• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page
 Reprint - The Florida Anthropologist...
 The types and potentials of underwater...
 Page/Ladson (8Je591) - An underwater...
 Controlled surface collection of...
 Survey of the Aucilla Rivery south...
 Gingery cache site (8Ta99) - A...
 Book reviews and comments
 Back Cover






Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00035
 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: VID00035
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 405
    Editor's page
        Page 406
        Page 407
        Page 408
        Page 409
        Page 410
        Page 411
        Page 412
    Reprint - The Florida Anthropologist Vol. I no. 2-3 (1948)
        Page 413
        Page 414
        Page 415
        Page 416
        Page 417
        Page 418
        Page 419
        Page 420
        Page 421
        Page 422
        Page 423
        Page 424
        Page 425
        Page 426
        Page 427
        Page 428
        Page 429
        Page 430
        Page 431
        Page 432
        Page 433
        Page 434
    The types and potentials of underwater archaeological resources in Florida - Jim Dunbar
        Page 435
        Page 436
        Page 437
        Page 438
        Page 439
        Page 440
        Page 441
    Page/Ladson (8Je591) - An underwater paleo-Indian site in northwestern Florida - James S. Dunbay, Michael K. Faught, and S. David Webb
        Page 442
        Page 443
        Page 444
        Page 445
        Page 446
        Page 447
        Page 448
        Page 449
        Page 450
        Page 451
        Page 452
    Controlled surface collection of the Little River rapids site (8Je603) - A stratigraphically deflated site in the Aucilla River, north Florida - Craig Willis
        Page 453
        Page 454
        Page 455
        Page 456
        Page 457
        Page 458
        Page 459
        Page 460
        Page 461
        Page 462
        Page 463
        Page 464
        Page 465
        Page 466
        Page 467
        Page 468
        Page 469
        Page 470
    Survey of the Aucilla Rivery south from Ward Island on the Jefferson-Taylor county line, Florida - Steve Richardson
        Page 471
        Page 472
        Page 473
        Page 474
        Page 475
        Page 476
        Page 477
        Page 478
        Page 479
        Page 480
        Page 481
        Page 482
    Gingery cache site (8Ta99) - A cache of possible paleolithic tools found with mastadon bones - Roger C. Alexon
        Page 483
        Page 484
        Page 485
    Book reviews and comments
        Page 486
        Page 487
        Page 488
        Page 489
        Page 490
        Page 491
        Page 492
        Page 493
        Page 494
        Page 495
        Page 496
        Page 497
        Page 498
        Page 499
        Page 500
        Page 501
        Page 502
        Page 503
        Page 504
        Page 505
        Page 506
        Page 507
        Page 508
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
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
U OF or A ueny
ANTHROPOLOGIST O FL

Volume 41 Number 4 December 198R


9./3. 9


PUBLISHED BY THE


FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.


41100'" '% m qv


a" q % %








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 State 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 areas 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:
Harold D. Cardwell, Sr.
1343 Woodbine Street
Daytona Beach, FL 32014




SECRETARY:
Chris Newman
Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board
P.O. Box 1987
St. Augustine, FL 32084



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


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):
Donna Ruhl
Department of Anthropology
Florida Museum of
Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF


SECOND VICE PRESIDENT:
Jeffrey Mitchem
Florida Museum of
Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611


TREASURER AND
REGISTERED AGENT:
Wallace Spears
422 Brentwood Drive
Daytona Beach, FL 32017




(One Year):
Ralph Goslin
7347 Hennessey Road
Jacksonville, FL 32210


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
Route 5 Box 19
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.








THE FLORIDA



ANTHROPOLOGIST


Volume 41 Number 4

December 1988


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Editor's Page . . ...... ....... . 406
REPRINT: The Florida Anthropologist Vol. I No. 2-3 (1948) .. 413
The Agriculture of the Early North Florida Indians
by Charles W. Spellman . . . .. 413
Toward Chronology in Coastal Volusia County by John
W. Griffin . . . .. . 419
A Revised Temporal Chart of Florida Archaeology
by John M. Goggin . . . .... .423
The Racial Type of the Seminole Indians of Florida and
Oklahoma by Wilton Marion Krogman ..... .. ..... 425
BOOK REVIEWS:
The Flint River Site:Ma 48. WH. S. Webb and David L.
DeJarnette. Reviewed by Ripley P. Bullen ...... 432
The Archaic Horizon in Western Tennessee. T.M.N. Lewis
and Madeline Kneberg. Reviewed by Ripley P. Bullen 434
The Types and Potentials of Underwater Archaeological Resources
in Florida by Jim Dunbar . . . ... .435
Page/Ladson (8Je591): An Underwater Paleo-Indian Site in
Northwestern Florida by James S. Dunbar, Michael K.
Faught and S. David Webb . . . .... 442
Controlled Surface Collection of the Little River Rapids Site
(8Je603): A Stratigraphically Deflated Site in the Aucilla
River, North Florida by Craig Willis . . .. 453
Survey of the Aucilla River South from Ward Island on the
Jefferson-Taylor County Line, Florida by Steve Richardson 471
Gingery Cache Site (8Ta99): A cache of possible paleolithic
tools found with mastadon bones by Roger C. Alexon . 483
BOOK REVIEWS AND COMMENTS
Florida's Fossils: Guide to Location, Identification and
Enjoyment (1988) by Robin C. Brown. Reviewed by Michael
Wisenbaker . . . . ... . .486
Creeks and Seminoles .(1987) by J. Leitch Wright, Jr. Reviewed
by Brent R. Weisman . . . .... .489

Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska (1988)
by William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, Compilers.
Reviewed by Louis D. Tesar . . . .... 491
Geological Society of America symposia. Archaeological Geology:
Geophysical, Geochemical, and Geological Studies (1988).
Reviewed by Kevin McCartney . . . .... 492
Historic Preservation Advisory Council Recommendations for
1989 Special Category Grants (November 1988 Meeting) . 494
Notice of State Grants-in-Aid Cycle . . .... .496
Florida State Museum Name Change . . . . 506
Native American Symposium Planned . . . .... 508
The Florida Anthropological Society Wants Youl Membership
Application Form . . . Inside Back Cover

PUBLISHED BY THE


FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.







EDITOR'S PAGE


Our Society, throughout its
history, has been composed of both
professional and avocational
archaeologists, anthropologists,
historians and others interested in
the prehistoric and historic heri-
tage of Florida and surrounding
areas. The Florida Anthropologist,
the journal of the Florida Anthro-
pological Society, has long been a
means of exchanging information on
current studies. While its re-
search articles are reviewed by
knowledgeable individuals to assure
that professional standards are
met, it serves as a forum for
professionals, students and those
with avocational expertise.
Our avocational members are
the mainstay of our Society. We
recently lost three long-standing
avocational members: Jim Haisten
and Mary Lou Watson of our
Northwest Florida Anthropological
Society Chapter and Edward Henrigez
of our Palm Beach County
Archaeological Society Chapter.
They exemplified a spirit of
cooperation and caring for our
prehistoric and historic heritage.
They were, to use an older phrase,
"Stewards of the Past" or, to use a
new one, "Friends of Time." Their
efforts serve as an example to us
all and will not soon be forgotten.
It is in rememberance of Jim
Haisten, Mary Lou Watson and Edward
Henrigez and their contribution to
our Society and its goals that this
issue is dedicated.
In support of our avocational
members, our professional archaeo-
logical members help set our
Society's standards. Cooperation
is the glue that binds this
symbiotic relationship. An excel-
lent example of that cooperative
spirit was the manner in which Gary
Shapiro conducted his professional
and personal life. Dr. Shapiro, a
member of our Society, was director
of archaeology at the San Luis


Archaeological and Historical Site
at Tallahassee from 1984 until his
death from leukemia on June 24,
1988. Our special First Spanish
Period issue scheduled for
publication in December 1989 will
be dedicated to Gary Shapiro.
This year began with a special
40th Anniversary Issue (The Florida
Anthropologist 41(1)), and included
a copy of the first issue of our
journal, Volume 1 Numbers 1-2. It
is perhaps fitting, then, that we
end this year by including a copy
of the second issue of our journal,
Volume 1 Numbers 3-4 in this issue.
Three of the articles in FA
1(3-4) are of continuing interest.
They are Charles W. Spellman's "The
Agriculture of the Early North
Florida Indians," John W. Griffin's
"Toward Chronology in Coastal
Volusia County" (Florida), and John
M. Goggin's "A Revised Temporal
Chart of Florida Archaeology." The
first is of interest to both his-
torians and archaeologists studying
the First Spanish Period, while the
next two established the framework
for the archaeological cultures of
Florida.
From our past, we come to our
present with a series of articles
focusing on avocational/profes-
sional cooperation in the location,
reporting and study of underwater
archaeological and paleontological
resources.
The first article, "The Types
and Potentials of Underwater
Archaeological Resources in
Florida" by James S. ("Jim")
Dunbar, briefly describes five ca-
tegories of underwater sites and
the manner in which they may be
studied. Its intent is to famil-
iarize the non-professional with
these site types, their relative
significance, and the importance of
adequate record keeping. It also
makes note of federal and state
antiquities laws and regulations


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


406


Vol. 41 No. 3


Dec., 1988







applicable to underwater (and
upland) archaeological sites. The
article generally tries to identify
the many areas in which profes-
sional/avocational cooperatation
can occur. He distinguishes be-
tween circumstances in which
activities must have professional
supervision in contrast to those in
which no such supervision is
required. I will speak more to
this issue at the end of the
articles summation.
The second article, "Page/
Ladson (8Je591): An Underwater
Paleo-Indian Site in Northwestern
Florida" by James S. Dunbar,
Michael K. Faught and S. David
Webb, reports on the results to
date of multi-disciplinary research
at this important site. It is
important to note that this site
was discovered by sport divers/
avocational archaeologists, who re-
cognized its importance and report-
ed it to the office of the State
Archaeologist in the Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Division
of Historical Resources of the
Florida Department of State. The
site is named for its discoverers,
and volunteer sport divers/ avoca-
tional archaeologists have partici-
pated with professionals in the
past several seasons of research at
this important site.
The third article, "Controlled
Surface Collection of the Little
River Rapids Site (8Je603): A
Stratigraphically Deflated Site in
the Aucilla River, North Florida"
by Craig Willis, is an excellent
example of a detailed site survey
collection project conducted by
avocational archaeologists in coop-
eration with professional archae-
ologists in the Bureau of
Archaeological Research. Please
note, however, because of the issue
of liability, all participants
acted on their own volition and not
as agents of the state. The
avocational archaeologists who
participated in this project are
all members of the Paleontological
and Archaeological Research Team of


Florida (P.A.R.T.), a chapter of
the Florida Anthropological Society
The fourth article, "Survey of
the Aucilla River South from Ward
Island on the Jefferson-Taylor
County Line, Florida" by Steve
Richardson, reports the results of
a preliminary underwater reconnais-
sance survey conducted in June 1987
by the Marine Archaeological Divers
Association (M.A.D.A.) at the
urging of James S. Dunbar of the
Bureau of Archaeological Research.
The objectives of this project were
(1) to surface collect artifacts
and record the spatial information
from inundated prehistoric sites
without stratigraphic integrity,
and (2) to record and report
inundated prehistoric sites with
stratigraphic integrity to the
state for possible excavation
during future expeditions. The
style in this article is straight
forward, and is of a type which is
generally not published. However,
it does make a contribution to our
knowledge of the archaeological
resources in the Aucilla River.
Furthermore, it serves as an
example of the manner in which non-
professionals may contribute to our
understanding of the state's
prehistoric and historic heritage
by simply reporting their basic
observations and findings.
The fifth and final article,
the "Gingery Cache Site (8Ta99)" by
Roger C. Alexon, reports on a cache
of possible Paleo-Indian artifacts
found with mastodon bones in a
deflated underwater site in Taylor
County, Florida. It serves as an
example of the kinds of artifacts
and associated information known to
sport divers and avocational
archaeologists. It is important
that such information be reported
for inclusion in state site files
to help further our understanding
of Florida's and other state's
prehistoric and historic heritage.
Before turning to our Book
Reviews and Comments Section, I
will make a personal observation on
the distinction between profes-


407







sional and avocational archaeolo-
gists, artifacts collectors, and
others proactively interested in
the issue of historic preservation
and the artifactual and other
remains which reflect our
prehistoric and historic heritage,
and site looters, "pot-hunters" and
"treasure hunters" (who often call
themselves "amateur archaeologists"
or even "professional archaeolo-
gists") The latter are often
referred to as "Thieves of Time,"
while the former may rightfully be
termed as "Friends of Time." The
training, experience, goals and
values of these groups differ.
Archaeology is a serious
profession which today, and over
the last several decades, has
exacting training requirements and
professional standards. The stand-
ards and training requirements have
progressively become (and presum-
ably will continue to become) more
rigorous since the profession's
birth from the antiquarians of old.
Obviously, there are levels of
ability and proficiency among the
practitioners of archaeology, as in
all professions. As the need
arose, it has become a profession
with a clearly stated Code of
Ethics.
While most non-professionals
are interested in matters related
to archaeology, such as the hobby
of collecting artifacts, many go
beyond that level and become
serious prehistoricc preservation-
ists and active "students" of mat-
ters related more closely to the
profession itself, such as site
survey and recording, maintenance
of survey field notes for areas
visited, artifact analysis, report
preparation, and participation in
efforts to protect and preserve
and, if feasible, assist in the
professional study of identified
significant archaeological sites
and historic properties. I spoke
more fully to this issue an article
entitled "The Role of the Avoca-
tional Archaeologist" in our
special 40th Anniversary Issue (FA


41(1):33-41). It should be noted
that I and many others in the pro-
fession today began as avocational
archaeologists, before continuing
on to obtain a Masters degree in
Anthropology, of which archaeology
is a sub-discipline, and the re-
quisite two years of progressively
responsible archaeological experi-
ence under the direction of other
professionals (the so-called
apprenticeship phase) required to
be recognized as a professional
archaeologist.
Site looters or "pot-hunters"
or "treasure hunters" are indivi-
duals with their attention so
focused on the collection of arti-
facts for personal gain that they
have lost sight of the property
rights of others and seemingly lack
any sense of the immoral, unethical
aspects of their activities. They
have rightfully been called
"vandals" and "Thieves of Time."
They have produced an endless
stream of lame excuses trying to
justify their acts. While we
should all make an effort to
educate and rehabilitate such indi-
viduals, the habitual, repeat
offender, in my opinion, should be
treated as a common criminal.
Unfortunately, the press has often
glorified the accomplishments of
such individuals and touted that
what was lost would not have been
found without their individual,
"uncompensated" efforts. The fact
the material objects displayed are
often the result of unauthorized
site looting from public and
private property, including the
desecration of human burial sites
for the grave goods which they con-
tain, is often overlooked of
glamorized by reporters. Yes, it
is difficult not to admire the
exotic and valuable objects in the
collections of such individuals,
but we also should recognize that
in ammassing those objects the
associated contextual data general-
ly was destroyed with no record.
Their acts are like tearing the
pretty pictures our of an


408







illuminated manuscript, and throw-
ing away the text that tells the
story of the involved site and the
relationship of those pictures to
that story.
A fact which many people seem
to overlook is that public lands
are similar to private lands with
respect to ownership rights; al-
though, their management is often
more restricted with respect to the
kinds of uses to which they may be
placed. If someone sneaks onto
private property and cuts trees,
digs up plants, hunts deer or other
animals, or digs up buried arti-
facts, most citizens of our state
and nation would be outraged and
support the owner in any effort
necessary to recover any material
or objects so removed and/or to be
compensated for damages. Indeed,
there would be a demand that such
"criminal" acts be punished to the
fullest extent of the law. Yet,
too many people continue to view
publically owned lands as if they
are unclaimed resources free for
the taking, rather then resources
held and managed in trust for the
benefit of us all, and NOT for the
personal gain of a few. For this
reason, the theft and vandalism of
public lands and resources has not
been treated as seriously as
similar acts on private property.
We must educate the public and
ourselves to the fact that illegal
acts on public property are no less
illegal then similar acts on
private property. Violators should
be punished to the fullest extent
of the law. For minor violations,
especially those involving archaeo-
logical and historic sites, if a
formal citation and arrest does not
seem warranted, a written warning
should be given (and NOT a verbal
warning). In this manner, documen-
tation will exist if it turns out
that the same individuals are found
to be repeat violators. Thus, they
will not be able to assert
ignorance of the law and appeal to
the mercy of the court. For
serious violations, such as the


illegal digging of archaeological
sites, especially human burial
sites, every effort should be made
to see that the culprit is prose-
cuted to the fullest extent of the
law. Furthermore, efforts should
be made to assure that there is as
much public awareness of the nature
of the crime and the names of the
perpetrators as possible, so that
if the involved individuals are
released on some legal technical-
ity, their employers, neighbors and
friends will still be aware of what
kinds of individuals they are asso-
ciating with and the public in
general will become more aware of
historic preservation laws and
regulations.
Over the years, treasure hunt-
ing on our state's and nation's
historic shipwrecks has been gener-
ally sanctioned, and such sites
have not been accorded the same
status as archaeological sites and
properties on land. This is partly
the result of the fact that until
relatively recently the technology
necessary to adequately deal with
such resources has been lacking, as
well as to the fact that it has
been presumed that little contex-
tual data could be gotten from such
sites. It has also been the result
of a distinct bias of the press in
favor of the treasure salvor and
against those who would try to
restrict the efforts and "personal
sacrifice" of the "daring" individ-
uals who "against all odds continue
to struggle in search of the riches
at the end of the fabled rainbow,
only to have their hard earned
gains stolen by public agencies,"
and so forth. Treasure salvors
have milked the "David" versus
"Goliath" image for all its worth.
In dive magazines and through dive
organizations they claimed that
recently passed (then proposed)
Federal ship wreck protection
legislation would deny sports
divers an opportunity to dive on
ship wrecks and so forth. They
failed to tell those same divers
that it has often been treasure


409







salvors who have called law en-
forcement agencies, for instance
the Florida Marine Patrol, to de-
mand that avocational sport divers
be prohibited from diving on
certain ship wrecks. They asserted
that their continued ability to
salve ship wrecks would assure that
sport divers would have access to
ship wrecks; failing to mention
that the manner in which the
salvage of historic ship wrecks is
conducted results in the total
destruction of such sites so that
there is no wreck left afterwards
for sports divers to visit.
The Federal law which passed
is a compromise. In essesence, it
directs that procedures be esta-
blished to identify those wreck
sites which are unlikely to yield
significant data on our maritime
heritage, and those which are
likely to yield such data. Those
in the former category may be
commercially salvaged, while those
in the latter category may be
reserved for scientific study and
non-destructive public visitation.
The Deaprtment of State,
Division of Historical Resources
has archaeological guidelines for
commercial ship wreck salvage of
historic sites on Florida's sover-
eignty submerged lands. These
guidelines are administered through
the Division's Bureau of Archae-
ological Research. These guide-
lines are contained in Chapter 1A-
31, Florida Administrative Code.
Most historic wreck sites are of a
type which would fall under the
provisions of this rule. The type
of salvage work permitted under
this rule generally results in the
destruction and total removal of
the remaining wreck elements. The
salvor is paid in-kind for his/her
efforts with a percentage (around
80%) the value of the artifacts
recovered from state sovereignty
submerged lands. This is in con-
trast to the generally help miscon-
ception that the state confiscates
or otherwise takes 20% of material
belonging to the salvor, since it


is state owned property which is
being divided.
On the other hand, historical-
ly significant wreck sites, such as
the French fleet wrecks of 1565 and
other wreck sites located within
Florida's four underwater archaeo-
logical reserves, as I understand
that agency's procedures, can only
be excavated as a research projects
conducted by that agency or with an
archaeological research permit
obtained from the Bureau of
Archaeological Research under the
provisions of Chapter 1A-32,
Florida Administrative Code. Work
of this type requires the full time
on site supervision of a qualified
professional archaeologist and must
meet professional archaeological
research and reporting standards.
To treat such sites otherwise
would, in my opinion, be a breach
of the public trust for the
stewardship of such sites. Like-
wise, the State of Florida has been
setting aside selected historic
ship wreck sites and developing
interpretive signage for placement
underwater for the benefit of the
public as underwater archaeological
monuments permanently accessible to
scientific and sports divers for
non-destructive visitation. This
is in contrast to treasure salving
operations which, as noted, result
in the destruction of wreck sites
and generally prohibit access to
sport divers. Unfortunately, I
have heard that one of the under-
water wreck sites for which inter-
pretive signage was being prepared
was recently vandalized or looted.
I urge you to lend your support to
such state efforts and help stop
the looting of such sites.
Shifting from historic ship
wrecks to other prehistoric and
historic archaeological sites, I
urge you to read Mr. Dunbar's arti-
cle on the types of underwater
sites. While the incidental col-
lection of surface exposed sites in
unprotected waters (i.e., not in
state or federal parks or pre-
serves, rather in publically acces-







sible rivers for which no restric-
tions have been posted) has not
been discouraged, it is clearly
another matter when one actively
"assists" natural erosional forces
with the use of prop-wash,
mechanical lift or suction dredges,
water jets and the like. The one
may be viewed as an innocent pass-
time, while the other, unless it is
part of a professionally supervised
and controlled research project, is
definitely against the law in both
state and federal waters.
The excavation of any archae-
ological site with intact strati-
graphy should only be done under
the supervision of professionally
qualified individuals. The pro-
jects published in this issue
provide ample examples of the many
ways in which professionals and
sport divers/avocational archaeolo-
gists can cooperate on such
projects, as well as in other ways.
We must all join together to be
stewards of our prehistoricc
heritage. Please join with me and
others as a Friend of Time in the
protection and study of our signi-
ficant archaeological sites and
historic properties.
The BOOK REVIEWS AND COMMENTS
section has four reviews and
several comments which I believe
will be of interest to our readers.
The first review is of "Florida's
Fossils" (1988) by Robin C. Brown.
This publication, written by an
avocational paleontologist, is an
excellent guide to the location,
identification and enjoyment of
Florida's fossils. Please remember
that owner permission is required
to collect fossils on private prop-
erty, that special permission is
required for such activities on
federal property and that various
state laws apply to fossil
collection on state-owned lands and
sovereignty submerged lands (i.e.,
Chapter 240, F.S., for vertebrate
fossil collection, and Chapter 267,
F.S., if archaeological site re-
mains are involved).
"Creeks and Seminoles" (1987)


by J. Leitch Wright, Jr., was re-
viewed by Brent R. Weisman and
published in our last issue (FA
41(3):397-398). However, when I
retyped the review for publication
I accidentally omitted the next to
the last line: "Anthropologists
learn how to get the story," thus,
changing the sense of what Brent
was trying to say. I am sorry for
the error, and have reproduced the
corrected review in this issue.
"Crossroads of Continents:
Cultures of Siberia and Alaska"
(1988) by William W. Fitzhugh and
Aron Crowell deals with an
interesting cultural area, and in
passing touches upon the origin of
Clovis fluted points. However, its
focus is the rich material culture,
mythology and lifeways of the
peoples of eastern Siberia, Alaska
and the Northwest Coast.
Finally, while not a book
review, Kevin McCartney's review of
the Geological Society of America's
1988 "Archaeological Geology: Geo-
physical, Geochemical and Geologi-
cal Studies" symposia is included
to help make our readers aware of
the fact that archaeological issues
are increasingly being dealt with
by other disciplines.
A topic little known to our
readers is Florida's historic
preservation grant program. It is
administered through the Department
of State, Division of Historical
Resources. The Division's Bureau
of Historic Preservation provides
the staff for this program. There
are two grant cycles: a federally
funded cycle and a state funded
cycle. There is also a special
category grant process, which
involves direct legislative appro-
priations passed through the
Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources.
I have printed brief informa-
tion on the results of the Special
Category grant review results. Of
the 95 applications, 30 are recom-
mended for funding, including 6
archaeological projects. I have
also included a Notice of State


411







Grants-in-Aid Cycle for the upcom-
ing grant cycle. Both should prove
of interest.
For further information on
Florida's historic preservation
grants-in-aid program, or its other
historic preservation programs, you
should write to the Bureau of
Historic Preservation, Division of
Historical Resources, 500 South
Bronough Street, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-0250.
Please note that every state
has a historic preservation program
and that your involvement in such
programs is important. You should
contact the agency in charge of
your state's program. Find out how
you can get involved in the devel-
opment of your state's comprehen-
sive historic preservation planning
process, including identification,
evaluation, registration, protec-
tion and related activities. Find
out how that program relates to the
resources in your community. Let
the agency know what kinds of
historic preservation activities
you wish to have undertaken in your
community; what you think the
agency is doing that you wish
encouraged; what you think should
be changed; and, so forth. Write
to your legislators in support of
such programs. In short, get
involved.
The last two subjects in the
comments realm involve notice of
the name change for the Florida
State Museum and notice of a forth-
coming symposium at the Columbus
Museum in Columbus, Georgia.
With this issue I have
completed five years as the Editor
of The Florida Anthropologist. It
has been a transition from type-
writer to word processor. The
style also has evolved during this
period. I believe, and I hope that
you agree, that the journal has
been improved in the process.
I wish to thank all of you who
have volunteered your time to help
make this publication what it is
today. I especially wish to thank
my two Editorial Assistants, George


Luer and Joan Deming, for their
outstanding contributions and per-
severance. Finally, I wish to
thank the members of the Florida
Anthropological Society for their
continuing support.
I was assisted by James S.
Dunbar in the word processing of
the articles for this issue. Jim
also obtained the graphics for the
various articles in this issue.
Protecting and learning about
our prehistoric and historic
resources is the responsibility of
us all. The Florida Anthropolog-
ical Society through its journal,
meetings, and chapters helps
further this effort. Join with us
and other Friends of Time in the
battle against the Thieves of Time.
Help make others aware of the
importance of our prehistoric and
historic resources.
That seems like too good a
lead in to pass up the opportunity
to encourage you to join the
Florida Anthropological Society and
receive your quarterly issue of The
Florida Anthropologist. Further-
more, if your are already a member,
or joining for the first time, why
not give one or more gift sub-
scriptions to friends, relatives or
to your local library, museum or
historical society. To assist you
in this matter, I have included a
membership application form, which
you may copy. If you do not have
access to a copy machine, simply
include the requested information
in a letter to the Membership
Secretary and include a check for
the necessary dues amount.

Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist


412











FL OR/DA


ANTHROPOL OGIS T


CONTENTS


ARTICLES:


THE AGRICULTURE OF THE EARLY NORTH FLORIDA
INDIANS. Charles W. Spellman .................. 37

TOWARD CHRONOLOGY IN COASTAL VOLUSIA COUNTY
John W. Griffin. .......................... 49

A REVISED TEMPORAL CHART OF FLORIDA
ARCHAEOLOGY. John M. Goggin ................ 57

THE RACIAL TYPE OF THE SEMINOLE INDIANS OF
FLORIDA AND OKLAHOMA. Wilton Marion Krogman .. 61
BOOK REVIEWS:

The Flint River Site: Ma048. Wm. S. Webb and David L.
Dejarnette. Reviewed by Ripley P. Bullen ........... 75
The Archaic Horizon in Western Tennessee. T. M. N. Lewis
and Madeline Kneberg. Reviewed by Ripley P. Bullen ... 78

EDITORIAL COMMENTS ........................... 74

CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE ..................... 79


VOL. I


NOVEMBER 1948


NOS. 3-4


PUBLISHED BY THE

FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY


THE AGRICULTURE OF THE EARLY
NORTH FL.ORIDA INDIANS
Charles W. Spellman

In the early years of the sixteenth century when white men were mak-
ing their first contacts w'th the peninsula of Florida, this state was
inhabited by Indians of settled agricultural habits. It is true that they
depended greatly upon hunting and fishing and the gathering of wild
fruits and berries for their sustenance but they also cultivated crops
systematically and stored up the fruits of their labors to guard against
times of famine and to alleviate the hardships of the unfortunate. For
the most part, barring disaster, accident or adverse elements, they
lived a life of plenty. They were peoples who were striving for some-
thing better than the hand to mouth existence that nature alone afforded
them.

Both the Timucua and the Apalache Indians (the north Florida groups
to which this discussion will be limited) were fairly well advanced
agricultural peoples. They lived in fixed homes and cultivated their
fields systematically. Normally, they planted and harvested two
crops a year. Evidences of rather extensive cultivation are not lack-
ing in the chronicles of the first expeditions which attempted to con-
quer or settle Florida. By carefully gleaning from these narratives
those passages which refer directly to the agricultural habits of these
north Florida peoples, we can piece together a picture that is im-
pressive if not astonishing.

The Timucuan Indians were the most important Florida people.1
Their affiliations and language extended throughout the central and
northern parts of the peninsula and for a short distance into Georgia.
Timucua was the original name of one tribe, also called Utina which,
according to Dr. Swanton lived north of the Santa Fe River,- whose
name was gradually extended to include all the tribes belonging to
their linguistic family. Although they have been given the status of
an independent family, they undoubtedly were a branch of the great
Muskhogean stock.3 To the west, their provinces reached the Aucilla
River; to the south, they included the area around Tampa Bay. on the
1. Swanton, Indians of the Southeastern United States, p.
193-194; W. W. Ehrmann, "The Timucua Indians of Sixteenth
Century Florida", Florida Historical Quarterly, XVIII (Jan.,
1940) pp. 168-174.
2. Ibid.
3. Ihi. See also: J. W. Powell, Indian Linguistic Fami-
lies oafAmerica North of Mexico, 7th Annual Report, Bureau
of American Ethnology, 1885-1886 (Washington, D.C., 1891).
Powell is responsible for the separate classification of the
Timucuan Indians.
H(
I-'









*nJZd Hla i Vp-.oi. vi Op euoo0mToreaaajed '8UOUIMB3 ep
osluoIV :4U8U4sx XS9?'oT ou s9 qopTIL ;u0Winoo)B 98eup&-oaa .t9q4ouB
o0 R9oOvO patq oBTgOIgOv *o93TToIBos jo UosJBoA q0oua8d 30
Uno l81s9U.. pOeB;TAo-jqqv u BsT Siuj *(188l '8T dI9ptinqd)
.89991-TS19 moaJ '9JelX XTS-ZqJTa JO 4uoGAa Goq Jo pjooe
'-.o !fvpTaoI pu8 0o40S P opUvU-H JO L TH o O L 'ddqIS
pauaea fioog *(ZuLt 'P.T;PUN) VpTaOTLI v' sTBI eGs -puuq
o00o ea eqq jo sOaqtim 1vnoov j so 1aodea IBqJ9A pUB U .1Ta.
uo peoeq JzeAeaoq sVA *BlqsBT9T TI. 0BT eq adBqa.ed '8v9A 1:
ep osulo-oaO q uoTTp9dxae eq jo Urn0oooB aOtI *601-L6 'II
''898T9 '2ZOX e) BPT.IOT PUs U TBTTno jo Buo-TOTTOD TBO
-o109TH 1q ouOj *a *Ea nu 0 SoQog Ja jo nofmepOdX iqf JO BA1
-Ja.ull V 'usrppeT op Z9epruU.eH sTnI jo qt1 y ST unooo8 puTqq
A '8910OA 3 '(29-3261 'BPTaOTA 'PUVIOQ) VPTaOI JO 00UT
=AO2iA 91 JO bBAoaGOTQ Taq1 BaiU p uGlE1!IUGD 099MianUjOd UTV4
-.eo puB oos eap opiremaH JotaIAOO Aq pa.eejjn sdTqapjWRH eTq
Jo Uao0e4VEOU 9 ''pe pau *-suv.I uoBiqeqo a.epuSxelV seUmf
* SA- o 3JO U8meZtU90e eBBenGOinoJ e1 3j0 8in IOT UoT!Tpedxe eq~
JO qunooo0 puooes V "(9seyTes aeJzoIdix UOTam6v fUZZ61 *3toj
k e ) *o6og ep oputiueH jo J.eejBto eqT jo GOA$T8.1.B1B 'eu znom
'D0 :uT qsTgrUa uT PUmOJ eq Lsm I S- (9-S81ST PT-.PU8W)
'suTpui sBU ep T8jB1N A OtJeneUO 8T.JOSTH 'ZoP18A L opeTA0
un; punoj eq BBUm Lm8 sITeru8U *"-aiUCnBH o0T.Ipo P 'X.jW9.
-o09 sBOlOg oEa jo 4B qst eBlqBT[9.i ;so eBo eq q o0 pe-apTysUOo
9unoooB sseuITA eGLe anoj 9.18 e-Oaqjt sGoi.nos puq ?.4sTJ
1:8meAeo Lq pLoql 9T qsenbuoo oqoS eaIa eq jo a-o; s exU "6
"q9 "d aee JT4U8 *TI
onu 'AIX A.'LTzOeq iLb IoBO l'9BTH. BTiOTAy '8pT.ZOTI 09 BG~e8OA
.1Uoe0 ep eouod O nUO jo LJO1BHB *sBTAQ(I 'L O3OT.1epa.id '8
9og *d XIX 'X.eq.rnb C 8OTi0o18TH BpTl.OTA vuT '*BpTWOTI ez-puo
-TO1 04 uoB' Op aonoJ 04 ptt'upaA SHuTx jo qU9Bu8, f es *L




01'uoiaPeOp
doqsqi pu a0o sinq 's.,I 'vpauFUod 'SUpiAUH 'lntqTIV 'ajapraopnvI
o0 s2uanrJ ap) Aq Lmoooa uupui jo Akxos aqB aoJ pap;Aoad si neI
-ap eaom qoany *a2 useploO) sqI u masAs uoisspn ain jo auoqcpluq
aqi aumoaq o0 aj0A qoIqA aqoeqVdy pue enonmlj, jo suolT.od asoqx
aqiaosap lan Iwq) au Injasn iljwinrsed aBa salquo.1q o os e0 I aqL
68'1j)s aq) jo qonn jo3 AIeaJ snum a0 A )q snunoooe aloa nuodn sr 11
pue uoalpadxa o0og9 a) jo s0acqum aq a.aA PareAjasqo CIjino;4
-jld "*sipql aq) jo sJOqvq pue aMJ aq) noqc aMupjap eaom uplouamos
aunLajaap o) alqv aOre aOA a:.)puo.rq JTa6 30 sa 1d aq) mo0 j O q 'Uon
-=TUOlOO 0 o uMe )ssanbuoo jo japjo aq no ajom aJaa1 6gSS PUe 8ZIT
gsaic aq) ul paAolloj qatq o00oS aa( pue zotAiuN jo suoflTpadxa aoqj

*sivoiav t snIU3 OqI n moj pAIAOOaO
prq aq spunoA aqB jo s p AXa. t I)joqsW paTp aq ajaq' A 0 qn3 o0 aJT0aj
pue )ao(oad Oqi uopUUae o) ulqq pOaaoj s0UlXOV uVlpui aOq sATp eaJ e
ufIA pUt sUrepnu esnUlo an.rA Oa) j3 LaJO.a0) aq) Luoloo spq aoj


-It *d '(a6T '31.107, A19e)
BoDTJa.e u e1InTtnoTyav 30 OU-u,-11eFl oq t 6ieJJBO u Wril '9
*(9M6T '"uo
-3uqeI9M)_.: Otu '906 oA '-uo0TAoaro0 p BnOGeuoIIoUTM ut TUO
-qpaS "*pPJOT e Uo suo0ssTY tI8TpuI eti ~uTq9,osaI UO-9pI83
vJBA zW'j eTo.zqso jo jaqq AMm1uao xUq V ypjoquqaj t oIrl e
*r euuu j-eq peATeoej seu-Tunoy u1aqoT8-[ddv
eq4 qvtl q^Am s-qT moij 0I 41 "suiTsunowm eOri aUu peausol
ueeq -GAUq oq pesoddns sjeae BTuqoB-Bdv jo Suful ;eBBiu eBI jo
suprnop etU *vqovwEdv jo 90uraoAd, ed UT, e-i9-Ees oq pueTsua
AeK PU BuTUT.ITA UT Se.o0U8SWB UVTpUI eq JO QUO mnojJ PeWJ
pTI oIL uemqi9TT1ta jo LuoIoo v peisTiA ALpeeoddng Y[ooqsSTjg
*sBer9TJa ujepoui Lq peoqpe.osTp LAqtnojoqq uaeq svq GqoT88dY
04 4TBTA pe.tod.id 9so9vA *(Noo9TBzg ) 0oo08;1Taq 'JxoqoduT
q9flSu ein jo suojqov.tqvj eqI uodn kare4Tru9 4som0UT pessq
sOA 4unO8 2Too Tra9 M B,uoUTOjg 'I*11-6 *dd 1(6981 v'jqdlap
-vrTTtd) geTTnbotuy pure seqT;tl UsBpuI "-Zo;.sTH aB.19e!vI sIT
'B1CnsuTueja u8~'pPTJOTd e uo se9oR 'uo4u1Ja O, T9eTUI :C6-69
"dd ''*TO *'io 'uO4UBSeS :OST-B 89S *VOLI UT 9e oo0W seureuJf ou
-.JeAO) Lq BUTITO.BO 'qtnos oq pe7q-odsus-1j LTqjoaoj exeA tmoan
jo .zjd 'eeGqoaIvdy etq jo uemueaqi ;seq eqq eT s{qjT 'suB
-TuTOJ.BO pOe 'ss 1e-Eaam P4aTo eq 04 .zea4J H "/g 9L.I-S91 "dd
(0V6T 'ITTH TeadvqD) '8uBTuIlojUD Pe 'urITIrTt 'r usudLMQ *"

papaoes pq uooq' ap aBUOd AIa8niblojun g'"purnl aBip jo uno0lfAIn
aBi joj spupi I I jo spaaes jo Aiddns uIexpunqB ut se nau sg ,,siZrulue
oi.samop jo spurn Ile,, piu s2oq 'srzoa 'daaqs 'aBMv: 'sasjoq q0A5
joqjrH aBlOlla3 xa1an Isvoo JnnD O aqi pAT.lJJ OH L'LUOIO3 2 USTl~
-3ioas pule IvtnlnoiJxSe ue SuIqsliqq sa jo asodand aqB qiIM amuao
uoaq ap aOuod I 'Aa '1.aa uou qMo Ao s lJ1a S IZ9I u i T uop1 U adxa
uoaq ap aouod aq) 3o s5unoaoo aqi mouIo paujeal aq uUB aBII ABAA

*pMjolj aMoas jo janbLoo o; paPdImaWU qoIqAt suolIlpad
-xOa 1sJj aOq4 Jo salqPIUOjq ao n1 u! pqieI IOU aJ uonIATIJnU aAtsuaO
-xOa Jaqje 30 SOaUapAff 9gsaLxZaq pure Irn1 PUIT 'sdoaI pooJ aldBs
uo s2uAn 'saidoad IvizninoTBoz BaJa& Aaql ALITl3sq 4nq 'asino3 jo
'2TNqsr3 pue Supmn q sdoaoa jaq4 paquamualddns Aq.L g'*ueaA v sdoar
ona paosaJleq pue paluvIed OqZIVTdy pue Un:nmI.T aqi qioq 'AlTBuJoN

*saB;qS panIufl uaastaqinos aBi 30
sapqu ain 30o soam papn:lai q;ITiA is oIeaSoq snU ;eaBj aoq jo Bv d
U aja0 'asiAaTTI 'aqiL, 'aassWrlILj jLau ajaoA uorIndod o0 sjaauao
Ja3qo ja1q1 *'sjaI JauoaooqIO aur4 pu el3nanv aqi uaaAoaq paAll
oqA& aaqoi'dav aq aBiaj sunonnI.T, aBqi o0 sjoqq2lau ujalsao&, aqj.

enonmtij. se 4.xapaj o4 pamotsnaoo
ajaa saoped aqO zq44 paijjsTp sginq sEm I 'jraAPT lTonv a0t put aOlIA
-sau0xo uaaiaq 2uLAI Bair 4xq4 su,* onnm!,L 30 1jo d 1eUvjodmuT 4som
aq0 'aBaAMoq 'paujoauoo axe suoTssIm qsTjud9 ain si .Jj sV 'OSTA
-aO.l uvennmmlu aIaa punoS spAaUpuv "*s s I iou ma sB 'spueIsj pUrel
-jaqrn3 pure .TIOmV 'oCqlTI 'JaAP s,uqoif I aqi jo qinomI aqB jo 1ou.10
spuBIsi IeqSoo a0q1. "-onUnlV aqi uo ITjaaauo3 adt) put )soa njno






The line of march of the De Soto expedition took them through the
heart of the provinces of Timucua and Apalache. The disembarcation
took place at Tampa Bay, called by the chroniclers Bahia del Espiritu
Santo,11 most probably at Terra Ceia Island. From there, on the
march inland, the army swung somewhat to the east to cross the
Little Manatee River, passed over the Alafia River, which has been
accepted as the river of Mocozo by the United States De Soto Com-
mission. This river was crossed by two bridges somewhere near
the present day town of Riverview. Continuing northward, the ex-
pedition traveled by Thonotosassa Lake to the neighborhood of Dade
City skirting the province of Urriparacozi, which perhaps lay between
that point and the modern town of Lacoochee or even extended to
Tarrell. The army made an attempt to cross the swampy country
to the eastward was unable to do so.

It therefore passed around the western edge of the swamps about
Tsala Apopka Lake and crossed the Withlacoochee lust before it
emerges from those swamps. Ocala, said to have been twelve or
fifteen miles away, was the next point on the route. This may have
been the site of modern Ocala, or it may have been near Silver Springs.
From Ocala the route led through the important province of Potana
which was to become one of the most important mission centers of
the following century. It passed north to approximately the spot of
Gainesville, thence to Olustee Creek somewhat east of its intersec-
tion with the Santa Fe River. The Santa Fe, called by the chroniclers
the River of Discords, was bridged with some difficulty indicating that
De Soto did not follow the trail later followed by the Spanish Road
from St. Augustine to San Luis (Tallahassee), for the Camine Real
passed that river by the natural bridge. From here they took a west-
erly course and probably passed near Lake City and Live Oak, to
cross the Suwanee River near Dowling Park. Thence, taking a course
somewhat south of Madison, perhaps along the route now followed by

10. Rene Laudonniere, L'Histoire Notable de la Florida,
Paris, 1585. In Paul Gaffarel, Historie de la Floride Fran-
caise, Paris, 1875. English translations may be found in
French, op. cit., vol. I, p. 465 ff.
Hakluyt, Principal Voyages, etc., Glasgow, 1904, vol. VIII,
pp. 439-486.
Jean Ribaut, The Whole and True Discovry of Terra Florida,
Thomas Hacket (tr.) in J. T. Connor, Jean Ribaut, De Land,
1927. John Hawkins, Second Voyage, Payne, Voyages of Eliza-
bethan Seamen.
Don D'Escalante Fontaneda, Memoir of Don D'Escalante Fonta-
neda Respecting Florida (1575), Buckingham Smith (tr.), Mi-
ame, 1944. Fr. Luis Jeronimo de Ore, The Martys of Florida,
1513-1616, Maynard Geiger (tr.), New York, 1936.
Bishop Gabriel Diaz Vara Calderon, in Wenhold, op. cit.
11. Final Report of the United States De Soto Commission,
House Docnnent, no. 17, 76th Congress, 1st Session (Washing-
ton: U. S. Govt. Printing Office, 1939),; 152.


the Seaboard Air Line Railroad, they crossed the Aucilla River some-
where near the station of Aucilla to enter the territory of Apalache.
Tallahassee has been quite definitely established as the spot upon
which the army encamped during the winter of 1539-1540.12

The spots along this route through Florida at which the army found
sufficient food to maintain itself gives us some indication as to where
the large centers of population were located. The Province of Mocozo
in the vicinity of Tampa Bay was found to be "cultivated with fields
of Indian corn, beans, pumpkins, and other vegetables, sufficient for
the supply of a large army."13 After passing northward beyond Dade
City the expedition was:
Experiencing great hardship from hunger and bad roads as
the land was very poor in maize, low, and very wet, swampy,
and covered with dense forests, and the provisions brought
from the port were finished. Wherever any village was found
there were some blites (pot-herbs) and he who came first
gathered them and having stewed them with water and salt,
ate them without anything else. Those who could not get any
of them gathered the stalks from the maize fields which being
still young had no maize, and ate them. Having reached the
river which the governor had crossed (Withlacooehee), they
found palm cabbages in low trees like those of Anolusia.14
Ranjel says that "there was much suffering from hunger so that they
ate the ears of corn with cobs or wood. .. on which the grains grow"
and that they ate "herbs and roots roasted and others boiled without
salt and what was worse, without knowing what they were."15

Once the army crossed the Withlacoochee River into the province of
Ocala the story begins to change. The Governor who had gone ahead
of the army with a small body of troops sent back messengers who
told them that there was maize in abundance in Cale; at which they
rejoiced. As soon as they reached Cale, the governor ordered all the
maize which was ripe in the fields to be taken, which was enough for
three months. When they were gathering this, the Indians killed three
Christians and one of two Indians who were captured told the governor
that seven days journey farther on was a very large province with
maize in abundance, called Apalache.16

12. "De Soto to Municipal Authorities of Santiago de Cuba,'
1539, in French, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 92.
13. "De Soto to Municipal Authorities of Santiago de Cuba,"
1539, in French, opb cit., vol. 2, p. 92.
14. Robertson, Elvas, op. cit., p. 53.
15. De Soto Commission, p. 143.
16. Robertson, Elva, p. 53






The next province, Potano, adjoined Ocala on the north and extended
to the Santa Fe River with its center in the area of present day La
Crosse and Alachua was evidently also well populated and contained
one town which the soldiers named "Villafarte," "The Well-Fed
Town,"17 because of the vast amount of stores located there. Agua-
caleyquen, which lay between the Santa Fe and the Suwanee rivers
was the next province visited and was described as being even more
populous than Potano and better supplied with grain.18 Apalache was
considered the most populous province. It had many villages and
offered sufficient provisions to supply the army for the entire win-
ter.19

It should be stated at this point that the army of De Soto was of con-
siderable size. He landed at Tampa Bay with 620 men and 237 horses,
a drove of hogs, which at the end of the expedition in 1542 was said to
number more than seven hundred, a pack of bloodhounds,20 some
mules were sent for after the expedition landed.21 These were gotten
from Havana. Added to this, as Garcilaso points out,22 there was by
this time a large number of Indian slaves which the army has round-
ed up to help carry the provisions and grind the corn. Also many
camp followers, women and children, who were following along with
their men. Garcilaso places the total figure by the time the army
reached Apalache at fifteen hundred.23 Perhaps it was close to a
thousand at least.

In these provinces there were at least ten towns that were able to
supply a considerable amount of food to the army.24 Paracoxi near
the present town of Dade City,25 Uqueten where an abundance of corn,
beans and little dogs were taken,26 Ocale, the chief town of that prov-
ince, where the three months supply of grain was gathered from the
fields, all received special mention. In the province of Potano, Itara-
holata, "a fine village with plenty of corn,"27 the capital town itself
and Cholupaha,28 the "Well-Fed Town" were the large towns. Uru-
itina29 "A village of pleasant aspect and abundant grain" where the
population was "considerable", and Napituca "A pleasant village in
a pretty spot, with plenty of food"30 were in the province of Agua-

17. De Soto Commission, p. 154
18. Ibid.
19. I~Mna, op. cit. in French, vol. II, p. 99, Robertson,
Elvas, p. 67
20 e Soto Commission, p. 141
21. Ibid., p. 146
22. Garcilaso, op. cit., loc. cit., p. 107
2 Ibid.
24. be-oto Commission
25. Robertson, Elvas, p. 46; and De Soto Comm., p. 148
26. Biedma, in French, II, p. 98
27. De Soto Commission, p. 154
28. Ibid., p. 149
29. TEb'*. p. 146
30. Tbi., quoting Ranjel, p. 146; Robertson, Elas, 64.


caleyquen in the vicinity of Lake City and Live Oak respectively.31
Caleyquen in that same province had much food. In the province of
Apalache, Iniahica and Varachuco wure the large towns mentioned.32

At Inlahica the army discovered an "abundance of maize,
pumpkins, beans, and dried plums native to the land, which
are better than those of Spain and grow wild in the fields with-
out being planted. Food which seemed sufficient to last over
the winter was gathered together from those towns into Anhaica
Apalache.,"33
Several times the De Soto chroniclers remark about the vast extent
of some of the cultivated fields in Timucua and Apalache. At Ibitachuco
(Vatachuco) in Apalache, the Army passed through cultivated fields
which extended for two leagues.34 While at Ucachile, a large town
of two hundred houses, the fields extended for four leagues around
the town.35

The country to the west of Apalache land was not so fertile; the Indians
were scarce and poor. The De Luna expedition of 1559 was to find
this out to its sorrow when it attempted to settle at Pensacola. The
expedition, which was much larger than that of De Soto, experienced
little but suffering and starvation.36 The summer following their
arrival there was threat of mutiny and pitiful letters from the settlers
to the viceroy demanding to be returned to Mexico.

We see that we have no prospect of food from any quarter,....
for the Indians have the whole country in revolt and burned
over, as is notorious among all the captains and men who
have gone out for the purpose of finding food.37

In regard to the Indians along the east coast of Florida the following
quotations from John Hawkins are revealing.

There they found sorrel to grow as abundantly as grass, and
where their houses were, great store of maize and mill, and
grapes of great bigness, but of taste much like our English
grapes.38


31. De Soto Commission, p. 157
52. Ibid., p. 147
33. Robertson, Elvas p. 67
34. De Soto Co as;on, p. 147
35. Ibid., p. 146
36. Hetbert I. Priestley, Tristan de Luna, Conquistador of
the Old South (Glendale, 19567.
37. Herbert I. Priestley, The Luna Papers, 2 vols. De Land,
1928. See vol. I, pp. 139-l14-
38. Payne, op. cit., p. 55






Notwithstanding the great want that the Frenchmen had, the
ground doth yield victuals sufficient if they would have taken
the pains to get the same; but they, being soldiers, desired to
live by the sweat of other men's brows. ... The ground yieldeth
naturally grapes in great store, for in the time that the French-
men were there they made twenty hogsheads of wine. Also it
yieldeth roots passing good, deer marvellous store, with divers
other beasts and fowl serviceable to the use of man.39

The principal crops discovered by De Soto and the other early ex-
plorers among the Florida Indians were therefore maize, beans,
millet, squash, pumpkins, roots and herbs, fruits of numerous kinds
including plums, persimmon, black cherries, mulberries, both white
and red, berries blue and raspberries of various kinds, grapes, nuts
walnuts, chestnuts, dwarf chinquapin.40

Quite probably tobacco also was cultivated. John Hawkins said of the
Floridans; that "when they travel, they have a kind of herb dried, who,
with a cane and an earthen cup at the end, with fire and the dried
herbs put together, do suck through the cane the smoke thereof, which
smoke satisfieth their hunger."41

The cultivation of roots seems to have been general throughout the
peninsula for practically all of the chroniclers mention the use made
by the natives of roots. Fontaneda mentions that they were grown
both by the Indians around Lake Okeechobee and the Apalache.

On this lake, which lies in the midst of the country, are many
towns, of thirty or forty inhabitants each; and as many more
places there are in which people are not so numerous. They
have bread of roots, which is their common food the greater
part of the time; and because the lake, which rises in some
seasons so high that the roots cannot be reached in conse-
quence of the water, they are for some time without eating
this bread....There is another root, like the truffle over here
(Spain), which is sweet; and there are other different roots of
many kinds.42

39. Ibid., pp. 60-61
40. Grapes: see, Hawkins, Second Voyage, in Payne, op.
cit., p. 55, 60. Mulberries: Laudonniere, In Hakluyt, vol.
VIII, pp. 459-60. Plums: Robertson, Elvas, p. 67; Dickinson,
p. 62; Laudonniere, p. 451. Walnuts: taudonniere, loc. cit.,
451. Chestnuts: Ibid. Cherries: Jeanette Thurber Connor,
Jean Ribaut, True and Whole Discovery of Terra Florida, De
Land, 1927, p. 73. Millet: Hawkins, 55. Blueberries, rasp-
berries: Laudonniere, Ibid. Roots: p. 13; Hawkins in Payne,
o cit., p.60; Laudonniere in Hakluyt, vol. VIII, p. 451.
inquapin: De Soto Comm., p. 144-145.
41. Hawkins, Second Voyage; Payne, op. cit., p. 61


Laudonniere also mentions that roots were used: "There grow in
that country a kind of Roots which they call in their language Hasez,
whereof in necessitie they make biead."43 The roots referred to
were probably some of the Caribbean roots, manicc or cassave, which
had been brought over from Cuba.

Other important foods of the Florida Indians which are prominently
mentioned in the chroniclers of early Florida are: animals and birds
of all sorts which were hunted; all kinds of fish, which were caught
in weirs; oysters and other shell fish. Both Fontaneda and Hawkins44
mention that bison were plentiLul in the state at the time. A small
domesticated dog was used as food also.45 Foods were often dried
or smoked for there is mention of dried venison,46 dried fish,47
dried plums,48 parched corn,49 dried mullet and roe.50 Also sor-
rel,51 medlar, "the'fruit whereof is better than that of France, and
bigger."52 Notable among the animals mentioned by Laudonniere are
wild dogs and "divers sortes of wolves.'a13 Sea grapes were also
gathered.54

A final commodity in the Indian diet was a drink made of certain
leaves and which is referred to by most of the chroniclers as casina.
This was a stimulant and was much cherished by the natives. It has
often been referred to as the Yerbe Mate of Florida. Perhaps it was
the "black drink" of the Creek Indians (Ilex Vomitoria). One of the
Friars gave an account of it.


42. Fontaneda, p. 13, in reference to the root plants grown
by the Apalachee. Ibid., p. 43, note 16S. A native Florida
root, Zamia Integrifol a, has never been successfully culti-
vated in the field, The Seminoles make a bread of a root
which they call Kunti Hatki "White Bread," to distinguish
it from their "Red Bread" (Smilax Hastata China Briar
Root). Ibid., note 17S: Identifies the sweet root as Apics
Tuberosa, ---Mud Patato," which grows in abundance near Aha-
popka Lake.
43. Laudonniere, in Hakluyt, oM. cit., VIII, 451.
44. Smith, Fontaneda, p. 24; Hawkins, in Payne, op. cit.,
p. 66.
45. Biedman, in French, Hist. Col., II, 101
46. De Soto Commission, p. 47.
47. Laudonniere, in Hakluyt, op. cit., VIII, 154.
48. Robertson, Elvas, p. 67.
49. Laudonniere, in Hakluyt, op. cit., VIII, 154.
50. Cabeza de Vaca, in Hodge and Lewis, panish Explorers,
in the Southern United States, 1528-1543 (New York, 1907).
p. 51.
51. Hawkins, in Payne, o cit., p. 55.
52. Laudonniere, Hakluyt, o-. cit., VIII, 451
53. Ibid.
54. Cabeza de Vaca, in Hodge and Lewis, op. cit., p. 67.






There is no need of treating drunkenness, for their drink does
not cause it; even many of the religious are not without it. It
is made of some leaves of the oak tree. This is toasted dry
in a pot or jar placed in water. Immediately they pour water
upon it to a point where it is neither hot nor cold. Nor do they
mix any other things with it. It is good for preventing stones
and small accretions in the kidneys, as well as preventative
against pain in the side. For this reason it has been taken to
Spain and to New Spain.55

Noticeable among the above mentioned foods are the dried and smoked
products. The chief means which the Indians had for preserving their
food was by these methods.56 Both meat and crops could be cured
for storage in this manner. Curing the crops would prevent much of
the weevil injury which is so destructive to stored grain in warm
climates. At times the corn cribs were so constructed that the cur-
ing could be hastened by fires built underneath them. Storage gran-
aries were common among both the Timucua and the Apalache. The
Timucuan storage house is remarkable in that it was solidly built of
stone and earth and "supported by twelve beams."57

In regard to their farming methods, Laudonniere observes of the
Timucuans along the Atlantic coast that:
They never dung their land, only when they would sowe, set
the seedes on fire, which grewe up the 6 months, and burned
them all. They dig their ground with an instrument of wood
which is fashioned like a broad mattock, wherewith they digge
their vines in France, they put two graines of Maiz together.
When the land is to be sowed, the King commandeth one of his
men to assemble his subjects every day to labour, during which
labor the King causeth store of that drinde to be made for
them,....At the time when the Maiz is gathered, it is all carried
into a common house, where it is distributed to every man
according to his qualitie. They sowe no more but that which
they think will serve their thrnes for sixe months in the year
and that very scarcely. For during the winter they retire
themselves for three of four months in the year into the
woods, where they make little cottages of palme boughes for
their retraite, and live there of Maste, of Fish which they
take, of Oisters, of Stagges, of Turkeycockes, and other beasts
which they take. They eate all their meate broyled on the
coales, and dressed in the smoke.58



55. Ore, oR. cit.., p. 106.
56. Lyman Carrier, op. cit., p. 92.
57. Wenhold, op. cit., p. 12.
58. Laudonniere, in Hakluyt, op. cit., VIII, 455-56.


William Bartram who traveled through Florida in 1774 had the follow-
ing observation to make about the farming of the Seminoles who at
that time lived on the Alachua Plain in what formerly was the prov-
ince of Potano. It is offered because it may shed some light on Indian
farming methods and probably closely parallels the methods used
in the pre-Spanish period.

(The) plantation is one common enclosure, and is worked and
tended by the whole community; yet every family has its par-
ticular part, according to its own appointment, marked off
when planted; and this portion receives the common labour
and assistance until ripe, when each family gathers and de-
posits in its granary its own proper share, setting apart a
small gift or contribution for the public granary, which stands
in the center of the plantation.

The youth, under the supervisal of some of their ancient people,
are daily stationed in the fields, and are continually whooping
and hallooing, to chase away crows, jackdaws, black-birds,
and such predatory animals; and the lads are armed with bows
and arrows, and being trained up to it from their early youth,
are sure at a mark, and in the course of a day load-them-
selves with squirrels birds, and the men in turn patrol the
corn fields at night, to protect their provision from the de-
predations of night rovers, as bears, raccoons, and deer; the
two former being immoderately fond of young corn, when the
grain is filled with a rich milk, as sweet and nourishing as
cream; and the deer are so fond of the potato vines.59

Such an enumeration of crops and foods as that already given might
lead one to think that the Indian was probably quite well off agricul-
turally before the coming of the white man to Florida. The enthusiastic
reports of Ribaut and Laudonniere, the detailed descriptions of the
De Soto chroniclers and Fontaneda quite certainly leave that im-
pression. If the tragic results of the Narvaez and De Luna expeditions
seem to indicate otherwise, there are certain factors which par-
tially explain these failures. In both cases the resistance of the In-
dians to the settlements was more successful.. As regards the De
Luna Expedition, the place in which it settled was very sparce and
the Indians had burned all the fields to prevent the Spaniards from


59. William Bartram, Travels through North and South Caro-
lina, East and West Florida... (1794), Mark Van Doren, ed.
(New York, 1928), pp. 169-70.






getting food.60 On the other hand, those places at which De Soto dis-
covered such abundant supplies of corn, beans, squash, plums, and
fruits were very fertile and would be included in the farm lands in
the vicinity of Dade City, Ocala, Gainesville, Lake City, Madison and
Tallahassee.


St. Augustine, Florida
June, 1948.


TOWARD CHRONOLOGY ON COASTAL

VOLUSIA COUNTY
John W. Griffin

The present paper is based on material from four sites in coastal
Volusia County, Florida. They are the Oak Hill shell heap, Green
Mound, the Cotten site, and the historic Timucua village of Nocoroco.
The first of these was examined by N. C. Nelson in 1918,1 and the
remaining three were examined or excavated by the Florida Park
Service in 1946.2

It should be stressed that the conclusions reached in this paper are
tentative and subject to change, but it is believed that in broad outline
they are substantially correct.


Oak Hill:


60. Priestley, Luna Papers, II, 139-41.


DATA


This large shell heap stood on the western shore of Mosquito Lagoon,
near the town of Oak Hill, some 10 miles south of New Smyrna. When
Nelson examined the site in 1918 it was being removed with steam
shovels. Two large vertical faces were standing, from which he took
his sample.

From the bottom to the top of the site Nelson defined the following
horizons. First a level in which no pottery occurred,consisting of
the bottom two feet near the mound center. Above this occurred a
thick zone in which only plain chalky pottery (St. Johns Plain) was
found, and, above this check stamped chalky pottery (St. Johns Check
Stamped) was also found.

Since Nelson's total sample from the site consisted of 190 sherds
there may be some reason for doubting the validity of the prepottery
horizon at this site, although, pre-pottery levels are known in Florida,
particularly from the shell heaps of the St. Johns River. Although the
sample was scanty, Nelson's work remained for many years the only
stratigraphic sequence empirically established for this region.

Green Mound:

Green Mound is a large shell heap seven miles south of Daytona
Beach on the eastern shore of the Halifax River. The removal of
shell from this site had left a standing face about thirty feet in height.

1. Nelson, 1918.
2. A popular account of Green Mound, in which some errors
on ceramic sequence occur, will be found in Griffin, 1948,
The site report on Nocoroco has been written by Griffin and
Smith, n.d. The Gotten site report is in preparation.






Our sample in 1946 was taken from superimposed strata, established
on the basis of differences in composition. Some levels were totally
shell, others contained quantities of organic matter and evidently
indicated occupation zones. Sherds were more frequent in these dark
bands than elsewhere.

From bottom to top Green Mound revealed the following ceramic
zones. (1) Near the base of the mound only plain chalky pottery (St.
Johns Plain) was found. Above this, and continuing to the top of the
mound, check stamped chalky pottery (St. Johns Check Stamped)
occurred as well. This portion of the mound can be divided into three
zones on the basis of physical stratigraphy and ceramic change, as
follows: (2) only check stamped and plain pottery occurred. The
check stamped pottery ranged from 5 to 8 checks per inch, with the
largest number falling at 5 per inch. (3). The check stamped pottery
of this zone ranges from 5 to 8 checks per inch, but the largest num-
ber fall at 7 per inch. In addition, certain other pottery types make
their appearance. Some sherds are decorated with trailing and punc-
tation, and some red painting occurs. (4) The top portion of the
mound displays a different picture again. The range in check size is
from 3 to 9 per inch, with the peak of the curve at 4 per inch. The
trailing, punctation and painting are no longer present, but a con-
siderable number of sherds are scored with parallel lines (St. Johns
Scored) or simple stamped (St. Johns Simple Stamped).

The plotted curves of number of checks per inch in the three periods
in which check stamped pottery occur is shown on Fig. 10. It will be
noted that this represents a trend from large to small and then back
to large for this site. This shift is accompanied by the appearance
and disappearance of certain other pottery types. The major breaks
in the sequence coincide with the physical stratigraphy of the site in
such a way that occupation zones of the different periods may be de-
fined. Thus, although the stratigraphy rests on a relatively low num-
ber of sherds, about 215, it seems to possess considerable validity.

Cotten Site:

The Cotten Site is a large midden on the western bank of the Halifax
River within the city of Ormond. Some previous work had been re-
ported for this site, but it was not adequate for stratigraphic pur-
poses.3 Our excavations reached the bottom of the site at one place;
11 feet 6 inches beneath the surface.

The site has only fiber-tempered pottery for most of its depth, with
a surface scattering of other material. The dominant pottery is of the
fiber-tempered Orange Plain and Orange Incised types. The surface


scattering is chalky pottery of the types St. Johns Plain and St. Johns
Check Stamped. The checks range from 5 to 12 per inch, with a peak
at 8 per inch.

Nocoroco:

The documented Timucua village of Nocoroco is located on a point of
land between the head of the Halifax River and the mouth of the Tomoka
River, about five miles north of the city of Ormond. This site was
occupied when visited by Mexia in 1605.

The excavated samples reveal chalky (St. Johns Series) and gritty
(Halifax Series) sherds in about equal amounts. Both wares occur
in plain, check stamped, scored and simple stamped types. A small
amount of complicated stamping is also present. The surface collec-
tions, largely from the beach where they have been washed from the
midden, reveal a higher porportion of chalky pottery than the exca-
vated samples, and lead to the conclusion that another horizon was
probably also present in parts of the site which have been washed
away.

ANALYSIS

In this section we shall attempt to integrate the data previously pre-
sented. Insofar as possible the data from the four sites under con-
sideration will be used without recourse to comparative data, but, as
will soon become obvious, we cannot totally dispense with compara-
tive material in our attempt to erect a sequence from these data.

The prepottery level at Oak Hill, if we accept it as valid, is only
known to precede a level containing plain chalky pottery. There are
many instances along the St. Johns River of non-pottery levels in the
lower portions of shell heaps,4 and this period has been correlated
with a pre-pottery period now widely recognized in the eastern United
States. If the prepottery level at Oak Hill is accepted we must postu-
late an abandonment of the site following this time level, for the ac-
cumulated evidence from the St. Johns River indicates that the pre-
pottery period is followed by fiber-tempered pottery, not chalky as at
Oak Hill.5

The Cotten site contains ample evidence of the presence of man in
coastal Volusia County in the period marked by fiber-tempered pot-
tery. Its place in the time scale of the area is fixed more by com-
parative evidence than by stratigraphy at the site, however. As men-

4. See Wyman, 1875; Moore, 1892-94; Holmes, 1905.
5. Goggir, 1947, pp. 122-123.


5. 'Blatchley, 1902, pp. 164-183.





tioned above, fiber-tempered pottery is known to follow the pre-
pottery period on the St. Johns. The Cotten site adds to our data on
the placement of the fiber-tempered pottery as previous to the chalky
pottery of the area.

Both Oak Hill and Green Mound contain levels with only plain chalky
pottery underlying levels in which check stamping also occurs, adding
weight to the concept of a plain pottery period preceding check stamp-
ing. This period would equate with the St. Johns I period of Goggin,
but the evidence from coastal Volusia County does not yet permit us
to speak in terms of divisions within the period, such as the St. Johns
I A and I B of Goggin's framework.
The appearance of check stamped pottery is generally taken as the
marker for the beginning of St. Johns II. All four of the sites under
consideration give evidence of all or part of this time period. As
was indicated above, it was possible to isolate three zones within the
check stamped period at Green Mound. Oak Hill cannot throw addi-
tional light on this sequence for it is impossible to compare the pub-
lished report with the observations at Green Mound. The chalky check
stamped pottery at the Cotten site, however, can be compared, and
when this is done on the basis of the size of the checks, one is led to
the conclusion that the St. Johns II occupation at that site roughly
equates with period 3 at Green Mound. The close coincidence of the
resulting curves when the number of checks per inch are plotted
lends support to the validity of a time range within St. Johns II char-
acterized by a preponderence of small checks.
With Nocoroco we approach a more complex ceramic problem, which
has been dealt with in the yet unpublished site report. The presence
of large amounts of gritty pottery, absent or nearly so in any level
previously discussed, indicates a different situation for this site. The
site may be placed temporally by its 1605 documentation, supported
by a small amount of historic trade material recovered in the exca-
vations. A late dating is also supported by the presence of a similar
gritty ware and some similar decorative treatments, particularly in
the presence of simple stamping and complicated stamping, in the
fully historic St. Augustine Period defined by Smith.6 The Nocoroco
material cannot be considered as full St. Augustine in character, and
we assume that it is slightly earlier, but also historic, marking a
transition from St. Johns II to St. Augustine.
The presence of scoring both at Nocoroco and Green Mound may be
taken as an indication of relationship. The presence of the gritty

6. Smith, 1948


I- -

S30


" 20
ir
WZ


PERIOD 4


\ PERIOD 2
I



S* /\ PERIOD 3
I \ / \

1 /
7 \

-/ \ *
\ \


2 3 4 5 6 7
CHECKS PER INCH


9 10


Fig. 10: Number of checks per inch on St. Johns Check Stamped
pottery from three superimposed levels at Green Mound.












APPROX. NORTHERN COASTAL
DATE ST JOHNS OAK HILL GREEN MD GOTTEN NOGOROCO VOLUSIA COUNTY
SEMINOLE
1700 ST. AUGUSTINE

SST. JOHNS GRITTY AND CHALKY

1500 CHECK o 4
-STAMPED
CHALKY c 3
ST. JOHNS _C Y -P
POTTERY.-9
1300 A

--o- T -- I--!

1100 ST. JOHNS
IB
PLAIN
CHALKY
-- m POTTERY
900 ST. JOHNS m
I A


700 FIBER
ORANGE TEMPERED
POTTERY

500 -

-B NO
PRECERAMIC N
POTTERY
300 ?

Fig. 11: Summary chart of the cultural sequence in coastal Vo-
lusia County, based on four sites, and compared to the general
sequence for the Northern St. Johns Area.


pottery at 9gcoroco would indicate that it is slightly later than the
top portions of Green Mound, but on the.other hand the higher pro-
portion of chalky pottery in the surface collection than in the exca-
vated sample from Nocoroco would indicate that earlier levels were
present at the site, but have cr.rgely have washed away. There is,
then, the possibility of some overlap in time between the top portion
of Green Mound and Nocoroco.

We may also note at this point that it is difficult at the moment to
correlate the three check stamped zones at Green Mound with the
two divisions, St. Johns II A and I B, of Goggin.7 Future research
in northeast Florida will clarify many of these problems.

In Fig. 11 the various levels present in the four sites under discuss-
ion are placed in the time order indicated in the preceding paragraphs.
On the left hand side of the figure Goggin's periods for his Northern
St. Johns Area are reproduced.8 His dating of these periods is also
followed. Aside from Nocoroco. none of the sites under consideration
throw any direct light on dating. Nocoroco, with its 1605 date, in-
dicates that Goggin's date of about 1650 for the bottom line of the St.
Augustine Period is perhaps more nearly correct than the broader
extent back to 1565 originally proposed by Smith.9 On the right hand
side of the chart the sequence for coastal Volusia County is summar-
ized.

In rapid resume it will be noted that in part this sequence rests on
empirical data observed at the sites under consideration, and that,
in part, it rests on interpolation from other sites, particularly on the
nearby St. Johns River. We have tried to indicate in every instance
which type of data was used in establishing the sequence. No doubt
there are many refinements which can be made in the future in this
sequence, both in the isolation of temporal periods and the expansion
of our knowledge of the cultures involved.


7. Goggin, 1947.
8. From a mimeographed revision by Goggin, October, 1948.
9. Smith, 1948.






REFERENCES


Blatchley, W. S.
1902. A Nature Wooing at Ormond by the Sea. Indianapolis.

Goggin, John M.
1947. "A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas
and Periods in Florida," American Antiquity, vol. 13,
no. 2, pp. 114-127.

Griffin, John W.
1948. "Green Mound A Chronological Yardstick," The
Florida Naturalist, October.

Griffin, John W. and Hale G. Smith.

n.d. Nocoroco: A Timucua Village of 1605 in Tomoka State
Park. Ms. on file, Florida Park Service.

Holmes, W. H.
1905. Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United States. 20th
Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, Wash-
ington.

Moore, C. B.
1892-94. "Certain shell heaps of the St. Johns River, Florida
hitherto unexplored", In 6 parts in American
Naturalist, vols. 26-28.


Nelson, N. C.
1918..


"Chronology in Florida", Anthropological Papers,
American'Museum of Natural History, Vol. 22,
pp. 75-103.


Smith, Hale G.
1948. "Two Historical Archaeological Periods in Florida",
American Antiquity, Vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 313-319.

Wyman, J.
1875. Fresh Water Shell Mounds of the St. Johns River,
Florida. Peabody Academy of Science. Salem.


Florida Park Service
Gainesville, Florida
November, 1948.


A REVISED TEMPORAL CHART OF

FLORIDA ARCHEOLOGY

John M. Goggin


In a recent paper defining archeological areas and periods in Florida
(Goggin, 1947), a chart w-s included summarizing the chronological
picture in most regions of Florica. At that time the data for the major
areas were fairly complete, although some of the smaller regions
were not as well known. Since then a more intensive study has been
made of the state, and this combined with new material from other
workers in the fields gives us a broader picture of the chronology.
This revised chart is presented here Fig. 12).1

The chart itself is self explanatory2 but brief comments will be made
on changes in each region. Various workers responsible for new
additions will be cited, although a summary of their results will not
be attempted.

Northwest Gulf Coast. The principle change in this area is the in-
troduction of a new historic period, Leon-Jefferson. This was de-
fined by Hale G. Smith (1948:316) on the basis of recent discoveries
concerning the Spanish Mission occupation in that area.

A second change, somewhat tentative, has been the recognition of
the various occurences of fiber-tempered pottery as being sugges-
tive of the Orange culture, more characteristically found in north-
eastern Florida. The Seminole period was also added.

Central Gulf Coast. This area also is basically unchanged. The
Seminole Period has been added, and the Buzzard Island complex
is placed within the Safety Harbor Period, although it may eventually
be considered only a part of that culture (Goggin, n.d.)



1. This chart and notes are from "Culture and Geography
in Florida Prehistory" a dissertation presented by the writ r
to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University, in
partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy
The general work in Florida has been done as part of the
Yale Caribbean Anthropological Program under the direction of
Dr. Cornelius Osgood. This final statewide analysis was made
possible by a Fellowship (1947-48) from the Social Science
Research Council.
2. See a discussion of the principles underlying such a
chart in Goggin (1947:116).





The most important change is the addition of the Crystal River Period,
which finally solves the question of placement of this interesting,
Hopewell-influenced complex. The position of the culture was de-
fined by Gordon R. Willey (1948b) on the basis of newly discovered
museum specimens excavated by Clarence B. I Ioore.

Manatee Region. As in the case of the previous region, revisions
here are also due to the work of Gordon R. Willey (1948a). His anal-
ysis of excavations madi in the 1930's by the Smithsonian Institution
reveal the existence of a new cultural complex, Perico Island, and
supplement our knowledge of the other periods in the region. The
Orange Period was added by the writer (Goggin, n.d.) to account for
the presence of Orange Plain pottery at the Perico site. As in other
areas the presence of the Seminoles is recognized.

Glades Area. The general sequence for this region is little changed
but minor revisions include the division of Glades II into two parts,
moving the earlier back some 150 years. The apparent existence of
a possible Pre-Glades culture related to the Orange is also noted
(Goggin, n.d.). The Seminole period is added.

Kissimmee Region. The chronological column for this area is a com-
pletely new addition. It is nothing more than an attempt to arrange
the few known sites in some temporal sequence; and perhaps only
those in Glades III times are very accurately placed. (Goggin, n.d.)

Melbourne Area. There is considerable change in this region but
mainly in terminology. The terms Ft. Johns I and II are no longer
used; Rouse (n.d.) has changed them to Malabar I and I in order to
more clearly emphasize the distinct cultural content of the periods.
The termination of the Orange Period has been moved to correspond
with the date of the period in the Northern St. Johns area. The St.
Augustine Period has been added to account for late material, and
the former Seminole occupation is also recognized.

Northern St. Johns Area. The definition of the St. Augustine Period,
a time of historic Indian occupation, is a contribution from Hale G.
Smith (1948). The major St. Johns periods are the. same as before
except that each has been divided into two parts.

A major change in nomenclature was made for the culture distin-
quished by fiber-tempered pottery. The trait which suggested the
previous name Tick Island Period did not stand up on detailed anal-
ysis to its supposed importance and the culture is seen as similar
to that of the Orange Period to the south, thus that name was adopted
here. The ending of the period was also placed earlier. A final
change is the definition of the former "Non-ceramic" period as Mt.
Taylor after the important site of that name (Goggin, n.d.). The Semi-
nole Period was added.






Central Florida. This region is a new addition to the chart represent-
ing an increase in our knowledge of the area. The first three horizons
are poorly represented, but Cades Pond sites are not rare. These
show influence from both the east and west coasts with little distinct
local flavor.

But the following periods, Hickory Pond and Alachua, very clearly
are endemic developments characterized by an abundance of cord-
marked pottery in the former and cob-marked pottery in the latter.
The important Seminole Period is included.

This brief consideration of the new archeological periods in Florida
gives no more than a brief indication of their existence. Further de-
tails can be obtained by consulting the sources used; unfortunately
some are unpublished but it is hoped this will be shortly remedied.



Bibliography


Goggin, John M.
1947. A Preliminary Definition of Archeological Areas and
Periods in Florida (American Antiquity, vol. 13, pp.
114-127, Menasha).

n.d. Culture and Geography in Florida Prehistory (Doctoral
dissertation, Yale University, New Haven).

Rouse, Irving
n.d. A Survey of Indian River Archeology, Florida (Manuscript,
Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven).

Smith, Hale
1948 Two Historical Archeological Periods in Florida (Ameri-
can Antiquity, vol. 13, pp. 313-319, Menasha).

Willey, Gordon R.

1948a Culture Sequence in the Manatee Region of West Florida
(American Antiquity, vol. 13, pp. 209-18, Menasha).

1948b The Cultural Context of the Crystal River Negative
Painted Style (American Antiquity, vol. 13, pp 325-7
Menasha).


THE RACIAL TYPE OF THE SEMINOLE INDIANS

OF FLORIDA AND OKLAHOMA1


Wilton Marion Krogman

Foreword

To the people of Florida the Seuinole Indians are of great interest.
They represent, as it were, the final remaining evidence of the abo-
rigines who first occupied and roamed the Peninsula. To the social
anthropologist they afford an opportunity to study a "fossil" culture,
as it were, persisting into modern times. To the physical anthro-
pologist they provide an opportunity to analyze racial types and their
relative persistence in a new geographic environment. On the phy-
sical side there are very few data on the Florida Seminoles; the data
on the Oklahoma Seminoles are much more adequate. We shall con-
sider 60 "full-blood" males and 49 "full-blood" females.2

Ethnic Background

The Florida Seminoles were probably a split-off from the Lower
Creeks. In 1750 Chief Seacoffee rejected Creek authority and, to-
gether with the Mickasukies, set the Seminoles up as a separate tribe.3
This act was officially announced in 1791, though Georgia and other
States did not recognize it. The Federal government recognized
Seminole status in 1882.

1. This article is based on field work in Oklahoma in 1932,
under the auspices of the Laboratory of Anthropology of Santa
Fe, N. M. In 1935 I published a book, The Physical Anthro-
pology of the Seminole Indians of Oklahoma. (Vol. II, Series
III, of the Comitato Italigno por lo Studio dei Problemi
della Popolazione, Rome, Italy.) The data herein given are
abstracted from the book. For the benefit of the reader
I shall include several references of general historic and
demographic import.
2. I put "full-blood" in quotes. It is a time-honored term,
but it is unscientific: "blood" has nothing to do with racial
analysis. The correct term is genetically homogeneous. T
have based my analysis upon the genealogical history of 205d
Seminoles and/or Seminole-mixtures. If for three, or possi-
bly four, generations there has been no out-mixing I accepted
the individual as "pure" or "full-blood." I studied, in ad-
dition. 87 "mixed" adults, and 95 "full-blood" and "mixed"
children. In all, I carefully measured 291 persons. In fig-
ures 13 to 20 are presented photographs of four male and four
female adult "full-blood" Oklahoma Seminoles. Figure 15 and
Figure 17 are husband and wife; Figure 14 is the son of this
couple.
3. "Seminole" seems to have meant "runaway".

61





The Florida Seminoles, apart from their affiliation with the Creeks :. i
and their incorporation with the Mickasukies, included also elements
from other Muskhogean tribes: Apalachicola, Chiaha, Hichiti, Oconee, .
Okmulgee, Sawokli, Yamasee, and Yuchi. It is doubtful whether these
peoples merely at different tribal level markedly influenced the
physical type. At all events the term "Seminole" originally included
a number of tribal elements. (see Bartram, Gidding, Nash, Swanton).
Upon this nucleus of Indian groups must be superimposed mixture
with whites, mostly Spanish and Scotch-Irish-English mostly, and with
American Negroes. (on the latter see Porter).

In the 1830's, and the decades following, the "Five Civilized Tribes" -
Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole were expatriated
to the then Oklahoma Territory.4

Population Data w,

The early population figures for the Florida Seminoles are unsatis-
factory. Swanton gives the following figures:

Spanish census, 1738 (men) 757
French 1750 ( ) 398
U. S. Census 1760 ( ) 1030 Fig. 13 Fig. 14
Census of 1761 (hunters) 770
Taitt, 1772 (gunmen) 470
Marbury 1792 (men) 1105
Hawkins, 1790 ( ) 430
U. S. Census 1832 ("souls") 7408


In Table 1 I have brought together the population figures on Florida
and Oklahoma Seminoles from 1836-1928, based largely on Swanton
and official U. 8. reports.5

In Table 2 I present vital statistics onthe Oklahoma Seminole whose
genaelogies were studied by me, covering a registration period of
1898-1905. For a comparable analysis of the Florida Seminoles I
have calculated Table 3, based on Nash, for the Census of 1930.

4. I have always thought it an act of poetic justice that,
in moving the Indians, the Government settled them on about '''
the most inhospitable land it could find inhospitable be-
cause its oil-drenched soil would support little vegetation ,I ,'
Waste-land then; unbelievably rich land a generation or so ..
later -...r w:, ,,' "
5. The tables are grouped at the end of the article.



62
Fig. 15 Fig. 16


OKLAHOMA SEMINOLE MALES






If Tables 2 and 3 be analyzed for a major age-grouping the results
are of significant interest:

Group Birth-19 yrs. Birth-29 yr 3. Birth-39 yrs.

I Florida Seminoles (578 persons)

SMale 41.7% 58.9% 76.2%
Female 49.6% 67.3% 84.7%
Combined 45.7% 63.1% 80.4%

II Oklahoma Seminoles (2056 persons)

Male 53.94% 74.59% 83.75%
Female 56.86% 74.89% 84.19%
Combined 55.37% 74.71% 83.94%

It appears, from these data, that the population-profile of the Oklahoma
Seminoles is skewed more in the direction of middle-age death, than
is that of the Florida Seminoles. Both are markedly skewed in this
direction when compared to modern American white population, i.e.
there is us "peak" of old-age death in the Seminoles.

Descriptive Traits
Fig. 17 Fig. 18 The living Florida Seminoles have not been studied in any precise
descriptive detail. MacCauley, in 1880-83, wrote of them as follows:

Physically both men and women are remarkable. The men,
as a rule, attract attention by their height, fullness and sym-
metry of development, and the regularity and agreeableness
of their features. In muscular power and constitutional ability
to endure they excel. While these qualities distinguish, with
a few exceptions, the men of thewhole tribe, they are partic-
ularly characteristic of the two most widely spread of the
families of which, the tribe is composed. These are the Tiger
and Otter clans, which, ,proud of their lines of descent, have
been preserved through a long and tragic past with exceptional
freedom from admixture with degrading blood. Today their
F. men might be taken as types of physical excellence. The
Physique of every Tiger warrior especially I met would furnish
.. proof of this statement. The Tigers, are dark, copper-collored
fellows, over six feet in height, with limbs in good proportion;
their hands and feet well shaped and not very large; their
stature erect; their bearing a sign of self-confident power;
Fg.1g 2 .and their foreheads full and marked. An almost universal
"' characteristic of the Tiger's faces is its squareness, a widened
and protruding under jawbone giving this effect to it. Of other
Fig. 19 Fig. 20-

OKLAHOMA SEMINOLE FEMALES 65






features, I notices that under a large forehead are deep set,
bright, black eyes, small, but expressive of inquiry and vigi-
lance; the nose is slightly aquiline and sensitively formed
about the nostrils; the lips are mobile, sensuous, and not very
full, disclosing, when they smile, beautiful regular teeth; and
the whole face is expressive of the man's sense of having
extraordinary ability to endure and to achieve. Two of the
worriors permitted me to manipulate the muscles of their
bodies. Under my touch these were more like rubber than
flesh. Noticeable among all are the large calves of their legs,
the size of the tendons of their lower limbs, and the strength
of their toes. I attribute this exceptional development to the
fact that they are not what we would call "horse Indians" and
that they hunt barefoot over their wide domain. The same
causes, perhaps, account for the only real deformity I noticed
in the Seminole physique, namely, the diminutive toe nails,
and for the heavy, cracked, and seamed skin which covers
the soles of their feet. The feet being otherwise well formed,
the toes having only narrow shells for nails, these lying sunken
across the middles of the tough cushions of flesh, which, pro-
tuberant about them, form the toe tips. But, regarded as a
whole, in their physique the Seminole warriors, especially
the men of the Tiger and Otter gentes, are admirable. There
are, as I have said, exceptions to this rule of unusual physical
size and strength, but these are few; so few that, disregarding
them, we may pronounce the Seminole men handsome and
exceptionally powerful.

The women to a large extent share the qualities of the men.
Some are proportionally tall and handsome, through, curiously
enough, many, perhaps a majority, are rather under than over
the average height of women. As a rule, they exhibit great
bodily vigor. Large or small, they possess regular and agree-
able features, shapely and well developed bodies, and they show
themselves capable of long continued and severe physical
exertion. Indeed, the only Indian women I have seen with
attractive features and forms are among the Seminole. I would
even venture to select from among these Indians three persons
whom I could, without much fear of contradiction, present as
types respectively of a handsome, a pretty, and a comely
women. Among American Indians, I am confident that the
Seminole women are of the first rank.
In 1922 Hrdlicka reported on the Florida Seminoles. He measured
one young male in some detail, though he describes two. They were
medium brown plus in skin color, with straight black hair, and were
"oblong to slightly shorted-headed." Stature was "moderate to fair,"
and body and limbs were "well developed." Hrdlicka concluded of
all his data that they were "quite common for a southeastern, medium
developed, young adult or slightly sub-adult Indian."


For 60 Oklahoma "full-blood" male Seminoles and 49 "full-blood"
females I present the following descriptive information:

1. Stature and build. The males are predominantly tall. The fe-
males are of medium height. Both are fairly well built, but tend to
take on weight with age, especially the women. Muscular develop-
ment in younger subjects is usually robust to medium.

2. Head form. The head shape for both sexes is at the lower range
of round-headedness.

3. Skin color. The color of the face is basically medium brown,
though there is a range from light to very dark brown. The color
on the inner upper arm and on the chest (not exposed to the sun) was
a dusky yellowish-brown to a submedium brown. On the skin color-
top, measuring red, black, yellow and white, I registered the follow-
ing percentages on the inner upper arm:


Red
Male 18.91%
Female 19.12%


Black
57.88%
57.51%


Yellow
13.48%
14.95%


White
9.49%
8.95%


4. Hair color and form. The hair color is very darK; In at least half
of the population it is brown-black; the range is medium brown to
brown-black. Hair form is uniformly straight. Graying is rare, and
occurs very late. Beard hair is sparse. Eyebrows are never bushy.

5. Eye color and eye-fold. The prevailing eye color is dark brown.
Sclera is clear in younger life, "muddy" or "flecked" in later life.
The medial eye fold ("epicanthic" or "Mongolian" fold) was present
in 20 of 59 males, absent or slight in 39; it was present in 27 of 49
females, absent or slight in 22.

6. The face. The face across the cheekbones is broad; the cheek-
bones tend to be "high" (forward projecting) and prominent (out-
wardly arched). The forehead is well developed, fairly high and broad,
and tends to be arched or "bulging." The bony ridges above the eyes
supraorbitall ridges) are not prominent in the males.

7. The nose. The Seminole nose is only moderately wide across thj
wings. The bridge is high and straight. Nasal root is fairly well
elevated.

In general the Seminole physical type does not differ markedly in
appearance from that of his close relatives, the Creeks.






Physical Measurements of
the Oklahoma Seminoles

The physical anthropologist takes many measurements to aid in his
assessment of race and body-type. In addition he derives many
indices of proportion.6 We shall present these measurements and
indices in grouped form and then shall discuss their import.


I Head and Face

Head Length
Head Breadth
Forehead Breadth
Auricular Height
Breadth/Length Index
Height/Length Index
Height/Breadth Index
Cheekbone Width
Jaw Width
Interpupillary Width
Interorbital Width
Biorbital Width
Total Face Height*
Upper Face Height*
Total Facial Index
Upper Facial Index
Nose Height
Nose Breadth
Nasal Index
Ear Height*
Ear Breadth*
Ear Index
Mouth Breadth
Lip Height
Mouth Index

(The measurements marked *
"physiognomic" dimensions)

II Body Lengths and Breadths

Stature
Sitting Height
Sitting Height/Stature Ind


Males

191.9
153.2
107.9
132.7
79.9
693
086

114.9
62.2
32.5
98.2
122.9
73.9
85.2


40.7
73.4

37.6
56.7

17.4
32.7


Females

185.5
149.0
105.7
129.2
80.6
69.7

f WX
109.4
58.9
31.6
92.6
117.5
68.3
84.2

51U
37.6
75.6

35.3
57.8

16.6
33.6


are "morphological" rather than


Males

1695.9
876.3
51.67


Females

1566.9
811.4
51.78


Shoulder Height
Sternal Height
Cristal Height
Trochanteric Height
Knee Height
Shoulder Breadth
Chest Breadth
Chest Depth
Chest Index
Chest Circumference
Cristal Breadth
Trochanteric Breadth
I Arm and Leg Lengths

Total Arm Length
Upper Arm Length
Forearm Length
Hand Length
Hand Breadth
Forearm/Upper Arm Index
Forearm/Hand Index
Hand Index
Total Leg Length
Thigh Length
Lower Leg Length
Foot Height
Foot Breadth
Foot Length
Lower Leg/Thigh Index
Foot Index
Total Arm/Total Leg Index
Upper Arm/Thigh Index
Forearm/Lower Leg Index


1407.5
1390.3
1003.1
893.8
455.9
585.6
309.5
245.2
131.1
S720
315.6
341.4
Males

756.6
303.5
262.6
191.3
80.5
86.2
731

893.8
443.4
397.4
55.9
99.0
256.0
90.8
R6-T

YWwT
T6-.y


1305.4
1281.2
941.3
827.5
431.1
352.4
283.6
228.1
126.7

336.1
347.0
Females

693.4
280.0
239.0
175.1
72.5
85.8
-W.T

827T
403.6
374.5
55.8
94.6
240.0
89.5


70~5^


The foregoing rather formidable battery of dimensions and propor-
tions may be summarized as follows:

1). The Seminole Indians of Oklahoma have a head of average length
and breadth, a forehead breadth a bit above average, and an auricular
height slightly below average for American Indians generally. His
head-form tends to be round-headed.

2). The face is typically Indian, especially in the breadth across the
cheek-bones. Face height is average. The nose is average in width,
is straight, and not unduly prominent. The mouth is wide, as is true
of American Indians generally. The ear is small.

3). The stature is tall, though not among the tallest of American
Indians. Sitting height (i.e., trunk length) is relatively short. Legs


6. In the tables to follow all measurements are in milli-
meters and all indices (underlined) are in percentages. We
shall give averages only. The detailed statistics range,
standard deviation, co-efficient of variation, and errors
of mean, S.D., and C.V. are given in my 1935 report.







are of average length, as are also arms. Forearm is relatively long
but lower leg is not unduly so. and is small, but foot is large.
Shoulders are narrow, chest is average, and hips are wide.

4). In conclusion, the Oklahoma Seminole Indian type is essentially
that of a variant or geographical race (sub-race?) of the American
Indian. As is true of all American Indians, taken as a group, the
majority of Seminole physical traits, where not absolutely definitive
for the Mongoloid type, are intermediate between Caucasoid and
Negroid rather nearer the former in most traits.

REFERENCES


Bartram, W. "Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia,
East and West Florida." Phlla. 1794.

Giddings, J. R. "The Exiles of Florida." Columbus, Ohio. 1858.

Hrdlicka, A. "Anthropology of Florida." Pub. Fla. State Hist. Soc.
#1. Deland, Fla. 1922.

MacCauley, C. "The Seminoles of Florida." 5th Ann. Rep. Bur. Am.
Ethnol. Washington, D. C. 18 -


MacCauley, C.


"Personal Characteristics of Florida Seminoles."
Smithson. Misc. Coll. Vol. 25. Washington, D. C.
1883.


Nash, R. "Survey of the Seminole Indians of Florida." Office Indian
Affairs. Washington, D. C. 1932.


Porter, K. W.


"Relations between Negroes and Indians within the
present limits of the U. S." J. Negro. Hist. 17:287-
368. 1932.


Swanton, J. "Early history of the Creeks and their neighbors." Bull.
73, Bur. Am. Ethnol. Washington, D. C. 1922.


Graduate School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
June, 1948.


TABLE I
Table of Seminole Population

from 1836 1928


Year Total Year Total
F4 0 I 0
Fr1 Oi /< *- A


U. S.
1836
1837
1838
1841
1842
1843
1844

School
craft
1846
1847
1850

U. S.
1851
1853
1855

School
craft
1855
1857

U. S.

1857

School
craft
1857

U. S.
1858
1859
1861
1865-6
1867


3,765
5,072
3,565
3,765


--m--



3,612
3,824
3,136


-- ,250
3701,500
348 1,500


2,500
2,500
2,500



2,500
2,500



1,907


1,870


2,060
2,253
2,267
2,000
2,236


3,765
5,072
3,565
3,765
3,612
3,824
3,136



3,2501
1,870
1,848


2,500
3,000
3,000



2,500
2,500


--- 1,907


--- 1,870


2,060
2,253
2,267
2,000
2,236


1868
1869-70
1871
1872
1873-5
1876
1877-8
1879
1880-1
1882
1883-7
1888
1889-91
1892
1895-4
1895
1896
1897
1898-9
1900
1901
1902-4
1905
1906
1907
1908-9

1910
1911-2
1913
1914
1915

1916
1917
1918
1919-24
1924-28


1,950
2,136
2,300
2,398
2,438
2,443
2,225
2,560
2,667
2,700
3,000
3,050
2,600
3,000
3,000
2,900
2,000
2,900
2,900
3,000
2,757
2,750
2,099
2,132
2,138
1,399
739(1)
2,137
2,137
2,133
2,133
1,254
887(2)
2,141
2,141
2,141
2,141
2,141


1,950
2,156
2,300
2,398
2,438
2,545
2,445
2,560
2,667
2,700
3,000
3,050
2,600
3,000
3,450
3,465
2,565
3,465
3,475
3,575
3,115
3,108
3,407
3,469
3,482
3,482

3,481
3,569
3,719
3,681

3,70'
3,701
3,713
3,712
3,700
3,633


Baped on Swanton and U. S. Indian Office Returns.

(1) Lower number equals mixed bloods.
(2) Mixed blood: 1/2 plus, 478: 1/2 minus, 409.






Table 2


Age and Sex Distribution

1898 -


of Oklahoma Seminoles

1905


FREQUENCY PERCENT OF TOTAL
Age
M. F. Both M. F. Both


0-1
1-4
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
90-94


1 2056


7.81
7.33
15.15
13.61
11.96
13.22
10.13
10.52
5.01
4.15
3.86
5.01
1.35
1.64
1.93
1.25
0.48
0.29
0.09
0.19
0.09


11.37
8.62
20.00
16.47
9.90
10.40
10.58
7.45
4.70
4.60
5.19
3.23
2.05
1.66
1.37
0.68
0.89
0.39
0.29


9.58
7.97
17.55
15.02
10.94
11.86
10.35
8.99
4.86
4.37
4.52
4.13
1.70
1.65
1.65
0.97
0.68
0.34
0.19
0.097
0.048


Age and Sex D.strtiution of Florida Seminoles

1930


Male Female Total
No. % No. % No.


Under 1 year .

1- 3 years .

4- 9 .

10-19 .

20-29 .

30-39 .

40-49 .

50-59 "

60-69 .

70-79 .

80-89 "

Over 90 years


1.4

6.2

12.8

21.4

17.2

17.2

8.6

7.6

4.8

0.3

2.4


5

13

38

87

51

50

19

13

6

5

0

_

288


1.7

4.5

13.2

30.2

17.7

17.4

6.6

4.5

2.1

1.7



0.3


1.6

5.4

13.0

25.8

17.4

17.3

7.6

6.0

3.5

1.0

1.2

0.2


1036


1020


Table 3






BOOK REVIEWS


EDITORIAL COMMENTS


The second issue of the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is now in
print. Like the previous issue this is a double number, and com-
pletes volume I. Beginning in January we will attempt to get the jour-
nal to you in quarterly numbers, and at quarterly intervals. Our
success in this attempt will depend largely upon the membership
of the Society.

First of all, we will need the continued support of the present mem-
bership, and the addition of many new members, to assure financial
support for the project.

Secondly, we will need a supply of good manuscripts to bring to the
membership. Readers will note that our contributions so far have not
come exclusively from professional anthropologists, although we have
not had as many from non-professionals as we had hoped. Remember,
it is the policy of the journal to balance its pages between the needs
of the professional and the non-professional. Thus, we appeal again
for articles and brief communications from the membership.

Although this issue closes volume I, the publication program for the
first year is not complete. We have available a certain amount of
money in the Bulletin fund, and have a manuscript under consideration
for publication as our first BULLETIN. Although this will probably
appear after the first of the year, it is to be considered as a publi-
cation of the current year.

John W. Griffin


The Flint River Site, Ma048. Wm. S. Webb and David L. Dejarnette.
Museum Paper 23, Alabama Museum of Natural History, University,
Alabama, 1948. 87 pages, map, line drawings, 34 plates, 10 strati-
graphic tabulations.
Archaeologists concerned with the prehistory of the southeast divide
prehistoric time into two major periods: a pre-ceramic period called
the Archaic and a ceramic period which ends with the coming of Euro-
peans and the breakdown of Indian culture. A still earlier period is
evidenced by Folsom-like points and by associations between human
bones or artifacts and extinct fauna but extremely little is known about
such a period in this area. The ceramic or post-Archaic period has
been arbitrarily divided into smaller time periods based upon archae-
ological study of changes in the material culture of the aborigines.
As far as I am aware there has been no formal attempt to subdivide
the Archaic period of this area until publication of The Flint River
Site.

Webb and Dejarnette in their theoretical introduction to this paper
take the position that the "appearance in a particular stratum of a
new type of artifact, previously not used, as shown by the entire ab-
sence of this a-rtifact from lower and earlier strata" may be taken
as a chronological marker for a new period in time. They point out
that the absence of a technique or artifact in higher or later strata
is not as acceptable as a time marker as "Man generally does not
forget what he has once known." We are all familiar with heirloom
pieces and can agree with this reasoning.

Pointing out that all shell heaps along the Tennessee River "have
had a similar development" the authors propose "a six step chrono-
logical scale for the shell middens of the Tennessee River, each step
being defined by the appearance of a material trait." The first three
periods are subdivisions of the Archaic previously mentioned. The
other three cover most of the time during which pottery was made.
The major difference between this arrangement and that used by other
archaeologists is that most students of the area would include thp
authors' first pottery period, that during which fiber-tempered pot-
tery was made, as the last stage of the Archaic.

The proposed arrangement follows. In considering this scheme it
must be remembered that each new period is marked by the intro-
duction of a new trait, while many traits may span several periods.






Archaic 1 represented by lowest zones of shell middens.
Characterized by many double pointed bone projectile points
and split bone awls, abundant cut and worked bone, and an
absence of worked flint.

Archaic 2 marked by introduction of flint, usually in the
form of large ovate or lanceolate blades sometimes having
a straight base. Atlatl points with slightly bifurcated stems
are typical. Other artifacts are antler atlatl hooks, bell shaped
pestles, artifacts cut from human bone, and hammerstones.
Dog burials are found.

Archaic 3 marked by introduction of steatite and sandstone
cooking vessels. Long, narrow, stemmed projectile points
are dominant although also found into Pottery 2 times. Other
traits of Archaic 3 include antler drifts, spear points, atlatl
hooks, and head dress; stone gorgets, atlati weights, and
beads; shell pendants and disc beads.

Pottery 1 marked by introduction of fiber-tempered pottery.
Due to the small amount of this pottery the authors suggest
that it represents trade material. Other traits are medium
small stemmed points with barbs at corners of blades, and
long cylindrical shell beads.

Pottery 2 marked by introduction of grit-tempered pottery
which was rapidly developed into diverse shapes and varied
surface finishes and decoration. Projectile point types found
in Archaic 3 reach their maximum frequency in this period.
Antler artifacts and stone gorgets are still found. Celts and
hoes are present as well as cylindrical shell columella beads.
Gorgets and pendants are also made of shell. There is evidence
of some copper.

Pottery 3 marked by intrusion of shell-tempered pottery into
the very top layer of some shell middens. This seems to indi-
cate a period when these shell middens were used as burial
places by people other than the builders of the middens.
The above abridged lists of traits correlated with relative time show
a complicated picture of culture growth. Comparisons with other
areas indicate various influences which impinged upon and were in-
tegrated into the culture of the shell midden dwellers. This important
story the authors only hint at; they content themselves with building
up a chronological framework which is the necessary prerequisite
to a study of culture growth and change.

The main body of this report covers the Flint River site, its excava-
tion, and artifacts. Excavation was accomplished by isolating large
blocks of the inidden and then removing them by six inch zones. This


midden was nicely stratified into four zones by layers of shell and
silt. These zones are labeled A to D and the vertical provenience
of artifacts in respect to these zones _s indicated in many tabulations.
The authors are to be congratulated on this method of presentation
as it makes this information available in ready form for the compara-
tive student.

One point occurred to the reviewer in studying this part of the report.
The authors state very definitely that Zone C is a pre-ceramic hori-
zon (p. 35). Flaked celts and hces concentrate in this zone (p. 45).
They also state that the character of wear on these inplements "seems
to suggest their use as digging tools" (p. 46). "While they lime-
stone celts, hoes, and grooved axes] may have been in use at this
site after limestone pottery began to be used, they are clearly assigned
as to origin to the pre-ceramic time horizon" (p. 47). This would
seem to imply the possibility that agriculture was practised before
the introduction of pottery. It also would appear that these tools
should be included in the list given earlier for Archaic 3.

Apparently pits were not noted or not separately excavated when their
tops were uncovered and before the surrounding dirt or shell was
removed. This appears to have blurred the stratigraphic picture
somewhat, particularly in respect to pottery tabulations. In spite of
this The Flint River Site fits nicely in the conceptual scheme pre-
sented in the introduction. Occupation in Archaic 3 and Pottery 2
periods plus intrusive burials representing Pottery 3 is indicated.
Major exceptions are the limestone celts and hoes mentioned earlier.

Plate references in tabulations and scales on plates would aid the
comparative student. It is also baffling to find that flint types 1, 12,
41, and 45 (the only ones more prevalent in higher than in lower
zones) are not illustrated. A footnote refers the reader to pp. 8-9
of the authors 1942 report. However, these pages only explain how
the classification was made. A plate by plate examination of the
Pickwick Basin report is necessary to find out that type 1 is a small
asymmetric trianguloid knife, type 12 a broken or reworked point,
and types 41 and 45 are drills.1 About five typographical errors in-
dicate how difficult it is to eliminate this trouble.

This paper with its many illustrations and tabulations is very help-
ful in our understanding of the Archaic and middle ceramic periods.
With publication of more reports of this nature from other areas it
may be possible to reconstruct the life and culture of the Archaic
period. Already a much more complicated picture is suggested than
was glimpsed a few years ago.

Ripley P. Bullen
Florida Park Service


77







The Archaic Horizon in Western Tennessee. Thomas M. N. Lewis
and Madeline Kneberg. Tennessee Anthropological Papers, No. 2,
Knoxville, 1947. 39 pages, map, trait list, chronological chart, many
pen drawings.

This publication summarizes data from eleven Archaic (pre-ceramic)
sites in the lower Tennessee River Valley. The salient points of
each site are briefly mentioned and their traits tentatively combined
to form an Eva Focus. Eva Focus traits are compared with those
from Lauderdale and Indian Knoll by a tabulation. A short discussion
is included.

Realizing that it would be some time before site reports could be
published, the authors wrote this book "to provide an illustrated in-
ventory of the more important artifacts" and "to call attention to the
probability of the Archaic culture having persisted up to a late period
in western.Tennessee." The first objective is admirably attained by
many pen and ink drawings which make this book extremely useful for
comparative purposes.

We will have to await publication of the site reports for documentation
supporting the thesis that people of the Eva Focus continued to live
virtually unacculturated during about 300 years of ceramic history and
received a few pottery vessels from people of four successive ceramic
periods. At some of the sites covered by this publication pottery is
placed above the base of the plowed zone. At others it is stated to
have come from undisturbed deposits. It is hoped that in the final
reports attention will be given to horizontal as well as vertical dis-
tribution of types of pottery.

Ripley P. Bullen
Florida Park Service


CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ISSUE


Ripley P. Bullen. Mr. Bullen is the new Assistant Archaeologist of
the Florida Park Service. Prior to his coming to Florida, Mr.
Bullen was associated with the R. S. Peabody Foundation for
Archaeology, Andover, Massachusetts, and had worked ex-
tensively in the northeastern United States.

John M. Goggin. Dr. Goggin, well known for his work on Florida
archaeology, is now Associate Professor of Sociology and An-
thropology at the University of Florida, having accepted this
post last summer after receiving his doctor's degree from
Yale University.

John W. Griffin. Mr. Griffin is Archaeologist for the Florida Park
Service, and the present paper covers work done in that capacity.

wilton Marion Krogman. Dr. Krogman is internationally known in the
field of physical anthropology, and we consider ourselves for-
tunate in being able to present a paper by him. He is President
of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and
has served in high offices in most major national organizations
concerned with anthropology. At the present time he is Pro-
fessor of Physical Anthropology at the University of Pennsyl-
vania, having recently gone there from the University of Chicago.

Charles W. Spellman. Father Spellman is at present located at La
Leche Shrine in St. Augustine. Academically, Father Spellinan
is an historian, having done his work at the University of Cali-
fornia. His master's thesis was written on the Spanish missions
of Florida.


1. William S. Webb and David L. DeJarnette, An Archaeolog-
ical Survey of Pickwick Basin in the Adjacent Portions of
the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. Bulletin
129, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1942. Pls. 226, 12, 3.







435


THE TYPES AND POTENTIALS OF
UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN
FLORIDA:
Everything You Wanted To Know About
Underwater Archaeology
But Were Afraid To Ask


Jim Dunbar


Introduction

There are four major categories of
underwater archaeological sites that
frequently occur in Florida waters. Sites
in each of these categories should be
managed according to different
archaeological criteria.

1. Underwater sites without stratigraphic
integrity include redeposited
accumulations of artifacts displaced by
erosion and/or artifact accumulations on
the surface. This category covers a
relatively broad array of underwater
artifact concentrations including the most
common, current and wave sorted deposits.
The remains of wrecked or scuttled
watercraft are excluded from this
category. Even though underwater sites
without stratigraphic integrity are the
least significant site type,
archaeological data is available and
should be collected.

2. Wrecked or scuttled vessels, including
all types of watercraft prehistoric or
historic, are the time capsules of
archaeology. Whether a wrecked or
scuttled craft is scattered, intact,
buried or exposed, the vessels structure
and contents should be collected with
adequate horizontal control and considered
as a unit.

3. In situ underwater refuse sites with
stratigraphic integrity represent buried
accumulations of underwater refuse
associated with waterfront cultural
activity areas. Prehistoric or historic
in age, they often have excellent organic
preservation and provide archaeological
information not found in contemporaneous


land sites. The majority of these sites
are less that 6,000 years old and may have
some related underwater features such as
dock or house pilings.

4. Inundated prehistoric sites with
stratigraphic integrity are the last major
category. Many prehistoric human
habitation and activity areas have been
inundated by sea level or inland
watertable rise since the last ice age.
Most inundated sites are over 6,000 years
old and have bone and, less frequently,
other types of organic preservation.
Conversely, organic material rarely
survives in terrestrial sites over 6,000
years old. Thus, inundated prehistoric
sites with stratigraphic integrity and
organic preservation represent one of
Florida's most unique and significant
archaeological resources.
A fifth category of inundated site,
prehistoric human burials in peat bogs, is
uncommon. This minor category of
underwater site is usually restricted in
time and regional in geographic
distribution. In Florida, 6,000 to 8,000
year old burials with preserved brain
tissue have been recovered from peat bogs.
Although uncommon, this kind of
archaeological site ranks as one of the
most significant in Florida.
The type of underwater site dictates
the kinds of retrievable archaeological
data that are present. Each major
category of site should be approached in a
manner that will allow the maximum amount
of archaeological data to be extracted.
The archaeological considerations and
techniques discussed below are not
comprehensive; however, the major
archaeological concerns and objectives for
each category of site are discussed.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 41 No. 3


Dec., 1988









This paper is not an attempt to say
that recreational artifact collecting or
possessing a private collection of
artifacts is bad, it is not; however,
there are proper limits and the moral
responsibility to our past. Hopefully the
reader will better appreciate the puzzle
solving qualities that archaeologist
strive to achieve and join the Friends Of
Time by helping to preserve our cultural
heritage, in contrast to the Thieves of
Time.
Florida's antiquities law (Chapter
267, Florida Statutes), and administrative
rules, (Chapters 1A-31 and 1A-32) govern
the use of archaeological and historical
resources located on state sovereignty
submerged bottom lands. Florida's
antiquities law is administered by the
Division of Historical Resources, Bureau
of Archaeological Research. Excavation of
archaeological and historical remains on
state sovereignty submerged lands requires
a permit or contract from the Division and
may require dredge and fill permits from
the Florida Department of Enviromental
Regulation and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers as well as a form of consent
from the Florida Department of Natural
Resources.
Federal antiquities laws and
regulations apply to Federal lands,
including submerged lands, while owner
permission is required for collecting on
private property. Please also note that a
vertebrate fossil collecting permit
obtained from the Florida Museum of
Natural History in Gainesville does NOT
authorize collecting from archaeological
sites. Such permits, issued under the
provisions of Chapter 240, Florida
Statutes, are limited to vertebrate fossil
collecting only. Also, if you encounter
human remains DO NOT remove or otherwise
disturb them. Leave a marker so that they
can be relocated, and follow the
provisions of Chapter 872, Florida
Statutes, pertaining to such remains.

Sites Without Stratigraphic Integrity

Surface aritfact accumulations have
been made famous by sport divers
interested in avocational archaeology and


recreational underwater artifact
collecting. With the introduction of
scuba diving equipment in the 1950s, sport
divers in Florida began forming groups
interested in sight seeing, spear fishing
and underwater photography. As more and
more Florida waters were explored,
artifact diving became one among many new
interests that attracted divers. Many
divers who have surface collected
artifacts from state submerged bottom
lands have important collections. For
example, sport divers were the first to
recover evidence that Paleo-Indians (ca.
12,000 to 14,000 years ago) occupied now
inundated areas in river bottoms,
sinkholes and lake basins. To
archaeologists, sport divers interested in
archaeology can be valuable sources of
information.
There are three subtypes of
underwater sites without stratigraphic
integrity: (1) surface accumulations of
redeposited artifacts; (2) surface
accumulations of in place or relatively in
place artifacts; and, (3) buried
accumulations of redeposited artifacts.
Surface accumulations of redeposited and
in place artifacts are the most common or
at least the most obvious underwater sites
in Florida. Probably 95% of exposed
artifact accumulations in Florida fit into
this category. Because all of the sites
in this category lack stratigraphic
integrity, they have less archaeological
significance than other categories of
underwater sites. Good archaeological
information is collectable, however, and
should be gathered by using a few simple
archaeological techniques.
Surface accumulations of redeposited
artifacts occur in rivers, spring runs and
other areas where moving water (including
current and wave surge) has displaced
artifacts. Florida's rivers and coastal
beaches have not been too destructive of
horizontal deposition. Therefore,
artifacts are not far from their point of
origin. Understanding the distribution of
artifact types in relation to natural
resources, ecosystems and ecotones is an
important building block for archaeology.
Basic provenience data on surface
collected artifacts can provide crucial


436






information for site distribution models
and site prediction.
Surface accumulations of redeposited
artifacts should be collected in a loosely
controlled fashion. Artifacts collected
from one site should be kept separate from
collections made at other sites. At the
end of each dive day or as soon as
possible thereafter, artifacts should be
cataloged. Each artifact should be marked
with a unique catalog number and data
entered into the catalog (i.e., a
notebook) indicating the catalog number,
type of artifact, date of collection and
site of collection. Artifacts can be
marked by applying a base coat of clear
fingernail polish to a small area of the
artifact; then a coat of white liquid
paper; then the catalog number written on
with india ink; and finally a protective
coat of clear nail polish. All sites
collected should be plotted on a detailed
map of the area. The location and types
of material collected from each site
should be reported to an archaeologist or
archaeological group that will transfer
the recorded site information to the
Florida Master Site File. If artifacts are
not cataloged, or if sites are not plotted
then recorded, eventually the opportunity
to record the data is lost and the
collection becomes archaeologically
meaningless.
Surface accumulations of in place
artifacts occur in still water and low
energy underwater environments. These
sites are somewhat similar to buried
underwater refuse sites but lack the
stratigraphic context and degree of
organic preservation. Both prehistoric
and historic sites fall into this subtype.
The Nalcrest site, located in Lake
Weohyakapka, probably represented an in
place surface scattered prehistoric site.
The artifact concentrations at this and
several similar sites are believed to
represent the remains of habitation areas
with little (5cm or less) stratigraphic
depth. Similar historic age sites exist
as underwater refuse dumps that never
became buried because of the lack of
sedimentation. The horizontal
distribution of artifacts over the site
defines its original boundaries.
Understanding the horizontal distribution
of artifacts within the site often reveals
the locations of activity areas.


Controlled surface collection and plan
view mapping are necessary to provide the
required archaeological information.
Surface accumulations of in place
artifacts should be collected by
rectangular grid system in water with
visibility and by a system like the circle
search method in water with limited or no
visibility.
First, in water with visibility, a
North/South-East/West grid system should
be established over the site and material
collected by 2m squares (6 sq. ft.) within
the grid system. Artifacts collected from
a 2m square should be bagged, cataloged
and marked in a way that will identify the
site and grid square provenience.
Artifacts from one square should not be
mixed with other artifacts until all
artifacts have been marked and data
entered into the catalog. It is sometimes
good to compare artifacts, for example, to
see if the base of a spear point matches a
spear point tip found elsewhere. Do this
after the artifacts are marked. As
controlled collection takes place, plan
view mapping of grid squares should be
continually updated. The plan view site
map should include:
1. The North/South-East/West oriented grid
system, collected and uncollected areas of
the site and the site datum(s).
2. The generalized density and types of
artifacts recovered from each grid square
indicated by standardized map symbols.
3. The precise location of any in place
structure within the grid system (i.e.,
dock piling, etc.).
4. The shoreline, land areas and related
terrestrial sites that occur adjacent to
the underwater site.
Second, in water without visibility,
a modified circle search system has been a
successful method for conducting
controlled surface collecting. A base
line should be run down the long axis of
the site and anchored at both ends and in
between as needed to fix the base line to
the bottom. The base line should be
marked in 25 meter (80 ft.) increments
along its length and each end of the line
should become a semipermanent datum.
Starting at one end of the line, extend a
second line perpendicular to the axis of
the base line for 15 meters (50 ft.) on
either side of the base line. Fix the
second line to the bottom. At the


437







junction or crossing point of the base
line and the perpendicular line, a trailer
tie down or similar stake should be
secured into the bottom with enough of
its top exposed to act as a pivot point
for a third line the swing line. The
swing line should be 15 meters long and
marked with a knot every 3 meters (10
ft.). One end of the swing line should
have a quick release snap shackle to allow
easy attachment to the tie down stake.
Once the swing line is hooked to the
central stake, any one of four pie shaped
quarters of the circle can be collected.
Collection from one quadrant of the circle
is conducted with two divers starting at
the end of the swing line and arching back
and forth across the quadrant boundaries
at 3 meter increments until the center
stake is reached. Upon reaching the
center stake a new quadrant can be
started. When the four quadrants of a
circle have been collected, the tie down
stake is moved down the base line to the
next 25 meter mark, the perpendicular line
is reset over the new circle and the
quadrant by quadrant circle search is
repeated. Materials from each quadrant
should be bagged, marked and cataloged as
a unit before being mixed with artifacts
from other quadrants.
The base line, circles, quadrants
and artifact concentrations from each
quadrant should be plotted on the site
map. The plan view site map should also
show:
1. The orientation of the base lines) in
relation to North, the collected and
uncollected areas of the site and the site
base line datum(s).
2. The generalized density and types of
artifacts recovered from each quadrant
should be indicated by standardized map
symbols.
3. The precise location of any in place
structure within the grid system (i.e.,
pilings, etc.).
4. The shoreline, land areas and related
terrestrial sites that occur adjacent to
the underwater site and land datum(s).
Buried accumulations of redeposited
artifacts lack their former integrity as
in place archaeological materials. These
sites occur in rivers, spring runs and
other areas where moving water once
displaced artifacts prior to burial. Like


surface accumulations of redeposited
artifacts they have similar archaeological
significance, however buried deposits may
also contain important paleoenvironmental
information. For example, the occurrence
of two redeposited artifact levels at a
site in the Aucilla River suggests that
lower sea levels and/or climatic factors
caused current velocities far greater than
present around 4,000 years ago and again
about 2,500 to 2,000 years ago. This kind
of information is useful to archaeologists
as well as geologists and
paleoenvironmentalists. Controlled
excavation and mapping is necessary to
provide the needed archaeological
information.
Buried accumulations of redeposited
artifacts can be excavated with
generalized horizontal control such as
excavation and collection by 2m square
within an established grid system, but
without plan view mapping each artifact
or fossil. In other cases more detailed
plan view mapping may be required.
Vertical control of the dig may also be
important if more than one level of
redeposited artifacts exists at the site.
The condition of the site will determine
the necessary excavation controls and
level of mapping required to extract data.
At some sites this may require controls
very similar to in place underwater refuse
sites discussed below. Excavation of a
buried redeposited artifact site should be
supervised by a full time on site
archaeologist.

Wrecked and Scuttled Watercraft

A wrecked watercraft represents the
results of a catastrophic event, frozen in
time, containing a selection of
archaeological information preserved as
artifacts. Wreck sites generally contain
one or more of three major artifact
categories: cargo, shipboard items
(including tackle, hardware and tools and
the personal effects of the crew) and
vessel structure. Each wreck site has
different proportions of these artifact
types depending on the activity of the
vessel when it wrecked, how the craft
wrecked and the subsequent preservation of
wreck related material among other
factors. Historic shipwreck sites often


438







yield information never recorded or
inaccurately recorded in contemporary
accounts.
Scuttled or abandoned watercraft
generally yield information on
construction styles; however, they seldom
contain cargo or shipboard items since the
act of scuttling was usually a planned
event. Cargo and shipboard items were
simply removed before the vessel was
abandoned.
Vertical stratigraphy, which is
important when dealing with underwater
refuse and inundated sites, is rarely a
concern for the shipwreck archaeologist;
rather, the horizontal relationship of
wreck-related artifacts and ship structure
yields the most meaningful information.
Some wreck sites in Florida waters are
buried and, less commonly, some have three
dimensional structure. The majority,
however, are partially or totally exposed
with little or no remaining articulated
structure. Whether a wreck site is
excavated or surface collected, the
horizontal wreckage scatter should be
accurately mapped in plan view. The
extent of detailed mapping required to
properly document a wreck is dependent on
the condition of the site.
Broken up wreck sites that are
highly scattered over several hundred
yards to a mile or more can be
sufficiently mapped by using a sextant to
take horizontal angles between two pairs
of established shore line datums. Sextant
angles can then be plotted on the site
base map. A sextant or equivalent method
of positioning should have a minimal
accuracy to within 2 meters (6 feet).
Large features of a scattered wreck like
cannon or anchors should be mapped by
using any one of a number of survey
techniques that are more precise than the
sextant method. Each excavation unit
should be plotted on a map using the
sextant angles. Using standardized map
symbols the material from each excavation
unit should be shown on the map. Common
artifact types should be grouped together
and tagged by excavation unit. Unique or
unusual artifacts should be tagged
separately by excavation unit. Surface
collected artifacts should be recovered
within a controlled horizontal area no
larger than 3m by 3m (10 by 10 ft.) and
tagged as above.


Many wreck and scuttle sites have
little or no scattered material beyond the
area where the structure came to rest.
Accurate horizontal controls are needed to
accomplish detailed plan view mapping of
relatively intact sites. This requires a
physical grid system to be established
over the site before surface collection or
excavation takes place. Often articulated
structure and individual artifacts must be
mapped in place within a few centimeters
accuracy. Site maps of the remains
measured to scale should be completed by a
competent draftsperson. Artifacts are
often tagged separately rather than in
groups. The archaeological data collected
from a relatively intact wrecked or
scuttled craft should be accurate enough
to reassemble the site.
The importance of mapping wreck
sites and the degree of mapping accuracy
required has been the most abused and
misunderstood aspect of underwater
archaeology in Florida. Too often plan
view mapping has either not taken place or
has been accomplished in an inaccurate
fashion. This is particularly true of
surface scattered wreck sites that are
often collected with no mapping controls.
An improved effort to acquire adequate
data is needed to better preserve
Florida's remaining maritime heritage.
The Bureau of Archaeological
Research has archaeological guidelines for
commercial shipwreck salvage of historic
sites in Florida waters. These
archaeological guidelines vary depending
on the age and condition of the wreck.
Wreck sites, primarily treasure wrecks,
can be worked under Chapter 1A-31, FAC,
salvage contracts. Historically
significant wreck sites, such as the
French fleet wrecks of 1565 and wreck
sites located inside reserves, state parks
or other specially designated submerged
lands, can be worked only under a Chapter
1A-32, FAC, archaeological research permit
or as a project sponsored by the Florida
Bureau of Archaeological Research. They
cannot be worked via a Chapter 1A-31, FAC,
salvage contract. Work of this type
requires the full time on site supervision
of a qualified archaeologist.

In Situ Underwater Refuse Sites

This category of underwater site


439







represents in situ buried refuse. unlike
shipwreck sites, underwater refuse sites
are related to land based activity and
represent accumulations of cultural
material lost or thrown into the water
over decades, centuries and occasionally,
millennia. Many refuse sites are
associated with ports or areas where trade
items were introduced by watercraft.
Links to maritime activity are clearly
present at many historic age sites. For
example, Ft. San Marcos de Apalache on the
St. Marks River has underwater refuse
components related to port activity dating
from the mid-1600s until present. Other
underwater refuse sites reflect local
activity rather than trade. For example,
prehistoric refuse located below historic
refuse at Ft. San Marcos de Apalache has
not produced trade or exotic import items.
Underwater refuse sites associated
with ports can yield information about
trade such as the origin of import items
and the various ports that shipping
originated from, the types of items being
imported into and exported out of a region
and other information unique to port
sites.
The majority of underwater refuse
sites have good preservation including
fragile organic material such as fabric,
hides, rope, leather, wood, nuts, seeds
and vegetable fiber. As might be
expected, clothing, wooden tool handles
and other fragile artifacts are sometimes
incorporated into refuse sites, thus
allowing the material culture of that time
to be more accurately defined. Good
organic preservation allows researchers to
reconstruct accurate information on such
things as dietary patterns. This is
particularly important to archaeologists
interested in prehistoric cultures because
such data are almost never available from
land sites of similar age.
When an underwater refuse site is
excavated, vertical control of the dig as
critical as horizontal control. A multi-
component refuse site having stratigraphic
separation of different occupation levels
must be excavated, collected and mapped in
three dimensions. It is important to keep
generalized horizontal control such as
excavation and collection by 1m to 2m
square within an established grid system
and it may be necessary to plot each


refuse related artifact. Detailed plan
view mapping is especially important when
in place underwater features such as
remnant dock pilings or other structures
occur.
Cross section maps or profiles
showing the vertical stratigraphy and
cultural levels of all sides of each
excavation unit should be completed.
Cross section maps should include:
1. Which wall of the profile (e.g., north
wall) is shown and the grid coordinates of
each end of the profile.
2. Standardized designation for each
level, map symbols and scales.
3. Notations of the color, texture and
composition of each level and any lateral
changes that may occur.
4. Vertical depth measurements tied into a
predetermined and permanent site datum.
(Tidal change or rivers and lakes stage
fluctuations are too frequent to allow
water surface to be used as a datum. If
depth measurements are taken from the
waters surface they should be referenced
to an on site gauging station level of the
waters surface when depth measurements
are being taken.
5. Detailed cross sections of in place
structure as inserts or as separate maps.
A plan view site map of a single
component underwater refuse site should
show:
1. The grid system, the excavated and
undisturbed areas of the site, the site
datum(s) and grid square designation
system.
2. The generalized density and types of
artifacts recovered from each grid square
indicated by standardized map symbols.
3. The precise location of any in place
structure within the grid system.
4. The shoreline, land areas and related
terrestrial sites that occur adjacent to
the underwater site.
5. Contours showing the thickness of the
cultural deposit.
Underwater elevations to establish bottom
contours should be taken from a fixed
datum plane as depth readings at each grid
juncture and as otherwise needed to
accurately reflect the thickness of the
cultural deposit. If a refuse site has
more than one component, a plan view map
having the information above should be
completed for each cultural level of the


440







site.
Prehistoric and historic underwater
refuse sites on state sovereignty
submerged lands can be worked under a
Chapter 1A-32, FAC, archaeological
research permit or as a project sponsored
by the Florida Bureau of Archaeological
Research and require the full time on site
supervision of a qualified underwater
archaeologist.

Inundated Prehistoric Sites

Former terrestrial sites naturally
inundated since the last ice age are among
the most intriguing archaeological sites
in Florida and the Southeastern United
States. About 19,000 years ago world wide
sea levels began rising and reached near
present levels about 5,000 years before
present. Similar to other coastal areas
of the world, Florida's continental
margins have sites drowned by
transgression as ice from the last
Wisconsin glacier melted and drained to
the sea. In addition, scientific data
indicate that the unique combination of
limestone terrain and past climatic
conditions in southwestern Georgia,
southeastern Alabama and Florida led to
the inundation of inland sites.
Limestone features now holding fresh
water are cavernous, therefore porous.
Paleoenvironmental information indicates
climate was arid during glacial times.
Because climate was arid and sea level
lower, limestone features that now hold
lakes and rivers sometimes provided an
occasional oasis that attracted hunters
and game.
In Florida, inundated prehistoric
sites have been discovered in rivers,
sinkholes, spring caves and lake bottoms
as well as offshore in the Atlantic Ocean
and Gulf of Mexico. In eastern North
America Paleo-Indian sites, 9,000 to
14,000 years old, are more numerous than
in the west; however, sites in the east
rarely have stratigraphic integrity and
organic preservation. Inundated Paleo-
Indian sites with organic preservation and
stratigraphic integrity represent one of
the most significant archaeological
resources in Eastern North America. Other
inundated sites, although younger, are
also of great archaeological significance.
Inundated archaeological sites on


state sovereignty submerged lands can only
be excavated with a Chapter 1A-32, FAC,
archaeological research permit or as a
project sponsored by the Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research. Research carried
out on inundated sites should be conducted
with maximum horizontal and vertical
control and state of the art underwater
archaeological techniques. A
multidisciplinary approach involving
scientist from many fields is often
needed.

(Editor's) Conclusions

Underwater archaeological sites
occur in a wide range of settings and
degree of preservation. Those sites
exposed on the inundated surface may often
be collected and recorded by sports divers
with little supervision from professional
archaeologists, while those with more
intact and complex features should only be
dealt with under professional supervision.
Before undertaking any underwater
archaeological or paleontological
collecting or excavation activities, it is
essential to know which federal or state
laws and regulations apply. Ignorance of
the law will not make you any less likely
to be arrested and prosecuted for its
violation. It is noted, however, that
there are many ways in which the state
cooperates with, rather than constrains,
sports divers engaged in surface
collecting sites in unprotected waters.
In contrast, the unauthorized use of
suction dredges, prop-wash or other
mechanical excavation means to expose
otherwise buried artifacts is not
tolerated.
Within the above framework, by
working together both scientists and
sports divers can gain from studying and
collecting underwater sites; and, through
their efforts the public can gain a better
understanding of our prehistoric and
historic heritage. In the above text, the
author has generally outlined collecting
and research methodology applicable to
underwater archaeological sites.

James S. Dunbar
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250


441






442


PAGE/LADSON (8Je591):
AN UNDERWATER PALEO-INDIAN SITE
IN NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA

James. S. Dunbar
Michael K. Faught
S. David Webb


The Page/Ladson site (8Je591) is an
inundated Paleo-Indian site formed under
subaerial conditions during the
Pleistocene/Holocene time boundary. This
paper presents our current understanding of
the cultural, temporal, and geological context
of the materials we have exposed thus far.
It is a slightly revised version of the paper
presented on March 28, 1988 at the Society
of American Archaeology meeting in Phoenix,
Arizona, and includes some of the
background inform action on the project
contained in earlier 1985 and 1986 papers
presented at annual meetings of the Florida
Anthropological Society.
Work at the Page/Ladson site has been
supported by the National Geographic
Society, the Florida Department of State,
the Florida State Museum (since renamed the
Florida Museum of Natural History), and the
many volunteer hours spent on the project by
anthropology students and avocational
archaeology sports divers. It represents part
of a multidisciplinary research effort aimed
at the Aucilla River drainage onshore and,
hopefully, will include relict river features
offshore.
Since 1983, archaeologists from the
Bureau of Archaeological Research of the
Division of Historical Resources,
paleontologists from the Florida State
Museum (now known as the Florida Museum
of Natural History), anthropology students
from the University of Florida and Florida
State University, and avocational
archaeologists-sports divers have joined
forces to record, investigate and test the
stratigraphic integrity of drowned
archaeological and paleontological sites in
the Aucilla River in North Florida.
In 1983, a site survey was conducted
in the Half Mile Rise section of the Aucilla
River in order to isolate a site for test
excavation. Surface collection and one
inform al hand-fanned test pit (Test A)


suggested that the Page/Ladson site was the
most promising because high counts of fossils
were recovered and artifacts indicated that
Weeden Island, Swift Creek, Deptford,
Archaic and Paleo-Indian components were
present. Because of the site's multi-
component nature, disturbed or redeposited
strata was easy to identify by chronologically
mixed artifact assemblages. However, it is
the Paleo-Indian co mponent which is the
focus of the present paper.
First, we will outline a bit of the
Paleo-Indian picture in Florida, reviewing the
geologic and temporal context of these finds
for those who may not be familiar with
them. Then, we will focus on the specific
research at the Page/Ladson site.
It is becoming more and more
apparent that there was substantial Paleo-
Indian occupation in the eastern portion of
the United States. In a 1982 issue of
Current Anthropology, Mason described high
Clovoid artifact density in Eastern North
America, and even proposed an Eastern
origin for it. Continued confirmation of this
high density of Clovis artifacts was published
in 1982, in volume 10 of the Archaeology of
Eastern North America's survey of the east
coast states. Furthermore, the excavation of
large Clovis occupation sites such, as Debert,
Vail, Thunderbird, Shawnee-Minisink, Plenge,
and Wells Creek, allows an hypothesis that,
regardless of where Clovis came from, it
seems to have ended up in portions of
eastern North America.
Florida, in particular, exhibits a
substantial Paleo-Indian evidence, both in
terms of artifact densities, possible extinct
faunal associations, and relevant
Pleistocene/Holocene stratigraphies. While
the Harney Flats site in Hillsborough County
is of note, the majority of these finds have
been made underwater.
One of the first to observe and report
the underwater associations of extinct fauna


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Dec., 1988


Vol. 41 No. 3








and Paleo-Indian material was Clarence
Simpson in the 1930s-40s. He published
these finds in the first issue of The Florida
Anthropologist in 1948. Subsequent surveys
of the distribution of Paleo-Indian remains,
most recently by Dunbar at the 1987 INQUA
Conference, reveal significant clustering
within the regions of exposed and near
surface Tertiary Age limestone in Central
and Northern Florida. (Editor's Note: It is
recognized that other locales, such as
Florida's numerous drowned river valleys (the
deepwater em baym ents of today) and
associated interior river courses subject to
soil accretion also contain such remains;
although, they are less easily found then the
shallow sites in the karstic environments
identified by Dunbar).
By far the majority of Paleo-Indian,
and some late archaeological, remains have
been found in situ in two kinds of
underwater geologic situations: the first,
still water sink holes, are more well known.
They include Devil's Den, Little Salt, and
Warm Mineral Springs. The second situation,
slowly moving karstic rivers, such as the
Santa Fe, Chipola and Aucilla, have been the
focus of the majority of discoveries of both
extinct fauna and Paleo-Indian artifacts.
While more research has been
published about the still water sink hole
situations, the rivers represent larger areas,
of more frequent artifact discoveries and
potential man-fauna situations, as is well
known by the local amateur divers/collectors,
many of whom belong to co m petent
archaeological clubs. Radiocarbon dates
directly associated with archaeological site
components are well represented in the
10,000 year range plus or minus 500 years.
Two of these kinds of site are the
Guest Mammoth Kill site in the Silver
Springs run and the Page/Ladson site in the
Aucilla River. Page/Ladson is located 80
kilometers southeast of Tallahassee, in a
remote area of the Aucilla River basin.
Surrounded by a limestone plain,
occasionally perforated by sinkholes, the
Aucilla River represents a surface expression
of the massive Floridian aquifer system.
Fifteen kilometers inland from the Gulf of
Mexico, the river appears and disappears
along an 8 kilometer course as a series of
isolated karst stream channel segments, or
what might be called linear sinkhole
alignments. One such segment, known as


Half Mile Rise, forms the river's largest
land-locked channel and, unlike its name
would suggest, runs a course of just over 1.5
Klm (0.9 miles) before the surface flow is
once again diverted underground via a siphon
sinkhole.
These seg m ents are filled with
alternating beds of peat and marl, in which
many of the archaeological remains and
extinct fauna were originally deposited.
Inlets and outlets are usually the deepest
features within a reach. Outlets often have
substantial debris cones, while inlets are
often clogged with large organic debris such
as logs.
While the cavernous (therefore open
and easily drained) aquifer underlies the
entire region, many of these sediment filled
sinks may have supported perched water
table ponds during drier climatic periods.
That is to say a surface water source not
directly connected to the aquifer. Thus,
unlike the stable aquifer, perched systems
would have been prone to extinction during
dry climatic phases and conversely, held
water during periods of climatic moderation.
It is also possible that the Floridan Aquifer
did not drop to levels as low as experienced
in the peninsular of Florida. Therefore, the
aquifer's level may have been able to
supplement or sustain ponds in the sink
bottoms. Environmentally, preserved wood
and other organic remains in the sink
bottoms indicates a late Pleistocene sequence
of generally shallow water sediments
followed by a sequence of early Holocene
generally deeper water sediments.
In 1964, Neill proposed that this lower
water table would expose large areas of dry
land in channel canyons, offering fresh water
resources in deep channel reaches, and
possible abundant fauna to hunter groups of
people. Sediments could thus include water
deposited marls and peats from pools and
springs, but there could also be subaerial
developments near by in other areas of
channel bottom.
Rising sea level, and coincident higher,
and probably increased stream flow in the
mid Holocene, particularly in the last 4000
years, has eroded some of these deposits to
leave scooped out features similar to
"blowouts" in which fauna and Paleo-Indian
artifacts are so m etim es found. These
materials are often coated with brown
geothite deposits, but are not river worn,


443








and do not appear to be moved significantly
by the low energy fluvial actions. For
instance, we do not think the flow would be
strong enough to move an artifact from one
depression to another. We think that sites
in these rivers have been stratigraphically
deflated, some completely while others like
the Page/Ladson site remain partially intact.
Levels containing current deflated artifact
concentrations are important, however, to
the extent they represent a true reflection
of cultural activity at that location and may
indicate that in place cultural deposits occur
in proximity to such finds.
The majority of artifacts found are
lithic and include substantial numbers of
projectile points including Clovis and other
lanceolates, early notched Greenbriar and
Bolen varieties, and a variety of Archaic
variants. Adzes, choppers, cores and much
debitage are abundant, as are bone and ivory
pins, and cut marked faunal remains of both
extinct and modern fauna.
The Page/Ladson site occupies two
contiguous karst depressions. To date a 4m
deep test pit (test pit B) has been excavated
on the northern lip of the southern sinkhole,
a 7m deep broadside (test pit C) has been
cut into the angle of deposit on the western
edge of this sink and various small soundings
have been placed in the northern sink.
Deeper depths and earlier deposits are
found in the northern end of the sink,
possibly exposed by the recent introduction
of flow from the Wacissa. Younger deposits
and more intact sediment sequences are
present to the south in the Test B and C
areas.
The Late Pleistocene Zone D and
Early Holocene Zone C sediments consist of
calcareous clays and peats. Sand content is
very minor. These calcium rich deposits
contain well preserved plant and animal
remains and sometimes insects in pristine
condition. Bone artifacts are not tannic
stained but light tan or off white in color
indicating rapid burial during a period of still
water and terrestrial environments in and
around the sinkhole.
Evidence at the Page/Ladson site now
suggests that water tables were as low as
8m below present but frequently higher from
about 9,000 to 10,200 year ago. Earlier
water tables in the Page/Ladson sink seem
to have been lower with stands 8 to 12
meters below present from about 10,500 to


18,000 year B.P. Please keep in mind this
research is ongoing and one of our aims is
to more precisely define the site's
paleohydrology.
In both southern exposures the calcitic
beds imply dryer shallowed conditions, with
human habitation some time between 12,000
and 9,500 year ago. Our evidence is
substantial for human occupation on dry
surfaces between 10,200 to about 9,500 year
ago.
The Calcium rich C and D zones
imply increased carbon dioxide going into
solution from atmospheric sources and
increased limestone break down. The Woody
Peat of Zone E appears to contain less
calcium carbonate content in the sediments.
A single date places Zone E in the full
glacial at 18,000 years old. We are
uncertain at this time when the Zone E to
Zone D transition might have occurred.
The earliest in situ artifacts include
debitage flakes and a bolo stone from Zone
D. Zone D also has produced extinct
Proboscidean, horse, camel and giant
armadillo remains. Dates on Zone D
sediments range between 10,500 and 13,000
years old.
In our southern 4m test pit B we have
Bolen Beveled points with other lithic tools,
such as adzes and scrapers, dating 9,730
years old. Some Bolen levels have material
such as desiccated bone, wood and fern spore
preservation but no pollen indicating
subaerial exposure prior to burial.
In the 7m broadside in Test pit C, we
exposed a 6 square meter area of level A
horizon soil development at a depth of 4m in
the pit and 6m under the water. Limestone,
lithic debitage, broken adze bits, and a Bolen
Plain corner notched point were found with
what appeared to be an activity surface.
Two radio carbon dates on charcoal and
wood dated 10,000 and 10,280 years old, and
a date just below the soil in unaltered D
deposits, at 10,600 years old imply that the
soil was developing subsequent to 10,600
years ago but before the Bolen occupation
around 10,000 years ago. The consistency of
the overlying calcitic clay, and the presence
of stones in it preclude the artifact and
wood association as due to settling of the
denser stone artifacts. Some lithic materials
were found under wood pieces. None of the
split wood pieces exhibited cut marks, with
the exception of a post which was upright in


444

















at an estimated solution rate
of 6cm per 000yrs., about
20cm of limestone has been
dissolved away from the rock
surface in the last 4,000yrs.


20cm

-.-.-.... ~- --~---'~ Former Extent of Limestone Roo
------------------


METERS


20cm


Northwest corner of test B
Datum at 7.70m below surface
at high tide


Limestone Roof Collapse
Boulders


Figure 1. Page/Ladson site (8Je591) cross-section across river E-W in Test B area. Water depth indicated on right.





446


NORTH WALL PROFILE
PAGE/LADSON SITE(8JE591) 1985 TEST B EXTENSION
SR.5 1.0 1,5 2,0 2.5
METERS I I




ZONE A & B-1 1 THRU 6I

.5 b



7 8 9
ZONE i-----a
1, 0
ZONE C --.-- ..LOG D



=--.-.---. -- -_ 12A
1.5 '
ZONE D-----









Ii a
4..0 13






FtaA s B,
3.0 .0
iue 2 Sa p' .I .
15 -3.5;.-. ; 1





ZONE E----" 3,0 .. .



































0 I 2 3 4 5


(CENTIMETERS)

Figure 3. Artifacts from Test C Bolen surface at Page/Ladson site (8Je591).







PAGE-LADSON STRATIGRAPHIC FENCE DIAGRAM


NOTE; ROMAN NUMERALS RELATE
TO DATED HORIZONS (SEE
TABLE 1)


PRIME
TEST

. -







o



E




E
.te.

t-









S*

6^
*
E


D PRIME
TEST


Geologic fence diagram of tests at Page/Ladson site (8Je591). Zone A -- Holocene River
deposits (ca. 4,000 years old to present); Zone B -- Roof collapse of old natural land
bridge (collapse estimated to have occurred at ca. 4,000 years before present); Zone C --
Bolen levels of Test B (only modern forms of fauna); Zone D -- Extinct late Pleistocene
animal remains, including Mastadon, camel, horse and giant armadillo in strata containing
a ground stone bolo weight (The so-called bola stones also have been referred to as club
heads); and, Zone E -- all dates but one indicate a pre-14,000 year old age. This zone
has not been extensively tested, but the areas tested have not produced any of the large
animal remains so often equated with Late Pleistocene assemblages.


Figure 4.






449


TABLE 1


Dated Horizons
of the
Page/Ladson Site


I. 2,500 B.P.
Based on Artifact
Types

II. 3,440 70
B.P. (Beta)

III. 4,070 60 B.P.
(Beta)

IV. 9,450 + 100 B.P.
(Beta)

V. 9,730 + 120 B.P.
(Beta)

VI. 12,330 + 110 B.P.
(Beta)


Test

B and C



B


B


Level


Deptford
Redeposited
level

Bottom
of Zones

Land Bridge
Collapse


Mulberry
Clay


Bolen Beveled
Horizone

Lime-sand


Lower Zone E
Sediment


12,120 + 120 B.P.
(Beta)


VIII. 10,000 + 120 B.P.
and
10,280 + 110 B.P.

IX. 10,600 + 70 B.P.
(Beta)

X. 11,790 + 90 B.P.
(Beta)


12,240 + 90 B.P.
(Beta)

10,520 + 90 B.P.1

11,770 + 90 B.P.2
(Beta)

12,570 + 200 B.P.2
(Teledyne)

13,130 200 B.P.
(Teledyne)

18,430 + 220 B.P
(Beta)


"The Dirt"



upper
colluvium


Mid colluvium
of Test C
lime-sand
faces

Bottom of
Core in Test C

Proboscidean
Bone1 and
organic' from
upper lime-
sand



Wood from
lime-sand

"Cypress
Forest" burned
wood.


XI.


Xn.


XIII.


XIV.







the sofl horizon and the clay above the soil.
The stake may belong to the Bolen Beveled
age of about 9,700 years old because unlike
the wood on the 10,000 year old surface, the
wood stake that extended into the clay
above was not desiccated.
Because Paleo-Indian aged materials
such as Suwannee, Simpson and Clovis points
have been found in the blowouts of the
Page/Ladson site, along with carved ivory
foreshafts and the remains of extinct fauna,
we believe there is earlier material to be
found in context under the Bolen age
materials both here and at similar sites in
the Aucflla River. Furtherm ore, the
temporal continuity of the Bolen and Clovold
materials raises the question of whether
notching came out of a "Clovoid" precursor.
These karstic river stratigraphies do not have
counter parts in the literature, their relict
channels extend out onto the continental
shelf, and represent not only potential Paleo
Indian sites, but important geomorphic
records of the Pleistocene and Holocene
boundary. Possibly they may also record
fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 through
tim e.

Relationship of Page/Ladeon to Other Auclla
River Sites

The Half Mile Rise section forms an
arroyo-like feature entrenched in the
Oligocene aged Suwannee Limestone.
Typically, the river's banks and the
perimeter of one mid river island are rock
cliffs of 1 to 2 meters which descend to
meet an average river level of less that 1
meter above sea level. Fathometer
soundings of Half Mile Rise show a
continuation of these arroyo-like rock
cliffs until the irregular karst channel
bottom is encountered. The channel bottom
can be characterized as consisting of
relatively flat "shallows" 2m to 4m in
depth interrupted by numerous mid river
sinkholes and solution features ranging in
depth form 8m to 31m.
Many significant archaeological
discoveries have been made in the deep
karst features of Half Mile Rise. Since
the early 1960s, divers with avocation
interests in archaeology and paleontology
have collected artifacts that suggest the
majority of prehistoric cultural activity
took place from the Paleo-Indian (ca.


12,000 BP) through Early-Middle Archaic
(ca. 6,000 BP) time frame.
Because of the river's dark tannic
stain water, sunlight is often absent in
water depths greater that 3m. For this
reason, few divers have chosen to dive
rivers like the Aucilla and those that
have, have focused their attention in a
quest for artifacts and fossils.
Perhaps the first diver to search
the Half Mile Rise section the Aucilla
River was Richard Ohmes. In early to mid
1960s, he discovered and began collecting
the Ohmes Hole Site (8Je122) which is
about 0.5km upstream from the Page/Ladson
site. Among the materials collected were
the remains of extinct bison in possible
association with flint tools. At another
mid river sinkhole site, Sloth Hole
(8Je121), he collected a carved ivory
foreshaft similar to specimens recovered
from Clovis sites like Blackwater Draw in
New Mexico (Florida Master Site File data
and Haynes 82:389-390).
Dr. Vance Haynes, then with Southern
Methodist University (1973) received
sediment core samples from the Sloth Hole
site stating: "the sediment (consist of)
a good organic peat indicating an origin
at a time when the Aucilla River had
little or no through flowing water which
suggests a late glacial age. The material
should be excellent for plant macrofossil
and pollen identification as well as radio
carbon dating."
Prior to Haynes' observation, Dr.
David Webb conducted a paleontological
survey of the Half Mile Rise section,
noting the common occurrence of organic
peat deposits underlain by fresh water
snail shell marl in the deeper sinkholes
of the channel bottom. Webb also recorded
the frequent occurrence of bison and
proboscidian (principally mammoth) remains
partially or wholly buried in the
sediments of several sinks, and at the
Ohmes Hole site observed a fragment of
"half burned wood; fire side down under
(mammoth) vertebrae".
By 1968, Richard Ohmes was joined by
other collectors and avocational
archaeologists collecting artifacts and
vertebrate fossils from the surface rubble
in the Half Mile Rise section. Bob
Gingery and Roger Alexon collected a cache
of heavily patinated lanceolate bifaces


450







described by Haynes as "clovis like"
(Serbousek, personal communication). The
Gingery cache (8Ta99) was discovered in a
rock shallows along with the fragmentary
and poorly preserved remains of a mammoth.
In the early 1970s three divers from
Perry, Florida collected three nearly
intact and numerous fragments of ivory
foreshafts and a dozen or so lanceolate
projectile points from a site they named
Booger Hole so called for its dark
waters. Bogger Hole is the northern and
shallowest sinkhole at what has recently
been named the Page/Ladson site. Since
then many Paleo-Indian to Early Archaic
diagnostic artifacts have been found by
divers, but the real motivator behind
getting the scientific research started on
the inundated sites in the Aucilla River
was Don Serbousek.
After years of diving the Aucilla
River, Serbousek realized that some
artifact concentrations along the river
bottom seemed embeded. Some 1500 meters
down stream from the Page/Ladson site he
discovered evidence of possible in situ
remains containing Paleo-Indian artifacts
and extinct Pleistocene megafauna
(Serbousek, 1983:88-97).
The Serbousek/Cotrill site (8Ta98)
is located in a small diameter, 8m deep
sinkholes in Half Mile Rise and was
collected by Serbousek and diving partner
John Cotrill for several years. The
resulting catalogued collection is
represented by several hundred stone and
bone tools, debitage, cores, butcher
marked and other miscellaneous bone
fragments and other material suggestive of
former human occupations. This collection
is now on loan to the Bureau of
Archaeological Research for research and
cataloguing purposes.
The Serbousek/Cotrill site,
Page/Ladson site and collections from
other parts of the Aucilla River support
an emerging picture that this river
contains an important, Paleo-Indian age
(10,000 12,000 year old), archaeological
resource. Paleontologically, the late
Pleistocene assemblage of fossil remains
is rich and includes mammoth, mastodon,
sloth, camel, horse, bison and many other
species.
From a state wide perspective the
lower Aucilla River is recognized as


containing one of the larger Paleo-Indian
site clusters in Florida (Dunbar and
Waller 1983:18-30). A more recent review
of this data indicates an unusually strong
showing for Clovis projectile points and
ivory foreshafts from the Aucilla River
compared to other areas. State wide,
Clovis and related points and ivory
foreshafts average about 10% of the total
number of diagnostic artifacts recorded;
whereas in the Aucilla site cluster they
represent slightly over 30% of the
diagnostic Paleo-Indian count.
In November of 1983, a jbint
paleontological/archaeological survey was,
conducted in the Half Mile Rise section
with the intent of assessing the
archaeological and paleontological
potential of several of the sinkhole
sites. This project utilized the help of
several divers (avocational archaeologists
and paleontologists) acquainted with the
Aucilla River.
The primary archaeological objective
of the survey was to locate sites
containing both high counts of artifacts
and late Pleistocene fossil remains in the
stratigraphic context of either or both
the peat and marl deposits.
The majority of the survey time was
spent conducting test excavations on the
Serbousek/Cotrill site; however, the
results of these tests indicated we had
been testing an area of disturbed
sedimentation karstt collapse and sediment
slumping). Four other sites were tested
(by hand fanning and hand tools) that
produced good counts of fossil bone;
however, evidence of past cultural
activity, although present, was scarce.
The sixth and last site tested was a
location shown to us by Mr. Buddy Page, an
ex-Navy Seal Team diver. In the extended
drought of 1981 (when the water visibility
was unusually clear) Page located the
scattered remains of a mastodon in an area
that also had abundant chert tools and
debitage. The Page/Ladson Site (8Je591)
as it is now known, filled the criteria
set forth in the project objectives; it
contained abundant artifacts and fossils.

Conclusions

Archaeologically, the Page/Ladson site
offers a major Late Paleo-Indian to Early


451








Archaic habitation site for analysis. The
excellent underwater preservation has and
should continue to provide a more complete
Paleo-Indian tool kit, thereby providing
enhanced cultural reconstructions. On land,
even though organic preservation is absent,
lithic artifacts are abundant. The botanical
and faunal remains will further contribute to
our understanding of the paleoenvironment
and environmental changes in this area of
Florida. The project itself also may serve
as a model for others with a
multidisciplinary focus and as an example of
the success of professional and avocational
cooperation in the study of Florida's
prehistoric heritage.

References Cited


Dunbar, J.S., and Ben Waller
1983 A Distribution Analysis of the
Clovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites
of Florida -- A Geographic
Approach. The Florida Anthropolo-
gist 36(1-2) :18-30.

Haynes, C. Vance
1982 Were Clovis Progenitors in Beringia
In Paleoecology of Beringia, pp.
383-398, Academic Press.

Serbousek, Don
1983 Exploration of a Paleo-Indian site
on the Aucilla River. The Florida
Anthropologist 36(1-2):89-97.

Simpson, J. Clarence
1948 Folsom-like Points From Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 1:11-16.


James S. Dunbar
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
Department of State
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Michael K. Faught
Box 5
Department of Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tuscon, Arizona 85721

S. David Webb
Florida Museum of Natural History
Museum Road
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611


452





453


CONTROLLED SURFACE COLLECTION OF THE
LITTLE RIVER RAPIDS SITE (8Je603):
A Stratigraphically Deflated Site In The
Aucilla River, North Florida

Craig Willis


Introduction

This report presents the results of
a controlled underwater collection of
lithic and modified bone material from the
site known as the Little River Rapids site
(8Je603). The work reported here was
conducted during the 1987 field season as
a project of the Paleontological and
Archaeological Research Team of Florida
(PART), a chapter of the Florida
Anthropological Society. This project was
conducted under the auspices of the
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research
in the Department of State's Division of
Historical Resources.
This site was selected for
investigation because of the potential for
early Paleo-Indian activity in the area.
Avocational artifact collectors who scuba
dove this portion of the Aucilla River
before it was closed to diving in the
early 1970s reported finding modified
elephant ivory implements (foreshafts) at
the site. While evidence of the very
earliest Amerindian cultures was not
revealed during the controlled collection,
material from the Late Paleo-Indian Period
disclosed intense Bolen-age cultural
activity at the site.
The site is located on a shallow,
limestone-exposed portion of the land-
locked, privately owned Little River
section of the Aucilla River. The rapids
are immediately downstream from the river
rise and extend down river for
approximately 105 meters before dropping
off into another deep water portion of the
river. The river rise appears to be an
ancient karst sinkhole which, due to
rising water levels, has begun to flow as
a surface stream.
Although avocational divers have
historically collected in the area, the
distribution of diagnostic materials is
consistent with the distribution of


imported raw material and debitage.
Therefore, it is felt that the patterning
of cultural materials at the site
accurately reflects aboriginal activities.
The approach for the investigation
reported here was to establish a large
grid spanning the river and
comprehensively collect all chert and bone
material from the river bottom for
analysis and interpretation. The primary
objective at the outset of the field
season was to accurately locate and plot
the distribution of early Indian
diagnostic material. This objective was
to serve as a preliminary step to
underwater excavation of Paleo-Indian
occupation or activity areas.
The second objective was to
determine the effect of inundation and
stratigraphic deflation from water forces
on late Pleistocene-early Holocene Indian
sites. That is, we wanted to discover
whether the river flow and the resulting
erosion and deflation of the soils and
organic material caused a dispersion of
the site's cultural assemblage or whether
activity areas remained discrete.
The material collected was analyzed
and an intrasite artifact distribution
evaluation undertaken in an effort to
understand the human activity which took
place at this locale during prehistoric
times.

Site Description

The Little River section of the
Aucilla River is a completely land-bound
portion of the river. The Aucilla River
in its middle courses flows underground
and resurfaces a number of times before
surfacing the last time at Nutall Rise,
located just above Highway 98, and flowing
uninterrupted into the Gulf of Mexico.
The site, consisting of so-called
limestone rapids, is located immediately


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 41 No. 3


Dec., 1988







(40-50 meters) downstream from the river
rise of Little River. This shallow
stretch of the river extends for 105
meters before dropping off into deeper
water. The river bottom is watereroded
Suwannee Formation limestone. A small
amount of sand and organic material has
accumulated in solution pockets, fissures,
and in the lee of the water flow behind
large limestone boulders.
The river in this area varies in
width from 35-50 meters. Two deeper
holes, approximately six (6) meters in
depth, are located within the boundaries
of the "rapids." These two holes appear
to be ancient karst sinkholes which have
been inundated by rising water tables
sometime during the early Holocene. The
contour of the northernmost of these sinks
is depicted in the artifact distribution
maps. The average water depth on the
rapids, except for these two deeper areas,
ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 meters.
The bottom topography in this
stretch varies from smooth flat portions
of the limestone to sharp crag-like
formations which appear to be more
resistant to tannic acid and water
erosion.

Methodology

The site was initially surveyed in
1986 by James S. Dunbar with the Florida
Department of State's Bureau of
Archaeological Research and members of the
Paleontological and Archaeological
Research Team (PART) of Florida. At the
beginning of the 1987 field season a team
of four divers conducted an underwater
reconnaissance of the site. This team
determined that the shallow water section
of the river extended down river for 105
meters. The initial reconnaissance
confirmed earlier observations that
artifactual material appeared to be
concentrated near the northeastern
boundary of the rapids. It was therefore
decided to establish a large master grid
encompassing the northern portion of the
rapids and conduct a comprehensive surface
collection of all chert and bone material,
whether modified by human action or not.
A base line for the grid was
established forty(40) meters downstream
from the forward edge of the rapids. A


rope was stretched across the river
roughly perpendicular to the river's
course. This base line was 130 degrees
south of magnetic north and was the grid
east-west axis. Another northern base
line was established across the river at
the beginning of the limestone rapids.
Both of these perimeter lines were
stretched taut across the surface and
anchored in the river bank.
Plumb lines on four corners of the
master grid were anchored on the river
bottom and north-south lines were
stretched along the bottom to connect
these four corners. On the bottom, five
(5) meter squares were laid out, both
within the four corners of the large grid
and over to the river bank. The corners
of the squares were marked with concrete
nails and plastic tape. In places where
the limestone was too dense to drive even
specially tempered concrete nails, a rock
or lead anchor was used.
Collection of artifactual and bone
material began on the southern end of the
grid and proceeded up river to the rapids'
edge. In those areas where sand or
organic material had accumulated it was
hand-fanned down to the limestone base.
No mechanical dredging was necessary. The
site demonstrated no stratigraphy as it
had been totally deflated by water action
sometime after the site's inundation
believed to have taken place in the early
Holocene.

Cultural Sequence at the
Little River Rapids Site

The cultural sequence at the Little
River Rapids site is based on the
diagnostic material assemblage, since all
stratigraphy at the site has been
destroyed by water action. The
overwhelming percentage of the cultural
remains from the site are from the Late
Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic periods.
While there had been reports of
ivory foreshafts found at the site in the
early 1970s and while the 1986 survey
party had recovered two small ivory
foreshaft fragments, the comprehensive
collection at the site during the 1987
field session revealed neither ivory
foreshafts nor diagnostic projectile
points of the Paleo-Indian period. One


454










AUCILLA RIVER
'Little River Rapids'
8 Je 603

-i I III II IV V VI
.






H .. .. .
"'" ":-7""; "Wort "
'."'"' ":
S~ .. ....:...........................

.. .t .i i. .. .. ..* .

S.....:.... / ,

*. **




-, ... ., ... .






ESC
.-II.. . .. .
"..".""... ............





.... .': ::... .'....-
A .. ... .....



























455







AUCILLA RIVER

'Little River Rapids"
8 Je 603 .


Karst Sinkhole


I II III IV


t
ater
I


t
Flow
I


K


0 5 meters
SCALE


limestone
rapids


ARTIFACT DISTRIBUTION


Spatial Distribution of Bolen Points
FREQUENCY PER 5 METER SQUARE


River Rise


456







AUCILLA RIVER

"Little River Rapids"
8 Je 603 ,


-Karst Sinkhole


\


0 5 meters
SCALE


rapids


ARTIFACT DISTRIBUTION


Spatial Distribution of Archaic Points
FREQUENCY PER 5 METER SQUARE


River Rise


457


1
Wate


I
Flow
I







AUCILLA RIVER

"Little River Rapids"
8 Je 603 .


Karat Sinkhole


water
ater
I


Flow
I


0 5 meters
SCALE


rapids


ARTIFACT DISTRIBUTION


Spatial Distribution of Hammerstones & Cores
FREQUENCY PER 5 METER SQUARE I


River Rise


458







AUCILLA RIVER

"Little River Rapids"
8 Je 603 .


Karat Sinkhole


I t
Water
I I


t
Flow
I


0 5 meters
SCALE


limestone
rapids


ARTIFACT DISTRIBUTION


Spatial Distribution of Debitage
FREQUENCY PER 5 METER SQUARE IN GRAMS


River Rise


459







AUCILLA RIVER


'Little River Rapids'
8 Je 603 .


arst Ginkhole


ater
I


IV V VI


0 5 meters
SCALE


Flow


ARTIFACT DISTRIBUTION


Spatial Distribution of Bone Tools
FREQUENCY PER 5 METER SQUARE


River Rise


460








'-
r


MAtP~4


*0r


*~~ 1


4t" .%2c1

-Tj

*tt


t


St



43, :
UJ


Examples of artifacts in the area of controlled surface collection at the Little River Rapids site.
Note ivory pin next to biface in top-center of photograph.


Figure 7.


* .


A4t


Ir:


3







mid-section of a possible Simpson Point
was found; however, it is impossible to
positively identify the point. The
earliest cultural material collected
consists of three Greenbriars, one
collected from the north-east quadrant of
the site during the 1986 survey, and two
collected during the controlled grid
collection. One was found in square G3
and the other in square H minus 1.
Bolen points made up the vast bulk
of the projectile points found at the
site. Thirty-two (32) were found in the
first forty meters of the rapids, with a
total of forty-one (41) found on the
rapids. The remaining nine Bolens were
recovered from the two sinks located in
the rapids.
Twenty-three (23) projectile points,
representative of the middle to late
Archaic period, were recovered from the
rapids. The predominate number of
classifiable Archaic projectile points
were Kirk, Wacissa, and Hamilton points,
all of which are generally assigned to a
middle Archaic time period.
The collection at the Little River
Rapids site yielded fifteen (15)
aboriginal pottery sherds. Thirteen (13)
of these sherds were from the minus
squares located immediately beside the
river bank on the east side. Nine of the
sherds were Deptford check-stamped, with
eight of these from the same vessel and
collected from the same square. These few
sherds and the absence of any other
artifactual material diagnostic of Indian
cultural activity after the middle Archaic
would indicate that the site was not
occupied after this time period, except
for a very occasional visit by later
Indians.

Artifact Analysis

Projectile Points

Greenbriar Projectile Points:

The Greenbriar is the earliest
projectile point type found at the site.
While Bullen (1975:53) describes these
points as "dominately bifacially beveled,"
the points collected at Little River
Rapids do not have distinctive, shouldered
beveling from re-sharpening or blade


thinning. These points are usually
assigned to the Late Paleo-Indian/Early
Archaic period found in Florida during the
Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene period.
Most chronologists think Greenbriar points
should be assigned to a period between
Suwannee/Clovis/ Simpson and Bolen time
periods.
Three Greenbriars were found on the
rapids: two were found during the
controlled collection made during the 1987
field season; one was found during the
1986 reconnaissance. All three are side-
notched with slightly concave bases. The
length/width/thickness dimensions in
centimeters for the three, respectively,
are: 9.0/3.8/0.5; 5.8/2.9/0.4; and,
5.7/2.8/0.4. Two of these points, while
not beveled, from the constancy and
proportionality of the bases, appear to be
resharpened, as is the case with many of
the Bolen points. Note the consistency of
the thickness of the points.
Morphologically, they appear to be
intermediate to Suwannee and Bolen points.
If intact site stratigraphy is ever
discovered at this or another Aucilla
River site, it will be interesting to see
if this intermediate position proves to be
the case. All three specimens are heavily
patinated, but appear to have been made of
the caramel-colored flint seen in a number
of the Bolen points. The location of the
quarry for this chert is not known.

Bolen Projectile Points:

A total of forty-one (41) Bolen
Points were collected at the site, with
thirty-two (32) coming from the controlled
forty meters of the rapids. All Bolen
points found in shallow water (less than
two meters) were heavily patinated,
indicating intermittent wet and dry, or
initially dry conditions, causing the
patination to take place. Conversely, all
Bolens coming out of deep water (>4
meters) showed little or no patination,
indicating damp or saturated conditions.
Those Bolens coming from intermediate
depths show different degrees of
patination, ranging from slight to severe.
All Bolens were made from silicified
limestone or chert, as were all other
lithic projectile points and tools. An
unusually high percentage (22%) were of


462







TABLE 1. Bolen Points


Site Total:


TABLE 2: Early Archaic Projectile
Points


Site Total:


Material:
Silicified limestone (Chert)


Material: Silicified Limestone


Whole 28
Broken 13


Corner 20 (49%)
Side 17 (41%)
E-shaped 9 (22%)
High I ( 2%)


Basal Ground:


Dimensions
Mean Length (N=28)=4.8cm
Range (3.2-7.1)
Mean Width (N=28)=2.76cm
Range (2.0-3.4)
Mean Thickness(N=28)=.596cm
Range(.4-.8)

*Note: The percentages are greater than
100% because side-notched point totals
include E-shaped points.




the expanded E-notched variety, which are
not as common as other Bolen varieties in
this area of Florida. One highly
patinated, high-notched Bolen was
collected, and an even rarer flared-ear,
side-notched Bolen was found. A
statistical breakdown of the Bolen
characteristics is depicted in Table 1.

Archaic Projectile Points:

The rapids contained four (4) Kirk
points, three (3) of which were whole.
The length/width/ thickness dimensions in
centimeters of these three Kirks are as
follows: 8.5/3.3/0.8; 9.2/4.1/0.8; and,
6.3/3.5/0.8. One (1) Wacissa, three (3)
Hamiltons, and one (1) Marion make up the
rest of the middle Archaic points from the
site.
Thirteen (13) unclassified stemmed
points from the Middle Archaic were
represented at the site.
No diagnostic projectile points of
the Late Archaic or subsequent ceramic


Condition:


Whole 8
Broken 1


Dimensions in Centimeters -
Length/Width/Thickness


Kirk
8.5/3.3/0.8
9.2/4.1/0.8
6.3/3.5/0.8
Broken

Wacissa
6.4/4.6/0.6

Hamilton
10.5/3.4/1.1
8.0/3.0/0.8
7.7/3.5/1.1

Marion
6.0/3.7/0.6


periods were recovered from the site. The
significance of this will be discussed in
the conclusion.

Preforms:

Twelve (12) broken bifacial reforms
were collected on the rapids. Only one
whole preform was found. This is the
ratio that would be expected if finished
points were being produced at the site.
Preforms were either made at or
transported to the activity area and then
transformed into a finished point. If a
preform was broken at the site while being
knapped into a finished product, it would
have been discarded on the spot. The
locations of the broken reforms
correspond with the finished projectile
foci.

Unifacial Tools

A total of eighty-two (82) unifacial
tools were recovered from the rapids and


463


Condition:


Notches*:








the two sinkholes within their boundaries.
A description of the various types
follows.

Unifacial Scrapers:

Various reporters use a variety of
classificatory schemes for unifacial
scrapers. These classifications are to a
certain extent creations of the
investigators, and do not necessarily
reflect categories perceived by the makers
or behavioral activities for which the
tools were used. However, for purposes of
describing the assemblage recovered at the
Little River Rapids site a highly
generalized classification is used. Until
greater precision in identification of the
particular uses and a consensus among
archaeologists as to terminology is
achieved, reporters will continue to be
inconsistent as to the labels used in
assemblage description.
Those specimens showing use or
retouch flaking on all edges are
considered curated tools, while expedient
tools show use or work on only one or two
edges. It is recognized that there is a
continuum between these two categories.
However, an examination of a number of
Late Paleo-Indian assemblages demonstrates
that the users both recognized an
archetype for a variety of so-called
curated tools, and used any workable flake
under expedient circumstances or for
generalized utilitarian purposes. The
recognized types appear to represent more
specialized-purpose tools.

Hendrix Scrapers:

These implements have been noted in
a number of Late Paleo-Indian/Early
Archaic assemblages (Witthoft 1952;
Byers 1954; Bullen 1958; Bullen and Dolan
1959; Warren 1973; Daniel and Wisenbaker
1987). The present author considers the
Hendrix scraper to be an index or hallmark
artifact for Bolen-age cultures. Daniel
and Wisenbaker (1987:72) view the Hendrix
as the end-product of a more generic
oblong scraper resulting from use and
resharpening. Purdy (1981:18) also
describes these implements as primarily
used for scraping purposes. I am not
inclined to share this view since the


TABLE 3. Distribution and Dimensions of
Certain Unifacial Tools.


Square


Length Width Thickness


Spokeshaves:
I minus 1
E minus 2
S. G. 2


Thumbnail Scrapers:
E minus 3 3.5
C minus 2 4.0

End Scrapers:
G5 6.1
H5 7.6
S. G. 2 6.1
C minus 2 5.7
C minus 2 4.5

Hendrix:
C2 10.4
F minus 2 6.9
C minus 2 6.8
C minus 2 7.0
H minus 2 6.0
E minus 3 9.0


2.1 0.7
2.7 0.5


Oblong Scrapers:
I minus 1 4.8
F5 7.3
C minus 2 7.5
G4 12.5
S. G. 2 9.6
S. G. 2 7.3
F minus .2 7.9
C minus 1 6.3


Ovoid Scrapers:
C minus 2
C minus 2
C minus 2
F1


Triangular
G minus 2
D minus 2


Scrapers:
7.0
8.7


4.8 1.5
6.2 1.4


Humpbacked Scrapers:


E minus 1
C minus 2
e3
B4
B4
E minus 2

Snub-nosed
C minus 2
HI


5.9
7.0
7.9
8.5
9.9
11.5


Scrapers:
4.4
3.5


4.1 1.8
2.9 1.0


Note:
All measurements in centimeters


right distal edge characteristically is
not distorted from resharpening efforts.
Furthermore, a significant percentage of
the specimens recovered from the Little


464







River Rapids site show a sharpened,
serrated cutting edge along the left
distal side. Thus, it would appear from a
form-use analysis that the Hendrix
represents a distinct tool type having
multiple-use functions, not limited to
scraping.
Eight (8) Hendrix scrapers are
present in the assemblage. Five (5) of the
specimens are whole, the remaining ones
are fragments. The first is 10.4cm long,
6.0cm wide, and 1.8cm thick and shows no
apparent use. The dorsal side of the
implement retains some of the cortex
material. Indeed, it should be noted that
a significant portion of these artifacts
have cortex material left on the artifact.
The cortex is unsilicified material on the
outer layer of the chert nodule. Its
presence could reflect the scarcity of
chert as a raw material, or user
indifference when its presence is not
detrimental to tool function.
The second Hendrix scraper is a
crude specimen with the striking platform
removed, but the bulb of percussion is
still present. It is 6.9cm long, 4.4cm
wide, and 1.8cm thick. The third is more
triangular in shape. It is 6.8cm long,
3.1cm wide, and 1.6cm thick. The fourth
whole example is 7cm long, 4.5cm wide, and
1.5cm thick. One edge near the distal,
pointed end shows some dulling from use.
The fifth is 6cm long, 3.9cm wide, and
.9cm thick. The distal tip is broken with
the areas around the break showing
numerous step fractures, possibly from a
piercing or reaming action.

Spokeshaves:

The site produced three (3)
spokeshaves. Goodyear (1973) thinks that
these tools were used for shaving wood or
bone much like a woodplane with the
tapering proximal end hafted to facilitate
the necessary leverage to power the tool.
All three are unifacial with steep edges
(75-80) on the bits. The first is 3.0cm
long, 1.9cm wide, and .4cm thick. The
flake from which this specimen had been
manufacturated still shows the bulb of
percussion and platform set up for flake
removal. The bit angle is 75 degrees and
the face is concave. The edge of the bit
is slightly polished. The second is 3.5cm


long, 2.2cm wide, and .5cm thick. The
third has the end snapped. The length to
the break is 4.2cm; it is 2.2cm wide and
.4cm thick. No graver spurs were present
on any of these specimens, nor did they
show any apparent hafting polish. Again,
like the Hendrix scraper, these tools
appear to be part of the Bolen tool kit.
Goodyear (1973:42) reported one spokeshave
which had been fashioned from the broken
distal end of a beveled Bolen point.

Thumbnail Scrapers:

Two well-made, highly curated
examples of thumbnail scrapers are
represented in the assemblage. The first
is the shape of an acute isosceles
triangle. It is 4.0cm long, 2.7cm wide,
and .5cm thick. The second is more ovoid
around the distal end. It is 3.5cm long,
2.1cm wide, and .7cm thick. Both show
dulling around the proximal end for
possible hafting.

End Scrapers:

The only distinguishing criteria
between these implements and so-called
thumbnail scrapers appears to be size and
degree of curation. End scrapers
generally tend to be rougher in finish and
larger in size; however, this is only a
generalization and the tool types may
represent a functional range of a single
type that reflects the size of the object
being acted upon by the tool-user.
However, it is noted that thumbnail
scrapers often tend to have a rounded
distal end which may indicate a functional
distinction which would justify
classificatory segregation.
Five (5) end scrapers were collected
at the site. Their length/width/thickness
measurements in centimeters follow:
7.6/4.5/1.1; 6.1/3.2/1.3; 6.1/2.9/0.4;
5.7/2.2/ 0.6; and 4.5/3.0/0.3.

Other Unifacial Scrapers:

Eight (8) oblong scrapers, four (4)
ovoid scrapers, and two (2) triangular
scrapers were found at the site. Their
dimensions and locations are depicted in
Table 3. What is remarkable is the
uniformity in flake thickness for these


465







three types of unifacial scrapers.
Six (6) humpbacked scrapers and two
snub-nosed scrapers also were collected.
See Table 3 for their dimensions and
locations.

Expedient Scrapers:

Twenty (20) expedient unifacial
scrapers were found at the site. The vast
majority of this tool variety has only one
edge retouched for utilization. These
tools include thick and thin unifaces.

Broken Scrapers:

Another twelve (12) broken unifacial
scrapers were found on the rapids. These
have not been categorized or measured.

Unifacial Tools With Graver Spurs

Five (5) unifacial tools with graver
spurs were collected. Two (2) are
unifacial scrapers, two (2) are humpbacked
scrapers, and a thin flake had two graver
spurs. The most apparent use for these
spurs is for slotting the metatarsus of
the deer for modification into bone points
or pins. Some of the bone material still
bears unobliterated slot scars.

Other Unifacial Tools

Waller Knife:

Purdy (1981:33) pictures a number of
Waller knives showing the range of
variability of this tool type.
Morphological and contextual observations
clearly include this implement in the
Bolen tool kit.
One Waller knife was found at the
site. The stem is snapped. It is made
from a grey-colored chert with very little
patination. It is 6.1cm long, 3.0cm wide,
and 0.5cm thick.

Other Knife-like Implements:

Fourteen (14) unifacial blade-like
or ovoid flakes having serrated cutting
edges were part of the assemblage.
Additionally, one bifacial, curated knife
was found. Its form is of a stemmed,
serrated-edged Archaic point; however,


there is a definite scimitar-shaped curve
to the blade with the outside edge on the
convex side at the distal end showing
extreme wear.

Triangular Unifacial Tool:

This is a unique well-made unifacial
tool. It is very symmetrical with
serrated cutting edges on all three sides.
It is 6.8cm long, 5.5cm wide and .7cm
thick. I have not seen this type of
implement in other Late Paleo-Early
Archaic tool kits. It would appear to
have functioned as a hand-held cutting
tool.

Adzes and Gouges

The site produced eight (8) examples
of adzes or gouges. One Clear Fork gouge
was recovered. Morse and Goodyear (1973)
describe the synonomous Dalton Adze as
being ovoid-triangular in outline with a
convex bit and sides that taper to a dull,
rounded poll. While Morse and Goodyear
associate the Dalton Adze, as its name
indicates, with Dalton points and the
concomitant temporal and cultural horizon,
in North Florida, at least, these
implements have been directly associated
with Bolen points and other Bolen-age
index artifacts. Thus, they may be a
persistent type bridging the transition
between Dalton- and Bolen-age cultures in
the Southeast.
The Clear Fork gouge measures 8.2cm
long, 4.4cm wide, and 1.4cm thick. It is
bifacially flaked. This specimen has a
quite steep (80-85), slightly concave
bit. The bit shows numerous small step
fractures, but the lateral edges of the
proximal end do not exhibit any dulling
and crushing, suggestive of hafting.
Two Aucilla adzes were found. One
is unifacial. the other is bifacial. The
unifacial specimen is 7.5cm long; 5.5cm
wide (at its greatest width) and 3.2cm
wide (at its waist), and 3.1cm thick. The
bit is quite steep (ca. 750) and stubby in
appearance, indicating numerous
resharpening efforts. The bifacial
specimen is 11.5cm long, 5.5cm wide at the
bit, 4.5cm wide at the waist, and 2.9cm
thick. No hafting polish was observed on
either specimen.


466








Five (5) broken adze bits were
collected, four of which are bifacially
flaked, the other is unifacial.

Bone Implements

The site contained an impressive
amount of modified bone material. The
vast majority of the bone artifacts were
made from the metatarsus of the White-
tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Also, a number of modified deer antler
tines, and several altered Racoon (Procyon
lotor) bones (baculum) were collected.
The description and analysis of this
interesting bone tool assemblage is
hampered by lack of knowledge about the
cultural context and function of this
material.
Generally, because of the
environmental conditions, bone material is
not preserved and represented in
terrestrial Paleo-Indian and early Archaic
sites. However, in underwater sites in
certain river systems, especially the
Aucilla, this type of material is
represented as a very high proportion of
the total assemblage. The total count for
modified bone implements came to 923.
For purposes of convenience, I have
referred to all of the pointed bone
implements as bone pins. The use of this
terminology is not intended to imply
function. On the contrary, at this point
in our knowledge of the function and
context of these implements, this
inference is consciously avoided. These
bone tools also are sometimes referred to
as bone points or bone leisters (Milanich
and Fairbanks 1980); however, the more
generic term bone pins was selected to
refer to all such tools.
Whole pins under four (4)
centimeters in length were separately
classified as small pins. Other bone
implements having a more obvious use are
referred to by their function.
The portion of the rapids which was
carefully collected by five meter squares
(the first 40 meters) contained a total of
923 bone implements. This total includes
both broken and whole specimens. Broken
bone pins constitute the bulk of the bone
implements with 773 total pieces or 83.75%
of the total. Whole bone pins make up
4.88% or 45 pins. The site contains 29


Table 4. Bone Implements

Total:
I. Bone Pins (Whole) 45
(Broken) 773
(Small-<4cm) 29
(Burnished) 58
II. Antler Harpoons 8
III. Fish Hooks 4
IV. Atlatl Spurs 1
V. Racoon Bones 5


923
( 4.88%)
(83.75%)
( 3.14%)
( 6.28%)
( 0.87%)
(0.43%)
( 0.11%)
(0.54%)


(3.14%) whole, small bone pins.
Burnished bone pins are classified
and counted separately. The site total
for broken, burnished pins is 58 (6.28%).
These burnished bone tools are usually
round in cross-section, although a
minority percentage may be flattened in
cross-section. The burnishing on these
tools creates a highly polished finish
which completely obliterates the
manufacture marks but leaves distinctive
microscopic marks of its own. Their
function is unknown. Because of their
fragile nature, a smaller percentage are
recovered whole; this site contained no
whole burnished pins. They may be double
pointed or have one end blunt, causing
such specimens to have the appearance of
hair pins and they have been described as
such.
The site had eight (8) whole and
broken so-called, socketed harpoons made
from deer antlers. Most are shattered
around the base or socket, indicating
their probable use as projectiles points
or for thrusting purposes.
Four broken bone fish hooks were
recovered: three from Square F minus 2
and one from Square A4. These hooks were
carved from the side of a large long bone.
They show the bone's cross-sectional
curvature when viewed on end.
One bone atlatl spur was recovered.
This specimen is crescent-moon shaped with
the attachment area roughened.
Curiously carved racoon (Procyon
lotor) bones comprise the final category
of bone implements from the site. Four
specimens were collected. Their function
is entirely a mystery. They are made from
the bony portion of the racoon's penis,
and are L-shaped. The proximal end is


467







blunt and usually shows the cut marks; the
distal end is sharpened to a point.

Ceramics

Fifteen (15) aboriginal pot sherds
were collected. All are sand tempered,
and all are water eroded. Thirteen (13)
of the sherds were found within a couple
of meters of the bank on the east side.
Nine (9) are Deptford checked-stamped
sherds, eight (8) of which were found
close to the bank. The remaining seven
(7) sherds are either plain ware or too
badly eroded to identify to type.

Artifact Assemblage

The unifacial tool assemblage
collected at the Little River Rapids site
is highly diagnostic of Late Paleo-
Indian/Early Archaic period archaeological
cultures. All lithic material is believed
to have been transported to the site from
elsewhere as no flint sources were located
in the site area. The nearest known
quarry is a few miles away. Almost all of
the unifacial tool types collected on the
rapids are found in Bolen-age tool kits.
The only significant unifacial Bolen tool
type missing from the assemblage is the
discoidal scraper. While a number of the
expedient unifaces have more than one
utilized edge, there is no reason to
presume that this is a substituted tool
type.
Also missing from the assemblage are
Edgefield scrapers. Along these lines, no
end scrapers made from reworked projectile
points were collected. This would appear
to indicate a lack of need for this type
of situational or expedient gear at this
site. The large amount of debitage
collected at the site supports this
conclusion.
Bolen points far out numbered any
other diagnostic projectile point type
from other time periods. Forty-one
complete or broken Bolen Points were
found. Only three points from an earlier
time period (Greenbriars) are represented
in the assemblage. Even when all the
various types of Archaic points, spanning
several millennia, found at the site are
added together, they total only nineteen
points. Thus, in terms of lithic


concentration, the site was intensely or
temporarily extensively occupied during
Bolen times, but only sporadically
occupied during earlier and later periods.
Very few bifacial implements, other
than projectile points, were found at the
rapids. Two axe-like bifaces were
collected. Neither show any evidence of
use or hafting. One serrated Archaic
point has use-wear dulling on one edge
near the distal end. Probably, this
implement was used as a hafted knife.
Four broken bifacial adze bits, one Clear
Fork Gouge, and one bifacial Aucilla adze
complete the list.
A significant amount of debitage,
hammerstones, and cores were found. This
material, coupled with the remarkable
amount of bone tools recovered,
demonstrates that the area around the
river rise, a former sinkhole water
source, was a high activity area for at
least one period in its cultural history.
Considering the tremendous amount of
modified bone material recovered at the
site, it would have been expected that a
greater number of gravers would have been
found. If gravers are used for grooving
and slotting the bone prior to splitting
and further modification, this activity
must have taken place elsewhere, or else
other categories of tools were used as
gravers. Only one expedient flake had two
graver spurs which served as the tool's
primary purpose, while the other four
implements with graver spurs were
unifacial scrapers.
After the middle Archaic, only a
handful of Deptford period ceramics
demonstrate any later cultural activity in
the area.

Intra-site Analysis

One of the primary goals of the
controlled collection at the Little River
Rapids site was to determine the effect of
strata deflating water forces upon
inundated cultural sites. The results of
the assemblage plotted on the artifact
distribution maps are very interesting.
While the river flow removed all organic
and soil material from the site, except
for a few totally eroded zones, the
cultural material continues to reflect
prehistoric, preinundation cultural


468







activity areas.
Two major lithic activity areas were
centered around Square G3, and Squares C
minus 2 and D minus 2. Two other minor
foci were revealed in the A3/B3 area of
the first small sinkhole in the grid and
in the H and I minus squares.
The A3/B3 foci is somewhat suspect,
however, because of the funneling effect
caused by the collapse of the front part
of the sink creating a ramp-like structure
leading into the area. It is believed
that water erosional forces exerted on the
cultural material displacing them
downstream is demonstrated here.
The H/I minus foci extends over the
Northeast lip of the rapids and into the
river rise. It appears, based upon the
shape of the limestone bottom and the
lithic and rubble scatter, that this
portion of the site collapsed into the
corner of the sinkhole and subsequently
has been covered slowly by organic
material and other sediments settling in
the downstream portion of the river rise.
Analysis of the cores and the material
from the east trenches of the site should
confirm this conclusion.
An examination of the cultural
material surrounding the two major foci
support the conclusion that the cultural
material at these activity areas are
resistant to water erosional forces.
First, a downstream dispersal of the
artifact assemblage would be observed if
the material was being water transported.
This is not the case. The areas behind or
down river from the activity areas are
relatively culturally sterile. Second,
the artifact areas are located on the
upstream portion of the rapids, with the
G3 foci in the middle of the river only a
few meters from the flow source.
These two major foci are contrasted
with the minor focus located at the
terminus of the small sink around the
A3/B3 grid coordinates. Here the material
was pushed back against the downstream
wall of the sink structure. Exactly what
you would expect from erosional forces.
Thus, it was demonstrated that it is
possible for inundated sites, that have
been stratigraphically deflated, to retain
their horizontal contextual information.
Much valuable archaeological information
is available at underwater sites, even in


areas totally deviod of stratigraphic
integrity. Horizontal cultural patterning
among and within activity areas can be
discerned and this data can be analyzed.

Conclusion

The controlled underwater collection
at the Little River Rapids site (8Je603)
demonstrated the retention of horizontal
activity-patterning data at underwater
cultural sites. An intense or lengthy
Bolen-age occupation took place on the
south side of an ancient karst sinkhole.
The site was later inundated by rising
water levels that caused the sinkhole to
become the river rise of the portion of
the Aucilla River known as Little River
Rapids.
The flowing water "blew out" the
southern end of the sinkhole connecting it
with a series of smaller sinks located
downstream. The Aucilla River along this
stretch goes underground one last time
just above Nutall Rise where it resurfaces
and flows uninterrupted into the Gulf of
Mexico.
It is believed that the inundation
of the site took place sometime during the
middle Archaic period, around 5-6,000
years ago. This supposition is based on
artifact distribution and diagnostic
representation at the site. While the
activity areas that are underwater today
were not as intensely utilized subsequent
to the Bolen time period, such foci were
intermittently occupied until the middle
Archaic, when there was an abrupt
cessation of cultural activity within the
confines of the present river channel.
People who were making and using
Bolen Points and their associated
unifacial tool kit lived and hunted around
one of the few reliable sources of water
at the end of the Pleistocene, a karst
sinkhole penetrating the limestone to the
Floridan Aquifer. Lithic projectile
points and bone leisters were used for
hunting a varied terrestrial and aquatic
fauna. A flexible tool kit was used for
making hunting implements as well as for
processing the products of those hunts.
While this site reveals very little about
the relationships between and among the
various lithic and bone materials and the
large number Pleistocene age faunal


469








remains because of the loss of vertical
strigraphy, it does disclose information
about the site's spatial patterning. The
centers for cultural activity remained the
same for a series of distinctive cultural
technologies. Whatever topographic or
resource advantage the site foci enjoyed,
they continued to be recognized since the
same site centers were used from the late
Pleistocene into the early and middle
Archaic.
It is hoped that further
cooperative exploration can be undertaken
to gain a better understanding of the
Bolen-age activity around this ancient
sinkhole.


References Cited

Bullen, Ripley P.
1958 The Bolen Bluff Site on Paynes
Prairie, Florida. Contributions of
the Florida State Museum, Social
Sciences, no. 4. Gainesville:
University of Florida.

1975 A Guide to the Identification of
Florida Projectile Points. Kendall
Books, Gainesville.

Bullen, R.P., and Dolan, Edward M.
1959 The Johnson Lake Site, Marion
County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 12:77-99.

Byers, Douglas S.
1954 Bull Brook A Fluted Point Site in
Ipswich, Massachusetts. American
Antiquity 19:343-351.

Daniel, R., and Michael Wisenbaker
1987 Harney Flats: A Paleo-Indian Site.
Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.
Amityville, New York.


Goodyear,
1973


Witthoft, John
1952 A Paleo Indian Site in Eastern
Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting
Culture. Proceedings, American
Philosophical Society 96:464-495.






Craig Willis
Member, PART of Florida
and Project Supervisor
417 Terrace
Tallahassee, Florida 32308


Albert C.
Archaic Hafted Spokeshaves with
Graver Spurs. The Florida
Anthropologist 26:39-44.


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

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

Warren, Lyman 0.
1973 Unique Knife or Chisel, Piper-
Fuller Airfield, St. Petersburg.
The Florida Anthropologist 26:119-
120.


470





471


SURVEY THE AUCILLA RIVER SOUTH FROM
WARD ISA ON THE JEFESON-TAYLOR COUNTY
LINE, FLORIDA

Steve Richardson


Dedication

This report is dedicated to the
memory of James Melvin Haisten. Jim was a
member of the Florida Anthropological
Society (FAS), a former President of the
Northwest Florida Chapter of the FAS from
1979-1980, a member of the Florida
Paleontological Society, and a member of
the Marine Archaeological Divers
Association. He made many contributions
during his 20 years of participation in
anthropology and paleontology.

Abstract

This report concerns the underwater
survey of the section of the Aucilla River
starting at Marker #1 (south end of Ward
Island) and extending 9,700 feet down-
river to Marker #17. The project was
conducted by the Marine Archaeological
Divers Association at the request of James
S. Dunbar, Bureau of Archaeological
Research, Florida Department of State.
The objectives of this project were (1) to
surface collect artifacts and record their
spatial information from inundated
prehistoric sites without stratigraphic
integrity, and (2) to record and report
inundated prehistoric sites with
stratigraphic integrity to the state, for
possible excavation during future field
expeditions.

Introduction

On June 18, 1987, eighteen mnebers
of the Marine Archaeological Divers
Association (M.A.D.A.) met at the Aucilla
River for a four day archaeological and
paleontological field expedition. The
fourteen members participating in the
diving spent a total of 105 hours of
bottom-time and collected 96 lithic and
ceramic artifacts and faunal remains for
analysis. There were four surface support


personnel.
The goal of this first four day
field expedition was to do an overview of
as much of the river as possible,
concentrating on the obvious and easily
located sites, rather than conducting a
comprehensive investigation. However, in
future field expeditions more
comprehensive field methodology will be
utilized.
The Survey Percentage Plate (Figure
1) indicates where bottom-time was spent
during the survey. The silty bottom
around Marker #1, with an average depth of
ten feet, made investigations practically
impossible. Better conditions were found
toward Marker #2 with less silt, more
exposed limestone, and an average depth of
12 feet with a nearby hole descending to
60 feet. This area will receive priority
attention in further expeditions.
Conditions around Marker #3 were
very good, mostly limestone with some
sand, and an average depth of 14 feet.
The ceramic artifacts in this area may
indicate nearby terrestrial sites, while
the three bison teeth indicate a much
older period.
Marker #4 yielded one Hernando point
(L.4.11), while Marker #6 yielded seven
megafauna remains. Markers #4-#7 will be
surveyed more thoroughly in future
expeditions.
Bottom conditions around Marker #8
were mostly limestone with areas of peaty
clay and little sand. This stretch of
river is an L-shaped valley (see Marker #8
Plate for topographical information), with
a larger peaty clay bank approximately 16
feet high and 80 feet long. A 1.6 m core
taken from this bank by David Kendrick,
Florida State Museum, and Tommy Gore,
Bureau of Archaeological Research, was
quite interesting. The core consists of
very dark, organically rich clay. Plant
fragments as well as fish remains seem
abundant. This peaty clay could not have


Dec., 1988


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 41 No. 3















































0% '0LYEtb


90% SuOZVYEb


I"= 800'


472











AILMBERIN G SYSTEM

LI


1"= 800'


473


AOCILLA RIVER













AJIUMBETRIN~ SYSTEM
C .3 C


1"= 800'


AuC1LLA RIVER


474













h]Mu~ScR\~ SYSTEM


SEE MA(rKrEl LATE.
rori FALUNAL- iNZoVMAT-oa
COCEjCrzijlG -vS SEC.Toi.


I"= 800'


ALJCILLA RIVER


475






















































4-14



0*9/


476




































S


50'


477




















v-ocK


NAMMULTH
TOOTH


SEE MACKEZ E 3 --
S-rCf fI ATCA,'IH Y FLATE


Y, SCALE














cojSLE
SAPLE


SI4
LtLME STC;JE.


ME6AFAMLA


.~Se .5. .gD .,S. .~ .*5. See
S* US.~ .=. *- *e5 .
.0. *........S* '' *5-.gS-. -
*e.*~~ *Sr *** .0 *e* =. r -


479


so'


PEAT


7-







been deposited in the river under current
conditions. It indicates that sane time
in the past, perhaps around 10,000 years
ago, this was an area of quiet water.
Instead of a flowing river, there may have
been a sinkhole or pond here where
animals, including humans, came to drink
or hunt. This is speculation, but not
without some evidence. This area also
yielded 31 megafauna remains for analysis,
including two mastodon footbones (F.8.6,
F.8.12), one mastodon tooth (F.8.62), five
larger ivory fragments (F.8.61), and one
mammoth tooth (F.8.60) identified by Dr.
Webb, Florida State Museum (now Florida
Museum of Natural History), as a left
upper molar 2, or left M2, of probably an
adolescent young adult "Colombian
Mammoth" (Mammuthus colombi). One straight
base preceramic Archaic point (L.8.9) was
located close by to this feature. All
artifacts and faunal remains were surface
collected, some lying on firm peat, others
lying on or in a shallow sand matrix
covering limestone. These artifacts were
in extremely disturbed conditions
environmentally and or culturally, and
most are fragmented. There were no signs
of articulation or semi-articulation. In
future expeditions, the limestone shelf
between the valley and the west river
bank, the area which yielded point L.8.9,
will be surveyed more intensively in hopes
of locating Clovis points dating to the
Paleo-Indian Period in association with
Pleistocene megafauna. It is hoped that
the state will excavate a test pit in the
peaty clay bank of the valley, to evaluate
possibly intact stratigraphy. Finally,
the western most part of the L-shaped
valley has a large concentrated area of
turtle shell, estimated at approximately 2
million fragments. This area was located
at the end of the expedition and it has
not been determined whether it is the
result of environmental or cultural
phenomenon.
Marker #9 has a bottom of limestone
and an average depth of 10 feet. A large
sand-tempered ceramic sherd (C.9.8) was
located at this marker.
Marker #11 has mostly limestone
bottom with sane sand and average depth of
14 feet. This area yielded one Englewood
Incised sherd (C.11.11) and one Deptford
Check-stamped sherd (C.11.12). Much more


survey work should be done here. Also,
this area has what appears to be saltwater
vents surfacing, which produces blurred
visibility and very warm water.
Marker #12 has a limestone bottom
with sand and an average depth of 8 feet.
It yielded 18 lithic artifacts, 1 Wakulla
Check-stamped sherd (C.12.13), 1 Leon
Check-stamped sherd (C.12.14), and 13
faunal remains including 1 camel
metapodial (F.12.14), 2 modified bone
fragments (F.12.18 and F.12.19), 1
megafauna distal numerous (F.12.32) and 2
manatee ribs (F.12.30 and F.12.36).
Although much of our time was spent at
this marker, it should receive further
attention during future surveys.
Markers #13-#15 were not surveyed,
due to lack of time. Furthermore, Markers
#16 and #17 were very silty and may prove
to be impractical to investigate.
A complete catalog list of artifacts
and faunal remains can be located after
each plate.


Lithic Analysis

Analysis of the lithic artifacts recovered
during this project was performed by:
Ronnie Martin, M.A.D.A. member; Tom
Detrick, President, Northwest Florida
Chapter of Florida Anthropological
Society; and, Jim Haisten, Former
President, Northwest Florida Chapter of
Florida Anthropological Society.

These remains are cataloged as follows and
keyed to the survey map to assist future
investigators (Code Lithic.Marker.Item):


L.2.1
L.4.11
L.8.9

L.10.2

L.10.3

L.10.4
L.10.5
L.10.8


L.12.6


Florida Archaic stemmed
Hernando point
Straight base point preceramic
Archaic
Straight base point preceramic
Archaic
Side notch point with rounded
base, possible late Paleo?
Hafted blade Archaic
Hafted blade Archaic
Straight base point with
serrated blades, preceramic
Archaic
Straight base hafted blade,
early preceramic Archaic







L.12.7 Scraper with graver spur
L.12.10 Bolen bevel side notch
L.12.12 Hafted scraper blade
L.12.13 Side scraper with graver spur
L.12.14 Small hammer stone
L.12.15 Hafted axe
L.12.16 Small hand axe
L.12.17 Unifacial side scrapers
L.12.18 Unifacial side scrapers
L.12.19 Large hand axe
L.12.20 Larger hammer stone used on
two sides; wt. 2 lbs.; 32 ca
long, circumference 35 an
L.12.21 Small hammer stone; 3/4 lb.;
stones, round shape and 8 an
diameter, 12.6 cm thick; used
on two sides.
L.12.22 Same as L.12.21, except used
on one side only.
L.12.23 Hafted blade 9 cm long, 8.5 cm
wide, thickness point 2.5 am
L.12.24 Side scraper, curved shape, 7
cm long, width 5 an, thickness
1.5 am
L.12.25 Side scraper, curved shape
same basic sides, rounded on
one end, pointed on other end
L.12.26 Unifacial scraper, straight
design, 1 an long, 4 cm wide,
0.75 ca thick

The lithic artifacts range from the
Archaic Period into ceramic periods.
While it had been hoped that Paleo-Indian
material would be found, none of the above
listed artifacts can be said with
certainty to have originated during that
period.

Ceramic Analysis

Analysis of the ceramic artifacts was
performed with the assistance of Stephen
Hale, Assistant Professor at the Florida
State University, Department of Anthropol-
ogy. They are catalogued as followed and
keyed to the survey map to assist future
investigators (Code- Ceramic.Marker.Item).

C.3.2 Fort Walton
C.3.3 Weeden Island Incised (Cool
Branch Incised)
C.3.4 Point Washington Incised
C.3.5 Carrabelle Incised
C.3.6 Weeden Island Punctate
C.3.7 Woodland
C.9.8 Woodland


C.10.9
C.10.10
C.11.11

C.11.12
C.12.13
C.12.14


Wakulla Check-stamped
Wakulla Check-stamped
Englewood Incised (early Ft.
Walton)
Deptford Check-stamped
Wakulla Check-stamped
Leon Check-stamped


With the exception of C.11.12, and
possibly C.3.7 and C.9.8, dating to the
Deptford Period (ca. 1000 B.C.-1 A.D.),
all of the ceramic artifacts date from the
late Weeden Island-early Fort Walton
Period (ca. 600-1400 A.D.).

Faunal Analysis

Analysis of the faunal remains was
conducted with the assistance of Stephen
Hale, Assistant Professor at the Florida
State University, Department of
Anthropology, and Dr. S. David Webb,
Florida State Museum (since renamed the
Florida Museum of Natural History). Note:
The large faunal remains which were too
fragmented for specific identification are
listed simply as megafauna. These remains
are catalogued as follows and keyed to the
survey maps to assist future investigators
(Code Fauna.Marker.Item):


F.3.5
F.3.23
F.3.24
F.6.1
F.6.2
F.6.3
F.6.4
F.6.5
F.6.6
F.6.7
F.8.1
F.8.2
F.8.3
F.8.4
F.8.5
F.8.6
F.8.7
F.8.8
F.8.9
F.8.10
F.8.11
F.8.12
F.8.13
F.8.14
F.8.17
F.8.18


Bison tooth
Bison tooth
Bison tooth
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Skull fragment
Mastodon scapula
Mastodon foot bones
Skull fragment
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Mastodon foot bones
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Skull fragment


481








F.8.20
F.8.21
F.8.24
F.8.25
F.8.27
F.8.29
F.8.30
F.8.32
F.8.34
F.8.40
F.8.41
F.8.42
F.8.60
F.8.61
F.8.62
F.10.5
F.10.17
F.10.22

F.12.1
F.12.3
F.12.6
F.12.7
F.12.8
F.12.9
F.12.12
F.12.14
F.12.18
F.12.19
F.12.30
F.12.32
F.12.34


Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Skull fragment
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Mammoth tooth
Ivory
Mastodon tooth
Megafauna
Prehistoric horse tooth
Carnasial tooth from larger
carnivore
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Megafauna
Camel metapodia
Modified bone
Modified bone
Manatee
Megafauna distal humorous
Manatee


Conclusions

More archaeological and paleontolog-
ical survey work should be performed from
Marker #2 to Maker #16. Investigation of
the 60 foot hole at Marker #2 should be a
priority, which should include airlifting
of the unstable sand matrix covering the
bottom. It is recognized that such work
must be performed under the direction of
qualified professionals. Furthermore, a
test pit should be performed by the state
in the peaty clay at Marker #8.
Terrestrial test pits at Markers #3, #8,
#10 and #12 also might prove to be
informative. Wh look forward to further
cooperative work with the Florida Bureau
of Archaeological Research and the Florida
Museum of Natural History; although, we
recognize that current liability issues
constrain the manner of participation in
such work.


Steve Richardson
4334 Pine Tree Lane
Lynn Haven, Florida 32444


These remains all seem to date to
the late Pleistocene, thus giving hope
that associated Paleo-Indian remains may
yet be found in this area of the river.

Interpretation

This section of the Aucilla River
apparently has been occupied by very large
mammals in the past, perhaps as recent as
10,000 years ago. Mastodon, mannoth,
camel, bison, horse and large carnivore
remains are relatively abundant. Perhaps
they represent evidence of animals killed
as they came to the deeper holes for
water, before the river formed in its
present shape and water level. Cultural
remains indicate human presence from at
least as early as pre-cermaic archaic all
the way to Mississippian tradition;
although, there are same breaks in the
sequence.


482






483


GINGERY CACHE SITE (8Ta99):
A cache of possible paleolithic
tools found with mastodon bones

Roger C. Alexon


It seems like the other day,
October of 1978 to be exact, when a
cache of 13 bifacially flaked
blades or reforms were found by
Bob Gingery, Dennis Edinger and I
while on a diving and collecting
trip to the Aucilla River area.
For years, first with Don Serbousek
and then on our own, we would spend
an extended week or so camping,
diving and coming to know the old
crackers who lived in and around
the Aucilla River and its alligator
filled tributary, the spring fed
Wacissa River. Believe it or not,
local moon-shine, in those days
common but no longer, set a certain
atmosphere around Goose Pasture
(where we camped) that few "out-
siders" could fully appreciate.
They were the good old days.
The site is located in the
Half-Mile-Rise section of the
Aucilla River, just south from the
river's upwelling from subterranean
passages. In the site area, the
river is about 14 feet deep with a
relatively flat bottom. The chan-
nel bottom is about 15 feet wide
with limestone cliffs, boulders
from rock falls or ledges forming
craggy rock banks underwater and,
during low river stage, limestone
cliffs extending some five feet
above water. Just down stream, an
old dry run of the river meets the
present channel and cuts through
the limestone banks forming one of
the several ramp like approaches
that locals and crazy city folks
use to launch their boats.
Nature's dramatic display is a
vivid reminder that the present
river channel was once part of the
underground river. Like the chan-
nel bottom the land surrounding the
river is also flat except where the


river and numerous sinkholes dis-
rupt the monotony.
After diving other areas, we
decided to dive the area where we
had launched the boat. Expecting
nothing, we found the site now
known as the Gingery Cache site
(8Ta99). All artifacts were re-
covered in the flat mid-channel of
the river in a small 15 by 15 foot
area. The channel bottom was cov-
ered by a thin layer of silt and
sand followed by a pebbly deposit
containing the flint tools and
poorly preserved bone of Pleisto-
cene megafauna.
Fragments of mastodon (includ-
ing ribs, vertebrae, etc.), a horse
jaw with seven teeth, camel bones
and teeth, and deer remains were
found at the site. Due to the de-
structive effects of the underwater
deposited mineral geothite, which
covered and in some cases had
formed in or had replaced the form
and structure of the bone, any
possible evidence of butchering or
other human induced alteration had
long since vanished.
The artifacts recovered also
did little to solve the possibility
of extinct animal and human coex-
istence. Of the 13 biface reforms
or blades, all were covered with
the geothite deposits, which when
cleaned off, revealed that all the
tools had advanced cases of flint
patination. The preforms/blades are
all lanceolate in shape but are not
typical Paleo-Indian styles; in
fact they are reminiscent of the
much younger Copena assemblages in
shape. However, other evidence in-
dicates that they are older than
Copena assemblages.
The shapes represented in the
cache vary from triangular to clo-


Dec., 1988


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 41 No. 3





















































Figure 1. Possible paleolithic tools found with mastadon bones at the Gingery Cache site (8Ta99).






485


void in out line and from thin to
thick in cross section. Some dis-
play only percussion flaking, while
others have additional flaking from
use or pressure work. The extreme
patina is striking because flint
flakes from a nearby land site are
much less patinated. On land,
judging from the amount of heat
treated flakes, it seems likely a
mid-Archaic age is represented.
The condition of the cache speci-
mens suggests they predate the
flakes from land since, as a gener-
al rule, underwater flint finds of-
ten show no patina unless they once
existed in a formerly dry or wet/
dry environment (conservation with
Jim Dunbar). Apparently, flint pa-
tinates as a result of alternating
wet/dry events as is typical on
land sites when seasons change soil
moisture. This suggests the chan-
nel bottom in the Gingery Cache
site area was once dry, most likely
sometime during the last ice age.
Because the site has yielded a
large number of mastodon bones and
a cache of flaked tools, it is
tempting to speculate about Paleo-
Indian kill and butcher activities.
However, there has been much damage
to the bone and the stone tools are
partially decayed and not diagnos-
tic of the Paleolithic age. There-
fore, unless some pristine part of
the site lies buried, there will be
little hope of proving the kill
site theory. That said, it is
still my opinion that this was a
Paleo-Indian mastodon kill site
location. We need to know more
about this and many similar sites.


Roger C. Alexon
330 Walker Street
Holly Hill, Florida 32017






486
Florida's Fossils: Guide to Location,
Identification and Enjoyment, 1988, by
Robin C. Brown, Pineapple Press, 208
pages, hardbound, indexed, numerous fig-
ures and b&w photographs, glossary and
appendices, ISBN-0-910923-45-0.

There remains much confusion among
the public regarding the differences be-
tween paleontology and archaeology. As
professional archaeologists, we are some-
times asked questions about dinosaurs and
other pre-human life forms. Conversely,
paleontologists are probably asked ques-
tions about ancient cultures. At any rate,
there is some temporal overlap of the two
disciplines during the very late Pleis-
tocene. This overlap is briefly alluded to
in the book. Furthermore, some members of
the Florida Anthropological Society main-
tain a keen interest in natural history
and paleontology. It is for these reasons
that this book was chosen for review in
The Florida Anthropologist.
Dr. Robin C. Brown is the author of
Florida's Fossils. He holds a B.S. degree
in zoology and practices medicine in Fort
Myers. Dr Brown has avidly pursued the
study of Florida's fossils as a serious
avocation for most of his life.
While the book is not a "scientific"
publication per se, it still can be a use-
ful source of data for scientists, includ-
ing professional archaeologists. According
to Dr. Bruce MacFadden, Associate Curator
of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Florida
Museum of Natural History, "This book is
scientifically accurate and professional
in every respect." Although it is written
primarily for the intelligent layman, it
contains a wealth of pertinent and up-to-
date scientific and technical information
on fossils and their geological contexts.
The first chapter is entitled
"Florida: A Great Place to Find Fossils."
It describes some of the animals, such as
exotic sharks, whales, mammoths,
mastodons, large carnivorous cats, giant
ground sloths and vampire bats, that in-
habited the state over the past 50 million
years. There is a brief account of why di-
nosaurs (which became extinct ca. 65 mil-
lion years ago) are not found in Florida.
Many of the state's fossils are found in


highly disturbed contexts in river bot-
toms, limestone solution holes, and buried
in ancient swamps and lakes.
The second chapter makes recommenda-
tions about where and how to find fossils.
Some of the general locations include
rivers and streams, quarries, phosphate
mines, solution features (e.g., springs
and sinkholes), canals and beaches. The
author then proceeds to describe, for each
region of the state, specific sites and
areas where fossils are relatively
abundant.
Chapters three and four cover what
equipment is needed for locating and pre-
serving fossils. If a collector encounters
a multiple scatter of fossil remains, it
is recommended that he contact the Verte-
brate Paleontology staff at the Florida
Museum of Natural History, since "Such a
find is important. It may add signifi-
cantly to the knowledge of Florida's an-
cient past." Fossil collectors also are
urged to keep good field notes of their
finds. This information would include fos-
sil names, the formation in which they
were found, the collector's name, the date
and an accurate sketch map depicting the
site locationss. Each fossil recovered
should be labeled with a separate specimen
number.
Chapter five pertains to the identi-
fication of fossils, including a brief
discussion of general taxonomy. This 51-
page section depicts fossils with b&w pho-
tographs and line drawings beginning with
mollusks, then sharks teeth and bony
fishes, and followed by bones and teeth of
mammals. The text notes that dating of
fossils by radiocarbon is only good for
the past 60,000 years or .1% of Florida's
natural history. On the other hand, if
fossils can be positively identified, they
can be used to date the relative age of a
site. For example, the rhinoceroses
(Teleoceras and Aphelops) were present
from 10 to 4 million years ago, while mam-
moths occurred from 1.5 million to 10,000
years ago.
Chapter six explains how fossils
were formed. Generally speaking, life
forms must have had hard parts which were
covered relatively soon after their deaths
in order to have had sufficient time to


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 41 No. 3


Dec., 1988








fossilize. Florida has probably been
"geologically tranquil" for the past 25 to
30 million years (or since the late
Oligocene or early Miocene epochs). This
means that any fossils that predate this
time are much less common.
Chapter seven provides a stimulating
discussion of the state's fossil history.
Although Florida has been a part of the
North American continent for more than 200
million years, most fossils in the state
formed during the past 50 million years--
coinciding with the peninsula 's first
emergence from the sea and the height of
the Age of Mammals.
The discussion begins with the
Eocene epoch (54-37.5 million years ago)
when foraminifera and other shallow water
marine organisms were compacted into Ocala
limestone almost 50 million years ago.
Many shark, whale and sea cow fossils date
to this epoch. The Oligocene epoch (37.5-
24.5 million years ago) began with ocean
temperatures falling, which caused the
extinction of numerous species of marine
organisms. Drops in sea level eventually
allowed the exposure of Suwannee and
Marianna limestones in some parts of the
state. The earliest record of land animals
occurred during this epoch at a 28 million
year old site in Alachua County. By the
Miocene epoch (24.5-5 million years ago),
sea level continued its general regres-
sion, exposing more and more land. This
also was the time of the first appearance
of glacial cycles. "Land animals in
Florida reached their climax in the
Miocene, and Florida's fossil record is
the finest in eastern North America." Dur-
ing the Pliocene (5-1.8 million years ago)
and the Pleistocene (1.8 million to 10,000
years ago) epochs, the "Ice Ages" began in
earnest, with ocean levels rising from 15
to 20 ft. higher and falling to 300 ft.
lower than at present. There were 30
glacial advances and retreats from the
late Miocene through the end of the Pleis-
tocene. It was during the very late Pleis-
tocene (12,000 to 10,000 B.P.) that
Florida's earliest inhabitants shared the
peninsula with large megafauna such as
mammoths, mastodons, dire wolves and
sabercats. Concrete evidence of widespread
hunting of these creatures by man, never-
theless, remains highly speculative at
this time.


Chapter eight presents some of the
reasons for studying fossils. First, a
group of fossils (called index fossils)
can be used to determine the ages of geo-
logical deposits. For example, a site con-
taining bones and teeth from mammoth, bi-
son and horse would indicate a late Pleis-
tocene age of approximately 500,000 to
10,000 years B.P. Fossil finds form Plio-
Pleistocene deposits in Florida can be
used to reconstruct when the peninsula's
geography alternated between dry land and
sea bottom, corresponding with glacial ad-
vances and retreats. Along a similar vein,
studying these ancient life forms can shed
light on past environmental conditions
such as temperature and precipitation.
Fossils are also important to the state's
economy with regard to the mining of phos-
phate and limestone. Lastly, the pure sci-
entific study of these past life forms is
also important. The Paleontology Depart-
ment at the Florida Museum of Natural His-
tory (formerly the Florida State Museum)
in Gainesville is the central repository
of information on fossils in Florida.
Chapter nine covers some tips on
safety, courtesy and the law. The most im-
portant topic covered pertains to individ-
uals who wish to hunt fossils on state
lands (other than in Florida state parks).
Some of these people will need to obtain a
fossil hunting permit, primarily to stay
in touch with personnel at the Florida Mu-
seum of Natural History. Fossil hunting is
illegal in state parks and on all federal
properties.
The final chapter in the book de-
tails the exploits and important contribu-
tions of Florida's more well-known fossil
hunters. These people include Wayne
Wooten, Jessie Robertson, Ben Waller,
Lewis Ober, Bill Weaver, Clifford
Jeremiah, Don Serbousek and Frank Garcia.
Without their hard work and interest, the
study of fossils in the state would not
have advanced very rapidly.
Readers may also find the four ap-
pendices helpful. Appendix A is a copy of
the fossil permit which was prepared to
implement ss. 240.516, 240.5161, 240.5162
and 240.5163, Florida Statutes, and U.F.
Rule, 6C1-7.541, Florida Administrative
Code. This permit is required for fossil
hunting on state-owned (or state-
controlled lands) and other designated


487








vertebrate paleontological sites. The ap-
pendix explains what the permit covers,
who may obtain a permit, who must obtain a
permit, how to get one, and a copy of the
permit application form. Unfortunately,
nowhere in the book's text does it reveal
what should be done if artifacts and/or
human remains are found in association
with fossils. It is illegal to remove ar-
tifacts from state-owned lands without
proper authorization (see Florida Histori-
cal Resources Act, Chapter 267, Florida
Statutes) and in conjunction with this, it
is unlawful to remove (without proper au-
thorization) human skeletal remains from
private or public properties (see Offenses
Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves, Chapter
872, Florida Statutes).
Appendix B describes where fossil
collections and displays are located in
Florida. A couple of displays should be
added to this list. At the Florida Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geol-
ogy, on the Florida State University cam-
pus, there are a dugong (an early form of
sea cow) and numerous invertebrate fossils
displayed in the lobby. Additionally, at
the Museum of Florida History in
Tallahassee, a completely reconstructed
mastodon skeleton is on display. This
mastodon will soon be the focal point for
a permanent exhibit depicting what
Florida's environment was like 12,000
years ago when the first humans were
arriving in the state.
Appendix C reveals which libraries
in the state have complete collections of
the highly informative Florida Bureau of
Geology publications. And Appendix D pre-
sents a series of charts indicating the
times (covering the past 10 million years)
during which certain mammals were living
in the state.
In conclusion, the book is well-
written and the accompanying graphics are
excellent. It compiles data about
Florida's distant past that heretofore
were buried in limited-circulation scien-
tific papers and obscure technical jour-
nals. Additionally, the book provides an
up-to-date version of the geologic time
scale. Lastly, it dispels some common
myths about Florida,'s fossils.
One noteworthy correction that
should be made in the book is that the
name of the Florida State Museum in


Gainesville recently has been changed to
the Florida Museum of Natural History. The
new name is not reflected in the text
since Florida's Fossils was published
prior to the name change. The one major
shortcoming of the book is that it does
not provide specific references in the
text or a references cited or bibliography
at the end. This is unfortunate because
many readers, including myself, would like
to know the primary source of some of the
ideas that are presented. Despite this
drawback, Florida's Fossils is an impor-
tant synthesis of information for those
interested in the state's natural history
over the past 50 million years.




Florida's Fossils may be ordered from:
Pineapple Press, Inc., P.O. Drawer 16008,
Sarasota, Florida 34239. The purchase
price is $21.95, plus shipping, handling
and sales tax for Florida residents.




Reviewed by:
Michael Wisenbaker
Tallahassee, Florida


488







Creeks and Seminoles (1987) by J.
Leitch Wright, Jr. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln and
London. xv + 383 pages, figures,
maps, bibliography, index. $35.00
(cloth).

Florida Indian studies lost a
solid and dedicated scholar with
the untimely death of J. Leitch
Wright in September, 1986. Every
bit the historian, Wright in his
many publications meticulously
documented the events, peoples,
and places of colonial Florida.
His point-blank prose style was
objective but never detached, eru-
dite but never aloof. No subject
continued to draw his attention
more over the years than the pro-
blem of Creek-Seminole ethnicity.
This volume, the first in a plan-
ned series on the Indians of the
Southeast edited by Theda Perdue
and Michael D. Green, stands as
Wright's last full statement of
how and when the Creeks and
Seminoles each developed indepen-
dent social and political identi-
ties.
In Chapter One, Wright puts
forth his view of the late prehis-
toric Southeast and describes
Indian customs, beliefs, subsist-
ence practices, and languages as
recorded in the early documents.
He immediately rejects the word
"Creek" in referring to the
Muskhogean speakers of the inter-
ior Southeast, preferring instead
to designate them as Muscogulges,
along with the Iroquoian,
Algonquian, and Yuchean speakers
in the region. The Muscogulges
were thus of diverse origins,
which made for ready factionalism
in response to the economic and
political circumstances of
European contact. In Wright's
view, these factions often were
split along linguistic lines, with
the fundamental division being
between Muskogee-speakers (who
formed the core of the Creek


489
nation) and non-Muskogee speakers,
many of whom were also considered
Creeks by outside observers.
In Chapter Two, Wright examines
the nature of Indian trade in the
colonial Southeast, with the con-
clusion that the enormous desire
on the part of the Indians for
European merchandise was responsi-
ble for the large volume of trade
that took place. Using the advan-
tages provided by horse transport,
the southeastern Indians became
commercial hunters simply to pay
for the many items of clothing and
hardware that they could no longer
live without.
Next, Wright discusses the role
of the black Muscogulges in the
cultural dynamics of the southeas-
tern frontier. The blacks, like
the Indians, were of many diverse
backgrounds, yet were of tremend-
ous influence in Muscogulge cul-
ture and biology. Wright docu-
ments many cases of early race re-
lations in the lower Southeast,
and carefully describes the com-
plex system of ownership and bond-
age that applied between Indian
and black.
Chapter Four is an examination
of the political relationships be-
tween the Muscogulges and the co-
lonial governments of Britain,
Spain, and France. Here Wright
develops his favorite theme that
the Creek and Seminole nations
were really created by the coloni-
al policies of "divide and rule,"
and like the term "Creek," were
products of European creation. The
next several chapters follow
events in the Southeast after the
American Revolution and culmina-
ting in the Creek War of 1813, the
first real test of American expan-
sionism among the powerful tribes
of the southern frontier. In the
face of American manifest destiny,
a mounting resistance developed
among the Muscogulges to this un-
welcome extension of American au-
thority where no such authority


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Dec., 1988


Vol. 41 No. 3






490
had existed before. The immediate
result of this antagonism was the
Second Seminole War (1835-1842),
fought largely in central and
south Florida and again pitting
non-Muskogee speakers (the resist-
ors) versus Muskogee speakers
(Creeks allied with the U.S.
forces). The ultimate consequence
of this war was the removal of all
Muscogulges (with the exception of
the ancestors of the present day
Florida Seminoles and Miccosukees)
from the Southeast, in what Wright
aptly calls the Indian diaspora.
The final pages of the book con-
tain the suggestion that while the
Americans had succeeded at one
level in dealing with the "Indian
problem" in the Southeast, their
broader goal to create, for their
own convenience, unified Indian
nations on the federal reserva-
tions was not achieved.
I do not agree with Wright on
all points, but it is a matter of
perspective, not scholarship, and,
I suspect, also a product of dif-
ferent academic upbringings. He
accounts for much of the political
intrigue in the colonial Southeast
by invoking the fundamental fric-
tions that existed between
Muskogee and non-Muskogee speaking
Indians. While this may have been
the case from time to time, it is
hard to see why language differen-
ces would apply to every situa-
tion, especially given the fact
that many Indians were multilin-
gual and developed trade jargons
to suit their purposes. South-
eastern Indians seem not to have
been adverse to marrying across
linguistic, ethnic, or cultural
lines, and may have found encour-
agement to do so. If the antagon-
isms date back into prehistory, as
Wright thinks, because the Musko-
gees migrated not altogether
peaceably into the region inhabit-
ed ny non-Muskogees, then the ar-
gument can more strongly be made.
However, our archaeological under-
standing of southeastern prehis-
tory is not yet sophisticated e-
nough to substantiate any correla-
tion between alleged migrations
and the distribution of aboriginal


languages in the early historic
period, as tantalizing as certain
correlations seem to be. It is
also doubtful if many archaeolo-
gists will adopt the term
Muscogulge, because many of us
still hope to determine if the
numerous tribes mentioned in the
written documents did leave any
unique archaeological signature,
rather than assuming that they did
not. Perhaps the broader inter-
ests of anthropology would be bet-
ter served if the issue of tribal-
ism was forgotten altogether by
southeastern archaeologists, but
then it would be extremely diffi-
cult to evaluate the effects of
migration, great leaders, and
other historical circumstances for
their influence on culture change.
Finally, I would argue two other
points made by Wright. First, his
contention that the southeastern
Indians were addicted (his word)
to European clothing, hardware and
ornaments, and were thus enslaved
to European demands, fails to con-
sider that the Indians were
active, not passive, players in
the southeastern drama from the
earliest historic times on.
Second, his view that no distinct
Seminole culture existed before
the end of the nineteenth century
seems to ignore the effects of
over two decades of war in the
early part of that century in
uniquely shaping the religion and
lifeways of the Seminole people.
This is a provocative book, and
should serve both as a resource
and source of inspiration. Read-
ers of The Florida Anthropologist
will probably at some point wish
Wright had made wider use of
archaeological literature in weav-
ing his otherwise excellent narra-
tive. Somehow in their training
historians learn how to tell a
good story. Anthropologists learn
how to get the story to make good
sense, but often have trouble in
the telling.
Reviewed by:
Brent R. Weisman
Department of Anthropology
Florida Museum of Natural History
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611











CROSSROADS OF CONTINUE'S: Cultures of
Siberia and Alaska (1988), William W.
Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, Editors.
Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C. 360 pages,
figures, maps, references cited.
9" x 11". ISBN 0-87474-442-3
(Cloth, alk. paper) $45.00; and,
ISBN 0-87474-435-0 (Paperback, alk.
paper) $24.95.


Crossroads of Continents is a
well-written, comprehensive publi-
cation. Its text is supplemented
with black-and-white and color
photographs, illustrations and
maps. Its Native subjects include
the Koryak, Chukchi, North Alaska
Eskimo, Pacific Eskimo, Northern
Athapaskans and others. The rich
culture of these peoples is traced
through archaeological and
historical records from pre-contact
to modern times.
The Table of Contents is
reproduced to show the wide range
of topics included in this publica-
tion:


Statement by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution
lobert McC Adaims
Statement by the Director of the Institute of Ethnography,
USSR Academy of Sciences
lu. V Bromlei
INTRODUCTION
Crossroads of Continents: Beringian Oecumene
William W Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell
Ethnic Connections Across Bering Strait
I S. Gurvich
PEOPLES OF SIBERIA AND ALASKA
Peoples of the Amur and Maritime Regions
Lydia T. Black
Koryak and Itelmen: Dwellers of the Smoking Coast
S. A. Arutiunov
Even Reindeer Herders of Eastern Siberia
S. A Arutiunov
Chukchi: Warriors and Traders of Chukotka
S A. Arutiunov
Eskimos: Hunters of the Frozen Coasts
William W. Fitzhugh
Aleut: Islanders of the North Pacific
Lydia T Black and R. G. Liapunova
Tlingit: People of the Wolf and Raven
Frederica de Laguna
Northern Athapaskans People of the Deer
James W VanStone
STRANGERS ARRIVE
The Story of Russian America
Lydia T Black


Treasures by the Neva The Russian Collections
G I. Dzeniskevich and L. P. Iavlnskata
lihrd's Naturalists Smithsonian Collectors in Alaska
William W. Fitzhugh
The American Museum's Jesup North Pacific Expedition
Stanley A Freed. Ruth S Freed, and Laila Willamson
Young Laufer on the Amur
Laurel Kendall
CROSSCURRENTS OF TIME
Heringia. An Ice Age View
Stleven U. Young
Ancient Peoples of the North Iacific iim
Christy G Turner II
I'rhistory of Siberia and the Hering Sea
S A Arutinnov and William W Fitzhugh
I'ol himory (of Alaska's Pacfic Coast
Ation Crawul!

THEMATIC VIEWS
Raven's Creatures
Milton M. R. Freeman
Many Tongues-Ancient Tales
Michael E. Krauss
Maritime Economies of the North Pacific Rim
Jean-Loup Rousselot. William W. Fitzhugh, and Aron
Crowell
Hunters. Herders. Trappers, and Fishermen
James W. VanStone
Economic Patterns in Northeastern Siberia
I. 1. Krupnik
Economic Patterns in Alaska
William W. Fitzhugh
Dwellings. Settlements, and Domestic Life
Aron Crowell
Needles and Animals: Women's Magic
Valdrie Chaussonnet
War and Trade
Ernest S. Burch. Jr
Guardians and Spirit-Masters of Siberia
S la. Serov
Eye of the Dance: Spiritual Life of the Bering Sea Eskimo
Ann Fienup-Riordan
Potlatch Ceremonialism on the Northwest Coast
Fredenca de Laguna
Art and Culture Change at the Tlingit-Eskimo Border
Bill Holm
Comparative Art of the North Pacific Rim
William W. Fitzhugh
NEW LIVES FOR ANCIENT PEOPLES
Siberian Peoples' A Soviet View
V V Lebedev
Alaska Natives Today
Rosita Worl
Alaska Native Arts in the Twentieth Century
Margaret B. Blackman and Edwin S Hall, Jr
Appendix I Beads and Bead Trade in the
North Pacific Region
Peter Francis. Jr.
Appendix II List of Illustrations
Appendix III Exhibition Checklist
Notes
References
Credits
Acknowledgments


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


491


Vol. 41 No. 3


Dec., 1988






492


The reader of these articles cannot
help but gain an appreciation and
better understanding of the
cultures of Siberia and Alaksa
located at and reflecting the
Crossroads of Continents.
I highly recommend acquisition
of this publication by libraries,
anthropologists and our readers in
general. Its text is informative
and its illustrations rank it with
more expensive coffee table
publications.
This publication may be
ordered from Smithsonian
Institution Press, Department 900,
Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214 (717)
794-2148.
Cloth ISBN 0-87474-442-3 $45.00ea
Paper ISBN 0-87474-435-0 $24.95ea
Please include $1.75 postage and
handling for the first book and
$0.50 for each additional book.

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


Geological Society of America
symposia. Archaeological Geology:
Geophysical, Geochemical, and
Geological Studies, Geological
Society of America Abstracts with
programs, v. 20, p. A34-A37; New
World Archaeology, ibid, p. A135-
A136. Reviewed by Kevin McCartney.

The geologic investigation of
strata of archaeological importance
has grown considerably in recent
years (see The Florida
Anthropologist 40:94). A measure
of the growing interest in this
young, interdisciplinary science is
that at the centennial meeting of
the Geological Society of America
(GSA), there were two sessions
devoted to this topic. The presen-
tations at these symposia illustra-
ted both the potential and growing
interest in the field of archaeolo-
gical geology.
The various archaeology-
related presentations at the GSA
meeting can be divided into two
general groups. The first of these
deals with the investigation of
archaeological sites using equip-
ment or methodologies familiar to
geology. The second concerns the
geological investigation of geo-
graphic areas for archaeological
interpretation; these include
studies of terrain, environment,
soil distribution or changing
climate and its influence on human
inhabitants.
Presentations at the GSA
meeting belonging to the first
group included studies on the
usefulness of resistivity, magneto-
meter and seismology surveys in
locating or delineating archaeolo-
gical sites. Such surveys, of
course, are not new to archaeology.
The presentations, however, often
placed emphasis on discriminating
between archaeological sites and


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 41 No. 3


Dec., 1988






493


features of more geological
interest, such as rock formations,
soil changes or animal burrows.
Of particular interest were
experimental studies something
not normally found in archaeologi-
cal work on the usefulness of
specific methodologies in locating
buried features. One study inves-
tigated high resolution seismology
techniques, currently used in
groundwater research, on concrete
blocks buried in carefully measured
situations. Another study examined
the magnetic susceptibility of
modern campfires to test the appli-
cability of finding ancient
hearths; a similar study showed
that such techniques could locate
areas of animal occupation and
defecation, such as corrals.
Some presentations showed how
specific geologic disciplines might
answer archaeological questions.
An example was a petrologic and
geochemical study of fluted pro-
jectile points made of quartzite
and found in Ohio, Indiana and
Kentucky. This study showed that
the source of this material was the
Hixton Quartzite of Wisconsin, over
1000 km away. Oxygen isotope
analysis indicated that these
projectiles had been heat-treated
by the Indians. Another study
showed how pollen analysis and soil
chemistry indicate modification of
ash-fall deposits for dry farming.
The second category mentioned
earlier dealt with how geologic
phenomena influenced prehistoric
human inhabitants. Several studies
consider the interpretation of cli-
matic change and its influence on
Paleoindians. Similarly, changes
in landscape can also trigger human
responses. For example, one study
indicate that Anasazi abandonment
of pueblos in the San Juan Basin of
New Mexico might have been caused
by increased channel trenching with
subsequent lowering of the summer
rainfall. Another study indicates
that Hohokam agricultural practices


may also have caused increased
channel entrenchment, which eventu-
ally led to the abandonment of the
region.
Finally, there were studies
showing how a variety of geologic
processes, such as erosion, frost
wedging and solifluction, can
disturb or destroy archaeological
sites or cause unusual age rela-
tionships. These studies suggest
that the absence of cultural
remains, especially in an environ-
ment such as a flood plain, does
not indicate the absence of human
population. Thus, a geological
explanation for the absence of
artifacts can significantly influ-
ence the archaeological interpreta-
tion of a region or culture.
The overall impression left by
this meeting is of the importance
of geology in archaeologic re-
search. The ancient inhabitants
were affected to a great extent by
the geology of their surroundings,
the nature their preservation has
been the result of geological pro-
cesses, and geological methodolo-
gies can be used in interpreting
these remains. There is, certain-
ly, much that archeologists can
learn from this geologic research.


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






494


HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1989 SPECIAL CATEGORY
GRANTS (NOVEMBER 1988 MEETING)

On November 8, 9, and 10, 1988, the
Historic Preservation Advisory Council met
in Tallahassee, Florida to consider
ranking and funding amounts for Special
Category Grant projects. A total of 95
grant applications were reviewed, and 30
were selected for recommendation to the
Florida Legislature for funding. The
Historic Preservation Advisory Council is
authorized by s. 267.0612, Florida
Statutes, as an advisory council to the
Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources. Among its duties,
is the review of historic preservation
grant applications.
Acquisition and development projects
requiring more than $50,000 are eligible
for Special Category grants. Acquisition
and development projects include
acquisition, preservation, protection,
restoration, rehabilitation, and
stabilization of historical and
archaeological sites. Other eligible
activities include the investigation of
archaeological sites, and the preparation
of photographic documentation, measured
drawings and such other records as are
necessary to record historical and
archaeological sites and properties
threatened with damage or destruction.
The Special Category grant process
is different from the regular federal and
state grant-in-aid process in that there
is no funding available at the time grant
applications are submitted. Rather, grant
applications are reviewed and ranked on
the basis of a number of criteria in the
same manner as the regular grant cycles.
The difference is that the highest ranked
Special Category grant projects are
formally submitted to the Florida
Legislature with the recommendation that
they consider allocating funding for the
selected projects, while funding is
already authorized for the other grant
cycles. A further difference, is that
Special Category grants generally need
evidence of public support to assure
favorable consideration by the Florida
Legislature. Thus, you are an essential


part of this process. Your cards and
letters to your senator and
representatives in the Florida Legislature
(and the Governor) in support of a project
are important.
Listed below are the archaeological
projects that will be recommended to the
Florida Legislature, by the Advisory
Council through the Department of State,
Division of Historical Resources, for
funding. These six archaeological project
funding requests are among the 30
applications to be submitted to the
Florida Legislature for consideration.

Project: Windover
Applicant: Florida State University
Department of Anthropology
Project Scope: Complete preliminary
laboratory analysis of already excavated
materials; develop education program for
developers and builders.
Recommended Amount: $129,000.

Project: Santa Catalina Mission
Applicant: Florida Museum of Natural
History
Project Scope: Complete excavation of
structure at Spanish mission on Amelia
Island. Analysis: Two Ph.D.
dissertations.
Recommended Amount: $86,000.

Project: St. Michael Cemetery Restoration
Applicant: St. Michael Cemetery
Foundation, Inc.
Project Scope: Archaeological
investigation of cemetery for unmarked
grave sites, restoration of monuments,
faces and walkways, and employment of
sexton to oversee cemetery.
Recommended Amount: $200,000.

Project: Year of the Indian
Applicant: Nature Center of Lee County.
Project Scope: Excavate portions of
Pineland and Useppa Island Calusa Indian
sites. Analysis -- development of
instructive units in primary and secondary
schools; summer program at Nature Center;
multi-media show at planetarium; permanent
exhibits at Nature Center and Ft. Myers
History Museum.
Recommended Amount: $245,532.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 41 No. 3


Dec., 1988







495


Project: Pensacola Colonial Archaeological
Trail
Applicant: University of West Florida.
Project Scope: Continue on-going project;
perform excavations, analysis, and
interpretation of colonial sites in
Pensacola. Build exhibits, develop
brochures.
Recommended Amount: $171,677.

Project: Arcadia Mill Site Extension and
Development
Applicant: Santa Rosa Historical Society
Project Scope: Acquire an additional 20+
acres adjacent to mill site (includes
access to mill pond), development of site
for public appreciation.
Recommended Amount: $165,000.

For further information on projects in
your area, please contact the project
applicants. For further information on
the Special Category Grant Program, please
write to the Grants and Education Section,
Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division
of Historical Resources, 500 South
Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida
32399-0250.






496


NOTICE OF STATE GRANTS-IN-AID CYCLE


The Bureau of Historic Preservation
in the Florida Department of State,
Division of Historical Resources is
soliciting applications for state funded
grant assistance for historic preservation
projects and activities in Florida. To be
considered for funding, grant applications
must be delivered to the Bureau on or
before April 17, 1989 or be clearly
postmarked on or before April 17, 1989.
These grant funds will be
administered through the Historic
Preservation Trust Fund and will consist
partly of state general revenue monies and
partly of funds contributed from charity
day receipts by participating race tracks
and jai alai frontons, 80% of which must
be utilized for projects within a 50 mile
radius of the contributing facility.
Departments or agencies of the
state; units of county, municipal or other
local government; and non-profit
organizations are eligible to apply for
all funds. In addition, private
individuals and for-profit corporations,
partnerships, or other organizations may
apply for the funds contributed from
charity day receipts.
The Bureau is particularly
interested in projects that will result in
the location and documentation of historic
and archaeological sites in previously
unsurveyed areas; the substantial
restoration or appropriate rehabilitation
of threatened historic properties;
community education activities; and the
development of historic preservation
elements (or historic preservation
components of coastal management, land
use, and/or housing elements) in local
government comprehensive plans.
Detailed information and application
forms and instructions may be obtained by
writing to: Bureau of Historic
Preservation, Division of Historical
Resources, Grants and Education Section
500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-0250, or by telephone at
(904) 487-2333.


This is a competitive, matching
grant program. Survey, planning and
educational projects are the categories
most likely to be of interest to our
readers. This program should be brought
to the attention of Florida's local
government planners, as well as others.
It is important not to wait until
too close to the grant submission
deadline, as advance planning and
coordination will permit a more reasoned,
better supported application to be
prepared for submission. There are a lot
of questions to answer on the application.
To assist in this process, a photo-
reduced copy of the current grant
application and instructions is included
in this issue. However, you should note
that the rules, Chapter 1A-35, Florida
Administrative Code, for this grant
program are being revised. This will
result in a (slightly) revised grant
application and evaluation process.
Nevertheless, you may use the
attached application for practice to
determine where you may have questions or
concerns. PLEASE CONTACT THE BUREAU FOR
ASSISTANCE AND TO OBTAIN AN OFFICIAL GRANT
APPLICATION PACKAGE. Remember the state
cannot assist you in your historic
preservation projects if you do not apply.

The Division of Historical Resources
of the Department of State is Florida's
lead historic preservation agency. To
find out about the the various historic
preservation programs administered by or
through the Division please write the
Bureau of Historic Preservation at the
address noted above. Please note that the
Division solicits your comments on how
well you think it is doing its job and
what changes, if any, you think may be
needed. Your participation in and support
of historic preservation projects, goals,
and issues is encouraged.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Dec., 1988


Vol. 41 No. 3










State of Florida
Department of State
Division of Historical
Resources
Form AH5E002 5-87

Application for
Historic Preservation Grant-in-Aid


Submit to:
Bureau of Historic Preservation
Division of Historical Resources
R.A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street, Room 408
Department of State
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

PART I: APPLICATION SUMMARY ALL PROJE

1. Project Title:

2. Location or address of
project area:









County:

Attach Map


Page 2
(All Projects)


PART I (continued)


8. In the space below, provide a brief synopsis of the project, describing
specifically the work to be accomplished with the funds requested.


3. Type of project:


Survey and Registration

Acquisition and Development

Preservation Planning

Preservation Education

Certified Local Government


4. Applicant name & address: 5. Type of applicant:

Governmental unit or agency

Non-profit organization

For-profit organization

Private individual

6. Application is for State grant or. Federal grant
Note: For-profit organizations and private individuals are
not eligible for State general revenue grant funds.

7. Has applicant received previous grant assistance?
Yes No If yes, please specify year, amount and nature of
project.


9. Grant funds Confirmed matching
requested: funds:


10. Designated Project Contact:


Name:
Title:
Daytime telephone no.:
Business address:



Attach Copy of Letter of Designatiot


Total project
cost:










PART II-A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION SURVEY PROJECTS ONLY

1. Indicate type of survey planned

2. Describe proposed project activities by listing all major work
items and indicating who will perform each of these items:


PART II-B: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ONLY

1. Original use of structure and date of
construction:

2. Present use:

3. Proposed use:

4. Statement of significance (see instructions).


5. Is the property on the National Register?
in a National Register District?__
in a Local District?

6. Is the property threatened? If so, how?


3. Define survey area:


4. Is the area threatened? If so, how?


Is the threat


imminent or potential?


5. Estimate the size (in acres) of the area to be
surveyed_

6. Estimate the number of sites anticipated__

7. Estimate the number of National Register nominations anticipated:
Individual
District Tcontributing properties )
Other individual properties )


7. Description and Present physical condition (see instructions).



8. List and describe all major work items included in the proposed
project (see instructions).










9. Status of Project Planning:

not yet initiated

initiated

schematics complete

design development
documents complete

construction documents
complete


10. Name and address of project
consultant (architect, engineer,
contractor, etc.):


PART II-C: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLANNING AND EDUCATION PROJECTS ONLY
1. Describe proposed project activities by listing all major work items
and indicating who will perform each of these items:


Enclose planning or architectural documents completed to date (1 set).

11. Has a contract for architectural services been executed? If so,
indicate the scope of services to be provided under this contract?


12. Describe the means by which the historic structures) affected by
this project will be maintained subsequent to restoration/rehabili-
tation (see instructions).


2. Local Government Comprehensive Planning Only


a. Is there presently a historic preservation element in the local
government comprehensive plan?

b. Is historic preservation presently addressed in other elements of
the comprehensive plan? If so, which ones?


c. How will the proposed planning effort be integrated into the
existing comprehensive plan?


d. Is there a local historic preservation ordinance? What is its
scope?




e. What types of historical resources will be addressed in the
comprehensive plan elements?

Buildings
Archaeological sites
Other
Commercial
Industrial
Residential











f. When is it anticipated that the local government will adopt:

Historic preservation ordinance

Comprehensive plan elements or amendments

g. What agency or agencies will enforce the historic preservation
aspects of the comprehensive plan elements?


b. When will this plan be implemented and by whom?


c. Will this plan be coordinated with any other existing or proposed
private or public plans?




4. Education Projects Only

a. Who is the intended audience and approximately how many people
will be directly affected by this project?


h. What agency or agencies will enforce a historic preservation
ordinance?


b. How will educational materials be distributed or how will the
audience be reached?


i. Will the historic preservation element or historic preservation
aspects of other elements provide goals, objectives, and policies
for the following issues?

Identification of historic resources
Evaluation of historic resources
Legal incentives (for example, zoning) for protection
of historic resources
Economic incentives for protection of historic
resources
Public participation
Public education


3. Other Preservation Planning Only

a. What historic resources will this project help to preserve?


c. If printed materials are proposed, what plans are there for
reprinting and continued availability?










PART III: PROJECT BUDGET ARD TIMETABLE ALL PROJECTS

1. Cost Estimates. List all major work items and the estimated
cost of each. If the project is phased, only include costs for the
phase to be assisted by the funds requested.


Total cost of project for which funds are requested:

2. Matching Funds. List the sources and amounts of confirmed matching
funds. (For items involving personnel, indicate the number of hours
to be spent on project activities and their per-hour value). These
funds must not be expended before execution of a Grant Award
Agreement. Prior donated services or expenditures are not
acceptable as match for grant funds.


Total confirmed match:_
This amount should equal or exceed
grant amount requested.


PART III (continued)


3. Tentative timetable. Indicate all major project activities and the
anticipated time required to complete each stage of the project on the
graph below (see instructions).

Project Timetable (in months)

Project Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

Please indicate any critical dates and explain why they are critical.




PART IV: PROJECT BENEFITS ALL PROJECTS

1. How will the project meet specific historic preservation needs or
purposes? What specific benefit justifies the expenditure of public
grant assistance funds for this project? Insure that the description
of project benefits addresses the "criteria Related to Public Benefit"
listed in Chapter 1A-35.08(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code
("Historic Preservation Grants-In-Aid"). These rules are included
herein as Appendix A.


2. If the project involves the collection of historical, archaeological,
architectural artifacts or the preparing of notes, drawings, plans,
photographs, or other materials, please describe how and where such
specimens and materials will be stored and curated.


(All Projects)




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