• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page - The Florida anthropologist...
 Time and space in south Florida...
 Archaeological investigations at...
 A Seminole burial on Indian Field...
 Further research on the Pine Island...
 Position announcement - St. Augustine...
 Notes on the Howard Shell mound...
 Preliminiary report on the New...
 Salvage excavations at the Trail...
 A zoomorphic bone pin from Dade...
 Book reviews
 Meeting announcements
 Florida archaeological council...
 The Florida Archaeological Society...






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/UF00027829/00031
 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: VID00031
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 177
    Editor's page - The Florida anthropologist 42 (3)
        Page 178
    Time and space in south Florida - A synthesis - John W. Griffin
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
    Archaeological investigations at the Okeechobee battlefield - Robert S. Carr, Marilyn Masson, and Willard Steele
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
    A Seminole burial on Indian Field (8LL39), Lee county, southwestern Florida - George M. Luer
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
    Further research on the Pine Island Canal and associated sites, Lee county, Florida - George M. Luer
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
    Position announcement - St. Augustine city archaeologist
        Page 248
    Notes on the Howard Shell mound and Calusa Island, Lee county, Florida - George M. Luer
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
    Preliminiary report on the New River Midden (8Bd196) excavation, Broward country, Florida - Gypsy C. Graves
        Page 255
        Page 256
    Salvage excavations at the Trail Ridge site, Dade country, Florida - Wesley F. Coleman
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
    A zoomorphic bone pin from Dade county, Florida - James S. Lord
        Page 263
        Page 264
    Book reviews
        Page 265
        Page 266
    Meeting announcements
        Page 267
    Florida archaeological council symposium - "Building the future while protecting the past - A new partnership", November 16, 1986, Jacksonville, Florida
        Page 268
    The Florida Archaeological Society wants you!
        Page 269
        Page 270
Full Text





COPYRIGHT NOTICE

2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.


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


all rights to the
and shall be
and images of


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

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

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.





THE FLORIDA

ANTHROPOLOGIST
VOLUME 42 NUMBER 3
SEPTEMBER 1989


LADES


(11



I,.

So


o* '0 ;<
9'. 0
f-M






I-i'
i


ARCHEOLOGICAL


I AIR EA
.1

i


AREAS
J.W. GRIFFIN


60


0 10 25 MI.
0 10 20 40 KM.


Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC '


SF: i.," ;; ,i i
rp*,-
larg


FLORIDA


SOUTH


1987


.. ^


e '0





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society
Inc., P.O. Box 1013, Tallahassee, 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 Editor. 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 Editor. 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
Natgural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611



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


FIRST VICE PRESIDENT:
Elizabeth Horvath
P.O. Box 290876
Temple Terrace, FL 33687


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
Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board
P.O. Box 1987
St. Augustine, FL 32084

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


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


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


NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial 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
Bill Johnson

P.O. Box 13265
Gainesville, FL 32604


ANNUAL REVIEWS EDITOR


Florida Museum of
Natural History
Gainesville, FL 32611


BACK ISSUES SALES

Eilc1['s no[iian2, In.
181 West Broadway
P.O. Box 1450
Oviedo, Florida 32765






THE FLORIDA

ANTHROPOLOGIST


VOLUME 42 NUMBER 3
SEPTEMBER 1989


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Editor's Page: The Florida Anthropologist 42(3) . ... .178

Time and Space in South Florida: A Synthesis
by John W. Griffin .. . . . 179

Archaeological Investigations at the Okeechobee Battlefield
by Robert S. Carr, Marilyn Masson, and Willard Steele 205

A Seminole Burial on Indian Field (8LL39), Lee County,
Southwestern Florida by George M. Luer . ... .237

Further Research on the Pine Island Canal and Associated
Sites, Lee County, Florida by George M. Luer .... .241

Position Announcement: St. Augustine City Archaeologist .. 248

Notes on the Howard Shell Mound and Calusa Island, Lee
County, Florida by George M. Luer . ... 249

Preliminary Report on the New River Midden (8Bdl96)
Excavation, Broward County, Florida by Gypsy C. Graves 255

Salvage Excvations at the Trail Ridge Site, Dade County,
Florida by Wesley F. Coleman . . . 257

A Zoomorphic Bone Pin from Dade County, Florida
by James S. Lord . ... .. . . 263

BOOK REVIEWS: Stylistic Boundaries among Mobile Hunter-
foragers (1988) by C. Garth Sampson Reviewed by John
Scarry . ... . . . . 265

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS ... . . . 267

46th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, November 8-11, 1989, Tampa, Florida 267

Florida Archaeological Council Symposium: "Building the
Future While Protecting the Past: A New Partnership"
November 16, 1989, Jacksonville, Florida . . 268
Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.







EDITOR'S PAGE: THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 42(3), SEPTEMBER, 1989


This issue focuses on South Florida
archaeology. It has been assembled through
the efforts of Robert S. Carr, former
Editor of this journal. Bob's efforts are
acknowledged and appreciated.
The lead article by John W. Griffin,
"Time and Space in South Florida: A Syn-
thesis," will be of interest to many of
our readers. Its subject is stated in its
title. It is a slightly revised version
of Chapter 6 in "The Archeology of Ever-
glades National Park: A Synthesis"
(Griffin 1988), a National Park Service
funded research project. That document
has only limited distribution, because of
some of its site locational data and maps
which could be used as a guide by site
looters. However, recognizing its impor-
tance, both Dr. Griffin and the National
Park Service have cooperated with the
Florida Anthropological Society to publish
the time and space synthesis chapter to
bring it to a larger audience. Their co-
operation is much appreciated.
The second article, "Archaeological
Investigations at the Okeechobee Battle-
field," by Robert S. Carr, Marilyn Masson
and Willard Steele reports on research by
the Archaeological and Historical Conser-
vancy, Inc. at the Seminole War Okeechobee
Battlefield site. The focus of their
study was to accurately locate and assess
features associated with that National
Historic Landmark site, which is presently
threatened by loss to development. Willard
Steele has assembled a fast paced histori-
cal narrative of the events associated
with the battle, while Carr and Masson de-
scribe the results of the associated
archaeological efforts.
The third article, "A Seminole
Burial on Indian Field (8LL39), Lee
County, Southwestern Florida" by George M.
Luer, will be familiar to readers of our
last issue of this journal. However, un-
like the version published previously, the
present version has the word processed
columns pasted up in the correct order.
This version also includes copies of two
figures referenced in the last issue, but
included in an associated article in that
issue.
The fourth article, "Further Re-
search on the Pine Island Canal and


Associated Sites, Lee County, Florida," is
also by Luer. It continues research on
"Calusa Canals in Southern Florida: Routes
of Tribute and Exchange" published by the
author is our last issue.
The fifth article, "Notes on the
Howard Shell Mound and Calusa Island, Lee
County, Florida" also by Luer, continues
his Pine Island research. All three of
Luer's articles will be of interest to
South Florida researchers.
Moving back to the east coast, the
sixth article, "Preliminary Report Cn the
New River Midden (8BD196) Excavation,
Broward County, Florida" by Gypsy C.
Graves, briefly summarizes the results of
cooperative efforts by avocational and
professional archaeologists to salvage ar-
chaeological data from a site prior to its
destruction to facilitate the construction
of the Ft. Lauderdale Performing Arts Cen-
ter.
The seventh article, "Salvage Exca-
vations at the Trail Site, Dade County,
Florida" by Wesley F. Coleman, presents
the results of 1968 salvage excavation ef-
forts at that site prior to its loss to
development. It is an example of the kind
of South Florida data awaiting analysis
and reporting. Such data and associated
artifacts, if assembled at a single repos-
itory, could serve as the foundation for
detailed syntheses to the archaeological
record of that area of Florida.
The final article, "A Zoomorphic
Bone Pin from Dade County, Florida" by
James S. Lord, indicates that valuable in-
formation may yet be gleaned from South
Florida sites formerly believed to have
been destroyed by agricultural distur-
bance.
I wish to acknowledge and thank
George Luer, John Griffin, and Robert S.
Carr, Marilyn Masson and Willard Steele
for providing word processed diskettes of
their articles. I word processed the re-
maining articles. Thanks go to all of our
authors and to our reviewers. Remember,
as the gift giving season approaches, a
subscription to this journal makes an
excellent gift.

Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist








TIME AND SPACE IN SOUTH FLORIDA:
A SYNTHESIS

John W. Griffin
Southeastern Frontiers, Inc.


The weakest feature of any mapping of cul-
tural boundaries is also the most conspic-


uous: the boundaries.
A. L.



Introduction

This article, with only minor revi-
sions, was originally printed as Chapter 6
in The Archeology of Everglades National
Park: A Synthesis (Griffin 1988). That
National Park Service funded research pro-
ject document will receive only limited
distribution because of sensitive loca-
tional data which could be used by site
looters. However, recognizing its impor-
tance, Chapter 6 has been reprinted with
the permission and cooperation of the
National Park Service, Southeast
Archeological Center.
The Everglades National Park is lo-
cated in southwest Florida, and is part of
the massive, poorly drained southern end
of Florida south of and including the Lake
Okeechobee Basin. In order to interpret
the archaeological record within the Ever-
glades National Park, it was deemed essen-
tial to understand the cultural record of
the larger, interrelated region within
which it occurs. The synthesis cited
above is a part of that effort.
When we speak of the Glades Area,
the Glades Tradition or the Glades Ceramic
Sequence we are thinking of time and space
relationships within the Christian Era.
This is the context, at least until very
recent years, within which most of the ar-
chaeological research in South Florida has
been conducted. Now, the time frame has
expanded fivefold, and there is much to
report from pre-Glades times.
This article does not begin with the
earliest times. Instead, the area, tradi-
tion, and ceramic sequence of the
"classic" Glades terminology is examined
and clarified first, and then a summary,


Kroeber, 1939


in chronological order, of the prehistory
of this portion of Florida is offered.

Defining the areas and subareas

Stirling (1936:355) is generally
credited with giving the Glades Area its
name and first defining its boundaries,
saying:
The Glades area includes the region
between the Kissimee and Indian rivers and
all of the peninsula from Lake Okeechobee
to the Florida keys, inclusive. This area
is characterized by the use of an inferior
grade of pottery, perforated shell hoes,
shell plummets, antler adze sockets, and
bone projectile points. Because of the
frequent preservation of wooden specimens
in muck, we know much more of the art of
this area than of any other in the South-
east. The bird appears to have been the
favorite art motive.
Earlier he had referred to this same
area "from Lake Okeechobee south" as the
Calusa region (Stirling 1935:373). In
neither case does he seem to be using the
terms in a strict "culture area" sense,
but rather more simply as a geographic
area within which certain observations
could be made.
Kroeber (1939:67-70) discussed the
South Florida area in his monumental
Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North
America. He felt that the area was
clearly distinctive both environmentally
and culturally: "the ecology approaches
the tropical, the culture is low-level."
He viewed the culture as a poorer phase of
the Southeastern type. Kroeber was
clearly using the term with culture area
implications.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Sept., 1989


Vol. 42 No. 3









Goggin (1940 :22) quoted the geo-
graphical limits which Stirling gave for
the Glades area, and termed it the "Glades
archaeological area." He also used this
designation in a paper given at the South-
eastern Archaeological Conference that
same year, in which he first delineated
the three subareas (Goggin 1941). Subse-
quently he tended to refer to it merely as
the Glades area. By 1947 he considered
that "the Glades Area includes all of the
southern tip of the state south of Boca
Grande Pass on the west coast, and below
Fort Pierce on the east coast. This re-
gion comprises all of tropical Florida,
and the local culture reflects this envi-
ronmental influence" (Goggin 1947b:119).
In his unpublished manuscript Goggin
(n.d.) elaborates on his choice of the
northern boundary saying, "it is probable
that an exact line for the northern bound-
ary cannot be drawn, as none existed in
aboriginal times." But he thought that it
was reasonably accurate to make the north-
ern limit on the west coast fall at Boca
Grande Pass at the upper end of Pine
Island Sound. From there it angled north-
ward to just above Fort Basinger, and
thence eastward to the coast south of
Stuart. He thought it very likely that
more intensive work would bring forth cor-
rections.
Some of Goggin's early views on the
nature of the Glades Area as stated in the
Introduction to his unpublished manuscript
deserve to be quoted here since they indi-
cate a point of view quite different from
what some imagine that he held, and at
variance with some more recent interpreta-
tions. The pertinent paragraphs follow:

Looking at the area as a whole, we
find that the Glades Area is essentially a
relatively narrow band of land around the
Everglades and Lake Okeechobee. The Ever-
glades and the Lake should be considered
as one unit, for the Glades were merely an
overflow basin catching the surplus water
which spilled over Lake Okeechobee's
southern rim, carrying it south and to the
sea.
The bulk of the population was ei-
ther on the inside rim of the combined
marsh and lake or else located on the sea-
coast. Although some sites are located in


the Everglades proper, they are small and
seem to be no more than casual stopping
places or temporary hunting camps. Commu-
nication was not easy across the Glades,
yet it was possible to cross them at most
seasons of the year.
It is probable that the Everglades
played a great part in the cultural devel-
opment of the area, as it made casual con-
tacts between groups on opposite sides in-
frequent. Yet, when necessary, communica-
tion was achieved. It is one of the
themes of this paper that the presence of
the Everglades in the middle of this area
did exert an important influence on the
culture of the area, as shown by the three
subdivisions of the Glades Area. The area
was enough of a unit so that the main
course of the culture developed over the
whole area, but yet the individual sec-
tions were enough isolated to emphasize
their own developing variants.

Later, Goggin (1952:3) summarized
his impressions resulting from his survey
of Everglades National Park as "a picture
of a relatively small group of Indians .
. nonagricultural, living on hunting,
fishing, and the gathering of wild veg-
etable foods. Apparently small bands were
most typical and probably 20 to 30 people
would comprise the average village or
camp. In appearance and size it would not
be too different from a present Seminole
village."
Goggin's original delineation of the
three sub-areas of the Glades area was as
follows (Goggin 1941:25):

The Calusa sub-area is roughly the
area south of the Caloosahatchee River and
west of a line drawn from Lake Okeechobee
through the middle of the Everglades,
south, including Cape Sable. This is all
included in the former territory of the
Calusa Indians. The Tekesta sub-
area includes all the area east of the
middle of the Everglades; the Keys, at
least as far south as Lower Matecumbe, and
probably to Key West. Tb the north the
limit can arbitrarily be drawn from Belle
Glade to Palm Beach. This area was the
main center of the Tekesta Indians .
The Kissimmee-Eastern Okeechobee sub-area
includes the territory east of Lake Okee-
chobee, north of the Tekesta sub-area, the
Kissimmee Valley and the Atlantic
Seaboard, at least as far north as Fort









Pierce. This section of the Glades area
is the least known.
Goggin's selection of ethnographic
names, Tekesta (he always used this
spelling) and Calusa, for two of his sub-
areas was deliberate. He would have used
Mayaimi for the third sub-area except for
the perceived problem of confusion of the
name, which was the historic name for Lake
Okeechobee and for the early Indians
around it, with the name of the modern
city of Miami. It has been pointed out by
most recent authors that using ethno-
graphic names for archaeological areas is
poor practice (Sears 1966; Griffin 1974;
Carr and Beriault 1984). In South Florida
it led to a Calusa archaeological area
which was characterized by (Glades II)
pottery designs which were not found in
the Calusa homeland to the north. Such
usage also tends, if only subconsciously,
to identify cultural materials going back
for hundreds of years as the products of
the ancestors of the historic inhabitants
for whom the area was named. This may, or
may not, be true.
The major change in sub-area delin-
eations which Goggin made related to the
Calusa-Tekesta boundary within the present
area of Everglades National Park. We have
seen, above, that he initially extended
the Calusa area southward to include Cape
Sable, and also extended it eastward to
the middle of the Everglades. He had ap-
parently reconsidered this by the time he
arranged the site descriptions in his
large unpublished monograph. While he
presented no definition of the sub-areas
in this work, he grouped the site descrip-
tions in geographic units within the named
subareas, as follows:
Tekesta Subarea:
The Florida Keys
The East Coast
The Everglades
Cape Sable
Southern Ten Thousand Islands
Calusa Subarea:
Ten Thousand Islands
Sand Keys and Coast
Big Cypress
Okeechbee Subarea:
The Prairie Region
Eastern Flatwoods
The East Coast


Examination of the sites listed in
the various groupings reveals the bound-
aries which he had in mind, and discloses
that Goggin had moved the Calusa-Tekesta
boundary northward to and including Lost-
mans River, and had also included all of
the Everglades in the Tekesta subarea,
rather than using the middle of the Ever-
glades as a boundary. The sites on Lost-
mans River, up to and including Onion Key,
become part of the Tekesta subarea, in
what he called the Southern Ten Thousand
Islands.
Goggin's Northern Ten Thousand Is-
lands division, which was in his Calusa
subarea, begins to the north of Lostmans
River and continues up to Naples. He says
(Goggin n.d.), "The Ten Thousand Islands
region along the southwestern coast of the
peninsula forms a distinct geographical
area, but archeologically a part is
closely connected to the coastal area
northward, and the rest with areas to the
south and east." His Sand Keys and Coast
division is that part of the coast from
Naples north through Pine Island Sound,
the area more recently called the Caloosa-
hatchee Area.
As we have seen, the Everglades por-
tion of the Glades Area was to Goggin a
lightly used area which while passable
served more as a barrier than an avenue,
and certainly not as a center. This is
approximately what Griffin (1974:343) had
in mind in calling attention to the band
of coastal occupation around the tip of
Florida and the suggestion that the mid-
dens in the Everglades proper were short-
term hunting camps. The casual observa-
tion that, "perhaps it would be more accu-
rate to speak of the Circum-Glades Area,"
was not intended to be a redefinition at
that time. However, Milanich and
Fairbanks (1980:233) formalized this into
a Circum-Glades region, saying, "because
the distribution of sites is around the
Everglades (with only a few sites actually
in the Everglades proper), Griffin (1974)
has recently suggested the name Circum-
Glades region to distinguish this area
from the Caloosahatchee region north of
the Ten Thousand Islands and from the
Belle Glade (or Lake Okeechobee Basin)
region .








Carr and Beriault (1984:3) object to
the Milanich and Fairbanks statements on
several grounds which, they say, have com-
pounded Griffin's error. In particular
they believe that "the contention that
sites are concentrated on the coast and
are scarce in the Everglades is partially
incorrect." They cite recent surveys in
the Everglades and Big Cypress which indi-
cate "at least several hundred sites situ-
ated within the south Florida interior,
many of them being large substantial sites
that suggest more than just marginal or
short-term use." It is certainly true
that there are a number of sites in the
interior, far more than previously sus-
pected, but how they are to be interpreted
is another matter which will be discussed
later.
Returning to the consideration of
the Glades Area as originally defined by
Goggin, Sears had (1967:102) concluded
that "it is now clear that the Glades
area, as defined twenty years ago by John
Goggin, included far too much. Later sub-
divisions too have their faults." His own
thoughts were embodied in an unpublished
manuscript (Sears 1966:17-18), and are
quoted at some length here so that they
will be part of a more available record:
Based on analysis of data now on
hand there seem to be at least two major
cultural centers, not one [the Glades
Area]. These are what we are calling the
'Glades' area, and the 'Okeechobee' area.
Cultural areas that need much more re-
search are the Southeast Coast and the
Naples areas.
The Glades Area [of Sears] is virtu-
ally synonymous with Goggin's Calusa sub-
area. The change in name is to get away
from using an ethnographic term for an ar-
chaeological complex. The Glades area is
bounded by Florida Bay on the south, the
Gulf of Mexico on the west, and on the
east by the Southeast Coast, along the
middle of Dade county, at the point where
it is recognizably exclusive of St. Johns
Series and Belle Glade Series pottery.
Ceramic markers for the Glades Area are
primarily Glades Series, and secondarily
Goodland Series.
The Okeechobee Area is essentially
the Okeechobee subarea of Goggin, but ex-
clusive of the east or west coast, partic-
ularly the latter. It is bounded on the


south by the Glades Area, on the east by
the coastal ridge, and the west by Glades
Area northward prong, to be discussed be-
low. Ceramic marker for the Okeechobee
Area, so far, seems to be the Belle Glade
series.
Sears went on to say that the South-
east Coast was not an area per se, but a
residual zone "defined by influences from
a number of areas." He felt there was the
possibility of a fourth area along the
west coast near Naples. By the following
year Sears (1967) was saying, "it appears
that the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River
was, for one or two thousand years, the
center for a culturally distinct area
which runs north to somewhere between Cape
Haze and Tampa Bay. To the south, we are
in a different area by the time we reach
Key Marco. The Lake Okeechobee Basin, in-
cluding some part of the South Kissimmee
drainage, is clearly another culture area.
Essentially, Sears raised several of
Goggin's subareas, which will be discussed
below, to the status of areas, and in so
doing has made the former area name,
Glades, apply to the old Goggin Calusa
subarea. He also split out the Caloosa-
hatchee Area, with which most subsequent
authors are in agreement. Some time later
he also substituted the term Belle Glade
Area for the Okeechobee Area, which has
the advantage of a name change along with
a change in status and boundary.
In a report (Griffin et al.
1979:28), as well as in a somewhat earlier
unpublished but sometimes cited paper
[even though it was marked "Not for Publi-
cation"], Griffin noted agreement with the
idea of the Caloosahatchee Area and the
redesignation of the Okeechobee sub-area
as the Belle Glade Area. "The remainder
of South Florida becomes the Glades Area
in Griffin's terminology, and the terms
Calusa and Tekesta are dropped as archeo-
logical sub-areas." This usage differs
measurably from that of Sears noted imme-
diately above in that it expands Goggin's
Tekesta subarea into the Glades Area,
whereas Sears used the Glades name in
place of a modified version of the old
Calusa subarea. This is one more reason
that the term "Glades Area" probably
should be dropped in order to avoid confu-






183


Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:22, 26)
describe and map three culture areas for
South Florida; the Okeechobee Basin
(including much of the Kissimmee basin),
the Caloosahatchee, and the Glades (mapped
as the Circum-Glades). However, in the
text they extend the Caloosahatchee area
as far south as Cape Sable, where they say
the Glades area begins, "extending east
and north along the coast into Brevard
County." The inclusion of all of the man-
grove coast of the Everglades National
Park in the Caloosahatchee Area is highly
questionable as we shall see.
McGoun (1984) reviewed the history
of the Glades area and its sub-areas in
some detail. To him, "the idea of a sin-
gle Glades area is dead and buried. The
difficulties that remain regard the bound-
aries of the three successor areas."
These he identifies basically as the
Milanich-Fairbanks system.
Widmer (1983:139-140) recognizes
that ceramics are the basis for most ar-
chaeological classifications and views
South Florida areas from that point of
view, saying, "starting at around 500 AD,
three distinct ceramic trajectories are
seen for south Florida." According to him
these three "trajectories" define the fol-
lowing areas: the Circum-Glades Area, the
Belle Glade area, and the Caloosahatchee
area. This approximates the tri-fold di-
vision of other authors, and draws the
line between the Caloosahatchee and
Circum-Glades areas as somewhere between
Naples and Cape Haze. In this respect it
agrees with Griffin (1974) and disagrees
with the southward extension of the
Caloosahatchee area by Milanich and
Fairbanks (1980).
Carr and Beriault (1984) find con-
siderable fault with the Milanich and
Fairbanks scheme just presented, as well
as other earlier schemes. Widmer (1983)
was probably not available to them, but
contains some of the same interpretations
with which they disagree. They note
agreement and approval, however, of "the
recognition of the Okeechobee sub-area as
a distinctive cultural area apart from the
Glades area." They also accept Sears'
Caloosahatchee Area, but (correctly, I
think) challenge the extension of the


Caloosahatchee Area south through the Ten
Thousand Islands to Cape Sable. They are
in agreement with earlier comments by
Sears and Griffin about the undesirability
of ethnographic labels for archaeological
areas, and completely dispense with
Tequesta and Calusa as area cognomens.
They do not like the Circum-Glades divi-
sion.
The five areas defined by Carr and
Beriault are shown on Figure 1. The
boundaries of these areas as shown on
their map (Carr and Beriault 1984:12) ap-
pear quite arbitrarily geometric, which is
perhaps just as well considering both the
difficulty in determining boundaries and
the present state of our knowledge. As
noted, their Caloosahatchee Area is the
same as that of other recent authors.
Their Lake Okeechobee Area, properly I be-
lieve, is extended northward to include
much of the Kissimmee River drainage.


Figure 1. Archaeological Areas. (After
Carr and Beriault 1984).








The East Okeechobee area would ap-
pear to be an appropriate designation for
this transition zone which shows influ-
ences varying from time to time from three
adjacent areas. The south boundary of
this area, set at about the Palm Beach-
Broward county line (Carr and Beriault
1984:7) fits with the data summarized for
the Loxahatchee National Wildlife 1-fuge
(Griffin et al. 1979). The northward ex-
tension of the Circum-Glades area on the
map in Milanich and Fairbanks which in-
cludes this area, and the statement in the
text extending the Circum-Glades northward
into Brevard County (1980:22, 26) did not
originate with Griffin.
What Griffin (1974:343) included in
his non-definition of a Circum-Glades area
becomes two areas for Carr and Beriault;
the Ten Thousand Islands area, and the
Everglades area. The use of the term
Everglades Area is a happy solution to the
confusing usage of "Glades Area", and also
avoids the ethnographic labels. The Ten
Thousand Islands and the interior lands
behind them in the Big Cypress Swamp, cer-
tainly constitute a valid geographical
unit, one which is heavily involved in the
present synthesis. There is more question
about this being a separate cultural unit,
of the same classificatory level as the
Everglades Area. Carr and Beriault
(1984:3) have justified the separation as
follows:
Research indicates a distinctive ce-
ramic tradition for the Ten Thousand
Islands area. Preliminary analysis indi-
cates that during the period of ca. A.D.
200 A.D. 800, the predominant decorated
types of pottery in the Ten Thousand
Islands were Gordon's Pass Incised,
Sanibel Incised, and another unclassified
type of linear-punctate pottery. These
decorated ceramic types are found infre-
quently, at best, in southeast Florida.
This distinctive ceramic tradition un-
doubtedly reflects a separate tribal group
than those using the plain undecorated
pottery typical of the Caloosahatchee Area
to the north or the decorated pottery
types of Opa locka Incised and Dade In-
cised of southeast Florida. The lack of
awareness by archeologists of this area's
distinctive traits reflects the minimum
amount of stratigraphic research that had
been conducted there. Furthermore, be-


cause the area's ceramic types become very
similar to those of southeast Florida by
ca. A.D. 800, there is the appearance of
uniformity by the middle of the Glades II
period and through part of the Glades III
period that would easily mislead investi-
gators using surface collections or lim-
ited excavation samples.

A similar argument was voiced by
Carr (1979:8-9), where again the pre-800
AD dissimilarity is stressed.
It was necessary to quote the above
material at considerable length because it
contains several statements which require
comment. The first question that arises
is whether a distinctive ceramic complex
(in this case the Gordons Pass complex of
Goggin), existing for the first several
hundred years of a more than thousand year
span, is sufficient to cut the area off as
a separate culture area from the one with
which it has "an appearance of uniformity"
for the remainder of the time span? This
would not appear to be sufficient justifi-
cation for the creation of a separate cul-
ture area, particularly when one realizes
that the Gordons Pass complex appears in
the same levels with Opa Locka Incised at,
for example, Onion Key within this
"culture area." We may also question
whether we know enough to state that this
ceramic complex "reflects a separate
tribal group", implying a tribal level of
organization at this time. If the Ten
Thousand Islands are to be separated out,
and there is some justification for con-
sidering them as a separate analytical
unit, it should not be as a separate
"area". "Area" should be reserved for
each of the three "ceramic trajectories",
to use Widmer's (1988:78) term; in this
case the decorated ceramic tradition
(Glades or Circum-Glades or Everglades).
If further divisions are needed (and they
need not be considered as levels in a
classification) perhaps some such term as
"district" might serve. I would not be
unhappy with a Ten Thousand Island Dis-
trict within the Everglades Area. For one
thing, such a district would be a geo-
graphical division, without cultural over-
tones. Other districts in this and other
areas might prove valuable analytical
units.





185


The culture area concept arose from
work in the museum field, serving as a
heuristic device to aid the organization
of ethnographic materials. As such it was
synchronic. Its expansion into archaeol-
ogy came at a time of shallow short
chronologies and some of the inherent
problems were not immediately apparent to
its users. In cultural anthropology in
general the culture area concept has
largely been discarded; in that subfield
of cultural anthropology called archaeol-
ogy it still persists, often under the
name of archaeological areas.
Archaeology still needs organiza-
tional tools, units within which to file
and analyze data. What we should beware
of are rigid ones which control our think-
ing rather than advancing it. We would be
better off if we could conceive of areas
whose boundaries through time resembled
the changing configurations of an amoeba
rather than fixed lines on a map. McGoun
(1984) is correct in observing that "some
problems do remain, however, and all are
related at least to some degree to the
difficulty of devising any scheme that is
valid over time."
Another difficulty, perhaps, is
imbedded in the values and attitudes at-
tached to the bounding of land in our own
culture, and its ofttimes dissimilarity to
the territorial concepts of other cultures
(Cronon 1983).
Classification of archaeological ar-
eas in South Florida began with an initial
definition of a large area, the Glades
area, as being somehow culturally and eco-
logically distinctive. As knowledge of
the archaeological detail grew, the big
area was subdivided, but still retained an
overall identification. Finally the
"Area" itself was chopped up into smaller
areas, presumably somehow of equal status
with one another in some classificatory
sense. It is about this time that "The
Glades Area" disappeared altogether or be-
came restricted to a portion of its former
extent, and not always the same portion in
the various schemes.
To accommodate this process and
still to recognize that "the entire south-
ern Florida area shares many common pat-
terns of prehistoric adaptation and sub-
sistence" (Carr and Beriault 1984:4) may


require a new term. "The Glades Area" no
longer seems to fit.
Larson (1980) has used the term
"South Florida Sector" to designate one of
his adaptive areas, which, however, in-
cludes considerably more area than the
original Glades Area, being bounded by a
line from just south of Tampa Bay to just
north of Cape Canaveral. Widmer
(1983:132) has recognized the difficulty
in retaining the old Glades Area label and
notes Larson's use of a South Florida Sec-
tor for the broader area. After examining
the situation he concludes, "I wish here
to keep Goggin's original concept and
areal distribution of the 'Glades Area'
but replace it with a less-specific and
misleading term. The term South Florida
Region seems to satisfy these requirements
and so will be used here." This would
seem to be a reasonable solution.
We could then have (1) The South
Florida Region, (2) areas within the Re-
gion based on broad characteristics,
yielding the Belle Glade (or Okeechobee)
Area, the Caloosahatchee Area, and the Ev-
erglades Area, (3) geographical districts
where and when desired within the areas,
such as a Ten Thousand Island District, or
a Shark River Slough District. Perhaps
the transitional and marginal East Okee-
chobee Area should really be the East
Okeechobee District.
Such a system would base its broad-
est level on the non-agricultural pattern
of the cultures of South Florida, and
broad adaptive similarities to the envi-
ronment. The second level, the Areas,
would be based on the three ceramic tradi-
tions, or trajectories. A third level of
Districts could be used for the analysis
of geographical units within areas without
any necessary socio-cultural preconcep-
tions.
Figure 2 embodies the present au-
thor's current view of the South Florida
archaeological areas, subject, as always
to modification as information accumu-
lates.

Building the Glades Pottery Sequence

Goggin developed the now familiar
periods of Glades I, II and III by a pro-
cess of establishing regional sequences































o

COO 0 10 2 SMi.
0 I I I I
S 0 20 40 KM.
oo

Archaeological Areas. (Herein-
after defined).

CALUSA SUBAREA OKEECHOBEE TEKESTA


Glades III Marco Belle Glade II Matecumbe II

GLades II Gordons Pass II Belle Glade I Matecumbe I

GLades I Gordons Pass I


Table 1.


Temporal Periods of the Glades
Area. (After Goggin n.d.).


and then correlating them. In his early
formulations there was actually only one
major site in each of the three sub-areas
which contributed to the structure, al-
though further information was fitted into
the system as it developed. Table 1 sum-
marizes this early stage of development
and is copied from Goggin's unpublished
manuscript.
In the Calusa sub-area the data came
from Goggin's 1936 observations at the
Gordons Pass shell midden, south of Naples
in Collier County (Goggin 1939). The
largely destroyed midden still had enough
portions remaining to enable Goggin to de-


termine that it had grown through time
from south to north, and to make con-
trolled samples from three roughly equal
sections. The south section produced only
plain pottery, in the mid-section about 1%
of the sherds were decorated (incised),
and the north section "produced about 10
percent incised sherds." At this midden
all of the incised sherds were of what
Goggin at the time called the "feathered"
design, and which later was defined as
Gordons Pass Incised. The observations at
this site, then, led to the establishment
of Gordons Pass I (plain pottery) and Gor-
dons Pass II (incised ware). In his un-
published monograph Goggin (n.d.) dis-
cusses Cbrdons Pass in more detail, noting
particularly that the validity of the
plain pottery Gordons Pass I period "does
not seem to have been as well proven as
have other divisions in the Glades Area."
This was an overly cautious appraisal as
time has shown. Also, although he had
found only Gordons Pass Incised, Richard
F. Steam found other decorated sherds in-
cluding some Sanibel Incised. Goggin con-
sidered Gordons Pass Incised and Sanibel
Incised to be "the Gordons Pass pottery
complex." A third period in this area was
named Marco to cover the results of
Cushing's classic work at Key Marco.
Through contact with Gordon Willey,
considerably before the publication of the
Belle Glade report (Willey 1949b), Coggin
had access to the results of the Belle
Glade excavations and made use of them in
defining the Okeechobee sub-area. Belle
Glade I and II were defined by Willey
(1949b:71): "The early Belle Glade period,
or Belle Glade I, is characterized by the
types of the sand-tempered Glades Series,
both plain and decorated. The late Belle
Glade period, or Belle Glade II, is char-
acterized by the sudden appearance of Bis-
cayne Check Stamped [St. Johns Check
Stamped], and the occasional finds of
types of the Weeden Island and Englewood
Series, pottery styles of the northwest
and central Florida Gulf coast."
The basic sequence for the 'Ikesta
sub-area rested on Goggin's own strati-
graphic work at Upper Matecumbe Key
(Goggin and Sommer 1949). Matecumbe I
levels contained good representations of
the type Key Largo Incised, while Mate-


Figure 2.


GLADES AREA








cumbe II levels contained Surfside Incised
and Glades Tboled sherds. By this time
Goggin had defined a number of other deco-
rated types, mostly from the Tekesta sub-
area, and used them in his analysis.
While largely confining itself to the two
major divisions of Matecumbe I and Mate-
cumbe II, his site report defined subdivi-
sions. Both periods I and II received a
and b subdivisions, but they are not cor-
related with Glades periods in Goggin and
Sommer (1949).
These, then, were the initial se-
quences with which Goggin had to work, and
upon which he made his initial correla-
tions resulting in the structure shown in
Table 1. They were big blocks of time and
space, and in at least one instance seem
still to exercise an unconscious hold. I
refer to Gordon's Pass II equaling the
span of Glades II. Even though we now
know that Gordons Pass ceramic complex is
relatively early, mostly, if not wholly,
in what is now considered to be Glades I
late, it sometimes continues to enter into
discussions as though it characterized a
region throughout the Glades sequence.
In some of Goggin's earlier work the
regional sequences continued to be used,
and present-day readers may be pardoned
for finding this to be sometimes confus-
ing. For Matecumbe II to equal Glades
III, and for Matecumbe I to equal Gordons
Pass II, is a little difficult to keep in
mind. For some time Goggin continued to
use these terms, although they increas-
ingly were only cross referenced. Neither
the regional periods nor the subdivisions
of the Glades periods were presented in
the classic Areas and Periods paper
(Goggin 1947 ). However in the paper on
Everglades National Park (Goggin
1950b:245) the general sequence and the
local (Tekesta) sequence were correlated
as follows:


Glades IIIc
Glades IIIb
Glades IIIa
Glades IIc
Glades IIb
Glades IIa
Glades I


Matecumbe IIc
Matecumbe IIb
Matecumbe IIa
Matecumbe Ic
Matecumbe Ib
Matecumbe Ia


Glades IIc was defined from the ex-


cavations at Bear Lake (Goggin 1950b:245)
and "may have been represented in the pre-
vious excavations at Upper Matecumbe Key,
but was mechanically included in the mixed
I and II levels, from which Plantation
Pinched was obtained." The Everglades
tests also see the first statements about
decorated pottery in Glades I. "This pos-
sible horizon had previously been charac-
terized as lacking decorated pottery. .
SGoodland Plain, and perhaps (Godland
Red are also components It is not
clear whether Fort Drum Incised belongs in
this period or not The possibility
of Cane Patch Incised being present in
this period must also be considered." The
material from the Everglades National Park
sites strengthened and expanded Goggin's
Glades sequence.
With the publication of the Snapper
Creek site in the same year, Goggin
(1950c) rounded out his defined subperiods
of the Glades sequence with the formal ad-
dition of Glades I late. The ceramics,
characterized by Fort Drum Punctated, Fort
Drum Incised and Cpa Locka Incised, com-
pletely lacked Key Largo Incised and
hence, by definition, were pre-Glades II.
The sub-period became, therefore, Glades I
late. Even without the defined limitation
of Key Largo Incised, naming the period
would have created difficulty. Glades IIa
already existed; making the new entry
Glades IIa and shoving all else upward
would have created impossible confusion.
Glades IIa early would have been clumsy.
It almost had to be Glades I late, even
though this terminology bothers some even
to this day because of the violence that
it does to Glades I as a plain pottery pe-
riod. That some such thoughts as sug-
gested above may have crossed (Gggin's
mind gains some support in noting that he
earlier saw no problem in naming a sub-
period Glades IIc, although it, too,
lacked Key Largo Incised.
While, effectively, the addition of
Glades I late rounded out Goggin's period
structure, there remains a minor mystery.
The sequence of Glades cultural periods in
Goggin (1952b:4) has a Glades II B, early,
and a Glades II B, late. These are unex-
plained in that paper and to the best of
my knowledge are not used elsewhere. It
is possible that Goggin was using the ap-








pearance of incised arcs on the lips as a
marker; this feature does appear about the
middle of Glades IIb at the Bear Lake
site. Although this table is probably one
of the last which Goggin prepared for the
Glades, his division of the Glades IIb pe-
riod can probably be ignored; however, the
lip arc attribute may still be useful as a
time marker.
The basic structure that Goggin had
erected by 1950 is still the framework for
the later periods of South Florida archae-
ology. But it should be noted that it was
basically derived from what Goggin consid-
ered his Tekesta subarea, in the extended
sense embodied in his unpublished mono-
graph and summarized above. In short, it
does not apply to the two areas which have
been removed from the Glades Area, the
Caloosahatchee and Okeechobee (Belle
Glade) areas. Nor did it make any attempt
to include the then unknown periods cover-
ing the Paleo-Indian and the Archaic in
South Florida.
The system is rooted in ceramic ty-
pology; it is a ceramic sequence not a
culture sequence. Table 2 shows the time
spans of the various marker types.

GLADES III GLADES II GLADES I
C B A C B A Late Early


Historic Ceramics
Glades Tooled
Surfside Incised
Plantation Pinched
Key Largo Incised
Matecumbe Incised
Miami Incised
Opa Locka Incised
Fort Drum Incised
Fort Drum Punctated
Cane Patch Incised
Sanibel Incised
Gordons Pass Incised
Glades Plain
Goodland Plain


X
X X


x x
X
X
X







X
x
x







x x x x x x
x


Table 2. Ceramic Markers by Period.

By amazing insight, or good luck,
Goggin defined pottery types which per-
formed remarkably as time markers. It
should be stressed that these types are
not precisely limited by rigid lines;


there is some overlapping, or at least it
so appears in the excavated samples.
Stratigraphic columns also show increases
and decreases in quantity, forming the fa-
miliar "battleships" of ceramic seriation.
But, the definitions of the types and
their time ranges are pleasingly precise,
and may be used as time markers with lit-
tle hesitation.
In addition to these types of the
Glades Series (and Goodland) the chalky
ware type St. Johns Check Stamped serves
as a marker type, particularly on the east
coast, for Glades III times. It may ex-
tend backward into Glades II to a slight
extent.

Caloosahatchee Area

Widmer (1983:145-151) has attempted
the definition of a series of periods in
the Caloosahatchee Area, and the following
summary is drawn from that source.
Caloosahatchee I (300 B.C. to A.D.
800). The period is best represented at
the Wightman site on Sanibel Island
(Fradkin 1976). The pottery is sand-tem-
pered plain and laminated paste sand-tem-
pered plain, "both of which have been pre-
viously noted and defined by Sears at Fort
Center" (Fradkin 1976:54). Type descrip-
tions are in Sears (1982:23-25). No Belle
Glade Plain pottery was found at the
Wightman site, although it had made its
appearance at Fort Center well before the
closing data for Wightman.
Caloosahatchee II (A.D. 800 to
1200). Marked by a dramatic increase of
Belle Glade ceramics in the area, indi-
cated by data from the Cape Haze peninsula
(Bullen and Bullen 1956). No decorated
ceramics known from this period.
Caloosahatchee III (A.D. 1200 to
1400). Best identified by the appearance
of St. Johns Series trade wares, particu-
larly St. Johns Check Stamped. Englewood
ceramics also appear at this time.
Caloosahatchee IV (A.D. 1400 to
1513). Numerous trade wares appear from
all adjoining areas of Florida, including
Glades Tboled from the south. Widmer
lists it as found at Big Mbund Key, John
Quiet, Cash site, and at the mouth of the
Caloosahatchee River. Safety Harbor mate-
rial is quite common.








Caloosahatchee V (A.D. 1513-1750).
Recognized by the appearance of European
goods in the aboriginal sites. Sites of
the Cape Haze Peninsula and at the mouth
of the Caloosahatchee have yielded sherds
of the Leon-Jefferson mission period of
the Apalachee region.

Belle Glade Area

The Okeechobee, or Belle Glade, Area
is perhaps the least known of the South
Florida areas, despite large scale excava-
tions at Belle Glade in the 1930s (Willey
1949b) and by Sears (1982) at Fort Center
over a number of years. Nor do these
sites on opposite sides of Lake Okeechobee
duplicate one another in ceramic content.
Sears reported no incised Glades types
from Fort Center, but marker types of
Glades I late and Glades II appeared at
Belle Glade. Widmer (1983:151-152) proba-
bly overestimates the percentages of
Glades incised types at Belle Glade if one
considers that the sample from the site
was highly selective and doubtless
weighted towards the decorated types, but
ceramics from the Glades series were pre-
sent.
Belle Glade itself was only pre-
sented in terms of two periods, Belle
Glade I and Belle Glade II, the former
containing the incised Glades sherds of
Gordons Pass Incised, Sanibel Incised,
Fort Drum Incised, Key Largo Incised, and
Matecumbe Incised. Belle Glade II was
characterized by the sudden appearance of
Biscayne [St. Johns] Check Stamped and oc-
casional Weeden Island and Englewood
types, which would equate this period with
Glades III. Belle Glade Plain was, how-
ever, the dominant pottery type (Willey
1949b:24).
Sears (1982:191-201) discusses four
periods (I through IV) at Fort Center, to
which he does not assign firmly dated
boundaries.
Period I runs from roughly 1000 B.C.
to perhaps A.D. 250. The early part of
this period is marked by semi-fiber-tem-
pered pottery. During the period the
amount of fiber decreased and the sand
content increased, so that by the end of
the period most of the pottery was a sand-
tempered plain ware. There was some use


of a laminated sand-tempered ware.
Period II lasted some "six or eight
centuries". My guess dates would be A.D.
250 to 1000, give or take a century or
two. Sand-tempered plain pottery is domi-
nant, but the characteristic Belle Glade
Plain appears and increases in popularity.
This is the period at Fort Center marked
by trade wares from more northern centers;
Deptford, Crystal River, Cartersville,
Pasco, and St. Johns.
Period III is very loosely dated
from the end of the previous period to at
or near the historic contact line. Sand-
tempered plain pottery continued to de-
crease while Belle Glade Plain increased.
St. Johns Check Stamped began to appear,
but in small quantities.
Period IV begins at or near the his-
toric contact line. By this time there is
a small amount of sand-tempered plain and
a large amount of Belle Glade Plain. A
series of new rim forms became popular,
particularly expanded flat and comma
shaped varieties. Historic materials and
aboriginal artifacts in European derived
metals appear.
The summary statements on the se-
quences in the three areas of South
Florida disclose considerable differences
in the amount of detail available, and for
that matter in the methodology used in
erecting the sequences. That of Goggin
for the portion of South Florida we are
here calling the Everglades Area is the
most detailed, and is the one of most con-
cern to us in dealing with the archaeology
of Everglades National Park. Having seen
how the sequence was developed, we turn
now to how it was dated.

Dating the Glades Sequence

We must remember that Goggin's ce-
ramic sequence was firmly grounded in
stratigraphy before the first radiocarbon
determinations were made public. Quite
naturally his early first estimates of
time (Goggin 1948 ) were in a short
chronology since all crossdating to other
areas suffered from the same lack of time
depth (Figure 3). Several years later
(Goggin 1952b) he had stretched the time
out considerably, probably as an overreac-
tion to the recently released radiocarbon









1948b GOGGIN 1952b 1974 GRIFFIN 1987
1700
.c n'c me .mec
1600

1500 Ib Ilb Ib nIb
1400
1300 ma Ira rea ma
1200
rrc
1100
lIb c
Tlc ---- b 1000
nrb
90o no -----
--- no no soo
_T 3 a8 0 0
700 Erb late
PEGLADS I late I late 600
600
500 Db ----_----
5001
early
I early 400
300
T a 200
100
AD/BC -- AD/BC
I late PRE-
100 IO GLADES
I early 200


Figure 3. Archaeological Periods and Time
Scale.

determinations from other areas of the
United States (Figure 3).
What are believed to be the first C-
14 dates run on excavated levels of the
Glades sequence are three from shell sam-
ples from Onion Key (Griffin 1966:22,
1988:227-257). Later three more samples
were submitted from the same site. The
first three dates all fell within Goggin's
(1952b) Glades II estimates, but covered
both his IIb and IIc. Griffin (1966)
judged all three to come from Glades IIb,
although one had been selected in hopes
that it would date Glades IIa. The only
real change in Goggin's estimates was to
bring Glades IIc closer to the present,
placing it at about A.D. 1100-1200.
It was the Bear Lake excavations of
Griffin (1988:181-226) that provided more
radiocarbon determinations from a deeply
stratified sample. The seventeen "dates"
from that excavation were the basis for
the chronology prepared by Griffin (1974)
and utilized by Milanich and Fairbanks


(1980:23). The latter authors wisely re-
frained from drawing neat lines between
periods on their chart.
As part of the preparation of the
report on the Granada site at the mouth of
the Miami River, Griffin reviewed the 24
radiocarbon determinations relating to
that site and prepared a time chart which
modified the one mentioned just above, and
in particular dropped the beginning of
Glades I late back by 500 years (Griffin
et al. 1983:25-32). More recently, in
providing the Florida Bureau of Archaeo-
logical Research with revisions and addi-
tions to that report, in prospect of a re-
vised edition, the radiocarbon situation
was critically re-examined. The conclu-
sions and the chart in the published ver-
sion cited above must be withdrawn. A
restudy of the determinations and the oon-
texts from which they came will not sup-
port the 1983 version. That chapter has
been completely rewritten, rejecting the
1983 conclusions, and basically returning
to the framework of Griffin (1974) and
Milanich and Fairbanks (1980), with, how-
ever, a slight compression of both Glades
IIIa and IIc. The only contribution of
the Granada determinations to the overall
sequence are four samples ranging between
A.D. 5 and A.D. 305 which appear to date
Glades I early. The sherds from the level
from which the samples came were 25 Glades
Plain, 1 St. Johns Incised, 1 indetermi-
nate, and 3 unclassified. This sample
could fit the dates reported, and it would
be Glades I early, not Glades I late as it
was first interpreted. This revised ver-
sion, with additional considerations
raised by relooking at the Bear Lake data,
forms the right hand column in Figure 3.
Another large series, in fact the
largest series available for South Florida
archaeology, is represented by the 59 de-
terminations secured as part of the Big
Cypress survey by the National Park Ser-
vice. Athens (1983:21) has discussed
these dates [he says there were 65 from 29
sites, but only 59 are available] and
states that they made it possible "to
tighten the South Florida chronological
sequence" and show "that the Glades I, II
and III periods originated at a somewhat
earlier date than most studies have
shown."








Important as they may be, the deter-
minations did not and could not have had
the effect claimed above. The vast major-
ity of the Big Cypress dates are not asso-
ciated with definitive cultural materials.
Rather than being used to date controlled
and ample samples, as at Bear Lake, the
Big Cypress determinations were run to de-
termine what dates might be represented in
the sites. This is almost a reverse pro-
cedure, and one that cannot tighten previ-
ous sequences or establish new time lines
for periods, even though it can give us a
good idea of some of the time factors in
the human occupation of an area. But when
a Big Cypress date is given as, for exam-
ple, Glades IIa, it most often would not
mean that the pottery complex which de-
fines that sub-period was present; it
would mean that the date suggests occupa-
tion at a time when that sub-period is
known to exist elsewhere.
Athens may simply have misunderstood
some of the background information that
was supplied for use in his thesis; the
thesis itself deals with other aspects of
the Big Cypress survey and is little con-
cerned with the time sequence.
These represent the large runs of
radiocarbon determinations from particular
sites or projects. There are a number of
other pertinent dates in the South Florida
literature. The time sequence used in the
present report is given, along with others
as Figure 3.

The Prehistory of South Florida
The earliest evidence of human occu-
pancy of South Florida comes from Sarasota
County, just north of the boundary of the
South Florida Region as used in the pre-
sent report. Little Salt Spring in Sara-
sota County (Clausen et al. 1975, 1979)
contains important evidence of Paleoindian
occupation, dating from between 12000 and
13000 years ago, long before the recent
configurations and vegetation patterns had
appeared. At this time the water table in
that part of Florida was at least 26 me-
ters lower than at present.
Nearly as old is the similar sink-
hole site of Warm Mineral Springs in the
same county (Clausen et al. 1975). These
sites may be interpreted as sporadic hunt-


ing and gathering sites of late Paleoin-
dian times, when the optimal zone for hu-
man occupation would have been along the
shore edge, many kilometers west of the
present coast line. The South Florida
climate was much drier than today, in fact
too arid to support even scrub oak. Ac-
cording to Watts (1975, 1980) it was an
area of high winds and shifting dunes, un-
inviting to human habitation. The popula-
tion was understandably sparse.
Very recently Dade County has been
added to the small list of early sites in
South Florida with the discovery of the
Cutler Fossil site south of Miami and near
Biscayne Bay (Carr 1986). Here in a solu-
tion hole containing the bones of many
fossil animals were found at least two
early projectile points, apparently asso-
ciated with a hearth area with a C-14 de-
termination of 9,760 + 120 years B.P. The
projectile points have been classified as
one Dalton-like and one Bolen Beveled Cbr-
ner Notched, both early types, and as such
proof of an early date independently of
the association. This site more than dou-
bled the known time of human occupation of
this coastal strip, and raises the possi-
bility that similar sites may exist along
the Atlantic Ridge.
Widmer (1983:339) believes that the
Early Archaic period (roughly 9000-7000
BP) saw the abandonment of the known sites
such as Little Salt Spring, and possibly
of the entire South Florida region. The
Lake Annie pollen profile (Watts 1975:346)
suggests extremely arid conditions for
South Florida at this time, which possibly
forced withdrawal of the previous, admit-
tedly sparse, population.
About 6500 BP, with a continually
rising sea level, mesic conditions spread
throughout Florida, although local xeric
conditions continued in South Florida.
The water table rose and more surface wa-
ter became available, but Lake Okeechobee
was still not extant. Nor were there yet
brackish estuaries, because of the lack of
freshwater runoff. This was the Middle
Archaic period, which was well represented
in the more northern parts of the penin-
sula. Toward the northern edge of South
Florida at the Little Salt Spring site
(Clausen et al. 1979), and within the
bounds of the South Florida Iegion at the





192


Bay West site in Collier County (Beriault
et al. 1981), mortuary sites are found in
which the bodies were deposited in the wa-
ter or muck of shallow ponds or sloughs.
A similar situation is found at the Gau-
thier site in Brevard County (Jones 1981).
More recent excavations at the Windover
site, also in Brevard County, have yielded
muck burials of even earlier date, sug-
gesting a persisting pattern.
Recently, the Cheetum site in Dade
County (Newman 1986), has been added to
the short list of South Florida sites dat-
ing to this Middle to Late Archaic time.
Here 21 or more burials, most of them sec-
ondary, were found in a compact concretion
zone at the base of the site. Charcoal
associated with a skull near the top of
the zone was dated at 4020 370 B.P.,
while charcoal from the bottom of the con-
cretion level was dated at 5120 160 B.P.
The site would have been on the eastern
edge of the still incompletely formed Ev-
erglades.
While preceramic levels have been
known from the more northern parts of the
peninsula for decades, recognition in
South Florida has been more recent. Sur-
vey and testing on Horrs Island, just
south of Marco Island, disclosed deep de-
posits without ceramics and with radiocar-
bon determinations clustering around 4000
B.P., and these not at the base of the de-
posits. "The extensive preceramic Archaic
component was something of a surprise.
Preceramic manifestations have been sus-
pected for South Florida for some time,
but to date only a few preceramic compo-
nents have been reported" (MMichael
1979:10-11). The exceptions which he men-
tioned at that time were the Palmer site
near Sarasota (Bullen and Bullen 1976),
where a substantial preceramic midden was
tested, and the nonceramic Stratum 6 at
the Peace Camp site in Broward County
which yielded a radiocarbon determination
of 3050 BP, with a standard deviation of
140 years (Mowers and Williams 1972).
This date actually falls into a time pe-
riod when fiber-tempered pottery, to be
discussed shortly, is found in other parts
of Florida, and lies beneath a stratum
which contained semi-fiber-tempered pot-
tery.


Excavations on Useppa Island in Pine
Island Sound in 1979 encountered a prece-
ramic shell midden which provided radio-
carbon determinations of 49351100 BP (2985
B.C.) and 5625100 BP (3675 B.C.). These
"are the earliest thus far obtained on the
southwest Florida coast" (Milanich et al.
1984:270). Sites lacking ceramics and
suggesting Pre-Glades times were encoun-
tered in the Big Cypress survey. One such
site, Cr-NPS-370, contained midden debris
and a human burial and was dated as
"Postulated pre-Glades (Late Archaic-Pre-
ceramic)" (Ehrenhard et al. 1983:85). Cn
the other side of the peninsula a radio-
carbon determination of 4950125 BP was
obtained from a charcoal sample deep in
the Granada site. The level, however, was
not clearly preceramic, and the date was
far removed from any others at the site.
With no clear context, the date was re-
garded as anomalous (Griffin et al.
1982:30-31).
There is no unequivocal presence of
nonceramic pre-Glades occupation within
Everglades National Park, but it would not
be unreasonable to suspect that such lev-
els exist in some of the unsampled shell
middens along the mangrove coast of the
Ten Thousand Islands.
The Late Archaic Period (ca. 4000-
2500 B.P.) is marked in much of Florida by
the appearance of the earliest pottery
known in the continental United States.
This is a rather crude pottery, tempered
with fibers, and in the latter part of its
time range decorated with incised designs.
This is the Orange Period which is partic-
ularly well known from northeast Florida
and the St. Johns drainage, but which is
increasingly being found in other portions
of the peninsula.
In the South Florida Region, the
fiber-tempered period is best represented
on Key Marco where 1Bss Morrell first
found it. Subsequent work on Marco was
conducted by Cockrell (1970) and Widmer
(1974). Widmer (1983:121-131) discusses
this period with particular reference to
Marco Island. In this discussion he ar-
gues for a different sequence of early
pottery than for the St. Johns drainage.
In the latter area Bullen and others
have established a sequence running from








plain fiber-tempered pottery (Orange
Plain), through the addition of Orange In-
cised, to the elaboration of rims and the
addition of steatite sherds, to, finally,
a period of semi-fiber-tempered ceramics.
Cockrell (1970:60) apparently misunder-
stood some aspects of this basic sequence,
for he has reservations about it "based on
Morrell's work" which found "at all lev-
els, Orange Plain mixed with Orange In-
cised, in four different test excava-
tions." He goes on to explain that there
could have been disturbances which mixed
the plain with the incised. He definitely
seems to imply that he believes Bullen and
others to have postulated a plain fiber
tempered sub-period followed by one in
which only incised sherds were produced.
No one has ever maintained this, and the
reservations as expressed are without
merit.
Widmer's argument does not retain
the plain-decorated confusion discussed
above, but it does differ from the
"standard" fiber-tempered sequence in that
it postulates that "unlike the St. John's
River, Orange Period sites, the earliest
sites along the southwest Florida coast
include untempered chalky ceramics, lime-
stone-tempered ceramics, as well as the
usual fiber-tempered Orange ceramics"
(Widmer 1983:122,124). This is based upon
the occurrence of these wares in the same
levels in some of the small and shallow
sites on Marco Island. I view the con-
tention of contemporaneity unproved be-
cause of what I regard as small sample
size and possible lack of stratigraphic
integrity.
Although the typical Orange Plain
and Orange Incised types are found, most
of the fiber-tempered pottery in South
Florida falls toward the late end of the
range of the ware, and is what is most of-
ten referred to in the literature as semi-
fiber-tempered. This pottery contains
both fiber and grains of sand in its
paste, suggesting that "the fiber is being
replaced by sand as the transition from
fiber-tempered pottery to later varieties
was taking place" (Sears 1982:24). Sears
calls this simply "Semi-fiber-tempered
pottery", and rejects the sometimes used
type name of Norwood Plain which has some-
times been extended into South Florida us-


age. The present report follows Sears in
this respect.
Semi-fiber-tempered pottery, as well
as the earlier Orange series, has been
found on Key Marco in the work mentioned
earlier. It was earlier found on Useppa
Island in Pine Island Sound (Griffin 1949)
as well as more recently by Milanich et
al. (1984). Only a single sherd has been
found within Everglades National Park, a
surface find at Onion Key (Griffin 1965).
Near Lake Okeechobee semi-fiber-tem-
pered pottery occurred at the Fort Center
site in considerable quantities (Sears
1982). Along the Atlantic coast a number
of sites have provided evidence of the
general late fiber-tempered (semi-fiber-
tempered) time level. The Peace Camp site
and Markham MIund No. 2 in Broward County
have yielded sherds of semi-fiber-tempered
pottery in their lower levels (Mowers and
Williams 1972; Williams and Mowers 1977).
In Dade County, Laxson (1962) found 10
sherds at the 202nd Street site, while
Carr (1981) has reported briefly on simi-
lar finds at the Atlantis site, approxi-
mately three miles south of the mouth of
the Miami River. An Archaic Period ceme-
tery is also associated with this site,
and a series of radiocarbon determinations
indicated a range between 2780 and 3110
B.P. (Carr et al. 1984). Two fiber-tem-
pered sherds were also found in the man-
grove muck at Key Largo 1 (8Mo25)
(Archeological and Historical Conservancy
1985:16).
It is clear that during the latter
part of the fiber-tempered period much of
the rim around the Everglades and down
into the Upper Keys was sparsely settled,
while, so far as we know, the Everglades
proper were not yet being used, perhaps
because of their immature stage of devel-
opment. Nowhere in South Florida have
sites of this period yet been discovered
which can approach the size (and appar-
ently the population density) of those in
the valley of the St. Johns River and the
adjacent coastal lagoons.
The Late Archaic ends about the time
which Widmer considers South Florida to
have reached an optimal environmental sit-
uation. The maturing of productive estu-
aries occurred at about this time, and it
is to these estuaries that the cultural








adaptation was made.
The cultural changes which accompa-
nied these environmental changes led to
the establishment of what John Goggin de-
fined as the Glades Tradition. We have
seen that the semi-fiber-tempered pottery
was already tending towards a sand-tem-
pered ware, which became dominant in the
Glades Tradition. Other traits, such as
the elaborate bone carving, seem to be
carry-overs from the Archaic Tradition.
This relationship has long been noted
(Willey 1949:129-130).
What is new, or at least more heav-
ily emphasized, is the basic adaptation of
the Glades Tradition which Goggin
(1949a:28) stated was "based on the ex-
ploitation of the food resources of the
tropical coastal waters, with secondary
dependence on game and some use of wild
plant foods. Agriculture was apparently
never practiced, but pottery was exten-
sively used."
Initially, the pottery of the Glades
I period was a plain sand-tempered ware,
which within the lower parts of South
Florida has been called Glades Plain. Be-
cause of difficulties in sorting encoun-
tered in both the Caloosahatchee and Okee-
chobee regions Sears (1982:22) and Luer
and Almy (1980) prefer to abandon the
Glades Plain label in preference to a de-
scriptive category of sand-tempered plain.
Carr and Beriault (1984) also avoid the
use of the Glades Plain type name. In
this summary Glades Plain is retained in
instances where the original publications
used the category. Additionally, there is
an early pottery type recognized by Gog-
gin, and named Goodland Plain by him,
which is somewhat chalky. 1cGregor (1974)
subsumes Goodland Plain under St. Johns
Plain and interprets it as a result of
contact with northeast Florida, but Goggin
(1949b) clearly regarded it as distinct
from what he was then calling the Biscayne
series (now St. Johns).
It is at this point that we can see
the emergence of the three ceramic areas,
or ceramic trajectories, described in an
earlier section, as being associated with
the area near the mouth of the Caloosa-
hatchee, the area near Lake Okeechobee
(Belle Glade), and the remainder of South


Florida for which we are using the term
Everglades Area.

Belle Glade Area

The area around Lake Okeechobee is
the center of a regional variant, primar-
ily of plain pottery, but with the dis-
tinctive type Belle Glade Plain marking at
least the latter half of the time range.
While sharing much with the other South
Florida areas, the people here obviously
did not depend on coastal resources, and
at least through part of the time range
apparently engaged in some agricultural or
horticultural activity (Sears 1971, 1982).
In these ways the culture of this area
does not meet Goggin's definition of the
Glades Tradition although many material
traits are closely related, and there is
continuing interaction.
A notable feature of this area is
the presence of large and sometimes com-
plex earthworks. They occur over an area
surrounding Lake Okeechobee and extending
well up the Kissimmee River valley (Carr
1975 ; Hale 1984). Carr (1985) has also
located two circular earthworks on the Mi-
ami River near the city of Miami, an ex-
tension of the known range in that direc-
tion. Stephen Hale is completing a doc-
toral dissertation on the human exploita-
tion of the Okeechobee Basin, with empha-
sis on the earthwork sites, which, along
with Sears' (1982) monograph, will go far
toward synthesizing this poorly understood
area.
Carr (1985) classifies the earth-
works as (1) lineal ridges, (2) circular-
linear earthworks, and (3) circular earth-
works. Sears (1982) indicates that small
fields were encircled and drained by
ditches as early as 1000-800 B.C., and
that by 450 B.C. the large circular field
at Fort Center was built. The long linear
ridges were used from about A.D. 600 to
1200. It is from the earthworks that
Sears obtained the maize pollen on which
he bases the presence of agriculture, and
relates these features to the raised
fields in South and Middle America
(Denevan 1970). Hale (1984) relates the
configurations to changing water levels,
with the circular earthworks enclosing








drained fields, and then as the water lev-
els rose in the Everglades and Okeechobee
Basin the linear earthworks mark raised
fields. Hale (1984:184) estimates a popu-
lation of from 2000 to 2500 for the Okee-
chobee Basin, not including the Kissimmee
River area.

Caloosahatchee Area

To the west, down the Caloosa-
hatchee, and around the estuaries north
and south of its mouth, was the Caloosa-
hatchee Area which in historic times was
the home territory of the Calusa. As
noted earlier, throughout the period be-
ginning with the advent of sand-tempered
pottery this area remains essentially one
producing only plain, undecorated, pot-
tery. This has made the task of the ar-
chaeologist difficult, as reliant as
he/she is in most areas on changes in ce-
ramic decoration for period definition.
Until very recently it could be said with
great justification that this was one of
the least known areas in the United
States.
Despite the various studies on the
Caloosahatchee Area, the fact still re-
mains that we know very little, based on
sound field data, about this area. The
Wightman site (Fradkin 1976), the Useppa
work (Milanich et al. 1984), the Solana
site (Widmer 1986 ) are some of the excep-
tions. The important interdisciplinary
program of Marquardt (1986a, 1986b), aimed
specifically at answering many of the most
pressing and pertinent questions, has suf-
fered what it is hoped will be only a tem-
porary stoppage. The results of particu-
lar studies conducted during the first two
years are becoming available.
This situation is all the more dis-
tressing because of the significance of
this area not only to an understanding of
the prehistory and history of Florida, but
also to its potential contribution to more
general and theoretical issues. Goggin
and Sturtevant (1964) summarized the ex-
tant ethnohistorical and archaeological
knowledge of the Calusa to present the
picture of a highly stratified society on
a non-agricultural base, and hence,
"another instance of what might be called


'environmental liberation' (as opposed to
'environmental limitation'), paralleling
that of the Northwest Coast." Widmer
(1978, 1983, 1988) developed the analysis
and argument further to speak of "The Evo-
lution of the Calusa, a bNn-Agricultural
Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast."
Finally, Marquardt (1986b, and others) de-
signed a research program to further exam-
ine and test the ideas previously ex-
pressed concerning the Calusa, noting that
"what is remarkable about the Calusa is
not that theirs was a dense, sedentary,
highly stratified, and politically complex
chiefdom, but that there is as yet no un-
contested evidence for horticulture."
The ethnohistorical information on
the Calusa resulted from sixteenth century
Spanish contacts and mission efforts in an
area generally recognized as being near
the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River.
Goggin and Sturtevant (1964:182-183) made
a case for the major town of Calos having
been located on Mound Key in Estero Bay,
and Lyon (1976:148) "tends to agree."
Lewis (1978:19) also accepts the bMund Key
identification. While there is a body of
agreement on this matter, there are still
some who would rather place the seat of
Calos within the Pine Island Sound-Char-
lotte Harbor estuary to the north. But in
either case the core of Calusa territory
lies in the coastal area between the head
of Charlotte Harbor and the south end of
Estero Bay.

The Place of Key Marco

This restriction of the Calusa
"homeland" to the Caloosahatchee Area as
previously defined has a significance
which may have been overlooked. When
speaking of the Calusa archaeologically
the authors cited above, and others, very
often include the data from Cushing's Key
Marco excavations in their discussions.
But Key Marco is near the northern edge of
the Ten Thousand Islands, which as we have
already seen, is not in the Caloosahatchee
Area. This author has considerable diffi-
culty in accepting the Key Marco material,
which as noted later has considerable time
depth, as ipso facto Calusa. That the
Calusa dominated, and perhaps even occu-









pied, this portion of the southwest
Florida coast in the historic period and
immediately preceding is not the question.
But, throughout most of the Glades periods
the ceramic complex, at least, was differ-
ent. As closely related in culture as the
groups along this coast may have been,
they were not identical, and I, for one,
do not believe that we can unequivocally
call the Key Marco material "Calusa," and
use it uncritically to flesh out our
sketches of Calusa culture.
The Cushing excavations (Cushing
1897; Gilliland 1975, 1987) are the back-
ground to the discussion. Later, the Van
Becks (1965) dug several test pits in a
nearby shell midden, which they thought
was about 850 feet east of the Cushing
site and separated from it by a narrow in-
let. However, this was not the case and
careful checking by Cockrell (1970:31-32)
clearly shows that actually Cushing's
"Court of the Pile Dwellers" was 650 feet
southwest of the Van Beck dig. Cockrell
says, "Their excavation area is also some-
what easily located on Cushing's map in
the immediate vicinity of a temple mound
with an elevation of 15'," which Cushing
(1897:21-22) describes in detail. So the
two excavations were actually on different
parts of the same large site. Cockrell
(1970:32-33) stresses "the fact that a
huge significant complex, both in total
area and depth, has been apparently too
hastily assigned to a period solely on the
basis of a 90' x 90' muck pond
excavation' by Cushing, and on the re-
sults of a less than 50 square feet of ex-
cavation area by the Van Becks in an obvi-
ously late area, in, or adjacent to, the
temple mound. It is felt that the site
has not been, to say the least, adequately
explored temporally." Widmer (1983:158)
stated that, in order to avoid future con-
fusion, the entire area mapped by Cushing
be called the Key Marco site, and that
Cushing's excavation be known as the
"Court of the Pile Dwellers" and the Van
Beck tests be referred to as the "Marco
Midden" excavations.
It is strange that Cockrell referred
to the Van Beck excavations as "an obvi-
ously late area," inasmuch as the pottery
in the lower portions of their two pits is


heavily of the Glades I late period.
While there are very definite problems
with the Van Becks' ceramic typology,
which verges on the horrible, there are
either positive evidences or hints of vir-
tually the entire Glades decorated se-
quence in the two test pits, and there was
apparently fair to good stratigraphic sep-
aration.
Even with the limited testing of
such a huge site we have, since the two
excavations have been brought into focus
as representing portions of the same site,
evidence that the site was occupied at
least as early as Glades I late with a
good representation of the Gordons Pass
complex. I see some Fort Drum in the il-
lustrations which was not identified.
Glades II appears the lightest in these
tests, but it is there, and certainly
could be more heavily represented on other
portions of the site. Glades IIIa, marked
by Surfside Incised is present in both the
Van Beck and Cushing samples, and there is
a hint of Glades IIIb in the absence of
Surfside Incised in the top two levels of
each of the Van Beck tests.
This, of course, still leaves the
crucial question, to which of these peri-
ods does (or do) the famous Key Marco
wooden artifacts belong? Both Glades
Tooled and Surfside Incised occur in the
Cushing collection (Gilliland 1975:231-
236), indicating at least Glades IIIa and
IIIb for the Court of the Pile Dwellers.
This fits nicely with the precontact 15th-
16th century ascription of Gilliland
(1975) and Milanich (1978). It also fits
with one radiocarbon determination run in
1968 on cordage from the site, which was
A.D. 1670 or 280100 BP (Gilliland
1975:257).
Confusion arose when Gilliland had
five samples run on portions of some of
the wooden artifacts. The earliest, a
part of a paddle, came in at A.D. 5560.
The other four had ranges that fell be-
tween A.D. 610 and 900, which would take
them back to Glades I late and Glades IIa
times. Gilliland (1975:257) stated that
these dates "lend great support to the au-
thor's thesis that this site was occupied
over an extended period and demonstrate
the presence of sophisticated art forms in








Florida at a very early date."
Dye (1977:500) accepted this latter
suite of dates at face value in reviewing
Gilliland's book. Milanich (1978:682) re-
sponded by questioning the validity of the
dates, calling them "greatly in error,
probably due to contamination of the col-
lection during storage at the Florida
State Museum." He points out that the
paddle fragment, the earliest date, came
from the uppermost portion of the stratum
which held most of the wooden objects "and
should have dated from late in the occupa-
tion of the site." He reiterates a late
15th and early 16th century date for the
Cushing material.
While it seems reasonable to the
present writer to date the classic wooden
Key Marco materials to Glades III times,
it certainly cannot be unequivocally es-
tablished at this time. Nor would their
confinement to Glades III necessarily mean
that the art styles could not also have
occurred earlier. In short, we do not know
the time depth of the Key Marco wooden
types and styles. But we do know that the
site has very considerable time depth.
Therefore, we cannot now consider
the Key Marco site as only a late prehis-
toric site, and we cannot be certain to
which period or periods the wooden arti-
facts relate, although Glades III would
get the nod. On the other hand, the evi-
dence indicates that the Key Marco site
participated in the Ten Thousand Island
Division of the Everglades Archaeological
Area from beginning to end. It was proba-
bly one of the most important settlements
of the District. There is no way in which
it can be considered as part of the
Caloosahatchee Archaeological Area. This
would imply a cultural separateness from
the Calusa over a long time period, al-
though the evidence is not clear enough to
rule out a very late cultural replacement
on the site as the Calusa expanded.
Calusa dominance over the area in historic
times seems well established, but it could
have been what the Spaniards termed
"vassalage" rather than genetically de-
rived Calusa population.
What I am arguing for is twofold, 1)
the recognition that the Key Marco site is
part of the interacting settlement pattern


of the Ten Thousand Island District, and
that materials from this site may well
represent the shared culture of this sub-
area, or division, and 2) the recognition
that the material culture of the Key Marco
site cannot be automatically considered as
Calusa, although there were doubtless more
areas of correspondence between these two
neighboring areas than there were basic
differences.

Everglades Area

Turning now to that rather large
chunk of South Florida which has here been
called the Everglades Area, and which in-
cludes Carr and Beriault's Everglades and
Ten Thousand Island areas, we can look
briefly at the culture sequence. This is,
of course, the area primarily of interest
to this synthesis of the archaeology of
Everglades National Park.
Glades I late, the beginning of the
decorated sequence, has been given an ini-
tial date of AD 500 (Griffin 1974; Mi-
lanich and Fairbanks 1980:234; Widmer
1983:140). It may well begin several cen-
turies before that time, but part of the
problem in arriving at a fully satisfac-
tory date for the beginning of Glades I
late is that sites and levels which con-
tain the marker types are relatively rare,
relatively thin, relatively sparse, and
most often mixed to a greater or lesser
degree by intrusions from levels lying
above them. While many of the marker
types occur over South Florida from coast
to coast, indicating at least a consider-
able degree of interchange and interac-
tion, the site characteristics mentioned
above would indicate that the population
had not yet reached the level it was the
achieve later. This would accord with
Widmer's (1983:367) belief that critical
carrying capacity was not reached until
around AD 800, or the beginning of Glades
II times.
The various pottery types which mark
the periods and sub-periods of the Glades
sequence are discussed elsewhere (see
Griffin 1988, Chapter 5), and will not be
redescribed at this point. Here we will
only call attention to some of the basic
shifts in ceramic types which provided








Goggin with his data for establishing the
Glades sequence.
Glades I late, is marked by the
presence of a number of incised and punc-
tated types. Since strict stratigraphic
separation is usually not possible, par-
tially for reasons mentioned above, the
marker types generally considered to be-
long to Glades I late are here separated
into three groups or complexes; the Gor-
dons Pass Complex, the Fort Drum Complex,
and the Cane Patch Complex. Except for
the Gordons Pass Complex, which Goggin
named to include Gordons Pass Incised and
Sanibel Incised, these are new terms, but
should only be taken as temporary analyti-
cal tools. Fort Drum Incised and Fort
Drum Punctated (and for any who insist
that it exists, Fort Drum Rim Ticked) form
another group. The last "complex" of the
three consists of Cane Patch Incised, and
whatever part of Turner River Linear Punc-
tate that may prove to be separable.
The Gordons Pass Complex originally
filled the entire Glades II box on Gog-
gin's regional correlations. Mbre recent
stratigraphic work, such as the Bear Lake
and Cnion Key material presented in the
present report, and the earlier seriation
chart of Sears (1965) clearly indicate
that this was in error. In fact, the com-
plex falls into the time frame of Glades I
late as Goggin later defined it. Perhaps
because of the inability, so far, to find
thick layers of early period deposits this
complex seems to equate in time with the
Fort Drum and Cane Patch complexes. While
temporal factors may be involved, they
cannot be sorted out with available data.
Carr and Beriault (1984:3) have ar-
gued that "during the period of ca. A.D.
200 A.D. 800, the predominant decorated
types of pottery in the Ten Thousand Is-
lands were Cordon's Pass Incised, Sanibel
Incised, and another unclassified type of
linear punctate pottery [presumably Turner
River Linear Punctated]." They note pres-
ence on the east coast as infrequent, at
best, and indicate a belief that the com-
plex marks "a separate tribal group." It
is certainly true that this complex
(emitting for later consideration the lin-
ear-punctated type, which is here consid-
ered part of the Cane Patch complex) is


best known from the Ten Thousand Islands,
but it definitely is present in noticeable
quantities beyond these bounds. At Bear
Lake it is outside the Ten Thousand Island
Area of Carr and Beriault, if only
slightly. Both Cordons Pass Incised and
Sanibel Incised were found at the Belle
Glade site in Palm Beach Cbunty, and the
former was, in fact, the most abundant in-
cised type in the limited extant collec-
tions from the Belle Glade I period
(Willey 1949:27). Gordons Pass Incised
also comes from east coast sites such as
Opa Locka 3, Surfside, and Granada. Sani-
bel Incised was also found at Panther
Mound in the Park.
The Cane Patch Complex (including
Turner River Linear Punctated) is also
largely confined to southwest Florida, but
once again extends south along that coast
beyond the boundaries of the Ten Thousand
Islands, both at the Cane Patch site it-
self and at Bear Lake. It also occurs at
the Granada site in Miami (Griffin et al.
1982).
In southwest Florida the Gordons
Pass and Cane Patch complexes overlap con-
siderably, and are often represented at
the same site. Temporal separation is not
apparent in the stratigraphic tests avail-
able. But both are definitely Glades I
late in time. They may well represent an
areal specialization at this early time
period, and should be recognized as such.
However, this is not justification for
creation of a culture area that continues
through time after their disappearance
sometime before A.D. 800.
While positive evidence is hard to
come by in the known stratigraphic se-
quences, there are some slight hints that
the Fort Drum complex may be, at least in
part, later than the two just discussed.
This complex is represented in sites over
a broad range of South Florida, and not
just in the west coast areas. It is found
at Belle Glade, and in a number of coastal
sites from Broward County south to Key
Largo and Big Pine Key. It was from its
occurrence at the Snapper Creek site near
Biscayne Bay that Goggin (1950c) defined
Glades I late. It is found on several of
the tree island middens in the Shark River
Slough in Everglades National Park. It is








common and well known in the Ten Thousand
Islands and the Big Cypress. It is the
first really widespread complex of the
Glades periods.
I would argue that in the Glades I
late time period the incised (and punc-
tated) tradition of the Glades series was
just making its appearance, and that this
appearance was in Southwest Florida. The
Gordons Pass and Cane Patch complexes were
in use from Cape Sable to the Caloosa-
hatchee, with variation in time and space
within this geographic zone which remains
to be worked out. I would, however, avoid
the implication that pottery complex
equals tribe. Outside this core area in-
teraction with other peoples could explain
the Belle Glade and east coast occur-
rences.
Probably growing out of these com-
plexes is the Fort Drum Complex which does
spread more widely throughout South
Florida, to the extent mentioned above.
It would then mark the first complex with
an area-wide distribution in the Ever-
glades Area (including Carr and Beriault's
Ten Thousand Island Area within the Ever-
glades Area). The rather shallow deposits
in which this complex has been found, and
its relative scarcity in comparison to the
later Glades II pottery, both argue for a
period of relatively limited populations.
This would accord with Widmer's (1983:367)
belief that critical carrying capacity was
not reached until around A.D. 800, or the
beginning of Glades II times.
Widmer (1983:142) errs, I think, in
considering Gordons Pass Incised and Sani-
bel Incised as Glades IIa rather than
Glades I late. As noted above, these
types appear in the same general levels as
Cane Patch Incised and the Fort Drum
types. If anything the Fort Drum types
should be placed later in time than the
Gordons Pass Complex.
Present evidence seems to indicate
that the type Cpa Locka Incised, decorated
with rows of usually inverted arcs or
semi-circles, was first made in Glades I
late times and persisted into the earlier
portions of Glades IIa. In stratigraphic
tests the type occupies this bridging po-
sition. Yet the motif of Opa Locka In-
cised appears to represent a break with


the incised and punctated types of Glades
I late, and to be a part of the noticeably
different technology of incision employed
throughout Glades IIa and IIb. Without
making the pottery say more than it can,
we may see this as another hint of a
change at the Glades I late Glades II
boundary.
Earlier in this article the naming
of Glades I late was discussed, and the
conclusion was reached that Goggin hardly
had a choice in choosing the designation.
It was also mentioned that it might have
made more sense to have Glades I totally
plain, and have Glades II begin with the
appearance of incised pottery. Carr and
Beriault (1984:3) also state that "future
revisions may simply make the first
appearance of decorated wares coincide
with the inception of the Glades II pe-
riod." This would certainly make for a
neater ceramic classification, but in
terms of the ideas expressed above about
the possibility of a major cultural shift
(or the realization of a new socio-eco-
nomic stage) at this time, perhaps we
should stick with the current designations
until we know a little more about what
they may truly mean.
Key Largo Incised marks the entire
range of Glades IIa and Glades IIb, a pe-
riod of somewhat more than three cen-
turies. Cpa Locka Incised continues into
the early part of Glades IIa, and based on
motif resemblance is closely related and
possibly ancestral to Key Largo Incised.
Other incised types, Miami Incised for
Glades IIa and Matecumbe Incised for IIb,
serve to subdivide the range into two
parts. In Goggin's unpublished manuscript
(Goggin n.d.) he speaks of the incised
pottery as being "neatly and cleanly cut
and apparently made with swift cutting
strokes while the clay is partially dry."
While the Everglades Area (including
the Ten Thousand Islands) shares as a
whole the types of Glades II ceramics men-
tioned in the previous paragraph, there
are also localized types or variants.
Dade Incised, which has apparently only
been identified from the east coast, is
one of these. A number of proposed east
coast types which lack acceptable defini-
tion are discussed by Griffin (1988).









Considering the number of sherds which of-
ten fall into categories such as
"Unidentified" or "Miscellaneous Incised"
in reported counts, there are doubtless
valid types and varieties yet to be de-
fined.
The two sub-periods of Glades II
provide a substantial amount of the infor-
mation which we have on the Everglades
Area. There are certainly more sites than
previously, and they are widely dis-
tributed over the Area. It would appear
to be a time of relative stability in
technology and subsistence.
At about A.D. 1100 an elusive subpe-
riod, Glades IIc, begins and continues for
perhaps a century. It is characterized by
an almost total lack of decorated pottery;
the only known associated type being Plan-
tation Pinched. This subperiod was first
isolated by Goggin (1950) at the Bear Lake
site in Everglades National Park and later
confirmed by Griffin at the same site.
Sherds of Plantation Pinched had earlier
been found at sites such as Upper Mate-
cumbe, but neither the type nor the period
had been identified.
Glades IIc is not known from a great
number of sites. The marker type Planta-
tion Pinched was found on only six of the
sixty-two sites in Everglades National
Park which contained pottery which could
be classified by period. It is noticeably
scarce everywhere; only one sherd was
identified in the large sample from the
Granada site. Something happened at the
end of Glades IIb, at about A.D. 1100, but
it is difficult to determine what or why.
There is an obvious diminution of known
occupied sites. Does this mark a decrease
in population, or merely that the people
for some reason were living in different
locales? The abrupt abandonment of in-
cised ceramics also indicates disruption
of some sort. Aside from the sand-tem-
pered paste the only continuity is in the
persistence, and in fact increase, of
grooved lips as clearly documented at Bear
Lake.
The only well-known event that comes
immediately to mind as being possibly re-
lated is the Neo-Atlantic climatic event,
"the warmest Holocene interval, even
warmer than the Recent" (Gleason et al.


1984:321). The time span of this climatic
interval is usually given as A.D. 900-
1200, making Glades IIc as we have delim-
ited it here fall into the final portions
of this warm spell. Fairbridge (1984:431)
would correlate his Gotland Bnergence of
perhaps a 0.3 meter rise in sea level with
the same interval. This could be enough
to dictate movement from some site areas,
not only because of the possible increased
wetness of the site, but more importantly,
perhaps, for maintaining or establishing
the most efficient relationship to a
changing resource pattern. Indications of
a higher water level in Charlotte Harbor
in the A.D. 1250-1350 period may well re-
late to this problem (Walker 1987). Where
the people were in Glades IIc remains a
major question.
That some locational factor is at
work is suggested by the relationship of
Glades IIc occupations and Glades IIIa oc-
cupations. At the Granada site (Griffin
et al. 1982:53), or at least the portions
tested, Glades IIc can be said to be ab-
sent (2 sherds) and Glades IIIa nearly
so, when compared to the heavy Glades IIa
and b and Glades IIIb occupations to ei-
ther side on the time scale. The Surfside
midden on Biscayne Bay while containing a
few Glades Tooled sherds (IIIb), was pri-
marily a Glades IIIa occupation. On the
other hand, Glades IIc and IIIa are well
represented at Bear Lake, but there is no
Glades IIIb at that site. Glades IIc and
IIIa seem to be reacting in much the same
way in relating to site location, and in
contrast to Glades IIIb
The ceramic complex exhibits another
marked change at about A.D. 1200 with the
advent of the period designated as Glades
IIIa. Incised pottery reappears as Surf-
side Incised, but the motifs and tech-
niques are noticeably different from those
of Glades IIb times. Incised decoration
consists of lines, most often three, en-
circling the vessel below the rim. This
motif is strongly reminiscent of a number
of pottery types which occur throughout
much of the Southeast at about this same
time. The lines are apparently executed
with a broader instrument than in Glades
II times and probably on a less dry clay,
sometimes leaving a slight ridge or curl









at the edge of the incision. Incised lugs
of shapes which remind some of Antillean
forms appear on some vessels.
The change from Glades IIIa to IIIb
at about A.D. 1400 again appears to be
rather abrupt. Surfside Incised, and in-
deed all incision, ceases. The pottery is
plain, except for the development of elab-
orations of the rim which have been called
Glades Tooled. McGregor (1974:27) feels
that the rise of Glades Tboled "may be ac-
counted for by increasing contact with
other areas, particularly the central Gulf
Coast where similar rim treatments appear
in Pinellas Plain types." If this is a
valid direction from which to seek the
derivation of Glades Tooled then perhaps
it may be tied to an increasing level of
Calusa influence in the Everglades Area.
Glades IIIc is simply marked by the addi-
tion of European goods acquired through
trade or salvage, and carries us fully
into contact times.
Looking only at the ceramics, we
have seen several points at which there
are rather sharp breaks in the sequence.
Glades I late does tend to merge into
Glades II, and the rather rapid replace-
ment of one by the other could well relate
to the achievement of full environmental
potential and the reaching of the critical
carrying capacity, with consequent cul-
tural adaptations. The following rela-
tively long span of Glades IIa and b,
within which little change is evident
marks the stabilization of the Glades tra-
dition. But the relatively short and elu-
sive Glades IIc period signals an abrupt
change which appears to largely coincide
with the twelfth century, a time of cli-
matic change producing warmer and wetter
times in Europe and drought in the Ameri-
can Great Plains (Bryson et al. 1970:64).
The effects of this phase on the climate
of Florida is not clear. Was there enough
environmental change to affect the subsis-
tence pattern or, perhaps, to force read-
justment of territory among the peoples of
South Florida?
The end of this elusive Glades IIc
appears to be equally sharp and the suc-
ceeding Glades IIIa is well represented in
a number of sites, but interestingly often
not the same sites which show heavy occu-


pations of the succeeding Glades IIIb.
Both Surfside Incised of IIIa and Glades
Tooled of IIIb have been suggested as be-
ing related in some yet undefined way to
influences from the central Gulf coast of
Florida.
There are, therefore, several marked
breaks in the ceramic sequence in the last
few centuries before discovery and con-
quest. There are several avenues, not mu-
tually exclusive, which need to be ex-
plored in search of explanations. Envi-
ronmental change, Calusa expansion, and
even possible Antillean influence are
among these avenues, and there are others.
At the moment we can only ask the ques-
tions.
The changes in ceramics in the
Glades sequence are really not dramatic,
but they are sufficient to utilize them as
chronological markers, particularly the
motifs which have been defined as types.
Beyond that, the paste of the pottery and
the technology would seem to indicate con-
tinuity more than change. And during the
Glades periods there is also little change
to be seen in the other categories of ma-
terial culture as the various sections
of the present report document. A possi-
ble exception is the apparent increase in
bone ornaments in Glades III. Nor are
there significant changes in the subsis-
tence pattern, either faunal or floral, in
the periods studied. The basic adapta-
tion, once fully achieved, at the outset
of Glades II according the Widmer (1983),
appears to have persisted until it was de-
stroyed by the European conquest.


References Cited
Archeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
1985 An Archeological, Historical, and Architectural
Survey of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida.
Archeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.,
Miami, FL.
Athens, William Paul
1983 The Spatial Distribution of Glades Period Sites
Within the Big Cypress National Preserve,
Florida. Unpublished M.A. thesis in Anthropolo-
gy, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Beriault, John G., Robert S. Carr, Jerry Stipp,
Richard Johnson, and Jack Maeder
1981 The Archaeological Salvage of the Bay West Site,
Collier County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist
34:39-58.










Bryson, reid A., David A. Baerreis, and Wayne M.
Weedland
1970 The Character of Late-Glacial and Post-Glacial
Climatic Changes. In Pleistocene and Recent
Environments of the Central Great Plains, edited
by W. Dort, Jr. and J. K. Jones, Jr., pp. 53-74.
University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen
1956 Excavations at Cape Haze Peninsula, Florida.
Florida State Museun Contributions, Social
Sciences 1. Gainesville.

1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society
Publications 8.

Carr, Ibbert S.
1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Lake
Okeechobee. Bureau of Historic Sites and
Properties, Miscellaneous Report Series 16.
Tallahassee.

1979 An Archeological and Historical Survey of the
Site 14 Replacement Airport and its Proposed
Access Corridors, Dade County, Florida. Manu-
script prepared for the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration.

1980 Dade County Archeological Survey: Interim Report
Dade County Historic Survey. Miami.

1985 Prehistoric circular earthworks in South Florida
Florida Anthropologist 38:288-301.

1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler
Fossil Site (8 Da 2001) in Southern Florida.
Florida Anthropologist 39:231-232.

Carr, Iobert S. and John G. Beriault
1984 Prehistoric Man in South Florida. In Environ-
ments of South Florida:Present and Past, Revised
Edition, edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 1-14.
Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami.


Carr,

1984


Robert S., M. Yasar Iscan, and Richard A.
Johnson
A Late Archaic Cemetery in South Florida.
Florida Anthropologist 37:172-188.


Clausen, Carl J., H. K. Brooks and A. B. Wesolowsky
1975a The Early Man Site at Warm Mineral Springs,
Florida. Journal of Field Archaeology 2:191-213.

1975b Florida Spring Confirmed as 10,000 Year Old
Early Man Site. Florida Anthropological Society
Publications 7.

Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A.
Holman, and J. J. Stipp
1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Under-
water Site. Science 203:609-614.

Cockrell, William A.
1970 Glades I and Pre-Glades Settlement and Subsis-
tence Patterns on Marco Island. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis in Anthropology, Florida State University
Tallahassee.

Cronon, William
1983 Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the
Ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, New York.


Cushing, Frank Hamilton
1897 Exploration of Ancient Key Dwellers' Remains on
the Gulf COast of Florida. Proceedings, American
Philosophical Society 35(153):329-448.

Denevan, William M.
1970 Aboriginal Drained Field Cultivation in the
Americas. Science 169:647-654.

Dye, David H.
1977 Review of The Material Culture of Key Marco,
Florida, by Marion Spjut Gilliland. American
Anthropologist 79:500.

Ehrenhard, John E., Gregory Komara, and Iobert C.
Taylor
1982 Everglades National Park, Cultural Resource
Inventory Interim Report Season 1. National Park
Service, Southeast Archeological Center. Talla-
hassee.

Fairbridge, Rhodes W.
1984 The Holocene Sea Level Record in South Florida.
In Environments of South Florida: Present and
Past, edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 427-436.
Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, revised edi-
tion. Cbral Gables.

Fradkin, Arlene
1976 The Wightman Site: A Study of Prehistoric
Culture and the Environment on Sanibel Island,
Lee County, Florida. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville

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

1987 Key Marco's Buried Treasure: Archaeology and
Adventure in the Nineteenth Century. University
Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Gleason, Patrick J., Arthur D. ODhen, William G.
Smith, H. Kelly Brooks, Peter A. Stone, Robert
L. Goodrick, and William Spackman, Jr.
1984 The Environmental Significance of Holocene
Sediments from the Everglades and Saline Tidal
Plain. In Environments of South Florida; Present
and Past, edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 297-351.
Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, revised
edition. Coral Gables.

Goggin, John M.
1939 A Ceramic Sequence in South Florida. New Mexico
Anthropologist 3:36-40.

1940 The Distribution of Pottery Ware in the Glades
Archaeological Area of South Florida. New Mexico
Anthropologist 4:22-33.

1941 Some Problems of the Glades Archaeological Area,
Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Newsletter 2:24-26.

1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas
and Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13:
114-127.

1948 A Revised Temporal Chart of Florida Archeology.
Florida Anthropologist 1:57-60.







203


1949 Cultural Traditions in Florida Prehistory. In
The Florida Indian and His Neighbors, edited by
John W. Griffin, pp. 13-44. Rollins College,
Winter Park.

1950a Cultural Occupation at Goodland Point, Florida.
Florida Anthropologist 2:65-91.

1950b Stratigraphic Tests in the Everglades National
Park. American Antiquity 15:228-246.

1950c The Snapper Creek Site. Florida Anthropologist
3:50-64.

1952a Archeological Notes on Lower Fisheating Creek.
Florida Anthropologist 4:50-66.

1952b Archaeological Sites in the Everglades National
Park, Florida. Laboratory Notes 2. Anthropology
Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville.

n.d. The Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern
Florida. circa 1949, with additions. Manuscript
on file, Southeastern Archeological Center,
National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Goggin, John M., and Frank H. Sommer III
1949 Excavations on Upper Matecunbe Key, Florida.
Yale University Publications in Anthropology 41.
New Haven.

Goggin, John M., and William C. Sturtevant
1964 The Calusa: A Stratified, Nonagricultural
Society (with notes on sibling marriage). In
Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in
Honor of George Peter Murdock, edited by Ward H.
Goodenough, pp. 179-219. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Griffin, John W.
1949 Notes on the Archaeology of Useppa Island.
Florida Anthropologist 2:92-93.

1965 Summary FRport: Archeological Survey, Everglades
National Park, January 1964. Ms. on file,
Southeastern Archeological Center, National Park
Service, Tallahassee, Florida.

1974 Archeology and Environment in South Florida. In
Environments of South Florida: Present and Past,
edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 342-346. Memoir 2,
Miami Geological Society, Miami, Florida.

1988 The Archeology of Everglades National Park: A
Synthesis. Prepared under contract for the
Southeastern Archeological Center, National Park
Service, Tallahassee, Florida.

Griffin, John W., James J. Miller and Mildred L.
Fryman
1979 A Survey of the Archaeology and History of
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted
to Interagency Archeological Services, Atlanta.

Griffin, John W., Sue B. Richardson, Mary Pohl, Carl
D. McMurray, C. Margaret Scarry, Suzanne K.
Fish, Elizabeth S. Wing, L. Jill Loucks, and
Marcia K. Welch
1982 Excavations at the Granada Site. Archaeology and
History of the Granada Site 1. Florida Division
of Archives, History, and Records Management.
Tallahassee.


Hale, H. Stephen
1984 Prehistoric Environmental Exploitation around
Lake Okeechobee. Southeastern Archaeology 3:173-
187.

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

Kroeber, A. L.
1939 Cultural and Natural Areas in Native North
America. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.

Larson, Lewis H., Jr.
1980 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the South-
eastern Obastal Plain during the Late Prehis-
toric Period. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.

Laxson, Dan D.
1962 Excavations in Dade, Broward Counties, 1959-1961
Florida Anthropologist 15:1-10.

Lewis, Clifford M.
1978 The Calusa. In Tacachale, edited by Jerald T.
Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 19-49.
University Presses of Florida.

Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of
the Central Gulf Coast of Florida. Florida
Anthropologist 33:207-225.

Lyon, Eugene
1976 The Enterprise of Florida. University Presses of
Florida, Gainesville.

Marquardt, William H.
1986a The Development of Cultural Complexity in South-
west Florida. Excerpts from a proposal submitted
to the National Science Foundation, distributed
by the author.

1986b The Development of Cultural Complexity in South-
west Florida: Elements of a Critique. South-
eastern Archaeology 5:63-70.

McGoun, William E.
1984 Space and Time in South Florida Prehistory.
Paper read at the annual meeting of the Florida
Anthropological Society, Palm Beach.

McGregor, A. James
1974 A Ceramic Chronology for the Biscayne Bay Region
of Southeast Florida. Unpublished M.A. Thesis in
Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton.

McMichael, Alan E.
1979 Archaeological Research on the Southwest Florida
Coast: The Florida State Museum Horrs Island
Survey. Revised version of a paper read at the
36th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeo-
logical Conference, Atlanta.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1978 The Temporal Placement of Cushing's Key Marco
Site, Florida. American Anthropologist 80:682.










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

Mowers, Bert, and wilma B. Williams
1972 The Peace Camp Site, Broward County, Florida.
Florida Anthropologist 25:1-20.

Newman, Christine
1986 A Preliminary Report of Investigations at the
Cheetum Site, Dade County, Florida. The Archaeo-
logical and Historical Cbnservancy, Miami,
Florida.

Sears, William H.
1965 Archaeological Survey, Everglades National Park.
Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida
Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

1966 Everglades National Park, Archaeological Base
Mapping, Part I. Ms. of file, Department of
Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton.

1967 Archaeological Survey in the Cape Coral Area at
the Mouth of the Caloosahatchee River. Florida
Anthropologist 20:93-102.

1971 Food Production and Village Life in Prehistoric
Southeastern United States. Archaeology 24:322-
329.

1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake
Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.

Stirling, Matthew W.
1935 Archeological Work in Florida. Explorations and
Field-Work of the Smithsonian Institution 1934:
57-60.

1936 Florida Cultural Affiliations in relation to
Adjacent Areas. In Essays in Anthropology in
Honor of Alfred Louis Kroeber, edited by R. H.
Lowie, pp. 351-357. University of California,
Berkeley.

Van Beck, John C., and Linda M. Van Beck
1965 The Marco Midden, Marco Island, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist 18:1-20.

Walker, Karen Jo
1987 Charlotte Harbor Maritime Adaptation: Synchronic
and Diachronic Variation. Paper presented at the
44th Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Charleston SC.

Watts, W. A.
1975 A Late Quaternary record of Vegetation from Lake
Annie, Southcentral Florida. Geology 3:344-346.

1980 The Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the
Southeastern United States. Annual review of
Ecology and Systematics 11:387-409.

Widmer, Randolph J.
1974 A Survey and Assessment of Archaeological
Resources on Marco Island, Collier County,
Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties
Miscellaneous Project Beport Series 19.


1978 The Structure of Late Prehistoric Adaptation on
the Southwest Florida Cbast. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis in Anthropology, Pennsylvania State
University.

1983 The Evolution of the Calusa, a Non-agricultural
Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. Un-
published Ph.D. Thesis in Anthropology, Pennsyl-
vania State University.

1986 Prehistoric Estuarine Adaptation at the Solana
Site, Charlotte County, Florida. On file. Bureau
of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural
Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Cbast.
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949a Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smith-
sonian Miscellaneous Collections 113.

1949b Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale Univer-
sity Publications in Anthropology 42. New Haven.

Williams, Wilma B.
1970 The Coral Springs Site, Southeast Florida.
Florida Anthropologist 23:135-150.

Williams, Wilma B., and Bert Mowers
1977 Markham Park Mound No. 2, Broward ODunty,
Florida. Florida Anthropologist 30:56-78.




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









ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT
THE OKEECHOBEE BATTLEFIELD

Robert S. Carr, Marilyn Masson, and Willard Steele


Introduction

The Okeechobee Battlefield project
was conducted by the Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy (AHC) a Florida
nonprofit corporation dedicated to the
preservation of historic and prehistoric
sites. The project was initiated in 1985
when AHC became concerned that the City of
Okeechobee's rapid development would soon
encroach and destroy the open area east of
the city. That area generally has been
thought to be the site of the Battle of
Okeechobee, the largest and among the most
significant engagements of the Second
Seminole War.
The AHC undertook the project with
several goals. First was to locate the
battlefield, second to preserve some por-
tion of it, and finally, to help the State
of Florida and Okeechobee community com-
memorate the 150th anniversary of the
battle. To date, the first and third
goals have been accomplished, but the
attempt to preserve the battlefield is an
ongoing process.
The first phase of the project was to
analyze any previous field work and pri-
mary historic documentation relative to
the battlefield boundaries (Carr and
Steele 1986). It was determined in that
study that the site's location had never
been satisfactorily documented by previous
researchers. In fact, the site had been
separately designated by the State of
Florida and by the National Park Service
with two different sets of boundaries.
The State of Florida had designated the
site in 1974 as 80B10, and the U.S.
government dedicated it as a National
Historic Landmark in the 1960s. It was
subsequently placed on the National
Register of Historic Places in 1976.
However, the boundaries of the Federal and
State designations differed significantly
(Fig. 2). While the State designation
encompassed about 140 acres, the National
Landmark designation was almost 10 times


larger, encompassing over 1300 acres.
These discrepancies were due, in part, to
the fact that no archival nor artifactual
evidence had been uncovered that clearly
indicated the battlefield location. This
deficiency was noted by the anonymous
author of the National Register report.
The AHC decided to conduct extensive
archival and field research that would
hopefully result in locating the battle-
field as well as the military encampment
used by Colonel Zachary Taylor's troops.
Conservancy historian, Willard S. (Bill)
Steele began Phase I of the project in
1985. Phase I included research at the
National Archives in Washington, D.C. and
an extensive review of documents through-
out Florida. The result of his labor was
the discovery of several 19th century maps
(Figs. 3 and 4), previously unknown to
Florida historians. These maps helped to
narrow the search to two general areas
east of Taylor Creek. Mr. Steele, with
the help of Wesley Coleman, bRbert Carr,
Stephanie Steele, and Jack Erne conducted
extensive surveys which included metal
detecting searches. Eventually, Steele
located numerous metal artifacts that
indicated the possible location of Colonel
Zachary Taylor's camp (Fig. 1; omitted to
help prevent site looting by those who
would trespass and vandalize the site for
personal gain) which had been established
at the point of departure for military
troops that participated in the battle.
The camp location is significant because
it provides a major clue to the specific
location of the battlefield that, accord-
ing to historical documentation, is within
3/4 of a mile of the camp. Furthermore,
it was within the camp that the bodies of
27 military personnel killed in the battle
had been interred.
The AHC's board of directors voted
$14,000 to fund Phase II of the Okeecho-
bee Battlefield project which was directed
toward an archaeological investigation of
Steele's discovery. The wrk was under-


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 42 No. 3


Sept., 1989





206


Figure 2. Boundaries of the State and National designations of the Okeechobee Battlefield


taken to determine whether the site was
Taylor's camp, to determine the boundaries
of the site, and to locate intrasite
activity areas, particularly the military
graves.

Historical Summary

The battle of Okeechobee, fought on
Christmas Day 1837, was the largest battle
of the Second Seminole War. It occurred
only months after President Andrew Jackson


told Florida delegate Joseph M. White that
with an army of 50 women he could whip
every Indian in Florida (Carter 1960:378).
On an equally confident note, the com-
mander of the troops in Florida, General
Thomas Jesup, wrote on April 19, 1837, to
Secretary of War, Joel R. Poinsett, that
"The war I hope is over" (Carter 1960:
385). Jesup's negotiations at Fort Dade
with Micanopy and other Indian leaders had
progressed well. The Indians signed a
treaty accepting removal to the west and





























Figure 3. Map of the Okeechobee Battlefield
by J.C. Dinnies, 1838
"--A









--=________- ,'


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

_-. .. 7-



.. "' _'... .. ,".- .
... .- .-- s,..-, _
C-" .------ ---
^-^^


Figure 4. Map of Taylor's Camp and the Okeechobee
Battlefield by Henry Prince, 1838


207


St









coacoochee (Wildcat) told Jesup that the
war chiefs, Sam Jones and Osceola, were
preparing to emigrate (Kieffer 1979:164).
However, on June 2, 1837, the anti-removal
faction of the Indians abducted Micanopy,
Cloud, Jumper, and as many as 700 of their
followers. Embarrassed with the dramatic
shift in leadership, Jesup reported that
the war, out of necessity, now became one
of extermination (Carter 1960:394).
The U.S. government and Florida citi-
zens committed themselves to raise troops
to suppress the Indians' resistance to
removal. volunteer troops were mustered
throughout the southeast United States and
from as far away as Missouri and Pennsyl-
vania. In addition to the militia,
friendly Indian tribes (Delaware, Shawnee,
Choctaw, and Creek) were recruited to
fight against the Florida Indians. So
many troops were raised that many were not
accepted into the Florida service (U.S.,
H.R. Document #299 1838:1-8).
In July of 1837, the companies of the
Ist Infantry which had been dispersed
across the western frontier were ordered
to the Jefferson Barracks in Missouri. By
October, the 1st Infantry, under the
command of Colonel Zachary Taylor, and six
hundred Missouri Volunteers, under the
command of Colonel Richard Gentry, had
departed Missouri on transport ships to
Florida (Gentry 1937:11).
The trip was rough on the Missourians
and their horses. By the time they reach-
ed New Orleans, a yellow fever outbreak
coupled with the deplorable conditions on
the ships caused the desertion of 25% of
the volunteers (Gentry 1937:11). The sub-
sequent trip to Florida produced even
greater casualties with two-thirds of the
remaining volunteers' horses dead or in-
capacitated (Gentry 1937:13). When the
Volunteers arrived in Tampa, only 220
remained for Florida duty with the 1st,
4th and 6th Infantry they formed with
Taylor's command (U.S., Senate Report #227
1838:2). When Taylor arrived in Tampa,
the commander in Florida was Major General
Thomas S. Jesup. He was the sixth officer
to hold this command. The fact that only
15 Indians were relocated during the first
year of the war characterizes the failure
of the first five officers to command the


Florida war (U.S., Senate Report #226
1838:3).
Except for a brief series of succes-
ses by troops under Governor Richard Call,
the Indians were successfully resisting
efforts to remove them. This would soon
change. General Jesup was about to launch
the Army's major effort of the war. With
10,866 men, the largest U.S. force ever
assembled in Florida, Jesup began a four
pronged attack (U.S., H.R. Document # 294
1838:5). Moving south along the
Kissimmee, the St. Johns River, and Indian
River were forces under the command of
Colonel Zachary Taylor, General Abraham
Eustis, and General Joseph Hernandez
respectively. Another wing under Col.
Persifor Smith was moving east up the
Caloosahatchee River. At the same time a
chain of supply depots was established
along the coast. These included Fts.
Pierce, Jupiter, Lauderdale, and Dallas.
All of this military activity forced a
large part of the Indian population south
and inland (Sprague 1848:184-197).
In November, Taylor's command had
proceeded inland from Tampa and esta-
blished a chain of posts-- Forts Gardener,
Frazier, and Bassinger. On December 23,
Taylor left Fort Bassinger in search of
Sam Jones who, with Alligator and OCa-
coochee, reportedly had gathered nearly
half of the Florida Indian nation on the
north shore of Lake Okeechobee (Buchanan
1837). They would have to make their
stand at Okeechobee or resign themselves
to dissolution of the nation into small
bands subsisting in the unfamiliar swamp
lands of southern Florida.
The Indians waited for Taylor in a
large "hammock" just east of Taylor Creek
on the shore of Lake Okeechobee ibidd).
The "hammock" was actually a cypress
forest that grew on a sandy berm that was
the lake shoreline. They held a well
situated defensive position with Lake
Okeechobee on the south and a swamp more
than a half mile wide to the north. The
"hammock" could only be reached with great
difficulty.
At 11 o'clock on Christmas morning,
Taylor's command entered an open prairie
in the pinelands where 200 to 300 Indian
cattle and ponies were grazing (U.S.,





209


Senate Report #227 1838:5). Here the
command captured an Indian warrior who
pointed southward to the Indian position
about a mile away. The troops dismounted
and prepared for battle while Taylor held
a war council. Taylor decided on a
frontal attack against the advice of
Colonel Richard Gentry of the Missouri
Volunteers, who advised using a flanking
movement (Columbia Daily Tribune 1937).
A mounted detachment was sent to the
west to scout the hammocks in that direc-
tion. This maneuver also contained the
Indians movement and protected the army's
rear (U.S., Senate Report # 227 1838:5).
To reach the Indians, the army had to
cross a "swamp" waist-deep in mud and
water, and covered with sawgrass five feet
tall. A well-used Indian trail traversing
the swamp was the point at which the units
began their march to pass through this
morass. The army entered in columns and
formed a line of battle about 200 yards
from the Indian position (Journal
1840:38).
The Missouri Volunteers formed the
front line followed by the 6th and 4th
Infantry, with the 1st Infantry held in
reserve (Price 1838). Waiting in the
palmetto and cypress covered hammock along
the lake shore were 380 warriors.
Alligator commanded the Indian center with
Coacoochee on the left and Sam Jones on
the right (Sprague 1848:213). For at
least twenty paces in front of the ham-
mock, the sawgrass had been cut down by
the Indians to give them a clear field of
fire (Journal 1840:14). Indians were
posted in trees to watch the approach of
the army (Sprague 1848:214).
When the army was about 80 yards from
the hammock, the Indians opened fire on
them (Journal 1840: 48). The Missouri
volunteers initially bore the brunt of the
battle taking heavy losses. While urging
his men on, Colonel Gentry received a
wound which would prove mortal. At the
same time, a bullet struck his son,
Sergeant Major R. H. Gentry (Journal 1840:
59).
When the 6th Infantry came up to
support the Missourians, they in turn
received the full fury of the Indian fire.
Their commander, Lieutenant Colonel


Alexander R. Thompson, was repeatedly shot
but remained at the head of his men until
he fell mortally wounded (U.S., Senate
Report # 227 1838:9).
In the 6th Infantry, all but one
officer and most of the non-commissioned
officers were killed or wounded. In one
company, only four men escaped unhurt
(U.S., Senate Report # 227 1838:7).
As the 4th Infantry moved forward,
the force of the army's numbers began to
tell. The 4th Infantry was 160 men
strong, and under the command of
Lieutenant Colonel William S. Foster.
They were the first to penetrate the
Indian line. Marching by the right flank
the 4th swung to the left, broke up the
right of the Indian line, and pursued the
retreating warriors (Foster 1838). The
Indian warriors in the area of the left
were able to turn their attention from the
decimated Missouri Volunteers and 6th
Infantry and mount a counter-attack on the
4th Infantry's rear. The 4th reversed and
began to break the Indian line. With
superior numbers on their front and flank,
the Indians reluctantly retreated, firing
and loading as they went (Sprague 1848:
214).
The 1st Infantry moved up to join the
battle but little was left to do except
pursue the retreating Indians. The battle
lasted 2 1/2 hours and covered an area of
over a mile in length (U.S., Senate IRport
# 227 1838:6).
After the battle, a wood causeway was
built across the swamp to carry the dead
and wounded back to Taylor's camp (U.S.,
Senate Report # 227 1838:6). There the
terrible human toll was realized -- 27
soldiers dead, 111 wounded (U.S., Senate
Report # 227 1838:10). Most of the
casualties were from the 6th Infantry and
the Missouri Volunteers. Few battles of
any of the American Indian wars have ever
resulted in such a heavy casualty list
(Floyd 1979).
A burial detail dug two grave pits
within the camp. One report claims that
Taylor went through great pains to dis-
guise these graves from the Indians
fearing they would return and mutilate the
corpses. He allegedly built fires over
the graves and attempted to remove all









surface indications of the burial pits
(Mrnk 1972:259).
However, on January 31, 1838 when an
army detail from the 4th and 6th returned
to survey the battlefield they found the
graves "disburied" and these disturbed
remains were reinterred. They counted 12
Indian dead on the battlefield and the
medical adjunct director, E. H. Abadie,
collected two of the Indian skulls (Abadie
1838).
In 1839, the graves were once again
dug by the military and the officers'
bodies removed. Their remains were rein-
terred at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri.
The fate of the non-officers is still a
mystery and it is not known whether they
were exhumed in the 1839 expedition or a
subsequent 1842 disinterrment expedition
that brought the war dead to the National
Cemetery in St. Augustine (Sprague 1848:
521-525).
Some of the retreating Indians sought
refuge in the Big Cypress Swamp. Sam
Jones took his people southeast where in
later months his band skirmished with a
naval detachment and fought two major en-
gagements: one with troops under the
command of General Jesup in the
Loxahatchee Swamp and another with troops
under the command of Colonel James
Bankhead at Pine Island, west of Fort
Lauderdale (U.S., H. R. Document # 219
1838; Kirby 1837). Because of this series
of defeats, Jones could not muster enough
warriors to resist a subsequent attack by
Lieutenant Colonel William Harney with a
command of 100 men which occurred in south
Dade County on April 24, 1838 (Sprague
1848:196). Jones only gave token resist-
ance before he was forced to retreat.
Although the war would drag on for four
more years, the Battle of Okeechobee was
the great blow from which the Indians did
not recover. It was a costly battle for
the U.S. forces, demonstrating that the
Indians could defend a position and
inflict great casualties rather than the
Indians' use of hit-and-run guerilla
warfare tactics to which the U.S. troops
would become accustomed.

Site Ehvironment

The Taylor Camp site (80B13) is loca-


ted in a park-like setting of improved
pasture with scattered tall pines, large
oaks, cabbage palms, palmettos, thick
grass pasture, and several small cypress
ponds. This pine flatwood area is located
on a gradual sloping landform that ranges
from 26 feet above sea level on the north
to 21 feet on the south where the flatland
terminates adjacent to what in historic
times was a sawgrass marsh. This sawgrass
marsh has been altered as a result of
drainage, and on the north is a small
cabbage palm hammock which occupies the
south bank of a nameless tributary to
Mosquito Creek. On the east, the pineland
is bordered by Nubbins Slough which has
been rerouted into a man-made canal. His-
torically, the marsh was a transitional
wetland between the uplands and Lake
Okeechobee.
Water control projects involving the
dyking of Lake Okeechobee and the con-
struction of drainage canals as part of
public works projects have changed the
soil and vegetation conditions of many
physiographic regions around Lake
Okeechobee's shores, including the area of
the Taylor Camp site. Conversion of
pine/palmetto forests to dairy pasture has
further altered the area's landscape.
Local residents recall clearing extremely
dense palmetto stands in the vicinity of
the site and much wetter soil conditions
before the canal was built. A 1953 aerial
photograph of the camp site confirms this
early description of the area. Since
1953, the site has had its vegetation
cleared, piled, burned; its soil ploughed
repeatedly; and its natural depressions
filled in. Artificial mounds were created
from bulldozed vegetation and soil.
Cattle trails and new and old fence lines
traverse the area and obscured our search
for historic features. Depressions abound
from dead, removed trees, and the remnants
of pine and palmetto roots are commonly
found in subsurface areas where no vegeta-
tion grows today.
A likely reconstruction of the 19th
century environment encountered by Taylor
and his troops is as follows: Mosquito
Creek followed its natural course south-
ward and overflowed on both banks forming
cypress stands or "hammocks" as they are
described by Taylor (1838). The pineland








area, referred to as "hard" ground
(Buchanan 1950) and "firm" (Gentry 1937)
in historical accounts, was likely to have
been dry, especially as December is part
of the dry season. The camp area may have
been at least partially cleared, as it was
described as a recently vacated Mikasuki
camp, with 200-300 head of grazing cattle
and cooking fires still burning when the
troops arrived (Taylor 1838). To the
south, a sawgrass prairie rimmed the lake,
and about 1/2 mile south of the pineland,
a sandy beach represented the lake
shoreline. The sawgrass prairie between
the pineland and the lake shore was
bordered on the west by the swampy
Mosquito Creek, and was described by
Taylor (1838). It is observable today
from the cypress trees still growing in
the vicinity and from complaints of local
homeowners of seasonally inundated yards.

Stratigraphy

The only noticeable impacts to the
camp site soils from 20th century environ-
mental alterations seem to be decreased
moisture from the lowering of the water
table and the ploughing of the upper 5-8
inches of the field. Root disturbance is
commonly observed from every type of vege-
tation previously listed, although this
bioturbation represents a constant condi-
tion for a period longer than the historic
one concerned here.
The Taylor Camp -site is situated on
the southern edge of the Talbot Terrace, a
formation of Pleistocene origin, consist-
ing of sands formed during a period of


interglacial submergence (Okeechobee Soil
Survey 1971). The extreme southern and
eastern boundaries of the site interface
between the Talbot Terrace and the Pamlico
Terrace, also of Pleistocene age, which
fringes Lake Okeechobee and is character-
ized by different sands (Okeechobee Soil
Survey 1971).
Shovel testing provided extensive
sampling of the site's sandy sediments.
The entire project area was covered with
up to 6 inches of dark grey mottled sand,
a humic layer held together by dense grass
roots that represent the plough zone.
Below this, the sand profiles vary,
recognizable as four different types
outlined in the U. S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Survey of Okeechobee
County (1971). The soil types are pat-
terned according to elevation, and are
described below according to the location
within the area tested where they occur.
The north half of the Taylor Camp
site in the pineland pasture area is
composed of Immokalee fine sand. It is
characterized by a grey superficial layer,
below which lies a light grey or light tan
layer to a depth of 12 to 18 inches below
the surface, underlain with a white, damp
root stained sand layer to a depth of 3 to
4 feet, below which lies a black sand
tainted with organic residue. Subsurface
testing seldom penetrated below a depth of
4 feet. Immokalee fine sand is associated
with the Talbot Terrace (Okeechobee Soil
Survey 1971). Figure 5 shows a profile of
Immokalee sand in Trench B.
The south half of the site also is
composed of Immokalee fine sand, but many


Figure 5. North Wall Profile, Trench B


.,1.25 It..


10 1n
Trench- B
north profile


__





212


tests revealed sand profiles which better
conformed to the description of Myakka
fine sand. Myakka profiles exhibit the
superficial grey layer, underlain by a
light grey to light tan sand to a depth of
2 feet below the surface, below which lies
a rust-colored sand, which darkens to
chocolate brown at a depth of 30 to 40
inches below the surface. With Myakka and
Immokalee profiles occurring in close
proximity to each other, it is likely that
the southern half of the site represents
an area of interface between the zones.
Myakka fine sand is also a sand associated
with the Talbot Terrace.
Both the Immokalee and the Myakka
sands are associated with acid flatwoods
environments (Soil Survey 1971). Other
sands encountered in the subsurface test-
ing are reflections of their attributed
environmental context as assigned by the
soil survey charts.
On the extreme eastern and southern
peripheries of the test area, Pompano fine
sand was encountered. Its profile is a
gray superficial sand, underlain with a
light tan sand (Okeechobee Soil Survey
1971). Pompano fine sand is associated
with a slough environment, verifying
historic accounts that these areas were
swampy. This soil type is affiliated with
the Pleistocene Pamlico Terrace.
Adamsville fine sand was recognized
in the profiles of tests in the cabbage
palm hammock north of the site. Its grey
to greyish brown to light brown sand
coloration sequence was found throughout
this micro-environment, which forms a
boundary between the pine flatwoods and
the slough-like tributary to Mosquito
Creek. Adamsville fine sand is associated
with the Pamlico Terrace.
Although several types of sands were
encountered throughout subsurface testing
on the project, by far the most common was
Immokalee fine sand. Of interest was the
variation in depth observed of the black,
organic layer at the bottom of many holes,
from as high as 2.5 feet to about 4 feet
below the surface. Adjacent holes with
similar surface elevations would show
extreme variance in the depth of this
black sand. The observation suggests a
varied terrain formed by the sands of this


level during the Pleistocene interglacial
submergence which was responsible for
them.

Research Design

Investigations of the Taylor Camp
site were designed to determine site
boundaries and specific activity areas,
particularly the grave sites, by the use
of systematic subsurface excavations. It
was hypothesized that the artifact dis-
tribution would be represented through a
combination of metal detecting and subsur-
face testing. It was believed that the
artifact distribution would reflect the
general camp boundaries and specific
activity areas.
Locating the military graves was of
particular importance. It was hypothe-
sized that the grave site would be
revealed by disturbed soil stratigraphy
indicating disturbances from the grave
excavations. It was also hypothesized
that even with poor bone and teeth pre-
servation, concentrations of buttons and
other personal effects would indicate the
location of internments.
The excavation of the systematic
shovels tests was originally conceived as
being the best strategy for locating the
graves. However, as work ensued, the
excavation strategy was altered to post-
hole digging because it was more efficient
for the limited time available. Testing
at points 20 feet along the cardinal grids
was regarded as sufficient to detect any
graves. It was hypothesized that the
graves for 27 people based on a compu-
tation of individuals placed in the ground
within linear trenches or a rectilinear
square would encompass an area of at least
6 feet by 12 feet (72 square feet) for a
single trench for about a dozen men, or a
total internment area of about 10 feet by
24 feet (240 square feet).
The welcome support by Geosphere,
Inc., a remote sensing company, provided
yet another research strategy. Their
remote sensing of the site area was de-
signed to detect potential grave pits by
locating electrical conductivity and re-
sistance anomalies in the earth's field
caused by the original and subsequent





213


grave excavations. All anomalies indicated
by Geopshere were to be subjected to
careful subsurface testing.

Field Methods

Field methods used at the Taylor Camp
site employed several forms of subsurface
testing (Fig. 6) designed to recover dif-
ferent sets of data relevant to project
goals. Testing procedures are outlined
below.

Grid

North-south and east-west baselines
were laid out with a transit operated by
surveyor Ted Riggs. Other key areas were
staked and labeled with coordinates from
this grid. The grid was measured in feet
and inches. The test area extends over
over 2000 ft. north-south and 900 ft.
east-west. Main datum is located at grid
point 100E/1500N, which lies at an eleva-
tion of 24.6 feet above sea level. Actual
elevation was measured from a benchmark of
26 feet above sea level. Elevations were
shot at 200 foot intervals using a transit
over the entire test area and at exca-
vation unit datums.

Remote Sensing

Geosphere, Inc. of Miami performed
remote sensing testing over much of the
project area using electron magnetometers
and conductivity meters to detect sub-
surface anomalies reflected by the vari-
ability of soil density or moisture
content.
A subsurface radar reading was also
conducted. The result was a computer map
of five major anomaly locations within the
area (Figs. 7-8). These anomalies were
subjected to concentrated attention
through both shovel and posthole testing,
and metal detecting in the event that they
represented cultural features.
Metal detecting was the most effec-
tive form of remote sensing employed by
the project. The site was initially
searched during the preliminary investiga-
tions by Bill Steele, and then swept
meticulously and systematically while
excavations were being conducted by iesley


Coleman and other staff. Artifacts
uncovered by the metal detectors are shown
on the maps in Figures 10-12. Artifacts
recovered through metal detecting were
bagged and assigned a field number which
was recorded on the bag and plotted on the
field map. Two different metal detectors
were used, one a Coinmaster 6000/Di metal
detector and the other a White 4900 Pro.

Shovel Tests

A total of 357 shovel tests were
placed at 20 feet intervals across north-
south and east-west transects of the site,
as shown on the map in Figure 6. Shovel
testing was selected to search at regular
intervals for non-metal artifacts and to
provide observable soil profiles. Sand
was sifted by stratigraphic levels through
1/4- inch mesh. Dense grass roots and
adhering soil was examined by hand. Soil
changes and presence or absence of char-
coal were recorded on forms. Artifacts
were bagged by shovel test number which
corresponded to the unit's southwest
corner in relation to that unit's location
on the site grid. Units were 16 inches
squared, and excavated to white "sterile"
sand, usually 15 to 20 inches below sur-
face. The selection of this depth for
shovel test excavation was supported by
the depths of artifacts removed during the
metal detecting survey, which indicated
most arftifacts were 6 to 10 inches below
the surface, although the deepest was 15
inches down.

Postholes

A total of 607 eight-inch diameter
postholes were placed at 20 foot intervals
on a grid encompassing the projected
center of the Taylor Camp site as shown on
the map (Figure 6.) Additionally, 47
holes were placed in the center of the
cabbage palm hammock area of prehistoric
site 80B14 to the north of the site.
Posthole testing was implemented for its
increased depth capacity and increased
efficiency, allowing us to complete many
more test holes in a limited amount of
time, in a specific search for the graves.
Each posthole was dug to a depth of three
feet and screened through a 1/4-inch mesh








214


TAYLORS CAMP SITE IOb 131

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEST UNIT LOCATIONS















1300N











f l E IIOON









.. . . .







.. .. . .. .
S ... . .. . .00N














. U . .



























100N


0 50 100
FEET
So

U0



E SHOVEL TEST *-POSTHOLE UNIT EXCAVATION


Figure 6. Archaeological Test Unit Locations
U
U











0 50 00 U~





















Figure 6. Archaeological Test Unit Locations









5 FOOT CONDUCTIVITY DATA

700 8o00 00


JII


0


1200


1000


500


I I I I I


1300





1200





1100





1000





900





800





700





600





500





400





300


Figure 7. Geosphere Conductivity Anamolies


1000


1100


900


C7,`,






21
19
17

is



3

<^


TAYLOR BATTLE SITE:


5 FOOT CONDUCTIVITY DATA


GEOSPHERE


Figure 8. Geosphere Conductivity Anamolies


6


153


"O"0





217


Figure 9. Socket Bayonet uncovered in Trench B


and the soil coloration sequence was
recorded.
In a couple of subjectively designat-
ed search areas, 10 foot intervals testing
was imposed. Postholes were dug at points
where they overlapped with a previously
excavated shovel test, necessary as most
shovel tests were not taken to the depth
of the posthole tests.

Excavation Units

Excavations were undertaken in re-
sponse to metal detecting finds deemed
significant in order to search for associ-
ated non-metal artifacts. Excavation
units consisted of 3 trenches, one 6 ft.
square pit, three 2 ft. square pits, and a
series of 10 small pits around Feature 5.
A representative profile wall was drawn
for each of the large units, and as needed
for the smaller pits. Datums were as-
signed as needed. The southwest corner of
each unit corresponds to the unit location
on the site grid and serves as its
identifier. Excavations were shovel-


scraped and trowelled in stratigraphic
levels. Sand was screened through 1/4
inch mesh. Fine screening was implemented
upon encountering cultural material.
Level forms were filled out for all units
except the Feature 5 series.

Laboratoty Methods

Artifacts were bagged and labeled in
the field, with their depths below surface
recorded on the bag. Artifacts recovered
from the metal detecting survey were
assigned a number and plotted directly on
the field map. Artifacts recovered
through shovel tests, postholes, or exca-
vations were assigned numbers and pro-
venienced according to the southwest
corner of the excavation unit, which
corresponded to their location on the site
grid.
Specimens were cleaned, identified,
and accessioned by Debra Gbldman. Metal
items of potential significance were sub-
jected to electrolysis at the Historical
Museum of Southern Florida in Miami where








TAYLORS CAMP SITE (Ob 131
LOCATION OF WEAPON RELATED ARTIFACTS


* A
SI


3 I


Si 1 4i


SOON


70ON


j BOON




Is

N,



Sa
&


0 50 100



-MuuSI lULJS II4RIIRD MUUIT ILL& a-GUN PFA4 j-4I ADl OuPlnMOG *-USLAD Wj.#rQtA


Figure 10. Location of Weapon Related Artifacts


1 (2







219



TAYLORS CAMP SITE lOb 13)

LOCATION OF PERSONAL ORNAMENTS


1600 N










1300N




















SOON










?00N




















300 N
30001
IOON










*3?










Figure 11. Location of Personal Ornaments







220



TAYLOR'S CAMP SITE lOb 131
LOCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS ARTIFACTS



1500N

















1300N
89.










































;3
5o'










3oo



37

*23



S00oo




1 .* 67



26
28 .52

3001N

127











0 80 100
FEIT

oa


Figure 12.


Location of Miscellaneous Artifacts








the artifacts currently repose.
Artifacts are listed in the table in
Appendix 1 and catagorical distributions
are shown on maps in Figures 10 through
12.

Results

The general location of Taylor's camp
was determined by the historic research
and metal detecting survey done in Phase I
(Carr and Steele 1986). Investigations
from May through July 1987 verified that
this location is the camp site as demon-
strated by recovered artifacts of military
origin. Military artifacts served as
important identifiers of the camp although
some metal artifacts may be attributed to
the Seminole component of the site. A
sampling of non-metallic artifacts was
attempted through shovel testing at regu-
lar intervals but little was found.
Artifact distribution was analyzed in
terms of specialized activity areas and
the camp boundaries reconstructed by this
area of distribution. These boundaries
indicated a generalized central area which
was tested for the reported mass grave.
Several methods of subsurface testing were
employed to recover specific types of
data. The results of each testing program
are discussed below.

Shovel Testing

Shovel testing was selected as a way
to sample the distribution of non-metallic
artifacts, in order to balance the bias of
metal detecting. This method also pro-
vided a representative sample of areas
within and outside the suspected camp
location. Additionally shovel testing pro-
vided an observable record of natural
stratigraphy. Abnormal profiles were ex-
cavated to a depth of three feet or
deeper, in the event that they represented
disturbed soil conditions related to the
mass grave.
Shovel testing was conducted in two
separate areas, the pineland flatwoods
pasture that was believed to be Taylor's
camp site, and the creekside cabbage palm
hammock that encompasses prehistoric site
80B14, north of 80B13. No historic arti-
facts were recovered from shovel testing


at 80B14, but numerous prehistoric arti-
facts were uncovered which will be the
subject of a separate report.
The pineland camp area yielded a
couple of pieces of prehistoric plain sand
tempered pottery and several animal bones
possibly related to the military camp.
This is a stark recovery rate for 311
tests in the area. This deficiency of
material items is informative, however,
when placed in the context of a short term
military camp, as discussed later.
The cabbage palm hammock area is the
site of a prehistoric midden mound.
Details on prehistoric results will be
published elsewhere (m.s. in preparation).
This site is also the location that
Seminole informant, Billy Bowlegs III,
indicated to Albert DeVane as being the
soldiers' grave (Carr and Steele 1986:29,
30). Additionally, a copper trade pipe
possibly attributable to the camp was
found in this location (Carr and Steele
1986). The site has been seriously im-
pacted by a large trash pit on the east
side of the mound. Only prehistoric
material was uncovered in 46 shovel tests.

Posthole Testing

Posthole testing was undertaken in a
direct effort to locate the mass grave
believed to be at the camp center and
rumoured to be in the prehistoric mound
north of the site, as previously discus-
sed. Test holes were placed in both areas.
After metal detecting had recovered
artifacts verifying the location of
Taylor's camp and the distribution of
those artifacts suggested the general camp
boundaries, postholes were used to test a
large central area. Posthole testing did
not locate the grave or any stratigraphic
discrepancy indicative of it. No addition-
al artifacts were recovered in the camp
area using this method.
Posthole testing replaced shovel
testing on the prehistoric site. Post-
holing facilitated greater depth into the
mound and was less destructive on pre-
historic remains within the mound, by
decreasing the horizontal area tested. No
evidence on the graves was recovered from
these tests and no historic artifacts were
found. Prehistoric samples of pottery and





222


faunal bones were recovered and will be
published elsewhere (m.s. in preparation).

Remote Sensing Geosphere, Inc.

Shovel tests were also conducted in
the five anomalies identified as being
potentially significant by Bob Glucum of
Geosphere, Inc. (Figs. 7-8). These anom-
alies had been indicated by the conduc-
tivity data. Shovel test locations in the
anomalies are shown on the map in Figure
6. Artifacts were not recovered from
these tests, and soil profiles of
Anomalies 2 through 5 appeared to conform
to the natural stratigraphy observed
throughout the project area. Anomaly 1,
however, exhibited a soil change that was
recognized as Pompano fine sand, associ-
ated with the wetter soils that occur to
the east of the site. Excavations in the
anomalies were dug to 3 feet or lower. No
obvious cultural features were encountered
in any of the anomalies except for a
modern trash pit in anomaly 4. It is po-
tentially significant, however, that the
cache of adzes and the bayonet are closely
associated with Anomaly 5. The high con-
ductivity measured there might reflect
either a cachment pit and/or the high
number of metal artifacts subsequently
uncovered. It is also worth noting that a
metal button was associated with Anomaly
2. Anomaly 4 was a modern trash dump
filled with metal cans and other refuse.

Remote Sensing-Metal Detecting

Metal detecting during all phases of
the project yielded over 99 percent of the
artifacts recovered. The use of Coin-
master 6000/Di and White 4900 Pro metal
detectors in systematic (and in some
locales) repeated sweeps resulted in the
recovery of 124 artifacts, of which over
90% are of 19th century origin. Artifacts
are listed on the Artifact Tabulation
chart (Appendix 1). Metal detecting hits
are mapped cumulatively and according to
the following categories: weapon related
(Fig. 10), personal ornaments (Fig. 11),
and miscellaneous artifacts (Fig. 12).
Significant artifacts located by the metal
detector were the primary factor


influencing the location of excavation
units discussed below.

Excavation Units

Excavation units at the Taylor Camp
site consisted of three trenches (referred
to as A, B, and C), one 6 ft. square test
pit (referred to as the Slag unit), and
three 2 ft. square units based on metal
detector discoveries (referred to as the
Kettle Fragments unit, the Gun Barrel
unit, and the Button unit). Each unit is
assigned a numerical identification, the
coordinates of its southwest corner,
referenced to the site grid. Feature 5
was excavated in a series of small pits of
varied dimensions, assigned unit numbers
1-10. This area is discussed separately
as it is not located on or related to the
Taylor Camp site. Locations of excavation
units are shown in Figure 5.

Trench A

Trench A was the only excavation unit
not undertaken in response to a metal
detector hit. It was excavated due to a
slight ridge observed during shovel test-
ing which yielded prehistoric pottery in
one hole and faunal bone in another. A
trench was excavated to determine if the
ridge was a cultural feature, and if so,
whether it was associated with the histor-
ic camp or whether it was prehistoric in
origin.
The trench was excavated as a north-
south unit measuring 52'7" by 1'8", which
was excavated in separate segments of 6'7"
in length which were recorded as pits A
through H, beginning at the south end of
the trench. Datum was set at grid point
730E/400N, the highest point of the
trench, with an elevation of 22.60 ft.
above sea level. The southwest corner of
Trench A is 730E/352N. Trench segments
were excavated to sterile white sand or
lower to the brown/ black sandy stratum.
Stratigraphy is characteristic of
Immokalee fine sand and there is much
evidence of fires in the form of charcoal
in the upper sand layer. The west profile
was drawn and photographed in all units.
Several historic artifacts were





223


recovered in Trench A. A musket ball, a
piece of buck shot, a green glass frag-
ment, and several small pieces of corroded
ferrous material were found in the screen.
Also, a couple pieces of faunal bone frag-
ments were recovered that may be related
to the 19th century camp.
The ridge landform is believed to be
of artificial origin, as surface soils are
deeper at the top of the feature than at
the base, while subsurface soils remain
level. Large amounts of what appears to
be modern charcoal found in the upper soil
zones suggest that the land form
represents a decomposed brush pile
resulting from land-clearing activities in
creating the pasture. Similar features
have been pointed out elsewhere in the
pasture by the property owners.

Trench B

Trench B was excavated to expose a
large metal detected object in situ. Bill
Steele had located the object and left it
in place to be removed by excavation.
Trench B is located just west of Trench A,
and its final dimensions were 9 ft. by 2
ft. It used the same datum as Trench A,
730E/400N. The southwest corner of the
trench is coordinate 709E/362N. The unit
was excavated to sterile white sand.
Trench B soil type was Immokalee fine
sand. The north profile of the pit, the
only one drawn, is reproduced in this
report (Figure 5).
The trench began as a 2 ft. by 2 ft.
pit and was expanded to a 4 ft. by 2 ft.
pit after the exposed artifact was shown
to extend into the west wall of the
original unit. The artifact is an iron
socket bayonet and designated as Feature
2. It was photographed and mapped in situ
(Fig. 9) and subsequently pedestalled and
then removed directly on to a wooden board
for support. Trench B was then expanded
west an additional 5 ft. in a search for
any additional artifacts associated with
the bayonet. Just west of the final west
wall of Trench B, a belt clip was found
with the metal detector; however, no other
artifacts were found.


Trench C

Trench C was excavated due to the
uncovering of burned bones and charcoal
beneath the surface while pursuing a metal
detector hit, a nondescript ferrous item.
The unit was a 6 ft. by 2 ft. trench exca-
vated to 7 inches below the surface.
Datum was assigned to the northwest corner
of the unit, coordinate 655E/432N, the
highest corner at surface with an eleva-
tion above sea level of 21.80 ft. The
southwest corner of the unit is at 653E/
426N. Excavation concentrated on the north
half of this trench, as the south half had
been disturbed by the excavation of the
metal detector hit. Bone, charcoal, and
solidified ash concentrations were photo-
graphed and mapped in situ, and a north
profile was drawn. Burned and unburned
bones were found together and one bone
exhibited a butcher cut. The bones were
identified as cow and undoubtedly are
modern.

Lead Slag Excavation Unit

The Slag unit measured 6 ft. by 6 ft.
and was excavated just south of trench 1.
It shared Trench A datum at 730E/400N.
The units southwest corner is at 730E/
323N. It was excavated to 16 inches below
the surface and the west profile was
drawn. The unit was placed in an area
where many pieces of lead drippings (MD#
45) had been recovered by the metal detec-
tor, to search for any additional arti-
facts associated with the slag. The test
pit turned up one additional piece of
melted lead, but no other artifacts.

Kettle Fragments Excavation Unit

The Kettle Fragments unit was a 2 ft.
by 2 ft. test pit excavated in the
vicinity of a kettle fragment scatter
located by the metal detector. Some
fragments were left in the ground for
removal during excavation. The southwest
corner of the unit was at coordinate
790E/750N which was also its datum, with
an elevation above sea level of 22.75 ft.









The unit was excavated to 1 ft. below
surface; no profile was drawn. The kettle
fragments were removed, but no other
artifacts were recovered.

Button Excavation Unit

The Button unit, also a 2 ft. square,
was placed in an area where a brass button
(MD#98) was recovered. The pit datum was
the northwest corner at 755E/407N, at an
elevation of 22.50 ft. above sea level.
The southwest corner is 755E/405N. It was
excavated to 17 inches below the surface
and the west profile was drawn. No addi-
tional artifacts, bones, or disturbed
stratigraphy were observed.

Gun Barrel Unit

The Gun Barrel unit, measured 2 ft.
by 2 ft., and was placed at the location
of a gun barrel (MD#87) found and removed
while metal detecting. The unit datum was
the southwest corner, at 766E/460N, at an
elevation of 22.05 ft. above sea level.
It was excavated to 9 inches below the
surface; no profile was drawn. No addi-
tional artifacts were recovered.

Feature 5 Test Units 1-10

Feature 5 was tested with 10 small
shovel tests of varying dimensions which
averaged 2 ft. by 2 ft. They represent
the squaring off of areas from which metal
detecting hits were removed, in search of
associated non-metal artifacts. The pit
datum was at 615E/210N, with an elevation
of 22.80 above sea level. They were
excavated to depths of 10 to 16 inches
below surface. One profile was drawn; a
few metal artifacts and bricks were mapped
and photographed in situ. The area is one
of scattered metal artifacts located by
the metal detector of basically only two
varieties. The artifacts are either fer-
rous band fragments or small, rectangular
copper sheets with circular nail holes
driven through them. Excavation revealed
an unusual type of homemade concrete and
concentrations of charcoal. It was con-
cluded that the artifact concentration
represented a 20th century still.


Features

Feature numbers were assigned in the
field at the Taylor Camp site and were
given to artifacts or groups of artifacts
of potential significance for reconstruct-
ing activity areas. Six feature numbers
were assigned. Features overlap with
excavation units, as areas of special sig-
nificance, were investigated by subsurface
testing. Features were described below
and conclusions drawn.
Feature 1 is a cache of three mat-
tocks (MD#28), excavated during the
initial phase of metal detecting survey.
These artifacts likely represent an inten-
tional burial of the tools. The three
adzes are from the immediate vicinity of
other important military artifacts, in-
cluding Feature 2 and Feature 4, as shown
in Figures 10 and 12. The adzes were
buried 12 to 18 inches beneath the
surface.
Feature 2 is a socket bayonet,
located by the metal detector, and then
excavated in situ in Trench B as pre-
viously described. The bayonet may rep-
resent an accidental loss, or an inten-
tional cache, probably from the equipment
storage area. A brass belt clip (MD#42)
suggesting an associated leather scabard
belt was found several feet west of the
bayonet.
Feature 3 is an area of burned and
butchered cow bone associated with pockets
of charcoal and solidified ash. While a
nondescript ferrous item was found near
this burned material, it is not a diagnos-
tic historic artifact. As no historic
context was observed in excavation and the
property owners have informed us of buried
cow remains in the pasture, the feature is
interpreted as modern deceased livestock.
Feature 3 was excavated in part in Trench
C.
Feature 4 is a scatter of lead drip-
pings, excavated in part by a 6 ft. by 6
ft. test pit, the Slag unit. Small and
large pieces of melted lead drippings were
recovered by the metal detecting survey,
spanning a 6 ft. by 10 ft. area. Feature
4 probably represents an area of musket
ball making activity.
Feature 5 is a scatter of ferrous





225


bands, copper sheeting, and concrete
"bricks" believed to represent the remnant
of an early 20th ecentury still. It is
located at the far northeast periphery of
the test area and is not associated with
the research concerned. Feature 5 was
excavated in test pits 1 through 10.
Feature 6 is an extended scatter of
iron kettle fragments, excavated mostly by
the metal detecting survey. The iron
kettle fragments may be derived from the
military camp or from the Seminole occupa-
tion which reportedly occurred on the site
prior to Taylor's arrival there. Observa-
tions of the excavated areas associated
with the kettle fragments did not indicate
any evidence of a cooking area in the 2
ft. by 2 ft. unit examined (the Kettle
Fragments unit) which uncovered a few
fragments in situ but revealed no obvious
context with soiled anomalies, charcoal,
or other artifacts. The kettle fragments
here seem to be part of larger area of
fragments dispersed far beyond their
original place of breakage, probably by a
plough.

Weaponry And Firearm-Related Artifacts

Gun Barrels (MD#68, 87, Fig. 13)
Two iron octagonal gun barrels of
similar size, and heavily corroded were
found. One is bent and measures 18 3/4
inches long. The inside diameter of the
barrel is approximately 3/8 inches. The
other gun barrel is 15 inches long and the
inside diameter of the barrel appears to
be 5/8 inches. Measurements are
approximate due to the amount of corrosion
present. The small bore of the guns indi-
cates that they are not regular U.S. Army
issue and were perhaps used by the Indians
or Volunteers.

Rifle Side Plate (MD#104, Fig. 14)
A brass side plate with two screw
holes from a firearm, 4 1/4 inches long
and 7/8 inches high.

Ramrod Tip (MD#78)
A ramrod tip made of wood surrounded
by sheet brass, 1 1/4 inches long and 1/4
inch in diameter.


Lead Flint Patch (MDF#24, Fig. 15)
A one-piece of C-shaped lead patch
which originally was folded around the top
and bottom of a flint to clamp it between
the jaws of the hammer of flintlock guns
(Clausen 1970). It is 1 1/2 inches by 1/2
inch wide.

Lead Bar (MD#97B, Fig. 16)
A portion of a cut lead bar, pre-
sumably used for musket ball manufacture.
The bar measured 1 1/2 inches thickness by
7/8 inch wide. The bar is cut diagonally
by a sharp metal tool, possibly by an axe
or sword.

Lead Drippings
Thirteen pieces of melted lead. Nine
were found in the same vicinity as part of
Feature 4, indicating musket ball manu-
facturing at the site.

Musket Balls (Figs. 17, 18)
Thirty-two spherical lead bullets, 10
of which had been fired and flattened
beyond caliber recognition. Of those not
fired, 5 are 5/8 inch diameter (.625
inch), 3 are 9/16 inch diameter (.563
inch), 12 are 1/2 inch diameter (.500
inch), 1 is 7/16 diameter (.438 inch), and
1 is 3/4 inch diameter (.375 inch). Two
buck shot and 1 iron ball, 3/4 inch in
diameter, were also found. It is impor-
tant to note, however, that the caliber of
the 22 measurable specimens can only be
approximated due to the extensive corro-
sion and deterioration of some. One ball
was covered with approximately 1/8 inch of
lead oxide. See chart below for per-
centages and relative caliber correlation.

Knife Tip (MD#73)
Very corroded iron knife tip, 1 7/8
inches long by 3/4 inch wide.

Sword Tip (MD#7, Fig. 19)
An iron sword tip, 5 1/2 inches long
by 1 1/2 inches wide at broken end.

Bayonet (FS#17, Fig. 20)
An iron socket bayonet, heavily cor-
roded but intact when recovered. The blade
measures 16 inches long and is triangular


























Figure 13. Gun Barrels


) 1 2 3 P
Figure 14. Brass Gun Plate


2 3
Figure 15. Lead Flint Patch


2 3
Figure 16. Lead Bar




227


1 2 3
Figure 17. Musket Balls


0


2 3 4
Figure 18. Fired Musket Balls


IJT 7 1 T!! 'I I'IT l lll I I l ll'l l Il ryvl lrl I rljll i ifll
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 19. Sword Tip


6 7 8 9 10 .1 12 13 14 i5 16 17 TB 19 20 21 212 213 21 21
i Fit I 61 t Ig 91 S l CI 1 1 II 1l 6 Ba,
Figure 20. Bayonet


lit 1111111111 nmITI I Ill 11 f-1~n~ i 11 111111111111111IS I 11 I I I 111 11tiirm ill


--mq


m









in cross-section. During electrolysis the
artifact broke into three pieces.

Earthmoving and clearings artifacts

Mattocks (MDF#28, Fig. 21)
A cache of three iron rectangular
mattocks were found stacked one upon
another (Feature 1) in the first phase of
metal detecting. All are heavily cor-
roded. The one unbroken mattock measures
11 by 6 1/2 inches wide with a 1 1/4
inches diameter hole. Another is 6 1/2
inches wide by 7 1/2 inches to its broken
edge. The third is of similar size and
condition but unavailable for measurement.
Similar entrenching tools, also referred
to as grubbing hoes, are illustrated in
Phillips' Excavated Artifacts from
Battlefields and Campsites of the Civil
War (1974: 154).


Axe (MDF#23, Fig. 22)
A heavily rusted iron axe head,
measuring 7 inches long by 4 inches wide
and 1 inch thick at hafted end.

Mattock (MD#127)
An iron mattock badly corroded and
broken.

Pick (MD#70)
A large iron pick measuring 1 1/2
inches wide. The entire length is 22 1/2
inches. The center hole measures 2 by 3
inches. It is not certain whether this
artifact is of 19th century or modern
origins.

Personal Ormanents

Buttons (MD#66, 91, 98, Fig. 23)
Three buttons were found, all 1/2


1* I1 i", 1 ,


Figure 21. Iron Mattocks, part of a cache of three


.utn1 17".7 T ]1 ,


Figure 22. Iron Axe





229


inch diameter: a pewter 2-hole General
Service button; a convex copper button
with an attached loop on back (Omega or
"0" type button); and a copper button,
possibly a cuff button with an indistin-
guishable design on the front.

Copper Gorget (MD#31, Fig. 24)
A large, bent U-shaped copper sheet
containing two nail holes at the one end.
It measures 10 by 6 inches. This artifact
is most likely Indian.

Silver Ring (MD#32, Fig. 25)
A plain silver ring, possibly Indian,
measuring 3/4 inch diameter and ranges
from 3/16 to 5/8 inches wide. It is con-
structed of thin sheet metal.

Miscellaneous or
Unidentified Artifacts

Copper Buckle (MD#42, Fig. 26)
A small copper clip or buckle with
fabric still attached to the center bar.
It is 2 inches long and 3/4 inch wide. It
was found within 3 feet of the bayonet (FS
#17) suggesting it may have been part of
the belt that held the bayonet scabbard.

Iron Clip (MD#81)
Small iron clip, in 2 pieces, measur-
ing 1 3/4 inches long.

Fasteners
An iron spike (MD#60), 6 inches long,
and 7 iron nail fragments.

Files (MD#21, 51, Fig. 27)
Two broken iron files, 5 1/2 inches
long by 7/8 inch wide and 3 1/2 inches
long by 7/8 inch wide.

Handles (MD#86, 114)
Two iron handles, possibly to a
chest, measuring 3 1/2 inches long.

Horseshoe Fragment; OR, Heel Plate
Fragment (MD#80)
An iron fragment too small to be
positively identified. It measures 1/2
inch wide and 1 1/4 inch long, curved.
Small nail heads are present. (See


Phillips 1974:156.)

Kettle Fragments (Fig. 28)
Fifty cast iron kettle fragments in-
cluding 5 fragments with legs attached to
the base.

Plume Holder (?) (MD#22, Fig. 29)
A triangular-shaped copper object,
flattened, with small prongs on one end.
"WILTO" and "14" are impressed on one
side.

Ring (MD#85)
Pear-shaped iron ring, 6 inches long
by 3 inches wide a widest part, possibly
wagon hardware.

Sheet Metal Strips/Scraps
Six sheet metal scraps, including 3
brass strips measuring 2 inches by 5/8
inch, 2 1/4 inches by 5/8 inch (bent), 1
1/2 inches by 5/8 inch; one copper strip
measuring 7/8 inch by 1/2 inch; one brass
sheet scrap measuring approximately 1 1/2
inches by 1/2 inch and rolled copper sheet
scrap measuring 2 inches long by 1 inch in
diameter.

Spurs (MD#89, 90, Fig. 30)
Two iron spur fragments, heavily cor-
roded.

Utensil Handle (MD#44)
Possibly the rounded end of an iron
spoon or fork handle, measuring 3/4 inch
wide by 3/4 inch long.

Unidentified Iron And Lead Fragments
Twenty-one unidentifiable small iron
fragments and 3 unidentifiable lead frag-
ments.

Non-metallic Artifacts

Bottle Glass
A single fragment of olive green
bottle glass was uncovered in the upper 8
inches in Trench 1, Segment H.

Prehistoric Pottery
Two sherds of Belle Glade Plain
pottery were uncovered in the upper 8

















'''I iII1[PJIJIIJIJIIJJJJJfIIIIJIPIJIIIIIIIII


2
Figure 23.


3
Pewter & Copper Buttons


Figure 24.


Copper Gorget


Figure 25. Silver Ring
Figure 25. Silver Ring


2 3 4
Figure 26. Copper Buckle with attached fabric


1 2 3 4 5
Figure 27. Iron File


~Fnr~Y~FPFpmqrlrlrp~pl~l~ll ~,rmC~m/l



























SI'l "'l'l''lly 'l lf'l' l'llllp'lll'l ll'l'll l jlll ^ 'l 'l l 'l 'l''' l' plllll'l' ll'.l.'''T l'
3 4 5 6

Figure 28. Kettle Fragment


2 3
Figure 29. Possible Plume Holder


inches of shovel test 680E/400N.

Faunal Bones
Faunal bone fragments were uncovered
in three locations. Excluding modern cow
bones, recovered remains included 57.2
grams of turtle bone fragments from shovel
test 720E/400N; 3.3 grams from Trench A,
Segment H; and .3 grams from shovel test
500E/320N.


2 3 4

Figure 30. Spur


Conclusions

The Taylor Camp site location is con-
firmed by the recovery of a variety of
artifacts typical of the U.S. military in
the Second Seminole Mr. Information is
gained not only from the artifacts re-
covered, but from patterns or artitact
distribution and even from the absence of
certain artifact classes. The unsuccess-









ful posthole search for the mass grave
within the site suggests several alterna-
tive explanations for its location in the
absence of conclusive physical evidence.
This is discussed later in this section.
The socket bayonet, ramrod fragment,
knife tip, brass gun plate, assorted
musket balls, and pieces of lead drippings
undoubtedly speak of the presence of a
military camp in this pineland prairie
during the Second Seminole War. Other
general utility items such as the iron
kettle fragments may also be related to
the camp, although some of these as well
as some of the obvious military artifacts
may stem from the Seminole component of
the site. Artifact distribution did not
outline distinct rectangular boundaries of
the military camp; however, areas of use
are indicated by a rather broad distri-
bution of artifacts extending over 1200
feet north-south and 850 feet east-west,
exactly what would be expected for a large
military camp supporting 800 men. The
range of artifacts almost certainly
extends beyond the formal camp boundaries
reflected in the Dinnies and Prince maps
and reflects activities outside of the
formal camp in the two days following the
battle. It is also possible that some of
the material represents activities from
subsequent military visits to the site,
such as the expeditions involved in the
reburial or disinternment of the graves.
The southern half of the Taylor Camp
site was more intensely utilized than the
northern half as evidenced by a higher
number of artifacts uncovered in the
southern area. Artifacts at the site ref-
lect a general pattern of single inci-
dences of discard and loss and inten-
tionally hidden materials, (i.e., mattock
cache). The result is an irregular dis-
tribution of artifacts that makes regular
interval subsurface testing an unsuc-
cessful mode of artifact recovery. The
increased artifact density in the southern
half of the camp suggests either increased
amounts of individuals occupying this area
of the camp or a group of individuals with
a higher discard or loss ratio. The
latter is a possibility when one considers
the large number of wounded individuals
being treated by the camp surgeons after
the battle. This general increase of


materials, including musket balls, might
reflect the camp hospital area. Other
possibilities, such as the location of the
baggage dump, are examined below.
Overall artifact density on the
Taylor camp site is light, considering
that over 800 men were camped in this
location. The sparsity of artifacts is
indicative of sparing discard patterns of
camp members combined with the short
period of occupancy only (3 days).
Striking is the lack of recovery of any
glass, except possibly one piece, or
ceramic artifacts dating to the period of
the battle. This indicates a low use
factor of this type of item, and/or a high
degree of safekeeping of what few items of
this nature were transported to the camp.
Considering the army had traveled all the
way from Tampa, it follows that they would
travel light, especially considering the
type of wilderness terrain they
encountered.
Patterns of artifact distribution are
informative at the Taylor Camp site,
helping to identify a locale referred to
in the historic accounts as the "baggage
dump", and to approximate camp boundaries
by artifact clustering observed within the
north and south halves of the camp.
Taylor refers to a "Baggage dump" in his
1838 report where the equipment was being
stored at the south end of the prairie
near the edge of the swamp crossed by the
troops en route to the battle. The
baggage dump description implies an area
of temporary storage of all equipment not
needed in the battle. It is possible that
the concentration of artifacts represented
by a cache of 3 mattocks (Feature 1), the
bayonet (FS#17), and other artifacts on
the south end of the pine ridge were
associated with the baggage dump. These
artifacts generally coincide with
Geosphere, Inc. Anomaly # 5 (Fig. 7). This
idea of the baggage dump is reinforced by
the areas location on the extreme southern
periphery of the pineland, combined with
the strong decrease in artifacts found
south of this location where a significant
drop in elevation occurs which is marked
by a soil change to Pompano fine sand
(associated with sloughs) 300 feet south
of this artifact concentration. The
occurrence of the adze cache and a bayonet








in such close proximity to each other, all
in undamaged condition, can be explained
as unintentional losses resulting from the
use of the area for short-term equipment
storage. Another possibility, however, is
that they were deliberately hidden by the
military when they abandoned the camp to
lighten their weight to allow for carrying
the wounded back to Ft. Bassinger.
Feature 4, a lead slag scatter, is
identified as an area of musket ball
making activity. This is also within the
area interpreted as the baggage dump.
This activity may be associated with
either the Indians making bullets prior to
Taylor's advance, or the troops doing the
same within the camp. One might expect
that if the musket ball manufacturing was
Indian related that they would have
attempted to recycle the lead slag for
future bullet manufacturing. Thus, it is
more likely military related.
The failure of posthole testing to
locate the mass grave suggests several
alternative explanations. First, the
grave site may be in an area not tested by
this project, or possibly the graves are
within the tested area but not observable
because of the extremely poor state of
preservation of the osteological remains
or that the graves were redug and the
bodies removed. The area east of the 900E
line was not tested by the posthole
program, although it would have if time
had allowed. This is the only area
outside of the sampled area of approximate
elevation and relation to the sites broad
central area that qualified as an
alternative search place for graves.
Metal detecting east of the 900E area did
uncover some artifacts, although artifacts
were not particularly common there. A
second possibility is that the graves may
lie below the depth of the subsurface
testing. It may be that the intrusive
grave did not sufficiently alter the soil
coloration sequence as to be observable
150 years later. Considering that the
level of the water table was higher then
than today, this possibility is not
considered to be strong.
A third explanation for the lack of
uncovered evidence is that the remains
were removed and then reinterred in St.
Augustine. It is known that the officers


were removed by 1839 and a military order
of 1842 details a military company to
traverse the state to recover the remains
of military dead from the Seminole War.
Although Okeechobee is not listed in the
document, it is still possible that the
Okeechobee remains were collected. How-
ever, even with reinternment it would be
expected that the soil disturbances would
be amplified and that some bones, teeth,
buttons, or small personal effects would
remain. It is possible that the grave
environment presents an extremely poor
state of preservation for bones and even
teeth. Acid soil, typical of where the
camp is situated (Soil Survey 1971),
offers poor preservation conditions for
bone. Poor preservation offers a
realistic explanation of why evidence of
the mass grave was not encountered;
however, even with disturbances some
personal artifacts and evidence of the
grave profiles within the soil strati-
graphy might be expected to remain.
Nonetheless. Geosphere, Inc. anomaly #2, a
long rectangular area, with a single
button uncovered by metal detecting, would
fit the third and fourth hypothesis if
either held true.
In summary, various nineteenth
century historic activities were reflected
by the recovered data at 80B13. Military
activities are reflected by a large per-
centage of gun and edge-weaponed related
artifacts. Approximately 40% of the
artifacts were directly associated with
military activities and weapons. The
evidence indicates that the site was the
encampment for U.S. military personnel as
well as Native Americans. Specific
activities reflected by the material data
include land clearing as suggested by the
mattocks and axe that might have been
associated with establishing the camp,
bullet manufacturing, and cooking, as
reflected by the iron kettle fragments,
and equestrian activities as indicated by
the two iron spur fragments (Fig. 30).
The 22 measurable lead balls suggest
calibers associated with muskets, rifles,
and pistols. No evidence of percussion
ignited firearms were found. The caliber
of balls as analyzed all suggest firearms
compatible with either the U.S. military
or the Indian forces.








No conclusive evidence of the mili-
tary graves was found in those tested
areas of 80B13 or 80B14. The cabbage palm
hammock (80B14) had been identified by
Billy Bowlegs III to historian Albert
DeVane as being where the soldiers had
been interred. However, this phase of
testing produced no historic artifacts nor
any 19th century cultural features. Only
a 20th century still and a modern trash
pit were noted in this otherwise signifi-
cant prehistoric site. Finally, site
80B14 does not conform with the historic
archival data that indicates that the
graves were located near the center of the
military camp.

ILeoonstructing The Battlefield
Site location

Locating Taylor's Camp places a major
piece of the Okeechobee Battlefield his-
toric puzzle into place. The battlefield,
according to all contemporary documenta-
tion, was within 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile of
the camp. While two contemporary historic
maps (Dennies and Prince) show the Indian
defenses directly south of the camp, these
maps are obviously general and should not
be regarded as 100% accurate. This is
particularly true of the Henry Prince map
which he sketched in his diary months
after the battle. The various testi-
monials of the Missouri volunteers result-
ing from the Congressional hearings that
followed the battle reconstruct the de-
tails of the battle including important
environmental considerations, including
the significant detail that many of the
Volunteers in crossing southward through
the sawgrass prairie also traversed a
deep, muddy creek. Interestingly, not all
eyewitness accounts include this particu-
lar detail suggesting that while some of
the military crossed the creek to reach
the Indian defenses at the hammock, other
did not. Bill Steele reconstructed the
line of battle based on these eyewitness
accounts and noted that the right line of
the advancing troops crossed the creek and
the left line did not. In support of this
supposition is the map included in Full
Justice (Gentry 1937:19). This map is
overly simplistic, has the cardinal
directions erroneously depicted, and was


drawn one hundred years after the event.
With those deficiencies in mind, it is
worthy of note that the previously
referred to "deep creek" is depicted and
is shown to traverse the prairie only
partially in a roughly 45 axis to the
Indian defenses. Also, the defenses are
shown to be southerly and west of the
"baggage dump" at the camp. These two
features on the map are significant be-
cause, even though undoubtedly reconstruc-
ted from family oral traditions and eye-
witness accounts, they reinforce descrip-
tions in the congressional testimonies.
The fact is that there are only two
creek-like features associated with the
prairie south of Taylor's Camp. One of
these is actually Nubbin Slough that
previous to the digging of a channelized
canal, drained on an axis similar to that
of the Gentry map across the shoreline
berm. The problem with Nubbins Slough is
that it traverses the prairie in Section
31 and is south and east of Taylor's camp,
in a direction opposite what historic
documentation indicates as being where the
battlefield occurred. The second candi-
date is a barely discernable slough-creek
that shows clearly in a 1953 aerial photo-
graphic imagery of the area. The 1971
Soil Survey map (Number 64) also shows
remnants of the feature. Like the Gentry
map and as indicated from the contemporary
descriptions, the narrow slough extends
only a short distance across the prairie.
The creek originally drained an elongated
pond-like feature with a north-south axis
and then drained west, and then north-
westerly into the Mosquito Creek drainage
system. The remnant of a trail, possibly
the one described as the "Indian trail"
that led to the battle is still visible in
the 1953 aerial photo. Interestingly, the
shoreline berm is widest opposite the
slough, just as shown in the Prince map.
The area of the battle represents
approximately one mile of Lake Okeechobee
historic shoreline. Much of this area has
been developed but large vacant tracts
still exist. At Okeechobee Cbunty's pre-
sent rate of growth, development will fill
the battlefield area within the next five
years. The AHC is supporting the public
acquisition of this endangered National
Landmark and requesting all students and












scholars of Florida history and archae-
ology to rally to preserve this signifi-
cant site. Please give its preservation
your vocal and written support.


TABLE 1: Distribution by Diameter and Caliber
Correlation of 22 Lead Balls

Diameter Standard Common U.S. Type
in Inches Percentage Calibers and Model


.69 Musket, M1816, M1817



.54 Rifle, M1817;
Pistol, Mi8i9, M1826


APPENDIX 1: Artifact Tabulation List


Depth in
Inches

08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
27
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
06
06
02
08
03
03
03

06
08
08
06


Artifact Description


Musket ball, 3/8" diameter
Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
Musket ball, fired
Lead slag
Iron kettle fragment
Iron kettle fragment
Sword tip
Iron kettle fragment
Iron kettle fragment with leg
Iron kettle fragment
Iron kettle fragment
Iron kettle fragment with leg
Iron kettle fragment
Iron kettle fragment
Iron kettle fragment with leg
Iron kettle fragment
Iron kettle fragment
Iron kettle fragment
Iron kettle fragment
Split washer modern
Iron file
Plume holder (?)
Iron axe
Lead flint patch, lead slag (3)
Iron kettle fragment
Unidentified iron
Musket ball, 9/16" diameter
Mattocks (3)
Unidentified iron (3)
Musket ball, 5/8" diameter
Copper gorget
Silver ring
Corroded lead object
Buckshot
Buckshot
Charcoal
Iron kettle fragments (4)
Musket ball, 5/8, 1/2", fired
Iron kettle fragment (3)
Musket ball, fired
Unidentified iron (3)
Copper clip or buckle
Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
End of utensil, iron
Lead slag
Iron nail fragment
Tin, modern
Tin, modern
NOT USED
Iron kettle tragment
Iron file
Unidentified iron fragment
Lead slag


.625

.563

.500


.438

.375


Metal
Detector #

54
55
56

57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97 A,B,C
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127

Field
Specimen #

F.S. 9
F.S. 17


th in
ches

06 L
06 L
06 L


Artifact Description
ead slag
ead slag
ead slag (2), unident iron
fragment (1)


Dep
In

















































































De
I


06 Lead slag
06 Musket ball, 5/8" diameter
06 Musket ball, 5/8" diameter
03 Iron spike, 6" long
08 Musket ball, fired
08 Unidentified iron fragment
08 Unidentified iron fragment
06 Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
06 Musket ball, fired
06 Copper button, 1/2" diameter
06 Iron nail fragments (3)
08 Gun barrel
08 Iron nail fragment
06 Iron pick
08 Musket ball, 7/16" diameter
06 Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
06 Iron knife tip
06 Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
06 Musket ball, 5/8" diameter
06 Iron fragments w/red paint, modern
06 Musket ball, 3/8" diameter
06 Ramrod tip
06 Musket ball, fired
06 Horeshoe or heel plate fragment
06 Iron clip
06 Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
06 Unidentified iron fragments
06 Musket ball, fired
06 Iron ring
06 Iron chest handle
06 Gun barrel, bent
06 Unidentified iron fragments (5)
06 Spur fragment
06 Spur fragment
06 Pewter button, 2 hole
06 Bullet, modern
06 Unidentified iron fragments
08 Brass strips (2)
08 Corroded lead fragment
08 Brass side plate from gun
08 Bullet (modern), lead bar and slag
06 Copper button, cuff, 1/2" diameter
08 Copper sheet, rolled
08 Iron kettle fragment
0-8 Iron kettle fragment
0-8 Musket ball, 9/16" diameter
0-8 Musket ball, fired
0-8 Brass strip
0-8 Iron fragment
0-8 Brass strip
0-8 Lead fragment
0-8 Copper strip
0-8 Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
0-8 Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
0-8 Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
0-8 Modern bullet lodged in wood
0-8 Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
0-8 Iron chest handle
0-8 Iron kettle fragments (2)
0-8 Iron nail fragment
0-8 Unidentified iron fragments (4)
NOT USED
NOT USED
0-6 Iron kettle base fragment
0-6 Iron kettle fragment
0-6 Iron nail fragment
0-6 Iron kettle fragment
0-6 Iron kettle fragments (3)
0-6 Iron kettle fragments (3)
0-6 Musket ball, 9/16" diameter
0-6 Iron mattock

pth in
nches Artifact Description

8-10 Musket ball, 1/2" diameter
8-10 Bayonet


Metal
Detector #

01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 A,B,C
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 A,B,C
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53












References Cited


Abadie, E. H.
1838 Letter to Samuel George Morton on file aL tne
Philadelphia Academy of Science. February 3,
1838.

Buchanan, Lt. Robert C.
1837 Personal Journal-manuscript collection at
Maryland Historical Society

1950 A Journal of Lieutenant R. C. Buchanan during
the Seminole War, edited by Frank F. White,
Jr. Published in Florida Historical Quarterly
XXIX(2).

Carr,Robert S. and Willard Steele
1986 Preliminary Report on the Search for the
Okeechobee Battlefield. The Archaeological
and Historical Conservancy. Miami, Florida.

Carter, Clarence
1960 Territorial Papers of the United States, Vol.
25, Florida Territory 1834-1839, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Clausen, Carl J.
1970 The Fort Pierce Collection. Florida Division
of Archives, History and Records Management.
Bulletin 1. Tallahassee.

Coe, Charles H.
1974 Red Patriots. Facsimile Reproduction. Uni-
versity Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Columbia Daily Tribune
1937 "Boone County Soldiers in the Seminole War,"
article by William Richard Gentry, Jr., Oct.
15-16, 1937; Columbia, Missouri.

DeVane, Park
1979 Devane's Early Florida History. Vol. II.
Sebring Historical Society.

Dunklin, E. M. C.
1929 "Indian History and War Trails", The Okeecho-
bee News, November 22, 1929.

Floyd, Dale
1979 Chronological List Actions and Etc. with
Indians from January 15, 1837 to January
1891, Old Army Press.

Foster, Lt. Col. William S.
1838 Letter to Col. Zachary Taylor, March 6, 1838.
Photocopy from National Archives.

Gentry, William R. Jr.
1937 Full Justice. St. Louis: privately printed.

1937 Full Justice, The Story of Richard Gentry and
His Missouri Volunteers in the Seminole War.
Privately printed.

Giddings, Joshua R.
1964 The Exiles of Florida. Facsimile Reproduc-
tion University of Florida Press, Gainesville

Jefferson Republican
1837-1838 Various issues. Jefferson City, Missouri

"Journal of the Committee
on the Florida Campaign"
1840 Manuscript in Collection of Missouri Histori-
cal Society.

Kieffer, Chester L.
1974 Maligned General: The Biography of Thomas S.
Jesup. Presido Press, San Rafael, California.

Kirby, Reynold
1837 Personal Journal in Manuscript Collection of


P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Letters Received by the Office of the
Ad]unctant General. Main series, 1822-1860,
M567, R ll 202.

Missouri Argus
1838 Article by Lieutenant Colonel John Price,
Missouri Volunteers, March 1, 1838 issue, St.
Louis, Missouri.

Mnk, Floyd
1972 "Wilderness Warfare: A study of the Okeecho-
bee campaign of 1837." Unpublished type-
script in possession of author.

1978 "Christmas Day in Florida, 1837". Tequesta
37:5-38.

Phillips, Stanley S.
1974 Excavated Artifacts from Battlefields and
Campsites of the Civil War. Walsworch
Publishing Co., Marceline, Missouri.

Prince, Lt. Henry
N.D. Diary in P. K. Yonge Library of Florida
History Collection, Univeristy of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida

Returns from Regular Army Infantry Regiments
1837 December, Ist, 4th, and 6th Infantry Fegi-
ments, National Archives.

Soil Survey of Okeechobee County, Florida
1971 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conserva-
tion Service in Cooperation with University
of Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations.
U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington,
D. C.

Sprague, John
1848 The Florida War, Appleton and Company, New
York.

Taylor, Cbl. Zachary
1838 "Report from the Secretary of War, February
21, 1838 including Taylor's battle report" in
Senate Document #227, 25th Congress, Second
Session, Library of Congress. Washington, D.C

United States
1838 House of Representatives Document Number 219,
25th Congress, Second Session, Military Forces
in Florida

United States
1838 House of Representatives Document Number 299,
25th Congress, Second Session, Military Fbrces
in Florida

United States
1838 Senate Document Number 226, 25th Congress,
Second Session, Report for Secretary of War.

United States
1838 Senate Document Number 227, 25th Congress,
Second Session, Report of the Secretary of
War.


Robert S. Carr
Marilyn Masson
Willard Steele
Archaeological and Historic
Conservancy, Inc.
P.O. Box 450283
Miami, FL 33145









A SEMINOLE BURIAL ON INDIAN FIELD (8LL39),
LEE COUNTY, SOUTHWESTERN FLORIDA

George M. Luer


This paper reports hitherto un-
published and obscure accounts of a
probable Seminole burial on Indian
Field, an island in coastal Lee
County, southwestern Florida. The
accounts are significant because
artifactual evidence of Seminole
occupation on the southwestern
Florida coast is scarce and can
provide clues to the process of
Seminole adaptation to the southern
Florida environment.

Background

The following information is
based on three documents. Two are
preserved at the P K.K. Yonge
Library of Florida History in
Gainesville, Florida, and the third
consists of notes in the Florida
Museum of Natural History (FMNH)
site file, also in Gainesville.
These accounts pertain to Indian
Field, a privately-owned island
situated in Matlacha pass near the
northeastern shore of pine Island.
The location of Indian Field is
shown by Figures 1 and 2 in the
article "Calusa Canals in South-
western Florida: Routes of Tribute
and Exchange" (see )
Figure 6 in that same article shows
the configuration of Indian Field.
Presumably, the apparent Seminole
burial was uncovered on the high,
northern portion of Indian Field
where Figure 6 shows an existing
house.

Accounts

The available information indi-
cates that around 1950, the then-
owners of Indian Field, Herman and
Anna Pieplow, began building a
house on the island. After barging


out heavy machinery, the pieplows
graded an area of the island's
highest shell elevation. This
grading uncovered an unmarked human
burial. In March 1952, archae-
ologist John M. Goggin and several
students traveled to Indian Field
to investigate this burial which
included a skeleton as well as "...
a gun, beads, knife, mirror, gun
flints, etc." (Goggin 1952:29-30).
This field party partially exca-
vated a "5 X 5" foot test unit "at
the highest point of the site."
Despite this work as well as using
a metal-detector, further evidence
of the burial was not found (Goggin
1952:30-32).
Goggin, however, submitted the
bones from the burial to archae-
ologist Ripley P. Bullen for analy-
sis. By December 1952, Bullen pro-
duced a single-page, typewritten
report which stated that the "bones
definitely represent an adult, male
Indian" who was about "5ft. 5in."
in height, who was "a slightly
built individual who led an
extremely active life physically,"
and who died at perhaps "an age of
55 or more" (Bullen 1952). Bullen
viewed the bones as those of a
"presumed Seminole" and wrote:

It is interesting to note that ...
both skull measurements and stature
do not agree at all with those
given by Krogman (FLORIDA ANTHRO-
POLOGIST, Vol. 1, Nos. 3/4) for
living Seninoles in Oklahoma even
with allowances for flesh. They do,
however, agree very closely with
those presented by Hrdlicka for
Seminole male skulls (Catalog of
Human Crania in U.S. National
Museum, Pro. of the U.S. Nat. Mus.,
Vol. 87, pp. 358-9) (Bullen 1952).
Recently, archaeologist Jeffrey


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Sept., 1989


Vol. 42 No. 3







238









V*A^ .V J Matlacha

c. VPass


0 Allen Park
Drive
PINELANO D -

SITE

0. |I \ INDIAN
.Pineland Road ^ Tropical
Pine Nurseries i


;it"





I km

1 mile


Figure 2. The Course of the Pine Island Canal (Heavy Line). Note locations of Pineland and
Indian Field. In 1980, remains of the canal still were traceable east of Harbor
Drive. Arrow shows site of the 1981 excavation (see Figure 3 for plan view and
profile). Contour line shows 3-meter (10-foot) elevation traversed by the canal.




mangrove .----
fores
6 house open
7 water




n dock









50 0
.00' 150 feet



north south 2
5.0 bank bank
2.5 canal
0 ------
0 10 3.0 0
feet meters

Figure 6. Map of Indian Field (8LL39), March 1982. Top: contours
in feet above mean high tide level -- note grove south-
west of house and X's locating cross-section of canal.
Bottom: cross-section showing width similar to that of
the Pine Island Canal. Indian Field is privately-owned.
Any visit without the owner's permission is prohibited.





239


M. Mitchem (1989) documented a list
of beads from Indian Field. His
information is based on notes in
the site file at FMNH which de-
scribe 58 European beads in a pri-
vate collection. Based on their
description, it appears likely that
these are the beads mentioned by
Goggin (1952:30) as having been
associated with the burial on
Indian Field. According to Mitchem,
the site file notes indicate that:

... 19 of these were faceted blue
glass beads, typical of Seminole
sites. There were also.22 faceted
black glass beads, three faceted
"crystal" beads (it is unclear
whether these were Florida Cut
Crystal or faceted colorless
glass), two faceted yellow or light
brown glass beads, and 12 globular
colorless glass beads (Mitchem
1989:264-266).

Interpretations

This burial at Indian Field is
significant because of the scant
archaeological evidence of Semi-
noles in the Charlotte Harbor area,
and in southern Florida in general
(Kersey 1989:34). The available
evidence suggests that the burial
pertains to the period circa 1790 -
1840 which has been called the
"Resistance and Removal Phase" of
Seminole history (see Fairbanks
1978; also see Matthews 1983 and
Steele 1987) Besides the Indian
Field burial, artifactual evidence
of Seminoles in the Charlotte
Harbor area includes beads and
ceramics recovered in 1953 at a
now-impacted site (8LL84) of an
apparent fishing rancho on
Gasparilla Island (Florida Master
Site File; Goggin 1954; Bullen and
Bullen 1956:53), and a ceramic ves-
sel containing lead shot which was
capped by an inverted metal kettle
at the nearby Myakkahatchee Site
(8So397) (Luer, Almy, Ste. Claire,
and Austin 1987).


Artifactual evidence of Semi-
noles in the Charlotte Harbor area
needs to be viewed in conjunction
with historical evidence of Semi-
noles in the area. Future research
should address this need. For ex-
ample, for the 1820s-1830s, there
is documentation relating to Cuban
fishing ranchos and to the hostil-
ities of the Second Seminole War
(for example, see Covington 1959;
Adams 1970; Hammond 1973; Gibson
1982:18-19, 21-22, 25-28). For the
1830s-1840s, government documents
refer to Seminoles at the mouth of
the Myakka River (Reid 1843-44;
Gibson 1982:26). Such research
could help understand the process
of Seminole adaptation to the south
Florida environment.
Importantly, future research
also should pay attention to other
ethnic groups which shared the
region such as Blacks (Kersey 1981)
and Cubans. Artifactual evidence
usually attributed to the latter
group includes olive jar sherds at
numerous locations (Bullen and
Bullen 1956; Luer and Archibald
1988). Much rarer and less-known
are apparent burial items such as
"figa" pendants (see Allerton et
al. 1984:MT#34) How Cubans,
Blacks, and Seminoles interacted in
nineteenth century southwestern
Florida needs much more research.
An olive jar sherd found by this
author in 1982 on the surface of
Indian Field suggests that the
island was used during times of the
fishing ranchos (see "Calusa Canals
in Southwestern Florida: Routes of
Tribute and Exchange,"
However, the possibility exists
that the olive jar sherd could
pertain to a Seminole occupation or
to a mixed Seminole-Cuban occupa-
tion. Intriguingly, perhaps Indian
Field's turn-of-the-century name,
"Indian Old Field" (see Moore
1900:362), preserves the memory of
the island's use by Seminoles dur-
ing the 1800s.






240


Acknowledgements


The
the p.
History


assistance of personnel at
K. Yonge Library of Florida
and of Jeffrey M. Mitchem


of the FMNH is gratefully acknowl-
edged. The author also wishes to
thank Dr. John Scheuren for giving
permission to visit Indian Field.


References Cited

Adams, George R.
1970 The Caloosahatchee Massacre: Its Sig-
nificance in The Second Seminole War.
The Florida Historical Quarterly 48:
368-380.

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

Bullen, Ripley P.
1952 Notes on presumed Seminole skeleton
from L-39, Indian Old Field, Lee Co.,
Florida, submitted by Dr. John M.
Goggin. Unpublished report on file,
Goggin Collection, Box 3. P. K. Yonge
Library of Florida History.Gainesville.

Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Zullen
1956 Excavations on the Cape Haze peninsula,
Florida. Contributions of the Florida
State Museum, Social Sciences, Number 1
Gainesville.

Covington, James W.
1959 Trade Relations Between Southwestern
Florida and Cuba, 1600-1840. The
Florida Historical Quarterly 38:114-128

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1978 The Ethno-Archeology of the Florida
Seminole. In: Tacachale, Essays on the
Indians of Florida and Southeastern
Georgia during the Historic period. J.
Milanich and S. Proctor, eds. Univer-
sity Presses of Florida. Gainesville.

Florida Master Site File
1953 Archeologcal Site Survey, University of
Florida. Form for L 84. Recorded by
Plowden.

Gibson, Charles Dana
1982 Boca Grande, A Series of Historical
Essays. Great Outdoors Publishing
Company.

Goggin, John M.
1952 Trip to Indian Old Field (L39) (Feb.
29-Mar. 2). Field notes on file, Goggin
Collection, Box 9. P. K. Yonge Library
of Florida History, Gainesville.

1954 A Preliminary Statement on the Arche-
ology of the Cape Haze Area, South-
western Florida. Manuscript on file,
Florida Museum of Natural History.
Gainesville.


Griffin, John W., and Ripley P. Bullen
1950 The Safety- Harbor Site, Pinellas
County, Florida. Florida Anthropologi-
cal society publications, No. 2.

Hammond, E. A.
1973 Spanish Fisheries of Charlotte Harbor.
The Florida Historical Quarterly 51:
355-380.

Kersey, Harry A., Jr.
1981 The Seminole Negroes of Andros Island
Revisited: Some New Pieces to an old
Puzzle. The Florida Anthropologist 34:
169-176.

1989 Seminole Trading Sites in South
Florida: A New Ethno-Archaeological
Opportunity. The Florida Anthropolo-
gist 42:34-42.

Luer, George M.
1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida:
Routes of Tribute and Exchange. The
Florida Anthropologist 42:this issue.

Luer, George M., Marion Almy, Dana Ste.
Claire, and Robert Austin
1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8So397), A
Large Multi-Period Inland From The
Shore Site in Sarasota County, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 40: 137-153.

Luer, George M., and Lauren C. Archibald
1988 An Assessment of Known Archaeological
Sites in Charlotte Harbor State
Reserve. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc. Report. On file,
Florida Dept. of Natural Resources,
Tallahassee.

Matthews, Janet S.
1983 Edge of Wilderness. A Settlement
History of Manatee River and Sarasota
Bay, 1528-1885. Caprine Press. Tulsa,
Oklahoma.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Pre-
historic/Protohistoric Archaeology in
West peninsular Florida. Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of Florida. Univer-
sity Microfilms. Ann Arbor.

Moore, Clarence B.
1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West
Coast. Journal of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:
350-394.

Reid, Samuel
1843-44 Surveyor's field log for T40S, R21E.
On file, Bureau of State Lands, DNR.
Tallahassee.

Steele, Willard
1987 The Battle of Okeechobee. Archaeologi-
cal and Historical Conservancy, Inc.
Florida Heritage Press, Miami.

George M. Luer
Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc.
c/o 3222 Old oak Drive
Sarasota, FL 34239








FURTHER RESEARCH ON THE PINE ISLAND CANAL
AND ASSOCIATED SITES, LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA


George M.


Luer


Introduction

At the request of archaeologist
Robert S. Carr, President of the Archae-
ological and Historical OCnservancy, Inc.
(AHC), further research on the Pine Island
Canal and some of its associated sites was
undertaken in July 1989 by the AHC. This
project was done to augment the informa-
tion presented in "Calusa Canals in
Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute
and Exchange" (see The Florida Anthro-
pologist Vol. 42, ND. 2).
The east end of the Pine Island
Canal (8LL34), the Pine Island 8 burial
mound (8LL40), and the Cbrbett Mound
(8LL24) were each visited by archaeologist
George Luer and a field technician, Jorge
Zamanillo. Their observations and dis-
coveries are presented below.

East End of the Canal

During a surface reconnaissance
along the easternmost stretch of the Pine
Island Canal in 1980, the canal was found
to be so heavily overgrown with saw
palmetto and melaleuca (punk) trees that
its east end was not located (see Luer
1989:97). In 1989, however, it was found
that much of this area had been cleared by
intervening land development. Changes in-
cluded a private road, groves, and a
house.
After gaining permission to inspect
this posted and privately-owned area, it
was discovered with the aid of aerial
photographs that remnants of the Pine
Island Canal were now visible. Indeed,
the canal's bed and spoil banks still
could be discerned running east-west
through the house's yard. When this
property was cleared, four of the tallest
melaleuca trees were left standing. These
were growing in the canal bed which now
appeared as a long, grassy swale support-
ing a row of widely-spaced, large mela-
leuca trees. The construction of the


house and adjoining pond had obliterated
some of the canal.
However, just east of the house and
pond, the canal resumed running eastward
through recently cleared but undeveloped
land. There, remants of the canal were
clearly visible, the muddy bed holding
standing water between wide, sandy spoil
banks. Farther eastward, the canal turned
gradually to run slightly south of east
(see Figure 1). It entered uncleared land
where it still was overgrown: white man-
groves grew in a 12-foot wide bed and
small melaleuca trees covered the banks.
These banks formerly had supported saw
palmetto, their decaying trunks and roots
visible on the sand.
As the canal continued eastward, it
crossed an open sand flat to meet the
dense, low-lying mangrove forest that now
covers the east shore of Pine Island. On
crossing the sand flat, the canal bed
gradually widened, and the spoil banks
disappeared. At this naturally lower ele-
vation, the spoil banks undoubtedly would
have been smaller, as less digging would
have been required to make the canal.
Since there was less material to erode and
to refill the canal bed, the bed has
remained close to its original width at
this east end. If this interpretation is
correct, the greater width here is addi-
tional evidence that the Pine Island Canal
originally was about 9 meters (30 feet) in
width.
An unusual feature was discovered
crossing the sand flat just north of the
canal's east end. This feature was a long,
narrow, linear furrow running northward,
almost perpendicular to the canal (see
Figure 1). This shallow feature was only
about 10-15 centimeters (4-6 inches) in
depth, about 3 meters (10 feet) wide, and
about 90 meters (300 feet) in length. It
was parallelled on the east and west by
very low, eroding spoil banks joined to-
gether at their north ends.
Visible on these sandy, eroding


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 42 No. 3


Sept., 1989






































Map of the East End of the Pine Island Canal (8LL34) and Associated Sites. Note that the canal's
easternmost portion turns slightly to the south and its bed widens. Also note the linear feature
(8LL784) and Pine Island 8 burial mound (8LL40).


banks were decaying trunks and roots which
show that the banks formerly supported
buttonwood trees and, prior to that, saw
palmettos and even a cabbage palm. Now,
however, erosion has left these banks
largely bare -- apparently due to the
effects of especially high tides perhaps
aggravated by rising sea level. The
furrow between these eroded banks, which
is now mostly filled by erosion, supports
some scattered buttonwood and black
mangrove bushes.
Interpreting this feature is pro-
blematic. It is apparently of aboriginal
origin, and was probably associated with
the canal. It has been designated 8LL784
in the Florida Master Site File. Perhaps
the feature was a lateral extension from
the Pine Island Canal, and accomodated
dugout canoes. It should be noted that a
small elevated tongue of soil extends
northwestward from the north end of this


feature (see Figure 1). This is in the
direction of the Pine Island 8 burial
mound, situated about 90 meters (300 feet)
to the northwest across a mangrove swamp.
Perhaps this linear feature was somehow
associated with the burial mound, perhaps
providing an approach or stopping place
for canoes traversing the canal.
Discovery of this linear feature
casts new light on Indian Field (8LL39)
located nearby to the east. That is, at
Indian Field there also is a long, narrow
lateral extension running northward from
the opening to the canal (see Luer 1989:
Fig. 6). The feature at Indian Field,
however, might not have been closed at its
north end. It is bordered on the west by
a linear shell ridge or "breakwater"
reaching a meter in elevation. Like the
linear feature at the east end of the Pine
Island Canal, perhaps this area accomo-
dated dugout canoes.





(Misnumbered, no page #243 and 244.)


Pine Island 8 Burial NMund (8LL40)

In 1900 and 1904, Clarence B. Moore
and his gang of diggers "completely"
demolished this mound (M~ore 1905:305).
In 1989, inspection of the mound's rem-
nants indicated that Moore's claim was not
exaggerated. bTday, what is left of the
mound presents a gruesome sight. It con-
sists of a bone-strewn hollow surrounded
by a large ring of sand apparently thrown
outward when Moore's digging displaced the
central, main portion of the mound.
According to Moore (1900:362, 1905:
305), the Pine Island 8 burial mound was
originally about 60 feet in diameter and
five feet in height. Apparently due to
the outward displacement of sand, the
ring-like remnant of the mound is about 30
meters (90-100 feet) in diameter and about
one meter (3 feet) in height. The ring is
widest on its west and north sides, and a
few 10-25 year-old potholes are visible in
it. Moore's digging to basal and sub-
basal levels is evidenced by the central
hollow reaching tidal level where it
measures about 4.5 meters (15 feet) east-
west and about 8 meters (25 feet) north-
south. Human bones are scattered in the
spoil from recent vandal pits in the floor
of this hollow.
In the northwest portion of the
ring, vandals have dug a 10 meter (30-35
feet) long north-south trench measuring
about 2 meters (6 feet) wide. The north
end of the trench began at tidal level on
the north edge of the ring, most of the
trench having been dug to that level.
Most of the trench's east and south walls
were vertical and about 1 meter in height.
The west wall was much lower, and spoil
was thrown to the west. Human bones and
numerous potsherds were strewn along the
trench. This trench apparently was placed
in Moore's backfill.
Vandals dug this trench in 1985-
1986. They believed they were digging at
a newly discovered site (Katz 1986;
Rinella 1986). Based on these reports,
the site was designated as 8LL783 in 1987.
However, the July 1989 visit showed that
the site was the same as that reported by
Moore, and thus the previously assigned
number, 8LL40, should be used.


Today, the Pine Island 8 burial
mound is located on posted, private land
in a mangrove swamp. The mound's remnants
support a dense growth including: gumbo
limbo, buckthorn, cat claw, white stopper,
myrsine, sea grape, strangler fig, prickly
pear, and apple cereus cactus. A few
eroded metal-detector holes can be seen
around the edge of the mound's remnants.
An intensive metal-detecting survey
in July 1989 disclosed only two fragments
of badly rusted nails. A single, rotting
fence post with a rusted nail in it was
the apparent source. It appears that the
mound already had been combed. Indeed,
metal-detecting by vandals in 1985-1986
did locate a rusted iron ax head which now
is housed at the Historical Museum of
Southern Florida in Miami. It should be
noted that Moore (1900, 1905) reported a
few iron celts at this mound.
During the July 1989 visit, a sample
of 140 pottery sherds was collected from
alongside the vandal trench. After wash-
ing and sorting, most of these could be
classified as sand-tempered plain (5 rim,
95 body), with the remainder being Belle
Glade Plain (5 rim, 33 body) and Pinellas
Plain (2 body) sherds.
This collection is significant be-
cause a high percentage of Belle Glade
Plain sherds (27% of the total) is in
keeping with the high frequency of this
pottery at late sites in the Pine Island
area (see Luer 1989:119-121, Table 2, Fig.
11). Its high frequency here, at the Pine
Island 8 burial mound, helps support the
interpretation that the Pine Island Canal
was a route to the Lake Okeechobee region
(see Luer 1989).
Also in July 1989, the mound's
remnants yielded three large, left-handed
whelk shells. Two of these shells had a
sizeable hole opposite the aperture, like
specimens often called "dippers." Several
large whelk shell "dippers" also were
recovered from the surface of this site by
Bob Bdic in May 1988. These latter speci-
mens, as well as some sherds and human
bone fragments collected by Edic, are
housed at the Florida Museum of Natural
History in Gainesville (Bob Edic, pers.
comm. 1988).
The third whelk shell recovered in





246


July 1989 was unaltered, and was of the
heavy and robust form frequently used for
tools. This form is typical of Gulf and
near-Gulf waters. The Indians might have
brought this particular shell eastward to
this mound via the canal. Curiously, Mbore
(1905:307) noted the occurrence of a
robust whelk shell cutting-edged tool at
this mound. It should be noted that the
typical whelk shell drinking cups usually
found in lower Gulf Coast burial mounds
were fashioned from large, less robust,
estuarine shells.

Corbett Mbund (8LL24)

Fortunately, this privately-owned
mound will be preserved in a controlled
greenspace within a planned development.
After obtaining permission from the
landowner, the OCrbett Mound (8LL24) was
inspected and found to be about 20 meters
(65 feet) in diameter and about 1.7 meters
(5 feet) in height. A few old, eroded
potholes are visible in the top and south
side of the mound. According to a 1980
Florida Master Site File update, human
bone material was recovered from the spoil
of a vandal pit in the mound.
In July 1989, disturbed soil around
the vandal pits yielded a few plain sand-
tempered sherds and the siphonal canal of
a large left-handed whelk shell, apparent-
ly a fragment of a whelk shell drinking
cup or dipper. This shell is of estuarine
origin and indicates contact with the
coast. Interestingly, it has been specu-
lated that a possible aboriginal canal
across Cape Ooral, which led to the coast,
might have been associated with the
Corbett Mound (see Luer 1989:108). It
should be noted that whelk shell drinking
cups and dippers, at an inland site such
as this, may be evidence of exchange; they
also may indicate interregional trade or
tribute in yaupon holly leaves for brewing
black drink (see Luer 1989:116-117).
In July 1989, an intensive metal-
detecting survey of the mound revealed
very little artifactual material. A few
small fragments of badly rusted iron and
two small pieces of lead shot were
recovered.
Most of the Corbett Mound is covered


by dense growth including: scrub oak, saw
palmetto, slash pine, bracken fern, sumac,
lyonia, smilax, and French mulberry. Near
the pond, the mound supports cabbage palm,
wax myrtle, live oak, and persimmon. The
mound sits on the northern edge of a
large, circular pond which is overgrown by
willow and buttonbush. The former wetland
environment in the vicinity of the COrbett
Mound is now almost completely altered.
It should be noted that a large stand of
cypress can still be seen to the southwest
along Hancock Creek. This is where the
possible Cape Coral Canal might have had
its east end (see Luer 1989:107).
It should be noted that the sloughs,
ponds, and other wetlands in this area
apparently offered many varied food re-
sources. Brief inspection of a few re-
maining remnants of open sloughs and ponds
bordering wet saw palmetto prairie in
northwestern Cape Coral disclosed cray-
fish, apple snails, frogs, turtles, and
small fish. Food resources such as these
should be noted when considering aborigi-
nal use of this area.

Conclusions

The east end of the Pine Island
Canal was found to be in a good state of
preservation. A linear feature extending
perpendicularly to the east end of the
canal was discovered. Observations indi-
cate that a recently vandalized site near
the canal's east end was recorded already
as the Pine Island 8 burial mound, demo-
lished by C. B. Moore in 1900 and 1904.
In contrast, the Corbett Mound was found
to be mostly intact, and will be preserved
in a controlled greenspace. It is note-
worthy that the dimensions of the Cbrbett
Mound are almost identical to the original
dimensions of the Pine Island 8 burial
mound as described by Moore. Furthermore,
possible evidence of tribute or exchange
was recovered: numerous Belle Glade Plain
sherds at the Pine Island 8 burial mound,
and a marine shell fragment at the inland
Corbett Mound.
Today, all these sites are privately
owned and protected. It should be empha-
sized that Chapter 872, Florida Statutes,
makes any digging in the Pine Island 8 and









Corbett Mounds a criminal offense.

Recommendations

The east end of the Pine Island
Canal should be preserved. Efforts should
be made to acquire land and/or to create
conservation easements. Posting and con-
trolling access to the area are essential.
If regular visitation were ever contem-
plated, restricted access and elevated
boardwalks would be needed to avoid de-
stroying prehistoric features as well as
delicate, salt-tolerant vegetation.

Acknowledgenents

The Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc. would like to thank the
landowners for giving us permission to
visit these sites. In addition, the gener-
ous assistance of Gladys Cook and Gloria
Sajgo, both with the Lee County Planning
Department, is gratefully acknowledged.

Inferences Cited

Katz, Betty
1986 Three Arrested for Desecrating Burial Sites.
Pine Island Eagle, May 21, page 2.

Luer, George M.
1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Ibutes
of Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 42:89-130.

Moore, Clarence B.
1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West (Cast.
Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia 11:350-394.
1905 Miscellaneous Investigations in Florida. In:
Certain Aboriginal remains of the Black War-
rior River. Journal of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia 13.

Rinella, Frank
1986 Mound diggers rebut claims. Fort Myers News
Press, May 30, 1B-2B.


George M. Luer
Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc.
c/o 3222 Old Oak Drive
Sarasota, FL 34239








POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT


The City of St. Augustine, Planning and Building Department
has announced its intention to hire an archaeologist.

The City Archaeologist will provide professional skills,
knowledge and judgement relative to the testing, salvage
archaeology and monitoring of disturbances and sites as
required by the City's Archaeological Preservation
Ordinance. This position will report directly to the
Director of the Planning and Building Department, and will
coordinate with other Division heads and personnel within
the City organization. The City Archaeologist will provide
technical expertise in the preparation of final reports on
archaeological projects, will record archaeological sites
and will be responsible for curation of artifacts. Finally,
the archaeologist will be responsible for the management,
production and administration of Division activities.

Contact Troy Bunch, Director, Planning and Building
Department, City of St. Augustine, P.O. Drawer 210, St.
Augustine, Florida 32085-0210 for additional information.
Applications will be accepted by the City's Personnel
Division until the position is filled. St. Augustine is an
Equal Opportunity Employer.

***kk************* *************** ********************

Editor's Note

The City of St. Augustine previously had been contracting
with the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board for the
City Archaeologist services. However, that contract has
since been canceled, and the program is in limbo. The
Director of the Preservation Board has reportedly stated his
belief that archaeology is a non-essential activity of that
board, has begun the process of divesting the board of its
research library (the local historical society will be the
recipient), has determined to divest the board of its
decades of accumulated artifacts (the Department of
Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History will be the
recipient), and is eliminating its archaeological staff. It
is sad when a few individuals are able to have such an
adverse impact on a program which had been lauded for its
national leadership. Lacking the support of the board, the
City, which passed its archaeological ordinance in
recognition of the importance of such resources, has
determined to responsibly treat with that portion of the
City's archaeological heritage under its jurisdiction. The
City Archaeologist job will be a challenge for anyone
familiar with the Native American, Spanish, British, and
American prehistoric and historic resources of the city. It
is fortunate that there is a dedicated and supportive group
of avocational archaeologists and other interested citizens.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 42 No. 3


Sept., 1989





249


NOTES ON THE HOWARD SHELL MOUND AND CALUSA ISLAND,
LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

George M. Luer


Introduction

This report presents data collected
in the summer of 1980 while the author was
studying the Pine Island Canal in Lee
County, Florida. Donald H. Randell of
Pineland encouraged the author to visit
the Howard Shell Mound (8LL44) located
just off the north end of Pine Island.
This visit led to additional work at two
nearby sites (8LL45 and 8LL46) on Calusa
Island. These three sites are described
below.

Howard Shell Mound (8LL44)

This large site originally consisted
of adjoining shell elevations and associ-
ated features on Bokeelia Island between
Charlotte Harbor to the north and a tidal
channel named "Jug Creek" to the south.
Today, thick native vegetation hides a
private residence on the site's high
southwestern portion. Before removal of a
vast quantity of shell for roadfill, much
of the site was considerably higher in
elevation.
The Howard Shell Mbund (8LL44)
should not be confused with the Howard
Sand Mound (8LL42) located nearby on Pine
Island, a short distance to the south
across Jug Creek. The Howard Sand Mound,
called the "Pine Island 10" site by Goggin
(1949), reportedly was associated with
aboriginal "trenches", one of them curved
and encompassing "about 20 acres" (Wain-
wright 1918a:30). Based on Wainwright's
description, this trench might have been a
"circular earthwork" such as those de-
scribed by Carr (1985:288-301) for the
Lake Okeechobee and southeast Florida
regions. It should be noted also that
this earthwork and the Howard Sand Mound
might have been associated with two or
three other nearby sand mounds (8LL43,
8LL79, and 8LL80).


Sketching the surface contours of
the Howard Shell Mbund in 1980 revealed a
generally U-shaped configuration for the
site's higher elevations, a lower area be-
ing on the north side (see Figure 1).
This low area was noted in 1917 by R. D.
Wainwright, who described the site as
having been "divided by a small ravine in
center" (1918a:28-29).
After archaeologist John GCggin
visited the Howard Shell Mound in 1944, he
wrote that "one third to one half of this
site has been removed for shell," and that
there were "exposed faces being 15 feet
high" (Goggin 1949). Artifacts collected
by Goggin in 1944 and by field parties in
1952 included 633 sherds of which 628 were
sand-tempered plain (Goggin 1949; Florida
Master Site File [FMSF] form for 8LL44).
This predominance of sand-tempered plain
pottery suggests a Glades I temporal
assignment (500 B.C. A.D 700).
In an attempt to reconstruct the
former appearance of the Howard Shell
Mound and to learn more about its early
20th century occupation, the author inter-
viewed Mr. James Howard of Bokeelia in
August 1980. Mr. Howard, an elderly
mullet fisherman and carpenter, was a
life-long resident of Bokeelia. He said
he had fished only in the immediate
Bokeelia area, and even the waters south
of Matlacha were unfamiliar to him. His
parents settled at Bokeelia in 1906, and
soon thereafter built a house on the shell
mound which now bears their name. Mr.
Howard grew up there, on the shell mound,
in the 1910s and 1920s.
According to Mr. Howard, his
family's frame house measured 14 feet by
36 feet, and was located to the east of
the "ravine" near the northeast edge of
the shell mound where it overlooked
Charlotte Harbor (see Figure l:a). A
separate kitchen building measuring 14
feet by 12 feet was situated to the south,


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 42 No. 3


Sept., 1989





































Figure 1. Howard Shell Mound (8LL44), August 1980. Note former Howard house site (a), barge basin for load-
ing shell (b), present residence (c), and approximate highest spot before removal of upper portion
of the site's east half (x). Contours in feet above mean high tide; dashed lines show some cuts
made by removing shell.


a short distance behind the house. The
foundation of the house was about 7 or 8
feet above mean high tide, and the ele-
vation of the mound increased to the south
of the house. The incline was such that
the surface of the mound was three feet
higher just behind the kitchen than in
front of the kitchen (a rise of 3 feet
over a distance of 12 feet). This slope
of the mound continued for a short dis-
tance, and then increased greatly, then
became almost level, and then again in-
creased greatly to reach the highest
elevation of the site, about 25 feet, near
the location of the "X" shown on Figure 1.
To the west of this highest point, Mr.
Howard said that the mound's elevation
decreased only slightly to reach a height
of about 21 feet near the present-day
location of the private residence (see
Figure l:c).


This information about the eastern
half of the Howard Shell Mound is im-
portant because shell removal destroyed
much of that area. According to Mr.
Howard, the shell mound was sold to the
West Coast Fish Company in the early
1930s. The company then dredged a channel
to the shell mound to facilitate the
removal of shell. This entailed making
"Shell Cut" which divided Bokeelia Island
into two parts, the western part retaining
the name of Bokeelia Island, and the
eastern later assuming the present name of
Calusa Island. From Shell Cut, the com-
pany dredged a channel leading to a small
basin, which was dug into the southern
edge of the shell mound (see Figure l:b).
Barges were towed to this basin and loaded
with shell and sand from the mound. Most
of this material was ferried northward to
the city of Punta Gorda where it was used








in the construction of streets and roads.
Other material was used on Pine Island for
roads.
Mr. Howard's description of the
original height and shape of the mound
combined with the 1980 contours of Figure
1 indicate that the top 16 to 17 feet of
the southeastern and south-central por-
tions were removed. Such extensive re-
moval accounts for the "exposed faces
being 15 feet high" mentioned by Goggin
and which can still be seen near the south
edge of the remaining west portion of the
site (see Figure 1). The removal of shell
extended northward to include the area
where the Howard house had been located.
(This shell removal probably destroyed
evidence of this early 20th century
occupation. This is unfortunate because
evidence of historic fishermen's material
culture in the Charlotte Harbor area is
rare and little studied -- see Luer and
Archibald 1988:8CH357.) Even the north-
eastern edge of the western portion of the
mound was removed -- especially due west
of the former location of the Howard house
(see Figure 1). This removal altered the
northern end of the "ravine." Mr. Howard
described the southern end of this
"ravine" as having been "bowl-like" which
is still suggested by present-day con-
tours.
In the early 1950s, the southern and
western edges of the Howard Shell Mound
were modified. Fill was added, a basin
was dredged, and a road was constructed.
Before this road was built, the shell
mound was accessible to automobiles if
they were driven along the beach from the
town of Bokeelia to the west. Waves from
Charlotte Harbor have caused considerable
erosion along this beach and along the
north edge of the Howard Shell Mound.
Construction of sea walls have altered
this beach, slowing erosion along some
stretches. That natural erosion is a
serious problem for cultural resources in
the Charlotte Harbor area has been
documented for sites on state-owned lands,
about 25% of which have suffered serious
impacts from natural erosion (Luer and
Archibald 1988).
The Howard Shell Mound is also sig-
nificant as an example of the serious loss
of cultural resources in southwestern


Florida due to shell mining in past
decades. The Howard Shell Mound should be
considered in the overall context of this
destruction. Some other notable sites
which also have suffered from shell
removal include: Coral Creek (Wainwright
1918b:43), Cash Mound (Bullen and Bullen
1956; John Fales pers. comm. 1986), Wight-
man Site or "Mysterious Island" (Goggin
1949), Kinzie Cove (Allerton, Luer, and
Carr 1984:catalog entry for WT#3), Dog Key
(Luer and Archibald 1988), Doctor's Pass
Midden, Gordon's Pass Midden, and the Bear
Point Site (Goggin 1949), and Addison Key
(Beriault n.d.). Clearly, the great mag-
nitude of this loss makes existing sites
even more precious.

Calusa Island Midden (8LL45)

While visiting the Howard Shell
Mound, the author was encouraged to visit
the Calusa Island Midden (8LL45) located
about one kilometer (0.6 mile) to the east
on Calusa Island. Like the Howard Shell
Mound, this midden lay between Jug Creek
and Charlotte Harbor, and its north shore
was undergoing much erosion. It, too, was
visited by Wainwright (1918a:29). By
borrowing a canoe from Bill Spikowski of
Bokeelia, the author paddled via protected
Jug Creek to the Calusa Island Midden and
sketched its features (see Figure 2).
This map shows that most of the Calusa
Island Midden is about 1 meter in eleva-
tion and lacks complex relief.
While on Calusa Island, the author
was shown two incised rim sherds: one with
a small amount of fiber-tempering and a
hard, compact paste containing an extreme-
ly small amound of very fine sand (Figure
3:a), and the second sherd with a chalky,
fiberless soft paste (Figure 3:b). The
latter sherd is assignable to the type St.
Johns Incised, and has a straight body
wall suggestive of a rectangular-mouthed,
flat-bottomed vessel. This is one of
several vessel forms typical of both the
Orange Period (3500 3000 B.P.) and the
Florida Transitional Period (3000 2500
B.P.) (Bullen 1972). The two Calusa
Island sherds, however, both display sets
of angled incisions which are restricted
to the vessel shoulder -- decoration
typical of the later Florida Transitional





252


Figure 2. Sketch of Calusa Island Midden (8LL45), August 1980. Note severe erosion along site's northeast
edge. Dotted lines represent 1980 structures. Contours in feet above mean high tide level.


Period.
Both these Calusa Island sherds had
been dug up recently from the midden.
They indicate a very late Ceramic Archaic/
Florida Transitional Period component at
the site (circa 3000 2500 B.P.). Since
1980, additional evidence of these periods
has been recovered from the Calusa Island
Midden. This includes a fiber-tempered
sherd with alternating sets of short ver-
tical and horizontal incisions in a
checkerboard pattern (Bob Edic, pers.
comm. 1989). This design is very sugges-
tive of a basket weave. Also, several
"Type E" cutting-edged whelk shell tools
have been recovered from the eroding shore
of the site (Bob Bdic, pers. comm. 1989).
Such cutting-edged tools are usually not
found in late sites, but have been found
at early sites such as the Canton Street


site in St. Petersburg (Bullen et al.
1978:12, Fig. 11) and at the Palmer Site's
Hill Cottage Midden in Osprey near
Sarasota (Luer et al. 1986:121).
The existence of a pre-Glades com-
ponent (circa 3500 2500 years B.P.) at
the Calusa Island midden should be inves-
tigated. If the component is extensive,
the site would take on added significance
in helping to unravel the cultural
development of the Charlotte Harbor area.
Although extensive components of this
early cultural stage are few, it should be
noted that sites with such early occupa-
tion are not as rare as indicated by
Widmer (1988:72-73). For example, evi-
dence of these early periods in the
Sarasota-Charlotte Harbor area has been
found at sites such as: Perico Island
(Willey 1949:181), Roberts Bay (Luer's



































Figure 3. Two Rim Sherds (Three Views of Each) from the Calusa Island Hidden
(8LL45)., August 1980. Hard, fiber-tempered: a; soft, temperless: b.



1987 collection), Hill Cottage Midden
(Bullen 1972:11-14; Bullen and Bullen
1976), Shell Ridge (Luer 1982 field
notes), Venice Beach (Steve Koski, pers.
comm. 1988), Gory Site (FMSF for 8So24),
Myakkahatchee (Luer et al. 1987), Paulson
Point (Bullen 1971), apparently the
Dunwody Site (FMSF for 8CH61; Bullen
1972:14), reportedly from 8Ch54 (Travis
Gray, pers. comm. 1982), the Fish Camp,
Turtle Bay 2 and Cash Mound sites (Bullen
and Bullen 1956), Calusa Island Midden
(see above) Bokeelia Beach (FMSF for
8LL35 and 8LL62), and Useppa Island
(Griffin 1949; Milanich et al. 1984;
Marquardt 1987). It should be noted, how-
ever, that many of these sites have been
impacted severely, particularly by con-
struction during the past 25 years. Thus
sites and components of these early per-
iods are indeed rare, and deserve study.
Changes in the surrounding environ-
ment and geomorphology since the Calusa
Island Midden's time of occupancy should


5 cm


be considered. For example, aerial photo-
graphs suggest that the berm which forms
the "spine" of Bokeelia and Calusa Islands
grew eastward through time. When the
Calusa Island Midden was occupied origin-
ally, however, it might have sat on the
east tip of this berm. If so, the midden
would have been situated on a point be-
tween Charlotte Harbor and the then-east
end of Jug Creek. Tidal waters moving
into Jug Creek might have transported some
of the midden material back along the
creek, creating the small spur at the
southwest corner of the Calusa Island
Midden (Figure 2). Later, the berm
apparently extended to the east, closing
the former end of Jug Creek and leaving
the deep channel southeast of the midden
where a boat dock is presently situated.

Bokeelia 3 Site (8LL46)

The Bokeelia 3 Site (8LL46) was
first described by Wainwright (1918a:29).
In 1980, the author visited the site by
walking westward through the mangroves
from the Calusa Island Midden. The site
consists of four ridges lying in the
mangrove forest, each composed of oyster
shell.
Field sketches indicate that each
ridge is essentially linear. They are
situated roughly end-to-end, with varied
gaps between. Their longer axes are
oriented at different angles, however, and
together they describe a slight, broad arc
with each end approaching the shore of
Charlotte Harbor. The author wrote a
detailed description of these ridges on a
Florida Master Site File update in 1980.
In sum, they together stretch for perhaps
325 meters, all four reaching a height of
about 1 meter above mean high water level.
In early 1986, Bob and Linda Bdic
(pers. comm., March 1986) encountered a
vandal at this site. The vandal claimed
to have recovered a small lead "sinker" at
the site which was later illustrated by a
Boca Grande artist. This illustrated
artifact resembles a metal plummet shown
by Goggin (1954:Fig. 1, third from left).
It should be noted that Goggin's artifact
was from 8LL2 rather than from 8LL7 (see
Luer 1984:274).


I ~. .. . . .












Acknowledgements


Mr. and Mrs. DeFreis graciously wel-
comed the author to their property at the
Howard Shell Mound. Bill Spikowski, ER
Chapin, and Bob Edic contributed to the
investigation of the Calusa Island Midden.



References Cited


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

Beriault, John G.
n.d. Archaeological Notes on Addison Key, Ten
Thousand Islands, 1981. MS in possession of
author.

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

1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. In:
Fiber-tempered Pottery in Southeastern United
States and Northern Columbia: Its Origins,
Context, and Significance. R. P. Bullen and
J. B. Stoltman (eds.). Florida Anthropological
Society Publications, Number 6.

Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen
1956 Excavations on Cape Haze Peninsula, Florida.
Contributions of the Florida State Museum,
Social Sciences, Number 1. Gainesville.

1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological
Society Publications, Number 8.

Bullen, Ripley P., Walter Askew, Lee M. Feder, and
Richard L. McDonnell
1978 The Canton Street Site, St.Petersburg, Florida
Florida Anthropological Society Publication,
Number 9.

Carr, Robert S.
1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 38:288-301.

Goggin, John M.
1949 The Archaeology of the Glades Area, Southern
Florida. Unfinished MS on file at Yale Peabody
Museum.

1954 Historic Metal Plummet Pendants. The Florida
Anthropologist 7:27.

Griffin, John W.
1949 Notes on the Archaeology of Useppa Island. The
Florida Anthropologist 2:92-93.

Luer, George M.
1985 An Update on Some Ceremonial Tablets. The
Florida Anthropologist 38:273-274.

1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes
of Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 42:89-130.

Luer, George M., David Allerton, Dan Hazeltine, Ron
Hatfield and Darden Hood
1986 Whelk Shell Tool Blanks from Big Mound Key
(8Chl0), Charlotte County, Florida: With Notes
on Certain Whelk Shell Tools. The Florida
Anthropologist 39:92-124.


Luer, George M., and Lauren C. Archibald
1988 An Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in
Charlotte Harbor State Reserve. Archaeological
and Historical Conservancy, Inc., Report. On
file, Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Tallahassee.

Marquardt, William H., editor
1987 Useppa's amazing heritage. In: Calusa News,
Number 1:4.

Milanich, J. T., J. Chapman, A. S. Cordell, S. Hale,
and R. A. Marrinan
1984 Prehistoric Development of Calusa Society on
Southwest Florida: Excavations on Useppa
Island. In: Perspectives on Gulf Coast Pre-
history. Dave D. Davis, ed. University
Presses of Florida. Gainesville.


Wainwright, R. D.
1918a Further Archaeological Exploration
Florida, Winter of 1917. Paper I.
logical Bulletin 9:28-32.

1918b Further Archaeological Exploration
Florida, Winter of 1917. Paper II.
logical Bulletin 9:43-47.


in Southern
The Archae-


in Southern
The Archae-


Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa, a Nonagricultural
Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. The
University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smith-
sonian Miscellaneous Collections volume 113.
Washington, D.C.




George M. Luer
Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc.
c/o 3222 Old Oak Drive
Sarasota, Florida 34239






255


PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE NEW RIVER MIDDEN (8BD196) EXCAVATION,
BRIGARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

Gypsy C. Graves


In January, 1980, at the request of
the City of Ft. Lauderdale, Robert Carr
conducted an archaeological survey of the
"Near Northwest" section of Ft. Lauderdale
prior to redevelopment of the area. A
black dirt midden was located and desig-
nated the New River Midden (8Bdl96) in the
Florida Master Site File. The buildings
on the property at the time have been de-
molished and the area cleared to permit
construction of the Performing Arts Center
located between S.W. 4th Avenue and S.W.
7th Avenue on the north side of the New
River, Broward County, Florida.
The Broward County Archaeological
Society (a chapter of the Florida Anthro-
pological Society) and Florida Atlantic
University, Department of Anthropology
conducted a magnetometer survey of the
area searching for prehistoric kiln or
hearth areas. However, only underground
plumbing and wiring and surface debris
were detected.
Strombus fragments had been found by
probing with a steel rod in the midden
area. Salvage excavation was conducted on
the soon to be destroyed site. Work was
conducted on Sundays for four months until
construction was begun in May, 1988.
Thirty seven auger and shovel tests and 17
one-meter pits were excavated (Figure 1).
The following is a preliminary report on
16 of the adjoining pits.
Much of the surface to a depth of 20
cm in some places had been disturbed. A
drain field located in the area west of
the datum point virtually destroyed that
area. Excavation began in Pit NE2A and
extended northeast and southeast. Cement
blocks were encountered in Pits SE3A and
SE3B at 30 cm. Pits NE3B, NE4B and NE3C
were excavated to 110 cm, and NE4A and
NE4C were excavated to culturally sterile
soil and water at 120 am.
Site 8Bdl96 was apparently a
butchering or processing site for sharks.
Over 5.1 kg of shark vertebra were recov-
ered from all levels, 26.8% from the 40-50


S, W,

BLVD ,
Sr
r 7 '
0dI9


//. ,


Sv 6T" ST


Civ Hall '
St AiJthliny
Sch Eistisidd

-II A S,
SEAsr aawaRD iVD

S L~, :SE 2
EPO ;lgh Srh


,' Tunnel ^
* / 12Tuue1
7 &j .f


Ccurt "
House ; [
i1


SE 6TH


iw ths i& u)
h^ T'SE 9TH SS




ARPON .Bo ce p
= "== '6
S i Cliff L ke

13rif ST 7 u
FORT LAUDERDALE


North



NE2C NE3C NE4C


NE2B NE38 NE4B


NE2A NE3A NE4A NE5A NE6A NE7A


Datum SE2A SE3A SE5A



SE 35 -
I meter

Figure 1. New River Midden (8Bdl96) site.
Vicinity map showing site location (upper
left); and, Performing Arts Center
Excavation Units, Ft. Lauderdale, Broward
County, Florida.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


'r


Vol. 42 No. 3


Sept., 1989





256


cm level. Of the 773 shark teeth found,
54 were drilled. Species represented in-
clude tiger, lemon, hammerhead and bull
sharks. The total of 33.8 kg of Strombus
shell included 162 tools made from the
columella and basal portions of the shell.
Only two thin celts were found, both prob-
ably used as scrapers. Bone artifacts in-
cluded 23 bone pins and 3 beads.
Glades Plain pottery was found at
all levels, but only six decorated sherds
were found:

Check-Stamped sherd from NE7A @ 10-20 an;
Unidentified incised sherd from SE2A @ 20-
30 cm;
Surfside sherd from NE2C @ 30-40 am;
Chalky (Check-Stamped ?) from NE4A @ 60-
70 cm;
Opalocka sherd from NE4A @ 70-80 an; and,
Check-Stamped sherd from NE3C at 90-100 an

Most of the sherds were small fragments,
and were weighed (3.3 kg), rather than
counted.
Over 75% of the three species of
oyster shell (115 kg) recovered were from
the 30-60 cm levels. Lucina sp. comprised
1.5% and very few other shells were pre-
sent. Drum, parrotfish, snapper, bar-
racuda, gar, stingray and catfish were
among the identified species (2.9 kg).
The nearly one kg of snake vertebra in-
cluded large water moccasin. Most of the
48.8 kg of bone remains were from deer,
alligator, fish and turtle; a small per-
centage included raccoon, rabbit, muskrat
and mouse.
The New River Midden (8Bdl96) site
was important archaeologically. The pro-
ject demonstrates the value of and need
for cooperative emergency excavation ef-
forts by avocational and professional ar-
chaeologists. The results of the 8Bdl96
excavation deserve a more in-depth analy-
sis and reporting effort than this brief
summary.


Gypsy C. Graves
Broward Cbunty Archaeological
Society, Inc.








SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS AT THE TRAIL SITE,
DAE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Wesley F. ODleman


Introduction

The Trail Site (8Da34) was located
on a large hammock tree island in the
eastern Everglades. John Goggin visited
the site in the 1950s and dug some test
pits, but he never published a report on
his findings. Dan Laxson dug there in the
1960s and recovered extensive evidence of
prehistoric habitation.
In 1968, the Miami-West India Ar-
chaeological Society became aware that the
site would soon be destroyed by develop-
ment. Numerous excavation units were dug
on the highest part of the black dirt mid-
den. Subsequent explorations of the sur-
rounding area revealed a separate rise
east of the main midden. This rise was
designated by our group as component A,
specifically 8Da96A. However, this ini-
tial designation of 8Da96 was later found
to be incorrect, since the site already
had designated 8Da34 by John Goggin.
Three significant components were
observed in association with the Trail
Site (Figure 1). Mentioned earlier was a
black-dirt midden which encompassed most
of the upland portion of the island. This
midden represented up to three feet in
cultural deposition. Prehistoric arti-
facts, including large quantities of fau-
nal bone, were common. Furthermore, an
early 20th century Seminole horizon was
observed. The other two site components
were areas of mortuary activity, including
secondary burials and burial preparation.
These two mortuary components are referred
to as "A" and "B", and are the subject of
this report.

Component A

Component A was located east of the
main black-dirt midden (see Figure 1).
This generally rectangular shaped site
area was located in the NE 1/4 of the NW
1/4 of Section 12, T54S-R39E. It measured


Figure 1. Map of Trail Site (8Da34) and
Components A and B, Dade County, Florida.
(Sketch from site vicinity map prepared by
the author).


17.5 m E-W and 22 m N-S (see Figure 2).
Elevations were one meter above average
ground level. In January 1969, the Miami-
West India Archaeological Society began
excavations at the site and completed work
in late August, 1969.
Component A was gridded with 150
five-foot square units. All excavated ma-
terial was hand picked from 1/4-inch
screens and recorded in each unit as to
depth and location. However, certain ar-
tifacts also were mapped using a datum
point located as close to the center of
the site as possible (see Figure I).
To obtain a subsurface profile of
Component A, two trenches were excavated
along the center N-S and E-W base lines.
Four levels were recorded for the site.


Sept., 1989


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


~5~i~Bi~i~t~~


Vol. 42 No. 3

































9* C WTId .r
--/ ** Sf/ P' L



Figure 2. Contour map of Component A of
the Trail Site (8Da34), Dade County, Fla.
(Photoreduced from sketch prepared by the
author).

The first level, 0-25 cm (15"), was of
mixed gray sand and black humic soil heav-
ily mixed with fish, animal, and fragmen-
tary human bones. The second level (20-30
cm) was black midden with material similar
to that in level one with the addition of
clam shells. The third level consisted of
15-20 cm of hard concretion, a feature
which is commonly observed on tree island
sites. Level four extended an additional
10-30 cm to the Miami Colite bedrock,
which had an irregular surface of solution
holes and crevices filled with level four
material to depths of 70 cm. Although
clam shells (Lucinae) were not present in
this level, there was an abundance of
fresh water Pomacea snails.
In addition to faunal bone and
shell, these excavation units included a
high percentage of human bones. This was
in contrast to the main midden, which


yielded only subsistence materials. Ini-
tially, we wondered whether Component A
might be a cemetery; however, only frag-
ments of human bone, and no primary buri-
als, were found.
Evidence of human remains were re-
covered from all 150 excavated units.
Bone elements included phalanges, small
skull fragments, teeth and fragments of
long bones. The only possible complete
burial was discovered in late August 1968,
at the south edge of the site near a pos-
sible natural water basin in the bedrock.
It was about one meter in diameter and
about half a meter in depth. The burial
was peculiar, as it is represented by only
the right side of an adult individual.
Only the right half of the pelvis,
humerus, radius, ulna, femur and 12 ribs
were present. Also found in the burial
material was an alligator skull resting
upon the pelvis of the individual, along
with a macrocallista shell knife.
The following artifacts were recov-
ered from Component A:


Ceramics.
Glades Plain
Opa-Locka Incised
Key Largo Incised
Miami Incised
Dade Incised
Matacumbe Incised
Interior Incised Lines
Unclassified
Total
Bone.
Socketed Projectile Points
Bi-Pointed Projectile Points
Fluted Projectile Points
Grooved Fish hooks
Bi-pointed awls
Perforated Alligator Teeth
Perforated Sharks Teeth
Possible Ear Spool Plug
Hair-pin, Notched Head
Worked Deer Bone
Flat Fragment, worked bone
Pieces of drilled bone
Drilled Human Skull Fragment
Total
Shell.
Strombus Celts
Strombus Axe


Quantity
6,829
48
62
71
16
20
8
22
7,076

8
36
3
2
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
65





259


Columnella Awls
Columnella Pucks
Busycon Scrapers
Busycon Knife
Macrocallista Knives
Possible Carved Ear Spool
Total
Artifacts of European Origin
Iron Spikes
Iron Fragments
Miscellaneous Copper Fragment
Brass Button
Silver Egg (?, 1 oz)
Spanish Glass Beads
Total


Gomponent B


Component B was located 183 m SSW of
the main black-dirt midden (see Figure 1).
This ovoid shaped area was located in the
SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 11, T54S-
R39E. This study area measured 12 m on
its N-S and E-W axis. (NOTE. While this
grid orientation is used throughout this
report, it is noted that itis oriented
around 45 degrees NE of magnetic north
(see Figure 3)). The site was approxi-
mately 60 cm above the surrounding terrain
on an elevated ridge of exposed Miami Co-
lite bedrock.
The area was divided into six sec-
tions by extending N-S/E-W baselines. Ex-
cavations were irregular, following pock-
ets of soil within the exposed oolitic
limestone. Sections were excavated by
shovel, with the exception of significant
features which were trowelled when they
were encountered. Material was sifted
through a 1/4-inch screen and then hand-
picked from the screen.
Initial shovel tests revealed no
concentrated area of midden or stratigra-
phy. The site consisted primarily of
black organic soil, with a gray concretion
formation encountered in sections C and D
(see Figure 3), and extending almost to
the site center. This concretion varied
from 60-150 cm in thickness. One edge of
the site was not excavated in order to ob-
tain a stratigraphic profile (see Figure
3).
As excavation continued, it was ap-
parent that site Component B was of con-


3 siderable importance. Large amounts of
5 human skeletal material were uncovered,
4 most concentrated in small solution holes
1 within the baserock. Five discrete con-
4 centrations of human bones were uncovered,
1 but none of them indicated a complete
r. burial.


Cranial fragments were scattered
throughout the western sections of the ex-
cavated area, and a skull and mandible
(Burial #1) was uncovered in section C.
Also found in section C was a portion of
an ilium in very poor condition. It was
not in any obvious association with Burial
#1. bMst of the Burial #1 was scattered
over an area 120 cm square, and could have
been broken through compaction of the area
through years of use by hunters and other
walking through the area.
Of particular interest, was the dis-
covery in section C of three shell celts
stacked in a pyramid fashion with the
tool's working bits pointed downward.
This discovery prompted the excavation of
a five-foot N-S trench to encompass the
celt cache area. This excavation resulted
in the discovery of two additional celts
60 cm north of the stacked group. These
two celts were also placed in an upright
position and crossed one another.
At the center of section C, a large
group of snail shells (Pomacea sp.) was
uncovered. These may have been placed in
this location when the burials were in-
terred. However, it also is possible that
they are a natural feature. Toward the
center of the site, and still within the
two northern quadrants, a culturally ster-
ile area was encountered about 24 m from
the west line of the section. This fea-
ture continued into a grey concretion
which ran approximately 1.5 m into quad-
rant D (see Figure 3).
A circular burnt area, 1.5 m in di-
ameter, was noted in section D. This fea-
ture consisted of a charred stain inter-
mixed with dark organic sand. The eastern
side of this feature had numerous unburnt
snail shells (Pomacea sp.), but no cul-
tural material was observed. Near the
center of section D, a secondary burial
was found in a 45 cm deep solution hole.
The burial consisted of femurs, humerus,
radius, ulna and ribs. Some of the bones









4C )


-Nov-16 /9(a9
Dec Re- i9(,


T/-R L


-/T, i f'a I


Trip-


!I Ii -s


ii bI II .2.I i li .




LS L | IS
ICT












-




i ^__ L _IN 1 I- .4
y__ ,__ -_ '____ 'I-_L
l_____I ____





_.. .... i i__
Figure 3. Excavation feature map, Component B of Trail Site
(8Da34), Dade County, Florida. (Copied page from author's
field notebook).


260


----\ ~-----L-------l------~L~- -~------h


( 7-R--








were situated on top of the basal limerock
and were heavily coated with concretion.
These remains were recorded as Burial #2.
Skull fragments were also scattered in a
1.5 m area around Burial #2
Portions of the frontal portion of
another skull were found within a small
pothole located 45 cm east of Burial #2.
This fragmented skull was recorded as
Burial #3. A mandible was found nearby.
The most striking trait of the skull and
mandible are their large size -- they are
as large as any the author has ever seen
from South Florida.
A shell celt and shell axe were also
uncovered in Section D -- almost due east
of the previously noted celt cache.
Directly south of the celt and axe was an-
other portion of a skull, resting on its
right side (Burial #4) Of special note
here is the fact that it was difficult to
determine how any of the previously de-
scribed skulls were placed due to distur-
bances caused in part by their proximity
to an old trail. However, since section D
was not crossed by any path, burial mate-
rial recovered from that section was in
much better condition. Another area of
pond apple snails (Pomacea sp.) was found
east of Burial #4.
Excavations in section B resulted in
human remains. However, various features
were observed. The first of these was a
60 cm diameter deposit of pond apple
snails located in the SW 1/4 of the sec-
tion. Toward the NE 1/4 of the section,
we found scattered human skull fragments -
- the largest being a temporal bone frag-
ment. Pottery sherds (mostly Glades
Plain; and two examples with a reed in-
cised pattern) also were found near the
intersection of the section B-E baseline
and near one of the two datums used to es-
tablish the site grid. An unusual Strom-
bus shell knife was also near this datum.
While most of section E was cultur-
ally sterile, two bone bi-points were
found near the sherd concentration near
the datum.
A major concentration of sherds was
found along the southern edge of section
F, and extending slightly into section A.
A large bowl fragment with a incised rim
decoration was included in the material


recovered from this feature.
Work progressed to section A with
explorations conducted along the outer
edge of the southwesterly edge. A large
section of a human cranium was recovered
in a solution hole. Fifty centimeters
east of this cranium, in another solution
hole, the bones of a human hand were
found. This consisted primarily of the
major phlanges and wrist bones. Approxi-
mately 1.5 m due west of a line parallel
with this find in section A, an almost
complete turtle shell was found. The
bones of a deer were found farther to the
west from this feature.

Discussion and Cbnclusions
Looking back to 1971, there was very
little information published on prehis-
toric and historic burial sites in the Ev-
erglades area. The Miami-West India Ar-
chaeological Society's discoveries at
8Da34 should be regarded in the context of
the time in which they were made. The
popular conception of prehistoric burial
practices in the 1960s and 1970s was that
burials were rare in Everglades sites.
Areas of deliberate interments were not
well documented in South Florida sites;
although, historic accounts indicates that
human bodies may have been prepared for
secondary burial by allowing them to be
defleshed through deliberate exposure.
It wuld appear that site 8Da34 com-
ponents A and B represent mortuary areas
for secondary burial preparation and in-
terment (with the possible exception of
the "half" individual). Since the Trail
Site discoveries, subsequent work at other
Everglades sites has provided further evi-
dence of secondary burial practices. Ex-
cavations at the Cheetum site (8Dal058)
revealed both secondary and primary burial
activity (Newman 1987; Davis and Souviron
1985).
Davis and Souviron (1985) report
that long bones from site 8Dal058 were al-
lowed to dry prior to being deliberately
broken. Some of these boned reportedly
show evidence of being "chopped" with a
bladed instrument. Lone bone fragments
were found at Component A of site 8Da34
and might have been similarly prepared.





262


In my opinion, Component A was a
burial preparation area, while Component B
was a cemetery. As work continues in
South Florida, it is hoped that more at-
tention will be given to burial and mortu-
ary research. I believe that the discov-
eries at the Trail Site are among the ear-
liest discoveries of distinctive mortuary
practices at Everglades sites.
Finally, the shell celt cache uncov-
ered at Component B of site 8Da34 was
among the first discovered in the Glades
Culture Area. I believe that it is a sig-
nature for the cemetery, possibly an of-
fering or a boundary marker of sorts, or
both. The occurrence of shell celt caches
was explored in the literature by Carr and
Reiger (1980), who proposed the hypothesis
that they were woodworking tools interred
with male burials. I propose, in con-
trast, that celts were not just woodwork-
ing tools, but multi-purpose tools used by
both sexes.
It should be noted that celt caches
have not yet been noted in direct associa-
tion with any burials -- only in proximity
to burials. However, single celts have
been found in association with primary
burials, while the author knows of none
found with secondary burials. I also be-
lieve that secondary burials are more re-
cent than primary burials.

References Cited

Carr, ibbert and John Reiger
1980 Strombus Celt Caches of Southeast
Florida. The Florida Anthropolo-
gist 33(2):66-74.

Davis, Joseph H., Jr. and Richard R.
Souv iron
1986 Investigation of Human Remains
from the Cheetum site (8Dal058),
Dade County, Florida. Report on
file Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc., Miami, Florida.

Newman, Christine
1986 Archaeological Investigations Con-
ducted at the Cheetum site, Dade
County, Florida. Report on file
with the Archaeological and His-


torical Conservancy, Inc., Miami,
Florida.

Wesley F. Coleman
c/o Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc.
P.O. Box 450283
Miami, Florida 33145





263


A ZOOMORPHIC BONE PIN FROM DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

James S. Lord


On a cool March morning in
1989, while exploring a hammock
near a Kendall tomato field, my son
Bill Lyons and I walked across the
flat prairie onto an elevation,
which appeared to be the remnants
of a tree island hammock. The ele-
vation was obviously a prehistoric
site as evidenced by a scattering
of pottery sherds and animal bone
refuse. I picked up four pieces of
carved bone from a long abandoned
vandal's pit.
It was a startling discovery.
The carved bone fragments fit to-
gether and appear to depict a cat
very similar to the Key Marco Cat
discovered by Frank H. Cushing
(Gilliland 1975). The reassembled
pin, while not complete, is 100 mm
long and 5 mm in diameter.
In my opinion the carving rep-
resents a cat climbing a tree, with
the long axis of the pin represent-
ing the tree (see Figure 1 pho-
tographs and sketches). The animal
is carved in bas relief, and is 50
mm in length and 8 mm in diameter.
The "cat's" back and legs are
speckled with small incisions. Its
elongated tail is wrapped around
the pin. The tail has an engraved
median line running its length and
is intersected by short angular in-
cised lateral lines. The head is
turned 1800 and is looking away
from the pin. The eyes are 1 mm in
diameter and have a weeping eye mo-
tif. The workmanship is expertly
executed.
As an alternative, Robert Carr
(Personal communication) has sug-
gested that the animal represented
is an opposum based largely on his
observation of the stickling on its
back and legs and the separation
with a border from the distinctive
tail.


To resolve this identification
problem, it is helpful to compare
the animal depicted on the pin with
the Key Marco Cat. However, this
comparison must be qualified by the
recognition that both are somewhat
stylized carvings and most likely
crafted by different artists. It
also must be noted that the Key
Marco Cat is a larger three dimen-
dional wooden carving, while the
pin is a bas relief carving on
bone.
The following similarities oc-
cur:
* The tails are identical is shape
and length, although the opposite
side is exposed on the Key Marco
Cat;
* The paws are the same, display-
ing three toes on each with no
claws;
* The shape of the noses appears
to be the same;
* Both have round eyes with a
weeping eye motif; and
* Both have twin lines running
from the forehead to the nose.
However, there are some no-
ticeable differences on the pin:
The ticking on the animal's back
is curious. I'm not sure what it
represents. Perhaps it is seasonal
or adolescent fur, or just textur-
ing to distinguish the animal from
the rest of the pin.
The head seems elongated, and
together with the ears, measures 10
mm long. Perhaps the artist had
difficulty portraying the stylized
face on a convex pin with a limited
diameter. In this case we are
viewing the whole top of the head.
The ears are long and close to-
gether (unlike the ears of the Key
Marco Cat), which is a major devia-
tion from the other cat-like fea-
tures. However, after researching


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 42 No. 3


Sept., 1989





264


0 ,
00 00


Figure 1. Zoomorphic bone pin from the Lyons-Lord site in Dade
County, Florida. (Left). Photograph showing detail of carving.
(Center left) Photograph showing overall dimensions of the pin.
(Center right and Right). Sketch showing obverse and reverse detail
of carving.


pictures of all tree climbing Ever-
glades fauna, I discovered none of
the animals have these type of
ears. Even the opposum's ears are
wide-set and shorter. I believe
that the ears have to be discounted
to artistic style or impression.
Although the above comparison
is limited, I believe that the
available evidence supports the
conclusion that a cat is repre-
sented in the carving. The depic-
tion of a cat, as a power animal,
is particularly significant. Zoo-
morphic representations on bone
pins are uncommon, but not unknown.
Laxson (1962) records a sculptured
deer head on a pin from another


Dade County site.
As a result of this site
visit, the discovery was reported
to the Dade County Historic Preser-
vation Division, and the site
recorded as the Lyons-Lord site.
The pin currently reposes at the
Historical Museum of Southern
Florida in Miami.
References Cited
Gilliland, Marion S.
1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco,
Florida. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.
Laxson, Dan D.
1962 Excavation in Dade and Broward Counties
1959-61. The Florida Anthropologist 15
(1) :1-10.


00

0O \
6O 00
00 0


O 00


D0 00








BOOK REVIEWS


Stylistic Boundaries among Mobile Hunter-
foragers. C. Garth Sampson. Smithsonian
Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Smith-
sonian Institution Press, Washington, 1988
186 pages, illustrations, maps, drawings,
bibliography. ISBN 0-87474-838-0. $xx.xx
(cloth).

In the 1950s Garth Sampson first
became interested in the Bushmen of South
Africa. The history books he studied in
school in Cape Town didn't even mention
the Bushmen. Since many of the Bushmen
groups are now extinct and little was
written about them before they disap-
peared, the reconstruction of their his-
tory and their societies is an archae-
ological problem.
In this book, Sampson attempts to
determine how the Karoo Bushmen of the
Seacow River Basin were organized and dis-
tributed across the landscape. At one
level it is a study of a particular people
in a particular place at a particular
time. Since that place is far from
Florida you might think that this book
would not be very relevant to the study of
Florida archaeology or interesting to
those whose interests focus on the archae-
ology of Florida. But the book is more
than a simple cultural history of the
Bushmen. It is a theoretical and methodo-
logical study, broadly relevant and of
interest to a wide range of archaeolo-
gists.
Much of the literature on hunter-
forager societies like the Bushmen (and
like the Paleoindian and Early Archaic
peoples of Florida) has focused on
seasonal subsistence/mobility systems and
technology. There has been much less
attention paid to the study of band
territories. There are reasons for this,
of course. It is extremely difficult to
do and there are theoretical and
methodological debates about the feasibil-
ity of even attempting to reconstruct band
territories. But as Sampson points out,
"seasonal mobility systems cannot be
properly delineated unless they are first


circumscribed by the territorial boundar-
ies within which they functioned" (p. 13).
What Sampson attempts to do in this
book is reconstruct the territories of
prehistoric Bushman bands in the Seacow
River Valley. His approach is based on
theories of style, particularly as they
have been presented by Polly Weissner.
Briefly Weissner and Sampson see two
levels of stylistic expression: assertive
styles consisting of individual signatures
or markers and emblemic styles consisting
of group signatures or markers. Sampson
proposes that the distribution of emblemic
styles will follow the territorial be-
havior and patterns of movement of the
members of the bands or other social
groups that employ those markers. Based
on studies of the Kalahari San, he sees
band territories divided into four
concentric areas: a core area where most
time is spent, an annual range in which
band members visit locations and other
bands during their seasonal round, a life-
time range that includes areas rarely
visited by band members, and a gift
recycling area never visited by band
members but that might contain artifacts
given to members of other bands. He pre-
dicts that the distribution of emblemic
styles should display a drop-off pattern
that matches this territorial model.
Styles should be most abundant in the core
area, less abundant in the annual range,
still less abundant in the lifetime range
and rare in the gift recycling zone. The
distribution should have a stepped pattern
with shoulders corresponding to the bound-
aries between the different areas. The
shoulders will be blurred because the
boundaries between areas are composites
based on the movements of individuals.
The body of the book is a study of
the distributions of certain ceramic
styles and decorative treatments in the
Upper Seacow River valley in South Africa.
The ceramics were manufactured, used, and
lost by Karoo Bushmen, early historic
relatives of the Kalahari San who live 900
km to the north. They date from ca. A.D.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 42 No. 3


Sept., 1989








1300 through A.D. 1800.
Over the course of 15 months between
1979 and 1981, Sampson and a crew of 6
survey the Seacow valley, an area the size
of Delaware. They found 16,000 sizes
including 8,000 they could attribute to
Bushmen. In 1982 and 1984 Sampson
returned for 8 months to collect potsherds
from 987 Bushmen camps scattered across
2000 square kilometers. This impressive
sample allowed Sampson to examine the dis-
tribution of decorative styles and treat-
ments with some degree of certainty that
the edges of trait distributions lay with-
in his survey area. This in turn allowed
him to examine the relationship between
stylistic boundaries and social boundaries
for the Karoo Bushmen.
As a result of his research, Sampson
argues that certain decorative motifs were
used by the potters of four different
bands of Karoo Bushmen and that the re-
stricted distributions of those motifs
reflect the territorial organization of
the people who lived there. Sampson is
honest about his work. He points out
weaknesses, controversies, and alternative
theories, models, and interpretations.
And he does all this in a refreshing
easily followed style.
While they are interesting and
undoubtedly of importance to specialists
in South African archaeology, the details
of Bushman territorial geography and cer-
amic technology are less important than
the theoretical and methodological impli-
cations of this work. Sampson has shown
that it is possible to search for (and
hopefully find) social boundaries based on
stylistic criteria, even among mobile,
band-level hunter-foragers where group
composition is fluid and individuals move
across the landscape. I highly recommend
this book to archaeologists interested in
the methods and theory of stylistic analy-
sis and the reconstruction of prehistoric
social boundaries. I think that includes
most of us.


Reviewed by John Scarry
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
Florida Department of State
Tallahassee, Florida





267


46TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFERENCE

The 46th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference will be held at the Harbour Island Hotel, Tampa,
Florida from Wednesday afternoon, November 8th through Saturday
morning, November llth, 1989.

Registration begins on November 8th

Sessions on November 9th include:
* Mississippian Studies I
* Advances in South Florida Archaeology: Beyond Glades I-II-III
* Middle Tennessee Regional Archaeology: Past Investigations and
Future Goals
* Geographic Information Systems
* The Lower Mississippi Survey: 1939-1989: A Review at Fifty
* Historic Archaeology I: Euro- & Afro-American Studies
* Florida Archaeology
* FLORIDA ARCHAEOLOGICAL COUNCIL MEETING
Reception for SEAC Members, 5:30-7:30 on November 9th

Sessions on November 10th include:
* Historic Archaeology II. Aboriginal/Contact Period/Spanish
* Twenty-Six Years on Kentucky's Green River
* Woodland Studies
* Etowah Site
* Archaic and Woodland Studies
* The Search for the Lost Rectors: A Public Archaeology Project
in Pensacola
Method and Interpretation
SEAC ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING
Keynote Speaker, 6:45-8:15

Sessions on November llth include:
Mississippian Studies II
Terrestrial and Underwater Paleo-Indian and Archaic Sites:
A Southeastern Perspective
North Carolina Archaeology

*****************************************************************
ADVANCE REGISTRATION FORM, SEAC 1989


NAME (last, first, middle) AFFILIATION (for badge)

ADDRESS

TELEPHONE
PLEASE ENCLOSE CHECK FOR $26 REGISTRATION FEE, PAYABLE TO SEAC 89
Send form and check to Nancy White, Dept. of Anthropology,
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620. Tel.(813) 974-3231

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF SEAC TO ATTEND.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 42 No. 3


Sept., 1989









FLRIDA ARCHAEOLOGICAL COUNCIL SPECIAL SESSION
DRAFT AGENDA OF EVENTS, November 16, 1989


1:30-2:00 p.m.







2:00-2:30 p.m.


2:30-3:15 p.m.


3:15-4:30 p.m.

4:30-6:00 p.m.











6:00-6:30 p.m.


6:00-7:00 p.m.

7:00-8:30 p.m.


Ribbon cutting dedication ceremony for completion of the
second story restoration at the Amelia Island Museum of
History which will include a room devoted to the Santa
Catalina Mission Site at Amelia Island. The museum is the
old Nassau County Jail Building and restoration was funded
by a 1988 Department of State Special Category Grant

Travel to the Santa Catalina Mission Site at Amelia Island
Plantation for a reception and site tour.

The Santa Catalina Mission Site at Amelia Island Plantation
is being sponsored (along with Santa Maria and Santa Fe
sites) by the Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee
Commission as the Spanish Missions of La Florida. For the
tour, excavation pits will be open and Becky Saunders will
interpret the site.

The Santa Catalina Mission Site is owned by Dr. George and
Dottie Dorion and will be under continued University of
Florida/Florida Museum of Natural History excavation this
fall. The Dorions stopped construction plans when evidence
of the site was discovered. They initially funded exca-
vation and preservation. More importantly, they have sup-
ported public education concerning the site and the impor-
tance of preservation.

Travel to University of North Florida

Forum: "Building the Future While Protecting the Past: A
New Partnership". This forum will consist of a panel:
Secretary of State, Jim Smith: Kathy Deagan, Florida Museum
of Natural History; Chuck Mitchell, Mad Dog Design and
Construction Company; Buz Thunen, University of North Florida;
Bob Carr, Dade County and the Archaeological and Historic
Conservancy. The panel will be welcomed by UNF President
Herbert and moderated by Stan Bond, FAC,and will discuss
the issues associated with growth and conservation of the
archaeological record of the state.

Travel to the River Club in the Independent Life Building,
Jacksonville, Florida

Cocktail Reception at River Club

Awards Dinner. We expect some one hundred and fifty guests
at the reception including FAC members, local officials,
legislative delegation and developers from around the state.
Governor Bob Martinez has been invited to participate in
the day's events. Secretary of State, Jim Smith, will attend
and participate. The dinner program is designed to honor
those who have already made a commitment to preservation and
to encourage continued private sector support for conserva-
tion as part of growth and development. Host for the evening
program is Ken Hardin, president FAC, and invited speakers
include Jim Smith, Jim Swann, Jeff Tucker, Florida Trend,
and Chuck Mitchell.


YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FAC TO ATTEND*. The purpose of this
event is to promote a continuing dialog among developers, archaeologists,
politicians, concerned citizens, students and the media about issues of public
and private treatment of the archaeological record. (*Note*: Because of
limited space and costs, the reception and awards dinner, a dress affair, will
be limited to invited participants) Donations to help cover the costs
associated with this session would be appreciated. Contributions may be sent
to the University of North Florida (UNF) Foundation/FAC Account Tax ID#23-
7167701).






THE FORIDA ANRHROPOLOGICAL 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
journal of the Florida Anthropological Society, and the papers presented at our
annual meetings will be of interest to you. If you want to join with 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:
NEW RENEWING GIFT
REGULAR ($18)*_
FAMILY ($20)*
INSTITUTIONAL ($18)*_
SUSTAINING ($25)
PATRON ($100)
LIFE ($200)


* NOTE: A $2 discount can be obtained for each subscrip-
tion if you join/renew/subscribe before February
1st. This includes gift memberships.
ADD $4 for postage & handling for subscriptions
received after August 1st.
Foreign subscribers add $5 US for postage, etc.


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 an FAS chapter, would you like the address of the chapter
nearest to your Florida home mailing address? Yes No

Mail Application to: Membership 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 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 in general and also note the specific
publication, such as the First Spanish Period issue scheduled for Dec. 1989, if that
is its specific intended purpose.

PLEASE PHOTOCOPY THE ABOVE INFORMATION OR SIMPLY INCLUDE IT IN A LETTER TO THE
MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY ALONG WITH A CHECK OF MONEY ORDER FOR THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT.













*** IMPORTANT NOTICE ** IMPORTANT NOTICE ** IMPORTANCE NOTICE ***

Until recently, the purchase of back issues of The Florida
Anthropologist was handled directly by the society. However, at
our annual meeting in May, 1989, we entered into an agreement
with Mickler's Floridiana, Inc. to market in-print issues of The
Florida Anthropologist. Thus, effective immediately all previous
offers for back issues sales contained in previous issues of The
Florida Anthropologist are terminated and voided.
Mickler's Floridiana, Inc. is a wholesaler of books and other
materials pertinent to the State of Florida. They will retain
the pricing schedule advertised in previous issues of our
journal. Furthermore, we have provided them with a listing of
our membership so that they can honor our 10% membership discount
for back issues purchases of The Florida Anthropologist.
In addition to carrying The Florida Anthropologist for both
wholesale and retail, Mickler's catalog lists over 1000 titles,
the largest collection of Floridiana for resale anywhere. They
also offer discounts to libraries and schools, as well as to
bookstores and other retailers. Mail or phone orders to:

Mickler's Floridiana, Inc.
P.O. Box 1450
Oviedo, Florida 32765
(305) 365-6425

We believe that this arrangement with Mickler's will make The
Florida Anthropologist available to a wider audience, thus
furthering our historic preservation education goals.
We will, however, retain sufficient quantities of recent
issues to replace undelivered, damaged or defective issues mailed
to our subscribers.




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