apparent
that extraordinary skill was employed dur-
ing the conduct of the de Soto expedi-
tion's exploration, virtually every major
Indian polity in the southeastern United
States was visited and the region was not
only explored but its peoples literally
conquered by force in the quest for
riches, and for food to sustain the expe-
dition. Mountainous areas were systemati-
cally checked since those constituted the
high probability regions for gold based on
the Mexico and Peru experiences of Carlos
and Pizarro.
Blacksmith, tailor, shoemaker,
cooper, carpenter, sword-cutter, trum-
peter, notary, clergymen, page, chamber-
lain, steward, engineer, farrier, and
sailor are mentioned as professions of the
expedition members. The fighting men were
divided between calvary and foot soldiers.
The expedition was well planned and expen-
sive.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 43 No. 1


March, 1990








The accounts are all too brief.
Navigation aids are not emphasized and the
concept that the expedition proceeded by
dead reckoning has been mostly based on
this lack of specific mention. A contem-
porary "De Soto map" exists (Swanton
1985:343 a, b) but makes very little
sense in terms of modern geography or the
accounts. The expedition had knowledge of
Cabeza de Vaca's difficult experiences in
Texas, the failure of Narvaez in Florida,
and sea charts of the Gulf and Atlantic
Coasts.
The expedition wintered in Tallahas-
see, Florida, in 1539-1540. De Soto sent
his fleet captain (Maldonado) along the
coast to discover a good harbor. The cap-
tain located Pensacola Bay (Hudson, Smith,
DePratter and Kelley 1989). Instructions
were given the captain to return to Havana
and, if he did not hear from de Soto in
six months (by about September), subse-
quently to return to Pensacola Bay where
de Soto expected arrive from his immediate
quest to Georgia and the Carolinas where
he had news of riches obtained from Indi-
ans captured in Florida. If necessary,
the captain could search as far west as
the Mississippi River in case the expedi-
tion decided to travel further west in
1540.
When the expedition first saw a
tributary of the Tennessee River near pre-
sent Asheville, after leaving the Caroli-
nas, the accounts referred to it as the
headwaters of the Mississippi River. This
recognition seems quite extraordinary to
me given that the only guide to this iden-
tification were Indians and logic.
De Soto then turned south toward Ma-
bila (believed to be in South Central Al-
abama about 130 miles north of present-day
Mobile), where the expedition's first ma-
jor battle took place on October 18, 1540,
with a loss of 20 Europeans and 7-12
horses. It was reported that there were
approximately 3000 Indian casualties. De
Soto burned the town which helped win the
battle but also destroyed the loot gath-
ered until then (200 pounds of pearls),
clothes, mass furniture (wafer irons,
sacramental cups), and according to Alonso
de Carmona, "all the apparatus for naviga-
tion" (Bourne 1922(11):154).
However,


Captain Juan de Anasco was a very careful
man, and he took the astrolabe and kept
it, and as it was of metal it was not much
damaged; and from a parchment of deer skin
he made a chart, and from a carpenter's
rule he made a fore-staff, and by it we
directed our course. (Bourne 1922(II):154
quoting from Alonso de Carmona's descrip-
tion of the final escape to Mexico a year
after de Soto's death in Arkansas.)

This quote together with the fact
that the three major accounts do not
lament the loss of navigational instru-
ments or charts after the battled indi-
cates that there was no major destruction,
at least of navigational aids, involved.
In addition, de Soto had prearranged that
ships be in Pensacola Bay in case the ex-
pedition failed or needed refitting and
possibly may have made contact with them
(Bourne 1922 (I):97-98, (II):17, 21).
Captain Juan de Anasco was perfectly
capable of using navigational instruments
and probably was de Soto's navigator. It
would have helped, however, if one of the
three major accounts stated so. The most
unreliable of the four accounts of the ex-
pedition calls Anasco "a great mariner,
cosmographer and astrologer" (Varner and
Varner 1951:45). This account also
states, oddly, that "they had neither sea
chart, compass or astrolabe nor
forestaff" (varner and Varner 1951:599-
600). Oddly because the account also in-
cluded Carmona's mention of the astrolabe
and forestaff. That is only one of the
reasons Garcilaso's account is not highly
regarded.
Anasco was appointed the King's
comptroller (contador) of the Province of
Florida and was granted a special license
by the King to trade with the Indians in
1537 (Swanton 1985:85). He was about 30
years old at the time. Since there was no
treasure to inventory:

he repeatedly performed the functions of a
Captain of Calvary, was De Soto's favorite
choice for any expedition requiring skill
and resourcefulness, and seems to have
been one of the best educated officers in
the army. The confidence De Soto al-
ways reposed in Juan de Anasco is shown by
the fact that he was commissioned to un-
dertake the preliminary examination of the
Florida coast and select a suitable land-









ing place, and by the nine missions [much
more than anyone else] subsequently en-
trusted to him (Swanton 1985:85-86).

One of the purposes of writing this
paper is to focus attention on early
American land navigation. Exploration of
La Florida in 1539-1543 was undertaken to
gain intelligence of the land and the peo-
ple, as well as to gain commercial advan-
tages and/or riches. Computation of
leagues in some cases is accurate, while
in others absolute nonsense. Navigational
instruments were not emphasized. Some
scholars think this means they were not
used. I think they were taken for
granted. After all, archaeological re-
ports often do not mention the use of a
transit to set out grid stakes or a shovel
to excavate. The obvious is not often
mentioned in historical (or contemporary)
sources.

References Cited


Bourne, E.G.
1922 Narratives of the Career of Hernando De Soto, in
American Explorer Series. New York.

Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, Chester B.
DePratter, and Bnilia Kelley
1989 The Tristan De Luna Expedition, 1559-1561. In
Southeastern Archaeology 8(1).

Swanton, John R.
1985 Final Report of the united States De Soto
Expedition, 79th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 71.
Smithsonian Institution press, Washington, D.C.
Reprint of the 1939 Report.

Varner, John Grier, and Jeanette Johnson Varner,
Translators and Editors
1951 The Florida of the Inca. University of Texas
Press, Austin.




Dan F. Morse
Arkansas Archeological Survey
Drawer 820
State University, AR 72467






THE UTINA: SERIATIONS AND CHRONOLOGY

Kenneth W. Johnson and Bruce C. Nelson
Florida Museum of Natural History


Abstract

The Utina of north Florida were
pivotal in the events of the sixteenth-
century Hernando de Soto entrada and the
seventeenth-century Spanish mission
system, but their sites had not been
identified archaeologically because their
ceramic complex was unknown. This paper
identifies the Utina ceramic complex,
naming it the Indian Pond complex. The
Indian Pond complex is shown to contain
cord and fabric marked ceramics, an undif-
ferentiated brushed/wiped/simple stamped
or linear marked category, and other
types.
Comparisons of separate site clus-
ters show that different localities within
Utina territory have slightly different
assemblages for the same time period and,
thus, slightly different seriations.
Ceramic seriations demonstrate the transi-
tions from Weeden Island to Indian Pond to
the Leon-Jefferson (Lamar) ceramic com-
plexes. Finally, using relative frequency
data from the seriation charts, the paper
attempts to identify the known sites which
are closest to two key "moments" in time,
the time of European contact and the early
seventeenth century.

Introduction

The Utina chiefdom in north Florida
played key roles in the Hernando de Soto
entrada of 1539 and the seventeenth-
century Spanish missions. It was in the
Utina province that de Soto encountered
the Indian towns of Aguacaleyquen,
Uriutina, "Many Waters" and Napituca, and
where the Battle of the Ponds occurred.
It was in this province that de Soto
abandoned his straight-as-an-arrow north-
ward trek and turned westward toward
Apalachee. This is the most confusing
segment of the entire de Soto route in
Florida because of errors made by the
chroniclers of the de Soto expedition, and
because the Utina have been strangely


"invisible" archaeologically. Even the
name Utina has been disputed. The de Soto
accounts do not record a name for the
province (except the Garcilaso de la Vega
account which erroneously assigns an
Apalache name) giving only the town
names, such as Uriutina. The fact that
Utina province was a single province is
shown by the actions of the several towns
and chiefs working together in concert in
opposing de Soto, and information from the
Mission period.
The Utina occupied a territory lying
roughly between the Santa Fe and Suwannee
Rivers of north Florida, extending north-
ward into Georgia. They played active
roles in the struggle between the Old
World and the New World, and the
confrontation between Spain and England
for control of this interior portion of
the New World.
A major problem for research on the
Utina has been the problem of Utina cer-
amics. Utina sites were "invisible"
archaeologically because there did not
seem to be anything distinctive about
their ceramics that could be used to dis-
tinguish them from earlier ceramic assem-
blages. Consequently we had not defined a
ceramic complex that could be associated
with their early sixteenth century
occupation in north Florida. We could not
distinguish sixteenth- and early seven-
teenth-century sherds from eighth century
Weeden Island sherds, eight hundred years
older. Utina sites became "visible" only
after the Leon-Jefferson ceramic complex
appeared in north Florida, probably by the
early seventeenth century. And so, we
could not say whether any particular
Indian site dated to the de Soto period or
not.
This paper seeks to resolve that
problem. Through ceramic seriations, the
paper shows changes in the ceramic
assemblages from Weeden Island to Indian
Pond to Leon-Jefferson. After discussing
briefly why the Alachua Tradition ceramic
typologies and seriation do not work in


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


March, 1990


Vol. 43 No. 1









north Florida, we identify the relevant
sites and define the Utina assemblage.
Finally, using these data, we attempt to
identify the sites which are closest to
two key "moments" in time, the time of
European contact and the early seventeenth
century.
This paper is based on data col-
lected during a series of archaeological
surveys over the past four and a half
years in Utina and Potano territory in
portions of Alachua, Columbia, Suwannee,
Union and adjacent counties. The goal of
the survey research was to locate and
identify the sites of Indian villages
contacted by Hernando de Soto's army in
A.D. 1539, and the sites of seventeenth
century Spanish missions (Johnson 1986,
1987a, 1987b, 1990; Johnson, Nelson and
Terry 1988.) The work, under the overall
direction of Jerald T. Milanich, was
funded by grants from the Florida Division
of Recreation and Parks and from SantaFe
HealthCare, Inc.

The Alachua Tradition Seriation:
It Does Not Wbrk Here

The Alachua Tradition ceramic seria-
tion worked out for North-Central Florida,
the home of the Potano, does not work for
North Florida, the home of the the Utina.
Our archaeological survey of sites in
Columbia and Suwannee counties produced
very few cob marked sherds. The Alachua
seriation is based on the ratio of cord
marked to cob marked sherds, which is a
temporal indicator as the ratio changed
through time in the Potano area (Milanich
1971). For example, at the early Spanish
period Richardson site (the type site for
this period) on Orange Lake in the heart
of the Potano territory, 1550 of the 3600
sherds found were cob marked (Milanich
1972:55). In Utina territory, we are
lucky if we recover even one cob marked
sherd per site. The mere presence of one
or two cob marked sherds is not sufficient
to identify the collection as Alachua
Tradition.

Late Alachua Tradition and Late
Indian Pond assemblages are thus qualita-
tively and quantitatively different be-


cause of the absence of cob marked pottery
in Indian Pond assemblages. However, the
relationship, if any, is not yet clear
between Early Indian pond and the Hickory
Pond period of the Alachua Tradition (A.D.
800 or later to A.D. 1250 [Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980:170]). Since cob marked
pottery is absent in both areas at this
time, its presence or absence cannot be
used to distinguish them during this
earlier period. Further research on this
question needs to be undertaken. Absolute
dates are not yet available. In any case,
the Late Alachua Tradition and the Late
Indian Pond complex are different. It is
thus inappropriate to use the Alachua
Tradition seriation in Utina territory,
especially for later sites. Furthermore,
the relationship of Indian Pond to other
cord marking traditions in other areas is
not yet clear (Milanich et al 1976; Kohler
and Johnson 1986).

Sites and Site Clusters

The following discussion covers
three different sub-areas of Utina ter-
ritory, each containing a cluster of sev-
eral sites. The Baptizing Springs cluster
is located in southwestern Suwannee
County, near the Suwannee River, and in-
cludes four sites: 8SU88, Baptizing
Springs (8SU65), 8SU86, and 8SU85 (see
Figure 1 map). The data are derived from
Loucks' and Stokell's unpublished survey
reports (Loucks 1978; Stokell 1978) and
Loucks' dissertation (1979: Table 9, pp.
186-188). The relevant ceramic assem-
blages were obtained from surface col-
lections and limited testing at most
sites, and excavations in the 8SU65
village area. All of these sites are
separate, distinct village areas, and all
are within 500 meters of Baptizing
Springs. Other sites in this locality
were also recorded during Loucks and
Stokell's survey, but those data are not
used here because the sample sizes of
decorated sherds are too small.
The second cluster of sites, the
Indian Pond cluster, is located in western
Columbia County and eastern Suwannee
County. This cluster includes several
discrete portions of the Indian Pond site










HMILTON
COUNTY


N


0 ml 15




Pond
L


ALACHUA
COUNTY
Figure 1. Map of archaeological sites in
Utina area.

(8C0229), Little Hell Lake (8SU147) and
McKeithen (8SU19). The full sequence on
the seriation charts is Indian Pond West,
Indian pond Hillcrest, Indian Pond Unit
300 area, Indian Pond Across the Ditch,
Johns Pond, Indian Pond Lower Slope,
Little Hell Lake, and McKeithen. The
Indian Pond site sub-areas are all located
within 700 meters of each other, on
different parts of a broad, gradually
sloping hill. The McKeithen site (Milanich
et al. 1984) is one km southwest, the
Little Hell Lake site is 14.5 km west, and
the Johns Pond site is 0.5 km northeast of
the Indian Pond site. Indian Pond West
and the Unit 300 area are known from
limited testing and controlled surface
collections. The data from the McKeithen
site are taken from excavations in Stratum
1 in the village area (Kohler 1978:51).
The data from Johns Pond are taken from
Brenda Sigler-Lavelle's survey (Milanich
et al. 1984:202). The other sites are
known from our controlled surface collec-
tions. Several additional occupation
areas can also be identified in the con-
trolled surface collections at Indian
Pond, but their sample sizes of decorated
sherds are too small for seriation.
The third cluster of sites, the
Santa Fe cluster, is located in extreme
northwestern Alachua County, and includes
the Carlisle, the Santa Fe (8AL190), and


the Palmore (8AL189) sites. Numerous
other sites are known in this area, in-
cluding several Spanish period sites, but
sample sizes of decorated sherds are
small. The Santa Fe site is the site of a
seventeenth-century Spanish mission; one
complete and several partial field seasons
of investigations have been completed at
this site (Johnson 1989; Leader and Nelson
1989). The Palmore site is nearly contig-
uous with the Santa Fe mission site and
may be associated with it. The data pre-
sented here for this site are based on our
re-analysis of artifacts collected from
the site by John Goggin's students in the
early 1950s. We plowed part of the site
and made controlled surface collections,
revealing a large horseshoe-shaped village
area. Two mounds formerly existed at or
very close to this village area. The
Carlisle site, 2 km south of the Santa Fe
site, is a village area 50m meters across
in size with an additional artifact
scatter, representing probably two or more
additional houses, situated 60m farther
south. Artifact density is light in both
areas, but at least two "high-status"
items have been collected from the site
surface, a religious medallion and a cut-
crystal bead. The Carlisle site is the
only site in the area which is known to
have yielded a seventeenth-century religi-
ous medallion. The site is known from
controlled surface collections and limited
testing (Johnson, unpublished data).
Other important sites exist through-
out Utina territory, such as the Fig
Springs site (8C01) (Johnson 1990) in
Columbia County, the Bibby site (8SU130)
in Suwannee County, the 129 Mound and
Village (8HA136) in Hamilton County, and
the Deerfly (8UN25) and Long Bridge
(8UN134) sites in Union County (Johnson
1987a; Johnson, Nelson and Terry 1988).
However, data from those sites are not
used in this paper because we cannot yet
produce seriation charts for those local
areas. Each site is certainly part of a
larger cluster of sites, but we do not
have large enough collections from the
other sites in those clusters. Presumably
other clusters exist as well.










Defining the Utina Ceramics:
The Indian Pond Complex

The ceramic complex associated with the
Utina has been described previously in the
literature, but at the time no seriations
were available and it was called Weeden
Island II. It was described as follows:

[T]hese sites suggest that Weeden
Island II village ceramic assem-
blages are characterized by large
amounts of undecorated pottery with
varying amounts of check stamped,
cord marked, incised, and Lochloosa
Punctated-like pottery. ... Some
potsherds have a simple stamped-like
motif that occasionally resembles
brushing or incising (and may be).
At times, the eroded surfaces of
some sherds makes distinguishing
simple stamping, brushing and in-
cising almost impossible. (Milanich
et al. 1984:201)

Other than the date "post-A.D. 750,"
Milanich and his associates were unable to
place a date on this "Weeden Island II"
complex.
We are re-naming this ceramic com-
plex the Indian Pond complex. As de-
scribed in the above quotation and as
shown on the seriation charts, the Indian
Pond complex includes varying amounts of
simple stamped/brushed/wiped or linear
marked, cord marked, fabric marked, in-
cised (frequently a single line) and
Lochloosa-like random punctated ceramics.
In reference to incised body sherds, the
incising is commonly a single line, but
most sherds are too small to determine
whether any additional, widely spaced
lines might also have been present. Only
a few large sherds were recovered; they
are often similar to the Keith Incised
type (Milanich et al. 1984: Figure 7.3).
Many otherwise plain rims have a single
incised line, but the rims are not as wide
or distinctive as the classic Weeden
Island Plain rims. Punctated sherds are
often Lochloosa-like random punctated, and
many others are similar to Carabelle


Punctated (Milanich et al. 1984: Figure
4.10). However, the Carabelle Punctated
type contains a great deal of variation,
and it is therefore not clear how the
Indain Pond complex ceramics may relate to
or differ from that type. Minor but
persistent groups within the Indian Pond
complex include check stamped, cob marked,
and St. Johns. Numerically, plain sherds
dominate the assemblages. Because of the
small sizes of most sherds, vessel forms
are unclear. Ceramics are sand or sand
and grit tempered. Sherds of both the
preceding Weeden Island period and the
succeeding Leon-Jefferson period are
generally harder, higher fired, lighter
colored, and seemingly better-made than
those of the Indian Pond complex, though
technological analysis needs to be con-
ducted. The relative percentages of the
various Indian Pond types and their
changes through time are discussed below
in the discussion of seriations. More
surveys and excavations and laboratory
analyses are needed in order to provide
fuller details about the Indian Pond
complex.
Indian Pond complex ceramics had
been found but not recognized previously
by other archaeologists. The complex was
not recognized previously because most of
the sherds are plain and because there is
little that is distinctive about the few
decorated sherds. Large samples of sherds
from numerous sites, and a regional
perspective, were needed to identify the
complex. Our surveys in search of
Spanish-contact sites throughout several
counties provided the regional perspective
and provided the samples from a large num-
ber of sites (Johnson 1986, 1987a, 1990;
Johnson, Nelson and Terry 1988). The
defining elements of the Indian Pond
complex, specifically the linear marked
group and the cord and fabric marked
group, were first recognized through their
associations with Leon-Jefferson ceramics
at the Indian Pond site and other sites.
The sample sizes of these decorated sherds
were small at these sites, in relation to
the numbers of Leon-Jefferson decorated
sherds. It was only after the seriation
charts were produced that the cultural and
chronological significance of these sherd









groups became apparent. The seriation
charts also helped verify the other ele-
ments of the complex. Additional elements
of the complex may yet remain to be
identified.
The Indian Pond complex eventually
needs to be devided into separate temporal
components. The Indian Pond ceramic com-
plex followed the Weeden Island complex
and was in turn replaced by the Leon-
Jefferson complex, as described below and
as shown in the seriation charts (Figures
2-5). If we can assume that there is a
correlation in this particular case be-
tween ceramic complex and this ethnic
group, then the historic Utina and their
immediate, prehistoric ancestors were the
bearers of the Indian Pond complex, and
later became the bearers of the Leon-
Jefferson complex. This assumption needs
to be verified through further research.
In this paper we do not attempt to
explain or sort out the linear marked
(simple stamped/brushed/wiped/scraped)
category. The category needs to be sub-
divided (Worth n.d.), and the pottery may
well have affinities with the Chattahoo-
chee Brushed, Walnut Roughened and South
Georgia Cord Marked types. Bullen reported
Chattahoochee Brushed sherds in buried
Fort Walton sites along the Chattahoochee
River in Florida in contexts which he
could not explain (Bullen 1950, 1953;
Goggin 1964:188). However those inter-
regional comparisons are beyond the scope
of the current paper. For the purposes of
seriations, we do not need to explain the
linear pottery category; we simply use it.
The following seriations are considered
provisional until more is known about
these ceramics.

Background to the Seriations:
Goals, Field Work and
Laboratory Analysis

The goal of this paper is to create
a practical, inexpensive tool that can be
used (1) to define the temporal and cul-
tural relationships between particular
sites; (2) to date other sites, by match-
ing them against a chart; and (3) to iden-
tify sites that may represent particular
culture periods or events of current


research interest such as the de Soto
entrada or the beginning of the Mission
system. This goal is addressed by
constructing ceramic seriations.
Several stages of research are
necessary in pursuing these goals, and
each stage has different methods and
problems. The different stages are field
work, artifact classification, construc-
tion of the seriations, and use of the
seriations. As mentioned above, the
seriations are based on data collected
during a series of archaeological surveys
over the past four and a half years in
portions of Utina and Potano territory in
Alachua, Columbia, Suwannee, Union and
adjacent counties. Approximately five
hundred archaeological sites of all
culture periods were recorded during these
surveys (Johnson 1986, 1987a, 1990;
Johnson, Nelson and Terry 1988) but only
selected clusters of sites are referred to
in this paper. For most sites the data
are derived from surface collections.
Testing has been conducted at many of
these sites but was limited due to survey
time, and sample sizes of excavated sherds
are usually too small to be statistically
significant. Adequate samples (preferably
75 or more decorated sherds per site) are
frequently available only through surface
collections. In making the surface
collections, it is our policy to collect
all of the sherds encountered, not just
decorated sherds. Otherwise the collec-
tions would be biased toward decorated
sherds. Many of the collections (e.g., at
the Indian Pond, Palmore and Carlisle
sites) are controlled surface collections
to provide further spatial control.
The second stage of research in-
volved classifying the ceramics in the
laboratory. Sherds less than two centi-
meters across ("thumbnail size") were
excluded as "too small to classify" unless
surface treatment or decoration was
identifiable despite small size.
Tempering was observed for all sherds,
commonly by making fresh breaks. Data
were recorded on note cards, one card per
provenience, or directly inputted into a
portable personal computer.
Sherds were classified to type when-
ever possible. Because most sites have










been intensively plowed and farmed, most
sherds are too small to classify into type
and were instead classified into broader
descriptive categories based on surface
treatment or decoration such as brushed,
simple stamped, cord marked, fabric
marked, incised, punctated and others.
Many sherds which at first glance appear
to be cord marked are, in fact, fabric
marked as is visible when a clay
impression is taken. Conventional type
names were used cautiously in recognition
of the fact that something unexplained was
occurring in these assemblages. That is,
type names were not assigned unless the
identification was certain, not merely
probable. As mentioned above, the puzzle
was that the sixteenth- and seventeenth-
century documentary record indicated a
well-populated territory, yet few Utina
sites had been identified and all of
these, such as Fig Springs (8C01) (Deagan
1972), seemed to contain only the intro-
duced Leon-Jefferson ceramics. Further-
more, during the field work we had begun
to suspect that the use of certain con-
ventional type names, and the ethnic and
chronological affiliations they tradition-
ally implied, might be somehow misleading.
We wondered if Utina sites had not been
identified previously because the Utina
assemblage was somehow hidden by free use
of conventional type names taken from
other complexes. The suspect types in-
cluded Chattahoochee Brushed, Prairie Cord
Marked, Deptford Simple Stamped, and
Carabelle Punctated. We hypothesized that
these types were not restricted to the
chronological periods and complexes to
which they are traditionally assigned. We
hypothesized that they were also part of
the complex associated with the Utina.
This hypothesis was supported by data
summarized in the seriation charts, some
of which have already been summarized in
definition of the Indian Pond Complex
above. The methods by which this
hypothesis was tested and the definition
of the Indian Pond complex was verified
through seriations are described below.


Constructing the Seriations

The elements in the matrix are broad
categories rather than named pottery types
for the reasons given above. The cate-
gories are based on surface treatment or
decoration. The categories include Com-
plicated Stamped, Linear Marked, Cbrd and
Fabric Marked, Cob Marked, Incised,
Punctated, Check Stamped, and St. Johns.
Weeden Island-era and Leon-Jefferson
complicated stamped categories are dif-
ferent but they are placed along the same
column on the charts for convenience
(e.g., Figure 4, left hand column). On
this chart, the site containing Weeden
Island complicated stamped sherds is found
at the bottom of the chart and the sites
containing Leon-Jefferson sherds are at
the top of the chart. No known sites
contain both complicated stamped groups in
association. These ceramics are dis-
tinguished by context, associations, and
ware characteristics. Grog tempering has
chronological significance in that Leon-
Jefferson sherds are usually grog tempered
and Weeden Island sherds and Indian Pond
complex sherds are not. This significance
of grog tempering is also seen at other
Utina sites not otherwise discussed in
this paper, such as Fig Springs, 8C01
(Johnson 1990).
The "Linear Marked" category de-
scribed above is a continuum containing
sherds that variously appear as brushed,
wiped, scraped, or simple stamped; the
actual technique is uncertain. The "Cord
or Fabric Marked" category also includes
net impressed sherds but these are rare.
In terms of numbers, the bulk of the
decorated Indian Pond sherds fall into the
above two categories. Sherds in the the
following categories are found in only
minor amounts. The "Cob Marked" category
on the charts could have been called
Alachua COb Marked. However, the Alachua
name is avoided because part of our task
is to dissuade other archaeologists from
imposing the Alachua Tradition seriation
and terminology on Utina assemblages.









The categories "Incised," "Punc-
tated" and "Check Stamped" each probably
contain a variety of different types, but
the sample sizes per site are small and
the sherds are usually too small to
identify by type. "Incised" includes
single line incised, Keith Incised and
other incised types. "Punctated" includes
Lochloosa-like punctated, Carabelle Punc-
tated and other punctated types. These
types need to be separated out in future
seriations when larger samples become
available. Leon Check Stamped is excluded
from the seriation charts because it is
easily distinguished from other check
stamped types, because it is always found
as part of the Leon-Jefferson series,
because it adds nothing to our knowledge
of chronology on the seriation charts, and
because numerically it is too small to
graph separately. St. Johns Check Stamped
is also excluded from the "Check Stamped"
category. It is instead included with St.
Johns Plain in the "St. Johns" category.
Plain sherds (except St. Johns), anamolous
sherds, and sherds which are too small or
too eroded to classify, are excluded from
the seriations. Sample sizes of decorated
sherds included are given at the end of
each row.
A seriation is simply a technique
for placing items in a series. There are
many different techniques for producing
seriations (Marquardt 1978). The variety
used in this paper, seriations by
percentage matrix (Marquardt 1978), was
first popularized by Ford (Ford 1962;
Phillips et al. 1951). Ford demonstrated
the usefulness of seriations as fairly
good chronological indicators. The pro-
cedure he advocated is relatively simple
and efficient when only a small number of
sites and artifact categories are in-
volved. The matrix has a vertical and a
horizontal axis, with pottery categories
as columns and sites or collections as
rows. For each horizontal row of the
matrix, percentages add to 100%. That is,
sherd counts per category were translated
into percentages and plotted horizontally
on long strips of paper, one strip per
site. The length of each line indicates
how large the percentage is. The strips,
each representing a row, were then shuf-


fled and rearranged to place them in an
order or series, as follows.
Seriations are based on the assump-
tion that styles go through stages of
incipience, floresence and decline. The
strips of paper (rows) are shuffled until
a "battleship curve" is seen in the verti-
cal columns. That is, a column repre-
senting, say, cord and fabric marked
marked sherds, may be narrow at the bottom
of the chart representing incipience of
the ceramic style, wider in the middle
when the style was most "popular" (flor-
esence), and narrow again at the top as it
later declined in popularity and was
replaced by something else. Another
column, say, complicated stamped sherds,
may form a mirror image of the cord and
fabric marked sherds pattern, with one
declining as the other increases. For
example, in the Indian Pond cluster of
sites, linear marked sherds decline rela-
tive to Leon-Jefferson complicated stamped
sherds, and the change is verified by
decline in cord/fabric marked and punc-
tated categories as well. At the same
time, other categories of sherds remain
unchanged, verifying the cultural affilia-
tion of the different sites, that is,
verifying that the changing assemblages
were part of a single, larger complex.
Additional, intermediate sites need to be
found and inserted into the sequence.
We can determine which end of the
seriation is earlier (the bottom) and
which is later (the top) only by way of
reference to other data such as radio-
carbon dates or the presence of other
datable artifacts such as seventeenth-
century Spanish ceramics.
This technique of seriation is some-
what subjective and is thus best suited to
situations such as the current one where
the archaeologist is working in a little-
known region (Marquardt 1978:266) and
where the seriations are considered pro-
visional and first approximations until
more work can be done. Subjectiveness is
less of a problem when the results are
clear and unambiguous, as in the current
case. Even though additional, inter-
mediate sites need to be found and in-
serted into the sequences, there do not
appear to be any data which would require









us to reject these sequences. Several
examples of "battleship curves" are seen,
indicating cultural continuity and con-
tinuous rather than abrupt change, and
both ends of the sequence, Weeden Island
and Leon-Jefferson, are known. The linear
marked and the cord marked/fabric marked
columns for example, on the Indian Pond
chart have their incipience at the end of
the Weeden Island period, go through a
stage of floresence, and then decline when
replaced by the Leon-Jefferson series
roughly eight hundred years later. We
have named these and associated ceramics
the Indian Pond ceramic complex which was
associated with the Utina people. There
do not appear to be any other, independent
data which would require us to reject
these results, though further research and
verification is needed.
The multiple charts (Figures 2-5),
one for each area, are necessary because
each local area within Utina territory has
its own, slightly different assemblage.
We are not in this paper presenting a
single, master seriation chart for all the
Utina because of slight variations in
local assemblages. The different areas all
include the same set of pottery types but
in slightly different percentages. For
example, cord marked and fabric marked
sherds are rare in the Baptizing Springs
area, while they are common in the Indian
Pond area. We do not believe that the
differences are errors arising from sample
size problems. We know that the sites
were contemporaneous or nearly contem-
poraneous, despite the differences in
aboriginal sherds, because they contained
Spanish artifacts that have been dated to
roughly the same time, the early seven-
teenth century.
Two types of seriations are
presented, in Figures 2, 3 and 4 and
Figures 2a, 3a, and 4a. The larger charts
present the data, and the smaller charts
are given for illustrative purposes only.
Figures 2 and 2a represent the Baptizing
Springs area sites; Figures 3 and 3a
reflect the Indian Pond area sites; and
Figures 4 and 4a constitute the Santa Fe
area sites. All Figures exclude plain
sherds, anomalous decorated sherds, and
sherds too small (less than 2 cm across)


or too eroded to classify. Figures 2-4 are
based on the same sites and the same data
as Figures 2a-4a, except that only select-
ed types are extracted and highlighted in
Figures 2a-4a. Figures 2a-4a were produced
by, first, lumping together the two
largest Indian Pond complex categories
(simple stamped/brushed/wiped/scraped, and
cord marked/fabric marked), and then
contrasting that group as a unit with the
Leon-Jefferson complicated stamped group.
That is, we are lumping together the most
diagnostic group of sherds of the Indian
Pond complex, and contrasting that with
the most diagnostic group of sherds of the
Leon-Jefferson complex, and excluding less
diagnostic types. Figures 2a, 3a and 4a
are intended only to illustrate more
clearly the relationships that are demon-
strated in greater detail in Figures 2, 3
and 4.
The above sections describe how the
seriations were constructed. The follow-
ing sections describe how they were used.
Data from the seriation charts are
extracted in attempt to create practical,
workable tools for identifying sites from
specific culture periods of current
research interest.

Identifying To Transitions and
Two Key "Moments" in Time

On the seriation charts, we can see
two important ceramic transitions, and we
deduce two key "moments" in time. That
is, we can see the transition from Weeden
Island into the Indian Pond complex, and
the much later transition from the Indian
Pond complex into the Leon-Jefferson (or
Lamar) complex. And we attempt to identi-
fy the two key "moments" in time, the
Contact Period and the early seventeenth
century. In the following discussion we
treat all of these events in reverse
order, from latest to earliest.

The Indian Pond--Leon-Jefferson Tradition

The reasons for the appearance and
seemingly rapid ascendency of the Leon-
Jefferson pottery in north Florida are
unknown. These ceramics dominate seven-
teenth-century Mission period collections,









COMPLICATED STAMPED


CHECK
STAMP
LINEAR CORD/ PUNCT- exclude ST.
MARKED FABRIC COB INCISED ATED Leon JOHNS


8SU88


8SU65,
Baptising Spgs.

8SU86


8SU85


I I


0
Figure 2. Baptising Springs Cluster of Sites. scale
Pottery groups are expressed in percentages. Plain sherds, anamolous
decorated sherds, and sherds too small or too eroded to classify are
omitted.


COMPLICATED STAMPED


LINEAR MARKED AND
CORD/FABRIC MARKED


0 20


Figure 2A. ,Baptising Springs Cluster of Sites, Selected Types Cm bined.
Pottery groups are expressed in percentages.


COMPLICATED STAMPED

INDIAN POND WEST
excluding Unit 300

INDIAN POND HILLCREST


INDIAN POND UNIT
300 AREA

INDIAN POND ACROSS
THE DITCH

JOHNS POND

INDIAN POND LOWER SIOPE.


Figure 3. Indian Pond
Pottery groups are
decorated sherds,
omitted.


LINEAR
MARKED


CORD OR
FABRIC


CIECK
PUNCTATED STAMP
including exclude ST.
COB INCISED Lochlooaa Leon JOHNS


c

g. SAMPLE
' SIZE


YES 32


SI YES 37


1


YES? 72

YES 45

NO 14


NO 122


Cluster of Sites. 0 20Z
expressed in percentages. Plain sherds, anamolous
and sherds too small or too eroded to classify are

LINEAR MAI'Rt D A1D
RD /FABRRI. HARRED


INDIAN POND WEST
INDIAN POND HILLCREST
INDIAN POND UNIT 300 AREA
INDIAN POND ACROSS TilE DITCH
JOHNS POND
INDIAN POND LOWER SLOPE


0 20


Figure 3A. Indian pond Cluster of Sites, Selected Types Omabined.
Pottery groups are expressed in percentages.

NOTE: Figures 5 and 5A are the same as Figures 3 and 3A, except that two
additional sites are added at the bottom.


SPANISH
ARTIFACTS
PRESENT


SAMPLE
SIZE


YES 149


YES 2138


YES 112


YES 345


8SU88


8SU65


8SU86


8SU85









CORD OR


COB PUNCTATED


CHECK
STAMP
Include
L ^


SPANISH
ARTIFACTS SAMPLE
ST JOHNS PRESENT SIZE


COMPLICATED STAMPED LINEAR MARKED FABRIC MARKED HARKE INCISE. con -
L,


IES 112


YES 68


YES? 8l


CARLISLE SITE


SANTA FE SITE



PALMORE SITE


COMPLICATED STAMPED


INDIAN POND WEST
excluding Unit 300

INDIAN POND HILLCREST

INDIAN POND UNIT
300 AREA

INDIAN POND ACROSS
THE DITCH

JOHNS POND

INDIAN POND LOWER SLOPE


LITTLE HELL LAKE

MCKEITHEN


A


Figure 5. Indian Pand
Pottery groups are
decorated sherds,
omitted.


LINEAR
MARKEDF


CORD OR
FABRIC


CHECK
PUNCTATED STAMP
Including exclude ST.
COR INCISED Lochloosa Leon JOHNS


I








I.



0 20%
Cluster of Sites. scale
expressed in percentages. Plain sherds, anamolous
and sherds too small or too eroded to classify are

ABR Ii'MAr ,AND
ORD/FABRI.; MARKED


INDIAN POND WEST
INDIAN POND HILLCREST
INDIAN POND UNIT 300 AREA
INDIAN POND ACROSS THE DITCH
JOHNS POND
INDIAN POND LOWER SLOPE
LITTLE HELL LAKE
MCKEITHEN


0 20


Figure 5A. Indian Pond Cluster of Sites, Selected Types combined.
Pottery groups are expressed in percentages.

NOTE: Figures 5 and 5A are the same as Figures 3 and 3A, except that two
additional sites are added at the bottom.


0 20%
Figure 4. Santa Be Cluster of Sites. .cal '
Pottery groups are expressed in percentages. Plain sherds, anamolous
decorated sherds, and sherds too small or too eroded to classify are
omitted.
LINEAR MARKED AND
COMPLICATED STAMPED CORD/FABRIC MARKED




6?2
Figure 4A. Santa Fe Cluster of Sites, Selected Types Oumbined.
Pottery groups are expressed in percentages.


CARLISLE SITE
SANTA FE SITE
PALMORE SITE


SAMPLE
S SIZE

YES 32

YES 37

YES? 72

YES 45


NO 34

NO 122

NO 90


MARKEDFABRI









but we do not know why they appear, what
they represent, and whether the change is
associated with the missions or with
earlier, European-induced disruptions
(such as the cultural consequences of
disease epidemics brought by de Soto and
others).
Whatever the explanation for the
Leon-Jefferson series, we can track it on
the seriation charts. It replaces the
indigenous Indian Pond tradition on all
seriation charts, that is, in all geo-
graphical areas examined here, and its
appearance also signals the appearance of
Spanish artifacts on almost all sites. It
is a pan-Utina phenomenon in the sense
that it occurred in all known areas, but
it is not known if the Leon-Jefferson
ceramics appeared at precisely the same
time at all sites throughout the province,
or if there was some delay from one
portion of the province to another.
The replacement of the Indian Pond
complex by the Leon- Jefferson complex is
illustrated most clearly in Figure 2a, 3a
and 4a, in which only the two predominant
wares are contrasted. On all three
seriations, the Indian Pond complex is
strongest at the oldest sites (bottom of
the chart), declines steadily relative to
Leon-Jefferson in the middle, and fades
out at the top where Leon-Jefferson
replaces it completely.

Late Prehistoric-to-Contact Period

The Late Prehistoric-to-Contact
period, is the period just before, during
and just after the first contacts by
Europeans, but before European- induced
wholesale acculturative changes had taken
effect. That is, the first contact may
have been made and the first European may
even have been in residence, but no large-
scale acculturation is yet apparent in the
archaeological record. (Disease epidemic-
induced changes such as population decline
may well have occurred prior to accultur-
ation, but those changes are difficult to
see in the archaeological record and will
be dealt with in future papers) This
period is roughly from A.D. 1400 to A.D.
1600. We must extend our time frame back
to A.D. 1400, until more research can be


done in the Utina province, because of
methodological difficulties in dating
sites more accurately before Spanish
artifacts appear.
The procedure for identifying the
Late Prehistoric-Contact period on the
seriation charts is to look up and down
the chart (e.g., Figure 5) for the point
at which or just before the point at which
the Leon-Jefferson series first appears.
The Leon-Jefferson series is thought to
first appear in north Florida in the late
sixteenth century or late seventeenth
century, based on its associations with
early seventeenth-century artifacts. The
site closest to that point where Leon-
Jefferson appears on the chart is hypo-
thesized to be closest to the late
prehistoric-contact time. The site may
actually be late prehistoric or early
Mission period, but of all known sites it
is the one closest to the Contact period.
This information is then verified with
other information such as the presence or
absence of Spanish artifacts. The method
gives us our first look at what a Contact
period site may have been like and it
provides a starting point for further
research and more refined chronologies.
In our sample of sites, the sites
existing closest to the time of contact in
each area include the following.

1. 8SU85 in the Baptizing Springs cluster.
2. Indian Pond Lower Slope (or perhaps
nearby Johns Pond site) in the Indian
Pond cluster.
3. Palmore site (8AL189) in the Santa Fe
cluster.

Pottery ratios at or near the time
of contact are as follows. This ratio
contrasts only two groups. The first group
consists of linear marked (simple stamped/
brushed/wiped/scraped) combined with cord
marked and fabric marked. The second
group consists of Leon-Jefferson/Lamar
complicated stamped. These two groups are
contrasted against each other at these
three sites which are hypothesized closest
to Contact. At 8SU85 (Figure 2a) two
thirds of this sample (68.3%) are linear
marked/cord marked/fabric marked, and one
third (31.6%) are Leon-Jefferson/Lamar









complicated stamped. At Indian Pond Lower
Slope (Figure 3a), 100% are linear
marked/cord marked/fabric marked. And at
Palmore (Figure 4a) the first group
dominates with about seven-eights (86.7%)
as opposed to one-eighth (13.2%) compli-
cated stamped.
All of the Baptizing Springs sites
cited here have yielded at least one
Spanish artifact. Lower Slope in the
Indian Pond cluster lacks them. The
situation with Spanish artifacts at the
Palmore site is unclear. Spanish arti-
facts are present at one end of the
horseshoe-shaped village, but it is not
clear if they are associated with this
village (and is it de Soto period?) or
with the nearby Santa Fe mission.
As discussed above, the time of
appearance of the Leon-Jefferson series in
north Florida is unclear. From the
presence and percentages of the Leon-
Jefferson complicated stamped sherds, we
are hypothesizing that 8SU85 occupies the
latter end of this late prehistoric-early
historic period, probably early seven-
teenth-century and that the missions had
begun by this time. We are hypothesizing
that Indian Pond Lower Slope is at the
opposite, earlier end of this late
prehistoric-early historic period, perhaps
existing at the time of de Soto or even
one or two (or more) centuries earlier,
hence the A.D. 1400 to 1600 date or even
earlier. And we are hypothesizing that
the Palmore village area was occupied
right around the time of de Soto or the
first missionaries, A.D. 1500-1600, or
perhaps earlier. All of these dates are
tentative pending further research.
It would be highly useful for rela-
tive dating purposes to have a ratio of
cord/fabric marked sherds versus linear
marked sherds, because these are the two
most abundant decorated sherds within the
Indian Pond complex and the seriations
shows that their relative abundance
changes through time. This ratio would
enable us to identify Contact period sites
from the Indian Pond complex ceramics
alone without Leon-Jefferson or Spanish
ceramics. Unfortunately, the results are
inconsistent among our three different
geographical localities. We cannot pro-


duce a single master ratio of cord/fabric
marked to linear marked sherds across
Utina territory at the time of contact.
We must continue using our several
localized seriations until more studies
can be completed.

The First Half of the Seventeenth-Century

We are more successful at identify-
ing sites of the first half of the seven-
teenth-century by using the seriations in
conjunction with majolica dates. This
culture period spans the establishment of
the mission system among the Utina. Sites
dating to this period include the
following:

1. Baptizing Springs site (8SU65) in the
Baptizing Springs cluster.
2. Indian Pond West at the Indian Pond
site (8C0229) in the Indian Pond
cluster.
3. Santa Fe site (8AL190) in the Santa Fe
cluster.

The majolica sherds recovered indi-
cate that all three of the above sites
were occupied during the early seventeenth
century, but the aboriginal assemblages,
which are thus contemporaneous, indicate
local variations. We can construct a
ratio by contrasting two groups, the
linear marked/cord marked/fabric marked
group versus the Leon-Jefferson/Lamar com-
plicated stamped group. At Baptizing
Springs, one-eighth (12.1) are linear
marked/cord marked/fabric marked and
seven-eights (87.8%) are Leon-Jefferson/
Lamar complicated stamped for this period.
At Indian Pond West, 3.4% are the first
category and 96.5% are complicated
stamped. At the Santa Fe mission site, A-
190, it is roughly half-and-half, 47% of
the first category and 53% complicated
stamped for this period.
We can again set aside the Leon-
Jefferson sherds and contrast only the two
selected groups within the Indian Pond
complex for the first half of the seven-
teenth-century. In the Baptizing Springs
cluster (i.e., at the Baptizing Springs
site), 26% of this sample are cord marked/
fabric marked versus 74% for linear









marked, with a sample size of 227 sherds.
At Indian Pond West and at the Palmore
site in the Santa Fe cluster, both sherd
groups are present but in small numbers,
less than twenty cord/fabric or linear
marked sherds in either collection. At
Palmore, most of them are linear marked
rather than cord/fabric marked.
In summary, for the early seven-
teenth-century, at the only site where
sample sizes of linear marked and cord/
fabric marked sherds are adequately large
for this time period, three-fourths of
these two sherd groups are linear marked
and one-fourth are cord and fabric marked.
Sample sizes of these two sherd groups are
small at this time at the other two sites.
Leon-Jefferson ceramics are far more
abundant than Indian Pond ceramics at all
three sites for this time period, and the
presence of early seventeenth-century
majolica dates indicate that these three
sites were contemporaneous or nearly
contemporaneous.
Other sites in these localities,
such as 8SU89, may also date to the early
to mid-seventeenth-century, but these
sites have yielded too few majolica sherds
or other datable artifacts.

The Weeden Island to
Indian Pond Transition

The transition from Weeden Island to
the Indian Pond complex is apparent in
those seriations for which we have enough
sites and large enough samples, especially
the chart for the Indian Pond cluster
(Figures 5 and 5a). This chart appears to
show the transition from Weeden Island
into Indian Pond through an intermediary
stage represented by the Little Hell Lake
site in eastern Suwannee County. This
Early Indian Pond/Late Weeden Island
period is marked by the disappearance of
Weeden Island complicated stamped types,
the continued predominance of plain
pottery, and the beginnings of the cord
marked/fabric marked/linear marked Indian
Pond complex. The transition from Weeden
Island to Indian Pond may also be present
in the Santa Fe cluster area, where the
Alligood site (8AL188) is probably coeval
with the MfcKeithen site in the Indian Pond


cluster. But the picture is not yet clear
for the Santa Fe area because sample sizes
of decorated sherds are small.
Additional and highly important
evidence for long-term cultural continuity
from Weeden Island through the Mission
Period is found in types such as Weeden
Island Incised, Keith Incised, Carabelle
Incised, and Carabelle Punctated. These
types persist, though in low numbers,
throughout the period from Weeden Island
to historic Utina and they disappear only
after the Leon-Jefferson series supplants
everything else. For example, they are
found at the McKeithen site, at the
transitional Little Hell Lake site, and at
the seventeenth-century Baptizing Springs
mission site and other seventeenth-century
sites in this cluster. The sample sizes
of these types are too small to list them
separately on the seriation charts, but
their persistence appears to show the
cultural continuity from Weeden Island
through Utina, that is, from circa A.D.
750 or earlier, until the early to mid-
seventeenth-century.
Additional evidence for long-term
cultural continuity may be seen in the
clustered settlement patterns and local-
ized assemblages, as though specific
groups of people resided in specific areas
for long periods of time. Even when
village locations were shifted, they did
not move far. At all three local clusters
Baptizing Springs, Indian Pond/
McKeithen and Santa Fe -- most of the
sites are within a few hundred meters of
each other.

Summary and Cbnclusions

The Indian Pond ceramic complex was
associated with the Utina Indians of north
Florida. The complex contains cord and
fabric marked ceramics, an unidentified
linear marked category, and other
ceramics. Ceramic seriations show the
transitions from Weeden Island to Utina/
Indian Pond to the Leon-Jefferson series.
Different geographical localities within
Utina territory contain slightly different
assemblages.
The early stages of the Alachua
Tradition (the Hickory Pond period) in









neighboring north central Florida may or
may not coincide up with the early stages
of the Indian Pond complex in north
Florida. In the Indian Pond seriations,
the cord and fabric marked pottery
appears, then declines relative to linear
marked ceramics. This sequence is similar
(but with a different pottery type) to the
sequence in the Alachua Tradition where
cord marked appears then declines relative
to cob marked. However, absolute dates
are not yet available and so we cannot say
if cob marked and linear marked pottery
replace the cord marked pottery in their
repsective areas at the same time and at
the same rate.
One of the important points about
the appearance of the Leon-Jefferson pot-
tery in north Florida is that it took some
amount of time to replace the Indian Pond
complex. At most archaeological sites,
the seemingly-abrupt preponderance the
Leon-Jefferson pottery is misleading,
possibly the result of sites having been
occupied for only short spans of time as
consequences of Old Wrld intrusion.
The above definition of the Utina/
Indian Pond pottery complex necessitates a
re-examination of other, previously
recorded sites. Most of the "Weeden
Island II" sites in Columbia, Suwannee,
Union, and Hamilton Counties are, instead,
Utina. And some portion of the sites
which, in the past, have been identified
automatically as eighteenth-century
Seminole because they contain brushed
pottery are probably sixteenth- or
seventeenth-century or earlier. These
Utina or Seminole sites should be dis-
tinguishable by the other material culture
items also present in the assemblages.
The seriations presented in this
paper are based on simple frequencies of
sherd types or groups. Other mathematical
computations are not attempted because
many of the sites are known only from sur-
face collections. The seriations, and the
interpretations and conclusions derived
from them, are thus provisional until more
surveys and more excavations can be
undertakedn. We need larger collections
and a better understanding of site
distributions in order to generate better
seriations and better chronologies to


serve as supporting frameworks for further
archaeology ical research.

References Cited

Bullen, Ripley P.
1950 An Archaeological Survey of the Chattahoochee
River Valley in Florida. Journal of the
Washington Academy of Sciences 40(4):101-125.

1953 Notes on the Seminole Archeology of West Florida
Southeastern Archaeological Conference News-
letter 3(3):18-19.

Cooper, Richard S.
1952 Archeological Survey of the Sante Fe River Area
of Alachua County. MS on file, Florida Museum
of Natural History, Gainesville.

Deagan, Kathleen A.
1972 Fig Springs: The Mid-Seventeenth Century in
North-Central Florida. Historical Archaeology
6:23-46.

Ford, James A.
1962 A Quantitative Method for Deriving Cultural
Chronology. pan Amnerican Union, Technical
Manual No. 1. (Reprinted as University of
Missouri, Museum of Anthropology, Museum Brief
No. 9).

Goggin, John M.
1964 Seminole Pottery. In Indian and Spanish
Selected Writings by John M. Goggin. University
of Miami Press, Coral Gables. Reprinted from
Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern United
States, Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Henry, W. P.
1952 A Surface Survey of the Area Cne Mile South of
the Santa Fe River and To Miles West of Florida
Highway 241 to that Highway. MS on file,
Florida Museum of Natural History.


Johnson, Kenneth W.
1986 Archaeological Survey of Contact and Mission
Period Sites in Northern Peninsular Florida.
Miscellaneous Project report Series, Florida
Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

1987a The Search for Aguacaleyquen and Cali; Archaeo-
logical Survey of Portions of Alachua, Bradford,
Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Marion, Sumter and Union
Counties, Florida. Miscellaneous Project report
Number 33, Department of Anthropology, Florida
State Museum, Gainesville.

1987b Settlement Systems in North Central Florida.
Paper presented at the 48th Annual Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Charleston.

1989 Mission Santa Fe. Paper presented at the 1989
Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological
Society, Jacksonville; and, at the 1989 Annual
Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Tampa.











1990 The Discovery of a Seventeenth Century Spanish
Mission in Ichetucknee State Park, 1986.
Florida Journal of Anthropology, Gainesville. In
press.

Johnson, Kenneth W., Bruce C. Nelson and Keith A.
Terry
1988 The Search for Aguacaleyquen and Cali; Archae-
ological Survey of Portions of Columbia,
Suwannee, Union and Adjacent Counties, Season 2.
Miscellaneous Project Report, Florida Museum of
Natural History, Gainesville.


Kohler, Timothy A.
1978 The Social and Chronological
Village Occupation at a North
Island Period Site. Ph.D.
University of Florida.


Dimensions of
Florida Weeden
dissertation,


Kohler, Timothy A., and G. Michael Johnson
1986 From Garden Patch to McKeithen: What We Do, and
Don't, Know about Late Woodland in North
Florida. Paper presented at 43rd Annual South-
eastern Archaeological Conference, Nashville.

Leader, Jonathan, and Bruce C. Nelson
1989 Technometric and Functional Analysis of Metal
Artifacts from the 17th Century Santa Fe de
Tbloca Mission, Florida. Paper presented at the
1989 Annual Meeting of the Florida
Anthropological Society, Jacksonville.

Loucks, Lana Jill
1978 Suwannee County Survey Project, Fall 1977. MS
on file, Florida Museum of Natural History,
Gainesville.

1979 Political and Economic Interactions between
Spaniards and Indians: Archaeological and
Ethnohistorical Perspectives of the Mission
System in Florida. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Florida.

Marquardt, William H.
1978 Advances in Archaeological Seriation. In
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory,
edited by Michael B. Schiffer. Academic Press,
New York. Pp. 257-314.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1971 The Alachua Tradition of North-Central Florida.
Contributions of the Florida State Museum,
Anthropology and History 17.

1972 Excavations at the Richardson Site, Alachua
County, Florida: An Early 17th Century Potano
Indian Village (With Notes on Potano Culture
Changee. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and
Properties Bulletin 2:35-61.

Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. OCrdell, Vernon J. Knight,
Jr., Timothy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle
1984 McKeithen Weeden Island; The Culture of Northern
Florida A.D. 200-900. Academic Press, New York.

Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks
1987 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.


Milanich, Jerald T., Carlos A. Martinez, Karl T.
Steinen, and Rbnald L. Wallace
1976 Georgia Origins of the Alachua Tradition.
Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties
Bulletin 5:47-56.

Phillips, Phillip A., James A. Ford, and James B.
Griffin
1951 Archaeological Survey in the Lower Mississippi
Alluvial Valley, 1940-1947. Harvard University
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and
Ethnology, Paper 25.

Stokell, R.A.
1978 Suwannee County Survey: Fall 1977 Field Session,
Preliminary Report. MS on file, Florida Museum
of Natural History, Gainesville.

Worth, John E.
n.d. Revised Aboriginal Ceramic Typology for the
Timucua and Potano Mission Provinces: A.D.
1597-1656. Unpublished manuscript.







A CACHE CF POINTS FRCM BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

Mary Lou Watson, Tom Watson and Louis D. Tesar


Introduction

The Shell Point midden site (8BY89)
is located on the South side of West Bay,
an extension of the St. Andrew Bay system
in Bay County, Florida (Figure 1). The
surface collection of artifacts from site
8BY89 represents the Middle Archaic, Late
Archaic (Norwood), Deptford, Swift Creek,
Weeden Island and Fort Walton archaeolo-
gical cultures. These span a period from
ca. 5000 B.C.-1550 A.D.
When site 8BY89 was first visited by
Tesar in 1963, past disturbance from shell
mining was evident. In response to
inquiries, Mr. Robert Reeder (Personal
Communication, 1964) reported to Tesar
that the site was originally 8-10 feet
thick before he and others were engaged on
a WPA project to load shell onto barges to
seed oyster beds in the West Bay area.
Thus, care should be taken in this area of
Florida (and perhaps in other areas) in
interpreting "drowned terrestrial" sites,
as they may be historically redeposited.
When visited by Mary Lou and Tom
Watson in the 1970s, the site data in the
Florida Master Site File was updated. The
Watsons noted that the "site has been
destroyed by shell removal and erosion to
such an extent that salvage excavations
are not warranted." In most areas of the
site, less than 10" of midden shell
remain. Yet, for various reasons, pri-
marily the exposure of cultural materials
by shoreline erosion, the site has con-
tinued to be visited by passive artifact
collectors. Figure 2 illustrates the
distribution of shell midden remains based
on surface observation and the results of
probe rod indications over a 10' grid
interval pattern.
One group of artifacts fortuitously
discovered at the site by Mary Lou Watson
is the subject of this report. Figure 3
is a photograph of Mary Lou during one of
the Watson's visits to Shell Point. The
tree to her right (the left) is the
location of the cache of six points which
stimulated the preparation of this report.


--

i~ '

-
--
"-o^c- ^ qY *J -- --
ir ~- o-" t~-t ^
*% --^ <


a^ J ^ ^ _-* -
_S^ A :^*^ .- _~
/M'^ '"-^t-'~^ ''"-11__J-
rt j Jiit- Y^-'~~_ --


Shell Point






'4 y


-o -a-28



Figure 1. Portion of U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute
quadrangle showing the location of the
Shell Point (8BY89) site in the West Bay
area of Bay County, Florida. The X in the
top center of the 8BY89 site area marks
the location of the cache find.

___ _1 0C ,o 4- o



ooo0ooooo O 0o 0 0 A X X X X XXRAX X X/o


Sx 0 <
00 000000 0 \-X l e A A A X k A )yO 0




0 0 0~ oo
o a y.,
0o \
0
0


Figure 2. Photoreduced copy of results of
the Watson probing site 8By89 in 10'/3m+
grid intervals. The X = shell midden and
the O = no shell midden.

For several years, Tesar had encour-
aged Mary Lou and Tom to write about the
cache which she had found at Shell Point.
Unfortunately, continuing illness prevent-


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 43 No. 1


March, 1990













































Figure 3. December 23, 1979 photograph of Mary Lou Watson at Shell Point
(8BY89) site, Bay County, Florida. The cedar tree to her right (the left)
is the location where the cache of six Lafayette/Clay points was found.
See Figure 4 sketch for notes on the cache. Photograph courtesy Tom Watson.









ed that article from being written prior
to Mary Lou's death.

Description of the Cache Find

In going through her journals, Tom
discovered that Mary Lou had written the
following:

On Dec. 23, 1979, at Shell Point,
Tom and I had looked along the shore [for
artifacts], and then I walked inland a
short distance. As I returned through the
wood to the beach I saw two large cedars
lying on the bank the very green
branches were evidence that the trees had
been very recently uprooted by wave
action. I went to the front of the trees
and realized that very possibly artifacts
could have be under the bank held down by
the tree roots (when the trees were still
standing). I walked back to the boat and
asked Tom if I could delay departure about
10 minutes. He agreed and I went back to
the 2nd tree. By moving a little sand
around the large tap root of the tree, I
exposed two beautiful points, one at a
time -- one on each side of the root lying
on the black subsoil. I then removed some
soil behind the root and there, packed
under many clam shells [Venus mercenaria]
in white sand above the dark sand, were
stacked -- one on the other with the bases
exposed -- the other four points [Figure
4]. All six points were within a one foot
square area. This group of points is
known as a cache and is a rather rare find
in this area. I took them to Tallahassee
and Louis Tesar (an archaeologist from
Panama City who works for the State
[Division of Historical Resources]) looked
at them and told me that he thought that
they were Hopewell influenced -- made
anywhere from 1000 B.C. to 400 A.D. --
that the points were made by the same
person, and Louis thought that the ends
[tangs] of the bases were broken when they
were made. I believe that they were an
offering for a burial, and the only
evidence left in the grave.

(NOTE: Louis now believes that he was
mistaken in that cursory opinion of the
chronological position of the points,
which was influenced by knowledge of the
Swift Creek component at the site and the
general occurrence of caches of exotic
artifacts in the Hopewellian influenced


- ~ -c


J!. -o I



V>^ 4 /s W 4 Pc2



Figure 4. Photoreduced sketch by Mary Lou
Watson of the location of the six points
found in the Shell Point (8BY89) cache.
See Figure 3 photograph for sketch inter-
pretation.

Swift Creek sites.)
Mary Lou's journal also contains her
description of each of the cache points,
which she had begun to analyze. Each
point was assigned a number (1-6) corre-
sponding to the order in which they were
found. These will be discussed further
later in this paper.

Artifacts from the Shell Point Site

Louis sorted and identified the
artifacts from Shell Point in the Watson's
collec-tion. The results are presented in
Table 1.
The lithic and ceramic artifacts
identified in Table 1, while limited in
sample size, indicate the relatively
continuous occupation of the Shell Point
(8BY89) archaeological site from Middle
Archaic (ca. 5000-2500 B.C.) through Fort
Walton (ca. A.D. 1000-1550) times. The
two varieties of Busycon, the lighter
estuarine variety used for food and the
heavier marine variety used for both food
and tool manufacture, combined with the
Mercenaria, and other shells, as well as
fish, reptile and mammal bones in the
collection evidence a wide range of











Aboriginal Oeramic Sherds
Norwood (fiber-tempered) Plain . .
Norwood Simple-Stamped . . .
Deptford Simple-Stamped . . .
Deptford Linear Check Stamped . .
Deptford Bold Check Stamped ....
Swift Creek Cbmplicated Stamped, early variety
Swift Creek Complicated Stamped, late variety
Indeterminate ype Cmplicated Stamped .
Wakulla Check Stamped . . .
Indeterminate Type Check Stamped .. ....
Weeden Island Incised . . .
Carrabelle Punctate . . . .
Tucker Ridge-Pinched .............
Weeden Island Plain . . . .
Fort Walton Plain . . . .
Pensacola'series (shell-tempered) Plain .
Indeterminate Plain (unsorted) . .
Fort Walton Incised . . . .
Lake Jackson Incised, Style lug . .
Indeterminate Incised . . .
Indeterminate Punctate . . .
Miscellaneous Indeterminate (Brushed?) .


Body/Rim
S 9/0
S 1/
. 14/0
* 12/0
* 32/4
1/1
4/1
* 19/0
. 31/7
50/0
4/1
S 0/2
S 1/0
S -/16?
-/12?
2/0
. 199/-
S -/2
S -/2
3/-
5/1
2/-


Total 159/49
TOTAL 208

Miscellaneous Aboriginal ceramics Total
Grooved Abraders (Utilized Plain Body Sherds) 2
Fired Ceramic (?) Clay Mass, Irregular Shape 1
Elliots Clay Ball Fragments .......... 2
TOTAL 5

Lithics, Nan-Chert Total
Steatite ITo-hole Boat Shaped Gorget (?) .
Matate Fragment, Utilized Both Faces, Quartzite (?) 1
Granular Quartz Cobble, Unmodified, Burnt,
Surface Wear (Honing Stone ?) ...... 1
Quartz Cobble Fragments (Debitage/Unutllized ?) 4
Hematite, Red, Fragments . . . 2
Hematite, Yellow, Fragment .......... 1
TOTAL 10

Lithics, Chert, Projectile points Total
Lafayette/Clay Points, Unutilized (from cache) 6
Lafayette/Clay Points, Exhausted ........ 3
Archaic Stemmed, var. Indeterminate, Exhausted,
Reworked as Drill, Broken Tip ..... 1
Archaic Stemmed, var. Marion (?), Exhausted 4
Basal Fragments, Type Indeterminate ...... 3
Midsection Fragments, Type Indeterminate .... 4*
(* One reworked as an End Scraper)
Tip Fragments, Type Indeterminate ..... 4
TOTAL 25

Lithics, Chert, Other Total
Exhausted Multi-directional Oores . 4
Primary Decortication Flakes . . 9
Irregular Shaped (Blocky) Debitage . 9
Core Shaping Secondary Flakes ......... 7
Hard Hammer, Secondary Flakes . .. 10
Indirect Percussion/Pressure Flakes . 9
Blake Fragments, Without Bulb of Percussion 18
Dalton Pdz Bit (?) Fragment .......... 1
Graver/Scraper, Situational Flake, Retouched 1
Scraper (?) Retouched Flake ......... .1
Flake Blade Knife, Use Wear, Unretouched 1
Microliths (Jaketown ?) . . . 3
TOTAL 73

Shell Total
Busycon sp. [heavy variety], Hafting hole, battered
end, Type D (?, see Luer 1986:115) Pick/Hammer 1
Busycon sp. [heavy variety, Cutting-edged Tool,
Type Unknown, Fragment ....... 1
TOTAL 2


Table 1. Shell Point (8BY89) Artifacts in
the Watson Cbllection.


environments used for subsistence
purposes. Unfortunately, beyond this
glimpse -- owing to the earlier extensive
WPA shell mining activities, it will not
be possible to trace changes in environ-
ment and subsistence through time at the
site.
Yet finds, such as the cache of
points discovered by Mary Lou Watson,
contribute further to our understanding of
prehistoric cultures. They give us in-
sight into the rich cultural heritage of
the prehistoric native Americans who lived
in the area.
However, the informational value of
such contributions depends upon the obser-
vations and reporting of their discoverer.
Mary Lou made a detailed record of the
circumstances leading to her discovery and
the location of each recovered point in
the cache. Her journal notes, in addition
to the narrative quoted above, include a
field sketch of the find site, showing the
fallen tree roots and the location of each
cache point in relation to each other and
to the tree roots. She also describes
each individual point, and we (Tom and
Louis) have supplemented that information
in our analysis of the cache points and
other site artifacts. In addition to
their journal field notes, the Watsons
retained the locational integrity of
materials collected from each of the sites
they visited by bagging them separately
and retaining a catalog/artifact accession
numbering system for the more diagnostic
specimens.


The Cache


With the above background informa-
tion as an aid to interpreting the cache
of points, our description of each of the
points follows. The obverse and reverse
of the cache points are shown in the
Figure 5 and 6 photographs. Since the
scale in the photographs is nearly 1:1
with the actual points, our description
will focus of comparative measurements and
information which may not be apparent in
the those photographs.
All six points are made from heat
treated chert, with the point "blanks"









being shaped to nearly completed form
prior to being heat treated. All but one
(Point Number 2) appear to be made from
the same chert core, since they all 1)
have the same creamy tan fine grainy
surface on the unremoved heat treated
blank surface, 2) have a glossy smooth
creamy white (slightly pinkish) patina on
the retouched heat treated surface, 3)
(when viewed toward a light source) appear
to have been a tan translucent stone prior
to being patinated, and 4) have similar
flaws in the stone from which they are
made. None of the points show any use
wear.
All six points appear to have been
made by the same individual based on the
nearly identical style of workmanship in
their manufacture. They were all 1) prior
to heat treating, shaped to nearly finish-
ed form with similar broad shallow thin-
ning flakes across the blade and basal
retouching/notching to shape the stem and
barb, 2) subjected to additional post-heat
treated blade thinning flakes on one or
both surfaces, 3) finely retouched with
pressure flakes along the blade edge after
heat treating, and 4) are generally simi-
lar in blade form and thickness. Further,
four of the six points display similar
breaks in the basal notching with the loss
of the barb prior to heat treatment.
However, there is variation in the
shape of the stem base and that of the
barb of the six points. That variation
spans the range of two previously identi-
fied point types: the Lafayette (Bullen
1975:26) and Clay (Bullen 1975:27) pro-
jectile points. It is for this reason
that we have referred to the points in the
cache as Lafayette/Clay projectile points,
and suggest that the original point type
descriptions be reconsidered and perhaps
merged as varieties of a single point type
or that the variety concept be dropped in
favor of simply expanding the range of
basal and barb variation for one of the
two types and dropping the other as a
type. The length, width and thickness
ranges, as well as method and quality of
manufacture, of both the Lafayette and
Clay point types overlap, and are
consistent with that of the six Shell
Point cache points. Both point types date


from the Middle to Late Archaic period
(ca. 3000-1000 B.C.).
Each of the point measurements which
follow are the maximum possible, using
sliding calipers. The length was measured
from the point tip to the stem base. The
width was measured from the outer edge of
the barb/shoulder to the outer edge of the
barb/shoulder with the sliding surface of
the calipers parallel to/flush with the
stem base. The blade thickness was the
maximum thickness measurable, generally
that near the base of the stem. The stem
lenght was measured from the base of the
notch to the base of the stem, while the
stem width was measured from tang to tang.
The resulting measurements follow:

Point Number 1.
Figures 5 and 6, Upper Right.
Point Length: 80.5 mm
Point Width: 50.5 mm
Blade Thickness: 8.0 mm
Stem Length: 14.0 mm
Stem Width: 22.0 mm
Pre-heat treatment barb break,
unretouched.
Point Number 2.
Figures 5 and 6, Upper Center.
Point Length: 98.4 mm
Point Width: 48.0 mm
Blade Thickness: 8.0 mm
Stem Length: 13.0 mm
Stem Width: 18.0 mm
Pre-heat treatment barb break,
unretouched.
Of the six points, this is the
only one made of a grainy-smooth,
glossy pinkish heat treated chert.
Point Number 3.
Figures 5 and 6, Lower Left.
Point Length: 95.0 mm
Point Width: 49.5 mm
Blade Thickness: 8.5 mm
Stem Length: 15.5 mm
Stem Width: 21.0 mm
Stem finished prior to heat treat-
ment.
Point Number 4.
Figures 5 and 6, Upper Left.
Point Length: 103.0 mm
Point Width: 49.5 mm
Blade Thickness: 7.2 mm
Stem Length: 14.0 mm





















qy%


LAOi
JL \ t-- ,


o I Z 3 4 5

CENTIMETERS


Figure 5. Photograph of the six Lafayette/Clay points found by Mary Lou
Watson in the Shell Point (8BY89) cache, Bay County, Florida. Photograph
courtesy of Tom Watson.


i
~ C~~c,,


Ile















p-c


IF.'. '. .*.''HaU
z T




MAN W


r \
i \ T^ A^


0 2 3 45

CENTIMETERS


Figure 6. Photograph of the reverse side of the six projectile points
shown in Figure 5 from the Shell Point (8BY89) cache, Bay County, Florida.
Photograph courtesy of Tom Watson.


40,L


-t.

i









Stem Width: 17.0 mm
One side almost completely pre-
heat treatment finished.
Point Number 5.
Figures 5 and 6, Lower Right.
Point Length: 96.5 mm
Point Width: 50.0 mm
Blade Thickness: 8.5 mm
Stem Length: 14.0 mm
Stem Width: 23.5 mm
Pre-heat treatment barb break,
unretouched.
Point Number 6.
Figures 5 and 6, Lower Center.
Point Length: 88.0 mm
Point Width: 48.0 mm
Blade Width: 7.0 mm
Stem Length: 13.0 mm
Stem Width: 20.2 mm
Both sides of stem and one half
of one blade face finished prior
to heat treatment.
Broken barb retouched prior to
heat treatment.

Conclusions

The cache of points discovered and
recorded by Mary Lou Watson provides
insight into Middle to Late Archaic flint
knapping techniques. It is recommended
that the Lafayette and Clay point types be
merged into a single type, perhaps with
stylistic variations; although, the range
of stem and barb variation in the cache
argues against the meaningfulness of the
latter. Most Lafayette/Clay points found
by collectors are usually in the last
stage of reduction and abandonment, thus
giving the impression of a generally
smaller, more trianguloid or asyemmetric
blade. The asymmetry probably indicates
their use as knives and, thus, would be
the result of disproportionate resharpen-
ing along the most frequently used blade
edge.
The individual who manufactured
these points is to be commended for the
skill displayed in working flawed material
prior to heat treatment, having the point
blanks not shatter during heat treatment,
and finishing the points following heat
treatment. The chert source nearest the
Shell Point site is located in the area


around present-day Marianna, Florida -- a
distance of around 50 miles/83 kilometers.
It is unfortunate that Mary Lou did
not save the clam shells, which she
reported to have overlain the four stacked
in situ points of the cache. We will
never know whether or not those clams
served as anvils in the point manufacture
tool kit, for instance, or simply marked
and protected the underlying point cache.
That digression aside, Mary Lou and other
conscientious avocational archaeologists
are to be commended for their continuing
contributions to furthering our under-
standing of Florida's prehistoric and
historic heritage.
As a final note, Tom has donated the
cache of points, copies of Mary Lou's
notes, and all of the other artifacts
which they jointly collected from the
Shell Point (8BY89) site, and which are
reported in this paper, to the Florida
Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources, where they will be
available for further study and museum
display. This and other collections from
distinct sites, which Mary Lou and Tom
collected over the years, will be curated
by the Florida Bureau of Archaeological
Research as the Watson Collection.

References Cited

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


Tom Watson
229 Woodlawn Drive
Panama City, Florida 32407

Louis D. Tesar
P.O. Box 1013
Tallahassee, Florida 32302






USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF SIX PROJECTILE POINT/KNIVES
FROM THE SHELL POINT SITE (8BY89)

George Ballo


Louis Tesar provided me with an
advance copy of the article, "A Cache of
Points from Bay County, Florida", and
requested that I analyse and write com-
ments on the cache of projectile point/
knives found by Mary Lou Watson. I agreed
to do so, and my brief comments follow.
First, I agree with Louis in
commending Mrs. Watson on the detail of
the field observation records, both
written and sketched, which she kept on
her find. Few professional archaeologists
could have done better.
In my analysis, each of the six
specimens was inspected and described. In
addition, sketches and notations were made
concerning my observations. These have
been returned to Louis for inclusion in
the Bureau of Archaeological Research
files, along with the actual specimens
which are being donated to the state by
the Watsons.
All six specimens were examined for
traces of wear (i.e., edge rounding,
polishing, and flaking). A Nikon SMZ-1
stereomicroscope at magnifications ranging
from 7X to 30X was used. The use-wear ex-
amination was hindered by the weathered
and patinated condition of the artifacts
and by the high surface gloss exhibited by
all specimens. These phenomena can mimic,
mask, or obliterate legitimate traces of
wear making accurate determinations dif-
ficult.
Of the six specimens examined, only
one exhibited detectable utilization
damage on a short (1.0 cm) length of one
lateral margin. This damage consists of a
smooth rounding of edge prominences and
crescents between flake scars on the dis-
tal portion of the lateral margin of Point
Number 5. Such damage would typically
occur in working materials that were
either soft (e.g., hide) to medium (e.g.,
wood) in hardness. This damage was
notably different from the minute edge
abrasion and flaking resulting from
"scrubbing" the artifact edge in the plat-
form preparation process prior to flint-
knapping. Platform preparation remnants


were commonly noted on all margins of all
specimens.
Four of the six specimens exhibited
fractured barbs and one specimen a minor
fracture of one corner of the stem. One
of the former (Point Number 6) had the
fractured barb repaired by simply rounding
off the blade corner at a level
commensurate with the top of the former
notch. The basal damage noted on these
specimens can occur in the manufacturing
process, as a result of tool use, or
during the tool rejuvenation process.
All of the specimens exhibited some
assymetry of blade margins. On fully five
of the artifacts at least one blade margin
is recessed from the barb edge. Five of
the specimens also exhibit subtle contour
breaks in the line of one, and sometimes
both, of their lateral margins. Again,
such assymetry may be the result of the
tool manufacturing process or may occur
through tool use and subsequent reworking,
i.e., rejuvenation, of the tool edge.
All of the projectile point/knives
recovered from 8BY89 exhibit varying
degrees of blade assymetry and/or hafting
element damage. One of the specimens also
exhibits damage to one lateral margin
attributable to use. It is possible that
the former damage resulted from the tool
manufacturing process. However, it is
suggested that it is most likely that the
blade assymetry and hafting element damage
noted resulted from tool use and tool re-
juvenation (i.e., reworking, resharpen-
ing) It is also suggested that these
tools were cached after a final resharpen-
ing episode which would have removed most
if not all of any utilization damage
occurring on the worked edges. It is
speculated that this is the reason that
these artifacts were virtually free of
utilization damage at the time they were
examined for this report.

George Ballo
Archaeologist II
Florida Department of Transportation
Tallahassee, Florida


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


March, 1990


Vol. 43 No. 1








BOOK REVIEWS, CURRENT RESEARCH AND COMMENTS


EASTERN PALEOINDIAN LITHIC RESOURCE USE
edited by Christopher J. Ellis and
Johnathan C. Lothrop. Investigations in
American Archaeology, Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado. September 6, 1989.
$43.50 (sc).

There is good news and there is bad
news. The bad news is that $43.50 is the
cost of a 6 x 9 inch paperback with few
artifact illustrations (do only Canadian
Paleoindian archaeologists illustrate
fluted points?), many of which are really
bad in the sense of picture reproduction
quality. The tables are similar to the
ones I produce on my old Rayal. Much of
this negativism is the fault of the
publisher, not the authors.
The good news is the 20 contribu-
tors: Mary L. Curran, Peabody Museum of
Salem; I. Randolph Daniel, Jr., North
Carolina Research Laboratories of Anthro-
pology; D. Brian Deller, Ontario;
Christopher J. Ellis, Waterloo, Canada,
Department of Anthropology; Albert C.
Goodyear, South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology; John R.
Grimes, Peabody Museum of Salem; R. G. V.
Hancock, Toronto University Dept. of Chem-
ical Engineering and Applied Chemistry;
Patrick J. Julig, Toronto University Dept.
of Anthropology; Bradley T. Leper, Newark
Earth Works; Jonathan C. Lothrop, Louis
Berger and Associates, Inc.; David J.
Meltzer, Southern Methodist University
Dept. of Anthropology; L. A. Pavlish,
Toronto University Dept. of Anthropology;
Michael J. Shott, Kentucky University
Program in Cultural Resource Assessment;
Arthur Spiess, Maine Historic Preservation
Commission; Peter L. Strock, Royal Ontario
Museum; Kenneth B. Tankersley, Indiana
University Glen A. Black Laboratory of
Archaeology; Peter H. von Bitter, Royal
Ontario Museum; Deborah Wilson, Maine
Historic Preservation Commission; Michael
Wisenbaker, Florida Division of Historical
Resources; and, Henry T. Wright, Univer-
sity of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.


Additional good news is that there
is none of the nonproductive focusing of
attention on alleged extinct megafauna
vis-a-vis old western Clovis/Folsom
models, or the pretense that the behavior
of people in South Africa or Australia
somehow dictates how Paleoindians in a
varied and rich environment had to behave.
In the Preface, Ellis and Lothrop
date the Paleoindian of eastern North
America to "ca. 11,000 to 9500 B.P." This
dating would seem to omit the western
Clovis period almost in its entirety while
including a portion of the period known as
"early Archaic" in the east. I hope this
is not a reflection of the old idea of
western Paleo primacy when easterners
believed fluted points dated significantly
later in the east. Indeed, some scholars
now hold just the opposite and the much
larger number of fluted points recovered
in the east may be the evidence. A dating
of ca. 11,500 10,000 B.P. would seem to
me to be a good conservative guess for the
eastern Paleoindian period marked by
fluted points and unfluted closely related
bifaces. The Dalton period after all is
now dated to roughly 15,000 10,000 B.P.,
and it may be terminal Paleoindian or post
Paleoindian, depending upon your perspec-
tive. Besides, the date 10,000 B.P. has a
nice round sound to it.
Paleoindian populations had specific
needs which included: (1) food and water;
(2) neighbors for help and/or mates; (3)
territory and/or space; and, (4) stone for
a stone tool technology. Archaeologists
need information concerning stone in order
to reconstruct Paleoindian lifeways be-
cause stone is about all that is preserv-
ed. Archaeological needs include: (1)
where is stone available; (2) where is
stone deposited in relationship to where
it is (and hopefully was) available; (3)
what was stone made into; (4) how do stone
tools and stone debitage found by archae-
ologists relate to the deposits where they
were lost, discarded, or cached.
Goodyear's thesis is that people can


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


March, 1990


Vol. 43 No. 1









adopt stone technologies so as to not in-
terfere with the need for food. The pro-
curement of stone for tools and the kinds
of tools made are part of the Paleoindian
settlement strategy. The theme of the 1986
Society for American Archaeology symposium
and hence this volume is just how was
stone acquired. Is there evidence of
trade or can the sources of stone found be
used to indicate the territory of groups?
The answer is "yes" to both.
Meltzer defines "exotic" stone as
stone from a source 40 km or more distant
and "local" stone as originating at a
source less than 40 km from the site of
deposit. Like Tankersley, I personally
would prefer 30 km, but perhaps everyone
would have to work it out for specific
regions. Meltzer seems to agree that most
or all stone is obtained directly by knap-
pers but allows for the "ceremonial ex-
change" of complete artifacts and does
state he would reconsider trade of raw
materials if a good case can be made for
it. Variations from this theme are
present throughout the volume with no real
consensus except to fit site data to vari-
ations of the theme. We should not expect
Paleoindian to act the same everywhere
despite the extraordianry homogeneity of
fluted point morphology. Interestingly,
Curran and Grimes arrive at a different
interpretation than Spiess and Wilson by
using the same data. Shott also tries to
deal with frequency of movement in addi-
tion to size of territory.
Lothrop's identification of biface
core, I think, is important and needs to
be assessed by other investigations. Ellis
suggests the intriguing idea that specific
groups may have exhibited their social
memberships by the stone they used.
Storck and von Bitter question "free
wandering" as it should be questioned.
They, together with Julig, Pavish and
Hancock focus on chert identification. As
Deller points out, the Canadians have been
more successful with Paleoindian studies
than Southeastern archaeologists. An ex-
ception would seem to be Daniel and
Wisenbaker's work at Harney Flats (I was
surprised to not see Paleolama mirifica
listed with Florida's extinct Pleistocene
fauna since Florida is famous for its


Paleolama remains.). Leper was able to
use Prufer's data from Ohio to develop an
important model of settlements which, like
emerging southeastern models, emphasizes
contrasting but adjacent physiographical
regions in contrast to Prufer's model of
avoidances. Tankersley admirably provides
an identification appendix of 47 cherts
and quartzites defined in the midconti-
nental United States (however, I don't
think that Burlington and Crescent Quarry
are synonymous for the same chert.). The
term "cache" is used in several papers
without regard to the possibility that
those "caches" could have been actually
burial furniture. Wright makes the point
(among others) that we need to record a
variety of non-point sites to get some
concept of forager land use. State bureau-
cracies, unfortunately, generally do not
like to record lithicc scatters" in their
computers.
I recommend this book to those who
want to know the status of Paleoindian
studies in the eastern United States.
Many of the papers are difficult to
understand, but after all that is the
status of our knowledge of Paleoindian in
the east. It will get much better pretty
soon as a result of symposiums like this
one.


Reviewed by
Dan F. Morse
Arkansas Archeological Survey
Drawer 820
State University, AR 72467









Geological Controls on the Regional
Distribution of Archaeological Sites
symposium, Geological Society of America
Abstracts with programs 21:A213-A214.
Reviewed by Kevin McCartney.

This review is the third in a series
(see The Florida Anthropologist 40:94, 41:
492-493) on geology as an investigative
tool for interpreting problems of archaeo-
logical importance. This subject has
become a regular topic at the annual
national meeting of the Geological Society
of America. The 1989 meeting, held
November 6-9 in St. Louis, included a
symposium consisting of ten presentations
on the influence of geologic phenomena on
the distribution of prehistoric sites, and
on how this knowledge can affect archae-
ologic interpretation.
Knowledge of the geologic history of
an area can be a useful tool in determin-
ing the extent of human habitation during
the past. Geologic processes subsequent
to habitation can destroy some sites while
preserving others. A number of examples
were given during the symposium where the
archaeologist believed that an area had
not been inhabited, but geologic work
showed extensive erosion in the area, sug-
gesting that habitation may have occurred
but that the evidence of it had since been
lost. In other cases, geologic study can
suggest where archaeological sites, if
present, might be exceptionally well pre-
served; an example comes from the Greek
island of Akrotiri, where buildings were
preserved intact up to the third story by
volcaniclastic deposits.
Similarly, environmental changes can
transform an area once heavily populated
to later become so inhospitable that the
archaeologist might belive that human
habitation at that location may never have
been possible. A case history was offered
from the western desert of Bgypt, where
abundant archaeological sites have been
found in an area that previously had been
determined to be devoid of human habita-
tion, principally because of the present
adverse climate. Geologic investigation,
however, determined that the climate was


quite moderate during the recent past,
thus allowing other researchers to make
important archaeological discoveries.
Several presentations demonstrated
how an understanding of sea level history
can help in the search for archaeological
sites and the interpretation of them. The
distribution of prehistoric sites is usu-
ally related directly to former shoreline
geometries. Archaeological sites now may
exist in geomorphic settings that are
quite different from those of the time of
occupancy. Reconstructing these ancient
geometries require estimates of the rate
of uplift and isostatic rebound after
glacial loading, rate of sea level change,
and a knowledge of the erosional history.
After the shoreline geometries have been
determined, the sites can be roughly
dated, since site locations are moved as
the shoreline changes. To give a simple
example, if the uplifting of a region is
the dominant process, then the oldest
sites will be those that are highest above
the present shoreline.
While none of the talks dealt
specifically with Florida, the presenta-
tions on the interpretation of sea level
may have special relevance to the Florida
anthropologist. Florida's low topography
can cause rapid changes in the shoreline
location. In other areas, such changes in
landscape have resulted in misinterpreta-
tion of settlement patterns. It is
reasonable to assume that this has also
happened in Florida.


Submitted by:
Kevin McCartney
University of Maine at Presque Isle
Presque Isle, ME 04769


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


March, 1990


Vol. 43 No. 1









ERRATA: Aboriginal Societies Encountered
by the Tristan de Luna Expedition

Caleb Curren, Keith J. Little
and Harry O. Holstein

Two errors in our article published
in The Florida Anthropologist 42(4):381-
395 in December, 1989 contained two errors
which we wish to correct. They are as
follows:

Bahia Filipina and Bahia Ochuse
Page 384, 4th-6th paragraphs

The eastern side of Bahia Filipina
was described as higher than the western
shores and consisting of "red broken
lands" (Priestly 1928b:335). Again, these
passages coincide with the physiography of
Mobile Bay. The eastern side of Mobile Bay
is characterized by the higher elevations
of marine terraces. The red bluffs asso-
ciated with the marine terraces on the
eastern shores are conspicuous, particu-
larly when viewed from the bay.
The entrance to the Bahia Ochuse is
also described as a narrow opening a half
league wide (Priestly 1928b:275). The nar-
row entrance of Pensacola Bay is approxi-
mately one kilometer wide and situated be-
tween the points of Santa RDsa Island and
Perdido Key.
A reddish ravine on the eastern side
of Ochuse dividing the bay was described
in the Luna documents (Priestly 1928b:
275). This description matches the Gulf
Breeze peninsula that divides Pensacola
Bay. Distinct banks of high marine ter-
races are prominent on the western end of
the Gulf Breeze peninsula and fit the Luna
documents' description of the "reddish
ravine."

Santa Maria
Pages 384-385, 3rd-4th paragraphs

From these passages, we can summar-
ize some features that may help to isolate
the location of Santa Maria. The bay's
width of three leagues fronting Santa
Maria narrows down the probable sites.


Given that the Spanish accounts give a
measurement of one half league for the
narrow opening into Ochuse which is ap-
proximately one kilometer wide, then we
may use relative distances to calculate
that three leagues are equivalent to six
kilometers. Hence, Santa Maria should be
situated on the bay in an area where the
bay width is approximately six kilometers
wide. This measurement confines the like-
ly location of Santa Maria to an area ex-
tending from the southeastern corner of
the Pensacola Naval Air Station north to
approximately Bayou Texar.
If Hudson's translation of the
Davilla Padilla account concerning salvag-
ing food from the creek is correct, then
Santa Maria should be situated near a
creek. This would appear to narrow fur-
ther the probable sites to the areas
around the mouths of Bayou Grande, Bayou
Chico, and Bayou Texar.


Correction submitted by:
Caleb Curren
Archaeology Laboratory
Pensacola Junior College
1000 College Boulevard
Pensacola, Florida 32504


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 43 No. 1


March, 1990










42ND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY
APRIL 27 29, 1990
NAPLES, FLORIDA

FRIDAY, APRIL 27
COLLIER COUNTY CONSERVANCY NATURE CENTER

2:00 pm Registration
3:00 pm Florida Archaeological Council (FAC) meeting
5:00 pm FAS Executive Board Meeting
6:00 pm Reception

SATURDAY, APRIL 28
CONSERVANCY NATURE CENTER


7:30 am
8:00 10:00 am
10:00 10:10 am
10:10 am 12:10 pm
12:10 1:30 pm
1:30 3:10 pm
3:10 3:20 pm
3:20 5:30 pm


Registration
Opening Remarks; Papers
Break
Papers
LUNCH
Papers; FAS Business Meeting
Break
Papers


GREAT BARGAIN ON FA BACK ISSUES

Check your library before you leave
for the FAS Annual Meeting. A 10% Confer-
ence Discount will be offered IN ADDITION
TO the regular 10% Members Discount AND
the 10% Authors Discount (for issues in
which you have published only) AND the 10%
discount for purchases over $100. Thus,
it is possible to obtain up to a 40%
discount on the purchase of some issues.
Remember that the Society's receipts
for back issues sales go into the
monograph account where the funds are used
to pay for the cost of printing enlarged
issues of The Florida Anthropologist,
larger than would be possible from
membership dues receipts alone.


LA PLAYA HOTEL

Cash Bar Opens
Banquet

SUNDAY, APRIL 29
COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM

Continental Breakfast and Slide Show
Pineland (north-bound) field trip
Marco Island (east-bound) field trip



















Holiday
1100 9tF
E*PLUS CA



1


NORTH COUEN PALM WRER
LmTN CENTIE IMMO.AE RO
I I
La Playa (banquet location)
9891 Gulf SHore Dr.
Vanderbilt Beach
2nd floor of tower


6:30 pm
7:30 pm


8:00 am
9:00 am








THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST: AN INVITATION
TO JOIN THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY


What do the Smithsonian Institution,
the Museum of the American Indian, Museum
of Mankind, over 170 American universities,
colleges and public libraries, and more
than 500 individuals and families in the
United States of America, Canada, England,
Puerto Rico, the West Indies, Barbados and
elsewhere have in common. They are all
members of the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL
SOCIETY!
The Florida Anthropological Society
was founded in 1947 by a small group who
saw a need for an organization dedicated to
the advancement of anthropological and
archaeological matters in Florida and
nearby areas. By the end of August, 1947,
the Society's first Newsletter was pub-
lished, and by May, 1948, when the first
issue of The Florida Anthropologist (Volume
1 Numbers 1-2) was published, the Society
had grown to over 70 members, representing
every major section of the State (Ehrman
1948:16). It has since grown to 10x that
size, with individual and family members
and institutional subscribers in nearly
every state, as well as in Canada, England,
Australia, Puerto Rico and elsewhere. Its
distribution is actually worldwide when one
takes into account its exchange through the
University of Florida, Gift and Exchange
Library. Membership in the Society, which
includes subscription to its journal, The
Florida Anthropologist, is from January
through December of each year.
From its beginning, the Society's
membership has been made up of professional
anthropologists, avocational archaeologists
and concerned citizens interested in learn-
ing about and helping to preserve
Florida's, and surrounding area's, pre-
historic and historic heritage. Indeed,
the only real qualification for membership
in the Society is an avowed interest in
these matters. You do not have to be a
resident of Florida, or even the United
States of America, to join the Florida An-
thropological Society and subscribe to its
journal; although, there is an additional
$5.00 U.S. postage and handling fee for out
of country mail which is not covered by our


bulk mail permit (See application form,
this issue).
Unquestionably, a major attraction to
prospective FAS members is its quarterly
journal, The Florida Anthropologist, which
is entering its forty-second year of
publication. While the majority of its
articles have dealt with anthropological
and archaeological topics in Florida and
adjacent geographic areas of the South-
eastern United States and Circum-Caribbean
region, its scope is broader than that. A
brief review of the nearly 600 articles
listed in the 1948-84 index published in FA
37(3):124-150, or the over 100 articles,
etc. listed in the FA 37-40 Content Index
from 1984 to present published in FA 40(4),
will provide an understanding of the wide
range of topics published in The Florida
Anthropologist. In addition, the Society
also publishes a quaterly Newsletter.
Society members receive all publications
published during each year of membership.
Donations, grants and back issues sales are
used to raise funds for our Monograph
Account to fund publication of enlarged
special issues of our journal, which is
funded primarily through membership dues
and institutional subscriptions.
But there is more to the Florida
Anthropological Society than its journal

The Society has local chapters
scattered throughout the state. These
chapters work at the local level and in
concert with state organization to preserve
the fragile remnants of Florida's past.
Some of the many accomplishments of the
individual chapters include alerting
authorities to the vandalism or potential
destruction of archaeological or historic
sites, preparing exhibits, establishing a
museum, working with local organizations to
educate the public, working on the historic
preservation aspects of local government
comprehensive plans, helping to excavate
endangered archaeological sites, recording
100s of archaeological sites in the Florida
Master Site File, and, of course, sharing
the results of their work through the
publication of articles in The Florida
Anthropologist, chapter newsletters, and
newspapers, as well as through various
public presentations.








Each Spring the Society holds its
annual meeting to hear formal presentations
on scholarly and general topics of interest
to its members, hold workshops, exchange
ideas, and to invest newly elected
officials in their posts. In addition to
elected positions, the appointed positions
of Membership Secretary and Editor are
filled or renewed by the newly elected
Board of Directors. All Officers in the
Society serve without compensation, as do
appointed positions. Such volunteer ser-
vice helps to minimize the Society's admin-
istrative costs, and permits it to devote
most of its membership fees to publishing
and distributing its journal. However,
with increasing postal and other costs we
need to increase our membership in order to
reduce the relative cost of each issue, if
we are to retain our current low fee
schedule.
If you like what you have read in
this and other issues of The Florida
Anthropologist, then you should join the
Florida Anthropological Society. If you
are interested in helping to protect
significant historic resources and study
aspects of our prehistoric and historic
heritage, then you should join the Florida
Anthropological Society. If you wish to
join with and meet others interested in
these topics, then you should join the
Florida Anthropological Society.
If you are presently a member and
have not yet renewed your membership, then
please do so now. If you are a member,
then help find new members and earn back
issues acquisition credits, or consider
giving a gift subscription to our Society.
If you know anyone in the Acquisition
Department of your local community or
school library, then encourage them to
subscribe so that students and the general
public may learn more about historic
resources and the issue of historic
preservation. If you edit (or know someone
who edits) the newsletter or journal of an
organization whose membership may be
interested in joining our Society and
receiving The Florida Anthropologist, then
please reprint (or ask them to reprint)
this notice and our membership application
form in that newsletter or journal.
(Likewise, if you publish this notice for


your readers, we will publish your similar
notice to our readers).
Thank you for your time and effort in
this matter. We look forward to your
joining our Society and receiving The
Florida Anthropologist, as well as
participating in other aspects of our
Society, for years to come. Your comments
are always welcome.

Sincerely,
Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist







TEE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY WANTS YOU!

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 quarterly journal of
the Florida Anthropological Society, the society's quarterly newsletter, and the papers
presented at our annual meetings will be of interest. Also, members may receive a 10%
discount on back issues purchases. If you want to join professional and avocational
archaeologists and others in efforts to preserve and protect our prehistoricc heritage,
then join the Florida Anthropological Society to achieve that goal. If you are looking
for that special gift, then a gift subscription to The Florida Anthropologist is your
answer. You do not have to be a resident of Florida to belong to the Florida
Anthropological Society. Your membership fee includes your subscription to the Society's
journal and newsletter. We are a non-profit organization founded in 1947.


TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP: IF YOU JOIN/RENEW/SUBSCRIBE
NEW RENEWING GIFT BEFORE FEB. 1 AFTER AUG. 1
REGULAR ($18)' LESS $2 ADD $4
FAMILY ($20) LESS $2 ADD $4
INSTITUTIONAL ($18) LESS $2 ADD $4
SUSTAINING ($25)
PATRON ($100)
LIFE ($200)


TOTAL


Foreign Subscribers
ADD $5 US
ADD $5 US
ADD $5 US


Memberships/subscriptions received after September 30th will be credited to the following
year.


NAME
ADDRESS
CITY


NAME
ADDRESS
CITY


STATE/COUNTRY ZIP STATE/COUNTRY
FAS Chapter affiliation
If gift membership, name of donor
If new member, indicate how you learned about our Society


ZIP


What kinds of subjects would you like to see published in the Society's journal?


If you are not a member of a FAS chapter, would you like the address of the chapter
nearest to your Florida home mailing address? Yes No


Mail Application to: Mmbership Secretary, FAS
308 6th St. NE
Largo, Florida 34640


The Federal Identification Number
of the FAS is: 59-1084419.


Make check or money order payable to: Florida Anthropological Society.

Any amount in excess of the membership subscription rate may be counted as a tax
deductible charitable contribution to a non-profit organization. Please indicate how you
wish such gifts to be used so that they may be credited to the proper account. For
instance, contributions toward an enlarged or special publication should be earmarked for
the monograph account.

PLEASE REMOVE OR PHOTOCOPY THIS PAGE TO JOIN THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL
SOCIETY. THE FUTURE OF THE PAST DEPENDS ON US ALL.








THE FIRI1DA ANTHRM LOGICAL SOCIETY WANTS IYU!


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 quarterly journal of
the Florida Anthropological Society, the society's quarterly newsletter, and the papers
presented at our annual meetings will be of interest. Also, members may receive a 10%
discount on back issues purchases. If you want to join professional and avocational
archaeologists and others in efforts to preserve and protect our prehistoricc heritage,
then join the Florida Anthropological Society to achieve that goal. If you are looking
for that special gift, then a gift subscription to The Florida Anthropologist is your
answer. You do not have to be a resident of Florida to belong to the Florida
Anthropological Society. Your membership fee includes your subscription to the Society's
journal and newsletter. We are a non-profit organization founded in 1947.


TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP: IF YOU
NEW RENEWING GIFT BEFORE
REGULAR ($18) LESS
FAMILY ($20) LESS
INSTITUTIONAL ($18) LESS
SUSTAINING ($25)
PATRON ($100)
LIFE ($200)


JOIN/RENEW/SUBSCRIBE
FEB. 1 AFTER AUG. 1
$2 ADD $4
$2 ADD $4
$2 ADD $4


Foreign Subscribers
ADD $5 US
ADD $5 US
ADD $5 US


Memberships/subscriptions received after September 30th will be credited to the following
year.


NAME NAME
ADDRESS ADDRESS
CITY_ CITY
STATE/COUNTRY ZIP___ STATE/COUNTRY
FAS Chapter affiliation
If gift membership, name of donor
If new member, indicate how you learned about our Society


ZIP


What kinds of subjects would you like to see published in the Society's journal?


If you are not a member of a FAS chapter,
nearest to your Florida home mailing address?


would you like the address of the chapter
Yes No


Mail Application to: Mmbership Secretary, FAS
308 6th St. NE
Largo, Florida 34640

Make check or money order payable to: Florida Anthropological Society.

Any amount in excess of the membership subscription rate may be counted as a
deductible charitable contribution to a non-profit organization. Please indicate how
wish such gifts to be used so that they may be credited to the proper account.
instance, contributions toward an enlarged or special publication should be earmarked
the monograph account.


tax
you
For
for


PLEASE PHOTOCOPY THE ABOVE INFORMATION OR SIMPLY INCLUDE IT IN A LETTER 'T THE MEMBERSHIP
SECRETARY ALONG WITH A CHECK OF MONEY ORDER FOR THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT.


TOTAL





FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. Nonr-POm Ziti
POST OFFICE BOX 1013 U.SPOSTAGE
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 PAID
Tallahassee, Florida
RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED PERMIT NO. 523











RABLE CF CMC~IS~S PAGE

Editor's Page: FA 43(1) -- March 1990 .......... ... .. .. 2

DeSoto, Dobyns, and Demography in Western Timucua. By John H. Bann 3

The Mississippian Occupation and Abandonment of the Savannah River
Valley. By David G. Anderson .................. 13

Reply to Eubanks. By Charles Hudson and Marvin Saith . 36

Response to Eubanks. By iRland Chardon . . . 43

Scientific Instruments and Early Explorers in the United States.
By Dan F. Morse . .......... . . 45

The Utina: Seriation and Chronology. By Kenneth W. Johnson and
Bruce C. Nelson ........ ........ . . 48

A Cache of Points from Bay COunty, Florida. By Mary Lou Watson,
Tom Watson and Louis D. Tesar ........... ..... .. 63

Use-Wear Analysis of Six Projectile Point/Knives from the Shell Point
Site (8BY89). By George Ballo . .. .... 71

BOOK REVIEWS, CURRENT RESEARCH AND COMMENTS . .. . 72

"Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use", Edited by Christopher J.
Ellis and Johnathan C. Lothrop. Reviewed by Dan F. Mrse . 72

"Geological Controls on the Regional Distribution of Archaeological
Sites" Symposium, Geological Society of America.
Reviewed by Kevin MCartney . . .. . 74

ERRATA: "Aboriginal Societies Eicountered by the Tristan de Luna
Expedition". Correction submitted by Caleb Curren . . 75

ANiOUNIEMENT: 42nd Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological
Society in Naples, Florida on April 27-29, 1990; and, concurrent
Florida Archaeological Council Annual Meeting on April 27, 1990 76




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