• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page - Brent R. Weism...
 The Adkins biface cache site (8BY701),...
 Spanish ranching and the Alachua...
 The city of St. Augustine's archaeology...
 The archaeology of the Cubo line...
 Identifying and locating the Horbabeque...
 The stratigraphy of the Mose Line...
 Reviews
 Correction : Table 2, Mikell's...
 Join the Florida Anthropological...
 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/UF00027829/00043
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Anthropological Society
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
Publisher: Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Frequency: quarterly[]
two no. a year[ former 1948-]
quarterly
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Summary: Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- May 1948-
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027829
Volume ID: VID00043
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
    Table of Contents
        Page 66
    Editor's page - Brent R. Weisman
        Page 67
    The Adkins biface cache site (8BY701), Bay County, Florida - Louis D. Tesar and Thomas C. Watson
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
    Spanish ranching and the Alachua sink site : A preliminary report - Henry A Baker
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
    The city of St. Augustine's archaeology program - Carn D. Halbirt
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
    The archaeology of the Cubo line : St. Augustine's first line of defense - Carl D. Halbirt
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
    Identifying and locating the Horbabeque line : An eighteenth-century Spanish fortification in St. Augustine - Carl D. Halbirt
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
    The stratigraphy of the Mose Line : St. Augustine's last line of defense - Bruce J. Piatek and Carl D. Halbirt
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
    Reviews
        Page 145
        Page 146
    Correction : Table 2, Mikell's Little's Bayou west article
        Page 147
    Join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS)!
        Page 148
    Back Cover
        Page 150
        Page 151
Full Text





COPYRIGHT NOTICE

2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.


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


all rights to the
and shall be
and images of


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

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

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.






THE FLORIDA

ANTHROPOLOGIST

Volume 46 Number 2
June 1993
Page Number
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editor's Page. Brent R. Weisman 67
The Adkins Biface Cache Site (8BY701), Bay County, Florida. Louis D. Tesar and Thomas C. Watson 68
Spanish Ranching and the Alachua Sink Site: A Preliminary Report. Henry A. Baker 82


SPECIAL SECTION: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ST. AUGUSTINE'S PARALLEL DEFENSIVE LINES
The City of St. Augustine's Archaeology Program. Carl D. Halbirt 101
The Archaeology of the Cubo Line: St. Augustine's First Line of Defense. Carl D. Halbirt 105
Identifying and Locating the Hornabeque Line: An Eighteenth-Century Spanish Fortification in St. Augustine.
Carl D. Halbirt 128
The Stratigraphy of the Mose Line: St. Augustine's Last Line of Defense. Bruce J. Piatek and Carl D. Halbirt 137


REVIEWS
Milanich and Hudson, Hernando De Soto and the Indians of Florida. Reviewed by Louis D. Tesar 145
Correction: Table 2, Mikell's Little's Bayou West article, Vol. 46(1). 147
Join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS)! Membership Application 148




Cover. Obverse, side, and reverse views of Specimen #1863, Adkins Biface Cache (see article by Tesar and Watson). Photograph
prepared by Roy Lett.
Copyright 1993 by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY
ISSN 0015-3893









EDITOR'S PAGE: THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST, VOLUME 46(2), JUNE 1993


Brent R. Weisman


This issue of The Florida Anthropologist illustrates well
the statement that "Florida archaeology has it all." From the
deeply buried Paleoindian to Archaic period stone biface
caches of central and west Florida to the lush setting of the
seventeenth century La Chua ranch to St. Augustine's Mose
defensive line of the relatively recent past, Florida archaeology
leaves little wanting in virtually every area of theoretical or
topical interest to the archaeologist.
St. Augustine in particular continues to be a showpiece of
Florida archaeology. A favorite mecca of research for such
notable historians as Albert C. Manucy, Luis Arana, Charles
Amade, and Verne Chatelain, the ancient city also has hosted
the efforts of some of Florida's most distinguished
archaeologists, including Hale Smith, John Goggin, John
Griffin, Charles Fairbanks, and Kathleen Deagan. Dr.
Deagan's students continue to keep St. Augustine in the
archaeological forefront through their innovative explorations
of the Spanish, British, aboriginal, and free Black occupations
of the city and its vicinity. The public archaeology program of
the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, directed by
Bruce Piatek and Stanley Bond, also does much to focus public
attention on what can be found literally in one's own back (or
front) yard.
St. Augustine is unique also among Florida cities in
having their own City Archaeological Program, as described
by Carl Halbirt in this issue's Special Section. As the reader
will learn, Carl's work offers much more than needed simply
to comply with the city's preservation ordinance. While urban
archaeology takes place in Florida on an almost routine basis
(recent digs in Pensacola, Tampa, and Fort Myers come
readily to mind), Carl's work clearly demonstrates the value of
having someone "on board" whose sole focus is the


archaeology of that specific area. As have all archaeologists
who have dealt competently with the archaeology of St.
Augustine, Carl makes full use of all known documents and
historical sources, truly bringing together the fields of history
and archaeology as a unified endeavor.
The La Chua site, reported on by Henry Baker, can be
added to that growing list of sites accessible to the
archaeotourist. With Baker's maps in hand, the visitor to the
north rim of Paynes Prairie State Preserve can, with a little
imagination, travel back in time to the days when a bustling
Spanish cattle ranch stood overlooking the famous Alachua
Sink. A nature walk (open except during alligator mating
season) leads from a small interpretive center (where artifacts
from the site are displayed) to the prairie floor. On the subject
of archaeotourism, the interested traveler may want to find a
copy of I. Mac Perry's recent book Indian Mounds You Can
Visit (1993, Great Outdoors, St. Petersburg). In the
introduction, Perry states tht his goals in writing the book are
similar to those of the Florida Anthropological Society: to
promote the study and appreciation of Florida archaeology, to
support archaeological site preservation, and promote public
education and interpretation.
Finally, my congratulations to George Luer for receiving
the Lazarus Award at the May 1993 Florida Anthropological
Society annual meeting in St. Petersburg. Widely known for
his unparalleled knowledge of central and southwest Gulf coast
archaeology, George also serves by example (perhaps
unknowingly) as the conscience of Florida archaeology, often
working tirelessly and quietly to do what is right. George's
salvage work at the vandalized sites of Big Mound Key and
Boggess Ridge in the early 1980s is proof enough of his
commitment to the preservation ethic espoused by the FAS.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


JUNE 1993


Vol. 46 No. 2








THE ADKINS BIFACE CACHE SITE (8BY701), BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA


Louis D. Tesar and Thomas C. Watson


In the fall of 1976 the Farrell Adkins family discovered a
cache of eight large prehistoric chert bifaces while digging a
septic tank pit in their back yard in northeastern Bay County.
The cache came to the attention of Tom and Mary Lou
Watson, who then arranged for the loan of the artifacts for
display in the Bay County Public Library in Panama City,
Florida. Tom also interviewed the Adkins family concerning
the circumstances of the find and visited the site to record
additional data, and has since prepared and submitted a site
form from which the site has been recorded in the Florida Site
File as site 8BY701.
Shortly after the cache discovery, while traveling to
inspect a proposed new U.S. Post Office site, Louis D. Tesar
and B. Calvin Jones of the Florida Department of State,
Division of Archives, History and Records Management,
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties (since renamed and
reorganized as the Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of
Archaeological Research) were invited to examine the cache
artifacts at the public library. Jones and Tesar tentatively
concluded that the objects might be aboriginal hoes. They
noted, however, that all of the specimens lack use polish and
are heavily patinated. There the matter rested until Watson
obtained the artifacts for donation to the Florida Department of
State, Bureau of Archaeological Research's research and type
collections (Accession Numbers 93-84-1857 through 93-84-
1864), and entered into coauthorship of a report to formally
document and analyze the find.

The Adkins Biface Cache Site

The Adkins Biface Cache Site (8BY701) is located in
northeastern Bay County (a little more than one mile south of
the county line) in Section 26 of Township 02 North-Range 12
West, approximately 200 meters north of Sandy Mount Church
and near the head of Sandy Mount Branch, a springhead
tributary of the Econfina River, which is located about a mile
to the northwest (Figure 1). The septic tank installation was
complete when Watson visited the site. Mr. Adkins
reported that the cache had been located in white sand,
approximately 4 feet (1.3 m) beneath the ground surface. The
upper two feet or so of soil was reported to consist of yellow
sand typical for that area. According to the Adkinses, the
large bifaces were stacked side by side in layers, with four on
the bottom, three in the middle, and one on top. After


discovering the cache, the Adkinses moved the septic tank
location about two meters laterally and reportedly found none
of the white sand, nor any other artifacts.
The cache site was located in a gently sloping area,
approximately 50 meters from and 10 meters (30 ft) higher in
elevation than the springhead branch. The U.S Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service identifies the soil in this
area as Lakeland sand, 8-12 percent slope (Duffee et al.
1984:16, Map Sheet 1). The topography is typical of that
found throughout northern Bay County, gently rolling sand
hills broken by seep spring drainage ravines. Today, and
presumably in the past, the surrounding upland area is covered
with a sparse stand of sand and slash pines and scrub oak trees,
while the springhead branches have heavy growths of
hardwoods, mostly water and live oak with some magnolia,
popular, gum, and bay trees.

Artifact Description

The eight cache artifacts are all manufactured from the
same chert material, which has patinated to a white (Munsell
Hue 5Y8/1) color with some mottled gray (Munsell Hue
2.5YN6/0) areas. The chert ranges from grainless, smooth
bands to slightly grainy bands within the same specimen.
Some of the grainy bands are a slightly pinkish to brownish
color, evidencing the slight iron content of the material.
Lightly dispersed macrofossil inclusions are noted in nearly all
specimens. An encrusting bryzoan (?) and a portion of a small
bivalve are the only recognizable macrofossils, because nearly
all are cross-cut perpendicular to the direction of the
percussion flakes. The material fits Upchurch, Strom, and
Nuckels' (1982:105-106) description of cherts from the
Marianna Quarry Cluster in the Jackson County, Florida, area,
located some 25 km (15 mi) north of the site.
Large percussion flakes were removed, primarily
transversely, to form the bifacial objects from initial large
flake blanks. Some smaller finishing flakes also were removed
to achieve the desired form. Each artifact has one basically flat
side and one somewhat ridged side. There is some edge
abrasion; however, it appears to be typical of edge preparation
to facilitate further knapping, rather than the result of use
wear. Indeed, there is no observable use edge wear or polish,
nor any hafting polish on any of the eight specimens.
Table 1 provides comparative measurements for the cache


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 2


JUNE 1993







































Figure 1. Topographic map of the Adkins site area. (Reproduced from a portion of the USGS Compass Lake Quadrangle, 7.5
minute series.)


specimens. Figures 2-9 are obverse, side and reverse views of
the eight cache bifaces.

Table 1. Comparative Measurements of Adkins Biface Cache
Artifacts.


Specimen Length Width Thickness
Number (mm) (mm) (mm)

1857 215.9 85.7 31.8
1858 225.4 85.7 28.6
1859 238.1 85.7 28.6
1860 222.3 79.4 25.4
1861 206.4 76.2 31.8
1862 204.8 79.4 22.2
1863 200.0 82.6 28.6
1864 222.3 82.6 28.6


The dimensions of the specimens are surprisingly
uniform. Length ranges from 200.0-238.1 mm (mean 216.9
mm); width from 76.2-85.7 mm (mean 82.2 mm); and,
thickness from 22.2-31.8 mm (mean 28.2 mm). The
craftsperson who manufactured the cache specimens evidenced
a remarkable degree of control over the stone material being
worked. Nonetheless, the specimens appear unfinished; that is
they appear to be reforms for a final bifacial product (i.e.,
adze, hoe, or projectile point/knife).
A 1976 surface inspection of the Adkins property yielded
only three other lithic artifacts. One is what appears to be the
stem of a projectile point/knife, possibly a Bolen subtype 2. It
is a white patinated chert measuring 15 mm long, 30 mm wide,
and 7 mm thick. The other two are tertiary chert flake
debitage. One is of a patinated white color and measures 22
mm long, 33 mm wide, and 7 mm thick. The third is of a
white-grey patina color and measures 24 mm long, 25 mm
wide, and 2.5 mm thick. None appear to be from the same
chert source as the eight cache artifacts.





























































Figure 2. Obverse, side, and reverse views of Specimen #1857 of the Adkins Cache site artifacts. (Photograph prepared by Roy
Lett, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.)





























































Figure 3. Obverse, side, and reverse views of Specimen #1858 of the Adkins Cache site artifacts. (Photograph prepared by Roy
Lett, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.)




























































Figure 4. Obverse, side, and reverse views of Specimen #1859 of the Adkins Cache site artifacts. (Photograph prepared by Roy
Lett, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.)






























































Figure 5. Obverse, side and reverse views of Specimen #1860 of the Adkins Cache site artifacts. (Photograph prepared by Roy
Lett, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.)




























































Figure 6. Obverse, side and reverse views of Specimen #1861 of the Adkins Cache site artifacts. (Photograph prepared by Roy
Lett, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.)





























































Figure 7. Obverse, side and reverse views of Specimen #1862 of the Adkins Cache site artifacts. (Photograph prepared by Roy
Lett, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.)




























































Figure 8. Obverse, side and reverse views of Specimen #1863 of the Adkins Cache site artifacts. (Photograph prepared by Roy
Lett, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.)


























































Figure 9. Obverse, side and reverse views of Specimen #1864 of the Adkins Cache site artifacts. (Photograph prepared by Roy
Lett, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.)








Discussion and Concluding Remarks

Despite their similarity to native American hoes, such as
those made of Mill Creek chert and widely distributed in
Mississippian exchange systems (see Cobb 1989), the eight
Adkins Cache artifacts, based on their patina and the setting of
their discovery, appear to date to the Early Archaic or perhaps
to Paleoindian times. The lack of any apparent use wear
makes comments on the intended function of these artifacts
speculative, however.
Are they a specialized form of bifacial core intended for
the removal of expedient flake tools until they have been
further reduced to serve as reforms for early point types?
Their uniform size and shape throws doubt on such an
interpretation. However, if they are reforms intended for the
manufacture of large, perhaps ceremonial, bifacial points such
as those reported from several caches in the Dalton mortuary
contexts at the Sloan site in Arkansas (Morse 1975), then we
may hope to encounter such artifacts in the future. The
"Sunfish Cache" of large Ross County Clovis-like Simpson
points (ranging from 150-175 mm long and 50-75 mm wide)
found in the Chipola River drainage in Jackson County
(Chason 1987:98-99) serves as evidence that such caches exist
in Florida.
The question then is, are these finished but unused
artifacts? If so, how were they intended to be used? Their
form suggests a chopping, grubbing and/or scraping use,
perhaps in the butchering of large animals and preparation of
their hides. The bifacial ends are less well finished than their
side edges, however. For instance, there are structurally weak
areas near the more pointed ends that would break if the
objects were used in a chopping/grubbing manner. Likewise,
the more rounded ends are not as finished as chert hoes or
adzes found elsewhere in the Southeast. Perhaps utilized and
discarded specimens will be found in contexts that will resolve
the interpretive problems now existing for these interesting
artifacts. For now, because of their thinness and other
attributes, it seems likely that they are reforms for large,
perhaps ceremonial, bifacial blades, perhaps Paleoindian
lanceolate or early Early Archaic Big Sandy/Bolen projectile
point/knives (ppk).
The cache appeared to be unique in Florida when it was
discovered in 1976. But, B. Calvin Jones told Tesar that he is
preparing to write reports on three other lithic biface cache
sites. Jones advised Tesar that one of the three sites was found
in Leon County during housing project road construction
grading, another was identified at a Hillsborough County
borrow pit during 1-75 highway construction, while the third
was discovered during agricultural activities in Jefferson
County. Further, a brief review of the literature by Tesar
revealed the discovery of two other biface caches.
One of the caches mentioned by Jones consisted of 17
large bifaces. The following information on the site and cache
is obtained from Florida Site File data provided by Gwendolyn


78
B. Waldorf (site form 8LE1432, prepared 23 July 1987). The
cache came from the Cypress Cove site located adjacent to
Lake Hiawatha in the Lake Bradford chain of lakes in Leon
County. In addition to the cache, the site produced early Early
Archaic Bolen and late Early Archaic Kirk ppks, as well as a
possible exhausted transitional late Paleoindian/Early Archaic
Dalton-like ppk and more recent artifacts. The 17 Cypress
Cove bifaces are tear-drop shaped and measure from 98 to 152
mm long, approximately half the length of the Adkins Biface
Cache. However, like the Adkins Biface Cache, the Cypress
Cove bifaces are made of fairly heavily patinated Suwannee
chert. Although there is no apparent edge use wear or polish
on the Cypress Cove specimens, seven of them reportedly have
polish on the convex side near the small end and five on the
flat side near the larger end.
The second cache mentioned by Jones consists of a series
of early production stage blanks and reforms exposed during
controlled grading of an active 1-75 highway construction
borrow pit on the east side of Harney Flats. Because they are
early production stage blanks and reforms, compared to the
later production stages of all the other cache artifacts dealt with
in this study, no size measurements of the artifacts in this
sample were taken. It was observed that they are comparable
to the Cypress Cove specimens in size and patina. The site
(8HI3293) is known by four names: Williams Road Borrow
site, White Pit site, Darsey site, and Haney Flats East site.
Site 8HI3293 is situated in Section 19, T28S-R20E on a low
(25 ft AMSL) terrace at the edge of the uplands and
overlooking the northern edge of Harney Flats (Florida Site
File form prepared by John Darsey, March 2, 1988). Tesar
inspected artifacts (BAR accession #93-56-01) in the research
and type collections of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological
Research and, in addition to quarry-related debitage and early
production stage blanks and reforms (recovered both from the
general site area and in several small caches of 4-5, sometimes
more, artifacts), identified a wide range of both expedient and
curated unifacial tools and quantities of broken final stage
bifacial reforms, ovate knives and Middle Archaic stemmed
projectile point/knives (ppk) (including Lafayette, Clay,
Hillsborough and Newnan ppks [Bullen 1975:26, 27, 30, 31],
mostly Hillsborough and Newnan ppks). In later visits to the
site John Darsey-in addition to cores, blanks, reforms, and
curated unifacial tools-recovered a Duval ppk, a Hillsborough
ppk, a Citrus ppk, and two Florida Archaic Stemmed variety
Levy ppks (based on photographs attached to the Florida Site
File site form prepared by Darsey, March 2, 1988; see Bullen
1975:13, 25, 30, 32). The diagnostic ppks in the sample are
associated with the Middle Archaic. However, many of the
expedient and curated unifaces are types very similar to
specimens recovered in unquestioned late Paleoindian-Early
Archaic contexts (see Daniel 1985; Daniel and Wisenbaker
1987, 1989; Daniel, Wisenbaker, and Ballo 1986) from the
Harney Flats site (8HI507). The unifacial tools represent
knives, shaves, scrapers, gouges, adzes, and the like. Three








sand-tempered sherds, all apparently from the same vessel,
represent the only ceramics that have been found at the site.
While silicified coral, some apparently heat treated (if not
exposed to fire as a quarrying technique), is widely represented
in the Middle Archaic ppks and other artifacts, the expedient
and curated unifaces, similar to the types recovered in
Paleoindian and Early Archaic contexts at site 8HI507, are of
chert. The overall artifact inventory suggests that site
8HI3293 functioned as a late Paleoindian-Middle Archaic
quarry-related base camp, with possible later reuse of the site
area.
The third cache mentioned by Jones consists of 21 large
bifaces from one or more caches exposed during agricultural
land recontouring near Lloyd in Jefferson County, Florida.
The artifacts were brought to Jones' attention by the property
owner, who loaned them to Jones for study, but, to avoid
potential trespass/looting problems, requested that formal site
recording be deferred for a while. Jones showed Tesar the
artifacts from the cache site and shared his analysis notes.
Like the Adkins site, no diagnostic artifacts were found at (or
at least reported from) the Lloyd-vicinity site. Unlike either
the Adkins or Cypress Cove caches, many of the artifacts in
the Lloyd-vicinity cache evidence heat treatment. Some have
most of the flake scar remaining on one surface, whereas
others are relatively finished, somewhat lanceolate-shaped,
bifacial reforms. Further, like the Cypress Cove specimens,
some of the Lloyd-vicinity specimens evidence polish on at
least one face, and all are much thinner than the Adkins and
Cypress Cove cache artifacts. Finally, the specimens from the
Lloyd-vicinity cache average slightly smaller in both length
and width than the Cypress Cove specimens.
A cache of 15 "chert reforms" is reported from the
Paradise Point site (8FR71), St. Vincent National Wildlife
Refuge, Franklin County, Florida (Braley 1982:37).
Describing this find, Braley (1982:37) writes:

In 1971 a cache of 15 reforms was recovered
from an unknown location at the site by Mr.
Talmadge Hutchins, a local resident, who donated
them to the refuge headquarters. These are made of
a fine grained tan chert, percussion flaked, with no
sign of wear or edge retouch. Mean length is 8.9
cm ranging from 7.6 to 10.1 cm; width is 5.5 cm
ranging from 4.8 to 6.9 cm; and mean thickness is
1.4 cm, ranging from 1.1-1.8 cm. There is little
published information regarding similar caches of
material from midden sites. A cache of seven
chert knives was found in mound B at Bird
Hammock, a coastal fringe site located in Wakulla
County. The triangular blades showed secondary
retouch (Holliman 1968). However, that the blades
were associated with a Swift Creek period burial
mound implies that in addition to temporal
differences, the Paradise Point cache was deposited


in a different behavioral context. Lithic material
suitable for tool manufacture is not found in the
project area; the source of the chert is probably
located inland. For economical reasons it appears
that the reforms were transported to the site for
eventual manufacture into completed tools.

The size range of the Paradise Point biface cache is smaller
than the Cypress Cove specimens and somewhat closer in size
to the Lloyd-vicinity specimens. However, Braley (1982) does
not mention heat treatment nor hafting polish on the Paradise
Point specimens.
The last biface cache identified in this study was reported
by Dickinson and Wayne (1984). This cache of eight bifacial
lithic reforms was "recovered from 25 cm square shovel test
T10TP19" (Dickinson and Wayne 1984:5-8 [Figure 5-5
caption]) at the large multicomponent Lake Site (8MR538).
The Lake Site

is located on sloping ground surrounding what
appears to have been a spring or lake at one time
(Figures 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4). An area of exposed
ground at the top of the slope yielded an abundance
of lithic debitage plus occasional ceramic sherds.
Subsurface shovel tests recovered a possible Paleo-
Indian lithic blade, eight bifacial lithic reforms
(Figure 5-5), a Pinellas point, a dugong fossil
hammerstone, utilized lithic flakes, and ceramics
ranging from fiber tempered to Seminole brushed
(Table 5-2). (Dickinson and Wayne 1984:5-3).

Five of the eight bifaces are depicted by Dickinson and Wayne
(1984:4-13 Figure 4-4). Although the scale in Figure 4-4 (as
well as in Figures 4-3 and 4-5) is erroneously labeled as
"meters" rather than centimeters, it can be used to figure the
length-width ranges for the specimens. The length-width
measurements of the five depicted specimens are 7.7 by 6.0
cm, 8.2 by 4.4 cm, 8.0 by 6.4 cm, 6.2 by 4.5 cm, and 8.4 by
5.4 cm. Thus, they are smaller in size range than the Paradise
Point site cache. No other information is provided on these
artifacts, although they appear to be heavily patinated. Based
on the apparent level of patination, it is likely that the biface
cache dates from the Early Archaic component at the site, if
heat treated then they may date to later Middle Archaic times.
Each of the clusters described in this report represents
distinct groups of forms. Those from the Williams Road
Borrow site (8HI3293) are distinct from the others in being
very early production stage blanks and reforms at a quarry-
related base camp dating from late Paleoindian-Middle Archaic
times. The bifaces from the Hillsborough County site came
from a series of caches. In that respect, they appear to be
unique; however, it is noted that the broad-scale earth moving
associated with their discovery and that of over a thousand
associated artifacts may be a biasing factor. As such, the








possibility must be considered that other cache deposits existed
at the quarry-related Lake site (8MR538). Further, the
multiple caches at the nonquarry-related Lloyd-vicinity site
will require further investigation before that site can be
appropriately interpreted. The Cypress Cove site (8LE1432)
also may have other, as yet undiscovered, caches; however,
based on their settings, the Paradise Point (8FR71) and Adkins
Biface Cache (8BY701) sites appear to be single cache sites.
The bifacial cache artifacts from the Paradise Point
(8FR71), Cypress Cove (8LE1432), and Lake (8MR538) sites
seem to cluster in general form. Although the Cypress Cove
and Lake sites are interior sites, the Paradise Point site is a
coastal shell midden located on the interior side of a barrier
island. The patinated artifacts from the Cypress Cove and
Lake sites likely date to the Early Archaic; however, the lack
of associated diagnostics renders that tentative assignment
uncertain, and a possible Middle Archaic association should be
considered. Although it is possible that the Paradise Point
cache predates the Weeden Island-Fort Walton shell midden
occupation, the only diagnostic lithics reported are a
Tallahassee ppk and a Hernando ppk (Braley 1982:35). Both
are ppk types generally found in Weeden Island contexts;
however, Bullen (1975:45) and Perino (1985:373) consider the
Tallahassee ppk, based on form similarities, to be a derivative
of the transitional late Paleoindian/early Early Archaic Dalton
ppk. Thus, the Paradise Point cache is considered more likely
Weeden Island in age than earlier.
The caches from near Lloyd in Jefferson County and the
Williams Road Borrow Pit site in Hillsborough County are the
only ones with unquestionable heat-treated artifacts. Heat
treatment, although known in later Paleoindian and Early
Archaic contexts, is a distinctive trait of the Middle Archaic.
Additional investigation planned by Jones is needed to
determine the chronological placement of the biface cache
artifacts from the Lloyd-vicinity site.
Finally, the large bifaces from the Adkins Biface Cache
site (8BY701) are more than twice as large as any of the other
biface cache specimens discussed in this study. Although their
ultimate function remains an enigma, they likely date to the
Early Archaic, and perhaps earlier. It is reasonably certain,
however, that this cache was buried for utilitarian purposes and
not as part of a burial offering associated with a deceased
individual. They were discovered some four feet below
present ground surface, and it is likely that they were
originally cached in a much shallower hole and that millennia
of downslope rain-washed and wind-swept sand movement and
accretion around the more vegetated seep-spring ravine edge
resulted in the deeper soil accumulation.
We are sure that other lithic biface caches have been
discovered in Florida. Unfortunately, for the most part, they
have either gone unreported or else have been reported in
limited distribution documents prepared for compliance with
historic preservation related environmental review laws. More


research needs to be done to better understand the phenomenon
of caching artifacts.
We would appreciate receiving photographs (with scales)
and/or measured drawings of similar artifacts, whether broken
or whole, occurring individually or as part of other caches, as
well as information on the locations of their discovery and any
associated artifacts. Please send your information to either of
the authors listed at the end of this article.

References Cited

Braley, Chad O.
1982 Archeological Testing and Evaluation of the Paradise
Point Site (8Fr71), St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge,
Franklin County, Florida. Ms on file, # 953, Florida
Site File, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of
Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

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

Chason, H.L.
1987 Treasures of the Chipola River Valley. Father & Son,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Cobb, Charles R.
1989 An Appraisal of the Role of Mill Creek Chert Hoes in
Mississippian Exchange Systems. Southeastern
Archaeology 8(2):79-92.

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
1985 A Preliminary Model of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement in
Central Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 38(4):261-
272.

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker
1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood,
Amityville, New York.

1989 Paleoindian in the Southeast: The View from Haney
Flats. Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited
by Christopher J. Ellis and Jonathan C. Lothrop, pp.
333-344. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., Michael Wisenbaker, and George
Ballo
1986 The Organization of a Suwannee Technology: The View
from Hamey Flats. The Florida Anthropologist 39(1-
2):24-56.


Dickinson, Martin F., and Lucy B. Wayne









1984 Cultural Resource Assessment and Secondary Testing of
Phase II of the Proposed Paddock Park DRI, Ocala,
Marion County, Florida. Ms on file, Florida Site File
#977, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Division of
Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Duffee, Ernest M., Robert A. Baldwin, Douglas L. Lewis,
and William B. Warmack
1984 Soil Survey of Bay County, Florida. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington.

Morse, Dan F.
1975 Paleo-Indian in the Land of Opportunity: Preliminary
Report on the Excavations at the Sloan Site (3GE94). In
The Cache River Archeological Project: An Experiment in
Contract Archeology, assembled by Michael B. Schiffer
and John H. House. Arkansas Archeological Survey
Publications in Archeology Research Series 8:135-143.

Perino, Gregory
1985 Selected Preforms, Points and Knives of the North
American Indians Vol. 1. Points & Barbs Press, Idabel,
Oklahoma.

Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels
1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida
Cherts. Ms on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research,
Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.
(Florida State University System STAR Grant No. 80-
072)


Louis D. Tesar
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
Department of State
R.A. Gray Building, Rm. 310
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Thomas C. Watson
229 Woodlawn Drive
Panama City, Florida 32407









SPANISH RANCHING AND THE ALACHUA SINK SITE: A PRELIMINARY REPORT

Henry A. Baker


Little archaeological research has been conducted on
Spanish cattle ranches in Florida, although the importance of
these ranches has been discussed by a number of researchers
(Arnade 1965; Boniface 1971; Bushnell 1978, 1981; Hann
1988; Worth 1992).
Over the last 40 years, as archaeologists have attempted
to correlate documented Spanish sites with archaeological
remains, the emphasis has been on the location and
interpretation of mission sites. More than 30 missions are
known to have existed in Florida outside of St. Augustine,
during the second half of the seventeenth century. The
remains of 15 missions have been recorded and 12 of these
have been at least partially excavated.
There were 34 ranches in the provinces of Timucua and
Apalachee in the year 1700 (Boniface 1971:140). Hacienda de
la Chua was the largest and best known of these but, until
recently, its exact location was unknown and no systematic
assessment of the site had been attempted. The purpose of this
paper is to describe the factors leading to the site's
identification and to suggest an explanation for some of the
changes and attendant confusion in the use of the name "La
Chua."
The ranch that was called "La Chua" was established
sometime prior to 1637 and continued in operation until the
early eighteenth century (Worth 1992:102). It was the
principal supplier of beef to St. Augustine and also shipped an
unknown amount of beef to Cuba (Bushnell 1978:424).
Although La Chua was smaller than the Spanish ranches of
Mexico, it was important because of its relative position within
the economic framework of Spanish Florida. The ranch was
owned and managed by the politically powerful Menendez
Marquez family, relatives of Pedro Menendez de Aviles, the
founder of St. Augustine (Bushnell 1978:413). Recognizing
the resistance of the native Timucuans to Spanish settlement
and the importance of the ranch as a food source, the Spanish
authorities established a defensive military garrison at the site
during the second half of the seventeenth century.
Some of the most dramatic episodes in the history of
seventeenth century Florida took place at Hacienda de la Chua.
The ranch was attacked and burned on two occasions by pirates
who had ascended the Suwannee River and traveled overland to
the site. During one of these attacks, in 1682, the owner was
kidnapped and unsuccessfully held hostage in exchange for a
sum of money and 150 head of the ranch's highly prized cattle
(Bushnell 1978:428). The ranch was the scene of one of the


main encounters of the Timucuan uprising of 1656 (Worth
1992:1). La Chua was also attacked and burned by English-
led Creeks in 1705 and, although there is evidence that the
Spanish visited the site after 1705, this date essentially marks
the end of La Chua as a viable economic entity.
Seventeenth-century Spanish documents variously
describe La Chua as being 3 or 4 leagues from the mission San
Francisco de Potano, generally agreed to be the Fox Pond
archaeological site, and 24 or 30 leagues from St. Augustine
(Boyd, Smith and Griffin 1951:68; Bushnell 1978:424; Worth
1992:116). These distances, though imprecise, combined with
other evidence, suggest a location at Alachua Sink for the La
Chua ranch headquarters. Despite the ranch's name, which
suggests its location, historians and archaeologists have
exhibited a certain reluctance to accept the fact that the ranch
headquarters were, in fact, located immediately adjacent to the
active portion of Alachua Sink. This reluctance can be seen in
the following passage from John Worth's recent study, The
Timucuan Missions of Spanish Florida and the Rebellion of
1656, "the description of La Chua as being located 24 leagues
from St. Augustine (Monzon 1660) and only three leagues
from the mission of San Francisco de Potano (at the Fox Pond
site), points to a location on the north side of Payne's Prairie,
and perhaps very near the sinkhole later known as the Alachua
Sink" (Worth 1992:104,emphasis added).
The primary purpose of this paper is to present evidence
that demonstrates, once and for all, that the ranch headquarters
were, in fact, at Alachua Sink. This paper includes the
archaeological and linguistic evidence that I presented at the
1987 Society of Historical Archaeology Conference and also
incorporates recent findings by Worth and (much needed)
guidance provided by historians John Hann and Joe Knetsch.
Archaeologists are, and should be, a skeptical lot. This is
a necessary and healthy attitude to maintain in our profession
or in any other pursuit that purports to rest on the
determination of truth. There is a point, however, at which
this skepticism becomes an obstacle to genuine understanding.
If we, as researchers, can accept the fact that the
headquarters and primary location of La Chua was at Alachua
Sink, we can proceed then to examine other concentrations of
Spanish and postcontact aboriginal artifacts in the region
within a more meaningful context Patterns found in these
artifact assemblages become more relevant and we can better
focus survey efforts to fill in known "blanks" in our
understanding of Paynes Prairie. For instance, "the


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 2


JUNE 1993








Chicharro," another seventeenthth century Spanish ranch, "was
visible across the Noyoa [prairie?] from the buildings at La
Chua" (Bushnell 1978:427).

The Alachua Sink Site

Alachua Sink, located southeast of Gainesville, is a truly
remarkable sinkhole that directly affects the environment over
an area of several square miles. This region has been
designated as a "non-contributing area" in the Oklawaha River
basin (Conover and Leach 1975). Within this area, all
rainwater that does not evaporate drains into Alachua Sink.
The sink is located at the base of the Cody Scarp, a major
physiographic land form in north Florida that separates the
Northern Highlands Marginal Zone from the Alachua Lake
Cross Valley Zone (Ritter 1991:10). At least three ecotones
can be defined at the sink: (1) the sink itself, (2) the rich
grassland of the prairie floor to the south, and (3) the
hardwood dominated uplands to the north of the sink.
The site known as Alachua Sink is actually comprised of
several sinkholes located along a geologic fracture marked by a
high bluff that forms the north rim of a large intermittent lake,
currently referred to as Paynes Prairie. The sink resembles a
small lake, approximately one-half mile in length, and oriented
roughly northwest to southeast. The active portion of the sink,
or "siphon" as it is sometimes called, is composed of two sinks
located near the western end of the sinkhole cluster. This
paper is concerned with the active, western extremity of the
greater sink site, a pool approximately 100 meters across from
east to west (Figures 1 and 2).
When William Bartram visited the area in 1774 he called
the prairie "the Great Alachua Savannah." At that time,
Bartram stated that the prairie was grazed by "innumerable
droves of cattle; the lordly bull, lowing cow and sleek
capricious heifer. The hills and groves re-echo their cheerful,
social voices" (1973:165). During its dry phase, the savannah
was (and is) an extremely lush grassland and Bartram noted
herds of deer on the prairie in addition to cattle (1973:186).
While exploring the prairie, Bartram visited Alachua Sink and
was quite impressed with its hydrology and with the abundance
of fish and alligators that had congregated there.
The sink functions as a permanent watering hole on the
edge of the prairie, even in times of drought. The bluff
immediately to the north of the sink provides an excellent
vantage point for surveying the prairie below. When the
prairie is extremely dry, the movement of water can actually be
seen as it rushes into Alachua Sink (Howard Adams, pers.
com., November 1986). Normally, however, the volume and
depth of water around the sink is such that the flow is
imperceptible. There appears to be a body of folklore
surrounding the sinkhole, and people who have grown up in
the vicinity of Alachua Sink are well aware of its hydrologic
function.


Figure 1. Location of Alachua Sink and Paynes Prairie
(from Ritter 1991, used with permission).


Figure 2. Location of Alachua Sink (from Ritter 1991,
used with permission).








When Alachua Sink becomes clogged with debris, Paynes
Prairie becomes a sizable lake over 4 miles in diameter (Figure
3). This last happened in 1871. The state legislature
subsequently ruled that Alachua Lake was a navigable body of
water, and for the next 20 years, the Alachua Steam
Navigation and Canal Company operated at least three
steamboats on the lake. A railhead and dock system were
constructed at Alachua Sink to handle produce, freight, and
passengers. Alachua Sink began to flow again in 1891 and
drained the lake. It has remained a prairie or savannah since
then.
Nearly as important to land managers as the sink's
remarkable hydrologic function, is its strategic location,
nestled against the 20 foot high bluff forming the north rim of
the prairie.
The elevation of the prairie floor at this location, and the
"normal" water level of the sink is approximately 60 feet above
sea level. This corresponds closely with the top of the
Floridan Aquifer at this point (Ritter 1991:5). The top of the
bluff immediately to the north of the main sink (where
concentrations of Spanish artifacts have been located) is over
80 feet above sea level. Moving to the east, the prairie rim
rises to over 100 feet in elevation in less than a quarter of a
mile. In addition to providing an excellent vantage point for
surveying the prairie floor, the water level in the sink provides
instant information on the overall level of water on the entire
prairie. Additionally, the rim of the prairie slopes gently to
the south and west at the sink site, providing convenient access
to the prairie floor.
In the recent past, this strategic location was selected for
the headquarters of the early twentieth-century Camp Ranch.
All of the buildings shown on the site map of Figure 8 were
constructed during the Camp Ranch era.
The Alachua Sink site was acquired by the State of
Florida in 1970 and is now managed as part of the Paynes
Prairie State Preserve. The Florida Division of Recreation and
Parks selected the site of the former Camp Ranch for their
regional headquarters.
The same factors that led to this site's selection as a
modern-day control center were not lost on the early Spanish
ranchers or the prehistoric inhabitants for that matter, who
were no doubt interested in observing the movement of game
on the prairie below, in addition to living near a dependable
water source.

The Meaning of "La Chua"

A brief analysis of the name "La Chua" suggests that
some interesting changes have occurred in the word's usage
over the last 300 years. Variations in spelling include
Latchua, Alachua, and la Chua. In the past, the word
"Alachua" has been viewed as a derivative of the Seminole
(Mikasuki) word "luchuwa" meaning "jug" (Read 1934:1;


84
Bloodworth 1959:37). This is an interesting, though
apparently inaccurate, interpretation particularly since there is
some evidence that a secondary local designation for the sink
(along with some other sinkholes) is "Jug Sink." The word
"Alachua," however, appears on the Moll map of 1720 and the
Popple map of 1733. In addition, numerous references to "La
Chua" can be found in seventeenth and early eighteenth
century Spanish documents. All of these references predate
Seminole migration into this portion of Florida (Fairbanks
1957).
It appears more likely that the newly arrived Oconee
Seminoles of the 1740s and 1750s noted the similarity between
the Timucuan-based noun "lachua" and their own word .for
"jug," "luchuwa." This semantic slide continued into the
lexicon of some Anglo-settlers as "Jug Sink."
The word or phrase "lachua" has alternately been
translated as a Timucuan word meaning simply "hole" or
"sinkhole" (Worth 1992:101). This does not seem to be
completely accurate as the suffix appears to mean "hole" or
"sinkhole" in the Timucuan language (Simpson 1956:20;
Granberry 1989:162).
The best source for gaining an understanding of the word
is found in a passage of Lt. Diego Pena's journal of 1716,
which refers to his trek across north Florida some 25 miles
north of Paynes Prairie. This is the same excerpt used by
Simpson in his analysis of the word (1956:20). The relevant
passage in the journal, translated by Boyd, reads as follows:

The 21st day I left the said site and camped at a place they
call AQUILACHUA. This day I marched five leagues. In
this day's march no creeks were encountered, but there are
good springs of water, the first is named USICHUA, the
other USIPARACHUA, and another AFANOCHUA.
(Boyd 1949:15)

If we assume, as Simpson did, that these "springs"
without creeks or runs are sinkholes, then we must conclude
that the ending "-chua" actually means "sinkhole" in the
general sense, not "-lachua." The "la" syllable in the word
"aquilachua" appears to be related to the prefix "aqui," not the
suffix "-chua." The other three sinkhole names demonstrate
this deduction. The identifying prefixes are "usi-," "usipara-"
and "afano-." The suffix "-chua" is preceded by a different
vowel in each case.
Having established that "-chua" means sinkhole in
Timucuan, we are left to explain the prefix "la-." There
appear to be two possibilities for the origin of this syllable: (1)
"la" may be a Timucuan modifier comparable to "usi,"
"usipara," and the other prefixes used to identify specific
sinkholes, or (2) it may have been an article added to the
"lonely" Timucuan noun by the Spanish to comply with
Spanish linguistic construction. In either case, it is clear that
"La Chua" or "la Chua" referred to one particular sinkhole,







..vu


* c~)


MAP OF ALACHUA COUNTY, WITH TOWNSHIPS, RAILROADS, AND COUNTY ROADS.


Figure 3. Historic map showing Alachua Sink (from Webber 1883).








not sinkholes in general.
This distinction is important to the argument presented in
this paper regarding the etymology of the name "La Chua." If
we assume "La Chua" initially referred to one particular
sinkhole, it seems most likely that it was the sinkhole today
known as Alachua Sink. This assumption is supported in two
ways: (1) the sink's name (with the exception of the addition
of an initial "A-") has essentially been unchanged since at least
the beginning of the eighteenth century and (2) the association
of the prairie's name "the Great Alachua Savannah" with the
sinkhole name was also well established by the time of
Bartram's visit.
Thus, by the early eighteenth century, the specific name
of the sinkhole had taken on a broader meaning to include the
savannah surrounding the sinkhole. In fact, this broader
meaning may well have come about as a direct result of
Spanish ranching activities. It is easy to see how this could
have occurred. Hacienda de la Chua means, literally, "ranch
of the sinkhole." If we assume that the ranch headquarters
were located at Alachua Sink and that the primary pasturage of
the ranch was what is now Paynes Prairie, it is likely that the
name "Lachua" came to be associated with all of the property
controlled by the ranch, not just the headquarters buildings in
the sinkhole area. It was after this broader meaning had
become established that references are found to "haciendas"
(plural) at Lachua (Worth 1992:103).
In 1957, while discussing the Creek and English raids in
north Florida, Charles Fairbanks made the following
statement: "The raids were not confined to the Indian
settlements as the Spanish cattle ranch at Alachua (La Chua
originally, after the sink-hole in the Alachua Savannah) was
attacked repeatedly" (1974:95). It is interesting to note that
Fairbanks had made the connection between the ranch and the
sinkhole at this time without the benefit of any archaeological
evidence from the site.
Part of the confusion surrounding the meaning of the
word "Alachua" seems to be the result of conscious efforts for
personal gain by land speculators in the early nineteenth
century (Knetsch 1991:12). In 1832, Deputy Surveyor Henry
Washington was charged with finding the "center of said place
known as Alachua" for the purposes of surveying the
boundaries of the Arredondo Grant (Knetsch 1991:11).
Despite the fact that two individuals, David Mitchel and David
Levy, tried every means at their disposal to have this center
point moved seven miles to the south, Washington was led to
the conclusion that the center of "Alachua" was the center of
what is now Paynes Prairie. Washington interviewed
numerous residents of the Alachua region and expressed his
findings in a letter to Robert Butler, Surveyor General of
Florida.

From all the information which I have derived it does not
appear that the Alachua Savanna was ever inhabited by
Indians, but it does appear that the borders of said Savanna


were settled in various directions, by Seminole Indians, and
from reputable and disinterested men that the country
known "in other times" as Alachua, derived its name from
the Alachua Savanna, as known at this day, by the white
People (Carter 1956-1962:778).

Washington's conclusion coincides well with the thesis of
this paper. By 1832, the consensus was that "in other times"
the name Alachua corresponded to the Alachua Savannah.
Presumably, Washington did not have the advantage of
knowing the Timucuan/Spanish etymology of the word
Alachua, (i.e., that the word applied first to the sinkhole and
secondarily to the prairie). Had he known this, however, his
choice of the center of the prairie as the center of "Alachua"
would undoubtedly have been the same. This is because the
more general meaning was well-established by the time of the
Arredondo Grant in the early nineteenth century.

Archaeology at Alachua Sink

Although the primary focus of this paper is the Spanish
occupation at Alachua Sink, it should be emphasized that the
seventeenth century component represents only a small
segment of the 6,000 to 8,000 years of human habitation in
evidence at the site. The prehistoric occupation was first
formally recognized in 1948 when Orin Fogle, referred to the
site by John M. Goggin, recorded 8AL22 about 300 yards
south of the sink on the prairie floor. The following year,
Goggin recorded another prehistoric site to the west of Alachua
Sink (8AL77) and noted the presence of a single Spanish olive
jar sherd.
In 1976 and 1977, Sue Mullins, then a graduate student at
the University of Florida, conducted a survey of selected areas
within the Paynes Prairie State Preserve. Although a portion
of the Alachua Sink area was included in this survey,
contractual stipulations prevented Mullins from testing the area
that would have revealed Spanish material. Her survey report,
however, does indicate the overall significance of Alachua Sink
through time and includes the following summary of results
from the excavation of a single test pit at site 8AL22:


The amount of material was phenomenal. Only one test
was placed into the site in order to get an idea of
stratigraphy. The 3500 artifacts collected came almost
solely from the eroded surface. Not only debitage, but a
large amount of worked lithic material was present. Some
sherds were recovered, but they were in the minority.
Types included Orange Incised, St. Johns Plain, St. Johns
Check Stamped, chalky fiber tempered, fiber tempered and
sand tempered plain. Point types identified were Santa Fe
(2) and a Simpson or Suwannee base. One point tip
recovered was extremely well made and was very
reminiscent of a Clovis point. Several scrapers, a preform,









a spoke shave, a microscraper, and drill point were also
found. (Mullins 1977:68).

Mullins' survey was restricted to an area east of the main
sink or "siphon," and as a result no Spanish artifacts were
recovered.
At about the same time that John Goggin discovered a
single olive jar sherd from 8AL77 half a mile away, a young
boy named Butch Hunt made an important discovery at
Alachua Sink itself, although its significance would take more
than three decades to be recognized.
Butch resided at the Camp Ranch where his grandfather
was the ranch foreman. Sometime around 1950, Butch
observed the bulldozing of a low mound immediately to the
north of the main sink. This was apparently to enlarge and
level the parking lot area associated with the ranch
headquarters. The bulldozing consisted of pushing the mound
into a relatively small dry sinkhole, to the west of what was
then a bunkhouse, on top of the bluff overlooking Alachua
Sink. After the bulldozer was finished, Butch climbed into the
sinkhole and recovered hundreds of olive jar sherds, majolica
fragments, and numerous metal artifacts. Some of these
materials are pictured in Figures 4 through 7.
A total of 274 olive jar sherds was retained from what
was once a significantly larger collection. These were later
measured for thickness in 1986 and compared with a sample
from the Fox Pond site described by John Goggin (1960:23).
The results of this comparison are shown in Table 1. Although
there are differences at each end of the spectrum, 57.3 percent
of the sherds from Alachua Sink fall within the 10 to 12 mm
range as compared with 57.8 percent from the Fox Pond site.
This suggests that the two collections are roughly
contemporaneous and each falls within the definition of
Goggin's "Middle Period" for olive jars, dating from about
1590 to 1800.

Table 1. Comparison of Olive Jar Thikness from Fox Pond
and La Chua.


Thickness
in mn
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17


La Chum
Sherd count

5
16
43
52
56
49
29
18
5
1

274


Site
X of 274

.018
.058
.157
.190
.204
.179
.106
.066
.018
.003

99.9


157 or 57.3X
of sample
between 10-12 mm


Fox Pond Site
Sherd count X of 313
1 .003
27 .086
29 .093
46 .147
35 .112
78 .249
68 .217
13 .042
9 .029
3 .009
3 .009
1 .o00
313 99.9
181 or 57.8X
of saple
between 10-12


The sword crossguard, padlock, spur rowel, and wrought
spikes are all consistent with a seventeenth-century Spanish
occupation (see Figure 5). The majolica sherds depicted in
Figure 7 were recovered from the Alachua Sink site and the
approximate dates of manufacture and/or period of greatest
popularity are:
San Luis Blue on White--most popular 1630 to 1690
(Goggin 1968:157) produced 1550 to 1650 (Deagan 1987:74;
Lister and Lister 1982:18); Aucilla Polychrome-most popular
1650 to 1685 (Goggin 1968:163) or 1680 to 1685 (Deagan
1987:77); San Luis Polychrome-most popular 1650 to 1750
(Deagan 1987:76) or 1660 to 1720 (Goggin 1968:169); Abo
Polychrome-most popular 1650 to 1750 (Deagan 1987:81) or
1650 to 1700 (Goggin 1968:172); and, Puebla Polychrome-
most popular 1650 to 1700 (Goggin 1968:180) or 1650 to
1725 (Deagan 1987:82).
Operating on the assumption that these artifacts
represented the remains of Hacienda de la Chua, I recorded the
site in 1984 as 8AL2327. During the spring of 1986, the
Bureau of Archaeological Research of the Florida Division of
Historical Resources conducted an auger survey of the portion
of the Alachua Sink site adjacent to the main sink. The work
was conducted with the assistance of the Florida Division of
Recreation and Parks for the purpose of determining how
much, if any, of the Spanish ranch site remained and also to
try to determine the general condition of the Spanish
component.
The initial phase of the survey consisted of using a power
auger to drill 100 8-inch holes on a 10 meter grid across the
site, and screening the excavated material through 1/4 inch
mesh hardware cloth.
As expected, the tests revealed an abundance of cultural
material dating from the Archaic period to the present day.
Only one of the tests, in fact, turned out to be culturally
sterile. Figures 8 through 18 show the the locations of the
auger tests and the presence or absence of various categories of
artifacts found on the site. Lithic material was the earliest in
date and the most widespread.
Much of the aboriginal pottery was undiagnostic. There
were, however, examples of wares dating from Deptford
through the Mission period.
Material of Spanish manufacture was found in 10 of the
original 100 auger holes. Figure 18 shows three separate areas
where Spanish artifacts were recovered. The test hole at
N510E490 contained five sherds of San Luis Polychrome and
one olive jar sherd. This location is closest to the area where
Butch Hunt originally found the Spanish material in 1950.
Four additional holes were later drilled at five meter intervals
from this one, but no additional Spanish material was
recovered from them.
The test at N510E450 contained a wrought nail with a
fragment of wood attached (Figure 18). The hole 10 meters to
the south of it contained a strap hinge similar to those found on
other seventeenth-century Spanish sites and 55 grams of daub.




88












MOILp












1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 110
IdfftflfhIIHIdfI~ifl~hnI~fudrhI~tw~n~fIj~niif CM


Figure 4. Olive jar neck and body sherds from La Chua.










































1 2 '3 4 5 6 7 8 9 li
lnI,,11,,,,In.id i ,,fIdIlblwnltnil,h ln thl ntdlwlhtrilnhmIm in C M


Figure 5. Padlock, spur rowel, sword crossguard, and gunlockfrom La Chua.









1


1 2 3 4 5 ( 7 8 9 110


Figure 6. Wrought spikes and nails from La Chua.











j-


S 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(f.(ffil fiitiiliil li fiIl ii fiiiit ill f l, |i,, (|( |,(i((,,ll thll C M




Figure 7. Majolica from La Chua. A,B) San Luis Blue-on-White, C) Aucilla Polychrome, D,E) San Luis Polychrome, F) Puebla
Polychrome, G,H) Abo Polychrome.














E450


- 4,,


N550


Jr


1 < r- -


DRY
-r SINK


DRY >-i ,,
SSINK
S- '


0 25 Meters
YuL^


North


1- L


ALACHUA

,- -


SINK :-4
.

N400


Figure 8. Auger survey area.


Horse Barn
& Corrals


Museum





N500


<,-I I >


DRY
SINK


N450


E400


E500


;O


~u~7 r ~~












0

0

0

U

0

0


E400
I I I

0





* *











North 0 Absent
r Present


E500
I I


0 e 0 *

0 0 *
0 0







0* 0
000

@00000 00

S0 60 00000











0
00


E500
I I


0 0 O 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 o



0 0 *0


North 0 Absent
_ 0 Present


0
0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0


0


00 o000
0 0 0 0 c

0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Z?
0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 a 0 0 0




0 0
O O?


LITHICS
(Waste Flakes)


Figure 9. Lithic distribution in the auger tests.


STONE TOOLS, CORE FRAGMENTS





Figure 10. Distribution of stone tools and core fragments in the auger tests.


N550









N500









N450


0i










E400


00



000



0 0 0




0 0
O o
o o


North 0 Absent
0 Present


E500
I I


0







0 0 0006



0 00000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0






000000000




0 0
O O


BONE


E400 E450 E500
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


0 C

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

O0O


o a


North 0 Absent
Present



0

0 0 0



0 C 0

0 0 0
000


0 00

0 0 0
000
O CO

0 0 0

0 O 0

0 O

0


* 0 0 0 0 0

* 0 0 0 0 0



0 0 O0 O /i


0 0 0 0



0000

0 0


Figure 12. Distribution of cow remains (Bos taurus).


Figure 11. Distribution of bone in the auger tests.











E400
I I I I

0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0






0 0 0 0
O



0000



*0 0

000














North C, Absent
0 Present


E450
I I


* -r
0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0



* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



* 0 0 O O O O 0Q
00000000

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



00


N550










N500










N450


ABORIGINAL CERAMICS


Figure 14. Mission period aboriginal ceramics in the auger tests.


Figure 13. Aboriginal ceramics in the auger tests.








E400


0 0

0000

00000
S00 0 0
0 0 0 0 0



0 a 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 000 0 0

0

0 0
0 0



North 0 Absent
0 Present 0 0

O


E450 E500
I I I I I I I I


0


O



0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0



0000000,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0





0 0 0 0 0C) C


0 0


OLIVE JAR


Figure 16. Olive jar sherds found in the auger survey.


Figure 15. Locations of daubfound in the auger survey.








The area furthest west appears to represent the broadest
concentration of material on the site. The three holes across
the top (N550E410, 420, 430 in Figure 18) contained, from
left to right, one olive jar sherd, one sherd of San Luis Blue-
on-White majolica, and a probable daub fragment. The
remaining three holes contained a total of four olive jar sherds.
In addition to these artifacts, five olive jar sherds and two
sherds of majolica were exposed by summer rains washing out
part of the road.
Given the small size of the sample taken, the auger survey
results indicate that significant portions of the ranch site may


remain intact. The three areas of artifact concentrations may
well represent building locations. Future, more extensive
excavations should be able to answer many of the basic
questions that surround the Spanish occupation at La Chua.

Summary and Conclusion


An examination of historical records, consideration of the
strategic physiographic location of the site, etymological
analysis of the name "La Chua" and recovery of Spanish


Figure 17. Distribution of majolica.








artifacts at Alachua Sink point to the exact location of the
headquarters of the seventeenth-century Spanish ranch,
Hacienda de la Chua. Any one of these lines of evidence, in
itself, would seem inconclusive. Taken together, however,
they seem to confirm that the original ranch headquarters were
located at Alachua Sink.
It is hoped that future researchers will use this evidence to
good advantage in trying to understand the history and


archaeology of Spanish ranching in Florida.

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to numerous people who helped in various
ways to complete this report. The entire staff of the Division
of Recreation and Parks was most helpful and made us feel at
home while the field work was being conducted. Butch Hunt


E400
I I

0 0


E450
I I I I I


E500
I I I I I


I I


0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0
o e o o o o o


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0


* o 2SM rw


North 0 Absent
S Present
I Possible


S0000000 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OOOOOOOOO


0 0


0 0
0 0


SPANISH ARTIFACTS


Figure 18. Distribution of Spanish artifacts in the auger survey.


- N550


- N500


- N450








deserves credit for finding the Spanish artifacts at Alachua
Sink, for helping conduct the field work and for sharing his
extensive knowledge about Paynes Prairie. Calvin Jones, Jim
Miller and John Scarry encouraged me to pursue research on
the site and offered useful advice. John Hann and Joe Knetsch
provided valuable historic information. Charles Poe, Roy Lett
and Bob Bell assisted in preparing the illustrations. Louis
Tesar helped meld three disjointed and unfinished manuscripts
into a single paper and painstakingly proofed the final version.
To all of these individuals I offer my sincere thanks.

References Cited

Amade, Charles W.
1965 Cattle Raising in Spanish Florida, 1513-1763.
Agricultural History 35:116-124.

Bartram, William
1973 Travels Through North and South Carolina, Georgia,
East and West Florida. Reprinted by the Beehive Press,
Savannah. Originally published 1792, Enoch Story,
London.

Bloodworth, Bertha E.
1959 Florida Place Names. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville.

Boniface, Brian George
1971 A Historical Geography of Spanish Florida circa 1700.
M.A. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.

Boyd, Mark F.
1949 Diego Pena's Expedition to Apalachee and Apalachicola
in 1716. Florida Historical Quarterly 28:1-27.

Boyd, Mark F., Hale G. Smith, and John W. Griffin
1951 Here They Once Stood: The Tragic End of the Apalachee
Missions. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Bushnell, Amy
1978 The Menendez Marquez Cattle Barony at La Chua and
the Determinants of Economic Expansion in Seventeenth-
Century Florida. Florida Historical Quarterly 56:407-
431.

1981 The King's Coffer: Proprietors of the Spanish Florida
Treasury, 1565-1702. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.

Carter, Clarence E.(editor)
1956-1962 Territorial Papers of the United States, Vols. 22-


26: Florida Territory. Washington, D.C.

Conover, C.S., and S.D. Leach
1975 River Basin and Hydrologic Unit Map of Florida.
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of
Geology, Tallahassee.

Deagan, Kathleen
1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the
Carribean, 1500-1800. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1957 Ethnohistorical Report of the Florida Indians.
Presentation before the Indian Claims Commission,
Dockets 73, 151. Washington D.C. (Reprinted in 1974,
New York and London as Florida Indians II:
Ethnohistorical Report on the Florida Indians. Garland,
New York.)

Goggin, John M.
1960 The Spanish Olive Jar: An Introductory Study. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology, No. 62, New
Haven.

1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World: Types of the
Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology, No.72, New Haven.

Granberry, Julian
1989 A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua Language.
Island Archaeological Museum, Horseshoe Beach,
Florida.

Hann, John H.
1988 Apalachee, the Land Between the Rivers. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Knetsch, Joe
1991 The Big Arredondo Grant: A Study in Confusion.
Unpublished paper delivered to the Historical Society of
Micanopy, Florida.

Lister, Florence, and Robert Lister
1982 Sixteenth Century Majolica Pottery in the Valley of
Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University of
Arizona, no. 3. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Mullins, Sue Ann
1977 Archeological Survey and Excavation in the Paynes
Prairie State Preserve. M.A. thesis, University of







100


Florida, Gainesville.

Read, William A.
1934 Florida Place Names of Indian Origin and Seminole
Personal Names. Louisiana State University Press. Baton
Rouge.

Ritter, Michael N.
1991 The Hydrogeology and Origin of Alachua Sink, Alachua
County, Florida. M.S. thesis, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

Simpson, Clarence J.
1956 Florida Place Names of Indian Derivation. Florida
Geological Survey Special Publication No. 1.
Tallahassee.

Webber, Carl
1883 The Eden of the South: Alachua County, Florida. Leve
and Aden, New York.

Worth, John E.
1992 The Timucuan Missions of Spanish Florida and the
Rebellion of 1656. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville.



Henry A. Baker
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
Department of State
R.A. Gray Building, Room 310
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250










THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE'S ARCHAEOLOGY PROGRAM


Carl D. Halbirt


The City of St. Augustine has been active in a cultural
resources management program since the implementation of its
Archaeological Preservation Ordinance in July 1987. (The
ordinance was subsequently revised in 1990.) This ordinance
mandates the creation of an archaeology program to be staffed
by a city archaeologist. The program is not intended to
suppress development. Its purpose is to document and
preserve the archaeological heritage of this Ancient City prior
to construction activities and/or any ground-penetrating
disturbances that require a City permit. Both the ordinance
and Archaeology Program are the result of public awareness
and concern to protect the community's cultural heritage
(Piatek, Bond, and Newman 1989). The ordinance and the
Archaeology Program have been incorporated into the Historic
Preservation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
To ensure that documentation and preservation of
archaeological resources are addressed, the Archaeology
Program has become part of the City of St. Augustine's
permitting process. All projects that require building, right-of-
way, or utility permits are reviewed for their potential to
disturb archaeological remains (Halbirt and Carver 1992:3).
This review assessment is based on three criteria: location,
depth of excavation, and size of excavation. If a project occurs
within any of three archaeological zones (Figure 1) and
exceeds the size limitations established for adverse impacts by
the ordinance, then some type of archaeological effort is
required.
The City's Archaeology Program is partially funded by
fees collected from property owners whose projects trigger the
ordinance. The fee is a percentage of the construction costs,
and it is based on the archaeological zone in which the project
occurs. The fee structure is 1.5 percent for Zone I, 1.25
percent for Zone II, and 1 percent for Zone m. The minimum
fee assessed is $50.00. In addition, a fee of $7.50 is collected
from every building permit issued by the City, even if the
project does not trigger the ordinance.
A more detailed discussion of the City's archaeological
ordinance and program is available in Halbirt (1992) and
Halbirt and Carver (1992). An earlier article that describes
how the ordinance functions and its benefit to the community
was prepared by Piatek, Bond, and Newman (1989) prior to
changes in the ordinance and program.
As of this writing (April 1993), 87 archaeological
projects have been tackled throughout the City. As shown in
Table 1, these projects have occurred throughout most of the


17 subzones (Halbirt 1992:Table 1) identified in the
archaeological ordinance. In many cases, areas that have been
assessed as historically significant-but not subjected to
archaeological inquiry in the past-have been inspected as a
result of the ordinance.
This point is illustrated by comparing the number of
archaeological projects conducted by state and other
government and private agencies with those projects
undertaken as part of the City's Archaeology Program. Of the
216 projects that have occurred in the various subzones over
the past 60 years (Halbirt and Carver 1992), 125 have been
performed by the state or other agencies. Of these, 78 percent
have occurred within the historic downtown area of St.
Augustine. Of course, a few of these projects have consisted
of large-scale auger surveys that were the basis for defining
some of the City's archaeological zones (Piatek, Bond, and
Newman 1989:137). In contrast, 60 percent of City-sponsored
projects have occurred in areas away from the downtown area.
Excluding auger surveys, which are subject to sampling biases
(Smith and Bond 1981:63), it is evident that a large percentage
of historic areas outside the colonial walled city have been
overlooked in the past.
The City's Archaeology Program does not emphasize one
area over another. Instead, as construction projects arise and
trigger the archaeological preservation ordinance, all zones are
given equal treatment. The intent of each project is to "obtain
information relevant to the archaeological and natural deposits
that are present on the property as well as to document and
protect those resources that may be impacted prior to
development via a systematic field approach" (Halbirt and
Carver 1992:10). This is done to: 1) understand the historical
and/or prehistoric importance of the property or area, 2) enrich
the community's awareness of the City's cultural heritage, and
3) refine the management procedures and guidelines necessary
to further document and preserve the City's archaeological
resources.
The following three articles present the results of City
archaeological investigations that examined three parallel
defensive lines that transected the St. Augustine peninsula.
These defensive fortifications (Cubo Line, Hornabeque Line,
and Mose Line) played a significant role in the history of St.
Augustine during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
In addition to protecting the capital, their very presence alludes
to certain aspects of the population's perception of their
environment and world view. The construction, repair,


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 2


JUNE 1993






102


Figure 1. Map of archaeological zones in St. Augustine.


^ :...


CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE
1993

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ZONES
SE .. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ZONE I
S". '. '. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ZONE II 1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ZONE III
\ -.CITY LIMITS









remodeling, and resurrection of these lines during a 130-year
period (1704 to the 1830s) reflect the need of the community


to protect itself in a frontier environment laden with
uncertainties.


Table 1. Frequency of archaeological projects within Archaeological Subzones


Archaeological Total Total without
Subzone State City Other Asterisk


Zone IA 50 23 10 83 83
IB 29** 12 5 46 44
IC 3* 1 4 3
ID 7 6 1 14 14
IE 2 4 6 6
Subtotal 91 46 16 153 150

Zone IIA 3** 11* 1 15 12
IIB 1 1 2 2
IIC 1 1 1
IID 1* 2* 3 1
IIE 1* 1
IIF 1 1 2 2
IIG 2* 2 4 3
IIH 2 2 2
Subtotal 8 19 3 30 23

Zone IIIA 5** 11* 16 13
IIIB 11 1* 12 11
IIIC 4 4 4
IID 1* 1
Subtotal 6 26 1 33 28

Total 105 91 20 216

Total without
Asterisk 95 87 19 201


Each asterisk indicates
previous archaeological zone.


that a project already has been listed in a


References Cited


Halbirt, Carl D.
1992 Grasping the Past: Understanding Archaeology in the
City of St. Augustine, Florida, A Working Manual. Ms
on file, Planning and Building Department, City of St.
Augustine, FL.


Halbirt, Carl D., and Linnea J. Carver
1992 Documented Archaeological Projects in St.
Augustine: An Inventory of the City's Archaeological
Resources. Ms on file, Planning and Building
Department, City of St. Augustine, FL.








104
Piatek, Bruce J., Stanley C. Bond, Jr., and Christine L.
Newman
1989 St. Augustine Under Siege: St. Augustine's
Archaeological Preservation Ordinance. The Florida
Anthropologist 42:134-152.

Smith, James M., and Stanley C. Bond, Jr.
1981 Phase III Archaeological Survey of St. Augustine,
Florida. Ms on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation
Board.


Carl D. Halbirt
City of St. Augustine
P.O. Drawer 210
St. Augustine, FL 32085










THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CUBO LINE: ST. AUGUSTINE'S FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE


Carl D. Halbirt


Throughout most of its turbulent colonial history, St.
Augustine was a presidio, or military town (Arana 1960:iii).
The colony served as the governmental center for Spanish
activities in La Florida, acted as a deterrent to pirate attacks on
Spanish treasure fleets, and was a relief station to the many
victims of shipwrecks (Deagan 1983:23). Moreover, St.
Augustine was the ecclesiastical staging area and administrative
center for the Franciscan missionization of La Florida (Geiger
1936:74-75). Thus the defense of the colony was of prime
concern to the Spanish Crown.
A succession of wooden forts, followed by the
construction of Castillo de San Marcos, provided the bulwark
of St. Augustine's security during the initial 139 years of
occupation (Connor 1926a, 1926b; Chatelain 1941), from
1565 to 1704. Bolstered by these forts, Spain claimed
sovereignty of La Florida by maintaining St. Augustine.
Yet the forts were unable to protect the houses of the
town's residents from attack or destruction (Arana 1964:2-3).
The present location of St. Augustine was assaulted on at least
four different occasions. In 1577 the Timucuan Indians
attacked, forcing the occupants into the fort, and then burning
the town (Manucy 1962:15); Sir Francis Drake attacked and
destroyed the town and fort in 1586, sending the residents
fleeing into the woods (Manucy 1962:15); the English corsair
Robert Searles attacked and sacked St. Augustine in 1668,
claiming that he would return to take possession of the city
(Arana and Manucy 1977:8-9); and in 1702 the English
Governor James Moore laid siege to the town, and upon
departing he destroyed many of the structures not already razed
by the Spanish (Amade 1959).
It was not until after the English siege of 1702 and the
prospect of further intrusions into St. Augustine that plans
were drawn to protect the community (Chatelain 1941).
During the siege, the English had gained entrance via the
peninsula, which was the only land route into town. To
eliminate this access, Governor Jose de Zuniga agreed to
fortify a one-half mile stretch of land between the Castillo and
the San Sebastian River, "in order to bar the land entry to the
city" (Arana 1964:5). Initial work on the fortification
occurred in 1704 and was completed the following year.
During the next 116 years, the Cubo Line, as it eventually was
called, became part of a comprehensive defensive system for
St. Augustine.
This article describes the results of a City of St.
Augustine archaeology project that investigated a section of the


Cubo Line in 1990 (Halbirt 1992). The study was a response
to the introduction of a 12-inch force main sewer line at the
intersection of Orange and Riberia streets (Figure 1). The
portion of trench that bisected the historic line measured 15 m
(north-south) by approximately 1.5 m (east-west). Uncovered
was the counterscarp, the moat, and the palm logs that revetted
the parapet. It had been more than 25 years since a portion of
the Cubo Line was exposed and more than 50 years since the
western portion was examined.
When considered in association with historical and
archaeological sources, the project at Orange and Riberia
streets furnishes new information regarding the location and
size of the Cubo Line, the articulation between the log palisade
and moat, and the stratigraphy of the moat. Moreover, the
project provides information concerning: 1) the presence of
auxiliary defensive features within the moat--features that
heretofore have been historically documented but never
recorded archaeologically, and 2) the depositional processes
associated with the accumulation of soil during both use and
abandonment of St. Augustine's first line of defense.

Foundation to Development

To understand the nature of the archaeological
deposits documented during the City's project, a foundation in
both the historical and archaeological record is required. This
section provides a brief overview of some of the more
pertinent aspects of the line's history and research as they
relate to the deposits encountered.

Background Sources

Various historical and archaeological studies have
been written that describe the Cubo Line. The most
comprehensive account is Luis Arana's (1964) historiography
of the line from 1704-1910. Other detailed historical accounts
are Caywood (1963), Johnson et al. (1991), and Halbirt
(1992)-the latter two relied heavily on Arana. Sources that
reference the Cubo Line in conjunction with other Spanish
defensive systems include Arana (n.d.a, n.d.b), Arana and
Manucy (1977), Bearss and Paige (1983), Chatelain (1941),
Manucy (1973, 1989), and Sastre (1989).
Archaeological studies are, for the most part, field
reports of work conducted in the 1930s by the Carnegie
Institution. The exceptions are the work conducted by Dr.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


JUNE 1993


Vol. 46 No. 2






















RIBERIA


STREET


Fea 3/ bermrm)


Scale
0 5 10 15m
i ., I I .


0 15 30 45


Figure 1. Location of archaeological investigations at the intersection of Orange and Riberia streets.


60ft






107


John W. Griffin (1963) and recent projects performed under
the jurisdiction of the City's Archaeological Preservation
Ordinance (Johnson et al. 1991; Halbirt 1992). A review of
the extant work is discussed below.

Developmental History

In his report, Arana (1964) identified four periods of
evolution associated with the Cubo Line: Early (1704-1738),
Modem (1738-1797), Mature (1797-1821), and Disappearance
(1821-1909). Different episodes of construction, repair, and
remodeling occurred within each period (see Table 1).
The third and fourth periods (Mature and
Disappearance) are of concern here. Both historical and
archaeological investigations have revealed that the extant line
represents deposits associated with activities that date after
1808, based on the use of palm logs along the revetment and
the juxtapositioning of soil deposits in the moat. Again, it was
the threat of war between England and Spain in 1805 that
motivated city officials to take action.
Efforts to restore the line involved: 1) straightening
the entrenchment, most likely the moat, which enabled a better
enfilade (or raking by gunfire) along the entire Cubo Line; 2)
increasing the height of the parapet with sloping palm log
revetments and earth for additional defense; and 3) enlarging
the firing step behind the parapet. The palm log revetments
were held in place by horizontal palm logs and cedar stakes
(Manucy 1989). The city gate, which until this time was a
wooden feature along the Cubo Line, was replaced with a
masonry structure (Manucy 1973) that remains to this day and
is a major tourist draw. No date for the completion of
construction along the Cubo Line has been found; however, by
1811 the military engineer Manuel de Hita was bemoaning the
need for its repair.
Although no physical description of the restored Cubo
Line was reported by de Hita, a report of the condition of the
line was prepared by a new engineer, Francisco de Cortazar in
1817:

The earth work was nearly 917 yards long, with flanks at
the Castillo and on the San Sebastian River. It had three
redoubts (Cubo, Medio, and Santo Domingo...with) no
interior revetment. The line could offer only light
opposition to the enemy because it was merely a field
work, the moat 41 feet 3 inches wide and 4 feet 7 inches
deep, and the palisade at the foot of the scarp completely
destroyed. The parapet was made of sandy sod, rising 6
feet above the ground, and measuring 2 3/4 feet thick at the
top. That was the maximum elevation of the line...Behind
the parapet, the firing step was 22 inches high (Arana
1964:21).

For approximately a decade after the reconstruction of
1808, the Cubo Line was essentially neglected except for small


groups of convicts that cleaned the moat of debris and
dislodged soil from the counterscarp and parapet.
The arrival of a new engineer, Ramon de la Cruz, in
April 1820, signaled the final restoration effort on the Cubo
Line by the Spaniards. De la Cruz outlined a variety of
problems with the line, notably the condition of the sod and
scarp. Realizing the importance of the line to the defense of
the city, de la Cruz proposed two essential improvements that
he hoped would stabilize erosion problems that had plagued the
line since the mid-1700s and taxed the available labor,
especially convicts:

(1) revet the moat counterscarp at least with fascines [a
bundle of sticks used to reinforce earthworks] because the
sandy sod would never bond completely to form a stable
slope; (2) face the parapet with fascines to give a
reasonable slope to the whole earthwork, and increase its
thickness to 19 1/4 feet (Arana 1964:25).

The recommendations proposed by de la Cruz
apparently were implemented sometime in 1820-1821. By
June 1821, when Florida was ceded to the United States, de la
Cruz considered the palisade "in good order" (Manucy
1989:4). A description of the Cubo Line and a map of St.
Augustine (Figure 2) were submitted by de la Cruz just prior
to the transfer of ownership. The description is the last
comprehensive statement of the line's condition. In his
inventory, de la Cruz

described the Cubo Line as a line of earth nearly 917 yards
long. The line began at the covered way of the Castillo de
San Marcos and extended to the San Sebastian River. The
continuous parapet was 2 3/4 to 3 3/4 feet thick on top,
nearly 19 1/4 feet thick at the base, and formed a sloping
scarp, without a berm, to the bottom of the moat. The log
revetment was in good order, 8 1/4 feet in height and 7
inches thick with proper girders, and ran the whole length
of the line. The moat paralleled the earthwork and was 39
feet 5 inches wide and approximately 5 1/2 feet deep.
There were three redoubts in the Cubo Line. On the left
stood square-shaped Cubo, with parapets facing to the east,
to the San Sebastian, and to the field north of the line. It
had two gun platforms. There was a wooden guardhouse in
the redoubt. Forming a traverse parallel to the line, and to
the south of the redoubt, was a thick palisade with girders,
which also covered its west flank. Middle Redoubt and
Tolomato Redoubt (previously referred to as Medio and
Santo Domingo) were east of Cubo. Their flanks were at
right angles to the gorge [moat]. Tolomato had an
embrasure in each flank and two in its face. Tolomato had a
wooden guardhouse while the Middle Redoubt had a
thatched hut. Each of the latter two had a gun platform.
Middle Redoubt had two gun platforms. The land gate
pierced the Cubo Line a little east of Tolomato Redoubt. It





108


Table 1. Construction, Repair or Remodeling Episodes Associated With the Cubo Line.



Date Activity


1704 ITe Cube Line is developed by the Spanish as the possibility of a sne htLlish invasion threatens
St. lAugstise. Ihe line consists of six elqidistiat wooden redoubts connected Iby log palisade,
kwick extended from the fort to the San Sebastian liver. I ditch also was part of the
fortification.

1716 Portions of tie Cobe Liie are repaired as part of the 'Line of Circsivallatiol," which surroulned
the colonial city on three sites. This repair extended from the counterscarp of the Castillo de
San arcos to the Santo loingio ledoibt, a distance of approximately 240 yards.

1718- Ihe Ckbo Line is reestablished by the Spansih as the only defensive fortification eo the sorth
1737 side of the colonial city. Ike line consisted of three redoubts cosuected by a leo palisade
along approximately 240 yaris and earthworks along the remaining 495 yards. The presence of a
ditch is debatable.

1738- ITe Cabo Line is reaodeled by the Spanish. The new line consists of a neat &ad a log revetted
1743 parapet connected to three sod redlokts. The line is approximately 733 yards long.

1777 The Iritish repair the Cobe Line by revetting the eartkiork witk pile logs sal constructing a
palisade to the west of the Cake lelobkt to lisiiise beach erosion.

1790 ITe Spanish clear brask from the earthworks and redeokts.

1797 The threat of IAerican invasion forces the Spanish to repair the Cake Line. Repairs consisted of
removing displaced soil from the ooat and reconstructing tie gua platforms on tie redoubts to
soust artillery.

1808 ITe Cabe Lime is recoastructed as a conseltuece of war between Spain and lgland. ITe Spanish
strengthes and straighten the lime ati increase the height of the parapet, sing pail lot
revetimets. ITe woodle city gate is replaced with asonry.

1817 Repairs to the Cabe Lime are andertaken by the Spanisk. Upkeep of the moat and parapet ald repairs
to tie redoukts are initiated. Osly repairs to the Cbeo ledoubt are completed, gives lack of
fnlds.

1818- lort oa the Cube Line consists of repairs made by small groups of convicts. Iscept for tie city
1820 gate and bridge, the line is asitained..

1820 The final resodeliag effort by the Spanish along the Cioe Line is implemented. ITe scarp and
consterscarp of the moat are faced with fascises to stabilize erosional problems.

1830s tIe Americans restore tie Cabe Line as a deterrent daring the Second Seineole Tar. Repairs:
Coastrnct a 5-foot high parapet, increase the depth of tie oeat, restore tie redosbts and place
a series of stakes arouai them, and establish a picket lime along the leigth of the length of the
line.





I"
0
C)

IL~

P p
AV.
b~=-L- 42. f.-,-. .f '
YI,~~~t .)~ L



-it
._ -~1 **** ,. ) 99




-. .* I V.. '
I' I




I 9. ..* d p... .. .



Ih-.. y .&.*--- = V.' Vu-L)-






z70
a, r,- 2 'l't
L -c
d." C:





t- 1raa -r .... ~ c
*~~~ -'t I -~
Alc.c ~ .



M. c
u '.
:'''t'N 0
i L r i~-d t2 5.*
.... t-L ~ 4C .W*
,, r.~ -C.
40 ...n
?i~~-i = .r ',A .
r .-IA.
-- .7
24 A.~i- :'"


Figure 2. The de la Cruz Map of 1821. (Arrow indicates approximate project location along Cubo Line.)








was the only exit to the road leading north, and there was a
wooden guardhouse there. In good condition, the gate
consisted of 2 leaves hung on 2 strong masonry pillars. To
cross the moat there was a new bridge 62 1/3 feet long and
15 feet 2 incheswide, resting on 4 piers (Arana 1964:25-
26).

With the transferral of Florida from Spain to the
United States in 1821, the defensive fortification that had
protected the northern access into the city for 117 years was
considered obsolete and no longer needed. Documents show
that by 1827 demolition along portions of the Cubo Line were
already in progress (Arana 1964:27; Manucy 1973:5). By
1833, 12 years after acquisition by the United States,
Lieutenant Stephen Tuttle (an engineer with the U.S. military
in St. Augustine) noted that the line was in ruins. The parapet
had been severely damaged, the guardhouse and palisade south
and west of the Cubo Redoubt was gone, and the redoubt at
Tolomato had been destroyed (Arana 1964:28). The city gate
and bridge also had been severely damaged by the municipality
of St. Augustine. Only through the efforts of the U.S. military
were the city gate and bridge saved (Manucy 1973:6). It was
not until the 1870s that attempts to restore the damaged city
gate were undertaken, however (Manucy 1973:9).
Three years after Lt. Tuttle's observations, the Cubo
Line once again was drafted into service. This action was
necessitated by the outbreak of the Second Seminole War, ca.
1835-1842 (Tebeau 1971:158-169). The fear that an attack on
St. Augustine was imminent prompted its citizens to restore the
old line. In a petition dated March 10, 1836, and submitted to
the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, the city's
inhabitants requested the appropriation of funds to cover the
costs of material and labor incurred in rebuilding the Cubo
Line.
Repair work involved constructing a 5-foot high
parapet; increasing the depth of the moat; restoring the
redoubts, which entailed placing a series of pines stakes and
ditches around them; and establishing a picket line along the
length of the line (Carter 1960:265-266). In addition, an
avenue measuring 2,500 feet long and 30 feet wide was
established. (This avenue eventually became known as Orange
Street.) The total cost of the project was $850.00.
Aside from the petition, the only other example of the
American restoration effort along the Cube Line was
uncovered by archaeologist W. John Winter in 1937. While
excavating the Cubo Redoubt, Winter (1937e) uncovered
evidence of a series of square pine posts that were placed in
front of the palm logs that formed the redoubt (Figure 3). The
posts averaged 7 3/4 inches square and abutted each other
along a substantial portion of the Cubo Redoubt as well as east
of the redoubt (Chatelain 1941:Map 19). Winter (1937e:4)
believed that the pine posts associated with British Period
restorations of the redoubt; however, their placement in front


110

of the palm logs indicate that they associate with post-1808
modifications. No other restoration evidence, such as that
found at the Cubo Redoubt, was encountered in other areas
examined during the Carnegie investigations.
Within a few years of the American restoration, the
Cubo Line once again fell into a state of disrepair. In 1842,
the distinguishing features of the eastern portion of the line
from the city gate to Castillo de San Marcos had nearly
disappeared. What remained was converted to a drainage ditch
in 1857. The Dorr Map (1860) shows the remains of the Cubo
Line extending from the intersection of Orange Street and
Tolomato (now Cordova) Street to the San Sebastian River
(Figure 4). Remnants of the parapet, moat, counterscarp, and
Cubo and Medio redoubts are evident. These features survived
as relics until 1908 when the land was given to the St. Johns
County School Board and the ground eventually was filled and
leveled. The events associated with the transfer of ownership
and subsequent construction activities can be found in Arana
(1964:33-35).
As will be shown, the historical events associated with
the use and abandonment of the Cubo Line from 1808 to the
present are reflected in the archaeological record.

Previous Archaeological Research

Archaeological investigations along the Cubo Line
have been sporadic. To date, only three projects have been
reported: the Carnegie-sponsored project in the late 1930s
(Winter 1937a-f, 1938; Woodell 1938); the National Park
Service project in 1963 (Griffin 1963); and a project conducted
by Florida Archaeological Services, Inc. (FAS) under the
auspices of the City's Archaeological Preservation Ordinance
(Johnson et al. 1991). Excluding the City-sponsored project,
the other two projects were implemented to obtain information
relevant to the restoration of portions of the Cubo Line. The
project conducted by FAS was in response to the installation of
a fiber-optics cable across land owned by the NPS. In addition
to these projects, observations also were made by Albert C.
Manucy (Griffin 1963:3) and Robert Steinbach (Halbirt and
Carver 1992:Table 2), when sections of the line were opened
as a result of nonregulated construction. Information relevant
to the placement of the Cubo Line also was collected by the
City Archaeology Program during the monitoring of utility
installations along Spanish Street (Halbirt n.d.)
Investigations have been conducted along the Cubo
Line from Castillo de San Marcos to the San Sebastian River
(Figure 5). Trenches placed perpendicular to the alignment
were the primary method of investigation. In most cases,
trenches were placed to locate the palisade wall and/or define
the moat outline. Some trenches, however, were placed parallel
to the line to expose a large section of the palisade wall.
Throughout most of these excavations few, if any, artifactual
material was recovered that associated with the Cubo Line








4




drl



I








fi
*i
Al


t



i;
A


a1

0

E


I C*
m

-&r~l .:o. ItK i"i
~ V~-.%L.


A
.3~o C ~. =
DCl fu Q





IL
j JETAILI TYPICAL C2oss 5!eTIOM At L.A
A 5c CA I.e C -
NNy

r l firrr s
dI V --
i, I *a

















SYUT PF L N-VT.
L :
* 4
'i lr~ -llrr.os Jcl iL
b ,pSA
. . . . -c l S.Cy.& C Q


a ~C'~ICIf MYfl..C.;

hiAN YirlIr*,n .

PWUT oT c. AVATr


.2113 JounT-OJlr.lo.
**Sra b-b'

OT t
or Cy15Ti c
AT 5C.L% E 0"


NI 10 5W -ov


JL JLC OIICi lnL.M.4O'CdAIIldI
zol. U OL~ I5)43ET'j....

AWE 3 b


Figure 3. 1937excavations within the Cubo Redoubt, from Chatelain (1941: Map 19).


[lr








Iri


Vr~ 'I-a"
5C A L E 0"FI3Y I~L~J III


- ------ -


I


I
















project
area


1 KEY

L Marsh
//// Parapet
83$8 Moat


Scale: feet i
0 400


Figure 4. Tracing of the Dorr Map (1860), showing the condition of the Cubo Line.


-Ak ,1,
A Ii
46A








(Griffin 1963:3). The exception is the work done within the
Cubo Redoubt, which did produce some artifacts (Winter
1937e, 1938; Woodell 1938).
This discussion focuses on the archaeological
information obtained primarily from Griffin (1963) and the
Carnegie excavations. These two projects offer the most
comprehensive account, to date, related to the archaeology of
the Cubo Line. The project by FAS is omitted because only a
12-inch section of the west wall of the Cubo Redoubt was
exposed-an area that previously had been investigated by the
Carnegie Institution (Winter 1937e, 1938).
Given the different eras in which the projects were
executed, the quality of information obtained differs. The
NPS investigation (Griffin 1963) is the more detailed of the
two especially in regard to project location, illustrations,
description of the stratigraphy, and interpretation. The
Carnegie investigations provide a basis for understanding what
was uncovered; however, maps showing the exact locations of
excavations relative to city landmarks are lacking and limited
stratigraphic information was recorded.
The Carnegie work consisted of trenches scattered
along the course of the Cubo Line (see Figure 5). The
information obtained was presented as small field reports
(Winter 1937a, 1937b, 1937c, 1937d, 1937e, and 1938) and
field notes (Winter 1937) by archaeologist W. John Winter.
Other information is contained in Chatelain (1941:Figures 20
and 21) and Woodell (1938). No attempts were made to
synthesize this information, however.
According to Luis Arana, the Carnegie investigations
did provide important archaeological evidence pertinent to the
1808 Cubo Line west of the city gate. Evidence was obtained
of the size, shape, location, and construction methods of the
palm log revetment and the Cubo and Medio redoubts. Of
particular interest was the discovery that the palm base log at
the front of the scarp was held in place by cedar stakes and
cedar pins attached to the revetment (see Figure 3). In
addition, excavations revealed that pine posts occurred adjacent
to the palm logs along portions of the line. The pine posts are
interpreted here as belonging to the American restoration of the
line in the 1830s.
Work on the line by the National Park Service (NPS)
was restricted to the eastern portion of the line (Figure 5),
from the city gates to the Castillo green. The investigations
were undertaken to obtain information for the planned and
subsequent restoration of the line by the NPS.
Eight trenches of varying lengths and orientation were
excavated by the NPS. In addition, information recorded in
1959 by Albert C. Manucy during the excavation of a large
sewer trench was incorporated into the report. The results did
not substantially alter the information obtained in the 1930s,
although it did help to clarify many of the construction
techniques used during the 1808 construction of the line.


Archaeological evidence for the physical condition of
the 1808 Cubo Line is taken from Griffin's (1963:16)
conclusions:

The palmetto base logs mark the front edge and base of the
scarp...The top of the base logs is at a relatively uniform
elevation, from 2.5 to 2.8 feet above mean sea level...the
base log was laid in a construction trench...Behind the base
log a series of palmetto posts incline to the south at an
angle of about 60 degrees, more or less. These slanting
logs touch one another, and may...be interpreted as a
revetment on the earth face of the parapet. In three places a
trench is found to the rear of the base and revetment logs.
The rear edge of this trench is between 11 and 12 feet south
of the middle of the base log. This trench isinterpreted as
having been dug to support a timber facing for the rear of
the earthwork. The width of the moat was certainly less
than fifty feet; perhaps forty-five feet or less. Based on the
1959 profile recorded by Manucy, moat depth was
relatively shallow. A counter-scarp is a logical postulate,
but the present excavations cast no light on this feature.

In addition to presenting a detailed physical
description of the Cube Line, Griffin (1963:6-9) also provides
information on the stratigraphy of the line. In particular,
stratigraphic characteristics that separate the moat fill, the
earthen parapet and the revetment logs, and the sterile
substratum were observed.
The evidence along the palisade wall indicated that:
1) the earthen parapet consisted of sterile yellow sand deposits;
2) the revetment logs were placed abutting the sterile deposit;
3) the revetment and base logs were evidently placed in a
construction trench that consisted of a dark sandy fill; and 4)
atop this construction fill and adjacent to the revetment logs
was a layer of palmetto and/or pine planks that apparently was
used as a construction platform for the placement of the
revetment logs. According to Griffin (1963:9), this
construction platform may have been a constant feature along
the Cubo Line.
The moat immediately north of the parapet consisted
of dark sandy fill. Atop these deposits were different layers of
soil that represent deposits that had accumulated once the line
had been abandoned. Artifactual remains recovered from these
post-abandonment levels are mid-nineteenth century in origin,
which is in accordance with historical records that indicate the
filling in of the eastern portion of the moat during the 1840s
and 1850s.
When considered together, the two previous
archaeological investigations along the Cube Line provide
information that is pertinent to the City's investigations. In
particular, these investigations have provided information
concerning the morphological characteristics of the Cubo Line.






114


Aspects of size, shape, depth, and stratigraphy are necessary to
understand the deposits uncovered during the present
investigation.

Project Methods and Objectives

Archaeological investigations at the intersection of
Orange and Riberia streets involved monitoring the mechanical
excavation of the pipeline trench, which was followed by the
hand excavation of archaeological remains. Monitoring was
conducted during the installation of the pipe. When
archaeological deposits were exposed, backhoe operations were
halted and the rest of the pipeline trench was hand excavated
with shovels and trowels. Some deposits were screened during
hand excavation, using one-quarter inch mesh, although this
proved to be unproductive.
Due to tidal flows and the high water table, well
points were established along the length of the trench to
remove excess water and to expose the remains of the Cubo
Line. These points were only partially successful. Collapsed
trench walls were a problem throughout the excavation (Figure
6).
The methods used to excavate the trench were
influenced by two goals: 1) to produce a detailed profile
drawing of the trench wall that illustrates the stratigraphy of
the Cubo Line, and 2) to obtain a sample of artifacts so that the
stratigraphic deposits associated with the Cubo Line could be
dated. Both were accomplished, although with differing
degrees of success.
Profiling the stratigraphy of the Cubo Line was
accomplished in segments, given the problems of collapsing
trench walls. Segments had to be drawn after a length of
approximately five meters of trench was exposed. Only the
soil deposits along the west wall of the trench were profiled,
however. Soil deposits along the east wall had been disturbed
by gas and water utility lines. Moreover, a large portion of
the line had been adversely impacted by an underground storm
drain, sewer lines, water mains, and repair work-all of which
contributed to erosion.
For the most part, artifacts were recovered as grab
samples during excavation. Portions of the Cubo Line were
screened using one-quarter inch mesh; however, this proved
unproductive. Most of the strata documented did not contain
any artifacts, especially those associated with the historic moat
and palisade. Only after the Cubo Line was discontinued as a
defensive fortification and filled do artifacts occur.
Most of the artifacts recovered from the intersection
of Orange and Riberia streets were associated with a late 1800s
to early 1900s trash deposit that extended across the width of
the then extant moat depression. Given the size of the
artifacts, most were easily collected during hand excavation,
although some were recovered during screening. The majority
of artifacts were either complete or fragmentary bottles, china,


or broken plate glass with minor amounts of leather and metal
articles.
Excavation Results

The 12-inch force main sewer line that bisects the
Cubo Line extends from the intersection of Castillo Drive and
Riberia Street, a distance of approximately 750 feet. Only the
southern 100 feet of the trench were examined for
archaeological remains, however.
The area examined extended from the intersection of
Orange and Riberia streets north past a berm covered by dense
arboreal vegetation, notably palms and oaks (Figure 1).
According to Wally Hibbard (then superintendent of Castillo
de San Marcos National Monument), this berm was considered
to represent the counterscarp of the Cubo Line. Unfortunately,
extensive root systems had severely disturbed those soil
deposits thereby effectively obliterating the stratigraphy of the
berm. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the counterscarp of
the Cubo Line actually extended to the berm.
Of the 100-foot length of trench investigated, only the
middle 50 feet were profiled. Neither end of the trench was
profiled. Deposits along the southern 12 feet of trench had
been completely removed in 1989, the result of a force main
blow out. This necessitated the opening of the entire
intersection at Orange and Riberia in 1989 to a depth of 6 to 7
feet below grade. This activity effectively removed any
archeological deposits associated with the Cubo Line. The
area was filled with a mixture of lime rock, asphalt debris, and
sand. Deposits along the northern 38 feet of the trench were so
disturbed by root activity that differences in soil deposits could
not be determined. All that could be observed was that the soil
consisted of a light gray mottled sand. It should be noted that
the 50 feet of deposits profiled were excavated by hand,
whereas those deposits that were not profiled were
mechanically excavated.
The excavation resulted in the delineation of six
archaeological features and 12 different soil strata (Figure 6).
In addition, 506 artifacts were recovered during the course of
excavations. The results of the City excavation is presented
according to stratigraphic information, cultural features, and
artifactual remains.

Stratigraphy of the Cubo Line

Figure 6 illustrates the various stratigraphic deposits
documented in the moat and along the berm of the palisade
wall. A total of 12 different soil deposits was recorded, each
distinguished by differences in soil color and texture as well as
artifact content. In addition, four areas of modern
underground disturbance were noted in the profile: a storm
pipe, two sewer pipes, and a water pipe.
To understand the context of the various strata
documented, the discussion is divided according to the





Scale: feet U1
o 0 300
KEY
1937 Carnegie Project
=== 1963 NPS Project \
M zE B 1990 City Projects(a&b) _


cemetery
gym MEDIO
CUBO school board SANTO
-- -- center Do2 l NGo 11
Orange Street city gate




Figure 5. Location of previous archaeological investigations along the Cuba Line. (Map is scaled from the 1930 Sanborne Fire
Insurance Map.)


Fea Fea 5

10A


Fea 4 / pipe
1\ ,i I


SFea I
Fea 2 n -
0 5m 10m 15m




curb DISTURBED AREA
sewer storm C
sewerFI D right of waydrain
K o


IZ- Fea L E E I


Figure 6. Plan and profile drawing of the excavation area.









probable period of deposition. It is organized according to
deposits that associate with the historic Cubo Line and deposits
that date after the abandonment of the Cubo Line.
Post-abandonment deposits. Since the abandonment
of the Cubo Line in 1821 as a major component in the defense
of St. Augustine (although it was resurrected during a brief
period in the 1830s), more than 170 years of soil accumulation
has occurred at the site. These deposits are found primarily in
the moat area with only minimal post-occupational deposits
situated beneath the modern roadbeds. Six distinct deposits are
represented (Strata A-F; Figure 6). Soil color is noted in
parentheses, according to Munsell Color Chart designations.
Stratum A deposits are associated with the
construction of Orange and Riberia streets. This stratum
consists of asphalt and lime rock. Some twentieth-century
artifactual material was recovered.
Stratum B fill consists of a gray (5YR6/1) sandy
loam with roots and some gravel. This stratum represents
recently deposited sediments associated with the humic layer.
The two utility lines (i.e., storm and sewer pipes) that intrude
into the moat deposits indicate that Stratum B was deposited
during the past 50 to 75 years.
Stratum C fill consists of a light gray (5YR7/1)
sandy loam with no roots or gravel. This stratum is below
Stratum B. A mason jar (ca. post-1910) indicates that this
deposit occurred after the moat had been filled in 1910.
Stratum C deposits extend beneath the roadbed of
Orange and Riberia streets (Stratum A). Twentieth-century
artifacts were recovered in this area: broken glass, nails, and
wooden planks or slats. A thin band of oxidized sand, which
represents the remains of corroded metal objects, occurs at the
base of this deposit.
Stratum D fill consists of a yellow (2.5YR8/6) sand
with oxidized rootlet stains. It occurs beneath Stratum C.
Artifacts that date to the turn of the twentieth century were
recovered. Most artifacts are plate glass fragments, although
some late nineteenth-century bottles were found. Historical
documents indicate that the moat depression was filled to level
the land for the opening of the Orange Street School in October
1910.
Stratum E is a band of dark red (2.5YR3/6) soil that
contains numerous glass and metal artifacts. It occurs below
Stratum C and above the historical moat deposits.
The oxidization in Stratum E is formed by the
corrosion of metal objects, notably cans. Numerous late
nineteenth-century bottles and tableware were recovered from
this oxidized matrix. Beer and medicine bottles, broken plates
and cups, and other household items are represented.
Historical documents indicate that prior to filling, the moat
depression was used as a trash dump. This practice was halted
by the City Council in June 1908 (Arana 1964:34), and the
moat depression was filled shortly thereafter.
A concentration of logs (Feature 1, below) was found
at the bottom of Stratum E toward the south end of the moat.


116

Most likely, these logs associate with a bridge that crossed the
moat at Riberia Street. The bridge was demolished in August
1909 in preparation of the moat-filling operation.
Stratum F is a thick deposit of mottled light gray to
white sand that occurs atop the historical moat deposits.
Stratum F can be divided into two substrata based on soil
compaction and a thin lens of oxidized soil: Fl and F2. The
difference between the two substrata might occur because F1 is
above the water table whereas F2 is submerged.
Fl is a loose, unconsolidated deposit of white
(7.5YR8/0) sand that contains a few twentieth-century remains
(such as glass, nails, and wooden planks or slats). All of the
artifacts recovered in Substratum F1 were situated at the
boundary of Strata B and Fl and can be considered as coming
from mixed deposits. Moreover, they were found under the
asphalt roadbed, which exhibited extensive disturbance.
Substratum F2 occurs below F1 and consists of a
consolidated light gray (7.5YR7/0) sand deposit. Rootlet
stains are abundant, which gives F2 a mottled appearance. No
artifacts were recovered from this deposit, although two
abutting wooden planks were found toward the base of the
deposit. The planks (Feature 2) were made of pine and
extended across the entire width of the trench into the side
walls of the trench.
Historical deposits. Previous archaeological efforts
along the Cubo Line indicate that the archaeological deposits
are associated with episodes of construction and repair that
date during the latter portion of the Second Spanish Period, ca.
1808 to 1821. Earlier First Spanish Period (ca. 1704-1743)
and British Period (ca. 1777) deposits were, in all probability,
demolished during subsequent renovations. Thus, probably
not more than 20 years of soil accumulation are represented.
The deposits documented either are part of the construction and
repair of the line or are associated with the moat. In total, five
strata (Strata G-K) were documented that are part of the
historical line. These deposits were found atop sterile Stratum
L, which may have underlain a marsh environment where the
western portion of the Cubo Line was situated.
Stratum G is a dark gray (5Y4/1) mottled sandy fill
deposit that represents the historical soil deposits associated
with the northern portion of the moat. No artifacts were
recovered from this stratum, although a layer of organic
deposits (Substratum Il) was found toward the center. This
stratum is below Stratum E (the late 1800s to early 1900s trash
deposit).
Stratum H is a layer of olive gray (5Y5/2) sandy clay
that represents the upper portion of the historic moat deposits
at the southern end of the moat. Stratum H occurs beneath
Substratum F2. Given the heavy root and aquatic disturbance,
the boundary between Stratum H and Substratum F2 is not
well defined.
Stratum I is a thin black (7.5YR2/0) organic deposit
that is found on either side of the moat. Stratum I occurs in
two distinct deposits: Substrata I1 and 12. These deposits








consist of wooden planks and other small thin strips of organic
material preserved by submersion in water.
Substratum I1 is on the north side of the moat and
consists of a band of pine boards and fibrous material. At the
south end of this band was a well-preserved pine board that
measured 36 cm wide by 6 cm thick. The length of the board
could not be established because it extended into the west wall
of the trench. Exactly what Substratum I associates with is
unclear, although it might have been used as some type of
platform affiliated with the maintenance or stabilization of the
counterscarp on the north side of the moat.
Substratum 12 is on the south side of the moat. It
consists of small, randomly distributed slats of wood and broad
leafy material (such as palm fronds). This organic layer is
situated atop a berm that was in front of the palm log
revetment. A similar organic layer was found by John W.
Griffin on the east end of the Cube Line (Griffin 1963).
Griffin (1963:9) interpreted this layer as a construction
platform. The presence of similar deposits at the intersection
of Orange and Riberia streets indicates that this deposit was a
constant feature along the full extent of the Cubo Line.
Stratum J is a greenish gray (5Y4/2) sand deposit
bordered by bands of black clay (7.5YR2/0), all of which have
been mottled by roots. This stratum occurs along the south
side of the moat and is adjacent to the berm of the parapet.
The upper clay deposits grade into the deposits associated with
the construction platform (Substratum 12) atop the berm,
suggesting that there is an association between the two.
At the base of Stratum J, near the berm, was a trench
and associated pine post (Feature 4). The fill of this feature
was the same as Stratum J, although the deposits were more
mottled in appearance. It is likely that this feature associates
with remodeling episodes that postdate the 1808 reconstruction
of the Cubo Line.
Stratum K is a series of three distinct sand layers that
constitute the berm (Feature 3) in front of the palm log
revetment and parapet. The three layers from top to bottom
are Substratum KI, K2, and K3. All three occur within the
water table and consequently are heavily mottled by root
activity. Soil color does not differ substantially for each:
Substratum K1 is light gray sand (2.5Y7/0), Substratum K2 is
light brownish gray sand (2.5Y5/1), and Substratum K3 is
light olive gray sand (5Y6/2).
The three substrata were most likely deposited during
or shortly after the 1808 reconstruction of the Cubo Line.
This conclusion is based upon the association between the
berm and revetment logs, which is discussed in the Cultural
Features section.
Stratum L is a light olive gray (5Y6/2) sand deposit
that was found beneath the entire width of the moat and berm.
This sterile stratum represents deposits that predate the Cubo
Line.
The nature and color of Stratum L suggest a marsh
environment. The culturally sterile yellow sand that is


common along the eastern portion of the line (cf. Griffin 1963)
and throughout historic St. Augustine (Deagan 1983) was not
documented in the project area. The deposit documented is
similar to beach sands that are found within marsh
environments. This suggests that the Cubo Line from the San
Sebastian River to, at least, the intersection of Orange and
Riberia streets, was built in a marsh.

Cultural Features

In addition to the stratigraphic characteristics, six
cultural features also were documented during this project
(Figure 6). Four of the features are associated with the
historic Cubo Line: the berm and construction platform
(Feature 3), which was found on the south end of the moat; the
trench and associated pine post (Feature 4), found at the base
of the moat; the moat (Feature 5); and the revetment logs
adjacent to the parapet (Feature 6). The other two cultural
features postdate historical use of the line. These are the
remains of a railroad bridge that crossed the moat at Riberia
Street (Feature 1) and the two abutting wooden boards (Feature
2) that occur within Substratum F2. Cultural features are
divided into two categories: post-abandonment and features
associated with the use of the Cubo Line.
Post-abandonment features. The two features that
postdate the abandonment of the Cubo Line are associated with
nineteenth- and early twenty-century activities. Feature 1 is
associated with the construction of hotels in downtown St.
Augustine during the Flagler Era, ca. 1885-1913 (Graham
1978). Feature 2 predates Feature 1, based on stratigraphic
information, although the date when the wooden pine planks
were emplaced is uncertain.
Feature 1 is the remnants of the railroad bridge. A
concentration of wooden logs and planks was uncovered during
the excavation of trash deposits associated with Stratum E.
These wooden remains are from a railroad bridge that crossed
the remnants of the Cubo Line's moat. The bridge was in
place from circa 1885 until 1909, when it was demolished as
part of the ground-leveling activities by the St. Johns County
School Board.
Documents on file at the St. Augustine Historical
Society indicate that the bridge crossing was associated with a
temporary spur line used during the construction of Henry
Flagler's three hotels: the Ponce de Leon, the Alcazar, and the
Cordova (Graham 1978:176). In 1885, Henry Flagler
petitioned the federal government for a right-of-way to cross
the Cubo Line, which was then owned by the War Department.
In issuing the license in December 1885 (Halbirt
1992:Appendix B), the federal government agreed that a
temporary narrow gauge extension be built off the southern
terminus of the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Halifax River
Railway located to the north of the Cubo Line. After the
hotels were built, the spur line was to be removed.
Government documents indicate that the bridge crossing was








used until 1890 when a new right-of-way across the
"reservation" was granted to the Jacksonville, St. Augustine,
and Halifax River Railway by the 51st Congress (Halbirt
1992:Appendix C).
Historical documentation is supported by a
comparison of three maps dating from 1885 to 1894: the
Norris, Wellge, and Swift Map (1885), the Bruce Map (1888),
and the Ritchie Map (1894). An inspection of the Norris,
Wellge, and Swift Map indicates the presence of a railroad and
associated station house that stop just north of the Cubo Line
but do not extend any further. This system was part of the
Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Halifax River Railway that
was constructed in 1881-1883 (Bramson 1984:27). Three
years after the license was granted to Flagler, the Bruce Map
shows a railroad bridge that crosses the moat and proceeds to
the Union Station situated on the banks of the San Sebastian
River at King Street. The Bruce Map also shows a rectangular
building along the rail system just north of the Cubo Line that
corresponds to the original station house for the railroad at St.
Augustine. When the Bruce Map is overlain atop the 1930
Sanbome Fire Insurance Map, it can be seen that the moat
crossing occurred at the intersection of Orange and Riberia
streets. The Ritchie Map shows a station house and rail line
stopping just north of the intersection; however, there is no
indication that the line proceeds any further.
Little archaeological evidence was uncovered of the
bridge remains within the excavated area (Figure 6). Most of
the bridge occurs east of the project area, directly beneath
Riberia Street. The current investigation occurred along the
west side of the street. What was exposed was a series of
overlapping logs and planks as well as what may have been the
roadbed of the bridge. The roadbed consisted of abutting
pieces of wood with what looks like some type of surface
placed on top. Beneath this was the trestle, which consisted of
pine logs and planks. The size of the bridge could not be
determined from the present excavation, but it must have been
greater than the width of the moat, which at this time was
approximately 33 ft (10 m) wide.
Feature 2 is enigmatic. It consists of two pieces of
worked pine that abut each other. The pine boards are 13.4
inches wide by 2.4 inches thick. The combined size is 13.4
inches wide by 4.8 inches thick. Nothing was found between
the boards. This board alignment extended into both side
walls of the trench for an unknown distance (Figure 6).
Both the purpose and date of this feature are
unknown. Given that it associates with stratigraphic deposits
(Stratum F2) that postdate the Cubo Line, yet are earlier than
Feature 1, the alignment would date from circa the 1820s to
the 1880s. Given that the feature occurs toward the base of
Substratum F2 and is not within a construction trench, it seems
plausible that it dates to the early end of this range.
The possibility exists that Feature 2 associates with
the American restoration of the Cubo Line in the 1830s. This


118
restoration took place in response to the Second Seminole War
(1835-1842). The pine boards may have served as some type
of walkway, construction platform, or support for a defensive
feature. Until additional excavations take place in this area,
however, this 4.4-foot long segment of two abutting pine
boards will remain a puzzle.
Cubo Line features. The four cultural features
associated with the historical use of the Cubo Line are related
to early nineteenth-century modifications and repairs, which
occurred during the Second Spanish Period. It is unlikely that
features are present that associated with the eighteenth-century
modifications and repairs to the Cubo Line. These earlier
episodes of construction and repair (see Table 1) would have
been removed as part of the straightening and strengthening
efforts of military engineer Manuel de Hita.
Previous archaeological investigations by Griffin
(1963), Winter (1937a-f), and Johnson et al. (1991) did not
uncover these earlier remains. In particular, the investigations
by Johnson et al. (1991) and Halbirt (n.d.), which crossed
Orange Street and therefore would have bisected earlier
features, did not document any soil deposits associated with
previous remains.
Feature 3 is the berm and construction platform.
Between the moat (Feature 5) and the revetment logs (Feature
6) is a narrow berm and associated construction platform
(Figure 6). The berm is composed of three layers of sand
deposits (Substrata K1, K2, and K3) on which a thin,
discontinuous layer of broad leafy material and wooden slats
was placed (Substratum 12). The berm is approximately 4.75
feet wide by 1.62 feet thick, with the north side sloping into
the moat. The construction platform consists of an organic
deposit that is approximately one inch thick and rests atop
Substratum K1. Both the berm and construction platform have
been preserved by submersion into the water table. The
platform also slopes into the moat.
Dating of the berm and construction platform is based
on the association between the berm, the moat (Feature 5), and
the palm log revetment (Feature 6). It is generally accepted
that the revetment is affiliated with the 1808 Spanish
construction along the line (Arana 1964; Manucy 1973, 1989).
The berm is either contemporary with and/or immediately
postdates this 1808 modification. This assessment is based
upon: 1) the absence of a construction trench for the
horizontal base log that would intrude into the berm, 2) the
stratigraphic deposits (Substrata K1, K2, and K3) associated
with the berm that abut the revetment logs, and 3) an absence
of soil deposits beneath the berm that would indicate a moat
predating the berm.
Feature 4 is the trench and associated pine post.
During excavation, a pine post was found toward the center of
the trench in what would eventually be the southern edge of the
moat (Figure 6). The purpose of this post remained unknown
until the base of the moat was excavated. The post was









associated with a trench (or ditch) that parallels the berm and
revetment logs. Consequently, the post and trench are
considered to be auxiliary components of the Cubo Line.
The pine post measured approximately 8 inches on a
side. What remained was 3 feet long, with one end tapered to
a point. The post originally had been longer, but only that
portion submerged in the water table was preserved.
Distinguishable cut marks indicate that the post had been
handworked. The tapered point was formed with an adze as
evidenced by the cut marks.
The trench in which the post was found was
approximately 12 inches wide by 8 inches deep. The length
could not be determined because the trench exceeded the width
of the excavation area. The fill within the trench is the same
as Stratum J (the moat fill): greenish gray sand with traces of
black clay deposits. The difference between the two is that the
trench deposits are more mottled than those of the moat.
A close examination of a composite color photograph
of Features 3, 4, and 5 shows that the trench (Feature 4)
bisects the lower portion of the moat (City Site File BDAC 90-
0374). This suggests that the trench and pine post postdate the
1808 construction, based on stratigraphic data. It should be
noted that in 1820 engineer Ramon de la Cruz reinforced and
expanded the parapet through the use of fascines, or bundles of
sticks bound together, thus enlarging the Cubo Line's parapet.
Feature 4 may be a part of the remnants associated with this
activity.
Feature 5 is the moat, one of the more notable
features of the Cubo Line. Previous archaeological
investigations (Griffin 1963:17; Winter 1937d and e) indicate
that the width of the early nineteenth-century moat varied from
40 to 70 feet, depending upon location. Although the
information from the present excavation is equivocal (given
that the northern boundary could not be readily defined), the
data suggest a width equal to or greater than 41.5 feet. This
measurement is consistent with the de la Cruz description of
1821 and the archaeological work of John W. Griffin (1963).
Consequently, it can be postulated that the width of the moat
was relatively consistent from east (near Castillo de San
Marcos) to west (at the San Sebastian River).
The depth of the moat varied depending upon
location. At the south end, the stratigraphic deposits
associated with the moat were 10 inches thick. At the north
end, where the deposits were less well defined, the moat
averages 16 inches thick.
This difference between the southern and northern
portions of the moat also is seen in the types of soil deposits
encountered. Deposits in the south part consist of a greenish
gray sand bordered by bands of dark clay (Stratum J). Deposits
in the north part consist of a dark gray, mottled sandy fill
(Stratum G). The possibility exists that soil deposits on the
north side of the moat are associated not only with the moat,
but also with the counterscarp. In 1820, de la Cruz bemoaned
the problem of soil and sod displacement along the


counterscarp (north side) of the moat. This potential
association is discussed below.
At present, the causes) for differences in moat
thickness and soil deposits is problematic. This is due to the
installation of a storm drain and another sewer line, which
have bisected the moat and obliterated roughly 10 feet of
historical soil deposits toward the center of Feature 5.
Feature 6 is the revetment logs. To stabilize the
earthen parapet, a series of vertical palm logs (or revetment
logs) was established along both the north and south scarp of
the parapet. Previous archaeological investigations (Griffin
1963) indicated that those logs adjacent to the moat were
angled at approximately 60 degrees. These logs were held in
place by a horizontal base log that was positioned toward the
bottom of the revetment. In turn, the base log was anchored
by cedar stake pins (Griffin 1963; Winter 1938).
The City's investigation of the Cubo Line uncovered
three of the vertical revetment logs as well as a portion of the
base log (Figure 6). The cedar pins were not documented;
however, they easily could have been missed given the narrow
width of the excavation trench. Only a portion of Feature 6
remained in the excavation trench (Figure 6). Approximately
half was removed during the placement of a sewer line.
Feature 6 was preserved by submersion in the water
table. A total of 3.5 feet of the line was exposed. The
revetment logs averaged 9 inches in diameter by 1.3 feet long.
The logs sloped at a 70-degree angle. Only the exterior ring of
the logs remained-the interior had rotted. Although the
bottoms of the revetment logs were not exposed, previous
archaeological investigations (Griffin 1963:Figures 4 and 10)
indicated that they extend only a short distance below the
horizontal base log. The exposed portion of the base log,
which also was palm, measured 3.5 feet long by 1 foot in
diameter. Unlike the revetment logs, the interior of the base
log had not rotted.

Artifacts

Recovered artifacts were found in Strata D and E and
correspond to deposits that date from ca. 1885 to 1908. Most
of the artifacts are associated with dumping trash into the
moat, an activity that existed after the Cubo Line no longer
functioned as a defensive fortification. This activity continued
until 1908 when the City Council put a stop to discarding trash
in the moat. The location was subsequently filled in 1909 as
part of land reclamation efforts by the St. Johns County School
Board for the construction of school buildings and fields.
The artifacts represent secondary refuse (Schiffer
1976:30); that is, worn out or broken material that is discarded
away from its location of use. For some disposable items,
such as beer containers, the object was discarded once the
contents had been consumed or used. Generally, secondary
refuse is identified when there is a high diversity and density
of artifacts within a definable area (Schiffer 1976:57, 128).





120


The material recovered from the trash deposit is in accordance
with this description.
A total of 506 artifacts, representing 14 different
artifacts types, was analyzed. Most date from about the 1890s
to 1908, although a few were recovered that either predate or
postdate this period. The artifacts were found primarily in
Stratum E, although some were found in Stratum D. Stratum
D is a yellow sand that was brought in to fill the then extant
moat depression in 1909. Stratum E is an oxidized sand zone
associated with the trash dump. Tables 2, 3, and 4 list the
different types and quantities of artifacts recovered. A
discussion of the various artifact categories (glass objects,
ceramic objects, and miscellaneous items [metal, leather, and
fabric]) can be found in Halbirt (1992:55-63).

Discussion

The archaeological investigations at the intersection of
Orange and Riberia streets provides new information and
reinforces prior historical and archaeological results related to
the construction, size, and stratigraphy of the Cubo Line from
ca. 1808 to the present. Basic measurements, such as the size
of the moat and angle of the revetment logs, are in agreement
with previous information. In addition, the construction
platform documented by Griffin (1963) at the east end of the
Cubo Line also was found at the west end, suggesting that this
feature was continuous along the alignment.
This investigation revealed aspects of the Cube Line
that have not been documented archaeologically. In particular,
the remnants associated with the fascines mentioned by de la
Cruz in 1821 potentially have been discovered. These consist
of a trench with an associated pine post (Feature 4) along the
south end of the moat and an organic lens (Substratum Il)
along the north end of the moat. Other aspects of the Cube
Line that have not received attention are the relationship
between the different soil strata, especially the soil deposits
that postdate the abandonment of the line.
One piece of historical information that has resulted
from this investigation is the fact that the Cubo Line was not
abandoned after 1821. The line was reestablished in the 1830s
for defensive purposes during the Second Seminole War (ca.
1835-1842). This information contradicts previous
assumptions about when the Cubo Line ceased to be used as a
defensive barrier.
This discussion focuses on the development of
archaeological deposits within the Cubo Line from circa 1808
to the present. This starting date is based on the fact that the
palm log revetment was constructed during de Hita's tenure
(1804-1811). The historical accounts do not indicate the use of
palm logs prior to this time. Earlier eighteenth-century
deposits associated with the Cubo Line were removed during
the 1808 reconstruction and have not been encountered during


this or previous archaeological investigations.

Developmental Sequence

Stratigraphic evidence and the six cultural features
documented are used to reconstruct the developmental
sequence of archaeological deposits associated with the Cubo
Line. Analysis of the profile drawing (Figure 6) in
conjunction with dated deposits reveals six distinct
archaeological zones (Figure 7). These zones correspond to:
1) the reconstruction of the line in 1808; 2) the remodeling of
the line in 1821; 3) the decay of the line from the 1820s to
1870s, with a brief resurrection in the 1830s; 4) the use of the
line as a railroad crossing and dump site from ca. 1885 to
1908; 5) the filling of the extant moat in 1909; and 6) modern
deposits. Evident from this investigation is that unless subject
to intrusive disturbance (e.g., utility lines, buildings, or
archaeological efforts), the buried remnants of the Cubo Line
have remained intact for the past 185 years.
Zone 1 is associated with the 1808 construction
episode. This zone consists of the revetment logs (Feature 6),
the berm and construction platform, and the lower portion of
the moat (Strata J and G). Zone 1 is better defined in the
southern half of the moat than in the northern half where soil
deposits have been impacted by roots and erosional problems
associated with the counterscarp.
The parapet was not found, given modern
disturbances at the intersection of Orange and Riberia streets.
The sizes of other features associated with the 1808 Cubo Line
were obtainable, however. Data relevant to the moat, berm,
and revetment logs are essentially in agreement with the
observations made by Griffin (1963).
The estimated width of the moat is in the vicinity of
41.5 ft-from the edge of the berm to Substratum II, at which
point deposits become indecipherable because of extensive
roots. The bottom of the moat is 20.4 inches below the top of
the berm, which suggests a shallow depression. The ditch was
deeper from the top of the parapet and counterscarp, however.
The construction of the revetment involved a series of
abutting, vertical palm logs held in place by a horizontal base
log. The vertical logs were 9 inches in diameter and were set
at a 70-degree slope. These logs were held in place by a palm
log that measured 1 foot in diameter. The berm in front of the
revetment logs is approximately 4.75 feet wide by 1.62 feet
thick with the north side sloping into the moat. The berm was
capped by a construction platform approximately 1 inch thick.
The presence of a berm contradicts the de la Cruz account,
which stated that no berm was present along the scarp. By
1821, however, it is possible that the berm was unrecognizable
given the accumulation of sediments in the moat.
Zone 2 is associated with soil accumulation within the
moat from circa 1808 to 1820 and the construction of fascines




Table 2. Frequency of Glass Artifacts.


Artifact Color

Type Style Clear Aqua Brown Green Hhite Blue Amethyst Other Total


Plate glass 144 144
Bottles Beer 12 (3) 2 (2) 14 (5)
Ap6thecary 10 (4) 5 (2) 1 3 (1) 6 (2) 25 (9)
Milk 4 4
Whiskey 1 (1) 1 (1)
Unident. 71 29 8 11 4 123
Jars 3 (2) 1 4 (2)
Tumblers 4 (2) 4 (2)
Inkwell 1 (1) 1 (1)
Stoppers 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (2)
Lens 1 1
Ornamental Cut Glass 3 (1) 3 (1)
Molded 19 (1) 18 37 (1)
Vase 1 (1) 1 (1)

TOTALS 242(11) 49 (7) 11 (3) 11 20 (1) 3 (1) 10 (2) 18 364(25)

( ) mbers in parentheses are complete objects.

Table 3. Frequency of Ceramic Artifacts.

Artifact Form

Material Style Lamp Bowl Sauber Cup Plate Lid Pot Jar Unknown Total

Ironstone Plain 1 5 2 6 2 2 42 60
Transfer 8 4 6 12 1 6 37
Institutional 1 1
Embossed 1 1
Pearlware Handpainted 1 1
Flow Blue 1 1
Porcelain Unident. 2 1 3
Crockery Unident. 3 3
Aboriginal Grit-Temper 1 1
Ceramic Unident. 1 (1) 1(1)

TOTALS 8* 4 9 11 19 2 3 1 (1) 52 109(1)

a Represents one item (pieces are reconstructable).
( ) Number in parentheses is a complete object.





122


meters


I I 1 I
5 10 15 20


1
5Oft


Zone 6 (post 1910)


.*a~t^^^3^^8


Zone 3 (co. 1820s-1870s)


Zone 2 (1808-1820)
555!Elemiauliu m -- -amwasannad


Fea 6
Zone I (1808 Cubo Line)





Figure 7. Developmental sequence of archaeological deposits along the Cbo Linefro 188 to the resent
Figure 7. Developmental sequence of archaeological deposits along the Cubo Line from 1808 to the present.


__


Zone 4 (ca. 1885-1908)

C ,3 .,


Fea 4





123


Table 4. Frequency of Miscellaneous Artifacts.


Material Artifact Type Quantity




Leather Shoe sole 7
Unidentifiable 9

Canvas Unidentifiable 3

Wood Unidentifiable/ 1
with paint

Battery Cell 1
Graphite Stick 1

Metal Cans 7
Nail 1
Unidentifiable 3

Bone Large mammal 1
Unidentifiable 3

TOTAL 37


to help stabilize and improve the line in 1821 by de la Cruz.
This zone consists of Feature 4 (the trench and pine post),
portions of the moat (Strata H, J, and G), and Substratum II.
The south side of Zone 2 is better defined than the north side,
which has been impacted by roots and subject to the erosion of
the counterscarp.
The probability exists that Feature 4 and Substratum
II are part of the fascines emplaced along both sides of the
moat in 1820. As noted by de la Cruz in 1821, fascines were
used to stabilize the sandy soil along the counterscarp of the
moat and to face the parapet to give it a reasonable slope and
increase its thickness (Arana 1964:25). The fascine along the
counterscarp is seen as corresponding to Substratum Il.
Feature 4 corresponds to the fascine along the parapet. At this
time, the moat would have been approximately 39 feet wide
from Feature 4 to the edge of Substratum II, where it shows a
distinct upward slope. This is in agreement with de la Cruz's
observation of the moat width.
To help support the fascine that faced the parapet, it
may have been necessary to construct a trench with a series of
spaced pine posts, which may have been connected by rope to
hold the bundles of sticks. Fill dirt would have been placed


between this feature and any revetment logs (Feature 6) that
still existed. It should be noted that de Cortazar observed that
the palisade at the foot of the parapet's scarp was destroyed by
1817.
Zone 3 is associated with the accumulation of soil
deposits from circa the 1820s to 1870s. This zone consists of
Stratum F, Feature 2 (abutting wooden planks), and those
portions of Stratum G that occur above Substratum Il.
Stratum F is loose and sandy in nature, suggesting
that the deposit corresponds to erosional sediments (such as
those associated with the parapet). It is possible that the
deposits are part of the 1820 fascine that faced the parapet and
that after the organic matter had deteriorated, the earthen fill
gradually eroded into the moat. This hypothesis is partially
supported by the Dorr Map of 1860 (Figure 4), which reveals
a space between the then existing parapet and moat drainage
that would correspond to Stratum F.
There is no clear indication of Zone 3 deposits on the
north side, although soil deposits (Stratum G) above
Substratum II may in actuality be associated with this period.
The soil deposits are ambiguous as to their affiliation: They
may be part of the moat or part of Zone 3. This leads to an








interesting question: Why are the soil deposits above
Substratum Il identical to those below the substratum? Given
that erosional problems always plagued the soil and sod of the
counterscarp, it is possible that soil deposits on the north side
of the moat are reflective of erosion and not water-borne or
water-laid sediments. Unfortunately, modern utility lines have
bisected the interface between these two different types of soil
deposits found in the moat (i.e., Strata J and G).
The purpose and dating of Feature 2 is uncertain. It
may associate with the American restoration of the Cubo Line
in the 1830s. It should be noted that during the restoration
that occurred during the 1830s, a 5-foot-high parapet was
established. If the parapet was 19.25 feet wide, which
includes the fascine, then access along the scarp would have
been facilitated by a walkway over the moat deposits. This
interpretation, however, awaits further excavation.
Zone 4 represents that part of the moat associated
with the construction of the railroad bridge (Feature 1) and
trash deposition from circa the 1800s to 1908. This zone
consists of the remnants of a railroad bridge that was built in
1885 to cross the existing moat depression and then dismantled
in 1909. Trash deposits were recovered from an oxidized sand
lens (Stratum E) and were most likely discarded from the
bridge after it was discontinued. All trash disposal in the moat
was stopped by 1908 by the City Council.
The present investigation uncovered little of the
bridge. Most of it was directly east of our excavations, under
Riberia Street. What information was obtained on the bridge
came from historical documents, which indicate that it was
used by the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Halifax River
Railway from circa 1885 to 1890. The bridge was requested
by Henry Flagler to help facilitate transportation of materials
to be used in the construction of his hotels. It is estimated that
the bridge was more than 33 feet long.
The trash deposited in the moat represents secondary
refuse (i.e., items worn out or broken and discarded away
from its location of use). The majority of artifacts are related
to consumable items (such as food, beverages, and medicines).
Some household artifacts (such as tableware and ornaments),
personal items (shoes and a glass lens), and architectural items
were recovered. These items, however, were secondary to
consumable items. The material could have been deposited by
one or more occupants of the numerous residences that
occurred in the immediate area, based on information recorded
on the Ritchie Map (1894).
Zone 5 represents the filling of the 1909 moat
depression by the St. Johns County School Board to reclaim
land for the construction of school buildings and other
facilities. This zone consists of a yellow sand (Stratum D),
which contained some artifacts. Between 2 to 20 inches of fill
dirt was brought in to fill the then extant moat, although the
counterscarp was still a distinct feature after this activity (see
Figure 6). Apparently, enough fill dirt had been brought into


124

the project area to cover the standing water at high tide and the
unsightly trash at low tide.
During this period, similar activities were taking place
along other estuary systems were trash accumulation had
become an eyesore and a sanitation problem (Halbirt 1991).
Clean up was not the purpose of the project, however, only the
by-product.
Zone 6 represents soil deposits that have accumulated
over the Cubo Line after 1909. This zone consists of Stratum
A (the road asphalt and lime rock) and Strata B and C. The
latter two strata are composed of sands, gravels, and rootlets.
Part of the soil deposits within this zone may have been built
up over the past 50 years by the action of City street sweepers
who, according to local residents, unloaded their debris in the
project area.

Conclusion

The Cubo Line had its origins in the uncertainties of
the early eighteenth century, promulgated by the European
War of Spanish Succession in 1702. It is no coincidence that
Governor James Moore's siege of St. Augustine was a
response to this international conflict and the Spanish-Franco
alliances that were forming in the Southeast (Crane 1956:75).
Control of the native American trade, along with
expansionistic tendencies by the English and French and the
decline of Spanish hegemony, led to irreconcilable differences
and an increase in hostilities along the frontier. Within this
unsettled atmosphere, the officials of St. Augustine recognized
the need to increase defenses beyond that afforded by Castillo
de San Marcos. The first line of defense was the Cubo Line.
For more than 50 years, the Cubo Line has been the
focus of various historical and archaeological inquiries.
Commencing in the late 1930s, with the Carnegie Institution
investigations of the defenses of St. Augustine (Chatelain
1941) and continuing to the present, information has continued
to shed new light relevant to the physical characteristics and
history of this significant military feature. A synopsis of that
data has been presented so that the results of the City
investigations at the intersection of Orange and Riberia streets
could be interpreted.
Through the City's investigation, 12 distinct soil
strata and six archaeological features have been documented.
From this information, six different depositional episodes were
identified, referred to as Zones 1 through 6. These deposits
extend from 1808 to the present, a period of 185 years.
When compared with previous archaeological
investigations some of these zones are continuous along the
course of the alignment, while other zones are not. In
particular, it is the later modifications to the Cubo Line (Zone
2) and post-abandonment deposits (Zones 3-6) that evidence
the most variation. Those aspects of the Cubo Line that were
documented at either end of the line associate with Zone 1, the





125


reconstructed line of 1808. These include: 1) the presence of
revetment logs, 2) the presence of a berm and construction
platform along the exterior scarp of the parapet, and 3) for the
moat, a relatively consistent width (approximately 41 feet) and
depth (15 to 20 inches for water-laid deposits).
Why the zones documented at the intersection of
Orange and Riberia streets are not consistent throughout the
course of the Cubo Line is due to a variety of factors. Some of
the soil deposits noted in the moat may have been overlooked
or discounted by earlier investigators. For example, the
probable remnants of the 1820 fascines (Feature 4 and
Substratum I1) that were documented here were not previously
recorded. Other differences are related to historical factors and
natural formation processes, such as erosion (cf. Schiffer
1976:15-16).
Most differences along the course of the Cubo Line
can be explained by analyzing the historical disturbances that
have occurred. This point is illustrated by: 1) the presence of
a railroad bridge (Feature 1) and subsequent human occupation
in the immediate project area resulted in the unique deposits
associated with Zone 4 (the oxidized sand and trash dump); 2)
the yellow sand found in Zone 5 varies from the white sand
recorded by Griffin (1963:Figure 2) and represents different
eras in which filling occurred; and 3) Feature 2 (wooden
planks) and soil deposits (Substratum F2) found in Zone 3 may
correspond to the American restoration of the line in the
S1830s. It should be noted that because most of the
archaeological evidence for the restoration in 1830 is found
around the Cubo Redoubt, this activity may have been limited
in nature. Thus, the archaeological evidence contradicts the
scope of the historical claim, i.e., that restoration occurred
along the entire course of the line.
Other differences are due to natural causes, such as
erosion. Zone 3 is considered to have been formed by the
erosion of the counterscarp and parapet into the moat
depression. Although the south half of the moat could be
identified, the north portion was poorly defined.
The lessons learned and information obtained during
this project provide clues that will be relevant to future
archaeological investigations that occur along the Cubo Line.
Aside from projects that trigger the City's Archaeological
Preservation Ordinance, specifically the installation of buried
utility lines, there is afoot a project (that is in the planning
stages) to restore a portion of the Cubo Line from the City
Gate to the intersection of Orange and Cordova streets. The
information provided here will help guide those investigations.

Acknowledgments

This report would not have been possible without the
assistance of numerous individuals. Field efforts would not
have been possible without the assistance of Keith Ashley of


FAS. Analysis of artifacts was facilitated by the efforts of
Betty Riggan, John Bobinski, Richard Todd, and Margaret
Perkins of the St. Augustine Archaeological Association.
Conversations with and reference material provided by Luis R.
Arana and Albert C. Manucy were crucial in the preparation of
this report. Dr. Manucy reviewed and commented on an
earlier draft of this report. Page Edwards of the St. Augustine
Historical Society provided access to maps and historical
documents cited here. Clara A. Gualtieri provided the
encouragement, support, and editorial advice to bring this
paper to fruition. To all of you, your help and guidance are
appreciated.


References Cited

Arana, Luis R.
1960 The Spanish Infantry: The Queen of Battles in Florida,
1671-1702. M.A. thesis, Department of History,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

1964 The Cubo Line, 1704-1909. Ms on file, Castillo de San
Marcos National Monument, St. Augustine.

n.d.a The Endurance of Castillo de San Marcos 1668-1763:
Construction and Repairs During the First Spanish
Period. Ms on file, Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument, St. Augustine.

n.d.b The Honor of the Spanish Arms, 1784-1821:
Construction and Repairs During the Second Spanish
Period. Ms on file, Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument, St. Augustine.

Arana, Luis R., and Albert C. Manucy
1977 The Building of the Castillo de San Marcos. Eastern
National Park and Monument Association for the Castillo
de San Marcos National Monument, St. Augustine.


Arnade, Charles W.
1959 The Siege of St. Augustine in 1702.
Florida Press, Gainesville.


University of


Bearss, Edwin C., and John C. Paige
1983 Historic Structure Report, Castillo de San Marcos
National Monument, Florida. Denver Service Center,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Denver.

Bramson, Seth
1984 Speedway to Sunshine. Boston Mill Press, Ontario,
Canada.








Carter, Clarence Edwin (compiler and editor)
1960 The Territorial Papers of the United States, Volume
XXV: The Territory of Florida, 1834-1830. The
National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Caywood, Hobart
1963 The Cubo Line. Ms on file, Castillo de San Marcos
National Monument, St. Augustine.

Chatelain, Verne E.
1941 The Defenses of Spanish Florida 1565 to 1763.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 511.
Washington, D. C.

Connor, Jeannette T.
1926a The Nine Old Wooden Forts of St. Augustine. Florida
Historical Quarterly 4:103-111.

1926b The Nine Old Wooden Forts of St. Augustine.
Florida Historical Quarterly 4:170-180.

Crane, Verner W.
1956 The Southern Frontier, 1670-1732. Ann Arbor
Paperbacks, The University of Michigan Press.

Deagan, Kathleen
1983 Spanish St. Augustine, The Archaeology of a Colonial
Creole Community. Studies in Historical Archaeology,
Academic Press, NY.

Geiger, Maynard
1936 The Franciscan Conquest of Florida. The Catholic
University of America Studies in Hispanic-American
History, Vol. 1. Catholic University of America,
Washington, D. C.

Graham, Thomas
1978 The Awakening of St. Augustine, The Anderson Family
and the Oldest City: 1821-1924. St. Augustine Historical
Society, FL.

Griffin, John W.
1963 Archaeological Investigations of the Cubo Line, 1963.
Ms on file, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,
St. Augustine.

Halbirt, Carl D.
1991 Archaeological Investigations at 157 Washington
Street (BDAC 91-0129). Ms on file, Planning and
Building Department, City of St. Augustine.

1992 Archaeological Investigations at the Intersection of
Orange and Riberia Streets: The Cubo Line Revisited


126
(BDAC Number 90-0374). Ms on file, Planning and
Building Department, City of St. Augustine.

n.d. Archaeological Investigations Along Spanish Street
(BDAC 90-0131). Ms in preparation.

Halbirt, Carl D., and Linnea J. Carver
1992 Documented Archaeological Projects in St.
Augustine: An Inventory of the City's Archaeological
Resources. Ms on file, Planning and Building
Department, City of St. Augustine.

Johnson, Robert D., Keith H. Ashley, and Paul L. Weaver
1991 The Cubo Line Revisited, Archaeological Monitoring
of the ATC Microtel Fiber-Optic Cable Orange Street
Installation Project, St. Augustine, Florida. Ms on file,
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, St.
Augustine.
Manucy, Albert C.
1962 The Houses of St. Augustine. The St. Augustine
Historical Society.

1973 The City Gate of St. Augustine. El Escribano
10(1):1-13.

1989 The Fort Mose (moh-say) Picture, Memo to Kathleen
A. Deagan. Ms on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.

Sastre, Cecile-Marie
1989 The British Redoubts of St. Augustine. Ms on file,
Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board.

Schiffer, Michael B.
1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press, NY.

Tebeau, Charlton W.
1971 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press.

Winter, W. John
1937a St. Augustine Historical Survey, Archaeologist's
Report No. 1: First Excavation in City Moat Site. Ms
on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.

1937b St. Augustine Historical Survey, Archaeologist's
Report No. 3, Part 1: City Moat Site of Fort Marion
Grounds. Ms on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.

1937c St. Augustine Historical Survey, Archaeologist's
Report No. 6: City Moat Site No. 3-Bridge at City
Gates. Ms on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.

1937d St. Augustine Historical Survey, Archaeologist's
Report No. 11: City Moat Site No 4-Redoubt near





127


Sevilla Street. Ms on file, St. Augustine Historical
Society.

1937e St. Augustine Historical Survey, Archaeologist's
Report No. 12: Cubo Redoubt-City Moat Site No. 5.
Ms on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.
1937f St. Augustine Historical Survey, Field Notes. Ms on
file, St. Augustine Historical Society.

1938 St. Augustine Historical Survey, Archaeologist's
Report No. 13: City Moat Site No 5-Supplementary
Report on Cubo Redoubt. Ms on file, St. Augustine
Historical Society.

Woodell, M. A.
1938 St. Augustine Historical Survey, Field Notes for Cubo
Moat Site. Ms on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.


Map Sources

Bruce, F. W.
1888 A Map of St. Augustine and Vicinity. Photocopy of
map on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.

Cruz, Ramon de la
1821 Piano del Presidio de Sn. Agustin en la Florida.
Photocopy on map on file, St. Augustine Historical
Society.

Dorr, F. W.
1860 Map of St. Augustine and Vicinity, East Florida.
Photocopy of map on file, St. Augustine Historical
Society

Ritchie, H. J.
1894 Birds Eye View of St. Augustine, Florida. Photocopy
of map on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.

Norris, Wellge, and Swift
1885 A View of the City of St. Augustine, Florida.
Photocopy of map on file, St. Augustine Historical
Society.



Car D. Halbirt
City of St. Augustine
P.O. Drawer 210
St. Augustine, Florida 32085





128


IDENTIFYING AND LOCATING THE HORNABEQUE LINE: AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY
SPANISH FORTIFICATION IN ST. AUGUSTINE

Carl D. Halbirt


The City of St. Augustine's Archaeology Program is
required to investigate all properties subject to modern
disturbance that contain potential archaeological deposits, as
defined in the City's Archaeological Preservation Ordinance
(see Halbirt and Carver 1992). For some projects, the
investigation does not yield any archaeological remains.
Rather than dismissing the resources) in these instances, the
City's program undertakes other avenues of inquiry to
document the nature of those archaeological depositss. Such a
case involved the investigation of a section of property owned
by the Catholic Diocese known as Mission Nombre de Dios,
which was believed to contain remnants of the Hornabeque
Line, a historical defensive alignment.
Although no archaeological remains were found that
associate with the Hornabeque Line, it was decided to launch a
review of existing historical data to: 1) understand the history
and purpose of the Hornabeque Line; 2) document the physical
characteristics of this fortification; 3) define the location and
orientation of the line; and 4) establish a reference source for
future archaeological projects that may occur along or adjacent
to the Hornabeque Line.
This review and assessment was conducted in association
with the installation of a storm drain that bisected portions of
Archaeological Zones IIA and ID (Halbirt 1992). The storm
drain extended from the tidal pool of Hospital Creek south to
Pine Street, a distance of 272 feet (Figure 1). Archaeological
investigation involved monitoring the excavation of a backhoe
trench that measured 2-3 feet wide by 2.5-4 feet deep, into
which the 12-inch diameter storm drain was placed. The
trench sloped from south to north and was adjacent to an
existing storm drain line that had collapsed and was being
discontinued.
This is the third project that has been implemeted on this
portion of the property owned by the Catholic Diocese. The
other two projects were auger surveys, both conducted in the
1970s (Luccketti n.d.; Herron 1980). These earlier survey
projects have been summarized by Chaney (1986), who notes
that the area in question lacks historical remains.

The Hornabeque Line

The Hornabeque Line (or Hornwork Line) was a
defensive palisade and earthwork constructed during the early
eighteenth century to protect the northern access route into the
city. The term "hornwork" refers to the two half bastions at


either end of the line that stuck out like the horns of a bull.
According to Pedro de Lucuze's Principios de Fonrtficati6n,
hornworks are known to have been one of the principal field
fortifications during the eighteenth century (Lucue in Manucy
1989:11). "The hornwork is very useful for occupying nearby
commanding ground or terrain that might facilitate...[enemy]
attack, overlook some low ground, cover the defective part of
the stronghold, or secure an important source of water"
(Lucuze in Manucy 1989:11).
The Hornwork Line was located less than one-half mile
north of the Castillo de San Marcos, along the narrowest
portion of the peninsula that led into the city. The defensive
alignment was approximately one-half mile in length. It
measured 1,650 feet from the mouth of the tidal pool at
Hospital Creek to the San Sebastian River (or between the two
half bastions) and an additional 850 feet from the half bastion
at the edge of the tidal pool to Fort Nombre de Dios. This
assessment is based on measurements taken from various maps
produced during the eighteenth century (Castello 1764, Purcell
1777, Des Barres 1782, Rocque 1791). The Des Barres Map
(Figure 2) shows the location of the Hornwork Line in relation
to the town of St. Augustine and other defensive fortifications
ca. 1782.
A major component of St. Augustine's defensive system,
the Hornwork Line underwent sporadic use and repair during
three cultural periods in the eighteenth century: the First
Spanish Period (1565-1763), the British Period (1764-1783),
and the Second Spanish Period (1784-1821). The Hornwork
Line was built by the Spanish in 1706 as a "heavy log palisade
[that] coursed westward from Fort Nombre de Dios to a casa
fuerte [fortified house or tower] at the San Sebastian shore"
(Arana 1991:28). The palisade replaced the then deteriorating
Cubo Line (Halbirt 1992:7; Arana 1964:6) and served as the
northernmost line of defense to the city during the remainder
of the War of Spanish Succession, or Queen Anne's War. The
line was described in 1712 by then Governor Francisco de
Corcoles y Martinez as a "stout stockade line of whole pines"
(Manucy 1989:5) that was provided with artillery (Chatelain
1941:84). In 1716, the line was repaired; however, twelve
years later it became the casualty of an attack on the Yamassee
mission settlement of Nombre de Dios by Carolinians and their
Indian allies. The line apparently was destroyed; it is not
shown on the Arredondo Map (1737) or mentioned in any
documents of the period.
Subsequent to the siege of St. Augustine in 1740 by


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 2


JUNE 1993


































































0 250500 1000 1800


S
0
*
*
*
*
*
























2000


SCALE IN FET


Figure 1. Location of storm drain in relation to tidal pool and Archaeological Zones IIA and ID. (Arrow indicates project
location.)


tHA


__i C _




















S4






if, r 4...... ..:.0 ,: f1
0oo
,y~ e A
t.




!, z .:!,%
2 it %u i


'S
~;' *NORTH


.44- 6 e
7. -1"; . . ~ .



S 0

0 ... ~~lp~

4
r, 0 40-



'.4.~ ... L QI~r-] *15


4.




.4
-:


. A


KWCD-C0t34 I H.? t7CIELLE MCMLXXMVU


-4 PLAN


HIIARBOUIR. of STAUGUsTIN

PROVINCE of G1EORG1IA
C-Pe-od e Pu(Jud
From
SURVEYs 4Ap.J.oudtA. OrFFIC

RIGHT HONOURABLEt U.LoPis of fRAD E
6y
7. F-W.DES BARPhS E


A n- -l -
--u..a


Figure 2. The Des Barres Map of 1782 as copied by H. Mitchell, 1988. (Arrow indicates approximate project location along
Hornwork Line.)


7~








General James Oglethorpe of Georgia, and his inauspicious
return in 1743 (Peckham 1964:90-95), the Spanish set upon a
course of strengthening the defenses of St. Augustine,
including the reestablishment of the Hornwork Line in 1746.
The Homwork Line was rebuilt to "prevent the enemy from
coming too close to the Cubo Line as it had happened in 1740"
(Arana 1991:30). This rebuilding episode changed the
composition of the Homwork Line from a palisade to a
parapet. The earliest known description of the second
Hornwork Line is in the key to the Castello Map (1764),
which describes the line as a "hornwork of sod, 15 feet high,
for insuring the city against surprise...[and] where there is an
advance guard" (in Chatelain 1941:85). Castello's description
of a 15-foot high fortification probably referred to the distance
from the base of the ditch to the top of the parapet. Additional
information is found in the key to the Elixio de la Puente Map
(1769), which describes the work as the "Hornwork or Parapet
of sod and thorns [probably 'bayonets'] that has a large ditch
by which at high tide the said Creek of Macaris communicates
with the river of San Sebastian" (in Chatelain 1941:85).
(Macaris Creek later became known as Hospital Creek.)
Chatelain (1941:85) suggests that the ditch could have
been a British innovation, based on two lines of evidence: 1)
the ditch is not mentioned in any of the earlier documents
(including the Castello Map), and 2) Puente's map was drawn
during the British occupation. According to Dr. Albert C.
Manucy, however, this may have been an oversight on
Castello's part. As an engineer, Castello may have assumed
that the reader would associate a ditch with the Hornwork
Line. The ditch would have been the source of fill for the 15-
foot high fortification. Puente's later account of the Homwork
Line reflects his keen insight into documenting and describing
former Spanish holdings. According to Dr. John W. Griffin,
Puente is known to have visited St. Augustine during the late
1760s to clandestinely obtain military information that could
be used to retake the city by force while he conducted business
related to the sale and transfer of Spanish holdings to British
ownership.
The Spanish withdrew from Florida in 1763, and the
Hornwork Line fell into disrepair during the first decade of
British occupation in St. Augustine. Some restorations may
have been planned in 1768 in concert with the construction of
military barracks for British troops, although these were never
implemented. A topographic pen-and-ink sketch of the
proposed British barracks by Genral Thomas Gage shows the
relationship of the barracks to the Hornwork Line (Figure 3).
The proposed barracks were not built at this location. Instead,
the abandoned convent of St. Francis was used to house the
British garrison (Hoffman 1990).
The Gage Map (1768) provides a plan view of the
Horwork Line that can be used to understand the physical
conditions of this feature at the time of Spanish withdrawal
from Florida. In particular, the map shows that the Hornwork
Line initially consisted of a parapet along the southern


boundary of the tidal pool. A ditch does not appear until west
of the tidal pool, at which point it appears to be present for the
remainder of the line, thus supporting Puente's observations
(also see the Des Barres Map, Figure 2). Based on
measurements taken from the Gage Map, the width of the
parapet averaged 12.5 feet, with a range of 8 to 20 feet.
Comparable widths also have been recorded for parapets
associated with the Cubo and Mose lines at the end of the First
Spanish Period (Manucy 1989). The ditch is illustrated as
being between 25 feet wide at the east end to 50 feet wide at
the gate. The gate shown on the Castello Map (1764) and
Purcell Map (1777) was equidistant between the half bastions.
It was not until the advent of the American Revolution
that the Hornwork Line was repaired as part of the British
strategy to strengthen the defenses of St. Augustine.
Information from the files at Castillo de San Marcos National
Monument indicate that the British made repairs to the existing
fortifications within St. Augustine by October 30, 1776,
stating that they were to be a barrier to the rebels. Associated
with the Hornwork Line at this time was a guardhouse adjacent
to the gate and bridge, as shown on the Purcell Map (1777).
During the British Period, the Horwork Line was known as
the "Barrier Retrenchment," as referenced on the Gage Map
and shown in the key to the Purcell Map.
The British restoration of the Hornwork Line was to be
the last major work performed on the fortification. After the
British withdrawal from St. Augustine in 1784, the Spanish
had neither the time nor inclination to maintain this line of
defense. In 1791, however, the military engineer Mariano de
la Rocque drew plans and implemented a project to repair the
bridge leading into the Homwork Line. Whether this was for
military or commercial purposes is unknown. It seems likely,
however, that both played a deciding role in the allotment of
more than 5,000 pesos for its restoration (Rocque 1792). The
Spanish maintained a guard of 10 men (a sergeant, a corporal,
and 8 others) at the Horwork Line until at least 1792,
according to muster roles in Bundle 176G14 of the East
Florida Papers. By the turn of the nineteenth century, the
Hornwork Line appears to have been abandoned. It is not
mentioned in any of the subsequent East Florida Papers for the
period 1794 to 1815. The Hornwork Line apparently was
allowed to fall into disrepair and decay.
The Hornwork Line did not disappear after it ceased to
have military significance. It is shown on various maps of the
Second Spanish Period (ca. 1784-1821). The last map that
illustrated the Hornwork Line is the Wilson Map (1819).
Traces of the earthwork were still evident until the early
decades of the twentieth century-before the area became
urbanized (cf. Chatelain 1941:85).
To date, only limited archaeological efforts have been
implemented to relocate and investigate the Hornwork Line.
Verne E. Chatelain attempted to locate this historical feature
through an archaeological survey during his study of the
defenses of St. Augustine. After three weeks of investigation


















KEY

EIE PRIVY
O WELL
... PARAPET (wall)
S MARSH
I MARSH


Scale: feet

0 250ft


*M LX -
L us


0O


Figure 3. An illusraton of the Gage Map of 1768, showing the location of the proposed British barracks in reltion to the
Hornabeque Line.


132


z


INDIAN
CHURCH


0







133
(from March to April 1938), all that was documented were
"slight traces of the fort [Mission Nombre de Dios] at the
eastern end of the line and the parapet west of San Marco
Avenue" (Chatelain 1941:85). Chatelain did, however,
establish the probable location of the Homwork Line by
overlaying the Puente Map (1769) upon a "comparatively
recent city map." (A search of Chatelain's field records on file
at the St. Augustine Historical Society did not yield this
overlay.)

Monitoring Results and Discussion

Archaeological investigations involved monitoring the
installation of the storm drain. The trench backdirt pile was
examined for artifacts and the trench walls were faced with a
trowel to record any artifacts, cultural features, or soil
anomalies that might be exposed. Except for a horizontally
placed pine log that extended across the trench, no significant
archaeological deposits were documented. What was found
was a series of soil deposits that had been brought into the area
during the late 1800s to early 1900s to fill the tidal pool.
Different episodes of filling are distinguishable by changes in
soil color and texture as well as from the few artifacts observed
during monitoring.
The horizontal pine log was 12 inches in diameter. The
log extended across the width of the trench and was situated in
fill deposits 2.5 feet below the present ground surface. No
artifactual remains were found that could help to explain the
"why" of the log's provenience. Given that the log ran parallel
to the elevational contour lines of the tidal pool (Halbirt
1992:Figure 8) and that it occurs within fill deposits, it is
probable that the log may have been either a barrier to erosion
or was some type of landscape feature.

Conclusion

Monitoring the installation of the storm drain on property
owned by the Catholic Diocese did not uncover any
archaeological remains associated with the Hornabeque Line,
which was believed to occur on the property. What was
uncovered were deposits related to recent filling episodes of
the tidal pool that is part of Hospital Creek. To determine
whether the Homwork Line had been on the property required
a study of historical maps. This discussion focuses on the
second Homwork Line (1746-1792), for which most historical
documentation exists.

Location and Archaeology of the Hornwork Line

Locating the Hornwork Line relative to existing street
layouts was accomplished by overlaying one of the historical
maps that showed the Hornwork Line onto the 1923 street map
of St. Augustine, similar to that done by Chatelain (1941:85).
Such an endeavor had been attempted previously by Charles S.


Coomes. In 1932, Coomes overlaid a portion of the 1782 Des
Barres Map onto a corresponding portion of the 1923 city
street map. The results are shown in Figure 4. It is evident
that the Hornwork Line occurs south of the project area. The
project area and the adjacent strip of Pine Street are located in
the historic tidal pool area of Hospital Creek. Similar results
are evident when the Dorr Map (1860) is scaled and compared
to the 1970 USGS topographical map of St. Augustine. The
Dorr Map is probably the best reference source for
understanding the nature of the historical landscape in St.
Augustine prior to urban development. It also is evident from
the Dorr Map that the project area and adjacent strip of Pine
Street occur within the historic tidal pool area (Figure 4).
Thus, the Coomes Overlay is supported by other sources.
Because the Hornwork Line has not been investigated
archaeologically, what remains of this historical feature is
unknown. It can be surmised that the ditch and lower portions
of the parapet to the second Homwork Line remain intact,
based on excavations at other defensive alignments in St.
Augustine that contain similar features, such as the Cubo Line
(Halbirt 1992; Griffin 1963) and the Mose Line (Piatek 1989).
In addition, portions of a firing step may be present along the
interior scarp of the parapet. This feature is an elevated area
that enables defenders to fire over the top of the parapet.
Firing steps have been documented along the Cubo and Mose
lines, and there is no reason to suspect that one was not present
along the Homwork.
The ditch and lower portions of the Horwork Line
would be manifest by distinct soil stains in the form of a
depression and a slight mound. The nature of these stains
(i.e., color and texture) is unknown at this time. It can be
assumed, however, based on historical and archaeological
evidence, that the depression affiliated with the ditch would
consist of: 1) mottled sands associated with the counterscarp
on the north and parapet on the south, and 2) some water-laid
deposits, especially toward the center of the depression where
an apparent channel linked Macaris Creek to the San Sebastian
River. This latter observation is drawn from Rocque's (1792)
profile drawing of the bridge crossing, which shows a channel
within the ditch. A similar channel is shown on the Purcell
Map (1777). The parapet would be composed of peninsular
sands. The height and depth of the deposits presently are
unknown although the ditch may have exceeded 5 feet in
depth, based on Rocque's (1792) profile drawing of the bridge
crossing. Historical artifacts may be found within the ditch,
especially around the gate where the guardhouse was located.
In addition to the remnants of the second Homwork Line,
post hole stains associated with the palisade of the first
Hornwork Line (1706-1728) also may be present, provided
that they were not removed during construction of the second
line. These post holes would consist of dark stains within a
lighter colored peninsular sandy soil. The stains would reflect
the remnants of a series of pine logs placed upright, forming a
palisade fortification.






134


- y -4 d l a fi

S-At
^*3Y rr.-e <-- J


KEY
COLONIAL DEFENSE

S' HISTORIC MARSH LINE

1923 STREET ALIGNMENTS
STREET IN FORMER MARSH


Scale: feet
0 500 1000
_I -- I


S 1700s NOMBRES DE DIOS CHURCH

S1860 MARSH EDGE (Dorr Map)





Figure 4. A portion of the Coomes Overlay of 1932, showing the location of the Hornabeque and Cubo lines in relation to a 1923
map of St. Augustine. (Arrow indicates project trench location.)







135
These assumptions, based on historical and archaeological
evidence, await confirmation. City archaeology projects
undoubtedly will be conducted in this area and will expose
sections of the Hornabeque Line for future research.

Acknowledgments

This report would not have been possible without the
assistance of numerous individuals. Conversations with, and
reference material provided by, Luis R. Arana, John W.
Griffin, Albert C. Manucy, and Charles A. Tingley were
crucial. Page Edwards of the St. Augustine Historical Society
provided photocopies of the Des Barres and Coomes
illustrations used herein. Clara A. Gualtieri provided
encouragement, support, and editorial comments. To all of
you, your help and dedication are appreciated.

References Cited

Arnna, Luis R.
1964 The Cubo Line, 1704-1909. Ms on file, Castillo de San
Marcos National Monument, St. Augustine, FL.

1991 Fortifications of Spanish Florida, 1565-1763. Courier
(Special Issue):26-30.

Chaney, Edward E.
1986 Survey and Evaluation of Archaeological Resources in
the Abbott Tract and North City, St. Augustine. Ms on
file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board.


Chatelain, Verne E.
1941 The Defenses of Spanish Florida 1565 to 1763.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 511.
Washington, D.C.

Halbirt, Carl D.
1992 Archaeological Investigations at the Intersection of
Orange and Riberia Streets: The Cubo Line Revisited.
Ms on file, Planning and Building Department, City of
St. Augustine.

Halbirt, Carl D., and Linnea J. Carver
1992 Documented Archaeological Projects in St. Augustine:
An Inventory of the City's Archaeological Resources.
Ms on file, Planning and Building Department, City of
St. Augustine.

Herron, Mary
1980 A Sub-surface Survey of the City of St. Augustine:
Precincts Lying Outside the Limits of the Colonial
Walled Town. Ms on file, Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board.


Hoffman, Kathleen
1990 Archaeological Excavations at the Florida National
Guard Headquarters. Ms on file, St. Augustine
Historical Society, St. Augustine.

Luccketti, Nicholas
n.d. Archaeological Survey of the Nombre de Dios Mission
and the Fountain of Youth Park, St. Augustine. Ms on
file, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Manucy, Albert C.
1989 The Fort Mose (moh-say) Picture, Memo to Kathleen
A. Deagan. Ms on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.


Peckham, Howard H.
1964 The Colonial Wars 1689-1762.
Chicago Press, Chicago.


The University of


Piatek, Bruce J.
1989 Construction of the Bridge Club (BDAC No. 88-2024).
Ms on file, Planning and Building Department, City of
St. Augustine.

Rocque, Mariano de la
1792 Calculo Prudencial de los Materiales del Puente del
Hornabeque. In East Florida Papers Reel 76, Bundle
176G14, on file St. Augustine Historical Society,
Florida.


Map Sources

Arredondo, Antonio de
1737 Plano de la Ciudad de Sn. Agustin de la Florida... In
The Defenses of Spanish Florida 1565 to 1763, by Verne
E. Chatelain 1941, Map 10. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Publication 511. Washington, D.C.

Castello, Pablo
1764 Plano del Presidio de Sn. Agustin... In The Defenses of
Spanish Florida 1565 to 1763, by Verne E. Chatelain
1941, Map 13. Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Publication 511. Washington, D.C.

Des Barres, J. F. W.
1782 A Plan of the Harbour of St. Augustin in the Province
of Georgia. Photocopy of map on file, St. Augustine
Historical Society.

Dorr, F. W.
1860 Map of St. Augustine and Vicinity, East Florida.
Photocopy of map on file, St. Augustine Historical
Society.







136


Gage, Thomas
1768 A Plan of the Ground Allotted by His Excellence
Governor James Grant for the Troops. In The
Correspondence of General Thomas Gage with the
Secretaries of State 1763-1775, compiled and edited by
Clarence Edwin Carter, pp. 213-214. Yale University
Press 1931, New Haven.

Puente, Juan Joseph Elixio de la
1769 Piano del Presidio Sn. Agustin en la Florida...
Photocopy of map on file, St. Augustine Historical
Society.

Purcell, J.
1777 A Plan of St. Augustine Town and Its Environs in East
Florida. Photocopy of map on file, St. Augustine
Historical Society.

Rocque, Mariano de la
1791 Piano General de la Plaza de San Agustin de la
Florida... In The Defenses of Spanish Florida 1565 to
1763, by Verne E. Chatelain 1941, Map 18. Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Publication 511.

Wilson
1819 Florida: Matanzas River, St. Augustine, and Fort St.
Mark. Photocopy of map on file, Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board.



Carl D. Halbirt
City of St. Augustine
P.O. Drawer 210
St. Augustine, FL 32085







137


THE STRATIGRAPHY OF THE MOSE LINE: ST. AUGUSTINE'S LAST LINE OF DEFENSE


Bruce J. Piatek and Carl D. Halbirt


The last decade of Spain's initial tenure in Florida saw
the culmination of a defensive strategy intended to protect the
community beyond that afforded by Castillo de San Marcos.
Throughout its turbulent history, St. Augustine had been
vulnerable to land attack via the St. Augustine peninsula.
Starting in 1704 with the construction of the Cubo Line and
continuing intermittently for the next 58 years, a series of
defensive lines in conjunction with casas fuertes (fortified
buildings or stockades), redoubts, and/or bastions were
constructed, remodeled, and resurrected. All limited land
access into the city. Two of these defensive lines (the Cube
Line and the Hornabeque) have been discussed according to
their historical significance, location, and archaeology.
The last of the parallel defenses built was the Mose Line.
Constructed in 1762, just before Spain ceded Florida to
England, the line extended from the site of Fort Mose
southwest to a fortified stockade on the banks of the San
Sebastian River (Chatelain 1941:167-168), a distance of
approximately three-quarters of a mile. This defensive
complex, staffed by freed Black militiamen, was intended to be
the vanguard of St. Augustine's defenses. Fort Mose was
located about 2.5 miles north of the city.
This article describes the archaeological investigation of a
section of the Mose Line undertaken by the Historic St.
Augustine Preservation Board in 1988 (Piatek 1989), while
contracted to conduct archaeological investigations for the City
of St. Augustine. The work was performed in conjunction
with the construction of a clubhouse on Lots 3, 4, and 5 in the
McMillan Subdivision (Figure 1). The building and parking
lot adversely impacted one of the few remaining sections of the
Mose Line that had not been subjected to extensive modern
disturbances.
To date, this is the only archaeological project that has
investigated a portion of the Mose Line. Earlier archaeological
surveys of the area did note surface vestiges of the frontal ditch
and parapet that were part of the Mose Line (Smith and Bond
1981:61; Chatelain 1941:91); however, no attempt was made
to understand the nature of the subsurface deposits. What
ensues is a description of the soil stratigraphy associated with
the line and how this information can be used to understand the
construction processes associated with the building of parallel
defenses in St. Augustine.

Historical Background

Before describing its archaeological remains, the Mose
Line must be put into its historical context (that is, its
association with Fort Mose, especially the physical setting).


Detailed accounts of the people, history, and archaeology of
the first freed Black community in North America can be
found in Deagan (1991), Landers (1990a, 1990b), and Marron
(1988, 1989) and need not be recapitulated here.
The development of the Mose Line is associated with the
second occupation of Fort Mose, which lasted from 1752 to
1763. The original fort was destroyed in Governor James
Oglethorpe's siege of St. Augustine in 1740. Fort Mose II
(Manucy 1989) is illustrated on various maps, such as the
Castello Map (1764), the Roworth Map (1765-1775?), the Des
Barres Map (1782), and the Rocque Map (1791). The maps
show a three-sided structure with two bastions, one on the
northwest corner and one on the southwest corer. Two four-
pound cannons and six swivel guns were stationed atop these
bastions (Manucy 1989:6). The fort was constructed of earth
and logs and was surrounded by a dry moat (Figure 2). The
unprotected side of the fort faced a navigable waterway, which
now is known as Robinson Creek. According to the account of
Father Juan Joseph de Solana in 1759, Fort Mose contained
within its confines some thatched huts, a partially completed
church, and a sacristy (Manucy 1989:6). The Castello Map
(1764) reinforces de Solana's observations and illustrates a
watch tower in the center of the compound.
The importance of Fort Mose to the protection of St.
Augustine became paramount with the establishment of the
Mose Line. Constructed in 1762, the line was formed in
cleared terrain, where agricultural crops had been planted the
same year (Chatelain 1941:93; Manucy 1989:7). As with the
Cubo Line and the Hornabeque, the construction of the Mose
Line was guided by geographical considerations (Chatelain
1941:82). Notably, these three defensive lines transected the
St. Augustine peninsula and intersected the San Sebastian
River where the river and marsh widened, thus acting as a
deterrent. Of the three lines, Mose was the longest, measuring
4,000 feet, which is 1.5 times longer than either the Cube Line
or the Hornabeque.
The Mose Line commenced at the southwest bastion of
the fort and angled southwest until it reached the banks of the
San Sebastian River (Figure 2) where it terminated at a
fortified stockade and/or redoubt (Chatelain 1941:167-168).
The siege line was composed of an earthen parapet with cacti
on top, a dry moat, and four bastions. A land gate provided
access through the center of the line (Chatelain 1941:93).
Unlike its predecessors, the Cubo Line and the Hornabeque,
which were battle tested (Chatelain 1941:93), the effectiveness
of the Mose Line was never established.
After Spain ceded Florida to Britain in 1763, the history
of the Mose Line becomes equivocal. According to Chatelain
(1941:93), the "line was maintained until the American period,


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 2


JUNE 1993









138


Figure 1. Location of the project area in relation to Fort Mose
and the Mose Line. (Arrow indicates project area.)


having some value to the town as a means of protection of the
many small farms that existed in the area between it and the
hornwork." An inspection of the historical documents
indicates that the line was not maintained, however. In 1789
Mariano de la Rocque suggested "again restoring this redoubt
and line," which contains "in its extension some triangular
bastions" and which is "the point of attack in this place" (St.
Augustine), since "all those who come from St. Mary and St.
John certainly must come by this passage" (Rocque in
Chatelain 1941:168). Apparently, Rocque's suggestions were
never implemented due to penury and a lack of labor.
The Mose Line continued to be illustrated on historical
maps until the early 1800s, after which it is no longer shown.
A vestige of the line was recorded on the Dorr Map (1860) as a
dirt trail leading from the ruins of Fort Mose to the road
connecting St. Augustine with Jacksonville. In all probability,
the earthen parapet provided access to nearby farmland.

Methodology


The methodology used to investigate the Mose Line was
relatively straightforward. The goals were to locate the Mose
Line on the property and to identify its construction method
and sequence.
The initial goal of locating the line was implemented in
three stages. The first was to conduct a surface investigation
of the property, which indicated the presence of a low-lying
ridge associated with the earthen parapet. Afterwards, the
location and direction of the Mose Line was documented by
establishing a transect station and recording surface elevations
at 5-foot intervals. This resulted in a contour map that shows
the height and orientation of the line across the property
(Figure 3). Auger tests then were conducted perpendicular to
the Mose Line to obtain information as to the nature of the soil
deposits.
Once the location and nature of the Mose Line had been
defined, a trench was excavated to establish the soil
stratigraphy associated with the line (Figure 3). The trench
was placed in the area of the property, which was the locus
subject to the most adverse impacts.
A small front-end loader with a 5-foot-wide bucket was
used to excavate a trench that measured 17.06 meters long by
1.83 meters wide. The loader was operated by an
archaeologist who watched for subsurface features. The aim
was to remove all overburden until features were identified at
which point excavation units would be established. The
possibility existed that post molds would be found along the
edge of the dry moat and at the rear edge of the parapet,
similar to those found along the Cubo Line. No post molds or
other features were encountered, however, thus mechanical
removal of the soil continued until sterile soil was reached.
Once the trench had been excavated, a profile drawing was
made and photographs were taken of the northeast wall of the
trench.






















-, A7., d.









.
IWkFW




















A..



r-- i*.b;






















Figure 2. Enlargement of a section of the Pablo Castello Map of 1764 that shows the historic landscape of the Mose Line and Fort
Mose (from Owaelain 1941: Map 13). (Arrow at upper left indicates approximate location of the project area.)
''~~~~~~. i~ii1 ., A





r





Figre2.En~rgmet o asetio o te Pbl CsteloMa of174 hatshwsthehitoic : Landcae o te oseLie ad or
Moe(roChean 14: Mp1) Aro tupe etidcae prxiaelctono h roetae.






40.64m


SI I I"I / Trf 1'.i- -g II ( I J I I / -- IuDatum 2.7
5cm Contour Lines 50.34m
Elevated Ridge
levat Rige FAIRBANKS STREET



Figure 3. Project site map (from Piatek 1989). (Dashed line is the outline of the clubhou ose building, solid black line is the area of
archaeological excavation, and shaded area is the projected course of the Mose Line.) o








Composition of the Mose Line

The surface investigation and subsequent trench
excavation resulted in a detailed picture of the Mose Line prior
to the construction of the clubhouse and associated parking lot.
Virtually the entire property would be adversely impacted.
The results of the field work are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
The results are divided according to the surface characteristics
and the soil strata of the Mose Line.

Surface Vestiges

A contour map of the site (Figure 3) shows the direction
and size of the surface vestiges of the Mose Line relative to a
datum in the southeast corer of the property. The contour
lines are indicated at 5-cm intervals and the elevations are
expressed in meters above mean sea level. The shaded area
represents the elevated ridge that runs from the northeast
corner to just east of the center of the south property line.
This area represents the eroded remains of the earthen parapet
or defensive wall. Based on surface elevations, the dry moat is
located to the west of the shaded area in a shallow depression.
The elevated location along the ridge is a consequence of a
large oak tree that has modified the topography of the extant
line. This topographic anomaly provided the first indication
that a defensive earthen wall existed on the property.
The Mose Line crosses the clubhouse property on a
north-northeast path. The curve that appears in the contour
map, as well as the expansion and elevational increase, is the
result of the large oak tree.

Soil Strata

Figure 4 shows the northeast profile of the trench that
bisected the Mose Line. It also provides data upon which to
base an interpretation of the construction method and sequence
as well as formation processes associated with the line.
Discussed are details of each soil stratum, its color,
composition, and what human behavior and/or natural
formation process it represents.
The soil in this area of St. Augustine is Tavares Fine
Sand with a 0-5 percent slope (Readle 1983). It has a typical
profile of 0-5 inches (12.7 cm) of gray fine sand, 5-9 inches
(12.7-22.8 cm) of pale brown fine sand, and 9-80 plus inches
(22.8-203+ cm) of very pale brown and white fine sand
(Readle 1983:18).
Soil A is dark grayish brown sandy soil (Munsell
10YR4/2). This soil represents construction activities that
occurred within the previous six months on adjacent properties
to the east. A strip shopping center was constructed and
surplus soils were deposited on this parcel as a result of
clearing and filling activities that extended over the property
boundaries.
Soil B, a very dark grayish brown sand (10YR3/2), also
is recent fill soil. The dark soil color indicates that very little
leaching has taken place. This suggests that the soil was
deposited on the site relatively recently. A thin layer of
decomposing leaves located at the upper interface between Soil
C1 and Soil B at the northwest quarter of the profile indicates
that Soil B is modern fill soil. This soil was deposited over the


previous ground surface without removal of the ground surface
leaf litter. The reason for this depositional sequence is not
clear. It may, however, represent a past effort to level what
formed the top of Soil C, because the greatest deposit of soil is
in the depression that represents the dry moat.
Soil C, very dark gray sand (10YR3/1), represents the
third and older ground surface. The interface of this deposit
and the one above it, in the northwest section of the profile,
contains decomposing leaves. This indicates that this soil was
a ground surface that formed over a substantial period of time.
The soil color results from the organic materials that are
decomposing in the soil but that have not yet leached into the
subsoils. It is likely that this soil represents the accumulation
of deposits formed during the nineteenth- and twentieth-
century occupations of the site, possibly the result of
agricultural activities. Note that Soil C does not cover the lens
of Soil El found in the middle of the profile that represents fill
from the construction of the defensive wall. Erosion and
agricultural activities would have removed the soils in the Soil
El lens and provided them for inclusion in the formation of
Soil C.
Soil lenses C1 and C2, indicated in the Soil C level, are
more mottled than the C soil stratum. These lenses appear to
be erosional deposits of more mixed soil colors. Soils C1 and
D1 are redeposits of soils related to the sewer pipe located
below them. The two deposits of Soil C2 mottled with Soil E,
tan sand, represent erosional processes on sloping soil surfaces
and some disturbance from the installation of the sewer
pipe.
Soil D, which is gray (10YR5/1), also is a ground surface
soil. Its color results from the organic material present in the
soil. Its lighter color indicates a longer formation period,
which allowed for the leaching of organic materials out of the
soil. This soil appears to be the original natural soil surface
that existed prior to and at the time of construction of the Mose
Line in 1762. This soil, by color, indicates that it is the
subsoil of the previously forming humic surface soil indicated
by Soil C, which overlays it. Soil D1 is a disturbed deposit
that represents fill soil for the small sewer drain field indicated
by the sewer pipe in the profile.
Soils D, D2, D3, and D4, which are located in the moat
depression on the northwest edge of the profile, are erosional
deposits. These soils were surface soils for some period of
time after 1762. Soil D4 is gray sand that is heavily mottled
with tan sand. This basal deposit resulted from the erosion of
the tan sand that was the parapet and sides of the dry moat into
the bottom of the dry moat and then mixed with naturally
deposited organic materials. This process would have begun
immediately after the wall was constructed (1762). Soil D4
may represent a single deposit caused by a heavy rain prior to
the growth of vegetation on the sloped surface of the defensive
line. Soils D3 and D2 were deposited in a similar manner but
at a later date. Soil D3 is gray sand mottled with white sand.
It appears to represent erosional activities that involved Soil F.
Soil D2 is gray sand mottled with tan sand but contains less tan
mottling than the D4 soil. Soil D also appears to be a soil
washed into the dry moat or perhaps used as fill to level the
ground surface during the agricultural use of the property. All
these soil deposits are the product of erosional forces, which
resulted in the filling of the dry moat depression.




142


0 5 10 15 20mwe*rs
0 I I i I i J
0 15 30 45 60fe


Figure 4. Profile drawing of the northeast wall of the excavation trench (from Piatek 1989). (Arrow points to clay sewer pipe.)


Soil E, dark brownish yellow (10YR6/0), is the unaltered
natural subsoil of a typical, nonculturally altered soil profile.
It is almost always culturally sterile soil. Its position in a
natural soil profile for the area precedes that of Soils C and D,
as illustrated in the southeast side of the profile drawing.
The lens denoted as Soil El, in the center of the profile,
is clearly a human phenomenon. This lens is the upper fill dirt
for the construction of the packed earth wall that was the Mose
Line. The soil was excavated from the dry moat and placed on
the surface as fill soil.
Soil F, a white sandy soil (10YR8/1), represents the base
soil and first construction activity for the defensive line. This
soil appears to have been hauled to the site as part of the
construction process for the wall. This white sand is found
near the surface on remnant sand dune formations located to
the east near the present-day Intracoastal Waterway. It should
be noted that no evidence of wooden structural elements were
encountered. This indicates that the Mose Line was simply an
earthen wall with a dry moat. It lacked the palisade features
documented for the Cubo Line (Arana 1964).

Discussion


The soil stratigraphy can be used to determine how the
Mose Line was constructed. Although the single trench
represents only 0.15 percent of the estimated 4,000-foot-long
line, the sample studied here is assumed to be representative.
The first construction activity would have been to survey
and mark the route of the defensive line. Once marked, any
vegetation that remained would have been removed. It should
be remembered that the Mose Line was constructed in cleared
terrain, where the planting of agricultural crops had begun the
same year (Chatelain 1941:93; Manucy 1989:7). Therefore,
any trees and/or underbrush probably already had been
removed.
Once the desired location of the wall had been marked,
wagonloads of white sand were hauled in and dumped. This
activity is represented as Soil F (Figure 4), and it formed the
beginnings of the defensive wall. The white sand provided a


clear indication of the wall's route and a line along which the
dry moat was to be dug. Next, the dry moat was excavated.
The tan sand removed during this excavation was deposited on
top of the white sand to form the earthen wall. These soils
would have been compacted to form a linear earthen mound.
The interior edge of the wall's slope may have been reinforced
with adjoining surface soils (Soil D at the southeast end of the
profile) or a firing step or slope may have been constructed.
Note the vertical edge between the earthen wall soils (El and F
at the south end of the profile), and Soil D, which may have
served as a firing step (Figure 5). A firing step is an elevated
platform that allowed soldiers to fire over the wall.
The trench profile provides no indication that any
vegetation might have been planted to stabilize the earthen
slopes. There also was no apparent indication that thorny
vegetation was planted on the crown of the wall as a defensive
enhancement, which was shown to be the case in historical
documents. This is not surprising given the erosion that
occurred on the top and other surfaces of the original earthen
structure.
Based on the profile drawing, the size and shape of the
Mose Line can be established. The dry moat is estimated to
have been 2.75 m (9 ft) wide by 70 cm (2.3 ft) deep; the slope
of the walls was approximately 45 degrees. The earthen
parapet is estimated to have measured 4.25 m (14 ft) wide and
in excess of 50 cm (1.6 ft) high. Separating the parapet and
dry moat was what appears to be a berm, which measured 53
cm (1.7 ft) wide.
The measurements for the Mose Line are not substantially
different from those recorded for the Cubo Line in the 1764
Castello Map. According to the reconstruction proposed by
Manucy (1989:Figure 2), as shown in Figure 5, the
measurements for the parapet, berm, and moat depth and wall
slope of the Cubo Line approximate those recorded for the
Mose Line. One difference between the Mose Line and the
Cubo Line is the width of their respective moats. The Cubo
Line moat is 6 feet wider than the Mose Line moat. This may
be because the Cubo Line moat contained water whereas the
Mose Line's moat was dry. All together, this information
suggests that fabrication of the Mose Line followed a template
for the construction of eighteenth-century defensive lines.























Figure 5. Postulated profile of the Cubo Line based on the Castello Map of 1764 (from Manucy 1989:Figure 2).


The archaeological investigation of the clubhouse site
provides data from possibly the last extant section of the Mose
Line. From these data, the first archaeological description of
the defensive line, its construction, and appearance were
documented. This investigation also provided data with which
to assess the relationship of the Mose Line to other defensive
structures of the mid-eighteenth century presidio of St.
Augustine. These data are significant in that they further our
understanding of St. Augustine's colonial past, especially the
military fortifications that secured this Spanish colony.

Acknowledgments


The authors gratefully acknowledge the field assistance of
Christine L. Newman and David Scott, who mapped the site
and drew the profile of the test trench. We wish to thank Dr.
Albert C. Manucy for his review of and comments on a draft
version of this paper. To Clara A. Gualtieri go our thanks for
her editorial comments and help in producing this report.


References Cited

Arana, Luis R.
1964 The Cubo Line, 1704-1909. Ms on file, Castillo de San
Marcos National Monument, St. Augustine, FL.

Chatelain, Verne E.
1941 The Defenses of Spanish Florida 1565 to 1763.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 511.
Washington, D.C.

Deagan, Kathleen A.
1991 Fort Mose, America's First Free Black Community. In
Spanish Pathways in Florida, edited by Ann L.
Henderson and Gary R. Mormino, pp. 188-203.
Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.

Landers, Jane
1990a Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mose: A Free Black
Town in Spanish Colonial Florida. The American
Historical Review 95(1):9-30.


1990b African Presence in Early Spanish Colonization of the
Caribbean and the Southeastern Borderlands. In
Columbian Consequences, Volume 2: Archaeological and
Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East,
edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 315-327.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Manucy, Albert C.
1989 The Fort Mose (moh-say) Picture, Memo to Kathleen A.
Deagan. Ms on file, St. Augustine Historical Society.

Marron, John
1988 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Site of Fort
Mose, 1987. Ms on file, Florida Museum of Natural
History, Gainesville.

1989 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Site of Fort
Mose, 1988. Ms on file, Florida Museum of Natural
History, Gainesville.

Piatek, Bruce J.
1989 Construction of the Bridge Club (BDAC No. 88-2024).
Ms on file, Planning and Building Department, City of
St. Augustine.

Readle, Elmer L.
1983 Soil Survey of St. Johns County, Florida. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Smith, James M., and Stanley C. Bond, Jr.
1981 Phase III Archaeological Survey of St. Augustine,
Florida. Ms on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation
Board.


Map Sources


Castello, Pablo
1764 Plano del Presidio de Sn. Agustin... In The Defenses of
Spanish Florida 1565 to 1763, by Verne E. Chatelain
1941, Map 13. Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Publication 511.






144


Des Barres, J. F. W.
1782 Plan of the Harbour of St. Augustin in the Province of
Georgia. Photocopy of map on file, St. Augustine
Historical Society.

Dorr, F. W.
1860 Map of St. Augustine and Vicinity, East Florida.
Photocopy of map on file, St. Augustine Historical
Society.

Roworth, Sam
1765-1775? A Plan of the Land Between Fort Mossy and St.
Augustine in the Province of East Florida. In The
Defenses of Spanish Florida 1565 to 1763, by Verne E.
Chatelain 1941, Map 17. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Publication 511.

Rocque, Mariano de la
1791 Piano General de la Plaza de San Agustin de la
Florida... In The Defenses of Spanish Florida 1565 to
1763, by Verne E. Chatelain 1941, Map 18. Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Publication 511.




Bruce J. Piatek
Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board
P.O. Box 1987
St. Augustine, Florida 32084


Carl D. Halbirt
City of St. Augustine
P.O. Drawer 210
St. Augustine, Florida 32085








145


REVIEW


Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida, by Jerald
T. Milanich and Charles Hudson, 1993, Ripley P.
Bullen/Florida Museum of Natural History, Columbus
Quincentenary Series, University Press of Florida, Gainesville,
308 pages. $34.95 (Cloth). ISBN 0-8130-1170-1.


Upon completion of my reading of this book, I found
myself faced with a dilemma. The dilemma is the result of
wanting to laud the authors for a well written document, while
at the same time wanting to set the record straight on a few
issues. In this review I attempt to do both.
The authors state in their Preface that they hope this work
will "bring to the public some understanding of de Soto's
odyssey in Florida as well as an appreciation of the native
peoples he encountered." It should accomplish that purpose.
Few single events in the history of North America have
had such a negative impact on native Americans as did the ill-
fated Spanish expedition led by Hernando de Soto. Yet, from
that tragedy comes an opportunity to better understand the
cultural traditions of the native people who lived along the
expedition's route. De Soto and his followers came for
personal gain. While the expedition has been chronicled by
participants and historians, controversy over the expedition's
landing location and route persist. While some will accept the
conclusions reached by Milanich and Hudson, others will not.
The authors acknowledge this controversy.
In 1539 the de Soto expedition landed on the west coast
of Florida somewhere between Tampa Bay and the
Caloosahatchee River. Milanich and Hudson present their
reasons for concluding that the event occurred at Tampa Bay,
while acknowledging that others may continue to disagree with
their conclusions.
From the landing site, the expedition marched up the
peninsula and into the eastern edge of the Florida Panhandle.
As Milanich and Hudson (1993:17-18) note:

Although we continue to write about the "route" as though
the expedition traveled as a single unit along a single path,
in reality the de Soto expedition cut a much wider swath
through Florida. .. /... At times scouting parties ranged
ahead several days or more, and the parties were sent out
on the flanks to search for food and to explore. Thus,
although the main army, including the supply train, may
have followed a single route several hundred yards across,
the actual width of the de Soto expedition's activities
through Florida and the southern United States could have


been considerably greater, perhaps twenty-five to thirty
miles in some places.


They spent the winter in a principal Apalachee village,
Iniahica, where they refurbished their equipment and gathered
supplies for their continued march. In 1540, the expedition
began its march northward across Georgia into the Carolinas,
then looped around to head southwestward and thence
westward to cross the Mississippi River for a ways into
Arkansas before returning to the river in frustration. The
remnants of the expedition eventually sailed down the
Mississippi and westward to Mexico. However, it is only the
Florida portion of the expedition which is the subject of the
present study.
This study is divided into logically organized chapters.
The first, The Search, recounts some of the past efforts of
other researchers, but not unexpectedly focuses on the efforts
of the authors and their colleagues and students. It also
establishes the framework and lines of reasoning by which the
authors approached this work, stated as follows (pg. 17):

Our methodology, then, was to use the information
contained in the de Soto narratives to draw a line or lines
on a map approximating the route of the expedition. In this
initial reconstruction, available cartographic and
archaeological sources were also used. Then we set out to
collect pertinent information, especially evidence from
archaeological research. What is presented here is the "best
fit" based on all of these sources.

In subsequent chapters, The Landing, North to Ocale,
Ocale to Agile, and To Apalache (including the northward
departure from Apalachee), Milanich and Hudson follow their
described methodology, leading the reader to logically
constructed conclusions. It is a commendable approach,
although it appears flawed and forced in a few places, and on
minor occasions seems to engage in revisionist history -- at
least where it involves research and events with which I was
personally involved, my own bias as it were, the Apalachee
area.
As Milanich and Hudson (1993:216) acknowledge,

In 1987 B. Calvin Jones of the Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research made what is the most spectacular
archaeological discovery to date related to the route of the
Hernando de Soto expedition in Florida. Jones found the


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 2


JUNE 1993






146


site of the Apalachee town of Iniahica where de Soto and
his army spent the winter of 1539-1540. His discovery,
verified by archaeological excavations at the site (called the
Governor Martin site, 8LE853; Ewen 1988, 1989), has
pinpointed the only aboriginal town on the route in Florida
whose identification and location are virtually certain.

In the paragraph preceding the above cited text, Milanich
and Hudson suggest approximate distances from the Aucilla
River and other features which would help pinpoint the
location of Iniahica "somewhere in the vicinity of
Tallahassee," and conclude "indeed it was."
To set the record straight, the discovery of the site by
Jones was based on his own research. It is interesting that my
own earlier research on the predicted location of the de Soto
winter encampment and that of Jones (see Tesar 1980:275-346;
Tesar and Jones 1989:340-360, for example) is not cited
anywhere in the text. This could be rationalized as complying
with a need to hold publication costs down by citing only
readily available sources; however, some 500 of the first were
distributed and the second occurs in The Florida
Anthropologist, indeed in the same issue as one of the citations
of Milanich included in the text Bibliography. Further,
unpublished student papers are cited. Thus, limited
distribution is not an explanation. Further, the cited student
papers date to 1989 and later, two years after B. Calvin Jones
had found the de Soto winter camp. Calvin Jones was the first
to recognize that he had discovered the de Soto winter camp,
and he spent some time gradually convincing his colleagues of
that fact. Additionally, Milanich and Hudson (1993:223)
write that "the research (at the Governor Martin site) was
directed by Charles R. Ewen." Dr. Ewen was hired as
Calvin's assistant and Calvin Jones directed project field
activities. Charlie did, however, direct a related auger survey
project to try to determine the presence of de Soto expedition
related material beyond the Governor Martin property.
This work contains three other informative chapters,
Native Peoples of Southern and Central Florida, Native
Peoples of Northern Florida, and After de Soto: Spain in
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century La Florida. These
serve to place the expedition in its historical context.
Overall, I found this book to be informative and well
reasoned. It is unfortunate that many of the photographic
figures are not as crisp and focused as they could be.
Nonetheless, it is recommended that you consider adding
Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida to your library; it
will be widely cited by future researchers and does achieve the
authors' stated goal of increasing public awareness about this
historical event and its impact on native peoples of Florida.


References Cited

Tesar, Louis D.
1980 The Leon County Bicentennial Survey Project: An
Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of Leon
County, Florida. Florida Department of State, Bureau of
Historic Sites and Properties Miscellaneous Project
Report Series 49, Tallahassee.

Tesar, Louis D., and B. Calvin Jones
1989In Search of the 1539-40 de Soto Expedition Wintering
Site in Apalache. The Florida Anthropologist 42(4):340-
360.



Louis D. Tesar
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Historical Resources
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250








147


CORRECTION: TABLE 2, MIKELL'S LITTLE'S BAYOU WEST ARTICLE, VOL. 46 (1)



Due to a computer error in converting Table 2 of Gregory Mikell's The Little's Bayou West Site: Evidence of Late Weeden
Island-Fort Walton Transition in Northwest Florida, Vol. 46 (1), pg. 18, the data columns were misaligned. The correct
version of the table appears below. The editor regrets any inconvenience to author or reader caused by the error.







Table 2. 8WL543 Radiocarbon Sample Analysis Results


Calibrated Date*
(Intercepts)
Provenience: Context Age Range: 1 sigma Sample#
Beta
TU 1/L 3: lower midden 1030+50 (A.D. 911, A.D. 938) 54893
(A.D. 920) A.D. 892-A.D. 970


TU 3/L 3: Feature 1 930+50 (A.D. 1034) 54894
(A.D. 1020) A.D. 965-A.D. 1058

*Calibration by CALIB (Stuiver and Becker 1986)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 2


JUNE 1993




148


Join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS)!
A non-profit organization founded in 1947, with chapters throughout Florida


Anthropology is the study of people and their cultures. Join FAS and help
save and enjoy Florida's heritage! FAS holds an annual meeting and banquet
Featuring renowned speakers. FAS members receive a newsletter and informa-
tive journal four times a year. The journal features interesting articles on
Florida archaeology, history, folklore, and preservation.


Florida Indian 5
Poster
This Bird-man
Dancer is the
main illustration
of an attractive
and informative
poster depicting
the major tribes
that once in-
habited Florida.
Available for a
$10 donation to
FAS, this 18 by
36-inch poster is
printed maroon
and purple on a
cream-colored
heavy paper.

Printing courtesy of
S 1rat on, tants, F.


=--- ll = =.= = --- = m- m- -
YES! I want to join FAS!
Membership is only $20 per year (individual) and is tax-deductible. Othel
Srates--$18 institutional, $25 family, $25 or more, sustaining, patron $100,
I and life $500.

Name:
I


SAddress:

I City:


State Zip:


Telephone: ( )


MAIL TO:
FAS Membership, Terry Simpson, CGCAS, P.O. Box 82255, Tampa, F
33682


Recent issues of The Florida Anthropologist have featured articles on

* early preceramic Archaic occupation of the upper St. Johns drainage

* public archaeology at Tomoka State Park

* pioneer fishing families of Florida's barrier islands

* urban archaeology in the city of Sarasota

* Old Tiger Tail, a survivor of the Seminole wars


Florida archaeology, preservation issues, Seminole Indian history and archaeology,
Spanish contact, Caribbean topics, southeastern Indians, the real Florida ...


Want to learn more?







4 1






At. '.


. :


1,*


''~ .1 i


:I.




II






.4 ,, "'I

~I ~: ,


'A. A
ic~ :~








'. It-




L~~ ~ 'I,.!~4





r, r-'
4?t1 'I ,J?- 4
'90' P'

~ 1' 44$,


P: 4,


II,










A1.


''1



>1.


-t


?I *.? '~i~ :


t- *tr t

-p.. I *

.I .1 ~

N"..'F '2,

4
4 ". .


1.



I
i-
i
i .


i:


.


I
1


~


. -ir







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