• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Renew now!
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page
 Important back issues sales...
 Louisiana is looking forward to...
 Urban archaeology in Florida :...
 Conserving a city's prehistory...
 Toward a better understanding of...
 Prehistoric and early historic...
 The Laurell Mound (8So98) and radial...
 The case of the face down burial...
 Chapter 872, Florida statutes 1987...
 Uncovering our prehistoric Pinellans...
 Coontie root : The dangerous blessing...
 Survey of ship's wreckage (8Du3157)...
 Book reviews
 Index of the Florida anthropologist,...
 An invitation to join the Florida...
 Tennessee anthropological association...
 Arkansas archaeological society...
 Back issues order form
 Join/rejoin the Florida anthropological...
 Information for authors
 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/UF00027829/00039
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Anthropological Society
Conference: 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: VID00039
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
    Renew now!
        Unnumbered ( 4 )
        Unnumbered ( 5 )
    Table of Contents
        Page 249
    Editor's page
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
    Important back issues sales notice
        Page 253
    Louisiana is looking forward to its past - R. Christopher Goodwin
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
    Urban archaeology in Florida : The search for pattern in Tampa's historic core - Harry M. Piper and Jacquelyn G. Piper
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
    Conserving a city's prehistory : St. Petersburg's archaeological survey and planning project - Robert J. Austin and Kenneth W. Hardin
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
    Toward a better understanding of north peninsular Gulf coast Florida perhistory : Archaeological reconnaissance in Dixie County - G. Michael Johnson and Timothy A. Kohler
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
    Prehistoric and early historic settlement in the Kissimmee river valley : An archaeoloical survey of the Avon park air force range - Robert J. Austin
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
    The Laurell Mound (8So98) and radial burials with comments on the safety of Harbor Period - George M. Luer and Marion Almy
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
    The case of the face down burial : A possible explanation for a unique burial from site 8By39, Bay County, Florida - Yulee W. Lazarus
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
    Chapter 872, Florida statutes 1987 ("Offenses concerning dead bodies and graves") : A native American's perspective - Joe A. Quetone
        Page 328
        Page 329
    Uncovering our prehistoric Pinellans - Walter H. Askew
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
    Coontie root : The dangerous blessing - Harold A. Cardwell, Sr.
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
    Survey of ship's wreckage (8Du3157) at Little Talbot Island Park, Duval County, Florida - Richard Haiduven and Roger C. Smith
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
    Book reviews
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
    Index of the Florida anthropologist, volumes 37-40 (1984-87) with brief comments - Louis D. Tesar
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
        Page 355
    An invitation to join the Florida anthropological society
        Page 356
        Page 357
    Tennessee anthropological association membership information announcement
        Page 358
    Arkansas archaeological society membership information announcement
        Page 359
    Back issues order form
        Page 360
        Page 361
    Join/rejoin the Florida anthropological society
        Page 362
    Information for authors
        Page 363
    Back Cover
        Page 364
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.










TEAR ALONG MARGIN


RENEW


NOW!


1988 FLORIDA ANTHROLOGICAL SOCIETY

MEMBERSHIP DUES/SUBSCRIPTION NOTICE



Membership in the Florida Anthropological Society and
subscription to its journal, The Florida Anthropologist,
is from January-December of each year. DO NOT MISS AN
ISSUE. Complete this tearout membership renewal form;
fold as indicated to form a self-addressed FAS envelope;
insert your check or money order made payable to the
Florida Anthropological Society; seal and affix stamp;
and place in the nearest outgoing mail box. What could
be simpler.


Name


Address

City

State/Country

ZIP CODE


TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP

Regular ($12)*
Family ($15)*
Institution($18)*
Sustaining($25)
Patron ($100)
Life ($200)
*Foreign subscribers
add $5 US for postage
and handling.




STAPLE OR TAPE HERE


4th Fold

Please Place
Proper Postage
Here






Joan Doming, Membership Secretary
Florida Anthropological Society
308 6th Street NE
Largo, Florida 34640










o
0 0
04 rQ


3rd Fold








THE FLORIDA



ANTHROPOLOGIST



Volume 40 Number 4

December 1987

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE NO.
Editor's Page ....... . . .. ... 250
Important Back Issues Sales Notice . . .... 253
Louisiana Is Looking Forward To Its Past
R. Christopher Goodwin . . . . 254
Urban Archaeology In Florida: The Search For Pattern In
Tampa's Historic Core Harry M. Piper and Jacquelyn G. Piper 260
Conserving A City's Prehistory: St. Petersburg's Archaeologi-
cal Survey And Planning Project
Robert J. Austin and Kenneth W. Hardin . ... 266
Toward A Better Onderstanding Of North Peninsular Gulf Coast
Florida Prehistory: Archaeological Reconnaissance In Dixie
County G. Michael Johnson and Timothy A. Kohler . 275
Prehistoric And Early Historic Settlement In The Kissimmee
River Valley: An Archaeological Survey Of The Avon Park Air
Force Range Robert J. Austin . . .... 287
The Laurell Mound (8S098) And Radial Burials With Comments
On The Safety Harbor Period George M. Luer and Marion Almy 301
The Case Of The Face Down Burial: A Possible Explanation For
A Unique Burial From Site 8By39, Bay County, Florida
Yulee W. Lazarus .. . . . . 321
Chapter 872, Florida Statutes 1987 ("Offenses Concerning
Dead Bodies And Graves"): A Native American's Perspective
Joe A. Quetone . . . . . 328
Uncovering Our Prehistoric Pinellans Walter H. Askew 330
Coontie Root: The Dangerous Blessing Harold A. Cardwell, Sr 333
Survey Of Ship's Wreckage (8Du3157) At Little Talbot Island
Park, Duval County, Florida
Richard Haiduven and Roger C. Smith . ... 336
BOOK REVIEWS . . ... . . 348
Story In Stone: Flint Types Of The Central And Southern U.S.
(1987) Illustrated by Val Waldorf with text by D.C. Waldorf
Reviewed by Louis D. Tesar . . . 348
Environments And Extinctions: Man In Late Glacial North
America (1985), Edited by Jim I. Mead and David J. Meltzer
Reviewed by Michael Wisenbaker . . .... 349
Index Of The Florida Anthropologist, Volumes 37-40 (1984-87)
With Brief Comments Louis D. Tesar . . .. 352
An Invitation To Join The Florida Anthropological Society 356
Tennessee Anthropological Association Membership Information
Announcement . . .. .. . . .358
Arkansas Archaeological Society Membership Information
Announcement . . . . ... . 359
FAS Back Issues Order Form . . . 360


PUBLISHED BY THE


FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.






EDITOR'S PAGE


With this issue I have completed
four volumes as the Editor of The
Florida Anthropologist, and have be-
gun work on the fifth volume. Dur-
ing this period I have had four
goals, with the last dependent on
the former. First, to publish the
journal on time. Second, to shift
to a smaller type style, magazine
column format, and photo reduced ta-
bles, references cited, etc. to pro-
duce a tighter layout, thus permit-
ting more to be published at the
same cost. (Likewise, all of the
galley preparation is a volunteer
effort, which includes the efforts
of my Editorial Assistants, George
Luer and Joan Deming, and the word-
processing capability of those au-
thors with compatible equipment,
thus saving typing costs which are
in turn used to publish more within
my budget.) Third, to broaden the
scope of the journal topically and
geographically to appeal to a
broader audience. And fourth, to
increase membership/subscription in
the Florida Anthropological Society
so that additional funding will be
available to further improve and en-
large our journal while maintaining
low dues and meeting the needs of
the enlarged audience.

The first goal has been accom-
plished. The second goal is reach-
ing its final stages of accomplish-
ment with the standardization of
type style and formatting: courier
and/or prestige elite 12 pitch, with
right margin justified/hyphenated 3
1/2" columns, etc (see text this is-
sue). Our style guide will be up-
dated to address changes in
manuscript submissions and author
preparation of final galleys for
their wordprocessed text or submis-
sion of floppy disks compatible with
available wordprocessors and pro-
grams. The third goal has been vig-
orously pursued, but has been lim-


ited by a lack of manuscript submis-
sions, which I attribute to a gen-
eral lack of awareness by authors of
the scope of our journal's subject
matter. Our turn-around time from
receipt and review of manuscripts,
and their publication following ac-
ceptance, has been reduced from over
a year in some instances (prior to
my becoming Editor) to three to six
months at the present time. We pub-
lish articles on anthropological,
historic preservation, and related
topics throughout the Southeastern
United States and Caribbean area,
and will consider articles on other
topics and areas.

I have thus far been disappointed in
the fourth goal, as our member-
ship/subscription rate has held
steady, but has not seen the in-
crease which I had expected. I at-
tribute this in part to former mem-
bers, who had been upset by the pre-
vious irregularity in the journal's
publication by stated publication
dates, not realizing that this mat-
ter had been corrected. I hope that
they will reconsider and that others
will find the expanded breadth of
our journal's published material to
be reason enough to subscribe to our
Society. To this end, we are offer-
ing various incentives for new mem-
bers to join and former members to
renew (see last page tearout). We
are also publishing information on
organizations similar to ours in ex-
change for their publishing informa-
tion on our Society (see information
on Arkansas and Tennessee, this is-
sue). We believe that we all com-
pliment each other and encourage our
membership to join such organiza-
tions and visa versa. Similarly,
anyone who belongs to the Southeast-
ern Archaeological Conference should
also subscribe to our journal. We
offer an added opportunity for their
members to publish articles. And by


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 40 No. 4


Dec., 1987







networking our memberships we help
provide a broader perspective on
topics of mutual interest.

Historic Preservation Planning is a
term which will be heard and experi-
enced increasingly over the next
several years. It is a logical out-
growth of a century of avocational
and academic study of prehistoric
and historic archaeological sites,
structures and associated features;
and, of an increasing concern for
the fate of these non-renewable re-
sources, the tangible remains of our
prehistoric and historic heritage.
Over the years this concern has re-
sulted in the formation of anthropo-
logical and historical societies in
every state, the formation of re-
gional and national organizations,
and the passage of numerous federal
and state laws and local ordinances.

Of particular importance is the
National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended. This Act gives
direction to Federal agencies with
respect to their historic preserva-
tion responsibilities and links them
to state historic preservation pro-
grams with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation in Washington,
D.C. serving as a coordinating and
arbitrating agency on compliance is-
sues, while the National Park Ser-
vice facilitates this Federal-State
partnership.

On the state level, the program is
administered through the office of
the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO). It involves four
aspects of resource management: in-
ventory, evaluation, registration
and protection. Inventory and eval-
uation involve both informal and
formal archaeological and historical
site survey for avocational, insti-
tutional research, and environmental
law compliance reasons, and results
in information on located sites be-
ing recorded in the state's files.
Evaluation uses nationally accepted
standards, the criteria of eligibil-
ity for listing in the National Reg-
ister of Historic Places, and leads


to registration. It is encouraged
that eligible sites and properties
be listed in the National Register.
The act and importance of registra-
tion is often misunderstood. Regis-
tration is necessary to qualify for
benefits associated with National
Register eligible properties; it is
NOT necessary for compliance with
federal, state and local environmen-
tal review laws where an evaluation
of National Register eligibility is
all that is required. Registration
requires owner consent for individ-
ual properties and majority consent
for historic districts, while evalu-
ation requires no consent. Regis-
tration of a property requires noth-
ing of the owner that would not oth-
erwise occur for non-registered Na-
tional Register eligible properties.
Indeed, whether or not the property
is registered, the owner of such
properties may alter or destroy
them, unless otherwise constrained
by law, which brings us to protec-
tion. Protection has traditionally
(if anything whose impetus has grown
primarily over the past 20 years can
be called a tradition) focused on
compliance with federal and state
laws and local ordinances, and their
implementing rules and regulations.
While it has and continues to serve
its purpose, it has increasingly
been recognized that there is a need
to shift from a primarily reactive
approach to a proactive approach.
This recognition has resulted in a
nationwide, concerted effort of his-
toric preservation planning.

The focus of historic preservation
planning is to structure program ef-
forts to evaluate what is known and
not known of a state' s historic re-
sources (which term includes prehis-
toric and historic archaeological
sites, structures and associated
features) into manageable units
called "historic contexts," which
have cultural, geographical and tem-
poral boundaries. Future decisions
on inventory, evaluation, registra-
tion and protection needs are to be
based on such plans, which are to be
continually updated as new informa-









tion becomes available. Every state
is now in the process of updating or
preparing such plans, and public
participation is essential, so write
to the office of your state's SHPO
to find out more about their plan-
ning efforts. Some states, such as
Florida, are going one step further
and preparing local government com-
prehensive plans which will be
linked to the statewide comprehen-
sive historic preservation plan.

A useful and important aspect of
historic preservation planning ef-
forts is the preparation of sum-
maries of the prehistoric and his-
toric resources within the areas
evaluated. In this issue, most of
the articles deal with such synthe-
ses. These syntheses are the result
of academic research (Kohler and
Johnson; Luer and Almy), compliance
review efforts (Austin), a combina-
tion of compliance and planning ef-
forts (Piper and Piper), and plan-
ning efforts (Austin and Hardin).
Chris Goodwin's article on
"Louisiana is Looking Forward to Its
Past" sets the theme for the issue,
and presents the argument for his-
toric preservation for every state.
It certainly deserves to be widely
circulated.

The article by Lazarus, bringing to
print the results of work conducted
in 1961 at a Weeden Island burial
mound, and that of Luer and Almy
serve to illustrate why provisions,
such as those contained in Florida's
burial law (Chapter 872, Florida
Statutes 1987, see last issue for
text of law) are needed. This is
further reinforced by Joe Quetone's
presentation of "A Native American's
Perspective" of this law.

Remember, in Florida, effective
October 1, 1987, it is a felony to
"willfully and knowingly" excavate
human remains and associated arti-
facts, both marked and unmarked
burials, except as provided under
the provisions of Chapter 872, F.S.


1987 and other State law. If you
know of anyone "pot-hunting" Indian
or other burial sites, please alert
your local law enforcement officer
and the State Archaeologist. If you
know of a burial site threatened by
development please alert the office
of the Florida SHPO Compliance
Review Section at (904) 487-2333.
If you encounter unexpected human
remains during construction and site
preparation activities, please imme-
diately stop such activities within
a 10-20 radius of such remains
(work may continue elsewhere on the
project site) and contact the local
registrar and law enforcement agency
so that they may determine whether
or not to initiate a crime scene in-
vestigation, and if the remains are
obviously those of prehistoric
Florida Indians please also notify
the State Archaeologist (and the
SHPO Compliance Review Section if
the project was reviewed by them).
In Florida, the telephone operator
can help connect you with the local
law enforcement agency. (If you
have evidence that the local law en-
forcement agency is not enforcing
this law, please notify the office
of the State Attorney General and
the State Archaeologist. The State
Archaeologist may be reached at
(904) 487-2299. Human burial sites
are NOT artifact mines! It is dehu-
manizing and ghoulish to treat them
as such.

The short article prepared by Walter
Askew, one of our avocational mem-
bers, like Goodwin's article, serves
as an example of the need and means
of bringing historic preservation
and the study of a community's pre-
historic and historic heritage into
our school system. This is a very
important issue and one which our
Society will be giving increasing
emphasis. We encourage all of you
to do what you can to have this sub-
ject made a part of your local
schools' curriculum.

Haiduven and Smith present their


252







findings on a ship's wreckage found
at Little Talbot Island Park, Duval
County, Florida, while our Presi-
dent, Harold Cardwell, presents a
historical comment on the Coontie
Root, the harvest of which became an
important cottage industry and
gained a short-lived economic impor-
tance on the Florida East Coast.

Finally, this issue contains two
book reviews, an invitation to join
the Florida Anthropological Society,
and as part of our membership out-
reach information exchange, notices
on the Tennessee Anthropological As-
sociation and the Arkansas Archaeo-
logical Society, and the content in-
dex of Volumes 37-40 of our journal.

I wish to thank George Luer and
Marion Almy, Robert Austin and
Kenneth Hardin, and Harry and
Jacquelyn Piper for preparing the
final galleys for their articles. I
also wish to thank Joan Deming for
her continued wordprocessing assis-
tance, and John Scarry for his as-
sistance in setting up the FAS Style
Sheet for use in formatting arti-
cles.

Good reading and I hope that you en-
joy this issue.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO COMPLETE AND RE-
TURN YOUR 1988 MEMBERSHIP
DUES/SUBSCRIPTION NOTICE INCLUDED IN
THE FRONT OF THIS ISSUE FOR YOUR
CONVENIENCE. RETURN IT NOW BEFORE
YOU FORGET AND DON 'T MISS A SINGLE
ISSUE!

IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO MAY BE IN-
TERESTED IN JOINING OUR SOCIETY AND
RECEIVING THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLO-
GIST, PLEASE GIVE THEM THE NEW MEM-
BERS APPLICATION FORM FROM THE BACK
OF THIS ISSUE. ALSO, CONSIDER GIV-
ING A GIFT SUBSCRIPTION TO OUR SOCI-
ETY AND ITS JOURNAL TO SOMEONE DUR-
ING THIS HOLIDAY SEASON.

Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist
October 31, 1987


IMPORTANT BACK ISSUES SALES NOTICE


Over the years, back issues sales of
The Florida Anthropologist have been
a secondary task of the Journal's
Editor. However, as a consequence
of efforts to double the journal's
size and as a result of increasing
demand for the purchase of available
back issues, the need for assistance
in this task was recognized.It is
with pleasure that I announce that
our Society's Secretary, Chris
Newman, has volunteered to take over
back issues sales activities, and
our supply will soon be conveyed
into her keeping.

The proceeds from back issues sales
go into our Monograph Account and
assist in extraordinary publishing
costs for our journal, such as the
production of special issues. A 10%
discount off the resale price is
given to active Florida Anthropolog-
ical Society members. A 10% dis-
count off the resale price is given
to authors for the purchase of back
issues in which their articles were
published. These discounts may be
combined into a 20% discount for the
purchase of such issues. A 30% dis-
count is given for bulk purchases
(10 or more copies) of individual
issues, EXCEPT when our supply con-
sists of 20 copies or less in which
case only individual issues are sold
to purchasers. We also from time to
time give conference discounts, such
as at our annual meetings. Please
allow 3-4 weeks for delivery.






LOUISIANA IS LOOKING FORWARD TO ITS PAST


R. Christopher Goodwin, Ph.D.


The Vision of Preservation

Many of you already have noticed that the
title of this paper gives both a twist and
active voice to Shakespeare's old phrase:
"what's past is prologue." An outside ob-
server might dismiss the notion that
Louisiana in fact can look forward to its
past by noting that I am both an archaeolo-
gist and a Southerner: archaeologists look
backwards for a living, and Southerners by
nature just cannot help looking back. To
such people, the loss of an historic struc-
ture is "just another of those old build-
ings." The more radical among them think
that nothing is safe from preservation.

But I contend that the preservation move-
ment has gotten a bum rap, because I be-
lieve that we can show that preservation is
progress. The archaeological and historic
sites of Louisiana, the panorama of our
historic architecture, are both our her-
itage and our legacy. They provide our
only visible, tangible link with our past.
Their preservation enriches us and those
who follow us; it enriches our living and
working environments. Preservation reaf-
firms our best values. It helps us to pass
those values on to our children. It ties
us to our neighbors, to our communities, to
our fellow Louisianans, and to our country.
Preservation provides a sense of identity
and pride to us all; it is a source of
wonder to our visitors.

Preservation can enliven us, and help us to
make our society healthy and vital. Fur-
thermore, intelligent planning for our ar-
chaeological, architectural, and historic
sites and properties will promote the eco-
nomic growth of our state and the revital-
ization of our neighborhoods. Preservation
can provide meaningful jobs for our people.
Preservation can help us look forward
through our past.

Preservation Means Progress!

In this paper, I want to share some ideas


about how the preservation movement, in
both its government and private sector as-
pects, can help Louisiana move forward and
grow. I also want to try to set some pri-
orities for our programs, and suggest some
changes in our perspective on preservation.
If we think about the needs and the future
of Louisiana, we can show how preservation
can help solve our most pressing problems.
Because Louisiana must retain its good
qualities from the past in order to succeed
in the future.


Preservation and People

Perhaps the first thing that we need to un-
derstand and communicate to our electorate
and our elected officials is that preserva-
tion is about people, not merely about
things. The benefits of a strong preserva-
tion program in Louisiana are for all of
us.


Preservation and Education

There seems to be a consensus in Louisiana
that our most pressing long term problem is
education. We need better schools, better
teachers, better education for our young
people. Although we are making progress in
this area, we still have a long way to go.
But pumping more money into education alone
cannot make the critical difference. What
we really need is a better climate for
learning. We need to help our children to
want to learn, to grow, to be a part of our
state and our democratic system.

The historic districts of our towns and
cities, and their old buildings; our his-
toric state parks, like the Port Hudson
battlefields; our state archaeological com-
memorative areas, like Poverty Point and
Marksville, together comprise our most
available classroom. They are, perhaps,
Louisiana's premier educational resource.
That is so because they are not sterile
laboratories or boring textbooks. The mem-


Dec., 1987


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


254


Vol. 40 No. 4








ories of our forbearers, their victories,
their spirit and dedication, live on at
these sites. Finally, historical resources
make young people want to learn. Kids
think they're "neat," or "cool," or "bad."
They make them care about Louisiana and our
Nation.

Historical resources have that effect be-
cause they make children feel a part of
something larger then themselves; they be-
come a part of their history. Preserva-
tion, then, provides kids with an identity.
A sense of identity with something larger
is critical to the educational process, es-
pecially among the disenfranchised of our
inner cities, among the poor and the hous-
ing project dwellers. I am reminded of a
program begun a number of years ago in the
inner city schools of Washington, D.C. Be-
ginning in the preschool, head start
classes, the kids were taught to think: "I
am somebody." But before the children can
believe that they are a part of the future,
they must feel that they come from some-
where. They have to believe in themselves
to accomplish the future.

Preservation is for our children. But in
order to make it so, we need to develop our
educational program to use the resources we
already have, to reach out and nurture
those who need it most. The Louisiana
Division of Archeology's outreach program,
with its teachers' manuals, is a step in
the right direction. However, it needs to
target first those who need it most. It
needs more money. And, the Office of His-
toric Preservation, and our preservation
groups need to begin to emphasize education
more seriously. State Parks can help
greatly, as can the Louisiana State Museum.
Again, however, all of these offices and
agencies need greater funding for educa-
tion, as well as all the volunteer support
they can get.


Preservation and Excellence

The economic crisis and large scale unem-
ployment that Louisiana has been facing is
not unique. A number of the northeastern
states had similar problems during the oil


patch boom years when Louisiana was thriv-
ing. But New Hampshire now has less than
three per cent unemployment, and Mas-
sachusetts has a labor shortage. Those
states made a transition to an essentially
post industrial economy because of their
people and a climate that bred excellence.

The people of Louisiana are no less hard-
working than our Yankee counterparts. But
in addition to the educational crisis al-
ready addressed, our northern cousins were
able to overcome their problems because
they fostered a climate for excellence. We
need to understand that a state that cares
about its resources, its environment, and
its image nurtures excellence. It achieves
success in recruiting talented, caring peo-
ple. It keeps those people around and
working for the future. Historic preserva-
tion is a very major component of that pro-
cess.

In addition to providing recreation for our
citizens and an attractive and interesting
environment for working and living, his-
toric preservation teaches. It builds
knowledge, and knowledge breeds excellence.
Historic preservation can help keep our
neighborhoods from deteriorating. It
brings stability to our communities, and
makes the residents of our historic dis-
tricts and buildings want to stay. Preser-
vation contributes to security, it in-
creases property values, it enriches our
tax base. Thus, historic preservation is a
vital economic tool for achieving growth
and fiscal success.

Our state government can undertake several
concrete measures to foster growth and ex-
cellence through historic preservation.
The first of these is a critical review of
our tax structure that takes into account
the objectives and benefits of preserva-
tion. State investment tax credits, per-
haps on both personal and corporate tax re-
turns, or property tax incentives, or a
property tax abatement program for the re-
habilitation, restoration, and proper reno-
vation of historic buildings are sorely
needed in Louisiana. They can prompt the
revitalization of our neighborhoods and
spur economic growth and stability in towns








and cities across the state. So could giv-
ing preferential treatment to historic
preservation in development bonds, as could
the development of enterprise zones, with
appropriate tax abatements and financial
incentives, in our historic districts.

Furthermore, as in the case of education,
we need to develop and enact historic
preservation programs for the poor and dis-
enfranchised. Setting aside some portion
of tax monies to help low income families
buy their homes or units would contribute
to revitalization of our cities. A pilot
project of this sort has reduced crime and
vandalism greatly in Washington, D.C., and
the program started by Jay Shalett in New
Orleans will help in this regard. Last
year one Connecticut city provided free
paint, in appropriately selected historic
colors, to low income owners and residents
of historic homes. Their response and
level of cooperation was great, and that
old mill town looks both much better and
more like its boom years of the late nine-
teenth century. If some changes in our tax
structure could be combined with private
sector initiatives in this area, we could
begin to revitalize, to foster excellence.

Finally, some basic revisions in such
statutes as the State Building Code and the
Fire Marshall's Code need to be made so
that there are provisions for historic
structures.


Preservation and Dollars

The previous discussion has focused on his-
toric preservation as a means for achieving
human growth and fostering the development
of the new Louisiana. As I noted, these
issues necessarily translate into dollars.
Even if short term cash flow is weakened,
it is axiomatic that you need to spend
money to make money. We need to invest in
Louisiana's future. Such an investment
will accrue tremendous dividends in the fu-
ture and bring profits and rewards to our
state. In the following paragraphs, I in-
tend to show how Louisiana can benefit eco-
nomically from an investment is historic
preservation.


Preservation and Tourism

In the Times Picayune on May 3, 1987,
Millie Ball published a cogent series of
articles that show how Louisiana has at-
tracted talented and financially successful
people because of our lifestyle. She also
listed the results of a poll showing what
people like about our state. First among
Louisiana's positive aspects was "Old World
Charm and History." Architecture, which is
a large part of that charm and history,
ranked fourth, right behind food and
restaurants, and even before our music.
The character and variety of our neighbor-
hoods also was a frequent response to the
question "what do you like about New
Orleans?"

Our elected officials, and all of the peo-
ple and corporations involved in tourism
and its promotion need to understand that
above all else, it is the history of
Louisiana, as it has been preserved, that
is the raison d'etre for our tourism indus-
try. Without the preservation that we have
achieved to date, and without a continuing
program of preservation for the future, we
would have a vastly diminished tourism
industry. The St. Charles Avenue Streetcar
is a case in point. That was, and is, a
preservation program. It is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Tourists love it, ride it, and tell their
friends about it. Tourists enrich New
Orleans because of our historic sites.

We also need to understand that Louisiana
is a favored venue for incentive tourism.
That is, people visit our state because it
offers them an incentive for doing so.
that incentive is founded in historic
preservation. It is no accident that of
all the regions in the United States, the
deep South, including Louisiana, is the
number one visited region (Travel Magazine,
May, 1987), ranking ahead even of
California.

Even in the Winter haven of Florida, the
1985 Annual Statewide Demand Poll, taken at
all Florida visitor centers, showed that
historic sites are a primary reason for
tourism. Of 25 activities listed, tourists








in Florida ranked visiting historic sites
as their favorite activity, and as the rea-
son for their visits, ahead of picnicking,
fishing, camping, hiking, nature study, ca-
noeing, hunting, golf, tennis, and other
sports. Only beaches and swimming ranked
ahead of historic sites in the Florida
poll. And, historic St. Augustine remains
Florida s number one tourist attraction.
It is worth noting that Florida's state
park system, with its historic sites, does
not pay for itself directly. But the
tourist dollars enrich the state and its
businesses. I probably do not need to
point out that Louisiana is not noted for
its beaches. The point is that a vital
preservation program, and preservation
planning for our future, are needed to as-
sure the continuing success of our tourism
industry.

The unfortunate converse of this situation
is that tourism has the potential to de-
stroy historicity, thus ultimately killing
itself. We need to understand the nature
of our tourist industry, and value the ob-
jectives of long term preservation of our
historic resources above short term finan-
cial gain, or we face the danger of killing
the goose that lays the golden egg. For
this reason, I recommend specific legisla-
tion that evaluates both the importance of
preservation, archaeology, and history to
tourism, and the effects of tourism on our
historic resources. If we can codify our
preservation ethic, we can guarantee the
long term survival and success of our
tourism industry.


Preservation and Jobs

Besides the obvious point that preservation
is a primary reason for tourism, and
tourism creates jobs, Louisiana needs to
develop preservation and preservation-re-
lated business as an export industry. Our
architects have special expertise and expe-
rience in the restoration and rehabilita-
tion of historic buildings. As the infras-
tructure of America's towns and cities
continues to degrade with age, their skills
will be needed, and they will be mar-
ketable, to help others restore their his-
toric patrimony.


Our craftsman today make wrought iron,
wooden columns, and other structural compo-
nents for rehabilitation and restoration of
historic buildings in Louisiana. With some
help from state and local governments, in
the form of training programs, subsidies,
or enterprise zones, I believe that
Louisiana could corner the national market
in a whole range of such commodities. Our
bricks formerly were shipped to distant
market places. Perhaps we could rehabili-
tate that industry. We are served by the
railroads; we have a tremendous port; we
have trucking hubs. We already have the
structure to take advantage of this oppor-
tunity. We need only to develop our own
preservation ethnic and program to foster
the specific talents in craftsmanship that
will lead to a range of new export indus-
tries for Louisiana. That means jobs and
positive cash flow. Only a few years ago,
two neighboring mansions on St. Charles
Avenue in New Orleans were renovated by ex-
perts from San Francisco. They exported
their skills to Louisiana!

Many people around Louisiana do not know
that even today, this state is one of the
leaders nationally in the preservation
planning and historical and archaeological
research and compliance business. Such
businesses located in Baton Rouge, New
Orleans, and Monroe employ dozens of pro-
fessionals, and provide services in venues
as remote as California, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Alaska, and even the British
Virgin Islands. My own firm has doubled in
size every year over the past five years.
The point is that preservation, in its many
aspects, is a growth industry, and it is
one that Louisiana can export far and wide.
Preservation means jobs.


Preservation is Planning

Briefly stated, the goal of preservation is
saving the best aspects and good qualities
of our past into the future. This requires
the development of a long term perspective,
so that decisions and plans are not made in
a short sighted manner. In the following
comments, I present some suggestions for
increasing the quality of our planning pro-
gram, and for beginning to meet the objec-







tives outlined above.


Louisiana Needs New Laws Protecting Our
Historical Resources

Since the passage of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, Federal law has
forbidden the wanton destruction of impor-
tant archaeological and historic buildings
by any federally funded, mandated, or li-
censed project. That act has forced
Federal agencies to take our non-renewable
historic resources into consideration in
all of their development plans. Each
Federal agency is responsible for the in-
ventory of cultural resources on its prop-
erty, and for working with the State
Historic Preservation Officer to assure
their protection.

It is long past time for Louisiana to enact
comprehensive counterpart legislation that
applies to the property and development
plans of state agencies. It is ironic that
our state government, despite the strength
of its Office of Historic Preservation and
Division of Archeology, is one of the worst
destroyers of our cultural patrimony. The
reason is a lack of applicable law. In
this, we are way behind other states, such
as Florida. Many states even have county
and municipal ordinances protecting cul-
tural resources. While we have a state of-
fice that reviews Federal construction
plans, and even private construction that
requires Federal permits or assistance, no
one is reviewing what the state is doing.

This new law should enable an advisory com-
mittee, working with the Louisiana Division
of Archeology and the Office of Historic
Preservation, to review state agency con-
struction permits well in advance for their
impact on cultural resources. The
guidelines for that review, and for as-
sessing the significance of cultural re-
sources, should be stated unequivocally,
following the Federal model. The law also
should mandate an opportunity for local
agencies and individuals to comment on
those impacts, because local people know
best what is important to them. Further-
more, that law must provide serious crimi-


nal penalties for the looting and destruc-
tion of archaeological and historic sites,
and for the sale of contraband antiquities.
Penalties for the desecration of Native
American and other cemetery sites should be
strengthened. In addition, the state land-
marks program needs to be funded and acti-
vated. And, as noted above, we need a
state historic building code. These mea-
sures require legislative action, and the
active support and understanding of our
legislators.


Historic Resources Inventory Program Needs
Strengthening

Before you can manage cultural resources
intelligently, you must know what it is you
are preserving. That requires survey and
inventory of Louisiana's material heritage.
Today, that arduous and continuing task is
the responsibility of the Louisiana
Division of Archeology and the Office of
Historic Preservation, in the Office of
Cultural Development at the Department of
Culture, Recreation and Tourism. These of-
fices maintain the archaeological and his-
toric structures site files for Louisiana.
They do a first rate and fully professional
job. In fact, these two offices are among
the very best in our state government.
They compare very favorably with similar
offices in other states.

But they have incredibly limited re-
sources, the result, I think, of poor plan-
ning by the legislature, due to a lack of
comprehension of the importance of their
missions. In fact, the combined total
state budget for these two offices for FY
1986 was well under a quarter million dol-
lars. The Federal government contributed
over twice that to their programs, giving
the impression that there is twice the con-
cern at the Federal level about our his-
toric sites and properties than we have
here in Louisiana. The total state budget
for FY 1986 was about seven billion dol-
lars. Even including the Federal monies,
Louisiana devoted about one ten thousandth
(1/10,000) of its budget to these programs.
That is hard to believe, and it illustrates
the magnitude of the problem that we have







to overcome. To reiterate, the structure
is in place, and working as well as it can
without support. We must see that these
critically important state offices get the
support they need, the money they need to
operate, if we are to preserve the legacy
of Louisiana for our children and their's.


Prospect and Retrospect

Louisiana is looking forward to its past.
Our history and heritage have much to of-
fer, both tangible and intangible. His-
toric preservation will enrich our lives,
our economy, and our environment. All of
us can work to make this so, by helping to
develop the historic preservation con-
stituency at the local level, by working to
support our government offices at the state
level, by getting involved in the historic
preservation process in our communities, by
helping our fellow Louisianans in the
tourism industry to understand and appreci-
ate the link between historic preservation
and tourism, and by educating ourselves
about our past.

All of these things together will get the
attention and cooperation of our legisla-
tors and elected officials. It cannot help
but do so. Because the historic preserva-
tion movement across Louisiana constitutes
the most vigorous political force in our
state. That is the case because people
care about their own neighborhoods and com-
munities. And, that is the reason why his-
toric preservation groups and neighborhood
organizations provide Louisiana with its
best source of leadership for the future.
Historic preservation is progress. It has
and it will continue to make us plan in a
balanced manner for the sake of posterity.
It will help us grow stronger and better,
as we adapt to our changing times. It will
help us secure our future. Our past makes
it so.


Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the support and as-
sistance of my colleagues in the historic
preservation community who together formed
an ad hoc steering committee that helped me


to formulate these ideas. Ms. Patricia H.
Gay, of the Preservation Resources Center;
Mr. Robert Cangelosi, AIA, President-elect
of Friends of the Cabildo; Ms. Elizabeth
Wolf, President of the Louisiana Landmarks
Society; and, Mr. Lary P. Hesdorffer,
Deputy Director of the Historic District
Landmarks Commission. All contributed to
the positive aspects of this paper. All
inaccuracies and omissions are my own re-
sponsibility. Finally, thanks to Barry
Smith and Michael Duplanter, whose lively
discussion about related matters on New
Orleans television, made me reexamine some
of my ideas.

R. Christopher Goodwin
R. Christopher Goodwin
& Associates, Inc.
5824 Plauche Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123







URBAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN FLORIDA:
THE SEARCH FOR PATTERN IN TAMPA'S HISTORIC CORE

Harry M. Piper and Jacquelyn G. Piper


Introduction

In recent years archaeologists have recognized
the potential of urban areas to provide
valid data concerning both traditional
research questions and the process of
urban development itself. This paper
will briefly consider the problems and
potential of Cultural Resource Management
archaeology in an urban setting and discuss
some of the data resulting from the surveys,
testing and more extensive excavations
that have been carried out in Tampa's
historic core area. Nineteen investigations
have been completed to date. Although
separated from each other by components
of the city, they constitute a sample
sufficient to provide a prehistoric cultural
sequence and to discern some patterns
of land use and human behavior through
time in what has become a major metropolitan
area. Research goals and questions for
future work will be suggested based on
the synthesis of data from past cultural
resource management (CRM) projects.


Urban Archaeological Resources

An increasing number of archaeological
investigations are being conducted in
cities. Beginning in the mid-1960s, various
federal and state laws were enacted which
mandated assessment and protection of
cultural resources endangered by certain
development projects. However, because
of the intensive use of the land in urban
centers and the site-specific nature of
CRM projects, archaeological work in any
city usually results in a series of small-
scale, disarticulated projects that were
not designed to investigate the city area
and its resources in a holistic and systematic
way.

Notwithstanding the disturbance and destruction
caused by urban development, archaeologists
have recognized the research value of


archaeology in the city and of the city
(Salwyn 1973; Cressey and Stephens 1982).
As Staski (1982) writes, Archaeology
in the city consists of addressing any
research question in an urban setting.
Archaeology of the city consists of using
archaeological methods to contribute to
an understanding of the specific processes
of urban development." The latter orientation
is best investigated utilizing a multi-dis-
ciplinary, multi-stage research design
that views the whole city as an open system
of interrelated physical and cultural
components.




Research Framework

Tampa has not had a major project of city-wide
impact which has generated a general research
model. However, numerous small-scale
archaeological investigations have been
carried out within the impact areas of
proposed construction projects in various
parts of the city as required by federal
and state laws protecting cultural resources.
This paper will focus on professional
archaeological investigations performed
within the area designated as the Central
Business District or CBD. The CBD was
delineated for multiple planning purposes
by the city and serves as the boundary
for an area-wide Development of Regional
Impact (DRI). In reviewing the historic
resource aspects of development in the
CBD as a DRI under the provisions of Section
380.06, Florida Statutes, and its implementing
rules, archaeological work within the
CBD was correctly recommended by the Florida
Department of State, Division of Historical
Resources to be undertaken on a project-
by-project basis, rather than being conducted
as a comprehensive effort prior to DRI
approval. The inventory of historic structures
had been accomplished already by the Historic
Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation
Board.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Dec., 1987


Vol. 40 No. 4








The CBD, located in south-central Tampa,
is approximately 500 acres in size. The
CBD today comprises an entirely urbanized
metropolitan area that was also the location
of prehistoric occupations, the early
military encampment of Fort Brooke and
the village of Tampa that grew up around
and eventually over the fort. The CBD,
then, incorporates the historic core of
the city and historical archaeological
work there can be used to provide baseline
data for future research in Tampa.

Nineteen CRM investigations have been
carried out in the CBD during the past
13 years. Piper Archaeological Research
has conducted 11 of the 13 projects completed
since 1979 and 2 more are currently underway.
While some of the 19 projects have been
of a salvage nature, most have resulted
in reports which include informant interviews,
documentary evidence and archaeological
data on the pre-urban environment, history
of construction on the project site, stra-
tigraphy, prehistoric and historic artifacts,
faunal remains, human skeletal remains,
and analyses of individual features.
Although not a stratified random sample,
the 19 archaeological investigations constitute
a sample sufficient to discern some patterns
of land use and human behavior through
time and to provide an inductive basis
for approaching questions of process.

Subsurface archaeological deposits are
often disturbed or destroyed by modern
activities, primarily construction, in
urban areas. Although this is certainly
the case in many locations within the
CBD, there are frequent occurrences where
the archaeological materials are undisturbed.
One example of the latter circumstance
is at the Quad Block site (Piper and Piper
1982) where an extensive early 19th century
cemetery associated with Ft. Brooke was
virtually untouched just below the concrete
slabs of buildings built during the first
third of the 20th century. Moreover,
the dense deposit of materials resulting
from a prehistoric village at the same
location was undisturbed in the soil matrix
between the historic period grave pits.
Similar circumstances of in situ subsurface
materials have been reported at other


CBD locations and the undisturbed strati-
graphies from these locations are helpful
in assessing the reliability of the data
from more disturbed locales. While vertical
mixing due to disturbance is common, the
presence or absence of artifacts at particular
locations can nevertheless provide reliable
information for horizontal distribution
of deposits.

In order to better understand the evidence
in the ground, archaeologists try, to
the extent possible, to recreate thepre-urban
environment. In the CBD area of Tampa,
the land has been altered by a number
of natural and artificial means. Natural
factors include the rise in sea levels
which have altered the shoreline along
the southern and western sides of the
CBD, probably innundating sites dating
to the earlier prehistoric times. In
addition, the severe hurricane of 1848,
and possibly unrecorded earlier storms,
changed the shoreline and temporarily
flooded lower elevations including most
of Fort Brooke and many prehistoric deposits.
Man has further altered the land surfaces
in a variety of ways. Overlaying apresent-day
map of the CBD with an 1877 military survey
drawing reveals that modern filling has
greatly enhanced the natural landmass.
For example, a surveyor's point 3' above
the high water mark on the Hillsborough
River in 1877 is now located approximately
175 feet inland from the river's seawall.
Similarly, a salt marsh east of the CBD
shown on early maps is no longer evident
and ponds and a spring with its outflow
stream have been filled in. The former
locations of these now obliterated fresh
water sources provide important information
for predicting prehistoric and early historic
site locations.

Knowledge of the natural, preurbanized
soil types and their descriptions as seen
in the 1915 soil map of Hillsborough County
is helpful in recognizing the natural
soils when they are encountered beneath
the overlying urban fill and rubble.
The soil stratigraphy of the CBD, as compiled
from the project reports is, from the
surface down, the following: 1) dark gray
modern fill, 2) yellow-tan sand and 3)








a homogeneous white sand. The yellow-tan
sand stratum is generally located above
the 15 foot contour interval, with the
white sand becoming the only natural soil
beneath modern fill near the shoreline.
The modern fill ranges in depth from approx-
imately 30 cm in the areas above the 15
foot contour to a meter or more where
the shoreline has been advanced by filling.

The elements of the pre-urban environment
described above provide a partial environmental
context for discussing the prehistoric
and historic cultural resources of the
CBD. The prehistoric data will be presented
separately from those of the historic
period.


Prehistoric Resources

Some general comments can be made from
the synthesis of prehistoric data contained
in the project reports from the 19 archaeo-
logical investigations. Future investigations
may modify these findings which have resulted
from the projects completed to date.
The comments herein should aid expectations
but should not be used to limit the scope
of future investigations.

Cultural Sequence: Temporally diagnostic
artifacts from all the culture periods
common to the archaeological record in
the Central Peninsula Gulf Coast have
been recovered. Only one instance of
a possible Paleo-Indian Stage occupation,
a single projectile point/knife was observed,
while Archaic Stage projectile points
were recovered from 9 project locations
and diagnostic materials from various
periods of the Formative Stage from 9
projects. It appears, then, that the
CBD area was occupied by aboriginal groups,
at least intermittently, from the Paleo-
Indian stage until the beginning of the
historic period.

Settlement Pattern: A prehistoric settlement
pattern within the CBD is not evident
in the data so far recovered, perhaps
because the study area is relatively small,
500 acres, and well located ecologically.


During prehistoric times the CBD was situated
witL the Hillsborough River on the west
side, Tampa Bay on the south, marshes
on the east and uplands to the north,
providing good access to a wide variety
of resources from any point. The thin
scatter of lithic material pr sent at
most project areas so far investigated
attests to prehistoric utilization of
all the CBD through time, with dense pre-
historic artifact concentrations in the
Quad Elock/Block 90 area and in midden
remnants at several sites in the southwest
portion of the CBD. Most prehistoric
cultural periods common to the archaeological
record of Florida's central west coast
are represented at these sites. The now
demolished Indian mound excavated by Walker
(1880) in the late 19th century may also
have been associated with one of these
midden deposits.

The only horizontal distribution pattern
noted in this synthesis is that projects
nearer the shoreline have yielded a greater
frequency of Archaic Stage artifacts than
projects at more inland locations. This
observation may indicate a greater frequency
of older sites distributed nearer and
even below the water as a result of sea
level rise during the past 6,500 years.

Stratigraphic Patterns: The prehistoric
cultural stratigraphic pattern in terms
of natural soil strata and depths below
surface, can be summarized in a few general
comments. First, the artifact density
is greater in the yellow-tan sand stratum
than in the white sand. This observation
would suggest that aboriginal occupation
was more intense through time on the well
drained yellow-tan soils above the white
sand shoreline. As the yellow-tan surficial
sand represents a secondary terrace above
the shoreline, there is a correlation
between another variable, elevation, and
soils. An obvious caveat regarding intensive
occupation, however, is that the earlier
period sites may now be inundated or
buried so deeply below modern fill along
the present-day shoreline that normal
archaeological testing techniques have
failed to locate them.








A second observation concerns cultural
periods and relative depth below the surface.
Although the small CBD sample size encompassed
by the 19 projects and the disturbed context
that characterizes many urban archaeological
projects makes it difficult to determine
if individual culture periods are predominantly
represented at certain relative depths
below the surface (either present day
or natural), a review of the average depths
and relative densities of artifacts recorded
in the CBD project reports reveals that
datable and other prehistoric artifacts
generally have occurred about 75 cm below
the modern surface, regardless of either
topographic elevation or soil type. No
correlation between individual culture
periods and depth below surface was noted.



Subsistence Data: Very little prehistoric
subsistence data have been observed at
the projects in downtown Tampa thus far
with the exception of the midden deposits
recovered at the University of South Florida
field school and Tampa Convention Center
projects in the southwestern portion of
the CBD. The midden samples from the
Convention Center are now being analysed
and are expected to produce evidence of
the varied diet of upland and aquatic
resources typical of sites in similar
ecological situations.


Burial Patterns: Prehistoric burials
have been recovered from two sites in
the CBD. The two sites, the Ft. Brooke
Mound (Walker 1880) and the Tampa Convention
Center site (Hardin and Austin 1987),
document that several methods of burial
were practiced by aboriginal groups living
at the location of today's Tampa. Both
primary and secondary burials were excavated
at the Tampa Convention Center site.
Primary burials were both in extended
and flexed positions and secondary burials
included bundle burials, single skull
interments, tooth caches containing the
teeth of several individuals and comingled
skeletal remains. The single burial reported
by Walker (1880) from the Fort Brooke
Mound was a primary burial in an extended
position.


Historic Period Resources


In contrast to prehistoric archaeology,
historic period urban archaeology benefits
by having available a variety of independent
data sets including primary and secondary
documentation, maps, and informants as
well as artifacts.

Cultural Sequence: At the present point
in our research we are working with a
cultural sequence of three broad time
periods for Tampa's historic resources: 1)
the Fort Brooke period, 2) the Late 19th
century and 3) the 20th century. The
Fort Brooke period, 1824-1882, encompasses
the early military and civilian period
and ends with the opening of the military
reservation for settlement and the coming
of the railroad. The Late 19th century,
1882-1900, marks the change from a village
of 720 persons in 1880 to a commercial
and industrial city, and the 20th century
shows a steady development as the commercial
center for the region. More specific
time periods can be delineated in the
future. It has been recommended by Louis
Tesar (1987, personal communication) that
these be consistent with the historic
contexts identified in Florida's Comprehensive
Historic Preservation Plan.

Settlement Pattern: Historical documen-
tation (Thomsen in Piper and Piper 1982)
records that the first permanent American
settlement in the Tampa Bay area was Fort
Brooke, a United States military cantonment
which included the entire area of the
present CBD. Civilians, attracted by
the fort, settled on the government property
near the fort and initiated several bus-
inesses. In 1848, the area of the fort
was reduced to the portion south of Whiting
Street and Tampa became a legal reality
(McKay 1949). In 1883, the remaining
land in Fort Brooke was turned over to
the Department of the Interior and opened
for sale to the public.

Many types of documentation can provide
information on the structures and occupants
of an urban area including general maps,
Sanborn Insurance maps, city directories,
tax rolls, census records, local histories,








newspapers, photographs and others. For
example, it is possible to research a
fairly complete history of the construction
on any block in the CBD. This archival
information documents the general shift
from residential/commercial to commercial/-
industrial on most CBD blocks and shows
an increase in the density of use both
in terms of filling the horizontal space
and in utilizing multi-story, vertical
space.

Dickens and Crirmins (1982) have attempted
to define the structure of the city at
specific points in time as a means of
studying change. For example, analysis
of the material remains from the excavation
of archaeological features such as privies,
trash dumps anC industrial deposits can
begin to delineate a variety of behavioral
patterns including domestic, commerical,
industrial and certain specializations
at documented points in time. Changes
in or abandonment of these features carn
also show transformations in function
of a part of the city as in the shift
from residential/commercial to commercial.

Intensive use and reuse of land also reflects
higher population densities and higher
land values. These factors in turn result
in a higher density of artifacts. For
example the archaeological investigations
on one block, Block 89, revealed a complex,
multi-component site which included prehistoric
components spanning thousands of years,
evidence of 19th and 20th century occupation,
and a portion of a cemetery associated
with the early Fort Brooke period which
was not known to be located there from
local documentary sources. The significant
prehistoric and historic cemetery components
have been treated elsewhere and need not
be discussed here; however, it should
be noted that work on Block 89 archaeo-
logically demonstrates the general urban
developmental trend within the CBD of
early frame dwellings and commercial buildings
giving way to more substantial multi-story
brick and masonry commercial/ industrial
structures and finally to the present
multi-level parking garage which serves
the high rise buildings in the heart of
Tampa.


Stratigraphic Pattern: The archaeological
reports from projects within the CBD have
been studied in an attempt to discern
any stratigraphic patterning in the deposition
of historic period materials. While the
problems posed by the complex stratigraphy
that results from the intensive reuse
of land and the effects of landfilling
must always be remembered, several comments
can be made. First, almost all Fort Brooke
period materials occurred between 30 and
90 cm below the present-day surface.
In every case where materials were found
below 100 cm it was because of an overlying
layer of modern fill in the naturally
low-lying areas near the water's edge
or, at higher elevations, from the bottoms
of deeply dug features such as trash pits,
privys and grave pits. Second, virtually
all observed 19th century materials were
in the yellow-tan sand that occupies the
natural, pre-urban surface stratum on
the terrace along the western side of
the CBD. Third, there has to date been
only one instance (Hardin and Thomsen
1984) where 19th century cultural materials
have been observed in the white coastal
sand adjacent to the Hillsborough River
or Garrison Channel. The lack of additional
such observations is probably caused by
the depth of overlying modern fill which
makes discovery difficult, and/or the
likelihood that those flood plain areas
were frequently innundated during the
19th century, thereby making settlement
infeasible. Such material would be expected
near older docks, river crossings and
the like where opportunities for loss
or discarding of historic artifacts was
greatest. Some of these areas are now
within filled bulkheads or seawalls.


Research Goals and Suggestions
for Future Work

The foregoing synthesis of data from archae-
ological work done in the historic core
of Tampa will hopefully be helpful in
planning, executing and evaluating future
investigations in the city of Tampa.
Valuable data has been obtained from the
19 projects completed in the CBD which
can be used to study many of the traditional








problem domains of archaeology.


In addition to the several domains already
discussed for both preliiitoric and historic
time periods, portions of Tarpla would d
provide an opportunity to study ethnicity
as seen in the archaeological record.
From its earliest historic pei iod settlement,
Tampa has attracted peoples from diverse
ethnic backgrounds including the late
19th century influx of Cubans to work
in the cigar industry.


The geographic area which now corviiises
the city's CBD has supported human occupation
intermittently for almost 10,000 years.
The archaeological investigations of pre-
historic and historic period components
can provide baseline data which contribute
to an understanding of the specific processes
of land use evolution through time, ranging
from aboriginal economic strategies and
burial procedures to structural change
as the city itself expanded and matured
during historic times.


The basic research goal, then, would be
to design a multi-disciplrinary, rulti-stage
research framework within which individual
investigations can be utilized. Dickens
and Crimmins (1982:107) propose a mode]
that views the city as a complex, ever-evolving
organism or system, and we suggest that
the prehistoric components can be included
in this overview of aeral use through
time. Individual archaeological features
can be used to delineate specific patterns
at a point in time and sequences of such
features will provide information on tech-
nological and socio-ecoonmic changes within
the larger system. A research framework
such as the one described recognizes the
locale of Tampa's CBD itself, and indeed
the entire city, as a single study area
and allows it to be systematically investigated
and cultural resources to be assessed
as elements of an integrated whole rather
than as isolated sites or features.


Cressey, Pamela J. and John F. Stephens
1982 The City-Site Approach to Urban Archaeology.
In Archaeology of Urban America. The Search
for Pattern and Process. Roy S. Dickens,
Ed. Academic Press, New York.

Dickens, Roy S. and Timothy J. Crimmins
1982 Environmental-Impact Archaeology in the Urban
Setting: A View from Atlanta. In Archaeology
of Urban America: The Search for Pattern
and Process, Roy S. Dickens, Jr., Ed. Academic
Press, New York.

Hardin, Kenneth W. and Robert J. Austin
1987 A Preliminary Report on the Bay Cadillac
Site: A Prehistoric Cemetery in Tampa, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 40(3):233-234.

Hardin, Kenneth W. and Mark M. Thomsen
1984 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the
Ashley Tower Site, Tampa, Florida. Report
on file at Piper Archaeological Research,
Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida.

Piper, Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper
1982 Archaeological Excavations at the Quad Block
Site, 8-Hi-998, Located at the Site of the
Old Fort Brooke Municipal Parking Garage,
Tampa, Florida. Ms. on file Piper Archaeological
Research, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida,
and the City of Tampa.

Salwyn, B.
1973 Archaeology in Megalopolis. In Research
and Theory in Current Archaeology. C.L. Redman,
Ed. John Willey and Sons, New York.

Staski, Edward
1982 Advances in Urban Archaeology. in Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5,
Michael B. Shiffer, Ed. Academic Press,
New York.

Walker, S.T.
1880 Preliminary Explorations Aionj the Indian
Mounds in Southern Florida. Annual Report
of the Smithsonian Institution for 1879,
pp. 392-413.


Harry M. Piper and Jacquelyn G. Piper
Piper Archaeological Research
P.O. Box 919
St. Petersburg, FL 33731


REFERENCES CITED









CONSERVING A CITY'S PREHISTORY:
ST. PETERSBURG'S ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND PLANNING PROJECT

Robert J. Austin and Kenneth W. Hardin


Introduction

This paper presents the results of an
archaeological survey and planning project
conducted recently by Piper Archaeological
Research, Inc. for and with the City of
St. Petersburg's Planning Department.
The project was funded in part with historic
preservation grant assistance provided
by the National Park Service and administered
by the Florida Department of State's Division
of Historical Resources.

During the past few years there has been
a noticeable trend towards local and regional
management of cultural resources through
the creation of regional Historic Preservation
Boards (e.g. Deming 1980), and the enactment
of city and county historic preservation
ordinances (e.g. Bense 1987). This trend
should continue as municipal and county
planning departments begin the process
of complying with the State of Florida's
Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Development Act (see Tesar 1986).
Survey and planning projects similar to
St. Petersburg's will become more common
as a consequence, and for that reason
the results of this project should be
of interest to cultural resource managers,
archaeological researchers, and the general
public alike.

In this paper we present first a brief
discussion of the project's background
and goals, followed by a description of
the physical environment of the lower
Pinellas Peninsula to provide the reader
with a context for the presentation of
the survey's significant findings. Although
the project's emphasis was on site inventory,
evaluation and management, the research
potential of site locational data was
not overlooked. In fact, without this
consideration, the site evaluation process
would have been severely hampered if not
altogether impossible. Therefore, these


major distributional patterns are discussed
in light of their potential to contribute
to questions of regional importance.
Finally, we discuss some of the management
problems that we encountered during the
course of the project in the hopes that
these can be avoided or at least minimized
(by us and others) in the future.


Background

In 1985, the City of St. Petersburg was
awarded a grant from the State of Florida's
Division of Historical Resources to develop
a municipal historic preservation ordinance.
Historic Preservation Ordinance No. 832-F,
was adopted in September of that year,
and established the City's Historic Preser-
vation Commission with authority to designate
significant prehistoric and historic sites
and structures as City Landmarks. The
ordinance stipulates that all alterations
to landmarked sites or structures must
first be approved by the Historic Preser-
vation Commission.

The first sites to be landmarked under
the new ordinance were those already listed
on the National Register of Historic Places.
Among these was the famous Weeden Island
Site (8Pil), the only designated prehistoric
National Register site in the City. It
was planned that additional sites would
be landmarked as they were identified.
Whereas the City Planning staff felt it
had a reasonable understanding of the
built environment through several on-going
city-wide architectural and historic surveys,
the nature and extent of the City's archaeo-
logical resource base remained relatively
unknown. In order, then, for the land-
marking process to meaningfully address
the preservation of significant archaeological
sites, a city-wide archaeological survey
to identify such sites would first have
to be conducted.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 40 No. 4


Dec., 1987









In 1986, the City of St. Petersburg was
one of the first Florida municipalities
to enter into a Certified Local Government
(CLG) agreement with the State of Florida.
A CLG matching grant was used by the City
to conduct a city-wide survey to identify
landmark eligible archaeological sites.
The $14,113 grant was obtained from the
Division of Historical Resources, and
Piper Archaeology was selected from among
several regional contractors submitting
proposals to assist the City in their
efforts.

The original goals of the project were
to review existing records, literature,
and maps, interview local amateurs, avocational
archaeologists, and collectors, and conduct
a field survey to gather information about
prehistoric sites in the City. Although
an emphasis was placed on locating unrecorded
sites, new information about previously
recorded sites was also obtained. This
information was used to update the Florida
Master Site File (FMSF), identify sites
eligible for or potentially eligible for
City landmarking, and develop a site locational
predictive model. The final product presented
to the City was a map depicting areas
of archaeological sensitivity accompanied
by a written report with a formal presenta-
tion to the Historic Preservation Commission
to be scheduled.

To structure the landmark evaluation process,
a series of explicit regional research
domains were generated along with pertinent
archaeological data classes necessary
for their study (Austin 1987). Sites
were evaluated according to their ability
to contribute to these major areas of
regional research. To assist us in formulating
these research domains, we retained the
services of Dr. Albert C. Goodyear of
the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology
and Anthropology. Dr. Goodyear, who is
a native of St. Petersburg, also presented
a lecture on the prehistory of the area
to the community at a public meeting.
The meeting also updated the community
on the project's progress and allowed
the audience to articulate their thoughts
and opinions about historic preservation
issues to the Planning staff.


Physical Environment
of the Lower Pinellas Peninsula

To facilitate discussion of the survey
results, a brief overview of the physical
environment of the lower peninsula is
in order. The greater St. Petersburg
area encompasses most of the southern
half of the Pinellas Peninsula. The circular
dashed area in Figure 1 represents a remnant
marine terrace with an abrupt escarpment
that rises 10 to 15 meters above the sur-
rounding lowlands. This terrace is drained
by three major creeks: Booker Creek,
Bear Creek, and Joe's Creek, all of which
were focal points for prehistoric settlement.

Other major surface water features are
Saw Grass Lake to the north and Lake Maggiore
to the south. The latter is spring fed
and has probably alternated between being
a fresh water lake and a salt water bayou
over time as sea level has fluctuated.
For many years it was known locally as
Salt Lake and the creek exiting it to
the northeast as Salt Creek. At present
the lake is in an advanced state of eutrophica-
tion due to a City damming project in
the 1940's which has resulted in the lake
filling with nutrient rich sediment.

Saw Grass Lake is a large fresh water
lake that is surrounded by the only hardwood
swamp forest remaining in the lower peninsula.
During prehistoric times, this wetland
system was a major attraction for aboriginal
populations particularly during the Paleo-
Indian and Archaic periods. Today the
lake and surrounding swamp forest are
preserved as a County park.

Although no longer present, several large
marsh ponds once existed in the interior
uplands. The largest of these, known
locally as "the duck pond', was present
until the late 1950's when it was filled.
A large shopping center complex now occupies
this spot. Another large marsh, once
located along Booker Creek, is now the
site of the City's new sports stadium
which is presently under construction.

Native vegetation in the uplands consists
(or did prior to development) of scrub











*


0 4mi
0 5 km

Scale


Lake Seminole


'Big Bayou
Coquina
Key
(E

'


Pinellas


Map of the lower Pinellas peninsula showing St. Petersburg's corporate
boundaries and the location of archaeological sites mentioned in
text. Heavy dashed line represents remnant marine terrace.
1 Weeden Island Site 2 Lake Catalina 3 Maximo Moorings
4 Hirrihigua Mound 5 Narvaez Site 6 Maximo Point 7 Mound
Park 8 Big Bayou Site.


Figure 1:








and live oak, pine, and palmetto while
the lowlands are typified by pine/palmetto
flatwoods. Along the coast dense oak
and sable palm hammocks once existed in
abundance; fortunately, substantial hammock
areas are preserved along Boca Ciega Bay
and at Big Bayou as a result of a City
ordinance that protects these environmentally
sensitive areas.


Survey Results

The St. Petersburg survey has contributed
to the archaeology of the lower peninsula
in ways beneficial to the goals of both
management and research. For management
purposes the most obvious benefits are
an enlarged site data base and the identifica-
tion of many sites worthy of protection
under the City's Landmark Ordinance.
A total of 65 previously unrecorded prehistoric
sites were identified as a result of the
survey and this more than doubled the
number of known sites within the City's
corporate boundaries. New data were collected
about previously recorded sites and added
to the FMSF, and discrepancies in the
existing files were resolved when possible.
Of the current total of 119 known sites
in the City, nine have been evaluated
as eligible for landmarking and an additional
15 are believed to be potentially eligible
for landmarking. Many more sites could
not be assessed using existing data, but
under the City's Landmark Ordinance such
an assessment can be required by the Historic
Preservation Commission if proposed land
alterations will adversely affect these
sites.

Equally important is the range of data
that has been gathered regarding site
location and distribution. Prior to the
survey approximately 75% of the recorded
sites were located on or within 200 meters
of the coast. In comparison, sites recorded
during this survey are predominately non-
coastal. Most of these non-coastal sites
are attributable to the Archaic period,
although a large number could not be assigned
to any cultural period due to an absence
of temporally diagnostic artifacts.


Analysis of the distributional data also
indicated specific types of environmental
locales as preferred areas of prehistoric
occupation. In addition to the coastal
and riverine orientation of prehistoric
settlement that archaeologists have come
to expect, we found that a significant
number of sites were located around ponds
and groundwater seeps located along the
rim of the upland escarpment, particularly
where these overlooked ecologically diverse
lowland habitats. This kind of site locational
information will be useful for City planners
who need to know where potentially significant
archaeological sites may be expected to
occur.

From a research perspective, the greatest
benefit has been the accumulation of data
regarding prehistoric utilization of and
adaptation to the peninsula's interior.
This information is synopsized below and
is organized chronologically to emphasize
the major distributional trends through
time. Sites and locations mentioned in
the text are shown on Figure 1.

Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Period
(10,000-5,000 B.C.)

The distribution of Paleo-Indian sites
appears to cluster in two areas. Most
of the artifacts dating to this period
(including Suwannee and Simpson projectile
points, finely made scraping tools, and
hafted spokeshaves with graver spurs)
have been found along the beaches of the
lower peninsula from Maximo Park to Pinellas
Point, and in spoil deposited by dredge
and fill activities in this area and on
Coquina Key. These artifacts are from
submerged sites located offshore that
were once exposed when sea levels were
lower.

The second cluster of early sites is in
the northern part of the City around Saw
Grass Lake. Several Paleo-Indian projectile
points have been found in the dune ridges
that occur in this area, and on the edge
of the upland escarpment overlooking the
lake. This distribution suggests that
Saw Grass Lake was one of the few dependable










sources of fresh water on the lower peninsula
during the late Pleistocene and early
Holocene eras.

Early Archaic side-notched projectile
points and Edgefield Scrapers are found
at most of these same sites, but a few
are also found near freshwater ponds and
seeps along the interior upland escarpment,
as well as in the dune sands along the
coast on Coquina Key and Weedon Island.
The implication here is that water sources
not previously available to Paleo-Indian
groups began to flow during the early
Holocene enabling Early Archaic populations
to begin exploiting previously unattractive
environments.

There are several sites in the St. Peters-
burg area that have yielded finds of Pleis-
tocene fossils. These include Lake Catalina,
a site near Lake Maggiore, at least two
sites along Joe's Creek just north of
the City limits, and the dredged fill
along the lower peninsular coast. Early
artifacts are often found nearby, particularly
in the spoil deposits, but none have yet
been found in situ with extinct fauna.
Given the relatively common occurence
of Pleistocene remains in the area, there
seems to be the potential for such a discovery
to be made in the future.

Middle Archaic Period (5000-2000 B.C.)

Sites dating to the Middle Archaic period
are the most common recorded during the
survey and they also have the widest distribu-
tion. Archaic period artifacts are found
along the bay beaches, next to streams
and ponds in the interior lowlands, and
near major streams and groundwater "seeps"
in the interior uplands. This pattern
strongly suggests a continuation of the
trend observed during the Early Archaic
- that is, increasing exploitation of
previously unfavorable environments.

Of great potential importance is the recording
of prehistoric sites containing human
skeletal remains in contexts that suggest
wetland, or bog-like, conditions. A site
discovered by Dr. Lyman Warren at Maximo


Moorings contained skeletal material in
a matrix of dark, organic muck that was
exposed by a drag line cut. Although
no artifacts were found in direct association
with the burial, bone pins and Archaic
period projectile points were collected
from nearby spoil deposits. On the opposite
side of the peninsula, human skeletal
material has been dredged up at the southern
end of Coquina Key, and again bone pins
and Archaic projectile points were found
to co-occur with the bones in a spoil
matrix described as "dark and mucky".

Late Archaic-Transitional Period (2000-500
B.C.)

During the late Archaic and Transitional
periods there seems to have been a partial
retreat from the uplands back to the lowland
areas and the coast. A few sites were
recorded around Saw Grass Lake and near
upland seeps, but most of the sites dating
to this period are located on or near
the coast. Although climatic fluctua-
tions may have played a role in this apparent
abandonment of the uplands, the primary
factor may simply have been that population
increased to the point where coastal resources,
and particularly shellfish, provided the
most reliable and stable means of supporting
a large population.

Manasota and Weeden Island-related Period
(500 B.C.-A.D. 1000)

Nearly all of the sites dating to the
Manasota and Weeden Island-related periods
are located on the coast or in the interior
lowlands with a few exceptions. Several
low sand mounds are located along the
rim of the upland escarpment. The function
of these mounds is not known since those
that have been explored contain few, if
any, artifacts and no human bone. They
may have served as domiciliary mounds
upon which small dwellings were built.
Alternatively, they could represent burial
mounds where the skeletal material has
disintegrated due to acidic soil conditions.
Finally, they may not be purposefully
built mounds at all, but rather small,
elevated knolls that afforded better drainage








and a view of the surrounding lowlands
to their inhabitants. Even their age
is not known precisely.

Many of the shell middens located on the
coast contain artifacts dating to this
period, and a few small interior shell
middens located along tidal creeks are
known. Manasota and Weeden Island-related
projectile points and ceramics are also
found at inland sites near ponds or marshes
indicating that some hunting and gathering
of interior lowland resources was continuing.

Safety Harbor Period (A.D. 1000-1700)

All of the documented Safety Harbor period
sites are located along the coast, although
some lithic scatter sites that contain
no temporally diagnostic artifacts may
date to this (as well as the preceding)
period. Most of the City's largest shell
middens and mounds date to this period
including the Hirrihigua Mound, the Narvaez
Site, the Maximo Point complex, and probably
the Mound Park and Big Bayou sites. These
are the sites that are most familiar to
the residents of St. Petersburg simply
because of their size. It is also possible
that at least some of the low sand mounds
recorded in the lower peninsula date to
this period as well.

Spanish artifacts have been found at the
Narvaez Site and at Maximo Beach. Some
scholars believe that Panfilio de Narvaez
landed on the shores of Boca Ciega Bay
in 1528 (e.g. Swanton 1946:37), and although
artifacts found at the Narvaez Site seem
to provide supporting evidence for this,
a firm consensus has not yet been reached
(cf. Goodyear 1972). The artifacts from
Maximo Beach are probably from the 19th
century homestead of Maximo Hernandez,
a Spanish fisherman who was the first
white settler on the lower peninsula.


Discussion

We hope this brief overview has conveyed
not only the success of the project in
recording many new archaeological sites,
but also the potential for similar projects


in urban areas to record and preserve
important archaeological sites for future
research and public enjoyment. Given
the urbanized nature of the survey area,
many archaeological sites have been destroyed
or severely impacted by construction and
development. Nevertheless, a surprising
number of sites still remain relatively
intact. Under the City's Landmark Ordinance
many of these will be preserved.

Few major problems were encountered during
the project, but those that were deserve
some mention. One of the biggest was
underestimating the amount of time necessary
to conduct certain project tasks. It
was necessary, for example, to spend much
more time than was originally estimated
to conduct informant interviews and to
field check reported sites. Time spent
in meetings with the Planning staff also
exceeded our initial expectations. Further-
more, everyone involved with the project
felt strongly about community involvement
and education, so additional time was
devoted to these pursuits as well. Since
the City had only a set amount of money
with which to conduct the project, these
cost overruns were not reimbursable.

Fortunately we learn from our mistakes,
and this experience has provided us with
a clearer idea of how to allocate our
resources more efficiently when conducting
these types of projects. Specifically,
it has demonstrated the labor intensive
nature of conducting informant interviews
and has underscored the importance of
allocating adequate time and money for
what should be a major element of all
archaeological planning projects. Merely
conducting a site file search and reviewing
the existing literature is not sufficient
to develop a quality management plan,
particularly in areas where little profes-
sional archaeology has been done.

We found too that City planners appear
more comfortable requiring archaeological
assessments of a specific piece of property
if there is some physical evidence for
the presence of an archaeological site.
Obviously, this is not always possible,
hence the use of predictive models and










sensitivity maps as planning tools. Never-
theless, making a concerted effort to
record as many sites as possible using
all of the available resources will provide
planners with the data necessary to weather
the inevitable onslaught of resistance
and criticism from those who will be required
to pay for these assessments.

In terms of the project's results, there
is an observable bias towards later period
coastal sites, particularly shell middens
and mounds, among those designated as
landmark or potentially landmark eligible.
This, of course, limits the research possi-
bilities for the study of early period
utilization of the interior. The bias
is due in part to the fact that these
sites, being more observable, are more
likely to have been preserved in parks
or green space areas. This gap in our
"bank" of resources requires a careful
evaluation of the significance of the
few noncoastal sites that have retained
their contextual integrity. While nothing
can be done to protect sites no longer
in existence, we should evaluate the
few remaining noncoastal sites in light
of this gap, and make every effort to
protect those sites that appear to offer
the best source of data for future research.

In looking to the future we forsee potential
problems with regard to implementation
of the Ordinance. These are not insurmount-
able problems, nor are they unique to
St. Petersburg, but recognizing their
existence is the first step towards solving
them.

A very major problem is the rapid rate
of growth in the City and Pinellas County
in general. At the time this paper was
submitted, the plan had not yet been approved
by City Council and sadly, development
is proceeding so rapidly that implemen-
tation of the management plan cannot be
accomplished quickly enough to save some
sites. The City has utilized information
from the survey to require archaeological
work at one landmark eligible site already,
but until procedures are officially in
place and legally enforceable other sites


not yet identified as landmark eligible
may fall by the wayside.

Another potential problem is the regulation
of land disturbing activities by private
homeowners who have significant archaeological
sites on their property. Bense's (1987:86-87)
experience in Pensacola should serve as
a warning to archaeologists and planners
that dealing with archaeological sites
on private property can be one of the
more difficult aspects in the development
of local ordinances. Requiring private
homeowners or small developers to pay
for archaeological excavations, surveys,
or monitoring prior to receiving a permit
to add an addition to their home or build
a swimming pool, does seem fiscally and
politically unrealistic. To help defray
the costs of archaeological compliance
work for these individuals, Bense (1987:88)
offers two suggestions: 1) the development
of a "hardship" fund using monies collected
from permit fees, matching donations and
fund drives to be used when a landowner
cannot afford the cost of the required
archaeological work, and 2) the use of
volunteers under the supervision of a
professional archaeologist to reduce labor
costs. This second approach has the added
benefit of increasing the public's involvement
in archaeology. These are both sound
proposals, but in the end it may be that
education of the public regarding the
sensitivity of important archaeological
resources will be the best long term solution
to this problem.

We see also the need for a qualified archae-
ologist to review proposed development
plans and archaeological assessment reports
required by the Ordinance. This situation
is also not unique to St. Petersburg;
other city and county planning departments
will feel this need as more and more local
ordinances become law. It has been our
experience in dealing with these agencies
that while many now have a designated
historic preservation specialist on staff,
most archaeologically-related business
is handled by staff members with little
or no training in anthropology, archaeology
or cultural resource management. This


272








situation is changing the City of St. Augus-
tine, Dade County and at least one Regional
Planning Council that we are aware of,
now have professional archaeologists on
staff but for the most part, archaeology
at the local level is administered by
nonarchaeologists. While most planning
departments may not be able to justify
the funds necessary to create a full-time
staff position for an archaeologist, keeping
one on retainer to review projects and
check sites may be a viable alternative
provided that no conflict of interest
exists.

Finally, a suggestion to insure its
long term effectiveness, periodic review
of an archaeological plan should be considered
an integral component of its implementation
and use. The review should be conducted
by the planning staff in conjunction with
an archaeologist. The purpose of such
a review should be to evaluate plan effective-
ness in terms of fulfilling its intended
goals, identify problems in plan implementa-
tion, propose plan modifications when
appropriate, reevaluate the criteria for
assessing site significance in light of
continuing advances in theory and methods,
and, if necessary, update the site data
base through a renewed informant interview
program.


Professional and Amateur Cooperation

Before concluding, we would like to mention
one very positive outcome of the project
- the cooperation between professional
and avocational archaeologists. From
the outset we considered it essential
to contact and interview local individuals
who might have knowledge about prehistoric
sites in the City, particularly those
that have been destroyed. With only a
few exceptions, all who were contacted
expressed interest and enthusiasm for
the project, and were generous in their
time and in the loan of their artifacts
for photographs and recordation. If it
were not for their cooperation, much of
the information about St. Petersburg's
prehistory would be irretrievably lost.
These private collections constitute the


only available data base for a large number
of the area's destroyed sites, and the
continued trust and support of the avocational
community should be cultivated and preserved
as an important source of information.

Beyond this, the active participation
of the avocational community, as well
as the public at large, was seen as necessary
to foster continued support for the Or-
dinance. As Tesar (1986:279) has observed,
public interest and participation are
two of the most important elements of
a successful preservation program since
it is ultimately the public that benefits
most from its enactment and implementation.

The St. Petersburg survey received wide
coverage in the press and television media,
and a public meeting was filled to overflowing
with interested citizens proving once
more that the public is concerned about
its cultural heritage. Unfortunately,
members of the non-professional archaeological
community have not historically been moved
to political action as have their counterparts
in the historic preservation movement
(that is, those who are concerned primarily
with the built environment). This is
due in part to the adversarial relationship
that has often developed between avocational
and professional archaeologists, and to
the generally non-visible nature of most
prehistoric sites; the general public
is quite often simply unaware of site
destruction.

In all these respects, our attempts to
forge a better relationship with collectors
and archaeological enthusiasts compliments
efforts to educate the general public
about the nature of the City's prehistoric
resources. In so doing, we hope to achieve
increased public awareness about the value
of preserving the past and, hopefully,
encourage active public participation
in the preservation process.


Acknowledgements

This project owes much of its success
to the efforts of several individuals.
Lynn Rosetti, Jan Norsoph and Ralph Stone









of the City of St. Petersburg Planning
Department were instrumental in obtaining
the funds necessary to conduct the survey.
They have continually shown a sincere
concern for the preservation and responsible
management of the City's cultural resources.
The thoughts and ideas expressed by Al
Goodyear in many long conversations along
the bayshore were invaluable for arriving
at some initial interpretations of site
distributions and their implications for
regional prehistory. Sam Upchurch generously
donated a day of his time to meet with
us and share his knowledge of the geology
and paleoenvironment of the Pinellas Peninsula
- so important for understanding changing
settlement patterns. Perhaps the most
important contributions of all came from
the many individuals, too numerous to
mention by name, who graciously allowed
us to view their collections and talk
to them about sites in the City. The
results of this survey would have suffered
greatly were it not for their help. This
is a much revised version of a paper presented
at the 39th annual meeting of the Florida
Anthropological Society, Clearwater, Florida.


References Cited


Austin, Robert J.
1987 An Archaeological Survey of the City of St. Peters-
burg, Florida. Manuscript on file, Piper
Archaeological Research, Inc., St. Peters-
burg.

Bense, Judith A.
1987 Development of an Management System for Archae-
ological Resources in Pensacola, Florida.
In Living in Cities: Current Research in
Urban Archaeology, edited by Sarah Peabody
Turnbaugh, pp. 83-91. Society for Historical
Archaeology, Special Publication Series Number
5.

Deming, Joan
1980 The Cultural Resources of Hillsborough County: An
Assessment of Prehistoric Resources. Historic
Tampa/ Hillsborough County Preservation Board,
Tampa.

Goodyear, Albert C.
1972 Political and Religious Change in the Tampa
Bay Timucua: An Ethnohistoric Reconstruction.
Unpublished manuscript. Copy on file, Piper
Archaeological Research, Inc., St. Petersburg.

Swanton, John
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States.
Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian
Institution, Bulletin no. 73, Washington,
D.C.

Tesar, Louis D.
1986 Historic Preservation and Florida's Local
Comprehensive Planning Process. The Florida
Anthropologist 39:257-280.



Robert J. Austin
Kenneth W. Hardin
Piper Archaeological Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 919
St. Petersburg, FL 33731


274






TOWARD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF
NORTH PENINSULAR GULF COAST FLORIDA PREHISTORY:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE IN DIXIE COUNTY

G Michael Johnson and Timothy A. Kohler


Abstract

Archaeological reconnaissance in
portions of Dixie County and
selected adjacent sections of Taylor
and Levy Counties, Florida, resulted
in the description of 28 sites that,
along with the region's previously
known sites, represent occupation
from the Archaic to the Historic
periods. Of particular interest are
one Taylor County site that has a
pure Swift Creek assemblage, and
several Dixie County sites contain-
ing pure or dominant Alachua Tradi-
tion components. Prior to this
reconnaissance, pure Swift Creek
sites were apparently unreported on
the Florida peninsula, and Alachua
Tradition sites were thought to be
rare outside North-central Florida.
Future work will attempt to provide
an absolute chronology for the re-
gion, then focus on determining the
relationships between the Alachua
Tradition groups and the region's
Weeden Island-related peoples.


Introduction

From December 26, 1985 to January
12, 1986, the authors, aided by sev-
eral local residents, conducted an
archaeological reconnaissance of
portions of Dixie County and
selected adjacent sections of Taylor
and Levy Counties, Florida (Kohler
and Johnson 1986a). The purpose of
the reconnaissance was to locate
previously unrecorded sites for in-
clusion in the Florida Master Site
File. This area was selected for
study because its archaeological re-
sources are poorly known and are
disappearing at an alarming rate
through relic collecting, timber
harvesting, commercial and residen-


tial development, and coastal ero-
sion. In this report, we briefly
summarize the past and present envi-
ronment of this part of Florida's
North Peninsular Gulf Coast region
and review the history of archaeo-
logical research in the area, then
discuss the methods and findings of
the reconnaissance and suggest some
topics for future research.


Present and Past Environment

This part of the North Peninsular
Gulf Coast region lies within the
Gulf Coastal Lowlands province (Puri
and Vernon 1964) and presently con-
sists of planted slash pine flat-
woods to the northwest and extensive
cordgrass-dominated salt marsh to
the southeast that end in a narrow
strip of sand beach. Tidal creeks
flow from small freshwater ponds in
the flatwoods down an extremely
shallow gradient through the marsh
and into the Gulf. Higher, better
drained areas in the flatwoods and
dune ridges near the edge of the
marsh once supported oak-hickory-
magnolia hammocks, although many now
are in planted slash pine. Some
higher areas on the offshore islands
and coastal peninsulas support
stands of cabbage palm, saw pal-
metto, and zamia. Such stands are
often present on prehistoric shell
middens.

While the climate does not appear to
have changed substantially over the
last 5000 years (Watts 1969),
changes in the depth of the water
table and in the amount of inunda-
tion resulting from changes in sea
level would have greatly affected
the distribution and composition of
plant and animal communities, and


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Dec., 1987


Vol. 40 No. 4






therefore would likely have affected
the location of human settlements.
The pattern of past sea level change
is currently the subject of debate.
While most researchers accept a
model of gradient rise to present
levels over the last 7000 years
(e.g., Gagliano 1984:15-17), possi-
bly slowing in the last 3000 years
(Thanz 1977), a competing view sug-
gests that between about 3000 B.P.
and 2000 B.P. seas fluctuated from
about one meter below to two meters
above their present levels (Missimer
1980:20; see also Fairbridge 1974).
The model of gradual rise appears to
be more in accord with local archae-
ological evidence since sites such
as Shired Island (8Di7) occupied in
part before 2000 B.P. would have
been largely destroyed had the Gulf
waters been much higher than their
present level.


Previous Archaeological Research

Archaeological investigations have
been conducted for more than a cen-
tury in the area that presently en-
compasses Taylor, Dixie, and Levy
Counties, Florida. During the sec-
ond half of the nineteenth century,
Daniel G. Brinton observed numerous
mounds along the Suwannee River from
Alachua County to the Gulf (Brinton
1859); Jeffries Wyman (1870) and
R.E.C. Stearns (1870) visited and
described several mounds and shell
middens on Cedar Keys, a group of
islands just off the Levy County
coast; and A.W. Vogdes (1879) and
S.T. Walker (1885)conducted excava-
tions in some of the Cedar Keys
sites (see Brose 1984:179; Willey
1949:15-35). During the early
1900s, Clarence B. Moore and his
party steamed along the peninsular
Gulf Coast and part way up several
of the major rivers in his boat, the
Gopher, excavating nearly all of the
mounds that they located. Among
these many sites were the Aucilla
River mound (8Tal), the Horseshoe
Point complex (8Dil), the Fowler's
Landing site (8Lvl), and several
other mounds near the mouths of the


Warrior and Steinhatchee Rivers,
along the Suwannee River for 50
miles, and on the Levy County coast
(Moore 1902, 1903, 1918; see also
Willey 1949:301-316).

After Moore's expeditions, little
archaeological work was done in the
area until the 1940s. From then un-
til the early 1960s, John Goggin and
his students located, surface col-
lected, tested, and described the
cultural materials from several
sites, including the Garden Patch
complex (8Di4), the Shired Island
site (8Di7), Hughes Island mound
(8Di45) and shell midden (8Di44),
Oven Hill (8Di15), and Hodgeson's
Hill (8Lv8). Some of this work has
been described in student papers
(e.g., Christman 1954; Silbereisen
1954) and graduate theses (e.g.,
Goldburt 1966). Other work con-
ducted during this period includes
Ripley Bullen's (1953) excavations
at the Manatee Springs site in Levy
County, and Montague Tallant' s exca-
vations at several sites in Dixie
and Levy Counties (Willey 1949:306,
308).

More recent work in the area has in-
cluded excavations at the Garden
Patch complex (8Di4) by Timothy
Thompson in 1969 and 1970 and by
Timothy Kohler in 1974 (Kohler
1975), Stephen Gluckman and
Christopher Peebles' (1974) report
on the underwater component at the
Oven Hill site (8Di15), Ben Waller
and James Dunbar's (1977) report on
the distribution of Paleo-Indian
projectile points recovered from
rivers, lakes, and sinkholes in the
area, and Alan Dorian and James
Stoutamire's (1981) inventory of
archaeological resources in the
Chassahowitzka, Cedar Keys and Lower
Suwannee federal wildlife refuges.
Finds by amateurs have also occa-
sionally been reported (e.g., Lien
1986).

These studies have provided only a
general and as yet not absolutely
dated outline of the prehistory of
the area. According to the cur-








rently accepted culture sequence,
lithic artifacts recovered from
lakes, ponds, and sinkholes evidence
early occupations (Waller and Dunbar
1977), while later periods are rep-
resented primarily by coastal shell
middens containing Deptford series
ceramics and earlier fiber-tempered
types (e.g., Goldburt 1966), several
mounds and middens containing Weeden
Island series ceramics (e.g., Kohler
1975; see also Fairbanks 1965:59),
and a few sites, particularly along
the Suwannee River, that have Semi-
nole materials (e.g., Gluckman and
Peebles 1974). Little is known
about the time between the Weeden
Island-related and Historic period
occupations. Virtually no Safety
Harbor or Fort Walton ceramics are
known from the area, and prior to
our reconnaissance only a few ceram-
ics resembling Alachua Tradition
types from North-central Florida had
been noted (Bullen 1953).


Methods

In order to locate as many sites as
possible during the short time
available, we solicited information
from residents familiar with some of
the many local sites. Since the use
of this technique resulted in the
collection of information about a
sample of sites that is almost cer-
tainly not representative of the
range of archaeological resources,
future reconnaissance conducted with
a probabilistic design is highly de-
sirable. Most of the sites we lo-
cated are on dry areas in hammocks
or flatwoods and are easily ap-
proached using sand or paved roads.
Many are on lands owned by two large
timber companies, Georgia-Pacific
and Buckeye Cellulose Corporation,
and in areas currently owned by the
Nature Conservancy but soon to be
transferred to the State of Florida.
Unfavorable tides and inclement
weather prevented our visiting prob-
able sites on some of the offshore
islands.


We generally collected all cultural
materials present on the surface of
each site. In the few cases in
which sites were too large and
materials too abundant to permit to-
tal collection, as at the Northwest
(8Di89), South (8Di90) and Northeast
(8Di91) Sand Pond sites, we obtained
a sample of materials that we be-
lieved to be characteristic of those
sites; however, no formal sampling
procedure was used.

Following the fieldwork, we sorted,
washed, labeled, and analyzed all
cultural materials. Treatment of
the ceramic materials was mainly
classificatory, using traditionally
recognized types (Milanich 1971;
Willey 1949). These types typically
occur in series believed to reflect
traditions, and may permit some tem-
poral subdivision of those tradi-
tions. Analysis of the lithic
materials was concerned with deter-
mining the reduction technology rep-
resented at each site, including a
consideration of the geologic con-
text from which the raw material was
obtained, the possible heat treat-
ment of the material, and the knap-
ping techniques employed (see
Johnson 1985). We avoided using
morphological typology to classify
formal tools, including "projectile
points," because rejuvenation, dif-
ferential use, and many other prob-
lems may prevent such typologies
from providing satisfactory func-
tional or temporal information
(e.g., Ahler 1971; Flenniken and
Raymond 1986).


Results and Discussion

During our reconnaissance, we
recorded 26 sites in Dixie County
and one each in Taylor and Levy
Counties (Figure 1). These sites
are located primarily near the coast
and along the Suwannee and
Steinhatchee Rivers. This distribu-
tion may reflect a bias in the ex-
pertise of our informants that may









be due to greater site visibility in
these areas. The possibility of a
higher site density in these areas
remains to be rigorously tested.


Based on the ceramics present, the
majority of the sites can be classi-
fied as Deptford, Weeden Island-re-


lated, Alachua Tradition, or
Seminole; several sites have materi-
als from two or more of these
ceramic traditions. The few sites
that lack ceramics, such as the
Tiger Ridge site (8Di81) in northern
Dixie County, or that appear to have
a nonceramic, such as the Kenny Land


TAYLOR COUNTY


LAFAYETTE COUNTY


DIXIE COUNTY


0
0
^0


BEACH


z

co

A-
- 0
3
0


0
U
I )
w
-i
O


0 10 20
SCALE IN KILOMETERS


VICINITY MAP


CEDAR KEYS


Figure 1. Map of Dixie County and adjacent sections of Taylor and Levy counties, Florida
showing sites located during winter 1985/86 reconnaissance. Site numbers are Florida
Master Site File designations. Site names appear in the text.































1 2 3 4 5
Figure 2. Deptford ceramics. Top row, l-r: check stamped (3); bottom row, 1-r: Deptford
Simple Stamped, Deptford Linear Check Stamped, Deptford Simple Stamped.


CM
i


I i J


Figure 3. Swift Creek ceramics. Top row, 1-r: Swift Creek Complicated Stamped (3);
bottom row, 1-r: Swift Creek Complicated Stamped (2), St. Andrews Complicated
Stamped.






tCM


1 J 4 3


Figure 4. Weeden Island ceramics. Top row, l-r: check stamped with Weeden Island
rim and punctations, Weeden Island Plain rim, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped;
bottom row, l-r: Carrabelle Punctated, Keith Incised, Carrabelle Incised.


1 2 3 4 5
Figure 5. Alachua Tradition ceramics. Top row, l-r: Prairie Cord Marked (2), Prairie
Punctated-over-Cord Marked; bottom row, l-r: Alachua Cob Marked (2), Lochloosa
Punctated.


? rn

"r:






DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA


GENERALIZED PREHISTORIC LITHIC REDUCTION


Figure 6. Preliminary model of post-Archaic period lithic reduction in Dixie County,
Florida.


site (8Di103) in the eastern part of
the county, may represent Archaic
period occupations. Excavation of
datable materials from these sites
is necessary to explore this possi-
bility.

Deptford ceramics (Figure 2) are the
major cultural component at the
Butler Island South site (8Di97), a
linear shell midden on the coast
southeast of Horseshoe Beach that
covers approximately 16,000 sq m and
is composed primarily of oyster
shells and has a dense accumulation
of cultural materials. We also
found Deptford ceramics at a few in-
land sites, as for example at Sand
Point Northeast (8Di91), suggesting
that some Deptford groups may have


had inland residential locations,
made logistical use of inland areas,
or both.

A Swift Creek ceramic assemblage was
present at the Stanaland site
(8Ta127) in southern Taylor County
(Figure 3). This site consists of a
relatively undisturbed circular
mound presently 1 m high and about
30 m in diameter, and a surrounding
midden that covers at least 60,000
sq m and contains some oyster and a
few other kinds of marine shell.
The surface ceramic assemblage is
composed of approximately 35% com-
plicated stamped ceramics in mound
contexts and 10% in midden contexts,
with no other decorated types. This
site is interesting because it ex-


BLANK PREFORM END


FLAKE


CORE


PRODUCT


-4'


DEBITAGE


: -1


L m







tends somewhat further to the south
the known distribution of Swift
Creek sites (see Milanich et al
1984:14). Since such sites are ap-
parently absent in Dixie County, it
also suggests the possibility that
an ethnic (or at least ceramic)
boundary existed in the vicinity of
the Steinhatchee River during the
early years of the first millennium
A.D.

Weeden Island-related ceramics
(Figure 4) dominate the assemblage
from five sites that we recorded:
the Old Prison site (8Di85), the
Roadcut to Nowhere site (8Di92),
Swamp Buggy Mound (8Di93), and
Hardman Middens I (8Di94) and II
(8Di95); and are present in smaller
numbers at a few other sites. The
five predominantly Weeden Island-re-
lated sites are located both inland
and adjacent to the salt marsh.
They have up to 16.7% Weeden Island
series ceramics (excluding check- or
complicated-stamped types) with 9%
as the mean. Hardman Midden II
(8Di95) is particularly noteworthy
because, in addition to extremely
well preserved ceramics, it contains
abundant and unusually well pre-
served faunal materials, including
the remains of deer, turtle, and ma-
rine fish, that can potentially pro-
vide information concerning the sub-
sistence practices of Weeden Island-
related groups in the area. While
few mounds, such as Swamp Buggy
Mound, were recorded, midden sites
were much more common. They cover
from about 500 to 17,000 sq m, with
an average of slightly more than
6000 sq m.

To our surprise, Alachua Tradition
sites were the most abundant encoun-
tered. These sites were found
throughout Dixie County, even almost
directly adjacent to the coast.
While Bullen's (1953) work at Mana-
tee Springs provided an early indi-
cation of the local importance of
this tradition, most discussions
(Milanich 1971; Milanich and


Fairbanks 1980:23) emphasize its
North-central Florida distribution.
Alachua Tradition ceramics (Figure
5), including Lochloosa Punctated,
Alachua Cob Marked, Prairie Cord
Marked, Prairie Fabric Marked, and
Prairie Punctated-over-Cord Marked,
comprise the dominant component at
seven sites: unnamed 8Di80, the Hill
site (8Di84), South Fishbone
(8Di86), North Fishbone 1 (8Di87)
and 2 (8Di88), the Rick Thompson
Road North site (8Di102), and the
Kenny Land site (8Di103). Alachua
Tradition ceramics occur with Weeden
Island series ceramics at South
Fishbone, North Fishbone 1, and Rick
Thompson Road North. Both Weeden
Island and Alachua Tradition series
ceramics frequently co-occur with
ceramics on a spiculate paste (St.
Johns and Papys Bayou series
sherds); however, the correlation of
spiculate paste ceramics and Alachua
Tradition ceramics is stronger. As
with the Weeden Island-related
sites, most of the Alachua Tradition
sites that we recorded were middens.
They were in general more dispersed
than Weeden Island-related middens,
covering from about 10,000 to, at
the Kenny Land site, over 600,000 sq
m, with an average of over 117,000
sq m. We located only one Alachua
Tradition site that may have had an
associated mound (8Di80). The pos-
sibility that mounds such as Hosie
Pond Mound (8Di79), unnamed 8Di82,
and Shacklefoot Mound (8Lv139) are
Alachua Tradition sites should be
tested through excavation.

We located Seminole ceramics at only
one site, McCrabb Landing (8Dil01),
where they were present with Weeden
Island series ceramics along a 200 m
long area atop a bluff overlooking
the Suwannee River north of Old
Town. The distance that materials
extend away from the river could not
be determined.

Preliminary analysis of the lithic
materials from the sites we recorded
indicates that the Weeden Island-re-







lated and Alachua Tradition knappers
used the same basic reduction tech-
nology to make bifaces, flake tools,
and hammerstones out of local cherts
(Figure 6). They also occasionally
made tools out of presumably local
silicified coral. Several groups
heat treated some of their lithic
materials prior to reducing them
into bifaces and possibly other
tools, but in general heat treatment
does not appear to have been an es-
pecially important part of the re-
duction technology. An apparent ex-
ception to this observation is found
at the Kenny Land site (8Di103),
where about 23% of the debitage and
43% of the tools appear to evidence
heat treatment; however, since this
site contains a nonceramic compo-
nent, it is unclear whether the
Alachua Tradition knappers, earlier
knappers, or both heat treated their
stone. Archaic and Deptford peoples
probably employed strategies of
stone tool manufacture similar to
those of the later groups, but more
information is needed before prelim-
inary interpretations can be made.

While lithic reduction techniques
appear to have been similar for at
least several hundred years, initial
comparisons of the lithic assem-
blages from each site suggest an in-
land-coastal dichotomy in the pat-
tern of stone tool manufacture.
Sites located inland near the
Steinhatchee and Suwannee Rivers
have relatively abundant lithic ar-
tifacts and provide good evidence
that the knappers at those sites re-
moved flakes from blocky, angular,
or tabular pieces of chert, then re-
duced selected flakes into tools.
Conversely, sites near the coast
contain fewer lithic artifacts and
have less evidence of core reduc-
tion. This general pattern is con-
sistent with the idea that inland
groups made more extensive use of
the region's lithic materials than
did the coastal groups because the
inland groups were closer to the
chert and silicified coral outcrops
in and near the major rivers (see
Purdy 1981:70-72) and therefore had


easier access to them. Coastal
groups may have made tools more of-
ten from flakes that they had made
or obtained in another location, and
perhaps made more use of non-lithic
materials such as bone and shell.


Research Priorities for Dixie County

Much work remains to be done in the
area. Among the first concerns is
the establishment of an absolutely
dated regional chronology. Only
when the timing and duration of the
Archaic, Deptford, Swift Creek,
Weeden Island-related, and Alachua
Tradition occupations are known can
we begin to examine how large their
populations were, the ways in which
they adapted to their environment,
and the processes through which they
interacted with their contempo-
raries.

The next stage of our research will
focus on the Weeden Island-related
and Alachua Tradition occupations
(Johnson 1987; Kohler 1987). We
hope to conduct excavations to ob-
tain datable materials that will de-
termine when the two groups occupied
the region and whether, as now seems
possible, their occupations over-
lapped. Our long range research
goals are to conduct more extensive
excavations and analyses that will
permit us to examine the social and
ecological processes that might have
structured interactions between the
two societies and that, as in North-
central Florida (Milanich 1971;
Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:160-
180), apparently resulted in the re-
placement of the Weeden Island-re-
lated residents by the Alachua
Tradition immigrants. Paleoenviron-
mental studies of the region will
help determine whether either group
manipulated the environment through
techniques such as controlled burn-
ing, and whether climatic change
might have influenced the behaviors
of and interactions between the two
societies. Detailed analyses of
floral and faunal remains will pro-
vide additional information on the






past environment and determine the
relative contributions of food col-
lecting and food producing in the
subsistence economies of the two so-
cieties. Finally, detailed techno-
logical, stylistic, and spatial
analyses of ceramic, lithic, and
shell artifacts will provide compar-
ative information on the economic,
social, and ceremonial aspects of
the two societies.


Acknowledgements

Funding for the reconnaissance was
provided by two Historic Preserva-
tion Grants-in-Aid from the Division
of Archives, History, and Records
Management, Florida Department of
State; by the Department of Anthro-
pology, Washington State University;
and by the Department of Anthropol-
ogy, Florida State Museum, Univer-
sity of Florida. We would also like
to acknowledge assistance from sev-
eral local residents and scholars.
Julian Granberry of Horseshoe Beach,
Hank Stoddard and Clark and Marjorie
Hardman of Cross City, Bonnie
Williams of Old Town, Betty Kohler
of Hague, and Jerald Milanich of
Gainesville provided help which was
essential to the completion of the
project. We would also like to
thank Fred Gaske, Perry Hill,
Leonard Kroon, Rochelle Marrinan,
Myrtle Peacock, Bob Stanley, Shannon
Willis, and Bill Zettler for various
services. A shorter version of this
paper was presented at the 43rd An-
nual Meeting of the Southeastern Ar-
chaeological Conference in
Nashville, Tennessee, November 8,
1986.


References Cited

Ahler, Stanley A.
1971 Projectile Point Form and Func-
tion at Rodgers Shelter, Mis-
souri. Missouri Archaeologi-
cal Society Research Series 8,
Columbia.


Brinton, Daniel G.
1859 Floridian Peninsula, Its Liter-
ary History, Indian Tribes,
and Antiquities. Philadel-
phia.

Brose, David S.
1984 Mississippian Period Cultures
in Northwestern Florida. In
Perspectives on Gulf Coast
Prehistory, edited by Dave D.
Davis, PP. 165-197. Univer-
sity Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1953 Excavations at Manatee Springs,
Florida. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 6:53-67.

Christman, Heidi
1954 Hughes Island Mound Site. Un-
published student paper on
file at the Department of An-
thropology, Florida State Mu-
seum, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Dorian, Alan W. and James Stoutamire
1981 Literature Search and Partial
Cultural Resource Inventory of
Chassahowitzka, Cedar Keys,
and Lower Suwannee National
Wildlife Refuges. Florida
State University, Tallahassee.
NPS/IRM-A-50477(80).

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1965 Gulf Complex Subsistence Econ-
omy. Southeastern Archaeolog-
ical Conference Bulletin 3:57-
62.

Fairbridge, Rhodes W.
1974 The Holocene Sea Level Record
in South Florida. In Environ-
ments of South Florida: Past
and Present, Miami Geological
Society Memoir 2, edited by
Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 223-
229.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey and Anan W.
Raymond
1986 Morphological Projectile Point






Typology: Replication Experi-
mentation and Technological
Analysis. American Antiquity
51:603-614.

Gagliano, Sherwood M.
1984 Geoarchaeology of the Northern
Gulf Shore. In Perspectives
on Gulf Coast Prehistory,
edited by Dave D. Davis, pp.
1-40. University Presses of
Florida, Gainesville.

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

Goldburt, Jules S.
1966 The Archaeology of Shired Is-
land. M.A. Thesis, Department
of Anthropology, University of
Florida, Gainesville.

Johnson, G. Michael
1985 Lithic Technology and Social
Complexity at a North Florida
Weeden Island Period Site.
M.A. Thesis, Department of An-
thropology, Washington State
University, Pullman.

1987 The Weeden Island/Alachua Tra-
dition Transition in North
Peninsular Gulf Coastal
Florida. Proposal submitted
to the Wenner-Gren Foundation
for Anthropological Research
dated May 29, 1987. Copy on
file, Department of Anthropol-
ogy, Washington State Univer-
sity, Pullman.

Kohler, Timothy A.
1975 The Garden Patch Site: A Minor
Weeden Island Ceremonial Cen-
ter on the North Peninsular
Florida Gulf Coast. M.A. The-
sis, Department of Anthropol-
ogy, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

1987 Dixie County Archaeological
Project: Fishers to Farmers in
Prehistory. Proposal submit-


ted to the National Geographic
Society dated June 1, 1987.
Copy on file, Department of
Anthropology, Washington State
University, Pullman.

Kohler, Timothy A. and G. Michael
Johnson
1986 Dixie County Archaeological Re-
connaissance, Winter 1985/86.
Report submitted to the Bureau
of Historic Preservation, Di-
vision of Archives, History,
and Records Management,
Florida Department of State,
Tallahassee.

Lien, Paul M.
1986 A Spontoon Tomahawk from Dixie
County. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 39:224-225.


Milanich, Jerald T.
1971 The Alachua Tradition in North-
Central Florida. Florida
State Museum Contributions.
Anthropology and History 7.

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

Missimer, Thomas M.
1980 Holocene Sea Level Changes in
the Gulf of Mexico: An Unre-
solved Controversy. In
Holocene Geology and Man in
Pinellas and Hillsborough
Counties, Florida, compiled by
Sam B. Upchurch, pp. 19-23.
Southeastern Geological Soci-
ety Guidebook 22. Southeast-
ern Geological Society, Talla-
hassee.

Moore, Clarence B.
1902 Certain Aboriginal Remains of
the Northwest Florida Coast.
Journal of the Academy of Nat-
ural Sciences of Philadelphia,
Volume 12, Part 2.

1903 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of
the Florida Central West
Coast. Journal of the Academy







of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, Volume 12, Part
3.

1918 The Northwest Florida Coast Re-
visited. Journal of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, Volume 16.

Purdy, Barbara A.
1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone
Technology: A Study of the
Flintworking Technique of
Early Florida Stone Implement
Makers. University Presses of
Florida, Gainesville.

Puri, Harbans S. and Robert 0.
Vernon
1964 Summary of the Geology of
Florida and a Guidebook to the
Classic Exposures. Florida
Geological Survey Special Pub-
lication 5.

Silbereisen, Adele
1954 Hughes Island Mound (Di 45).
Unpublished student paper on
file at the Department of An-
thropology, Florida State Mu-
seum, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Stearns, R.E.C.
1870 Rambles in Florida. American
Naturalist 3:349-360, 397-405,
455-470.

Thanz, Nina R.
1977 A Correlation of Environmental
and Cultural Changes in North-
eastern Florida during the
Late Archaic Period. Journal
of Field Archaeology 2:3-22.

Vogdes, A.W.
1879 Notes on a Lost Race of Amer-
ica. American Naturalist
13:9-11.

Walker, S.T.
1885 Mounds and Shell Heaps on the
West Coast of Florida. Annual
Report of the Smithsonian In-
stitution for 1883, pp. 854-
868.


Waller, Ben I. and James Dunbar
1977 Distribution of Paleo-Indian
Projectile Points in Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist
30:79-80.

Watts, W.A.
1969 A Pollen Diagram from Mud Lake,
Marion County, Florida. Geo-
logical Society of America
Bulletin 80:631-642.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf
Coast. Smithsonian Miscella-
neous Collections 113.

Wyman, Jeffries
1870 Explorations in Florida. Third
Annual Report of the Peabody
Museum, Harvard University,
pp. 8-9.

G. Michael Johnson
Timothy A. Kohler
Department of Anthropology
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99164-4910
August 18, 1987








PREHISTORIC AND EARLY HISTORIC SETTLEMENT
IN THE KISSIMMEE RIVER VALLEY: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
OF THE AVON PARK AIR FORCE RANGE

Robert J. Austin


Introduction

In November and December of 1985, Piper
Archaeological Research, Inc. under contract
with the U.S. Department of Energy, conducted
a preliminary archaeological survey of
the Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR)
in Polk and Highlands Counties, Florida.
The purpose of the survey was to provide
base level data on the types, distribution,
and potential significance of prehistoric
and historic period sites located on the
Range. Information gathered during the
survey was used to generate a preliminary
predictive model of prehistoric and historic
period site location for use by the Air
Force in future planning and management
of cultural resources on the Range (Austin
and Piper 1986).


Environment
and Recent Land Use

The project area encompasses approximately
106,210 acres of which 78,484 acres are
undeveloped uplands. The Range is located
between the Kissimmee River and Lake Arbuckle/
Arbuckle Creek in southeastern Polk and
northeastern Highlands Counties (Figure
1). It is characterized environmentally
by large expanses of pine/palmetto flatlands
and prairie grasslands interspersed with
oak hammocks and isolated stands of scrub
oak and sand pine. Bay and cypress heads
are common with dense hardwood and cypress
swamps present along the larger creeks
and streams. The dominant topographic
feature is Bombing Range Ridge, a relict
offshore sandbar oriented coast parallel
that runs through the approximate center
of the Range. Soils on the ridge tend
to be better drained than those in the
surrounding flatlands and they support
relatively large expanses of scrub forest.

The major surface water features are Lake


Arbuckle, the Kissimmee River, Arbuckle
Creek and Morgan Hole Creek. Secondary
water sources include numerous lakes and
ponds located throughout the property.
Most are little more than shallow, circular
depressions that contain water perched
above a slowly permeable hardpan on an
intermittent basis. A few, such as Submarine
Lake and Little Lake on Bombing Range
Ridge, are sinkholes that contain water
year round.

The Range property was acquired by the
U.S. government in 1939 and a bombing
range was constructed to train flight
crews during World War II. Currently
the area is used for bombing practice
by the Air Force and for artillery firing,
parachute jump training and ground exercises
by Reserve and National Guard units.
Non-military uses include cattle grazing,
timber planting and management, and public
access for hunting, fishing and camping.

Prior to its acquisition by the U.S. govern-
ment, the area was sparsely populated
by homesteaders. During the early 20th
century the land was owned by the Consolidated
Naval Stores Company and for awhile the
wood products industry was a major economic
impetus in the Kissimmee River basin.
The nature of these recent land use practices
have not, for the most part, been destructive
to archaeological resources resulting
in a good state of preservation for even
the most ephemeral of occupations. The
channelization of the Kissimmee River
during the 1960's did, however, cut through
some hammock areas along its natural banks
which may have contained prehistoric as
well as early historic sites.

Survey Results

A total of approximately 3600 acres was
surveyed during the project. The surveyed
acreage represents a 4.6% sample of the


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Dec., 1987


Vol. 40 No. 4








































SPrehistoric Site
0 toile
A Historic Site "

Multicomponent Site
(Prehistoric & Historic)


Figure 1. Avon Park Air Force Range and archaeological sites located during survey.








undeveloped uplands. A total of 37 archae-
ological sites were recorded including
14 prehistoric sites, 18 historic period
sites, and five multi-component (i.e. pre-
historic and historic period) sites (Figure
1).


Prehistoric Resources

Four types of prehistoric sites were located
during the survey large dirt middens
containing ceramics and faunal material
located along the Kissimmee River, a sand
mound also near the Kissimmee River, freshwater
shell middens on the banks of Lake Arbuckle,
and small, low density artifact scatters
most commonly found in mesic hammock or
sand pine/scrub oak environments throughout
the interior. Temporally these sites
span the entire range of prehistoric occupation
in south-central Florida, from Paleo-Indian
through Belle Glade IV times (Table 1).

Diagnostic projectile points collected
from the APAFR during the survey and by
an avocational archaeologist, Sgt. Anthony
Kolodgy of the Air Force, clearly document
use of the Kissimmee River basin by aboriginal
groups during the late Pleistocene and
early Holocene eras (Figure 2). Preceramic
occupations are also suspected at several
interior lithic scatter sites that did
not yield diagnostic tool types.

Large ceramic period midden sites are
located in hardwood hammocks along the
river and their size, depth of deposit,
and artifact assemblages indicate that
they were permanent or seasonally occupied
habitation sites. The undulating terrain
which characterizes these sites is the
result of differential accumulation of
midden debris which may represent individual
household locations. Turtle, fish, snake,
alligator, bird, and deer are well represented
in the faunal assemblages, while mollusks
and gastropods were collected from Lake
Arbuckle as evidenced by the shell middens
located there.

Outside of the Range boundaries, a complex
of midden and mound sites is recorded
in the Florida Master Site File on the


west shore of Lake Arbuckle, and large
habitation sites are reportedly located
at the lake's north and south ends (DeVane
1983:3-4).

Ceramic period inland sites are all short-term,
limited activity campsites in sand pine/scrub
oak environments that no doubt represent
inland forays to procure secondary subsistence
resources with which to supplement the
basic diet of freshwater shellfish, fish
and turtle. Their association with intermit-
tent ponds and streams suggests that utiliza-
tion of the interior was scheduled to
correspond with the seasonal availability
of surface water.

The cultural affinities of these ceramic
period groups are clearly with the Belle
Glade cultures of the Okeechobee basin
area. Belle Glade Plain ceramics are
the principal diagnostic ware with sand-
tempered plain and the spiculite paste
St. Johns Plain a distant second and third,
respectively (Table 2). Rim sherds collected
from several sites on the Range (Figure
3) resemble closely those from the Fisheating
Creek site at Fort Center (Porter 1951),
the Belle Glade site (Willey 1949), and
the Phillip Mound (Benson 1967). Nearly
all appear to be from the small open bowls
which were the common utilitarian vessels
of South Florida's aborigines.

Two sites contain semi-fiber-tempered
sherds indicating occupation during the
early Belle Glade period, ca. 500 B.C..
Sherds of sand-tempered plain and sand-tempered
plain with spiculite paste are also abundant;
the latter differing from Belle Glade
Plain in the lack of a "chalky" feel (cf.
Mitchem 1986:86). A single sand-tempered
sherd with a linear-stamped design was
recovered from one of the midden sites.
Although similar to Deptford Simple Stamped,
the sherd is so small that a positive
identification is impossible.

Within the ceramic assemblage, paste and
temper variation forms a continuum ranging
from very sandy with no spicules to abundant
spicules with little or no sand. Surface
and rim treatment attributes diagnostic
of Belle Glade ceramic technology, i.e. tooled,














Table 1: Prehistoric Sites on the Avon Park Air Force Range


Site Type


Site #



8Hgl8
8Hg20
8Hg22
8Hg23
8Hg25
8Hg26
8H927
6Hg31
8Hg32
811934
8Hg35
8Hg36
8Po992
8Po993
8Po999
bPoI003

8Poi007

SPolOO9


Culture Period


Belle Glade I-IV
Belle Glade
Unknown probably Archaic
Unknown probably Archaic
Unknown probably Archaic
Unknown probably Archaic
Belle Glade I-IV
Belle Glade
Unknown
probably Belle Glade
Late Paleo-Middle Archaic
Unknown probably Belle Glade
Unknown probably Archaic
Bple Glade
Belle Glade II-III
Middle Archair
Belle Glade
Belle Glade
Belle Glade


Environment


Oak hammock/riverbank
Oak hammock/riverbank
Sand pine-oak scrub/lake
Sand pine-oak scrub/lake
Pine flatwoods/creek & pond
Oak hainiock/pond/river valley
Oak hammock/riverbank
Oak ham mock/pond/ river iarsh
Oak hammock/river marsh
Pine flatwoods/river valley
Pine flatwoods/cypress swamp
Oak haRimuock/crcek
Pine flatwoods/slough
Sand Ipine-scrub oak/pond
Sand pine-scrub oak/pondr
Pine flatwoods/pond
Oak hainukock/lakeside
Oak hlamirock/lakeside
Sand pine-scrub oak/creek


Dirt hidden
Dirt hidden
Lithic Scatter
Lithic Scatter
Lithic Scatter
Lithic Scatter
Dirt Mididen
Dirt Midden
Lithic Scatter
Sand r-1ound
Lithic Scatter
Lithics & Sherds
Lithic Scatter
Lithicr & Sberds
Sherd Scatter
Lithic Scatter
Shell hidden
Shell Midcen
Lithics & Sherds




















Table 2: Ceramic Type Frequencies from Prehistoric Sites on the Avon Park Air Force Range


Belle Glade St. John's Sand-tempered STP with Semi-fiber- Simple Totals
Plain Plain Plain spicules tempered Stamped

Site # N % N % N % N % N % N % N %


8Hgl8 185 57.3% 49 15.2% 45 13.9% 34 10.5% 9 2.8% 1 0.3% 323 100.0%
6Hg20 2 22.2% 3 33.3% 3 33.3% 1 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9 100.0%
8Hg27 11 21.2% 9 17.3% 25 48.1% 4 7.7% 3 5.8% 0.0% 52 100.0%
8Hg31 9 36.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16 64.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25 100.0%
8Po995 0.0% 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 100.0%
8Po999 3 25.0% 0.0% 6 50.0% 3 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12 100.0%
8Pol007 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 100.0%
8Pol008 1 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3 100.0%

Totals 211 49.3% 63 14.7% 79 18.5% 62 14.5% 12 2.8% 1 0.2% 428 100.0%


Table 3: Historic Period Sites on the Avon Park Air Force Range


Site # Site Type Time Period Environment


8Hgl5 Fort Third Seminole War Oak hammock/river bank
Community Mid-18th-Early 20th Century Oak hammock/sand pine-oak
scrub/river bank
8Hg20 Unknown Mid-20th Century Oak hammock/river bank
8Hg24 Turpentine Camp Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/lake
8Hg26 Homestead Early-Mid 20th Century Oak hammock/river valley
8Hg28 Homestead Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Hg29 Homestead Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Hg30 Cattle Camp Early-Mid 20th Century Oak hammock/creek
8Hg33 Windmill probably early-mid 20th Century Pine flatwoods/cypress swamp
8Hg37 Homestead Late 19th Century Oak hammock/creek
8Po993 Turpentine Camp Early 20th Century Oak hammiock/sand pine-oak
scrub/pond
8Po994 Homestead Early-Mid 20th Century Oak/pine/pond
8Po995 Homestead Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Po996 Herty Cup Dump Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Po997 Homestead Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Po998 Church Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/creek
8Po999 Fort Third Seminole War Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Pol000 Homestead Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Pol001 Homestead Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Pol002 Cattle Pens Early 20th Century Pine flatwoods/stream
8Pol004 Homestead Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Pol005 Homestead Early 20th Century Sand pine-scrub oak/lake
8Pol006 Turpentine Camp Early 20th Century Sand pine-oak scrub/pond
8Pol008 Homestead probably early 20th Century Oak hammock/lake/cypress swamp














~~~1~


I -


n 0


FIf/
p q r


j


Rim sherd profiles: a-g, i, r, t. Belle Glade Plain; h, j-1, o. sand-
tempered plain; s. sand-tempered plain with spicules; m-n, q, u. St.
Johns Plain; p. semi-fiber-tempered plain. Sherd proveniences: 8Hgl5
c, m-n, p, s; 8Hgl8 a, d-l, o, q-r; 8Po999 b, t.





Figure 3.























** '- IA._'Iq6AF ikL~r. _A-P




Figure 4. Concrete cistern at the Keene Homestead, 8Po994.


Figure 5.


Remains of cattle dipping vat, trough and load-
ing platform at the Keene Homestead, 8Po994.


Figure 2. Projectile points from the Kolodgy collection.






























Figure 6.


Cattle brands engraved in
platform.


concrete loading


Figure 7.


Concreted ash, resin and sand marking location
of turpentine still site.
M


Figure 8. Herty cup "midden" at the Nalaka Turpentine
Camp, 8P0993.








pitted or scratched surfaces, were found
to he associated with a variety of combinations
of paste and temper types including one
semi-fiber-tempered sherd with tooling
marks on its exterior surface. This suggests
that local populations had access to and/or
experimented with different types of clays
and methods of tempering while retaining
a set of stylistic and technological traits
(typically associated with the Belle Glade
ceramic tradition) over a long period
of time.

Historic Period Resources

A large number of historic period sites
were also recorded during the survey.
These include late 19th and early 20th
century homestead sites, cattle camps,
and three turpentine camps (Table 3).
The general locations of most of these
sites were derived from a recent history
of the Avon Park lands written by Park
DeVane (1983), however, many were never
field checked by him. Two Seminole War
period sites, Fort Kissimmee and Fort
Arbuckle, are also located on the property.

Homestead sites and cattle camps are typically
represented by a small clearing containing
a sparse to moderate amount of artifacts.
Often one or more old fields are located
nearby. No standing structures remain
at any of these sites, although concrete
water tanks, dipping vats, and building
foundations are present at some (Figures
4, 5 and 6). Only one subsurface feature
was discovered; this was a brick hearth
for a fireplace at one of the homesteads.

Historic documents indicate that the turpentine
camps were in operation from 1919 to about
1928 and this date range is supported
by the diagnostic artifacts collected
from the sites. These include a variety
of whiteware and ironstone ceramics both
plain and decorated, as well as glass
bottles and jars for medicine, beverages,
condiments, food, and toiletries. Turpentine
tools, several styles of metal and ceramic
resin collecting cups, the remains of
automobiles and trucks, and miscellaneous
fragments of metal, brick and wood were
also found.


Significantly, all three turpentine sites
display well preserved internal structure
in the form of clearings containing func-
tionally specific artifact assemblages
and features. Most of these activity
areas are clearly related to various tasks
in the turpentine production process.
For example, the locations of turpentine
stills are evidenced by deposits of dark,
consolidated, burned soil in association
with concreted sand, charcoal, and resin
that are the result of impurities discarded
during processing (Figure 7). Other areas
contain thousands of discarded collecting
cups which we began to refer to as "Herty
cup middens" (Figure 8). Still other
areas contain domestic artifacts which
indicate that they functioned as sleeping,
eating and living areas. A system of
tramlines connecting all of these sites
was used to transport naval products to
the main railhead at Nalaka located at
the northern periphery of the Range.


The APAFR Survey
in Regional Perspective

Very little archaeological work of a sub-
stantitve nature has been done in the
Kissimmee River basin, and much of the
region's prehistory has been reconstructed
using data from sites located in other
parts of the state. This study sought
to rectify this deficiency by contributing
some basic information necessary to better
understand the cultural sequence and past
lifeways of the aboriginal people who
inhabited the region.

The results document a long period of
aboriginal use of the valley beginning
during the Paleo-Indian period and lasting
through historic times. A dramatic shift
in settlement and subsistence strategies
about the time of the late Archaic is
also strongly indicated. The nature of
the preceramic period utilization is still
unclear since no early sites have been
systematically excavated, however, the
available data support the hypothesis
that it was limited to short-term, probably
seasonal exploitation of local subsistence
resources, principally deer and hardwood


295









nuts. The lack of naturally occurring
lithic raw materials in the area, the
direct evidence of biface resharpening
exhibited by tool specimens in Kolodgy's
collection, and the biface thinning and
retouch flakes that dominate the lithic
assemblages at these sites indicate highly
curated assemblages most often associated
with mobile hunter/gatherer populations.
The absence of any large habitation sites
dating to this period may be reflective
of a shortage of available surface water
due to drier environmental conditions
prior to 3000 B.C. (Watts 1971, 1975;
Long 1974; Clausen et al. 1979).

As climate and environment approached
that of today there was a significant
shift in the prehistoric utilization of
the basin. The settlement and subsistence
pattern for the post-Archaic was one of
reliance on freshwater riverine and lacustrine
resources supplemented by deer and probably
nuts and other wild plants procured from
inland locations. Large dirt and/or shell
middens are commonly found at river, creek,
or lakeside locations throughout the Kissimmee
River basin from Lake Okeechobee northward
to eastern Polk and northern Osceola counties
(e.g. Griffin and Smith 1948; Goggin 1951;
Griffin 1956; Bullen and Beilman 1973;
Carr 1975; Seabury et al. 1985; Florida
Master Site File). Belle Glade ceramics
dominate the assemblages at nearly all
of these sites, while in the vicinity
of Lake Tohopekaliga and northward the
chalky St. Johns series predominates.
Non-local ceramics are found in small
but significant amounts indicating interaction
between other culture areas, particularly
the St. Johns and Central Gulf Coast areas.

The noticeable increase in the number
and size of the sites dating to this period
indicates an increase in population density,
with indigenous population growth perhaps
augmented by a southward expansion or
migration of groups in the St. Johns area
as evidenced by the presence of fiber-tempered,
semi-fiber-tempered, and St. Johns Plain
pottery in early midden deposits at Fort
Center (Sears 1982: Figure 7.1) and Avon
Park. There is also evidence which indicates
that at about this time the freshwater


shellfishing localities along the St. Johns
River, so heavily exploited during the
earlier Mt. Taylor period, were becoming
depleted (Cumbaa 1976). While there is
a documented increase in the number of
coastal sites beginning about this time
(Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:150), expansion
southward would also have been a viable
adaptive alternative. In this way, the
dual problem of increasing population
and dwindling resources could have been
solved by transferring an existing riverine
subsistence economy to a new, less populated,
and perhaps formerly unavailable, riverine
environment. Eventually, the basic hunting
and gathering economy was supplemented
with agriculture.

Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:184) have
suggested the southwest coast as a possible
source of population influx. They argue
that maize could have been introduced
to that area, and subsequently to the
Okeechobee basin, from MesoAmerica via
coastal trade routes. The presence of
maize pollen in deposits dated to 450
B.C. at Fort Center indicates that maize
agriculture may have been well established
in the Okeechobee Basin by this time.
Thus, if coastal folk moving inland did
indeed introduce maize to the interior
this must have occurred much earlier than
450 B.C.. Unfortunately, their hypothesis
has received little support from either
the archaeological or ethnohistorical
data. In any event, population movement
or expansion into the Kissimmee River
and Okeechobee regions, if it occurred
at all, probably took place sometime around
2000-1000 B.C. since intensive occupation
of the interior prior to this would have
been difficult because of the shortage
of fresh water.

During the protohistoric and historic
periods settlement changes occurred that
are suggestive of increased social and
political complexity. Sand burial mounds
containing ceremonial badges or tablets
(e.g. Douglas 1890; Sears 1982; Allerton
et al. 1984) and Spanish contact period
artifacts (e.g. Moore 1905; Griffin and
Smith 1948; Benson 1967; Karklins 1974;
Florida Master Site File) are commonly








found near the larger dirt or shell middens
discussed above. Often there are linear
earthworks in direct association with
the mounds or located nearby (e.g. Moore
1905; Conklin 1875; LeBaron 1884; Benson
1967; Florida Master Site File). A large,
complex earthwork site is located near
Lake Kissimmee in Osceola County (Florida
Master Site File) and the Daugherty Site
near Sebring contains earthworks and a
large platform mound (LeBaron 1884; Florida
Master Site File).

The linear ridges were probably used as
elevated terraces for planting crops.
At Fort Center they are associated chrono-
logically with protohistoric and contact
period occupations, while circular embankments
and ditches were preferred by the site's
early agriculturalists (Sears 1982:185-190).
Circular earthworks are common around
Lake Okeechobee, but are less so in the
Kissimmee River basin (cf. Carr 1985).
The relative abundance of linear earthworks,
along with the corresponding rarity of
circular earthworks and ditches, implies
that agriculture became more important
to river basin economies during later
periods.

As for the European artifacts, there are
several possible explanations for their
presence in the interior. Calusa expansion
is one of the more popular (e.g. Griffin
and Smith 1948; Goggin and Sturtevant
1964; Williams and Wharton 1981) but inter-
regional trade, offerings to cement political
alliances, and salvage of Spanish shipwrecks
on the East Coast are all viable hypotheses.
Actual contact with Spanish explorers
cannot be dismissed either (cf. Wilkenson
1960; Schell 1966). It is also significant
that the Kissimmee River valley is second
only to the Southwest Coast/Lake Okeechobee
area in the number of known ceremonial
badges/tablets (Allerton et al. 1984:9).

Given their archaeological context, i.e. in
burial mounds, it is safe to assume that
these artifacts were highly valued items
reflecting the elite status of the individuals
buried with them. This implies that these
individuals exercised some level of control
over the redistributive network that channeled


these exotic artifacts from the coast
to the interior. The specifics of how
such a network might have operated can
only be speculated on, but in their discussion
of chiefdoms in central Florida Wharton
and Williams (1980) have invoked a population
pressure model to account for the development
of political and economic alliances between
the coast and the interior. These alliances,
based in part on the necessity for coastal
cultures to accommodate rapid population
growth in the face of dwindling resources,
would have permitted access to and control
of land and food crops, and would have
been essential to avoid power struggles
between the various emergent nonegalitarian
societies.

When considered within the context of
interregional alliances, it becomes plausible
to view exchange networks as the operative
social mechanism for achieving desired
economic and political ends. In south
Florida, such a network could have functioned
in an economic sense to transport goods
back and forth between the coast and the
interior, but also in a social/political
context as a conduit for the redistribution
of highly valued items between regional
polities to cement alliances. The ceremonial
badges/tablets may have symbolized participa-
tion in such a system which was probably
orchestrated by the politically powerful
Calusa.

Whatever the stimulus, there is little
doubt that significant changes in the
political and social systems of the cultures)
inhabiting the Kissimmee River basin occurred
during the protohistoric period. The
burial mounds, the appearance of linear
ridges suggestive of agriculture, the
emergence of large town centers like the
Daugherty Site, and the corresponding
decline of Fort Center as a ceremonial
center (Sears 1982:194-201) are suggestive
of the enhanced economic, and perhaps
political, importance of the Kissimmee
River region.

To summarize, the existing data appear
to support the contention that the post-Archaic
aboriginal groups occupying the Kissimmee
River drainage were closely aligned with










the Okeechobee Basin cultures at an early
date, and were engaged in increasingly
more complex levels of social, political,
and economic interaction with neighboring
cultures. More data are needed to refine
our knowledge regarding initial occupation
of the valley, the processes involved
in the development of agriculture, and
the role it played in the evolution of
nonegalitarian political and social systems
in south-central Florida.

The historic period sites located during
the survey have the potential to add signifi-
cantly to the archaeological and historical
data base of south Florida by augmenting
the historical record of the early settlement
period in this part of the state. More
importantly, through a study of settlement
layout and function, they can contribute
to such broad scale anthropological issues
as the process of frontier colonization,
the economic and social adaptations of
pioneer communities in peripheral locations,
and the structural meaning of settlement
organization.

Turpentine camps and still sites provide
a potential source of data for the study
of status differentiation among the pre-
dominantly black work force (Forney 1985:280)
as well as providing technological and
organizational information about this
important Florida industry. These sites
can make an important contribution to
the history of Florida's Afro-American
population, an area of study that has,
until recently, received scant attention
from historical scholars and even less
from archaeologists.

There is a growing body of material culture
data related to turpentine camps in Florida
as a result of cultural resource management
surveys, and as archaeologists become
aware of the research potential of these
sites more will surely accumulate. An
attempt to provide a descriptive framework
to begin the synthesis of this data has
been initiated by Forney (1983, 1984,
1985), and comparative studies, particularly
of sites located in ecologically diverse
portions of the state, are needed.


Conclusions

Hopefully this brief review has shown
that the information potential of the
region has yet to be fully explored.
On the APAFR alone there are an additional
33 prehistoric and historic period sites
that are known but have not yet been inves-
tigated by professional archaeologists.
At the risk of being accused of malicious
wordplay, it is obvious that the surface
has barely been scratched. With the help
of local archaeological enthusiasts, a
survey to locate sites along the Kissimmee
River and record local artifact collections
is currently underway, but additional
surveys and, more importantly, problem
oriented excavations are necessary if
we are to further refine our knowledge
of this area.


Note

The Avon Park Air Force Range is an active
military training installation. Access
to the Range is restricted. Excavation
of archaeological sites can be performed
only with a federal permit. Persons found
vandalizing sites on the Range can be
prosecuted under the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979. Persons found
digging in human burial sites can be prosecuted
under Chapter 872, F.S. 1987. Furthermore,
it is not uncommon to encounter live ordinance
in certain areas, and when activated these
can cause serious injury. Therefore,
it is both illegal and dangerous for unauthor-
ized personnel to enter the Range in search
of archaeological sites or artifacts.


Acknowledgements

An initial survey of a small portion
of the Avon Park Air Force Range was conducted
by Mark J. Brooks for Piper Archaeology
in 1983. The ideas and opinions expressed
in his report and unpublished notes were
valuable in arriving at a preliminary
assessment of Kissimmee River valley pre-
history. Jacquelyn Piper conducted a
major portion of the historical research










for the APAFR project. Her contribution
to the project as a whole was substantial
and should not go unrecognized. This
is a revised and expanded version of a
paper presented at the 38th annual meeting
of the Florida Anthropological Society
in Gainesville, May, 1986.




References Cited



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

Austin, Robert J. and Jacquelyn G. Piper
1986 A Preliminary Cultural Resource Assessment
Survey of the Avon Park Air Force Range,
Polk and Highlands Counties, Florida. Ms. on
file Piper Archaeological Research, Inc.,
St. Petersburg.

Benson, Carl A.
1967 The Phillip Mound: A Historic Site. The
Florida Anthropologist 20:118-132.

Bullen, Ripley P. and L.E. Beilman
1973 The Nalcrest Site, Lake Weohyakapka, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 26:1-22.

Carr, Robert S.
1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of
Lake Okeechobee. Bureau of Historic Sites
and Properties Miscellaneous Project Report
Series 22.

1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 38:288-301.

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

Conklin, A.W.
1875 Ancient Mounds of Interior Florida. Forest
and Stream 6:329-331.

Cumbaa, Stephen L.
1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater Shellfish
Exploitation in the Florida Archaic. The
Florida Anthropologist 29:49-59.

DeVane, Park T.
1983 A History of the Lands Conposing the Avon
Park Bombing Range. Ms. on file Avon Park
Air Force Range, Avon Park, Florida.

Douglas, A.E.
1890 Description of a Gold Ornament from Florida.
American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal
12:14-25.


Forney, Sandra J.
1983 Naval Stores Industry of the North Florida
Pine Flatwoods. Paper presented at the 16th
annual meeting of the Society for Historical
Archaeology, Denver.


1984 Chronological Placement of Materials Associated
with the Naval Stores Industry within the
National Forests in Florida. Paper presented
at the 17th annual meeting of the Society
for Historical Archaeology, Williamsburg.


1985 The Importance of Sites Related
Stores Industry in Florida.
Anthropologist 38:275-281.


to the Naval
The Florida


Goggin, John M.
1951 Archaeological Notes on Lower Fisheating
Creek. The Florida Anthropologist 4:50-66.

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

Griffin, John
1956 Indian Occupation. In Geology and Ground
Water Resources of Highlands County, Florida,
by Ernest W. Bishop, pp. 10-12. Florida
Geological Survey Report of Investigations
No. 15.

Griffin, John W. and Hale G. Smith
1948 The Goodnow Mound, Highlands County, Florida.
Contributions to the Archaeology of Florida,
Number 1.

LeBaron, J. Francis
1884 Prehistoric Remains in Florica. Smithsonian
Institution Annual Report 1882:771-790.

Long, Robert W.
1974 Origin of Vascular Flora of South Florida.
In Environments of South Florida: Present
and Past, edited by Patrick J. Cleason, pp.
22-36. Miami Geological Memoir 2.

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


Mitchem, Jeffery M.
1986 Comments on Some Ceramic Pastes of the Central
Peninsula Gulf Coast. The Florida Anthropologist
39:68-74.

Moore, Clarence B.
1905 Miscellaneous Investigations in Florida.
Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences
13:299-303.

Porter, Rita Krestensen
1951 An Analysis of Belle Glade Plain Rim Sherds
from Two Fisheating Creek Sites. The Florida
Anthropologist 4:67-75.

Seabury, Patricia M., Janice R. Ballo and Kenneth
W. Hardin
1985 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the
King's Bay Golf and Country Club Planned
Unit Development. Ms. on file Piper Archaeo-
logical Research, Inc., St. Petersburg.

Sears, William H.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the










Lake OKeechobee Basin. University Presses
of Florida, Gainesville.

Schell, Rolfe F.
1966 DeSoto Didn't Land at Tampa. Island Press,
Ft. Myers.

Watts, W.A.
1971 Post Glacial and Interglacial Vegetation
History of Southern Georgia and Central Florida.
Ecology 52:676-690.

1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from
Lake Annie, South Central Florida. Geology
3:244-346.

Wharton, Barry R. and J. Raymond Williams
1980 An Appraisal of Hardee County Archaeology: Hinter-
land or Heartland? Florida Scientist43:215-219.

Wilkinson, Earren Roger
1960 Opening the Case Against the U.S. De SCto
Commission's Report. Alliance for the Preser-
vation of Florida Antiquities, Vol. 1, Jackson-
ville.


Williams, J. Raymond and Barry R. Wharton
1981 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of
the Kissimmee/St. Cloud/Osceola County 201
Plan, Revision 1. Ms. on file Department
of Anthropology, University of South Florida,
Tampa.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology No. 42.



Robert J. Austin
Piper Archaeological Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 919
St. Petersburg, FL 33731


300






THE LAUREL MOUND (8So98) AND RADIAL BURIALS
WITH COMMENTS ON THE SAFETY HARBOR PERIOD

George M. Luer and Marion M. Almy


Two unpublished 1930s typescripts pro-
vide firsthand observations of the Laurel
Mound, a now-destroyed Safety Harbor
period burial mound, and its pattern of
radial burials. These radial burials are
compared with others in Pasco, Brevard and
Dade counties which were associated with
aboriginal and European-derived items.
Changes in Safety Harbor period mortuary
ceramics are used to begin differentiating
temporal aspects of this archaeological
period. The locations of Weeden Island
versus Safety Harbor period burial mounds
are mapped to disclose a more dispersed
Safety Harbor settlement pattern. In
addition, a broad occurrence of Safety
Harbor pottery is documented, including
its occurrence in southwest Florida.


Site Environment

The Laurel Mound (8So98) was located on
the Gulf coast of mid-Sarasota County
near Shakett Creek in the town of Laurel
(Figure 2). Today, residential subdivi-
sions surround the former mound site, but
inspection of the terrain and surviving
native vegetation reveal that the Laurel
Mound was situated on elevated, well-
drained ground which supported slash pine,
scrub oak, saw palmetto and other xeric
scrub plants. Such areas of naturally
well-drained, elevated land, locally
called "ridges," are not common in Sara-
sota County where most land is poorly
drained and seasonally wet, unless arti-
ficially drained. In western Sarasota
County, the prehistoric settlements often
were on or adjacent to well-drained soils
(Almy 1978). There was a clear tendency
for burial mounds to be on well-drained
terrain, especially on scrub oak "ridges"
(for example the Indianola, Deer Prairie,
Old Miakka, Wrecked Site, and Englewood
mounds; see Figures 1 and 2). The Laurel
Mound conformed to this pattern.


Nearby Environment and Sites

There area two sizeable prehistoric sites
within a radius of 1 km of where the
Laurel Mound once stood. Both of of the
sites, Martin-McGuire and Pool Hammock,
are possibly related to the Laurel Mound.
Martin-McGuire (8So438) is a shell midden
on the north bank of the mouth of Shakett
Creek (Almy 1985). The creek's mouth is
tidal, has numerous oyster bars and small
mangrove islands, and supports a black
needle rush marsh (see Figure 2). This
environment is reflected by an abundance
of oyster shell in the creekside midden.
The midden is significant because it adds
another factor to prehistoric exploitation
of oysters in this estuarine area (see
Lightfoot and Ruppe 1980).

The second site, possibly associated with
the Laurel Mound, is the Pool Hammock site
(8So3). According to Willey (1949: 343),
the Pool Hammock site was investigated in
1933 by H. L. Schoff who recorded it as "a
village some 2 acres in extent and with an
average refuse depth of 18 inches." Around
this time, the site also was known to lo-
cal collectors such as Montague Tallant
whose artifact catalogue (n.d. 1) attri-
butes several items to "Pool Hammock."

Schoff located the Pool Hammock site
"northeast of the town of Laurel." Sub-
sequent surveys of prehistoric sites in
Sarasota County concur with this location,
and place it more precisely (Fales and
Davis 1961; Almy 1976) in an area that to-
day straddles the lawns of private homes
and the margin of a swampy hardwood ham-
mock (Figure 2). Presently, ditches drain
the hammock and water flows both westward
to Lyons Bay and eastward across low-
lying, poorly-drained pine flatwoods to
a tributary of Shakett Creek. The Pool
Hammock site's geographic and environ-
mental settings suggest that terrestrial


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 40 No. 4


Dec., 1987


















































4i
f r~-
~i~s .5
~r~
~~i
:~a~i~i


-r


kk



^, ^.-

,. -


*dm-
S~l
4.


- .


Burial Mound Devestation. Two Charlotte County planners inspect the
remains of a Safety Harbor burial mound at the Wrecked Site (8Ch75),
destroyed by vandals in 1982-83. Top: scrub oak on mound remnants.
Bottom: view toward poorly-drained pine/saw palmetto woods. This
environmental setting was similar to that of the Laurel Mound.


Figure 1.


302


r
~-;3* %7
..,,.

.t
~3
:r
r~C


HL *""-**
Ifc^
? '











Pool
Hammock


turpentine

I* still --Laurel Road

Laurel Mound
Laurel Mound ( -


^,S <


I ,

I ,


1 km


-------------
Sarasota County,

Old Miakka
ndianola *

L------,
A ,


Laurel


Deer Prairie
*

-r- --- -I


Englewo(


M\l Venice
m. Beach

\JSite

Figure 2. Location of the Laurel Mound in Mid Sarasota County near Shakett
Creek and Laurel Road. Note the nearby sites of Pool Hammock and
8So438. In the late 1930s, Laurel Road was an unimproved dirt
road with a turpentine still alongside. Inset at right locates
nearby burial mounds also on well-drained scrub oak terrain.


Tamiami


Trail


-------
---
'
'
'
''
'
'
'
'
'


N

# I






and wetland resource exploitation took
place there. Pool Hammock may have been
coeval in part with the Laurel Mound since
both Weeden Island and Safety Harbor
period sherds were in Schoff's collection
(Willey 1949:343-344).

Laurel Mound Sources

J. E. Moore (b. 1877) was a realtor and an
amateur paleontologist and archaeologist
who moved to Sarasota County in 1920. He
was a respected contact of the Smithsonian
Institution and the American Museum of
Natural History, often contributing mate-
rial to their collections and correspond-
ing with them. He assembled a private
collection of prehistoric artifacts and
paleontological specimens. In the 1940s
he loaned and sold much of his collection
to the South Florida Museum in Bradenton
(Moore 1941: loan receipt on file, South
Florida Museum; Anonymous 1956).

Both reports of the Laurel Mound are
typescripts. One, "The Indian Mound East
of Laurel Florida," was written by Moore
"... each night after I came home from
the mound" (January February 1932). The
second, titled "Log of Laurel Mound," was
written slightly later and incorporates
additional information including a gridded
map of the mound. The first typescript
survived in the files of the Sarasota
County Historical Commission, the second
in the files of the South Florida Museum.
These typescripts are the sources quoted
extensively below.

In the 1930s, the Laurel area was very
sparsely populated. It consisted of
scattered homesteads of rural Anglo-
Americans and a small Black community,
the latter which still exists today.
Livelihoods were based on cattle, lumber,
and turpentining. Hunting was a common
pastime and wildlife was abundant. The
nearby town of Venice, platted during the
1920s boom, was nearly deserted in the
1930s. The Tamiami Trail, officially
opened in 1928, was a thin, winding road
which passed through Laurel.

J. E. Moore's Investigations

According to J. E. Moore, the Laurel Mound


"... was in the pine woods about two
hundred yards from Shaketts Creek" and
"100 feet" south of Laurel Road. It was
about seven feet in height and thirty-five
feet in diameter. Pines, scrub oaks and
saw palmettos grew on the mound. Just
east of the mound was an aboriginal borrow
pit (Figure 3).

In January 1932, Moore was told "...
about an Indian Mound East of Laurel that
the County road Gang had just torn down
that was full of skeletons and pots ...."
On visiting it, he found the north side
and much of the center had been hauled
away "to grade a road and make a fill at a
bridge." He also found "pieces of pottery
strewn all around" which "was the finest I
have seen from any section."

Moore then proceeded to investigate the
mound with the help of his wife and son.
They used trowels, shovels, screen, and a
hatchet as well as a probe (which he
called a "prod"). He established a
numbered grid of five foot squares (Fig-
ure 3). Four years later he returned
with four men and "trenched the remainder
of the East side."

All this work revealed that the mound had
at least four strata and a central basal
feature. There was gray sand (0 18
inches) underlain by yellow sand, then a
"layer of white beach sand" on a "gray
sand floor." A lack of marine shells and
the presence of charcoal were also noted
in the mound. Near the center of the
mound at stations 17 and 24 (see Figure 3)
Moore "... noticed the floor of the mound
was ... red as a brick, I prod-ded here
and found there was skeletons about one
foot below the floor of the mound ...."

Regarding these basal burials near the
center of the mound, Moore continued:
"there was 7 of them with their heads in
a ring and the bodies radiating like the
spokes of a wheel." Their "heads formed
a circle about four feet across, all these
skeletons were face down, with the arms
crossed and the face resting on the arms,
all bones were so decomposed they were in
small fragments caused by the heavy wheels
of the trucks that hauled the sand away
from the mound ...."


















"- iiOII I1 (7



-- ;



-/ -I It I ,
3 : 3 1 ______




Figure 3. J. E. Moore's 1932 Diagram N .|
of the Laurel Mound (8So98). Moore di-
vided the mound into 5-foot squares called "' -
"stations." Inner ring delimits mound's central
portion partially removed by road gang. Note borrow ///////
pit to east and radial burials in stations 17 and 24.









About a foot above these burials in
another layer, Moore discovered a single
skeleton "which was overlooked and undis-
turbed by the road gang." Some of the
road gang and a Mr. Merrill, their fore-
man, reported that the skeletons they
hauled away "... were placed in a circle
with the heads in the center." Moore
wrote that this "... coincides with the
lower layer" he found in situ. Thus,
this single skeleton mTght have been all
that remained of another group of radial
burials.

Associated with with the single, upper
burial Moore recovered a small projectile
point with the tip missing and a "splendid
green granite, polished and perfect plum-
met" which was "... 4 inches long with a
groove at the small end and rounded at the
other ...." He made no other mention of
artifacts associated with any of the
burials. However, there was "lots of
pottery" in the mound.

Moore found "lots of broken pottery some
with fancy handles and unique markings,
some were delicate and some were crude
...." One was "a human effigy pot han-
dle." Near the center of the mound was
"... a fine piece of pottery with hands
and arms on it ..., it had three human
hands on bent arms on the sides, it was
yellow and the hands and arms were paint-
ed black outlined with dotted lines." Fur-
thermore, this vessel was "red inside,"
had "the usual hole in the bottom," and
apparently had the form of a bottle
(Figure 3: station 31).

Another find was apparently a portion of a
cylindrical beaker which was described as
"half a pot shaped like a common drinking
glass with scroll carving on it." This was
"2 inches at the bottom and 2 1/2 inches
at the top, bottom punched out" (Figure 3:
station 26). Very near this vessel was
"half of a boat shaped paint cup with some
of the red paint still in it."

Moore mentioned three other vessels. One
was "two-thirds of a bowl ... incised with
scroll work" (station 10). Another was
described as a "vase" (station 22). The


third was "... a basket weave pot [check-
stamped ?] large enough to hold two
gallons but it was very badly broken in
a dozen pieces" (station 9).


Cultural Placement of the Laurel Mound

The cultural placement of the Laurel Mound
is based entirely on the ceramics. The
pottery described by J. E. Moore is of
the Safety Harbor complex, a local mani-
festation of Mississippian culture. This
culture, its ceramics, and other traits
are discussed later in this paper.


Accounts of Radial Burials

J. E. Moore's observation of extended
skeletons "whose heads formed a circle"
(Figure 3: stations 17 and 24) is not u-
nique. There are three other early written
accounts describing this burial pattern in
peninsular Florida; each is obscure, and
only one was ever published. The publish-
ed account was by S. T. Walker (1880) who
wrote of three "circles of bodies" in a
mound in Pasco county north of Tampa Bay.
The two unpublished accounts both pertain
to Dade County in southeast Florida (Carr
n.d.).

At a mound (8Pa2) on the Pithlochascootie
River, Walker (1880:394) found:

The mode of burial was interment
at full length, with the heads
directed toward a common center,
the body reclining on its right
side; I discovered three of
these circles of bodies, each
containing from seven to four-
teen adult skeletons.

In Dade County at the Arch Creek Site
(8Da23), Florence Miller (1899) found:

... skeletons buried on a level
in a circle, heads in feet out.
... There were shells on the
skeletons, flat shells arranged
as a necklace would be, a large
one on the breast and smaller







ones towards the neck. Each
shell had two holes, as for a
cord or string, but whatever
held them was gone.

Also in Dade County at the Cutler Mound,
information researched by Robert S. Carr,
Metro-Dade Archaeologist, indicates that
radial burials were uncovered there by
Henry Perrine Jr. in the 1870s.

Walker's published account was read by
C. B. Moore. In 1903 he revisited
Walker's excavation and dug extensively
for additional "circles of bodies." He
reported that "...we met with nothing
in the mound to indicate this method
of burial, and we may say, incidentally,
we have not found it in several hundred
mounds opened by us in the southern
United States" (Moore 1903:428).

C. B. Moore's doubt was echoed by Willey
(1949:329): "He [Walker] makes a dubious
claim of having found the skeletons
arranged radially in the mound with
heads toward a common center."


Site


No. of
Burial Radial Ar-
Pattern rangements


Willey soon became a believer, however!
In 1954 he published an article based on
Woodbury's 1933-34 excavations, directed
by M. W. Stirling, at Cape Canaveral where
there were three mounds containing radial
burials:

The Burns mound and the Fuller
mounds A and D display a pattern
of radially arranged burials.
In each case most of the burials
were extended upon the back and
placed with their heads toward
the center of the mound (Willey
1954:88).


Here, for the first time radial burials
were documented by professional archae-
ologists with adequate control, burial
diagrams and artifact associations (Fig-
ure 4). These burials have many simi-
larities to those described by J. E.
Moore and Walker for the central Gulf
coast. The following section and Table
1 summarize the available data.


Principle
Burial
Mode


No. of Temporal
Burials Place-
ment


Laurel
8So98


Pithlo-
chascootie
8Pa2

Arch Creek
8Da23


Burns
8Br85

Fuller A
8Br90

Fuller D
8Br93


circle

circle


circle


circle


circle


arc


extended


extended


1 extended
(?)


lower
7


late
prehist


7 to 14 prehist
/hist


unknown prehist
(?)


36 upper prehist
extended 21 lower /hist


extended


extended


hist


hist


Table 1. Radial Burial Data (excluding Cutler Mound, Dade
County).











































Figure 4. Radial Burials in Fuller Mound A (Left, from
(Right, from Loucks 1976).


+ + +4 +
IoW 1t.|E Ie 1O Z
Willey 1954) and Patterned Burials in the Henderson Mound
Willey 1954) and Patterned Burials in the Henderson Mound








Radial Burial Characteristics

Burial Pattern. The arrangement consists
of burials around a common center toward
which the heads are directed. The burials
partially or completely enclose the common
center forming an arc or a circle. The
number of burials varies. The pattern was
sometimes repeated so that one level or
layer of burials was superimposed over
another.

At the Burns Mound (8Br85) near Cape
Canaveral, an apparent circle of burials
was overlain by an another. This seems
to have been the case at the Laurel Mound
also. It is unclear how Walker's three
circles of burials were oriented. A sin-
gle circle was found at Fuller Mound A
(8Br90) and a single arc at Fuller Mound
D (8Br93). Ninty-six burials formed the
single circle at Fuller Mound A whereas
only seven burials formed the lower cir-
cle at the Laurel Mound.

Burial Placement. A radial burial pattern
was usually oriented toward the center of
the burial mound. Often it was the only
or predominant pattern in the mound.
However, other interments did occur in
some mounds.

Radial burials were oriented toward the
center of the mounds at Burns, Fuller A
and D, and Laurel. Walker did not de-
scribe the orientation of his three cir-
cles. The further tests done by C. B.
Moore (1903:427-429) at Pithlochascootie
disclosed numerous other burials, none of
which were radially arranged.

Burial Modes. Based on information from
the seven mounds mentioned above, there
was a prevalent mode of interment:
extended burials. In addition, most of
the burials were adults, although at the
Fuller Mounds infant burials also occur-
red. At the Burns and Fuller mounds there
were roughly equivalent numbers of male
and female skeletons (Rouse 1951; Hrdlicka
1940). Sometimes other burial modes were
included among the extended radial burials
such as flexed or semi-flexed.


At the Laurel Mound, J. E. Moore saw
extended burials face down with their arms
crossed under their heads. At Pithlochas-
cootie, Walker saw burials at full length
on their right side. At the Burns and
Fuller Mounds most of the burials were
on their backs. At Fuller Mound A there
were also a few semiflexed burials and
possibly a few single-skull and bundle
burials found among the radial burials.

Radial burials are not the only pattern-
ed burials thus far reported in Florida.
At the Woodward and Henderson mounds in
Alachua County, Bullen (1950) and Loucks
(1976) found predominantly prone adult
burials oriented with heads toward the
center of these mounds. The similarity in
the arc-shaped pattern between the burials
in the Henderson Mound (Loucks 1976:Fig.
10) and those at Fuller Mound D (Willey
1954:Fig. 10) is striking. Two con-
siderations seem warranted: first, do
these two examples of an arc-shaped
pattern represent an unfinished radial
burial pattern; and secondly, do the
similarities suggest that the patterned
Alachua tradition burials are related
to radial burials? Loucks (1976) has
interpreted the interments at the
Henderson Mound as having been succes-
sive, some primary and some secondary,
the latter representing "stored" remains.
Unfortunately due to the poor data avail-
able for radial burials, it is impossible
to determine the extent of primary and
secondary burials within the radial pat-
terns discussed above. It is suggested,
however, that both primary and secondary
interments probably occurred, the latter
representing remains from charnel houses.


Temporal and Cultural Placement
of Radial Burials

Radial burials occur in prehistoric and
historic aboriginal contexts. The Fuller
Mounds A and D date to the historic peri-
od. The preponderance of the evidence
from the Burns Mound is prehistoric, and
all the evidence is.prehistoric from the
Laurel Mound. The temporal placement is


309








somewhat uncertain for the radial burials
at Pithlochascootie, Arch Creek, and
Cutler. The occurrence of radial burials
is cross-cultural and includes the Malabar
II, Safety Harbor, and Glades cultures.

The Burns Mound (8Br85). Rouse and Willey
place this mound in the Malabar II period
(A.D. 1000 1763) on the basis of the
ceramic evidence and a single historic
period artifact, a pendant of reworked
European silver. The pottery included
Little Manatee Zone Stamped, Sarasota In-
cised and St. Johns Check Stamped sherds
(Rouse 1951; Willey 1954). According to
Willey, a change in burial mode was also
recorded; a few flexed or semi-flexed
burials were found in the lower radial
pattern, whereas all in the upper radial
pattern were extended.

Fuller Mounds A and D (8Br90 and 8Br93).
Rouse and Willey place both these mounds
in the Malabar II culture. At Fuller
Mound A, there is some indication that
artifacts occurred only in "stratum 4"
where all the radial burials were found.
These artifacts include a complete St.
Johns Check Stamped vessel, several
sherds, "... various shell, stone, bone
tools and ornaments ... [and] iron tools
and glass beads of European manufacture
... in significant numbers. Also present
were a number of native-made articles
fashioned of European-transported metals"
(Willey 1954:85-86). Although there is
less data for Fuller Mound D, some infant
burials were accompanied by glass beads
(Rouse 1951:198), and "these associations
impute a late date probably contemporary
with Fuller Mound A" (Willey 1954:87).

Pithlochascootie (8Pa2). The bulk of
the Pithlochascootie burial mound was
prehistoric in date. Moore (1903) dug
the prehistoric portion and found Weeden
Island and Englewood ceramics. He found
various modes of burial and noted a change
from flexed to bundle with decreasing
depth. This phenomenon also is documented
around Tampa Bay and southward to Sarasota
(Bullen 1952; Bullen and Bullen 1976; Luer
and Almy 1982). Walker, who provides the
only account of radial burials from Pith-


lochascootie, also found evidence of his-
toric contact. He found a single "rusty
spike about 3 inches in length" in direct
association with a burial (1880:394).
Smith (1956:33), however, considered
the spike to be intrusive.

Arch Creek and Cutler Mounds (8Da23 and
8Da8). The shell necklaces found with the
radial burials at Arch Creek and the lack
of historic materials suggest that the
radial burials were prehistoric. Prehis-
toric burial mounds in southeast Florida
date to the Glades II and III periods
(A.D. 750 1500) (Goggin 1949; Carr and
Beriault 1984). Archaeological work at
Arch Creek indicates intensive use of the
site's midden components in Glades II
times (Laxson 1957; Mowers et. al. 1975;
Carr 1975). Considering this, the radial
burials observed by Florence Miller (1899)
may pertain to Glades II times (A.D. 750 -
1200). Carr (pers. comm.) feels that the
radial burials at the Cutler Mound also
date to Glades II times. However, both
these assignments remain uncertain due to
the data.

The Laurel Mound (8So98). Based on the
ceramics described by J. E. Moore, the
Laurel Mound belongs to the Safety Harbor
culture. The scroll and human hand motifs,
the cylindrical beaker and bottle vessel
forms are hallmarks of mortuary pottery
of the Safety Harbor period (Table 2).
The temporal placement of the Laurel Mound
within the Safety Harbor period is diffi-
cult to determine due to the nature of the
data. However, based on the lack of any
typical Weeden Island ceramics and the
presence of "fancy handles" (incised and
punctated ceramic loop handles), the
Laurel Mound may date to the middle or
late prehistoric Safety Harbor period
(see below).

That the Laurel Mound was constructed and
used during the prehistoric part of the
Safety Harbor Period is suggested by the
lack of European-derived materials. It is
possible, however, that the mound was in
use early in the contact period when
European-derived materials were still
scarce. At some point, though, such mate-


310







rials became available since some other
nearby burial mounds have yielded contact
period materials. Three examples are the
Bead Mound (8Ma16) and the Stanley Mound
(8Ma127) in Manatee County, and the True-
Deer Prairie-Blackburn site (8So5, 8So403)
in Sarasota County. Contact material from
these sites includes glass beads, and sev-
eral iron artifacts including a chisel, a
"pike tip" and a possible pair of shears
(Willey 1949; Tallant n.d. 1; F.P.S. file,
ca. 1949; Deming 1975; Atwood, pers. comm;
Bushnell, pers. comm.; Allerton, Luer, and
Carr 1984: MT#24).


Perspectives on Safety Harbor

Changes in Prehistoric Safety Harbor.
Some ceramic traits occur more commonly
early in the Safety Harbor continuum, and
others more commonly later. Some of these
traits are listed in Table 2, and the ap-
proximate temporal distribution of some
is shown in Figure 5. The relative place-
ment of these traits is based on the
authors' observations at various sites
around Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor,
radiocarbon dates, and on the interpre-
tation of data in the literature.

For example, some evidence of the early
prehistoric Safety Harbor period comes
from the Aqui Esta site near Charlotte
Harbor. The shell midden components of
this site (8Ch69) contain local plain
wares, especially sand-tempered plain and
Belle Glade Plain pottery. These same
wares occur in a sacred context in the
Aqui Esta burial mound (8Ch68) where they
were found with small quantities of late
Weeden Island pottery (Dunns Creek Red,
Papys Bayou Punctated) and with Missis-
sippian pottery including Safety Harbor
Incised bottles, Sarasota Incised beakers,
a Point Washington Incised-like vessel,
and Lake Jackson Plain vessels (with plain
handles). This burial assemblage has some
striking similarities to that from Tierra
Verde (8Pi840) (see Sears 1967). Signifi-
cantly, three radiocarbon dates of whelk
shell dippers from the Aqui Esta burial
mound indicate the mound was in use around
A.D. 1000. These dates are in keeping


with an early prehistoric Safety Harbor
placement (Luer 1980; Luer and Almy 1982:
53; Milanich et al. 1984:12).

Well-known ceramic hallmarks of Mis-
sissippian culture in the Southeast in-
clude decorated lugs and loop handles
which were rare or absent at Aqui Esta
and Tierra Verde. In contrast, they were
common at Johns Pass (Moore 1903; Ostran-
der 1960) and Cayo Pelau (Moore 1905;
Fales collection; Pelham slides). This
suggests that use of the latter two burial
mounds may have continued later into the
Safety Harbor continuum than did the use
of Aqui Esta and Tierra Verde. Indeed,
decorated lugs and loop handles do occur
late in the Safety Harbor continuum at the
village component on Snead Island (Atwood
collection) and at the temple mound, vil-
lage component, and burial mound at the
Safety Harbor site (Griffin and Bullen
1950:10,18,21,24,27,33-35). This seems
to reflect a trend of increasing Missis-
sippian influence from the north, that is,
from the southeastern U.S.

In addition to changes in sacred ceram-
ic assemblages, there were changes in
settlement patterns. In the area from
Tampa Bay to Charlotte Harbor, large
Weeden Island period centers where sub-
stantial quantities of Weeden Island mor-
tuary pottery have been found, such as
Thomas, Prine, Pillsbury, Palmer and Big
Mound Key, are located along the shore
(Figure 6). In contrast, during the suc-
ceeding Safety Harbor period, mortuary
sites are much more widely distributed,
occurring inland as well as along the
shore of the region (Figure 6). The trend
is from sizeable Weeden Island centers
spaced fairly evenly along the shore to a
pattern of fewer and larger Safety Harbor
centers along the shore with numerous
outlying small midden/burial mound sites
scattered throughout the region. This
shift in settlement pattern may well re-
flect a shift in subsistence practices,
notably the introduction of maize cul-
tivation (see Luer and Almy 1981:147-148).

The spacial distribution of prehistoric
Safety Harbor sites in the Sarasota/











0 o Trait


C u -C I I 0'0
., I 3 ,C CC C tD Co
-- .. .. / Site, north
S / to south;
1 0 0 E 01 U E o'
S C u > E References
0) QX 0) 0 /


S
S

S S


a O


* .


O O S S S


* 0


S

* S 00 5


SI

S


S.


S


* S


6

* S


*0 9


Ruth Smith (Mitchem and Weisman 1984)

Tatham (Mitchem and Hutchinson 1986)

Bayport (Moore 1903:Fig. 71)

Safford (Bullen et al. 1970; Smith 1971)

Buck Island (Bullen 1952)

Jones (Bullen 1952)

Philip (Benson 1967:Fig. 9, lower left;
Karklins 1974)

Seven Oaks (Willey 1949; Goggin n.d.)

Safety Harbor (Willey 1949;
Griffin and Bullen 1950)

Johns Pass (Moore 1903:Fig. 88;
Ostrander 1960:78)

Picnic (Bullen 1952: Figs. 22,23)

Parrish Mounds (Willey 1949)

Tierra Verde (Warren, Bushnell, and
Spence 1965; Sears 1967)

Prine (Bullen 1952)

Ellenton (Moore 1936, 1941)

Old Miakka (Schoff 1932 or 1936;
Malwin collection)

Laurel (Moore 1932a, 1932b)

True-Deer Prairie-Blackburn (Willey
1949: Fig. 63,c; F.P.S. ca. 1949;
Tallant n.d.l; Malwin collection)

Myakkahatchee (Luer et al. 1987)

Arcadia (Willey 1949: Fig. 63)

Prairie Creek (Tallant n.d.2; Museum of
American Indian n.d.2)

Wrecked Site (ACI files, 1983; Luer 1985:
Fig. 1,g; Malwin collection)

Englewood (Stirling 1935; Willey 1949)

Hickory Bluff (Moore 1905)

Aqui Esta (Luer 1980, 1985: Fig. 3,b-d;
Museum of the American Indian 1938,n.d.l;
Bullen 1969; ACI files)

Cayo Pelau (Moore 1905; Fales collection;
Pelham slides)

Shell Creek (Moore 1905; Allerton
et al. 1984)

8Cr80 (Goggin 1949; Luer 1986)

Kirkland (Beriault n.d.)


Table 2. List of Selected Traits for Some Mississippian
Period Burial Mounds in Central and Southern
Florida.


312







A.D. 1700.


---- -----


t4 .


1,

- -------------1500






:
'J'






I
------ ----200




010

*- -I U---10



I .--900


II 1- 2 7004
Figure 5. Approximate Temporal Distribution of Selected Burial Mounds and Ce-
ramics of Manatee/Sarasota Area. Note placement of Laurel Mound.
"Englewood culture" is treated as an early phase of Safety Harbor,
a treatment also devised by Willey (see 1949: Figures 19 and 76).
313










Prine Parrish 5
SPrine enton Parrish 3,4 arrish 5
Ellenton

Pi11 sbb y *B ead
Mound
*
Stanley Stanley


Old
? Miakka *


Palmer
Laurel
Myakkahatchee
Deer Prairie

N W ke Site Hickory
Englewoodv Englewood od~u



20 km Aqui
Esta
8Ch16_ 8Chl,2
Figure 6. Distribution of Weeden Island (left) Versus Safety Harbor (right) Burial Mounds in the Manatee/
Sarasota County Area. Safety Harbor burial mounds were more numerous and more dispersed geograph-
ically than were the preceding Weeden Island mounds. Every mound shown here has been destroyed
or severely impacted. It is now a felony to damage or destroy human burials, including those in
burial mounds (Florida Statutes, Section 872.05).







Manatee County area (Figure 6) reflects
the aboriginal settlement pattern at Bahia
de Espiritu Santo, Tampa Bay, recorded by
early historic accounts, circa A.D. 1550.
This pattern of major coastal sites with
outlying smaller sites previously noted
by Luer and Almy (1981:145) consists of
shoreside temple towns with surrounding
satellite vassel villages. Of course,
not all of the Safety Harbor sites shown
in Figure 6 were coeval; during the long
Safety Harbor period different sites were
occupied at various times.

Geographic Occurrence of Ceramics. Just
what constitutes "Safety Harbor" culture
has been an active subject of research
over the last decade (Bullen 1978; Luer
1980; Luer and Almy 1981; Mitchem 1985;
Mitchem and Hutchinson 1986). One issue
is the geographic and cultural occurrence
of Safety Harbor ceramics.

Table 2 lists some Safety Harbor ceramic
traits and enumerates the sites at which
they have been found. The geographic
distribution of these traits is broad,
extending farther east and south than pre-
viously recognized (Luer 1980) (Figure 7).
Most notable is Safety Harbor Incised
pottery.

First found in quantities near Tampa Bay
(Willey 1949; Bullen 1951, 1952; Sears
1967), Safety Harbor Incised pottery is
now known to occur southward along the
Gulf coast into southwestern Florida and
northward through west-central Florida to
western Georgia. South of Tampa Bay, it
has been found in some quantity in Char-
lotte, Lee, and Collier counties (Moore
1900; Goggin 1949; Bullen 1969; Luer 1980;
Beriault pers. comm.). To the north of
Tampa Bay it has been found in Hernando
and Citrus counties (Moore 1903; Mitchem
and Hutchinson 1986), and as far north
as the Cemochechobee site near Columbus,
Georgia (Schnell, Knight, and Schnell
1982:P1. 4.13:a).

It should be emphasized that Safety Harbor
Incised pottery occurs almost exclusively
in sacred mortuary contexts where it
appears to have been valued, ceremonial


ware. Firsthand macroscopic examination
of specimens from several localities
(bottle fragments from Aqui Esta, Tierra
Verde, and Philip Mound; collared jar
fragments from Picnic, Wrecked Site, and
Kirkland Mound) reveals that much of the
pottery has similar paste, workmanship and
artistic style. Some of the pottery even
appears to have been made by the same
artisan. The multi-site occurrence of
such similar pottery suggests that it was
manufactured in one locale and subsequent-
ly dispersed. This would account for the
widespread occurrence of Safety Harbor
Incised pottery in association with
various ceramic assemblages representing
prevailing local ceramic traditions and
developments.

For example, different local ceramic as-
semblages are represented by the bulk of
the sherds from the Tierra Verde burial
mound versus the bulk of the sherds from
the Aqui Esta burial mound. Each assem-
blage reflects local traditions and devel-
opments, but at both mounds Safety Harbor
Incised ceramics with similar paste, work-
manship, vessel forms and designs were
found. More specifically, the majority of
sherds from Aqui Esta consisted of Belle
Glade Plain and sand-tempered plain (Luer
1980) whereas sand-tempered plain, Pinel-
las Plain, St. Johns Plain and Check
Stamped ceramics were predominant at
Tierra Verde (Sears 1967). Another
example of a contrasting local ceramic
assemblage is from the Tatham Mound in
Citrus County where Pasco Plain sherds
(limestone-tempered) comprised the bulk
of sherds in that Safety Harbor period
burial mound (Mitchem and Hutchinson
1986: Table 1).

Geographic Occurrence of Some Mortuary
Practices. Detailed comparative analysis
of ceramic assemblages at burial mounds
has focused primarily on differences in
paste and wares. This research has
documented inter-site differences,
especially in locally manufactured plain
wares, which reflect regional and local
traditions. However, it should be empha-
sized that many of these locally manufac-
tured ceramics probably were used in









WOODWARD and
HENDERSON
MOUNDS *


Smith


* Tatham


Buck Is.
*Jones


BURNS and
FULLER MOUNDS


* Philip


Johns Pass


*8Del


*8Cr80


100 km
I--


Figure 7. Locations of Radial or Patterned Burials (UPPERCASE) and/or Burial
Mounds Yielding Safety Harbor Materials (Mixed Case) -- see Text,
Tables, and Figure 6.


316







shared, widespread mortuary traditions.

One example is the black drink ritual.
Various ceramic forms, especially bowls
and bottles, were employed in the black
drink ceremony which was widespread in
Florida and the southeast in prehistoric
times, and which was associated with bur-
ial ritual (Milanich 1979). Acccording
to European accounts, black drink was
still an important and prominent ritual
for historic Timucua and Ais in Florida
(Merrill 1979). Recent archaeological
evidence suggests that at least some
Indians of southwestern Florida also
utilized the black drink ritual as part
of their mortuary practices. Near Char-
lotte Harbor at the Aqui Esta burial
mound, a large-mouthed deep bowl, numer-
ous whelk shell dippers, and a ceramic
gourd effigy dipper were recovered (Luer
1980). Milanich (pers. comm. 1980) feels
that such items could represent black
drink paraphernalia. Additionally, north
of Tampa Bay in Citrus County, numerous
whelk shell dippers and ceramic vessels
have been interpreted as evidence of the
black drink ritual (Mitchem and Hutchinson
1986:10-11).

Radial burials also might have been a
mortuary practice with roots in prehis-
toric times and which, by contact times,
was widespread in the southern portion of
the peninsula (Figure 7). Unfortunately,
the massive destruction of burial mounds
(Figure 1) and the often extremely poor
preservation of bone in sand mounds has
minimized available geographic and tem-
poral placement data. However, as Table 1
and Figure 7 show, there is some evidence
that this pattern of interment had tem-
poral depth and a wide distribution across
the southern peninsula.

Another mortuary trait, the ceremonial
tablet, originated in prehistoric southern
Florida and continued into historic times
where a wide distribution in the southern
half of the Florida peninsula has been
clearly documented by Allerton, Luer, and
Carr (1984). Just as the distribution of
ceremonial tablets extended across
historic tribal boundaries (Allerton et


al. 1984:15), so did the occurrence of
radial burials extend beyond regional
cultural boundaries. Indeed, it is not
surprising that mortuary traits can be
spread through a broad geographic area as
they reflect a complex of religious ideas.
The ceremonial tablets and related metal
objects found throughout much of the
southern half of the peninsula were view-
ed in this manner by Goggin (1949). The
distribution of radial burials may also
reflect part of a widespread mortuary
complex throughout southern peninsular
Florida.

Summary

Examination of available data on radial
burials in Sarasota, Pasco, Brevard, and
Dade Counties shows similarities in burial
pattern, placement, and mode. The seven
mounds which contained these radial bur-
ials all date to late prehistoric or early
historic period times. Radial burials
might have been part of a widespread
mortuary complex in southern peninsular
Florida which extended across boundaries
of local cultures.

The radial burials in Sarasota County's
Laurel Mound were of the late prehistoric
Safety Harbor period, a local Mississip-
pian culture. This paper's presentation
of detailed data, in tabular and graphic
form, shows changes through time in Safety
Harbor mortuary ceramic assemblages, as
well as a more dispersed distribution of
burial mounds than in previous archaeo-
logical periods. This provides some of
the data needed to begin refining temporal
aspects of this long, complex archaeo-
logical period.


Acknowledgements

Thanks are owed to Andy Barth and Mark
Haibach, both with the Charlotte County
Planning Department, to Kathy Gohier and
Preston Dale Beremand, both formerly at
the South Florida Museum and Bishop
Planetarium in Bradenton, to Selene
Singer, Archivist, and Erica Blumenfeld,
Registrar's Assistant, both at the Museum








of the American Indian in New York, and to
Mary B. Davis, Librarian at the Huntington
Free Library and Reading Room, The Bronx.

Thanks are also due David Allerton, John
G. Beriault, Robert S. Carr, Anita and Max
Jones, William H. Marquardt, Jerald T.
Milanich, Jeffrey M. Mitchem, and Ralph
Olsen.



REFERENCES CITED

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

Almy, Marion M.
1976 A Survey and Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites
in Sarasota County, Florida. M.A. Thesis on file,
Department of Anthropology, University of South
Florida. Tampa.

1978 The Archaeological Potential of Soil Survey Reports.
The Florida Anthropologist 31:75-91.

1985 Archaeological Surve of Selected Portions of the
City of Venice orida. Venice Historicalurvey
Committee, Venice, Florida.

Anonymous
1956 "Found State's Early Human." Sarasota Herald-
Tribune, Sunday, August 25, page 29.

Archaeological Consultants, Incorporated
n.d. Photographs and files of ceramic collections from
Florida sites. Sarasota.

Atwood, Robert
n.d. Notes on ceramic collection from 8Ma88. On file,
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Sarasota.

Benson, Carl
1967 The Philip Mound: A Historic Site. The Florida
Anthropologist 20:118-132.

Beriault, John G.
n.d. Notes, slides, and collection from the Kirkland
burial mound, Collier County, Florida.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1950 The Woodward Site. The Florida Anthropologist
2:49-64.

1951 The Terra Ceia Site, Manatee County, Florida.
Florida Anthropological Society Publications, No. 3,

1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County,
Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Report of
Investi nations, No. 8. Tallahassee.

1969 Southern Limits of Timucua Territory. Florida
Historical Quarterly 47:414-19.

1978 Tocobaga Indians and the Safety Harbor Culture.
In: Tacachale Essays on the Indians of Florida and
Southeastern Georgia during the Historic Period.
Editors, J. T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor.
University Presses of Florida. Gainesville.

Bullen, Ripley P. and Adelaide K. Bullen
1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society
Publication No. 8.


Bullen, Ripley, W. L. Partridge, and D. A. Harris
1970 The Safford Burial Mound, Tarpon Springs, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 23:81-118.

Carr, Robert S.
1975 Excavations at the Arch Creek Site (8Da23), Dade
County, Florida. Unpublished manuscript on file,
Florida Department of State, Division of Historical
Resources. Tallahassee.

n.d. Lost and Found: The Pre-Urban History of Dade
Count Book to pub ished by MetropoliTan
Dade County, Historic Preservation Division.

Carr, Robert S. and John G. Beriault
1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. In: Environments
of South Florida Present and Past II. Patrick J.
GTeason, Editor. Miami GeoggTical1Society, Coral
Gables.

Deming, Joan
1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Beker
Phosphate Corporation Property in Eastern Manatee
County. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties
Miscellaneous Project Reports Series No. 33.
TafTahassee.

Fales, John
n.d. Ceramic collection from Cayo Pelau, Charlotte County,
Florida. Ft. Ogden.

Fales, John and Doris Davis
1961 An Archaeol'ogical and Historical Survey of Sarasota
County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Archaeological
Consultants, Inc. Sarasota.

Goggin, John M.
1949 The Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida.
Manuscript on file, Southeast Archaeological Center.
Tallahassee.

n.d. Unfinished and Untitled "Bead Manuscript." Copy on
file, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Sarasota.

Griffin, John W., and Ripley P. Bullen
1950 The Safety Harbor Site, Pinellas County, Florida.
Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 2.

Hrdlicka, Ales
1940 Catalog of Human Crania in the United States National
Museum Collections: Indians of the Gulf States. Pro-
ceedings, United States National Museum 87:314-319.

Karklins, Karlis
1974 Additional Notes on the Philip Mound, Polk County,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 27:1-8.

Laxson, Dan D.
1957 The Arch Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist
10:1-10.

Lightfoot, Kent and Reynold J. Ruppe
1980 Oyster Carrying Capacity at Venice, Florida Two
Thousand Years Ago. Bureau of Historic Sites and
Properties Bulletin No. 6. TlTahassee.

Loucks, L. Jill
1976 Early Alachua Tradition Burial Ceremonialism: The
Henderson Mound, Alachua County, Florida. M.A.
Thesis, on file, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

Luer, George M.
1980 The Aqui Esta Site at Charlotte Harbor: A Safety
Harbor-Influenced Prehistoric Site. Paper presented
to The Florida Anthropological Society 32nd Annual
Meeting, Winter Park.

1985 Some Comments on Englewood Incised, Safety Harbor







Incised and Scarry's Proposed Ceramic Changes.
The Florida Anthropologist 38:236-239.

1986 Ceramic Faces and A Pipe Fragment from South Florida,
with Notes on the Pineland Site, Lee County. The
Florida Anthropologist 38:281-286.

Luer, George M. and Marion M. Almy
1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida
Anthropologist 34:127-155.

1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida
Anthropologist 35:34-58.

Luer, George M., Marion M. Almy, Dana Ste. Claire, and Robert
Austin
1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8S0397), A Large Multi-Period
Inland from the Shore Site in Sarasota County,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 40:137-153.

Malwin, Jarl
n.d. Miscellaneous ceramic collections. Venice.

Merrill, William L.
1979 The Beloved Tree: Ilex vomitoria among the Indians of
the Southeast and Adjacent Regions. In: Black Drink
A Native American Tea. Editor, Charles M. Hudson.
University of Georgia Press. Athens.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1979 Origins and Prehistoric Distributions of Black Drink
and the Ceremonial Shell Drinking Cup. In: Black
Drink A Native American Tea. Charles M. Hudson,
Editor p83-119.University of Georgia Press.
Athens.

Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon James Knight, Jr,
Timothy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle
1984 McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of Northern
Florida A.D.20-900. Academic Press. Orlando.

Miller, Florence
1899 My First Winter in Florida. Undated typescript in
collection of Southern Florida Historical Society,
Miami, Florida.

Mitchem, Jeffrey
1985 Some Alternative Interpretations of Safety Harbor
Burial Mounds. Revised version of paper presented at
the 49th Annual Meeting of the Florida Academy of
Sciences, Saint Leo, Florida, May 2 4. On file,
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Sarasota.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. and Dale L. Hutchinson
1986 Interim Report on Excavations at the Tatham Mound,
Citrus County, Florida: Season II. Miscellaneous
Project Report Series No. 28. Florida State Museum,
Department of Anthropology. Gainesville.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M. and Brent Weisman
1984 Excavations at the Ruth Smith Mound (8Ci200). The
Florida Anthropologist 37:100-112.

Moore, Clarence B.
1903 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Central Florida
West-Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of PhiTadeTpFlTa-T7.

1905 Miscellaneous Investigations in Florida. Journal of
the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 13.

Moore, J. E.
1932a "The Indian Mound East of Laurel Florida." Copy of
Typescript on file, Archaeological Consultants,
Inc. Sarasota.

1932b "Log of Laurel Mound." (With 1936 addendum.) Copy
of Typescript on file, Archaeological Consultants,
Inc. Sarasota.


1936 "Log of Ellenton Mound." Copy of Typescript on file,
Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Sarasota.

1941 Loan receipt from J. E. Moore to Montague Tallant.
Dated August 28th. On file, South Florida Museum
and Bishop Planetarium. Bradenton.

Mowers, Bert, Wilma Williams, Mark Greene and Wesley Coleman
1975 The Arch Creek Site, Dade County. Miami-West India
Archaeological Society and Broward County
Archaeological Society. The Florida Anthropologist
28:1-13.

Museum of the American Indian
1938 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Museum
of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. On file,
Huntington Free Library and Reading Room. Bronx, New
York.

n.d.l Accession Card 20/1192.

n.d.2 Accession Card 23/8050.

Ostrander, Ozzie
1960 The Johns Pass Mound. (Comment: W.H. Sears).
The Florida Anthropologist 13:77-79.

Pelham, Robert
n.d. Slide collection from Cayo Pelau, Charlotte County,
Florida. Copies on file, Archaeological Consultants,
Inc. Sarasota.

Rouse, Irving
1951 A Survey of Indian River Archeology Florida. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology, No. 44.
New Haven.

Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, and Gail S. Schnell
1981 Cemochechobee: Archaeology of a Mississippian
Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee River.
University Presses of Forida. GainesviyTTh

Schoff, Harry L.
1933 or 1936 Aquisition card for Safety Harbor Incised
bottle from Wilson Mound in Old Miakka, Sarasota
County, Florida. Copy on file, Archaeological
Consultants, Inc. Sarasota.

Sears, William H.
1967 The Tierra Verde Burial Mound. The Florida
Anthropologist 20:25-47.

Smith, Hale G.
1956 The European and the Indian. European-Indian
Contacts in Georgia and Florida. Adelaide K. Bullen,
Editor. Florida Anthropological Society Publication
No. 4.

Smith, Samuel D.
1971 Excavations at the Hope Mound with an Addendum to the
Safford Mound Report. The Florida Anthropologist
24:107-34.

Stirling, Matthew W.
1935 Smithsonian Archaeological Projects Conducted Under
the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1933-34.
Smithsonian Report for 1934. Washington D.C.

Tallant, Montague
n.d. 1 Artifact catalogue. On file, South Florida Museum
and Bishop Planetarium. Bradenton.

n.d. 2 Artifact catalogue. On file, Museum of the American
Indian. New York.


n.d. 3 Mounds of Manatee County. Notes of
transcribed by John W. Griffin. On
Florida Park Service Files, Florida
Gainesville.


Montague Tallant
file, Old
State Museum.






Walker, S. T.
1880 Preliminary Explorations among the Indian Mounds in
Southern Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual
Report for the Year 1879, pp. 392-413.
Warren, Lyman 0., Francis Bushnell, and Gerald Spence
1965 Six Contributions to the Hand Motif from the Safety
Harbor Burial Mound on Cabbage Key, Pinellas County,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 18:235-238.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collection 113.

1954 Burial Patterns in the Burns and Fuller Mounds,
Cape Canaveral, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
7:79-90.



George M. Luer
Marion M. Almy

Archaeological Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 5103
Sarasota, Fl 34277






THE CASE OF THE FACE DOWN BURIAL:
A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR A UNIQUE BURIAL
FROM SITE 8BY39, BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

Yulee W. Lazarus


Introduction

A possible explanation for the rare
and puzzeling circumstance of a face
down human burial encountered at
site 8By39 is offered in this study.
The mound containing this burial and
others was found on Otter Creek in
Bay County, Northwest Florida in
November, 1961 by Van Ness Butler
and others.

In December 1961, William C. Lazarus
completed a Florida Archaeological
Survey form for the site for State
of Florida records. He began his
report with the observation that

I Shall never understand how
anyone ever found this mound
and identified it.

Before his death in 1965, he appar-
ently reviewed his field notes, as
they contain the added observation:

To me the face down burial in-
fers disgrace to that individ-
ual and a human long bone
(ulna) in the mouth suggests
cannibalism by him. It is
possible that the face up
skull in contact directly
above represents the victim.
The face down individual may
have been caught in the act.

Lazarus' observation that this
unique burial is suggestive of can-
nibalism merits consideration.

William Lazarus was a Research Asso-
ciate with the Department of Anthro-
pology, Florida State University,
while working as Chief Scientist at
Eglin Air Force Base. Van Ness But-
ler reported to Lazarus that he and
others had found a mound, dug into
it and recovered some crania and a


couple of ceramic vessels. They
stopped work to keep from "messing
up the site" (their words). They
wanted a professional approach in
evaluating and reporting the find.

On December 9, 1961, they took
Lazarus to the site where a full day
was spent in excavating and record-
ing observations. Field notes,
maps, crania and ceramic analyses,
photographs, and a radiocarbon re-
port have been on file at the Temple
Mound Museum in Fort Walton Beach
since that time. Fortunately the
original finder of the mound took
photographs (now faded, Figure 3) of
the double burial which is the sub-
ject of this report and supplied ex-
plicit descriptions to a recorder
(W. C. Lazarus) before much time had
elapsed. Thus, the data on hand is
sufficient in quantity and quality
to assemble a report of an extraor-
dinary burial mound.

The Site

The Otter Creek II burial mound site
is recorded in the Florida Master
Site File as site 8By39. The site
is located in the Gulf Coastal Low-
lands of the Florida Panhandle
(Figure 1). Numerous streams and
rivers, in this particular case the
East River and its tributary Otter
Creek, wind through swamps and heavy
woodlands. There are several popu-
lar fish camps and lumber and log-
ging camps. A visit to the mound in
1961 involved traversing sand roads,
portaging a boat a half mile over-
land to Otter Creek, going down
stream another half mile and from
the north bank following a log trail
another half mile. Winding trails
and that type of swamp terrain were
disorienting to Lazarus, and he re-
narked he would never have found his


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 40 No. 4


Dec., 1987







322 '-' i ; noob C'"
r-- -- -- 'T\- &A-I rnF




















27
Bay County, Northwest Florida.
-t -------4--_--------- I

C-I
Figur 1. Loti













Bay County, Northwest Florida.


Butler and Lazarus 8By39 Excavation Areas, with Burial and Feature Locations.


Limits


- ------ --


Figure 2.






way out of the woods if the others
had not guided him.

The mound was actually more of an
extension of a natural rise then an
artificial construct. In diameter
it was 9m with a high point of just
under 76cm. The previous dig area
was squared off and a control point
established with a grid area set up
for further work. Both work areas
are delineated in four pits (Figure
2). Mound fill was largely homoge-
neous, composed of sand with some
gray clay, charcoal fragments,
sherds, and bits of what appeared to
be burnt bone too small to identify.
Excavation went 30cm below the sur-
rounding ground level, but no under-
mound humus was discerned. There
was a band about 7.62cm thick of
lighter colored dirt where a humus
line would normally be. Below the
light colored band the dirt was cul-
turally sterile. Thus, the mound
appears to have been constructed
without any submound preparation.

Burials

Figure 2 illustrates the overall re-
lationship of the burials and fea-
tures in the excavated portion of
the mound. The first digging had
recovered Burial #1 at a depth of
about 45.72 cm and about 15.24 cm
above mound base. Lazarus was able
to record measurements, conditions,
and the fact that it was clearly a
bundle burial composed of crania
with the frontal bone suggesting
headboard deformation. In addition,
there were two femurs, one patella,
at least one humerus, right and left
scapula, and a clavical identified.
One sherd, a Weeden Island dis-
coidal, was in direct association.
The crania material was cared for by
the Temple Mound Museum until 1973
when it was finally taken to Florida
State University for further study.
Drs. R.C. Dailey and Dan Morse were,
as usual, very helpful. They re-
ported that: "This is an adult male
probably 50 years of age. Present
are the cranial vault and portions


of the maxilla and mandible. The
teeth are moderately worn. There is
considerable periodontal disease and
tartar deposits." Dailey and Morse
1973).

Burials #2 and #3 were in close as-
sociation and are the main subject
of this report. Nowhere in research
so far by the author has there been
found so unique a manner of burial.
It is considered to have substantial
significance in the lifestyle of the
period. The skulls were back to
back in direct contact with one an-
other (Figure 3). The top skull,
#2, faced upward and the bottom
skull, #3, faced downward. The
mouth of the down-facing cranium was
open and a piece of an ulna pro-
truded from between the teeth. Four
long bones were oriented north-south
on the north side of the skulls.
One was at the lower level where the
two skulls touched and the other
three were a little higher at the
level of the top face.

According to the Butlers they were
markedly flattened in crania defor-
mation. A small Weeden Island ves-
sel was slightly southeast of the
bundled bones. In November 1961,
two photos were taken looking down
into the cleared pit at the in situ
burials. Burials #2 and #3 were at
the 76.2 cm level along with the
lighter colored band in place of the
usual humus. According to the field
notes these two crania were to be
taken to the Walton County Histori-
cal Society in DeFuniak Springs for
display use.

Burial #4 is best described from
Lazarus' field notes. This burial:

had been largely removed in
the first digging. Parts of
it remained exposed by the
rains...skull fragments, in-
cluding a terminal of the zy-
gomatic arch, were recovered
from disturbed dirt about
30.48 cm below mound surface.
In situ were broken fragments





1961 AON 1961 AON











f'l
*













































Figure 3. Photographs and Sketch of Burials #2 and #3 at Site 8By39
in Bay County, Florida.


324


~ikl







of an adult radius and a sec-
tion of an adult femur. All I
can say about this burial is
that it was a bundle burial of
an adult. No artifacts were
in association and it was rel-
atively shallow in the
mound....much more shallow
than burials #1, #2, and #3.

Burial #5 was reported by the But-
lers to consist of a skull with
three parallel long bones lying on
the west side of the skull in a gen-
erally east-west direction. The
skull was in such deteriorated con-
dition that it fell apart at the
time of discovery and led the Butler
party to cease their work for the
time. Lazarus uncovered the long
bones but they too were disinte-
grated and though distinguishable in
situ consisted primarily of discol-
orations in the soil. A small Wee-
den Island vessel had been found
southeast of the burial. These five
burials had been excavated during
the initial work in November, 1961.

On December 9th, at a depth of about
20.32 cm in the south half of Pit 1,
a fragmented skull, Burial #6, was
found. Roots of a large tree had
somewhat disturbed its in situ posi-
tion but it lay on its left side
facing northwest. The right mastoid
process was intact and the right end
of the mandible was in its correct
anatomical position. The rest of
the right half of the mandible was
displaced about 3.81 cm away. In it
were four heavily worn mature teeth.
Directly below the skull were two
parallel long bones in the northwest
direction. Only one bone, an adult
femur, could be recovered. Nine
loose teeth also were recovered. No
artifacts were found with this bun-
dle burial.

All six individuals were bundle
burials, but only three were in sat-
isfactory condition for identifica-
tion of position and analysis.
William C. Lazarus (1961) reports in
his field notes:


In summary of the prior
uncontrolled digging and the
four pits dug on 9 December, I
observe that all six burials
found to date are secondary
and are probably adults. The
skull-on-skull burial -- lower
one face down with a bone in
mouth -- is unusual. The
mound appears to be a typical
Weeden Island II small burial
mound. Moore reported a
"Mound on Otter Creek" which
is further up stream and on
the south side. The Butlers
know its location. It has
been quite badly dug -- before
Moore, by Moore, and since
Moore.

Dating

Several large samples of charcoal
were found in Pit 3 (Figure 2) which
appeared to be left from a stump
burned prior to mound construction.
There was over a 30.48 cm of fill
dirt above the charcoal. It was
possible to recover 39.79 grams in
clean condition and these were even-
tually submitted to Florida State
University in 1964 for test process-
ng. The test date was reported as
.D. 1365 150 years. Along with
he radiocarbon dating as a firm
uide in dating the time period of
he site, there was a sizable cache
f sherds 20.32 cm below surface in
it 4 (Figure 2). Two Weeden Island
lain vessels may be restorable from
hese, according to the report, but
o date they have not been located.
here were also large sections of a
typical Wakulla Check Stamped vessel
including a half to a third of the
im. Other sherds were randomly
scattered throughout the mound.
eventual classification produced a
isting of some 50 sherds, all but
,ne from the late Weeden Island pe-
iod. Five bone fragments, one
hell fragment and one red flint
:hip were also present. The Butlers
:ook the ceramics and Lazarus took
:he skeletal material. The specimen
lata sheet, which Lazarus submitted







with the charcoal for dating, in-
cluded the following observation:

From this mound have come two
whole (but killed) Weeden
Island plain vessels and an
east side deposit containing
50 or more large sherds.
Types represented were Weeden
Island Plain, Wakulla Check
Stamp, Weeden Island or
Carrabelle Punctate and Weeden
Island or Carrabelle Incised.
About half a Wakulla Check
Stamp bowl was included. No
typical Weeden Island I fancy
funeral ware ... ceramics lack
the sophistication usually
associated with the Weeden
Island periods, but it is
ceramically a clear Weeden
Island II mound.

Discussion

An exhaustive, and exhausting, study
of burial reports, including those
by Bushnell (1920), Jahn and Bullen
(1978),Milanich and Fairbanks
(1980), Willey (1949), Williams
(1965), and Wingate (1972), provided
a long list of burials of all dis-
criptions. A condensed listing in-
cludes primary and secondary flexed,
extended, and bundles, crypts and/or
tombs, charnel houses, layered re-
mains, obvious violent death re-
mains, and usually only partial bod-
ies. Rites and rituals had been
performed with many burials. Of all
the descriptions of burials, though,
none were found in the literature to
match the face down burial uncovered
in Bay County, Florida.

As noted earlier, Lazarus (1965) ob-
served that: "To me the face down
burial infers disgrace to that indi-
vidual and a human long bone (ulna)
in the mouth suggests cannibalism by
him." If this interpretation is
correct, it is certainly an aberra-
tion of Weeden Island lifestyles.

The term cannibal was used by the
Spanish in reference to the Carib


Indians of the Caribbean where car-
tain people were reported to eat hu-
man flesh. West Indies influence is
not firmly established for Gulf
Coast Indians but is considered pos-
sible during Weeden Island times.
Cannibalism was also reported in
widely divergent areas of the world.
Almost all reports were based on
second hand knowledge. Cannibalism
has very rarely been a matter of
survival. Many groups had a social
organization which included the so-
called Cannibalism Society. Members
performed certain rites and dances
as part of the group social prac-
tice. Cannibalism was believed by
some people to be a means of acquir-
ing special physical traits or magic
qualities and as a sign of filial
respect and life transfer. Mission-
aries omitted communion rites in
conversion of Indians to avoid sup-
porting possible belief in cannibal-
ism. Taboos and laws are said to
oppose and/or penalize accidental
homicide, murder, witchcraft, and
suicide. No records could be found
penalizing cannibalism (Bennedict
1966, Harris and Levey 1975; Hoebel
1958; Kolata 1987; Murdock 1957;
Speer 1981).

One actual archaeological case sug-
gested cannibalism with redeposited
human bones which had been cooked
and calcined. It was dated Early
Woodland and in Georgia (Phelps and
Burgess 1964:199-202). Erik
Trinkaus is quoted in an article by
Gina Kolata (1987) in this regard:
"The point is that we will never be
able to prove that prehistoric peo-
ple were or were not cannibals. So
the way we interpret the data we
have tells us more about us than
about them."

Conclusion

Lazarus wrote:

The degenerate nature of the
ceramics, the inaccessibility
of the small mound in a swamp,
now coupled with the latest







recorded date for the Weeden
Island II period, plus a
unique burial which suggests
cannibalism seem to add up to
a "last gasp" phase. The Fort
Walton people had already
taken over the desirable sites
for the best hunting and
fishing areas and were
pressing the Weeden Islanders
to extinction.

While we may never know the true
significance of the unique face down
burial from site 8By39 in Northwest
Florida, its interpretation as pun-
ishment for the act of cannibalism
has been suggested. The author
would be interested in learning of
any similar burials found elsewhere
and how they were interpreted: as
evidence of cannibalism or some
other explanation.

References Cited

Benedict, Ruth
1966 Patterns of Culture. A Mentor
Book.

Bushnell, David L, Jr.
1920 Native Cemeteries and Forms of
Burial East of the Missis-
sippi. Bureau of American
Ethnology, Bulletin 71.

Dailey, R.C. and Dan Morse
1973 Letter report on site 8By39
skeletal analysis. On file
Temple Mound Museum, Ft.
Walton Beach, Florida.

Harris, William H and Judith S.
Levey, ed.
1975 Cannibalism. The New Columbia
Encyclopedia. New York and
London.

Hoebel, E. Adamson
1958 Man in the Primitive World.
McGraw Hill.

Jahn, Otto L. and Ripley P. Bullen
1978 The Tick Island Site, St.
Johns River, Florida. Florida
Anthropological Society Publi-


cation Number 10.

Kolata, Gina
1987 Are the Horrors of Cannibalism
Fact or Fiction? Smithsonian,
March.

Lazarus, William C.
1961 Florida Archaeological Survey
site form for 8By39. On file
Temple Mound Museum, Ft.
Walton Beach, Florida.

1965 Field note addendum for site
8By39. On file Temple Mound
Museum, Ft. Walton Beach,
Florida.

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

Murdock, George Peter
1957 Our Primitive Contemporaries.
MacMillan.

Phelps, David Sutton and Rebeka
Burgess
1964 A Possible Case of Cannibalism
in the Early Woodland Period
of Eastern Georgia. American
Antiquity 30(2 Pt. 1):199-202.

Speer, Leslie
1981 Cannibalism. Encyclopedia
Americana, Vol. 5.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf
Coast. Smithsonian Miscella-
neous Collections Volume 113.

Williams, Stephen, ed.
1965 The Waring Papers. Peabody
Museum, Harvard University.

Wingate, R. J.
1972 Ten Burials from Green Lake,
Texas. The Florida Anthropol-
ogist 25(3):119-127.


Yulee W. Lazarus
1001 Marwalt #111
Ft. Walton Beach, Florida
32548 327






CHAPTER 872, FLORIDA STATUTES 1987
("OFFENSES CONCERNING DEAD BODIES AND GRAVES"):
A NATIVE AMERICAN'S PERSPECTIVE

Joe A,Quetone


The Native Americans of the State of
Florida participated with profes-
sional anthropologists and others in
efforts to amend an earlier much
weaker and flawed version of Chapter
872 Florida Statutes ("Offenses Con-
cerning Dead Bodies and Graves").
The title of this Act is certainly
appropriate since it aptly states
what has been happening for decades
to Native American burials which
virtually have been mined by arti-
facts collectors and, in a sense, by
those seeking "scientific data."
While Florida's Native Americans
certainly participated in the suc-
cessful effort to amend the above
cited law, we have various views on
the manner of its implementation and
hope that our wishes will be re-
spected by those who encounter human
remains of Native American origin.

In any discussion which purports to
present the "Native American per-
spective" one must be particularly
careful to remember that linguistic
and other cultural differences gen-
erally preclude the development of a
universally acceptable "Native Amer-
ican perspective," especially in
matters related to religious beliefs
and customs. Keeping this in mind,
I will attempt to provide some in-
sight into rather general concerns
or attitudes regarding the protec-
tion of burials and associated arti-
facts which have been expressed by
tribal groups in the State of
Florida.

Most Native American nations have
expressed their preference that hu-
man burials and associated burial
artifacts remain undisturbed. In
the case that a burial is inadver-
tently disturbed, the remains and
associated artifacts should, if re-


THE FLORIDA AN


moval is absolutely necessary, be
removed only in the presence of and
with the assistance of a tribal re-
ligious leader. Reinterment should
take place at a time and place spec-
ified by the tribal religious
leader. Remains and burial arti-
facts should never be photographed
or placed on display for any reason.

Members of the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida are firm in their
beliefs that burials should never be
disturbed and have declined any in-
volvement in the removal and rein-
terment of remains. The leadership
of the Seminole Tribe of Florida has
indicated that under certain circum-
stances they will assist in removal
and reinterment. However, the Tribe
prefers not to be involved in a
reinterment of remains and associ-
ated artifacts if the Tribe was not
involved in the removal of said re-
mains. Representatives of the
Poarch Band of Creek Indians have
indicated their interest in partici-
pating in the "necessary" removal
and reinterment of remains and asso-
ciated artifacts. The leadership of
the Florida Tribe of Eastern Creek
Indians has indicated the willing-
ness of their group to assist in the
reinterment of previously removed
remains; however, they also would
prefer that they be involved in any
"necessary" removal.

Although I have broadly touched on
the position of Florida's Native
Americans regarding the implementa-
tion of the provisions of Chapter
872, Florida Statutes 1987, I be-
lieve the reader will understand
that the primary concern of most Na-
tive American nations and individu-
als in Florida, and indeed through-
out the United States, is that our




THROPOLOGIST Dec., 1987


Vol. 40 No. 4







ancestors be treated with respect
and left in place. Our concerns are
perhaps best expressed in comments
submitted by the National Congress
of American Indians (the oldest and
largest national organization serv-
ing the interests of American Indi-
ans and Alaska Native nations), on
the rules proposed for the "Curation
of Federally Owned and Administered
Archaeological Collections" to be
codified as 36 CFR Part 79. Their
February 11 memorandum, included in
their October 15, 1987 comments, is
quoted with permission:

There is no point in trying to
overlook the fact that the
subject matter with which this
rule is concerned is one in
which there is a fundamental
conflict between Indian peo-
ples and the archaeological
community. Although there is
a great diversity in the reli-
gious traditions of the Indi-
ans and Native nations there
is a generally held belief
among Indian and Native people
that when an individual dies
and the remains of that indi-
vidual are given the proper
ceremonial treatment, the re-
mains and any sacred objects
that are placed with the re-
mains are intended to be left
undisturbed by human activity
forever. This belief is not
one which is unique to Indian
peoples. That this belief
also is held by practitioners
of Judeo-Christian religions
is reflected in laws in every
state of the Union which im-
pose criminal penalties on
persons who desecrate cemeter-
ies. Only in very recent
years and in only a handful of
states have laws been enacted
to prohibit the excavation of
unmarked Indian cemeteries.
Indians and Native people are
deeply offended that the
graves of our people have not
been protected by the laws of


the dominant society and that
the excavation of the graves
of our people has become a ma-
jor activity of a widely re-
spected discipline: archaeol-
ogy.

The excavation of graves and
the curation and display of
human remains and sacred ob-
jects taken from graves is
more than offensive. These
practices place burdens on the
religious beliefs and prac-
tices of Indian and Native
people.

While the above statement was di-
rected toward archaeologically ob-
tained materials and the circum-
stances leading to their recovery,
it is also recognized that there is
a major problem in every state from
individuals who make a living or
hobby off the looting of Native
American graves for the artifacts
which they contain. It was this
concern which also helped stimulate
cooperation in Florida to amend its
law to make prosecution of such in-
dividuals a distinct possibility.
More can and should be done,

Reference Cited

The National Congress of American
Indians
1987 Comments on the Rules Proposed
for the "Curation of Feder-
ally-owned and Administered
Archaeological Collections" to
be Codified at (sic) 36 CFR
Part 79, Published on August
28, 1987 (52 Fed. Reg. 32739).



Joe A. Quetone
Florida Governor's Council on Indian
Affairs, Inc.
521 E. College Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32301




UNCOVERING OUR PREHISTORIC PINELLANS


Walter H. Askew


Preservation activities address a variety
of needs. During the last decade or so,
the built environment, being highly visi-
ble, is receiving long overdue attention.
Structures, endangered or not, with his-
toric, architectural, or cultural signi-
ficance, are being evaluated, salvaged,
renovated, and often put to energy and
cost conserving reuse.

Less visible, but likewise deserving of
preservation and study, is our prehis-
toric heritage; that is, those modifi-
cations of the environment and accom-
panying artifacts left us by the Native
Americans. An Indian mound, perhaps less
lamentable to some than, say, a similarly
threatened Victorian landmark, is no less
worthy of our stewardship. Moreover,
such sites serve to remind us that these,
too, are non-renewable cultural re-
sources. In this spirit, let's embark
upon a brief overview of our local and
original Floridians.

Some 10,000 years ago, probably earlier,
men first came into Pinellas County -
wanderers from out of the North. These
first inhabitants were small groups of
hunters and gatherers migrants, as
were the Pleistocene fauna that they
sought. Generations later, other groups,
now sedentary, dwelt within this area and
partially subsisted upon a variety of
shellfish, piling up the shells into
extensive mounds that stand as mute and
most visible reminders of their
existence. Also, earlier sites in the
Tampa Bay region are obscured beneath the
bay waters, as, over the thousands of
years, the sea level has risen to the
extent that many sites which were once
terrestrial are now drowned and rarely
accessible to archaeologists.

These people, usually referred to as
Timucuans, formed seasonal and permanent
settlements in the Pinellas County
vicinity perhaps four thousand years ago.
Since they left behind no written


Vol. 40 No. 4


records, clues regarding their identity
and lifeways have been provided by
archaeological investigations and ac-
counts from the journals, and from the
illustrations of European explorers.

Pinellas County provided the locale for
many of the Timucuans' largest settle-
ments. The woods were filled with game
and plants. The waters teemed with fish
and shellfish, and materials for fash-
ioning implements were plentiful. The
population would grow and prosper in this
land that offered up such an ample
subsistence base to be exploited, and in
such a salubrious climate.

Excavations of the mounds left by the
Indians reveal that some were constructed
largely of earth, while others were
composed primarily of shell. The earth
mounds, which were constructed inten-
tionally, served as burial grounds,
ceremonial places, and fortifications.
The shell mounds, which predominate, are
referred to as kitchen middens and were
in reality refuse dumps. At the places
where the kitchen middens were formed
(usually near bodies of water), the early
inhabitants feasted on plant life, marine
foods, and land animals. Through the
years, by accretion, these discarded
remains, various by-products of daily
living, and other cultural material,
along with layers of soil, accumulated
and resulted in the various midden forms.
Many types of artifacts can be found in
these mounds, but much of the record is
missing due to the decomposition of most
of the organic artifacts. Although
scores of mounds in the County have been
destroyed as a result of development and
"collecting activities," a few still
exist. Our recent preservation ordinance
will hopefully protect the remainder from
severe impaction.

Measurement taken of skeletons found
indicate that the Indians were short and
stocky. According to the reports from


Dec., 1987


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







European explorers who visited the
peninsula in the 1500's, the advent of
the historic era in this area, the
Indians were of light brown hue and lived
in thatched palmetto huts in fortified
villages usually situated near their
mounds. They had well organized indus-
tries, and some tribes practiced
horticulture. Many of the Indians were
heavily tattooed, and they seemed to
enjoy ornaments which they wore suspended
from their necks, ears, and extremities.

Several "pioneer archaeologists" con-
ducted excavations into Indian sites
within the county. Although they sal-
vaged a wide variety of artifacts, their
attempts were not predicated upon
scientific principals of inquiry. Thus,
not until Gordon R. Willey's work in
this area in the late 1940's was there
any attempt to evaluate the parts in
relation to the whole; that is, realizing
that Indians had lived in Florida for
many thousands of years, and through
archaeological analyses, noting that
various changes had occurred in their
site selection and configuration, in
their ceramics, tools, and in their non-
material culture, and ultimately, inter-
preting these changes to define cultural
groups, and to arrange these groups in
time and space. Contemporary elabor-
ation, among archaeologists and other
scientists using diverse and interfacing
tacks, is developing inter-disciplinary,
testable, problem-oriented approaches in
hopes of making archaeology more valid
(hopefully to the public also), and,
ideally, is more accurately elucidating
the past while extracting relevance to
the present.

As with men in all places and points of
time, our Indians practiced what seems to
be a fairly complex religion, which
probably was to some degree theocratic.
Their socio-political system seems to
have been adapting to criteria needed for
definable civilization, such as those
that existed to the South. The coming of
the Europeans, however, was to bring
oppression. With this event, their ranks
were decimated by diseases of European


origin for which they had no resistance;
many were put to the sword by the
invaders who were seeking plunder, others
were enslaved, others fled to neigh-
boring tribes eventually their
entire culture was disrupted and ceased
to exist.

Until this time, though, they were
seemingly a friendly people who got along
well with visitors from other areas.
Non-indigenous artifacts and materials
recovered at a number of sites would
indicate that they were in contact and
trading with areas to the South and with
Indians in other parts of the United
States.

Unfortunately, a great deal of arch-
aeology on the contemporary scene must be
undertaken quickly (salvage) as a result
of impending development or other
environmental impact. Academic archaeo-
logy is often very tedious and time
consuming, but this is where the best
detective work can be done.

Another problem with which archaeologists
have had to contend is "pot hunters" or
"relic collectors" who destroy much of
our heritage in order to amass
collections. Artifacts removed incor-
rectly from their provenience are usually
rendered useless, and much knowledge is
lost. A person interested in "amateur
archaeology" would be well advised to
join a reputable archaeological society.

We can learn from man's adaptations to
challenges presented by the past; how he
articulated with his environment, and how
he faced many of the tasks we must
address now. Prehistory has much to
teach us about today. We can draw from
derived data, and perhaps, in retrospect,
this will help us avoid certain mistakes
in our own complicated environment.

Just as preservationists realize that
preserving every interesting building
isn't feasible, so also, do archaeo-
logists understand that all sites cannot
and need not be saved. Sites of
importance, however, should be preserved.










They may not even want to excavate such
sites immediately. Many sites can wait,
for instance, until some future date when
improved methodology will address spe-
cific questions and challenges, and the
past can best be served by evaluation
with more refined techniques. Some sites
we may never want to excavate.

The Indian group delineated here were not
ancestors of the Seminoles, the amalga-
mated population that came into the State
during the 1700's; rather, they were
original Indians of Florida, now extinct,
whose remaining artifacts have aided
students of prehistory in unraveling the
cultural fabric woven through the many
thousands of years of societal evolution
that this people experienced.


Walter H. Askew
4931 1st Avenue North St.
Petersburg, Florida 33710





COONTIE ROOT: THE DANGEROUS BLESSING


Harold D. Cardwell, Sr.


One of the most valuable foods of
Florida's Indians and white settlers
alike was deadly pioson if ill-
prepared. The starch of the coontie
root (Zamia floridana) is almost
identical to arrowroot starch and,
in fact, is often called Florida ar-
rowroot. It was of great value to
infants and invalids, or to anyone
else who needed easily digested
food. To the early settlers, it
represented a ready substitute for
the scarce wheat flour they had been
accustomed to "back home" (Fix
1963:2-4). To Florida's Indians, it
was a staple and one that helped the
Seminole out-last the United States
soldiers in the Everglades during
the Indian wars in South Florida
(Smith 1951:240). However, if coon-
tie starch is not properly fermented
and processed, it will retain some
of the hydrocyanic acid (Smith
1951:238), liquid cyanide solution,
which has killed more than a few
wilderness novices and impatient
soldiers.

A Captain Ben Hopkins of the St.
Johns Rangers fell ill in February,
1862, just before arriving at Dun-
lawton Plantation, Port Orange,
where he was treated with a mixture
containing coontie arrowroot. A
letter dated February 20 from Lieu-
tenant Winston Stephens to his wife,
Octavia, described Captain Hopkins
treatment (though not his illness).
The letter said he was "very sick
and not expected to live... (He was
given) infusions of arrowroot with
gumarabic brandy and boiled milk"
(Stephens 1862). Unfortunately Cap-
tain Hopkins died the next day, and
it is not known if he died of his
disease or a poorly prepared treat-
ment for it.


The actual process of extracting the
arrowroot-like starch is not compli-
cated; although, it is just a bit
slow and tedious. According to Clay
MacCauley, who described in 1881
what he had seen in the Indian
camps, the extraction process began
with the digging, washing and scrap-
ing of the roots of the coontie
fern. The scraped roots were
chopped as finely as possible and
mashed to a pulp. The Indians used
a log with a series of large holes
gauged in it for mortars, and carved
hardwood pestles. The mashed pulp
was then soaked in water and
stirred, and the "trash" particles
skimmed from the top of the water.
The thick liquid pulpy matter was
strained through a cloth, the starch
seeping through with the water, and
the pulp remained in the cloth. The
pulp was discarded and the liquid
retained and left to ferment. The
Indians caught the liquid in deer-
skin slings, which helped the fer-
mentation process. After the proper
fermentation period -- at least sev-
eral days -- the water was drained
off and the starch at the bottom
spread on palm fronds to dry
(MacCauley 1917:37).

The white manufacture of coontie
starch chose to put the starch
through several additional fermenta-
tions, resulting in a purer, whiter
starch. The Indians' product was
pink, yellowish or orangish
(MacCauley 1917:38).

Coontie arrowroot was often used in
making the dish the Seminoles called
"sofkee," a sort of pudding which
came to be prized by the white set-
tlers for a breakfast gruel. The
Indians also mixed coontie flour


Dec., 1987


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 40 No. 4






with hot water and a bit of honey to
make a jelly-like concoction copied
by the settlers and very popular
with sweet-toothed youngsters.
Later, the settlers began substitut-
ing coontie arrowroot for wheat
flour to make breads (Fix 1963:2-4).

As the early settlers began to es-
tablish themselves in South Florida,
they began extracting coontie arrow-
root for export. Virtually all of
the 200 families in the Miami area
had coontie mills, and each could
produce up to a barrel of starch
(250 pounds) in a week. Five bar-
rels of raw roots were needed to
make one barrel of starch (Fix
1963:2-4).

In addition to the family mills,
there were at least two larger fac-
tories for extracting flour from the
coontie root, one in Miami and one
near Orlando (MacCauley 1946:361).
An earlier account says another
coontie starch factory was opened in
Lake Helen in 1895 and operated un-
til 1908 (MacCauley 1917:38-39).
Little is known about it, although
at one time there were several resi-
dents of the town who remembered
working there or seeing the opera-
tion. It was closed after 18 years
when the coontie fern had become too
scare locally and too expensive to
import from Miami for the factory to
afford to continue. Today, Lake He-
len's telephone company office is
located on the site of the arrowroot
factory, and there is still a stand
of coontie fern in the Lake Helen
cemetery on the hill (West Volusia
Historical Society 1976).

With the declining supplies and
uses, coontie starch production de-
clined also in both South and Cen-
tral Florida. However, just as the
Florida arrowroot industry ended,
World War I began and it was discov-
ered that coontie starch gruel was
virtually the only food soldier
could tolerate after being gassed.
In 1919, the Miami coontie industry
boomed at a renewed pace, busily


producing the quantities of coontie
fern starch the war demanded. By
1925, the demand for flour at hospi-
tals was over and the last factory
had closed its doors.

The coontie fern (any of several
members of the Zamia family) had
once been an abundant plant, growing
wild throughout the Florida penin-
sula to the St.Marys River. On the
Gulf Coast, under the warming influ-
ence of the Gulf breezes, it even
spread into the Panhandle area.
Coontie still is found occasionally
in the wild, but it has fallen vic-
tim to the rampant real estate de-
velopment of the 20th century.
Coontie is now listed as a protected
plant.

It grows up to a foot and a half
tall, and bears a large strange
seedcone, which rises from the cen-
ter of the plant. It looks like a
charred, black stick of wood, sev-
eral inches in diameter, with geo-
metric divisions somewhat like a
pineapple's. The large roots of the
plant, the main source of its value
as a food, can grow to several
pounds each. Though the flour has
the advantage of being easily di-
gested and of adding little of its
own taste to foods, it does have
disadvantages: its cyanide danger
and the fact that its extraction
creates a strong oder, like rotting
cabbage.

In the mid-19th century, when
Miami's coontie flour production was
still largely a cottage industry,
sailors recognized the town long be-
fore they could see it by the stench
wafting out to sea (Fix 1963:2-4).
Furthermore, a half dozen years af-
ter the Lake Helen factory closed,
the town government passed an ordi-
nance forbidding the operation of
any industry causing a disagreeable
odor (MacCauley 1917:39).

Odors aside, however, the ultimate
doom of the coontie industry was the
increasing scarcity of the plant.


V1A






Though it responds well to cultiva-
tion, most manufacturers, from Indi-
ans to white settlers to industrial-
ists, depended largely on wild sup-
plies. The Indians paid little at-
tention to replanting of the up-
rooted ferns. The settlers had lit-
tle knowledge of its exacting re-
quirements for cross-pollination.
And, the land developers throughout
the booming Florida peninsula
launched their first and strongest
bulldozer attacks on the high and
dry pineland areas where coontie
fern grows best (Fix 1963:3).

Nevertheless, though too delicate to
stand any freezing, coontie is well
suited to the variations of Florida
climate. It likes dry sand, but
doesn't mind cool, damp forests, and
it tolerates salt breezes and alka-
line soil as well. Stands of coon-
tie are still scattered here and
there throughout the state. If the
bulldozer can be kept away from
them, and the indiscriminate gar-
dener will avoid digging them up,
the coontie fern may once again be-
come a familiar sight in the Florida
countryside.


References Cited

Fix, John
1963 Anyone for Sofkee? in All
Florida Magazine, Vol. 5,
February 3, pp. 2-4. Ocala.

MacCauley, Clay
1917 Economic and Social Factors of
Zamia. The Seminole Indians
of Florida, pp. 37-39.
Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of Ethnology, Fifth An-
nual Report, 1883-1884.

1946 Indians of the Southeastern
United States, p. 361. Bureau
of American Ethnology, Bul-
letin 137.

Smith, Hale G.
1951 Ethnological and Archaeologi-
cal Significance of Zamia.


American Anthropologist
53(2):240, Menasha.

Stephens, Lt. Winston to Octavia
Stephens
1862 From the Octavia Stephens
Papers, P.K. Yonge Library of
Florida History, University of
Florida, Gainesville.
February 20, 1862 letter.

West Volusia Historical Society
1976 Reflections of West Volusia
County 1876-1976. J.J.
Stoner, Publisher, Madison,
Wisconsin.

Harold D. Cardwell, Sr.
1343 Woodbine Street
Daytona Beach, Florida 32014




SURVEY OF SHIP'S WRECKAGE (8DU3157) AT LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND PARK,
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

Richard Haiduven and Roger C. Smith


Abstract

This report concerns the examination and
interpretation of a portion of ships
structure lying exposed on a remote beach
area of the northeastern coast of Florida.
The project was conducted under the aus-
pices of the Bureau of Archaeological Re-
search, Florida Department of State, in re-
sponse to a request from the Department of
Natural Resources. Field personnel in-
cluded students, volunteers, park rangers,
and a local informant. Completely exposed
during low tides, the articulated portion
of a wooden sailing ship's hull was
cleaned, carefully measured, drawn, and
photographed over a period of two days, af-
ter which it was partially reburied with
sand. A photomosaic and a plan of the
structure subsequently were prepared to ac-
company this report, which includes recom-
mendations for potential preservation and
possible public display of the wreckage.


Introduction

In May 1987, John Scafidi of the Bureau of
Historic and Environmental Land Management,
Department of Natural Resources, reported
to the Bureau of Archaeological Research,
Department of State, that he had examined a
shipwreck on the shore of Little Talbot Is-
land State Park, south of Nassau Inlet in
Duval County, Florida. Photographs of the
wreckage, which apparently had been exposed
by storm erosion in recent years, showed a
large section of articulated ship's timbers
lying parallel to the beach in the tidal
zone.

In response to queries about the age and
possible significance of the wreckage, a
brief field investigation was organized to
examine, record, and interpret the Little
Talbot Island Shipwreck, designated as site
8DU3157. A period of two days, May 25-26,
was spent at the site, and several weeks of


data analysis subsequently resulted in the
formulation of this report. Survey person-
nel included Roger C. Smith, Underwater
Archaeologist, State of Florida; Richard
Haiduven of Texas A&M University; Mike
Stallings, President of the Paleontological
and Archaeological Research Team (P.A.R.T.
of Florida); Joe and Alexandria Nolin, also
of P.A.R.T.; Al Haas and Terry Lowe of the
Marine Archaeological Divers Association
(M.A.D.A. of Florida); KC Smith of the
Bureau of Archaeological Research; Park
Ranger Dana Phillips of Little Talbot
Island State Park; and Mr. William Jones, a
local citizen of Duval County. Roy Lett of
the Bureau's Photography Lab prepared the
photographic prints, which were taken by KC
Smith.

The wreckage is located on a remote stretch
of beachline in the northern portion of the
park, approximately one mile from the pub-
lic swimming area. Situated at the foot of
a large sand dune in the tidal zone, the
wooden structure was found to be partially
filled with sand. At low tide, articulated
frames and planks were exposed. Attached
to these were several long, thin iron mem-
bers bent over at right angles. At high
tide the entire structure became submerged.
Nevertheless, upon initial inspection sev-
eral prominent features could be distin-
guished: ceiling (inner hull) planking,
frames (ribs), outer hull planking, with
wooden treenails (dowels), and copper and
iron fastenings. The bent iron pieces rep-
resented inner reinforcing frames that sup-
ported beams upon which the deck was laid.

Before the hull could be accurately
recorded, it was necessary to totally ex-
pose the structure (figs. 1 and 2). This
was accomplished by alternate digging,
sweeping, and washing the sand buildup away
with salt water. Measurements of the
longest ceiling plank (16.13m) and widest
frame (5.25m) were taken to establish over-
all dimensions of the wreckage. Ceiling


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 40 No. 4


Dec., 1987

































Figure 1. Hull remains after sand removal.


Figure 2. Volunteers measuring hull timbers.


337









planks were given numbered designations as
reference guides. A baseline measuring
tape was laid along the axis of the struc-
ture at the longest ceiling planks (numbers
12 and 13) to record the number, length,
and distance between individual ceiling
strakes, as well as locations where they
joined. Next, frame dimensions, both sided
(width) and molded (thickness), center-to-
center distances, and overall length were
recorded. One section of the northwest
corner of hull revealed beveled frame ends
and other planks.

In order to make a photomosaic plan of the
entire structure, overlapping photographs
were taken from a temporary scaffold which
was moved along the hull at regular inter-
vals. These photographs were later assem-
bled in a mosaic in order to provide, a-
long with the measurements, the basis for a
site plan.

During the survey, the following components
were investigated:

Iron reinforcing frames Six hold beam
knee riders (which reinforced the hull and
supported the beams of the first deck), and
two iron hanging knees (which also sup-
ported the deck beams) lay within the
wreckage. The hanging knees were found
lodged between the ceiling and the long
arms of two beam knee riders. They were
removed to facilitate clearing sand from
the wreckage. Most of the iron frames were
somewhat twisted out of their original
alignments, and four had been displaced.
Nevertheless, four of the five knee riders
appeared to have been fastened perpendicu-
lar to the keel; the northernmost knee
rider was canted forward slightly, as were
the hanging knees, whose short arms were
beveled. Knee riders were fastened to the
hull with both iron and copper bolts; one
rider had fifteen fastening holes in both
its long and short arms. This member mea-
sured 5cm x 8cm x 3.79m. Iron frame spac-
ing followed no discernible pattern, but
must have corresponded to the spacing of
overhead deck beams.

Ceiling There are twenty-four ceiling
planks (ceiling comes from the word seal-


ing, and is the name applied to the inner
hull planking that originally helped to
seal a ship's hull, but later helped to
protect it from shifting cargo and external
forces of the sea). Ceiling dimensions
range from 5.8cm x 14.5cm (CP 2) to 8.3cm x
19.5cm (CP 13) at the southern end of the
wreck; ceiling width dimensions decreased
towards the north in almost every case, and
ranged from 15.3cm (CP1) to 24cm (CP 24).
Notable exceptions occur at CP1 and 2,
where the width actually increased slightly
toward the north.

Butt joints (where two planks were joined
end-to-end) followed a regular pattern,
staggered longitudinally so as to allow an
interval of three planks before another
butt joint location was repeated
athwartships. Spacing between butts aver-
age 2-5cm. Ceiling planks were fastened to
frames with wedged treenails, iron nails
and copper bolts. The pattern appears to
have been staggered for the treenails, but
was crowded in several locations, which may
be evidence for repair. Iron and copper
fastenings did not follow any noticeable
pattern.

Framing This ship was heavily framed, and
frames were closely spaced, their average
center-to-center distance being only 25-
30cm. Frame ends on the west side were
more robust, that is, their sided and
molded dimensions were greater that those
on the eastern side (sided thickness is the
fore and aft dimension of the frame, molded
thickness the height of the timber, or its
internal to external dimension). Molded
thickness is thus gradually reduced as the
frames curve upward toward the ships
rails. Frames were fastened to futtocks
with longitudinally placed treenails and
iron spikes. At the northwest edge of the
structure, (from Frame 53 to Frame 62)
frame ends were cut down to a distinctive
taper on their inner surfaces (figs. 3 and
4). Frame 62 was almost flat with some
slight curvature toward its upper end,
while Frame 1 was quite curved.

Outer planking Evidence for at least
twelve outer planks existed; eight of these
occurred at the northwest corner of the







LITTLE TALBOT ISLAND SHIPWRECK


0 1 2 3M
e91


~z -z


4/A .Q/f?
CI/ ^/


IRON REINFORCING FRAMES

S LOOSE IRON REINFORCING FRAMES

S COPPER FASTENINGS

S IRON FASTENINGS

F FRAMES

C P CEILING PLANKING

OP OUTER PLANKING





















!>i:: 7=


KT-


i5'TIC


Q' S

li1



L^~'e


-.
"h I A
0.4


yi


A ..


~ra


- .


jmm


r~Sj
,rr


r-
F4.* -Wl



































Figure 3. Northwest corner, with truss and beveled frame ends.


Figure 4. View from the north, showing truss position in hull.









hull, extending beneath Frame 62, and four
remnants occurred outboard near the eastern
edge of the wreckage. Planking thickness
was uniform at the stern (7cm), but the
highest, most outboard plank was 10.2cm
thick. This could be a wale Waless are ex-
tra thick planks, either ceiling or outer
planking, which act as hull stiffeners).
Planking widths ranged from 10cm to 21.5cm.
Planks were fastened to the framing with
treenails (wooden dowels used below the wa-
terline because they expand rather than
corrode). These averaged 3cm in diameter.
Judging from the exposed western edge of
the wreck (fig. 5), two staggered treenails
fastened each outer plank to each frame and
or futtock (upper frame), as well as to the
ceiling above. For example, the western
edge of Frame 50 has two 3.3cm treenails
staggered at a 450 angle with a center-to-
center spacing of 16.4cm. Wedges were
driven into both ends of individual
treenails.

As in the case of the northwestern edges of
ceiling planks, the first three outer
planks appear to have been cut at an angle,
the most outboard planks extending the far-
thest north ( fig. 3). Presum-
ably, the edges of the remaining planks
have been broken off, though they would
have been similarly cut at angles to con-
tinue the pattern begun with the first
three planks.

No traces of caulking, sheathing, or other
bottom coating were found adhering to the
outer surface of the planks. It is possi-
ble that further excavation of the under-
side of the wreckage would yield such evi-
dence.

Fastenings At least three types of fas-
tenings were used to construct this ship--
wooden treenails, copper bolts, and iron
nails or spikes. Treenails averaged 3cm in
diameter and were staggered with two
treenails for each frame at a 450 angle.
There were several areas where treenails
occurred in seams or at butt ends of planks
(fig. 6), sometimes so closely together as
to be touching. Treenails were wedged with
wooden wedges at both ends to expand their
hold on the ceiling and other planks. Most


of these wedges were driven perpendicular
to the run of planking in a uniform pat-
tern. Some treenails were used to fasten
frames to futtocks, and as such were driven
fore and aft.

Copper bolts (2cm diameter) peened over
washers (4.5cm diameter) appear to have
been the primary means of fastening iron
beam knees, also serving as the preliminary
fastening of the ceiling and other planking
to frames. In one case (fig. 5) a bolt
penetrates only ceiling and outer planking.
There is no apparent fastening pattern for
these bolts.

Iron bolts may also have been used to fas-
ten ceiling to frames and outer planking,
but their heads have corroded and are
unidentifiable. Like some treenails, iron
nails or spikes were driven longitudinally
through frames and futtocks. This may have
been preliminary fastening, followed later
by the addition of treenails.

Other Features A large timber, 4.95m long
and roughly 18cm square, was located in the
northernmost area of the hull section (fig.
4). Bolted with iron and copper fastenings
through the ceiling (and probably through
frames and outer planking), it was set at
an angle 450 off the keel's longitudinal
axis. Its upper end is tilted forward,
resting on the upper face of CP24 at Frame
46, while its lower end rests on the north-
ern extension of CP1 at Frame 59.

Wood Types Wood samples were taken of ev-
ery structural feature--treenails, ceiling,
framing and outer planking. These have
been identified by the Rockport Apprentice-
ship. Treenails are locust; ceiling and
frames are yellow pine; outer planking is
cypress.


Historical Discussion

Development of the iron industry enabled
the application of iron in the construction
of beam knees in place of very scarce com-
pass timber (naturally curved wood from
trees). Iron finally replaced all the in-
ternal wooden structural hull members,





343





























Figure 5. Tree nails, copper bolt, and longitudinal iron spike.
Figure 5. Tree nails, copper bolt, and longitudinal iron spike.


Figure 6. Tree nail pattern with copper bolt at butt joint.




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