• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page - Brent R. Weism...
 Locating Fort Brooke beneath present-day...
 A nineteenth-century cooling house...
 The history of toothbrushes and...
 Florida archaeology since 1980...
 Improving archaeology's public...
 A typical week at the desk of the...
 Origins : Some thoughts and reminiscences...
 Boatstone artifact from Alachua...
 Kaskaskia copper points of southern...
 Ben Waller : A tribute - James...
 Florida archaeology week 1993 events...
 Chapter spotlight : Indian river...
 About the authors
 Join the Florida Anthropological...






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/UF00027829/00044
 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: VID00044
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 149
    Editor's page - Brent R. Weisman
        Page 150
    Locating Fort Brooke beneath present-day Tampa - Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
    A nineteenth-century cooling house -Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
    The history of toothbrushes and their nature as archaeological artifacts - Barbara E. Mattick
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
    Florida archaeology since 1980 - Jerald T. Milanich
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
    Improving archaeology's public appeal - Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
    A typical week at the desk of the state archaeologist - James J. Miller
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
    Origins : Some thoughts and reminiscences concerning Florida archaeology, 1963-1993 - Albert C. Goodyear
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
    Boatstone artifact from Alachua county, Florida - Robert L. Knight
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
    Kaskaskia copper points of southern Florida - Wesley F. Coleman
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
    Ben Waller : A tribute - James S. Dunbar
        Page 222
        Page 223
    Florida archaeology week 1993 events - Compiled by Bruce J. Piatek
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
    Chapter spotlight : Indian river anthropological society - TC Bishop and Greg Jones
        Page 233
    About the authors
        Page 234
    Join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS)!
        Page 235
        Page 236
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 3
September 1993
Page Number
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editor's Page. Brent R. Weisman 150
Locating Fort Brooke Beneath Present-Day Tampa. Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper 151

A Nineteenth-Century Cooling House. Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper 159
The History of Toothbrushes and Their Nature As Archaeological Artifacts. Barbara E. Mattick 162

SPECIAL SECTION: FLORIDA ARCHAEOLOGY NOW
Florida Archaeology Since 1980. Jerald T. Milanich 185

Improving Archaeology's Public Appeal. Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper 199

A Typical Week at the Desk of the State Archaeologist. James J. Miller 205

Origins: Some Thoughts and Reminiscences Concerning Florida Archaeology, 1963-1993. Albert C. Goodyear 212

Boatstone Artifact From Alachua County, Florida. Robert L. Knight 215

Kaskaskia Copper Points of Southern Florida. Wesley F. Coleman 218
Ben Waller: A Tribute. James S. Dunbar 222

Florida Archaeology Week 1993 Events. Compiled by Bruce J. Piatek 224

Chapter Spotlight: Indian River Anthropological Society. TC Bishop and Greg Jones 233
About the Authors. 234
Join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS)! Membership Application 235




Cover: Canaveral, original art by Vera Zimmerman of the Indian River Anthropological Society (used with permission).

Copyright 1993 by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY
ISSN 0015-3893








EDITOR'S PAGE: THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST, VOLUME 46(3), SEPTEMBER 1993


Brent R. Weisman


Why should we care about preserving archaeological
sites? This is a question I am asked often in my travels across
Florida, and it is a question I have learned that I must answer
convincingly. In these times when a weary public is being
asked to care about more and more, it is important that all of
us consider carefully how to best answer the question. Each
archaeologist will answer in their own way, but it seems to me
that several themes usually will emerge. First, and to me
perhaps the most compelling reason to preserve archaeological
sites, simply is that they were here first and thus deserve our
stewardship. Implied in this answer is the reasoning that
because we have the power to adversely affect archaeological
sites, we must bear the responsibility to protect them.
A second argument for protecting archaeological sites is
that most of human history is preserved only in archaeological
sites. Written accounts of human activities are rare and recent
when viewed against the entire time span of human evolution.
Indeed, even the earliest forms of writing have come to us
from archaeological contexts. But perhaps more importantly,
the major means by which human beings have adapted to this
planet, in chronological terms, left behind only archaeological
sites as its most tangible legacy for the modern world. This is
the hunting-gathering (or fishing-gathering-hunting) way of
life, called by Brian Hayden in his book Archaeology: The
Science of Once and Future Things (1993, W.H. Freeman and
Co., New York) "one of the most remarkable success stories in
the natural world" (pg. 181). The hunting and gathering
strategy characterized human life exclusively arguably for close
to two million years and is now all but extinct. To my mind,
there is no better place than Florida to study this unique and
enduring slice of the human experience.
Humankind's great failures are chronicled also in
archaeological sites. Ancient urban sites in Mesopotamia (now
part of Iraq and Iran), coastal Peru, Mexico, China, Africa,
and elsewhere where humans attempted to alter their fragile
environment in grand ways tell us that many times in the past
our species has pushed its relationship with nature beyond the
point of no return. Ecologists and natural scientists are now
becoming aware that archaeological sites hold important
information about past environments and how they have been
altered by human use.
Finally, there are many contemporary societies for whom
written histories are inadequate or simply do not exist. These
"people without history" in Eric Wolf's words, have no


indigenous literary tradition and thus become known to the rest
of the world, and ultimately to themselves, by the words and
concepts of outside observers who, more often than not, have
ended up in a culturally-dominant position. For these people--
whether they be Seminoles or Miccosukees in Florida, Inuit in
Alaska, or Igbo in Nigeria--archaeological sites represent an
irreplaceable historical resource for understanding their
cultural past and virtually the only means by which a history
can be developed independent of outside documentation.
Of course, the physical preservation of archaeological
sites is only one part of the overall preservation picture, which
includes a great deal of statutory emphasis on the preservation
of archaeological knowledge from sites more so than the actual
preservation of archaeological remains. Ultimately however
archaeological preservation cannot rest on the force of the law,
nor should it. Public education about the value of archaeology
is the only viable long-term solution to the problem of an
endangered archaeological record. Florida archaeologists, led
by the Florida Archaeological Council (FAC) and the Florida
Anthropological Society (FAS) have made great strides in
public education in recent years, and now have the chance to
reach out like never before under the auspices of Florida's
first-ever "Archaeology Week." Statewide events (see the
compilation in this issue) scheduled to occur between October
2-9 will touch on every conceivable aspect of archaeology in
Florida.
While "Florida Archaeology Week" should be a time of
great outreach, it also can provide an opportunity for
archaeologists to pause and reflect on the current condition of
Florida archaeology. For this purpose, I invited leading
archaeologists from the research, governmental, and consulting
sectors of the field to share with us their unique view of
Florida archaeology in the special section entitled Florida
Archaeology Now. I think the reader will conclude from the
essays, as I have, that Florida archaeology has never been
more vigorous, complex, or fraught with challenges than now.
In the "Setting the Record Straight" department, Charles
Ewen writes (letter of July 1) to clarify a portion of the review
of Milanich and Hudson's De Soto book that appeared in the
June issue of the journal (Vol. 46, no. 2) which refers to the
excavation of the Martin site (the De Soto winter encampment)
in Tallahassee. Ewen was hired to co-direct the excavation
with B. Calvin Jones. The review stated otherwise.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993





151


LOCATING FORT BROOKE BENEATH PRESENT-DAY TAMPA


Harry M. Piper and Jacquelyn G. Piper


Fort Brooke was a military establishment situated on the
east bank of the Hillsborough River where it flows into Tampa
Bay, an area now occupied by downtown Tampa. The Fort
was occupied, with varying levels of activity, from 1824 until
1882 and its buildings were dispersed about the encampment
much in the manner of today's army camps.
In 1877 Lieutenant James Bush, a U.S. Army surveyor,
conducted a land survey of Fort Brooke which resulted in a set
of field notes (Bush 1877a) and an accompanying scaled
drawing (Maps 1877) depicting and precisely placing the
principal contemporary Fort buildings relative to each other.
From a point of beginning, the first building located on the
survey was the hospital, and all other buildings were then
located relative to it. All the buildings were auctioned and
removed in 1882 (Danes 1882) and subsequent urban
development significantly altered the natural landscape. If the
former location and orientation of the hospital could be
ascertained in the field, an engineering drawing made from the
surveyor's notes could be used to determine the approximate
former locations of the other buildings.
The focus of this paper is to describe how historical
documents and archaeological field investigations were
combined to produce the research tool described above, which
has been of continuing use in cultural resource management
planning for an archaeologically sensitive zone in a particular
urbanized area. Consequently, although field expectations and
observations are included in order to support the conclusion
concerning the hospital building location, they are intentionally
presented in a summary fashion. Readers who wish greater
detail or more definitive proofs are referred to the report of the
field work completed in 1979 (Piper and Piper 1980) and to a
later manuscript (Piper and Piper n.d.).

Background

Numerous nineteenth-century maps of the Fort exist,
several of which have been superimposed by interested parties
on street maps of present-day Tampa in attempts to correlate
Fort building locations with discovered artifacts of the period
or to predict the prior locations of the buildings shown on the
nineteenth century maps. Despite occasional assertions to the
contrary, no reliable correlations were achieved and the City of
Tampa, as well as the State Division of Historical Resources
(DHR), have been continually concerned about possible
adverse impact to significant archaeological resources
whenever ground disturbing activity incident to new


construction was undertaken in areas of the downtown not
composed of documented fill.
In 1979, the City proposed to construct a parking garage
on a tract which included the north half of the block bounded
by Whiting St., Florida Ave., Brorein St. and Franklin St.
Documentary research carried out at the National Archives by
Phillip Werndli, who was then Director of the Historic
Tampa/Hillsborough County Preservation Board, indicated a
high degree of probability that the last Fort hospital and its
detached kitchen had been in the vicinity of the proposed
construction impact area south of and near to Whiting St.
Consequently, an archaeological investigation was
commissioned, the sole purpose of which was to determine
whether or not the former site of the Fort hospital and its
separate kitchen building was within the impact area.
An important corollary of the undertaking would be the
desired utilization of the predictive map for other buildings as
discussed in the Introduction. If indeed the former location
and orientation of the hospital could be determined, then the
approximate former locations of the other buildings could be
ascertained and placed to scale on a map of present-day Tampa.
In addition to the survey notes and drawing, plans to scale of
several buildings including the hospital and its kitchen were
available from the National Archives (Hanford 1870), which
showed certain interior features which might prove helpful
during the archaeological investigations (Figure 1). If, by
combining archaeological and historical research, the former
site of the hospital could be verified, it would clearly provide
the basis for a management tool of use to both the City of
Tampa and the DHR in their efforts to obtain information
concerning Tampa's early history.

Historical Documentary Research

In order to prove or disprove the location of the former
site of the hospital and kitchen, it was necessary to establish a
set of expectations against which to measure field observations.
In this case, certain elements of the documentary and records
research, including a few environmental considerations,
specifically influenced the research design and field
methodology employed in the archaeological investigation.

Deciding Where to Excavate

Working with historic surveys (Maps 1853, 1876, 1877),
surveyor's field notes and report (Bush 1877a; 1877b)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993



















HOSPITAL


1


PIPER
CONSULTING


Figure 1. View of the hospital (Wepells 1869b) and
ground plan of the hospital and the detached kitchen
buildings (after Hanford 1870).


10 feet

I w--- W D r---'Wst
S12x 11 Hospital
w Ground Plan w

10 feet 10 feet
12x11 30x22
W D W



10 feet


'2


i~l~-~l-~--ll~l~ll111~1111~


I I


%M=mp


f






153


and a 1979 Tampa street map, Phillip Werndli and the authors
deduced the approximate location of the northwest corner of
the hospital building as being an exact distance southeast of a
point on the southern boundary of Whiting Street along a
known bearing, and northeast of the east edge of present day
Franklin Street. Because of the explicit purpose of the
archaeological investigation, it was deemed unnecessary to
archaeologically test the paved parking lot area which
immediately bordered the southern side of Whiting Street and
extended approximately 32 meters south-southeast.

Anticipated Field Observations

The spatial organization of any hospital or kitchen
features located during the field work should correspond to the
measurements and relationships given in the documentary
references. Consequently, documentary evidence was compiled
which provided information on features and their spatial
relationships that one might reasonably expect to observe in the
field and which, if correctly placed stratigraphically and in
plan, would support identification of the hospital/kitchen site.
The pertinent records and literature provided data on
numerous features, evidence of which might still be observable
in the ground. These features included the bed of a now-
obliterated stream which once flowed in a southwesterly
direction within 100 feet to the southeast of the hospital (Maps
1876, 1877, 1882), the locational relationship of the separate
hospital and kitchen buildings as well as their floor plans and
measurements and the interior and exterior placement of such
features as fireplaces and a privy or sink (Maps 1876, 1877;
Hanford 1870; Bush 1877a; Sanitary Report 1881:Q 44,49).
Expectations in regard to the nature of any structural
remains and the likelihood of any upper level stratigraphic
mixing were enhanced by the knowledge of the high degree of
decay which had beset the wooden structures while in use and
the fact that the final buildings were auctioned and removed in
1882. (Haskins n.d.; VanBokkelen 1833; Sprague 1847; Danes
1882).
It was recognized that stratigraphic integrity might be
questionable within the upper levels and that post-Fort Brooke
period cultural materials might intrude into lower levels as a
result of later urbanization. Nonetheless, if the
hospital/kitchen site was found, a relatively high proportion of
Fort Brooke artifacts should occur within the entire
assemblage, most especially within the strata coincident with
other features of the period. Furthermore, it would be
expected that the functional nature of the artifact assemblage
would be indicative of medical, kitchen and perhaps military
activities.

Field Methodology

Based upon the documentary evidence relating to the
hospital's former location coupled with the resulting


measurements taken on the ground, a primary test area was
selected which measured 30 m x 28 m. If the locational
assumptions were correct, only the locus of the stream would
fall outside the chosen test area.
It was decided that standard test excavations might fail to
encounter any, or certainly all, of the anticipated features,
because the time available prior to project construction was so
short as to limit the extent of such excavations across the
primary test area. Therefore, a field methodology was
designed to maximize the probability of determining the
presence or absence of features critical to site identification and
to be as time efficient as possible, consistent with good field
controls.
The asphalt parking lot and approximately 30 cm of urban
fill were then removed in order to reach the top of the natural
soil at the time of Fort occupation. A 3 m grid was established
on the test area to facilitate a controlled surface investigation
and for the subsequent purpose of subsurface testing on 3 m
centers. The subsurface tests were dug to a depth of 80 cm
utilizing a mechanical earth auger with a 6 inch diameter bit in
order to determine presence or absence of Fort Brooke period
material; deeper penetration was achieved in selected auger
holes by using a post hole digger. All soil was screened
through a 1/4 inch (6.4 mm) mesh and all artifacts, as well as
shell and charcoal, were recovered and recorded.
When the subsurface tests encountered any features,
including artifact concentrations datable to the nineteenth
century, limited test excavations were undertaken in order to
delimit the extent and determine the nature of the finds, and to
attempt to ascertain the probability of their association with the
hospital or kitchen. These test excavations were initially 1 m
squares which could be extended if necessary, as they were
integrated into the larger control grid.

Results of Field Investigations

Of the 102 subsurface tests which were placed on 3 m
centers within the primary test area, 67 produced artifacts and
13 of those included Fort Brooke period material. In
particular, one of the latter disclosed darkly stained soil which
stood out markedly against the surrounding yellow-tan sand.

The Hospital Sink

In accordance with the field methodology discussed
above, a test unit was excavated and subsequently expanded at
the locus of the subsurface test which had combined the stained
soil with a concentration of nineteenth century artifacts. The
excavation revealed a quite circular feature having an average
diameter of 60 cm, a depth of 125 cm, an associated remnant
of a vertical post, and containing nineteenth century artifacts
which included pharmaceutical bottles. Also recovered were
ordinarily perishable materials such as leather and bone, which
were most likely preserved as a result of the damp, organic






154


nature of the immediately surrounding soil. Based upon
measurements, a chemical test and the above described
components of the feature as well as other attributes, it was
concluded that the feature was a privy pit dating to the Fort
Brooke period. As the Sanitary Report of 1881 recorded the
"Hospital sink about 50 feet in rear of building, disinfected
daily, Excrements removed when necessary," it was
provisionally assumed that the feature could be that sink and, if
the assumption was correct, that the other hospital/kitchen
features could be found in their proper spatial relationships to
the sink (Figure 2), as placed by the 1877 engineer's survey
and the 1870 plans of the buildings.

The Hospital Fireplace

One of the primary features having a known relationship
in plan to the postulated hospital sink was the hospital
fireplace. The combination of information from the military
surveyor's field notes (Bush 1877a) and the floor plan of the
hospital (Hanford 1870), placed the fireplace for the hospital
building at a specific place relative to an ascertainable point on
the northern boundary of the military reservation (present-day
Whiting Street) as well as relative to the hospital sink. In
order to test for the correct spatial location of the fireplace in
relationship to the two known points, a trench was excavated
from the sink in the direction calculated to encounter the
fireplace. As a result of the trench excavation, a feature was
discovered at the correct distance which consisted of a sharply
defined, rectangular area of darkly stained soil containing a
centrally located charcoal deposit. The bottom of the feature
was filled with charred wood. The central "firebox" of the
feature measured 85 cm in width, 160 cm in length, and 65 cm
in depth. Recovered artifacts datable to the nineteenth century
included bottles and bottle fragments, ceramic sherds, nails,
clay pipes and pipestems.
It was concluded that the feature represented the remains
of a fireplace after the chimney footings had been dismantled
and removed. The size and proportions of the feature were
reasonable for a fireplace (see Noel Hume 1974:130), and the
salvage of reusable clay bricks from historical sites is well
documented (Noel Hume 1974:130-132), particularly in areas
such as south Florida where clay bricks had to be imported
(eg. Clark 1824a, 1824b; Wepells 1869a). As mentioned
earlier, the Fort Brooke hospital and kitchen buildings were
sold and moved from the site in 1882.
The conclusion that this fireplace was the one from the
Fort Brooke hospital rests on several correlates, including its
virtually precise distances from the reservation boundary and
from the sink as given in the documents, the observation that
the long axis of the rectangular feature corresponded with the
floor plans and the fact that the entire artifact assemblage (with
a single exception from the extreme upper, disturbed zone)
dated to the Fort Brooke period. Interestingly, a piece of glass


bearing a distinctive circular design and excavated in
association with the fireplace, was a match for sherds
recovered from the bottom level of the sink, thus associating
the fireplace and the sink at one moment in time (cf. South
1977:291).

The Kitchen Fireplace

Utilizing the documentary evidence concerning spatial
relationships in the same manner as above, a trench was
excavated at the correct distance and bearing from the hospital
fireplace in order to encounter the fireplace that once existed in
the separate kitchen building. An area of darkly stained sand
was found, which measured 74 cm in width, 87 cm in length
and 70 cm in depth. The interface of the feature with the
natural yellow/tan sand was sharply defined. The feature
contained artifacts datable to the Fort Brooke occupation
period, notably clay pipe fragments, bottle glass and buttons,
including a nineteenth century U.S. military button. No intact
brickwork or other structural remains were encountered.
As in the case of the hospital fireplace, the conclusion
that the feature was the kitchen fireplace rests on specific
premises, including its field location at the exact distance from
the hospital fireplace as the distance calculated from the
documents, the correct orientation of the rectangle's long axis,
the fact that the stratigraphic level of the feature corresponded
to that of the hospital fireplace and an artifact assemblage
datable to the Fort Brooke period.

The Streambed Location

The final test excavation was designed to locate the
streambed shown on the surveyor's map (Maps 1877) and
other early maps of the Ft. Brooke military reservation (Maps
n.d., 1838, 1876, 1882). Three parallel trenches were dug in
a North-South direction in an attempt to intersect the
streambed at the postulated distance from the known site of the
former hospital building. Each trench was begun well to the
north of where the stream was expected to be and was to be
continued in a southerly direction until all reasonable
expectation of encountering the streambed had been exhausted.
Although the first trench was blocked by an intact, buried
railroad track and had to be abandoned, the other two trenches
did crosscut the former streambed, represented in the soil by
clearly defined strata which dipped in the profile of the
surrounding soil. In the excavation trench, the water table was
reached at a depth of 2 m where the remains of a wooden dairy
were exposed at the edge of the streambed and it was
consequently assumed that the bottom of the stream must have
been approximately 2 m below the present surface at that
point. The verified location of the former streambed
corresponded to the location recorded on the nineteenth
century maps and mentioned in the contemporary written













HOSPITAL
I I
Ir ----1
I I I

S I I I
I II


I I I
I I I
I I I

II I
I I I

------J I
I I
I I
I
I I


KITCHEN
r-----1


I ..
13

I-- ---j


41


Scale in feet
0 10 20 40


4
STREAMBED -... .- -"-
. "'..... "--- -"-*-. ....,--...~'-- o ** ..-


PIPER
CONSULTING


Figure 2. Schematic drawing of spatial organization of features.

1 = Hospital Sink 3 = Kitchen Fireplace
2 = Hospital Fireplace 4 = Dairy/Cooling House


155


4


fP




156
/0,


Hospital

Kitchen
Kitchen


Flag
Staff


Kitchen

Oo
Officer
Quarters


Bake
House

Kitchen
Mens
Barracks


Stables


PIPR Figure 3: A portion of the survey drawing created from
PIPER the original surveyor's notes showing the locations of
SCONSULTING the principal buildings at Fort Brooke in 1877.

%1t--- .


1


.. :.
-







157


documents.

Summary and Conclusions

An earlier section of this paper set forth certain
expectations which should be satisfied and observations which
should be made in the field in order to confirm the former
location of the Fort hospital building and its associated kitchen
building. In addition, it was noted that the confirmation of the
hospital's former location and orientation would enable
researchers to ascertain the former locations, beneath present-
day Tampa, of other buildings in the 1877 survey.

Confirmation of the Hospital and Kitchen Locations

It was concluded that the former site of the Fort hospital
and its detached kitchen building had been located as a result
of the archaeological excavations combined with the
documentary records as described above. The conclusion
rested on the investigation results, which may be summarized
as follows: First, the features found during the excavation
exhibited the correct spatial relationship and corresponded to
the building plans, documentary descriptions and maps.
Second, the features were at the same stratigraphic levels
relative to each other as they would have been at the time of
the hospital/kitchen occupation. Third, nineteenth century
artifacts comprised 97.43 percent of the artifact assemblage,
were found in the same strata as the features assignable to the
buildings and were found in association with those features.
Artifacts recovered from the appropriate features supported a
medical function for the building believed to be the hospital
and a culinary function for the building believed to be the
kitchen.

Utilization of the 1877 Survey to Predesignate Sensitive Areas

As was discussed in the introduction, the location of the
former site of the hospital building and ascertainment of its
orientation, as well as that of its kitchen, greatly enhanced the
predictability of the former locations of the other Fort
buildings described in the surveyor's notes of 1877. This
reliable result was achieved when a present-day engineering
firm provided the authors with a survey drawing created from
the military surveyor's original notes and correctly placing to
scale each building's position and orientation relative to the
others in 1877 (Figure 3). The engineering drawing was then
superimposed on a map of present-day Tampa in the same
scale. Because the hospital was the first building employed in
the 1877 notes from which to locate the others sequentially by
range and bearing, knowing the former location of the hospital
enabled the authors to place the drawing correctly on the city
map and therefore approximate with considerable accuracy the


former locations of the other fort buildings beneath today's
urbanization. In addition, the drawing showed where the
original shorelines of the Hillsborough River and Garrison
Channel had been prior to extensive filling incident to urban
development. This investigative tool, resulting from the
combination of documentary evidence and field excavation, has
been used several times since 1979 to predict archaeologically
sensitive areas in downtown Tampa.
For a decade or so since acquiring the survey drawing as
a useful research tool, it was considered inadvisable to make
the method of its acquisition public, because the indicated
locations of some of the buildings shown had either not been
excavated below slab level for new construction (and thus
destroyed) or investigated by archaeologists incident to
proposed development. However, although a few disturbed,
subsurface artifacts and features may possibly exist, as of the
current time the site of each building shown on the 1877
survey drawing has either been impacted by development or
has been reported upon as a result of professional
investigation. Consequently, although no opinion is inferred
here concerning the significance or non-significance of any
archaeological deposits in the area, the information is now
presented in the hope that similar circumstances may exist in
other research situations where comparable methodologies may
be employed to either preserve archaeological resources or to
maximize the information recovery when resources are to be
impacted.

References Cited


Bush, James C.
1877a Notes of a survey of the Fort Brooke Military
Reservation, Tampa, Fla., June 28th. Ms. on file,
National Archives, Washington, D.C.

1877b Report of a Survey of the Fort Brooke Military
Reservation. Key West Barracks, Fla., December 14.
Ms. on file National Archives, Washington, D. C.

Clark, Issac
1824a Letter of June 5 to Brig. Genl. Thomas S. Jesup. On
file National Archives, Washington, D.C.

1824b Letter of September 28 to Col. George M. Brooke. On
file, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Danes, H. C.
1882 Account of sales of public property sold at public
auction at Fort Brooke, Fla. under the direction of 1st.
Lieutenant H. C. Danes 3 Arty. A.A.Q.M., December.
On file National Archives, Washington, D.C.








158

Hanford, Charles
1870 Letter of transmittal to Brevt. Col. A. R. Eddy, May
13. On file National Archives, Washington, D.C.


Haskin, J. A.
n.d. Letter to Maj. Genl. Thomas S. Jesup.
National Archives, Washington, D.C.


On file


Noel Hume, Ivor
1974 Historical Archaeology. Alfred A. Knopf, New
York.

Piper, Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper
1980 Preliminary and Final Reports of Archaeological
Testing for the Fort Brooke Hospital/Kitchen Complex in
the Impact Area of the City of Tampa Parking Garage.
On file State of Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee and Historic Tampa/Hillsborough County
Preservation Board.

n.d. 1979 Historical Research and Archaeological Testing
for the Fort Brooke Hospital, Tampa, Florida. Ms. on
file at State of Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee.

South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology.
Academic Press, New York.

Sanitary Report
1881 Sanitary Report of Fort Brooke, Tampa, by Capt.
George Barstow, 3rd Artillary. Record Group 92,
Records of the Quartermaster General, National
Archives, Washington, D.C.

Sprague, I. T.
1847 Estimate to repair the public buildings at Fort Brooke,
the public wharf, and to enclose the post property by a
fence six feet in height. On file RG 92, Records of the
Office of the Quartermaster General, National Archives,
Washington, D.C.

VanBokkelen, W. K.
1833 Letter to Maj. Genl. T. S. Jesup, December 17. On
file National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Wepells, Jr., H. W.
1869a Letter to Brvt. Brig. Genl. Rufus Saxton, January 25.
On file National Archives, Washington, D.C.

1869b View of hospital and ground plan and kitchen. On file
RG 77, Miscellaneous Forts File, National Archives,
Washington D.C.


Map Sources

n.d. Sketch of Cantonment Brooke and the Adjacent
Country. Record Group 92, Cartographic and
Architectural Branch, National Archives, Washington,
D.C. The buildings shown on this map are the same as
those described, with dimensions, in a letter from Issac
Clark (1824b) to Col. George M. Brooke dated Sept. 28,
1824 and this map is, therefore, considered an accurate
map of the fort in 1824.

1838 Map of the Encampment Near Fort Brook (sic) ,
Tampa, East Florida. On file National Archives,
Washington, D. C.

1853 Map of Tampa. Drawn in February by John Jackson,
L. S. On file Tampa Historical Society, Hillsborough
County Courthouse, Tampa.

1876 Plan of Fort Brooke Reservation, drawn by Maj. R.
Arnold, 5th. Arty. Drawer 128, Sheet 22-3,
Cartographic and Architectural Branch, National
Archives, Washington, D.C.

1877 General Plan of Fort-Brooke Military Reservation
Florida, Drawn and Surveyed by Jas. C. Bush, Lieut.
5th. Arty. by Order of Captain F. L. Guenther, 5th.
Arty. Pursuant to Instructions from Hd. Qrs. Dept. of the
South. On file Record Group 49, Old Map File 12,
Cartographic and Architectural Branch, National
Archives, Washington, D.C.

1882 Plot of Government Reservation, Fort Brooke, Fla.,
On file Records of Office of Adjutant General, Records
Group 94, Fort Brooke, Fla., Box 12, Cartographic and
Architectural Branch, National Archives, Washington,
D.C.




Harry M. Piper
Jacquelyn G. Piper
Piper Consulting
P. O. Box 608
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731








159


A NINETEENTH-CENTURY COOLING HOUSE


Harry M. Piper and Jacquelyn G. Piper


In the fall of 1979, archaeological investigations were
being conducted in Tampa, Florida, in an attempt to determine
the former location of the military hospital building which
existed at Fort Brooke in 1877 (see Piper and Piper, this
journal). During the excavation of a trench designed to
crosscut the filled bed of a former stream, a wooden structure
was encountered (Figure 1) which was identified as a cooling-
house or dairy. This brief descriptive article is presented in
order to record the particulars of the structure, its functional
location and its contents, as a possible aid to other researchers
dealing with similar finds.

The Structure

During the excavation in which the cooling-house was
discovered,the soil was quite damp at a depth of 2 m (6.6 ft.)
and the watertable was reached at an approximate depth of 2.6
m (8.58 ft.) below the surface. The uppermost remains of the
wooden structure were exposed at the 2 m depth. The upper
150 cm (59 in.) of disturbed overburden was removed and the
area immediately above the structure was leveled in order to
facilitate controlled excavation. The lower portion of the
original structure which was in the water permeated soil was
preserved, together with an additional .6 m (2 ft.) in damp soil
above the actual water level. None of the structure had
survived above 2 m (6.6 ft.) below the surface. A 3 1/2 hp.
single diaphragm pump was utilized to remove the standing
water in the excavation area.
The excavated structure had three remaining sides of what
had apparently been a virtually square building, as the east and
west sides were 160 cm (63 in.) in length while the north side
was 165 cm (65 in.) long. The sides were joined at the covers
and each was attached to the outside of a vertical corner post at
three of the covers. The fourth corer post was missing and
the remaining three were rotted off above the water table. The
corer posts averaged 9 cm (3.54 in.) square. Neither the
south side of the structure nor a floor were located.
The sides were constructed of rough cut boards of
quarter-sawn straight grain fir, which were laid horizontally.
An average board measured 2.5 cm (1 in.) thick by 16 cm (6
in.) wide by the length of the side of which it was a part (see
above). Fir trees are not native to the State of Florida (Little
1978) and the boards are assumed to have been imported to the


area.

Contents of the Structure

Three wooden containers were found in upright positions
in the bottom of the structure. Two were of cylindrical shape
and similar size and the third was larger and barrel shaped.
The large one was standing near the center of the northern wall
and each of the two smaller ones were in the northeast and
southeast covers respectively. The barrel did not have a
bottom but portions of its top were recovered. Not all of the
two smaller containers had survived.
As the tops of the staves forming the barrel were rotted
away, its original height could not be determined, although the
height of the remaining portions of the staves approximated 1
m (3.3 ft.). The recovered, matched portions of the barrel top
were sufficient to allow extrapolation from their outer curve
suggesting a top diameter of 88.9 cm (35 in.). The top was 18
mm (3/4 in.) thick and the outer edges were beveled. The
staves averaged 17 mm (11/16 in.) in thickness and the upper
ends were thinned and beveled. The barrel was made of
cypress wood and the interior had been charred.
Square cut nails were observed in the staves. A broken
metal barrel strap, or hoop, was recovered near the top of the
barrel (but not surrounding it) which was 2.5 cm (1 in.) wide
and a strap from the bottom of the barrel was 4 cm (1.57 in.)
in width.
The two smaller wooden containers were each formed by
joining the edges of vertical staves, which were not curved
over their length but which were curved across their width in
order to create a cylindrical container. The edges of each stave
were beveled where one section joined another such that the
sides thus formed were relatively smooth. In both containers,
the extrapolation of the inner curve suggests an inside diameter
of 30 cm (12 in.). The staves averaged 2.125 cm (.84 in.) in
thickness and, while no complete staves were observed, the
longest recovered portion of one was 29 cm (11.42 in.). The
wood was extremely friable and,unlike the larger barrel, was
not charred on the inside. No straps were observed in
association with these two containers.
Each of the two smaller containers held the remains of
botanical specimens resembling, in the field, bunches of small
stick-like vegetation. These specimens were recovered for later












































laboratory analysis.

Identification and Conclusions

The authors considered the possibility that the remains of
the structure represented part of a former seepage or barrel
well. A barrel well usually consisted of a wooden casing
inside of which barrels, with their tops and bottoms removed,
were stacked to form the well shaft. Building rubble usually
filled the space between the casing and the barrels and acted as
a filter (Noel Hume 1974a:145; 1974b:33-34; Otto 1975:77;
McFarlane 1975:118). Because the fourth side of the structure
was missing, no rubble fill was observed between the walls and
the single off-center barrel, and the fact that the barrel had a
top, it was concluded that the structure was not a barrel well.
There are several reasons for the conclusion that the
structure represented the remains of a cooling house or dairy.
First, it was located in the former bed of a spring-fed stream,
as several nineteenth century maps (e.g. Maps 1882) note
"spring" at the originating point of the stream approximately
40 m (131 ft.) northeast of the structure. According to Noel
Hume (1974a:138), "The most efficient dairies were those


having running spring water channeled through them...".
Second, the size of the structure is compatible with a dairy or
cooling house function (see Frontispiece in Noel Hume 1969
for a dairy of comparable size). Third, the type of
construction, i.e. one-by-six boards nailed to sturdy corner
posts surrounding a dirt floor (Noel Hume 1974a:138) is
suitable for a cooling house function. One may speculate that
the absence of the southwest corner post and any remains of a
south wall suggests that a door, hung from that post, once
occupied that location and was removed when the structure was
abandoned. Fourth, the presence of the barrel and the two
smaller wooden containers is indicative of a storage/cooling
house function, especially in view of the vegetal remains stored
in the latter two. Although it is not the purpose of this
descriptive report to substantiate the period of use of the
cooling house, documents indicating the filling of the stream
prior to 1904 and a terminus ante quem of 1910 indicate the
latest possible usage as being in the very early twentieth
century. Associated artifacts, such as square cut nails and
bases of olive green glass bottles exhibiting chronologically
diagnostic attributes, support a date range within the late
nineteenth century, perhaps including the latter part of the






161


well-documented Fort Brooke occupation (1824-1882) at that
location.

References Cited


Little, Elbert L., Jr.
1978 Important Forest Trees of the United States.
Agricultural Handbook No. 519, Forest Service, United
States Department of Agricultural, Washington, D.C.

MacFarlane, Suzanne S.
1975 The Ethnohistory of a Slave Community: The Couper
Plantation Site. M.A. Thesis, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 Archaeology and Weatherburn's Tavern. Colonial
Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 3. The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg.

1974a Historical Archaeology. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

1974b Digging for Carter's Grove. Colonial Williamsburg
Archaeological Series No. 8. The Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, Williamsburg.

Otto, John S.
1975 Status Differences and the Archaeological Record: A
Comparison of Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites from
Cannon's Point Plantation (1794-1861, St. Simons
Island, Georgia). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville.

Map Sources

1882 Plot, Government Reservation, Fort Brooke, Fla.
Records of the Office of Adjutant General, Records
Group 94, Fort Brooke, Fla., Box 12, Cartographic and
Architectural Branch, National Archives, Washington,
D.C.


Harry M. Piper
Jacquelyn G. Piper
Piper Consulting
P.O. Box 608
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731





162


THE HISTORY OF TOOTHBRUSHES AND THEIR NATURE AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL
ARTIFACTS

Barbara E. Mattick


From the earliest times, human beings have been
concerned with their teeth. Their efforts have focused on
removing annoying debris lodged between the teeth, or
endeavoring to make them attractive through decorating,
straightening, filing or whitening them. Probably the earliest
device used to clean teeth was a twig; some have been found in
Etruscan and Egyptian tombs (Golding 1982a:25). Toothpicks
have been in use for at least 3,000 years (Giesecke 1956:206).
The first toothpicks were probably similar to today's wooden
ones, although other materials included thorns, porcupine
quills, and metal. The Greeks, Romans, and Chinese are
known to have used toothpicks (Remington 1967:14). Another
early device for cleaning teeth was the chewing stick, or siwak,
which was developed by the Arabs in Mesopotamia. They are
taken from arrak trees (Salvadora persicais) which are native
to the Arabian Desert (Giesecke 1956:207). Siwaks are still
used today in Arab countries and India (Golding 1982a:25).
This article is concerned with the toothbrush, a
relatively modern invention designed to clean teeth and to keep
gums healthy. It defines their nomenclature, addresses their
history, describes the methods used to manufacture them, and
discusses their nature as archaeological artifacts and potential
as dating tools. Analysis deals primarily with the hard
materials used to manufacture toothbrushes, because the bristle
usually has disintegrated by the time archaeologists find them.

Definition and Nomenclature

Joseph H. Kauffmann, a dentist from New York City,
spent more than fifty years studying the common toothbrush
(Kauffmann 1972:287). In 1924, he defined a toothbrush as

an artificial hygienic device used in conjunction with a
dentifrice to brush the teeth, consisting usually of a
handle and clusters of bristles so arranged as to exert the
most beneficial cleansing action possible, under the
conditions present in the mouth of the individual, without
causing injury to the hard structures or adjacent soft
tissues (Kauffmann 1924:301).

This description has been widely accepted as the standard
technical definition.
The specific parts of a toothbrush are: handle the


part that is held in the hand. It is straight or sometimes curved
to allow easier manipulation; stock the end of the toothbrush
bearing bristles that are used to brush the teeth; head the end
of the toothbrush, including the stock and the bristles; shank or
neck the transitional area between the handle and the head.
This feature is sometimes very distinct, sometimes very
gradual; cranked a toothbrush is said to be cranked if the
neck and head are set at an angle to the handle. It is concave if
the angle is toward the face when the brush is held horizontally
in relation to the face. It is convex if the angle is away from
the face when held in the same position (Golding 1982b:14);
base or butt the end of the handle, closest to the heel of the
hand when the brush is in use; and hanging hole a hole near
the base of the handle used to hang the brush on a nail or hook
to dry (Figure 1).

History

The concept of using a brush attached to some sort of
stick or handle to clean teeth has been credited to the Yellow
Emperor of China, who is said to have conceived the idea in
1498 (Textoris 1985:4). The toothpick, however, continued to
be the prevailing tooth-cleaning implement in China and
elsewhere until the mid-1600s. Use of the toothbrush was
introduced to central Europe from China around the mid-1600s
and from there it spread throughout western Europe (Textoris
1985:4). A 1649 letter tells how a toothbrush case, a "Paris
luxury," was given as a gift to a friend by an Englishman
(Campbell 1964:24). It is not clear how these toothbrushes
were constructed, but they were made from ivory, horn, or
precious metals. Their use continued to spread among the
elite, even though they were not highly regarded by the leading
dentists of the time. In 1723, French dentist Pierre Fauchard,
the "father of modern dentistry," strongly advised against the
use of toothbrushes, and promoted, instead, rinsing the mouth
with tepid water and rubbing the teeth with a sponge or a
frayed marshmallow stick (Golding 1982a:25; Fauchard
1969:28). The marshmallow stick not only stimulated the
gums, but also provided a refreshing taste.
The toothbrush as we know it today was invented by
William Addis, a tanner from Clerkwell, England, in 1780
(McCauley 1946:284). Addis' method of manufacturing
toothbrushes of bone became the standard way of making


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


SEPTEMBER 1993


Vol. 46 No. 3




163


Hanging hole


Base


Bristles


Head
(Stock &
Bristles)


Neck or Shank


Handle


Figure 1. Prophylactic advertisement (Harper's Magazine,1905), showing nomenclature of toothbrush parts.


toothbrushes until the introduction of synthetic materials in the
late nineteenth century.

Method ofManufacturing Bone Toothbrushes


Cattle femurs were used to make toothbrushes because
they were the only material strong enough to withstand the
pressures of manufacturing and constant exposure to moisture
(Giesecke 1956:209). By 1874, the process of making a brush
was accomplished using machines, but the tasks were probably
similar to the ones completed by hand in 1780. According to
the Chemist and Druggist, an 1874 publication, the femurs
were sawed into sections with a circular saw and then rough
shaped and made smooth using hand planes. A milling
machine then flattened the front and back of the handle. Edges
were shaped by hand on a grinding machine. The bones were
then whitened. The earliest method was to bleach them in the
sun and then steep them in turpentine for 24 hours to loosen
the grease. Later the method was for bones to be boiled in a
weak solution of hydrogen peroxide, 2,000 at a time. The
handles were then polished and holes were drilled in the stock,
later to receive the bristles to complete the head (Giesecke
1956:209; Textoris 1985:9-10) (Figure 2). Around 1850,
brush manufacturers began imprinting their names, trademarks,
slogans, places of manufacture, or qualifiers such as "EXTRA
FINE" on the handles (Larry Roberts, personal communication
1992). Sometimes this was done by using transfers, but the
more common method was to hammer the inscription onto the
handle with a steel stamp that had been blackened with smoke
from a candle or lamp (Giesecke 1956:209).
Toothbrushes are drawn brushes (that is, the bristles
are pulled into their holes to form tufts using wires or threads).
There were two ways to draw the bristles. In the first method,
called wire drawn, holes were drilled from the front of the


stock through to the back. The holes were wider at the back
than they were at the top (Chambers Encyclopedia 1881:128).
A slit was then cut in the back along each row of holes with a
graver. A very fine wire of either silver or brass was then
used to draw or pull bristles into the holes. Brass wire
sometimes produced a green discoloration on the bone. The
wire was tied to the first knot of bristle and the rest then was
secured by drawing the wire up each hole and looping it
around another, set of bristles. The action of pulling the wire
taut doubled the number of bristle ends in the head as each
bundle was secured in the hole. The back slits were then filled
with a decorative cement and sometimes covered with a veneer
(Anonymous 1877:362, 1910:692). The brush handle was
then polished again and finally the bristles were trimmed
(Giesecke 1956:209; Textoris 1985:9)(Figures 3 and 4.
The second method employed trepanning rather than
cutting slits in the back of the head. In trepanning, the bristle
holes are drilled only partway to the back of the stock. Instead
of joining the holes with a slit, a hole was bored or trepanned
from the end of the stock to form a "tunnel," which joined the
holes. Linen thread was then used to "sew" the bristles into
each hole to form a double tuft, in the same manner that wire
was used for the slitted brushes. The trepanning holes at the
end of the stock would then be plugged to make them
inconspicuous (Figure 5). The use of trepanning resulted in a
smooth back on the stock (Anonymous 1877:362, 1910:692;
Church 1929:20)( see Figures 3B and C).
Although ivory, wood, metal, and horn continued to
be used, bone became the most common material for
toothbrush handles, for it was an inexpensive and readily
available material (see Figure 18). Although horse (Textoris
1985:4), goat, and badger hair were used occasionally (Lord,
Owen & Co. 1893:263; Wilmington Dental Mfg. Co.
1890:362), the most common material used for the bristles was
boar hair, particularly hair from wild boars in northern


Stock




164


Figure 2. Steps in processing bone handles (Dunlap 1959:10); a) thigh bone bleached with H202; b) slab planed; c) slab profiled
to shape; d) slab fashioned; e) holes bored in headfor bristles;,) bleached bristles; g) natural bristles; h) bristles partly drawn; i)
brush readyfor bristles to be trimmed;j) completed toothbrush.


A
1870s


B
1840-
1850


C
1850-
1860


Trepanned


Figure 3. Brushes, 1840-1885.


D
1875-
1885
Wire drawn


A
1870s


B C D
1840-50 1850-60 1875-85


Figure 4. Brushes, 1840-1885 (bristle side).


Figure 5. Trepanning holes.





165


climates, such as Siberia and northern China. The cold
climates created a stiffer hair that was more suitable for
brushes. Russia was the leading producer of bristles until after
World War I, when China became the greatest exporter
(Textoris 1985:8). Boar bristles were suitable for cleaning
teeth because they provided enough friction to clean the tooth
enamel, were stiff yet flexible enough to follow the contours of
the teeth, and were piercing enough to dislodge food particles
caught in small crevices. If used properly they would
stimulate the gums (E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
1937:7-8). They were also readily available and inexpensive
(Textoris 1985:7).


Toothbrushes 1780-1951

France and England became the world's major
manufacturers of toothbrushes in the eighteenth century.
Toothbrushes were available in America, but primarily as
imports. They were still considered luxury items and were
owned primarily by the wealthy. During the American
Revolution, it appears that at least one colonist attempted to
make a bone toothbrush. Excavations at the James Anderson
blacksmithing business in Williamsburg, Virginia, revealed a
partially completed toothbrush that apparently had broken
during the drilling process. William E. Pittman, Supervisor of
Archaeological Collections Research at the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, speculates that Anderson, who was
contracted by the Virginia State Army and Navy during the
war, was trying to produce an item that was scarce due to the
wartime situation.
By the very late 1700s, toothbrushes were more
readily available in America to those who could afford them.
In 1788, Isaac Greenwood invented a double-ended brush; one
end was intended to clean the outside surfaces of teeth, and the
other end was for cleaning the inside surfaces. It had a lightly
curved horn handle "broader in the middle, and tapered at each
end below the tufts of bristles, which [were] inserted at a
somewhat unusual angle toward one another" (Campbell
1964:25). The first manufacturers in the United States were
Seth Whitney and John Adams who, in 1808, formed a society
for the manufacture of toothbrushes in Medfield,
Massachusetts (Kauffmann 1932:603-604).
It is thought that toothbrushes first appeared in
literature ca. 1806. The following reference is from a book
published in 1806, entitled, The Miseries of Human Life:
"While you are waiting for a fresh supply of toothbrushes,
battering your teeth with the ivory, and pricking your gums
with the bristles of your old one, completely grubbed out in
the middle -- its few remaining hairs starting off horizontally
on all sides" (Asgis 1929:5).
In spite of such negative features, silver toothbrush sets
were luxury items bought by the upper classes from the early
1800s to ca. 1820. The sets often included a toothbrush with


bristles set into a replaceable block of ivory, tooth powder, and
a tongue scraper (Campbell 1964:26).
In 1832, a Dr. Snell suggested the use of different
brushes for different teeth (Hirschfeld 1939:24-25). By 1840,
toothbrushes were made in France, Germany, Japan, and
England (Garfin 1964:106), and the first English patent was
issued in that year (Textoris 1985:9). Most people, however,
still preferred to use cloths or sponges, and toothbrushes
remained exotic luxuries until after 1850 (Golding 1982a:26).
The first American patent for a toothbrush was issued
in 1857 to H. N. Wadsworth (Kauffmann 1929:132), but it
was probably not until after the American Civil War that the
American toothbrush industry began to develop (Textoris
1985:9) (see Figures 6,7). Three Civil War era toothbrushes
recovered from the Georgiana (a blockade runner that was
sunk in Charleston Harbor in 1863 [Scott 1885:232]), were
bone; one was decoratively carved (Stanley South to Larry
Roberts, personal communication c. 1972). Because wood does
not hold up well in the alternately moist and dry conditions
toothbrushing creates, most brushes were not made out of
wood (Larry Roberts, personal communication 1992). It is
unusual, therefore, that most of the toothbrushes recently
recovered from the "Maple Leaf" (a Union supply ship that
was sunk in the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida in
1864) were wooden (Lee Manly, St. Johns Archaeological
Expeditions, personal communication 1992). Perhaps wood
was a wartime substitute, for bone remained the most
commonly used handle material until the end of the nineteenth
century (Figure 18).
After the war, cheap labor and inexpensive
manufacturing methods allowed the production of inexpensive
brushes for the general population and also of particularly
ornate toothbrushes with elaborate carving. In 1870, the
Woodbury machine for trepanning was invented in the United
States (Anonymous 1910:692). Toothbrushes became more
readily available, and the first dental catalogs with listings of
toothbrushes appeared in 1871; the S. S. White Company
began including pictures of toothbrushes in its dental catalogs
in 1876 (Textoris 1985:10). In 1884, the Florence Brush
Company in Florence, Massachusetts, established in 1866,
began making toothbrushes. Their "Prophylactic" brush,
designed Dr. Meyer L. Rheim, had a 3-row brush with
serrated bristles and longer tufts at the end (Giesecke
1956:210). Its most distinctive characteristics were a concave
head tapered toward the end and a hanging hole near the base
of the handle (Figures 1, 7N, and 18). Because boar hair
bristles absorbed and held water to a high degree, they tended
to deteriorate, and in some cases became dangerous breeding
grounds for bacteria when not allowed to dry. The hanging
hole was a major innovation to encourage people to dry their
toothbrushes thoroughly. The Prophylactic was also the first
brush to be individually packaged to keep it sterile (Giesecke
1956:210). The Prophylactic appears to have become the
industry standard, for many later brands incorporated many of





166


the same features and were described as being "in the
Prophylactic style" (Blackwell-Wielandy Book and Stationery
Co. 1919:168). It remained a popular brand as late as the
1940s.
By the early 1900s, a wide variety of toothbrushes
were on the market as companies tempted the public with the
latest designs for handle shapes and bristle cuts. As promoted
in the early 1800s, various sizes of brushes began to be
produced, including smaller brushes especially for women and
children (Figures 10 and 18) and brushes designed for special
purposes (Figure 11). One brush, dated c. 1910-1920, was
designed as a child's toy, "Dolly's Kleanwell" (Figure 10),
perhaps to encourage children to brush their teeth. Dental
plate brushes with two large, separate tuft areas have been
available at least since the 1880s (Figure 14). Folding brushes
for travelling or simply to carry around (Figure 15), also
appeared by this time. In the 1920s and 1930s, the "Clean-Be-
Tween" toothbrush offered a small, rotating, detachable head,
presumably to accommodate various brushing techniques. The
head was secured with a small ring that was loosened to adjust
the head (Figure 12).
New materials also were introduced to try to replace
bone (Figure 18), which had the unpleasant tendency to take
on offensive odors (Wilmington Dental Mfg. Co. 1890:362).
The Rubberset Company produced its first Celluloid handle
called "imitation ivory," with bristles set in holes with rubber
cement c. 1906 (Figure 7S). It was expensive, however, and
production ceased in the 1920s (Golding 1982a:26).
World War I brought a major change to the
toothbrush industry as it greatly decreased the use of bone for
toothbrushes (Figure 8). Even though much of the production
of toothbrushes was accomplished with the use of machines, it
was still an art to manufacture them. As the brush craftsmen
went to war, the art of making bone toothbrushes was soon
lost. In addition, the bone supply was low because bones were
used instead to make soup during the war (Giesecke
1956:210). Finally, the increase in the use of more synthetic
materials brought an end to the need to carefully craft a
toothbrush. Celluloid, invented in 1869, had become a choice
for toothbrush handles in the dental catalogs, alongside bone,
by 1893 (Lord, Owen & Co. 1893:260; Figure 18).
In the 1920s, celluloid surpassed bone in popularity.
The synthetic material's major advantages over bone were that
it was water resistant, colorful, and easy to manufacture by
machine. Sheets of celluloid were cut into blanks and then put
into molds and shaped under heat and pressure (Golding
1982a:26). Some celluloid was made to look like ivory, but
the mold left a telltale seam along the side. Bristles could
simply be cemented or stapled into machine-made holes,
although, according to Church (1929:20), some were still hand
drawn as evidenced by plugged trepanning holes. A final
advantage was the variety of colors available with celluloid,
which was a great aid in keeping one's toothbrush clearly
identifiable, especially in a crowded family bathroom. There


were some disadvantages to celluloid, however: it deformed in
hot water and was extremely flammable (Giesecke 1956:211).
Its use was discontinued in the 1930s (Giesecke 1956:211).
From 1924 to 1932, Joseph H. Kauffmann published
a series of three articles concerning the toothbrushes available
to the American public at that time (Kauffmann 1924, 1929,
1932). According to Kauffmann (1924:301), in 1923 the
United States imported most of its toothbrushes. Of the nearly
20 million brushes imported, approximately 18 million came
from Japan; Germany and France were next, followed by
Czechoslovakia, England, Hong Kong, Belgium, Austria, and
China. Kauffmann compared the number of toothbrushes used
in the United States with the population and calculated that
only about 20 percent of the American population used
toothbrushes in 1924. This figure had not risen markedly by
1932 when Kauffmann (1932:601) wrote his third article of the
series.
The 1930s saw some of the most remarkable
innovations in toothbrush manufacturing. The Interdental
Stimulator for gums was developed by Dr. Marion L. Drake in
the early 1930s, and the Lactona Company began attaching
them to the bottom of the toothbrush handle in 1936 (Giesecke
1956:211-212; Figure 18). A hanging hole can be
distinguished from one which once held a stimulator by its
smooth inner edge. Holes for stimulators were wider at the
top edge than they were at the bottom.
In 1937, the Du Pont Company introduced the "Dr.
West's" toothbrush, which had natural bristles treated to make
them less water absorbent (E. I. du Pont de Nemours &
Company 1937:8-9). The greatest innovation in modern
toothbrush technology to date, however, came the next year
when Du Pont introduced the "Exton" nylon bristle and
marketed it as "Dr. West's Miracle Tuft" (E. I. du Pont de
Nemours & Company 1938:1-2; Figure 16). For the first time
since the eighteenth century, there was a satisfactory substitute
for boar bristles. While consumers had enjoyed the synthetic
materials that had been developed for the handles and stocks of
toothbrushes, they had had to continue to suffer with the perils
involved with using boar bristles. In addition to being safer to
use, the new nylon bristles did not have to be imported, a
feature that became important with the onset of World War II.
The new technology also produced better materials for the
handles and stocks, including: Pyralin, methyl methacrylate
(Perspex), cellulose acetate, polystyrene, as well as nylon
(Figure 18). These were strong, flexible, and colorful, and
could be injection molded. With this method, the material in
granular or flake form is melted and forced into a mold under
pressure, producing 10-25 handles at one time. Bristles were
secured with staples of nickel-silver (Golding 1982a:26).
World War II boosted the proliferation of the new
synthetic toothbrushes. By 1942, 50 percent of American
brushes were made with nylon bristles (McCauley 1946:288).
Their major advantages over natural bristles were that they did
not become too soft in water, were durable, and could be




167


A B C D E F
1790- 1825- 1840- 1840- 1850- 1850-
1810 1847 1850 1850 1860 1860


G
1840-
1850


H
1850s


I J K L M N O P Q R S
1860- 1870s 1870s 1875- 1885- c1900 1885- 1885- 1890- c1900- 1915-
1870 1885 1895 1895 1895 1900 1910 1925


Figure 7.


Figure 6.


2;


eo


T U
01925-1935 1945+


q


v w
1940s 1940s


Figure 8.


Figure 9. Curvature: left three brushes, 1840-1885;
right, 1870s.


j


I







trimmed and rounded off uniformly (Golding 1982a:27).
Some people still preferred natural bristles, however, and some
dentists even recommended against the use of nylon because it
was very abrasive to the gums (Kauffmann 1972:289).
In 1950, Dr. Robert W. Hutson, a retired Navy
dentist who saw his patients' gums ravaged by nylon bristles,
developed a soft bristle that would not abrade the enamel and
would stimulate gum tissue safely (Oral-B n.d.:2). Hutson's
bristles were very thin and flexible and were put in a compact
tuft, each with forty bristles. There were sixty tufts in a head.
This differed from the widely spaced, stiffer tufts, such as
those found in the "Dr. West's" toothbrush (Figure 16).
Hutson called his brush "Oral-B 60": "oral" because he
believed the brush should benefit the whole mouth, not just the
teeth, "B" for brush, and "60" because of the number of tufts
(Oral-B n.d.:3).
In 1951, "Lucite" acrylic resin was invented (Figure
18), and clear plastic for toothbrushes was available (E. I. du
Pont de Nemours & Company 1951:15). The basic design of
toothbrushes has changed little since that time, although
manufacturers are constantly devising new styles and features
to attract buyers.
This overview of the development and history of the
toothbrush shows that toothbrushes, which are so
commonplace in most of the United States today, have not
always been so popular. Toothbrushes were luxury items, not
readily affordable for the general populace until the late
nineteenth or early twentieth century. Even then, statistics
indicate that as late as the 1930s the vast majority of
Americans did not own toothbrushes. What, then, is the
likelihood of finding a toothbrush at an archaeological site, and
what would such a find mean? What is the nature and potential
value of toothbrushes as a diagnostic artifact?

Toothbrushes as Artifacts


The rapid deterioration of the natural bristles, used in
toothbrushes universally until the invention of nylon in 1938,
made them "throw away" items, usually after only three to
four months of use. Toothbrushes, when found in trash heaps,
wells, or privies, therefore, will rarely if ever have any
bristles, except perhaps for a few fragments left in the holes.
Of primary concern to archaeologists, therefore, are the
toothbrush handle, neck, and stock, the parts most likely to
survive.
The toothbrush has changed little since its initial
conception in China c. 1498; it still consists of a handle with
some sort of brush that is used to rub the teeth. What has
changed over time are the styles, sizes, and materials used
Table 1). A typology for the toothbrush could be developed
through the examination of hundreds, if not thousands of
toothbrushes. Although such research has not yet been
undertaken, a review of the history and the examination of


catalogs and some actual specimens provide enough
information to suggest trends in changes in toothbrushes that
may be useful to archaeologists who come upon toothbrushes
in the field (Figure 18).

Occurrence

After contacting several archaeological repositories in
the Southeast, it appears that most toothbrush collections are
small: Smithsonian Institution (approximately 6); Alexandria
Archaeology (figures unavailable); Williamsburg Foundation
(figures unavailable); University of Maryland at College
Park/Historic Annapolis, Inc. (figures unavailable); University
of Florida (1 or 2); Florida State University (4); University of
West Florida (unavailable ); Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board (2); National Park Service's Southeastern
Archeological Center (1); and Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research (4). Most specimens in the
collections listed above are plain bone, date from the late
nineteenth century, and were found in urban areas, usually
ones associated with the upper classes.
The typically small collections may be due in part to
the surprisingly small number of Americans (20%) who used
toothbrushes as late as 1932 (Kauffmann 1924, 1929, 1932).
The small collections, however, may reflect not so much a
rarity of toothbrush occurrence in archaeological sites, as much
as a lack of documentation concerning their presence at sites.
It has been only in the last two decades or so that artifacts
recovered from sites are routinely quantified. Many of the
large, well established repositories, such as Alexandria
Archaeology, Williamsburg, and the University of Maryland at
College Park, have collections, known to contain toothbrushes,
which have never been inventoried or catalogued (William E.
Pittman, Colonial Williamsburg and Barbara H. Magid,
Alexandria Archaeology, personal communication, 21 June
1993).
The largest collection I have located belongs to Larry
Roberts of Gainesville, Florida. His collection of
approximately 2,000 toothbrushes may well be the largest in
the Southeast, if not the country. The toothbrushes were found
primarily by bottle hunters in old wells, privies, and trash pits,
and come from all over the United States and England. Based
on the bottles with which they were found, they date from c.
1790-1810 to the 1940s; most date from the 1840s to the
1920s. A sample of about forty brushes from the Roberts
Collection, representing various types of brushes from c1810
to the 1940s, has provided much of the data used in this
article.

Attributes

The primary attributes that define a toothbrush
include: 1) material used, 2) size, 3) shape, including
curvature of the handle (Figure 9), inclination of the head, and





Table 1. Data for standard, adult toothbrushes.


The data presented here are arranged by toothbrush in chronological order; the earliest brush is listed first. The brushes are from the Roberts
Collection, owned by Larry Roberts of Gainesville, Florida, unless otherwise indicated by the identification number. A question mark (?) indicates that the
particular data is unknown or is uncertain, primarily because the actual brush was unavailable when the data were entered. The following is an explanation of
the meaning of the entries in each column of the table:

ID# The identification represents the location where the brush was found and the number for that location (e.g., NO 1006 indicates that the brush is the sixth
brush in the Roberts Collection that was found in New Orleans; FL 1018 is the eighteenth brush from his collection found in Florida). There are exceptions
to this pattern. Brushes with the prefix ML are from the Maple Leaf Collection in Jacksonville, Florida; and brushes with the prefix GE are from the
"Georgiana," a blockade runner that was sunk during the Civil War. NID stands for "no identification." FL BAR stands for the State of Florida's Bureau of
Archaeological Research.

Mat. Material from which the hard parts of the brush were made. B = Bone, W = Wood, I = Ivory, Ag = Silver, R = Rubber, C = Celluloid.

Date Date the brush was in use, determined either by provenience (materials, such as datable bottles with which they were found), documentary evidence, or
specific dates stamped on the brush itself.

TOTAL LENGTH Length of the brush from the tip of the head to the end of the base, in millimeters.

HANDLE LENGTH Length of the handle from the bottom of the neck to the tip of the base, in millimeters. (See Figure 1).

HEAD LENGTH Length of the head from the end of the head to the top of the neck at the base of the head, in millimeters. (See Figure 1).

WIDTH HD/HNDL Width of the head/width of the handle, in millimeters. A range, such as 12-20 for the width of the handle indicates that the handle
flared toward the base.

HANDLE CURVE Was the handle curved at all? Y = Yes, N = No. In early brushes the curve was probably due to the natural curve of the femur bone.
Brushes made from synthetic materials had to be curved by design.

BRISTLE TREATMNT. Method used to insert the bristles. S = Slitted or wire drawn, T = Trepanned, I = Inserted.

# TUFTS/ROW The numbers represent the count for tuft holes in rows, running the length of the head. The rows were counted beginning from the right
side of the head. A dash between the numbers means that the count is for a single head, and the number of numbers equal the number of rows (e.g., NY 1005
has 5 rows. The first row has 15 holes, the second, 16; the third, 15; the fourth, 16; and the fifth, 15. NO 1006, however, has two heads, one at each end of
the handle. The first head has 3 rows, having 14, 11, and 14 holes; the second head has 3 rows of 8, 9, and 8 holes. There is no dash after the second 14,
indicating that the 8, 9, and 8 refer to the second head).

COMMENTS Comments note any particular features, such as markings, carvings, and shapes. Imprinted markings are indicated by quotation marks.
Pictorial trademarks are represented by TM (e.g., flower TM means there is a picture of a flower on the brush).




Table 1 (cont.)


ID# Total Handle Head Width Handle Bristle
Mat. Length Length Length Hd/Hndl Curve Treatmnt. #Tufts/
Date (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (Y/N) (S,T,I) Row Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NO 1006
B
1790-1810

FL BAR
#85.56.10
B
1825-1847


FL 1018

1847-


SC NID
B
c1840-1850

MD 1005
B
1840-1850

NID
B
1840-1850

NO 1032
B
1840-1850


142


129


164


160


187


197



180


117


11/11


14-11-14
8-9-8


11-11-11-11


50 12/12


60 12/10


55 15/12-20


100



100


15-16-16-15


23-23-22-24


52 11/12



55 12/18



53 11/13


23-23-24-
23-24


16-17-17-16


2 heads
Irregular
carving


Bevelled handle
Squared base
Green stain


Bamboolike hand
Finial base


"Silver Wire"
Bevelled handle
Squared base

Snake carving
Squared base


Fluting & cross
hatching


"Silver Wire"
Bevelled handle
Squared base




Table 1 (cont.)

ID# Total Handle Head Width Handle Bristle
Mat. Length Length Length Hd/Hndl Curve Treatmnt. #Tufts/
Date (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (Y/N) (S,T,I) Row Comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NID 170 90 55 12/10 N T 20-21-21-20 Ebony inserts
B Turned neck
1850s Flat base


NY 1002
?
c1850-1890


NY 1003
1850-1890
c1850-1890


NY 1004


166


55 13.5/14 N?


19-20-21-
20-19


55 12.5/14.5 ?


156


158


55 15/15


31-32-32-31


14-15-15-14


C1850-1890


NY 1005
1850-1890
c1850-1890


NY 1006


163


164


55 12/14


15-16-15-
16-15




15-16-16-15


55 15/15


c1850-1890


"Mascotte"
Elephant TM
"A Dupont Paris
Short neck

"EXTRA FINE Par
Narrow neck
Pointed base

"Caswell Massey
Co."
"Chosen by C.B.
Kent & Sons
specially for
New York &
Newport"
Squared head

"Caswell Massey
Co. N.Y. &
Newport"
Short neck
Rounded

Handle shape &
writing like
NY 1004
Tapered head




Table 1 (cont.).


ID#
Mat.
Date


Total
Length
(mm)


Handle
Length
(mm)


NY 1007
?
c1850-1890

FL 1065
B
1850-1860


NID
B
1850-1860


ML 1265
W
1862

ML 1483
W
1862

ML 1508


156


162


162


152



170


55 13/13



52 13/15


14-14-14-14


23-24-24-23


52 11/17


110


150


1862


ML 1509
W
1862

ML 1656
W
1862


152



162


89



118


21-22-21-22


42 7/7



57 13/13



45 7/7



57 13/13


18-18-19



24-23-22-
22-23


20-21-21-20


20-21-21-20


51 ?


29-29-29


Inscribed like
NY 1004
Elliptical ends

Leaflike carvin
in center of
handle
Pointed base

Gradual neck
Plain center wi
leaflike carv
at handle edg
Pointed base

Squared base



Pointed base



Head more
modernly
shaped


None



None


Head
Length
(mm)


Width
Hd/Hndl
(mm)


Handle
Curve
(Y/N)


Bristle
Treatment.
(S,T,I)


#Tufts/
Row


Comments





ID# Total Handle Head Width Handle Bristle
Mat. Length Length Length Hd/Hndl Curve Treatmnt. #Tufts/
Date (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (Y/N) (S,T,I) Row Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


165


24-25-26-
24-24


4 rows/
90 holes


15-16-16-15


ML 1663
W
1862

ML 1691
W
1862

ML 1718
B
1862

ML 2009


56 11/11



56 11/11



55 13/15


22-21-22-22



21-22-22-21


Pointed base



Only head
available


"6" etched in
neck


54 13/13



51 13/?



51? 13/?



? 13/?



48 11/11


Floral-like
carving
Narrow neck
Rounded base

Rows widely spa
Abrupt neck
Blunt base

Gradual neck
Squared base


Elliptical head
Tapers to round
point at base


5 rows/
115 holes


22-22-21-23




22-21-22


None


162


111?


1862


165


166


158


GE NID
B?
1863


GE NID
B?
1863

GE NID
B?
1863

FL NID

c1865


100




83


102



92


173



161




Table 1 (cont.)


Handle
Length
(mm)


Head
Length
(mm)


Width
Hd/Hndl
(mm)


Handle
Curve
(Y/N)


Bristle
Treatment.
(S,T,I)


#Tufts/
Row


ID#
Mat.
Date


MD 1002 197 80 60 12/14 Y ? 27-28-28- "Smyth's London
B 28-27 Rounded base
1860-70


NID
B
1870s







NID
B
1870s


SC NID
I?
c1865-1875





FL NID
I
c1870-1880


175









155




163







165


50 10/10









50 12/12




55 14/12







55 13/18


28-29-29-28









23-24-24-23


14-12-15-15


23-24-24-23


"France"
Very decorative
4-columnlike
handle
Flat base
Grooves with 16
holes between
tuft rows on
back

"Rubie"
"Bristles"
"Registered"
Carving

"Superfine"
Flower TM
Elliptical head
row pattern
Rounded, pointe
base
Gradual neck

"Fine Quality"
Large, scabbard
like handle
Gradual neck


Total
Length
(mm)


Comments




Table I (cont.).


ID# Total Handle Head
Mat. Length Length Length
Date (mm) (mm) (mm)
----------------------------------------
NID 166 90 53
B
1875-1885


Width
Hd/Hndl
(mm)


Handle
Curve
(Y/N)


Bristle
Treatment.
(S,T,I)


#Tufts/
Row


Comments


12/15 Y S 14-15-15-14 "Cemented"
"London"
Slits filled
Green stain


NY NID
B
c1870-1880


165


166


55 14/15


15-16-15-
16-15


55 12/13.5 ?


15-16-16-15


c1870-1880


NO NID


157


60 14/15


14-15-15-14


c1875-1885


"Fine Quality"
Slightly wider
base
Squared base

Abrupt neck



Elliptical ends
Slightly pointe
base
Even, like a
propeller


CA 1001
B?
c1877

CA 1003
B?
c1877


VA 1008
8701880
c1870-1880


165


55 13/12.5 N?


163


28-28-28-28


55 12/12



55 14/14


180


29-29-29-29


"The Cong...
Brush...
Factory"


Gradual neck
Slightly pointe
base

Rounded ends
Very plain




Table I (cont.).

ID# Total Handle Head Width Handle Bristle
Mat. Length Length Length Hd/Hndl Curve Treatmnt. #Tufts/
Date (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (Y/N) (S,T,I) Row Comments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA 1013 155 90 55 13/14 Y ? ? Gradual neck
? Rounded. mointe


c1870-1880

FL 1012

1871-1900


FL 1013


1871-1900


FL 1017
7
1871-1900

EG NID
I
c1880-1890



NID
I & W
1885-1895


MD 1014
Ag
1885-1895


55 15/17



55 11/12


16-17-17-
17-16


19-19-19-19


55 12.5/14.5 ?


20-21-21-20


55 13/15


14-15-15-14





18-19-18


55 13/15


45 12/12


base

Gradual neck


Gradual neck
Very slim
Tapers to round
point at base

Bevelled handle
Rounded ends


"Wells & Son"
"61 UprSackvill
St. Dublin"
Hardly any neck
Elliptical ends

"France"
Silver medallio
Brass? ring at
neck
Turned ebony
handle, ivory
head

Insert brush or
polisher
Floral engravin


167


164


171


100


163





165


150





Total
Length
(mm)


Handle
Length
(mm)


Table 1 (cont.)
Head Width Handle Bristle
Length Hd/Hndl Curve Treatmnt.
(mm) (mm) (Y/N) (S,T,I)


#Tufts/
Row


Comments


NID 160 83 50 4-6/13 Y S 11-12-11 "The Prophylact
R?C? Florence Mfg. C
1884-1899 Medium, Patente
Oct. 21, 1884,
Aug. 8, 1899"
Hanging hole
Handle straight
head cranked
toward face


IL 1004


c1885-1895

OH 1006
Ag & I
1885-1895


FL NID
C?
c1885-1900?


PA 1040
W
1890-1900


165


170




177


53 12/12



50 11/22




63 15/16


164


16-18-18-16


18-19-18




17-18-18-17


50 11/?


19-20-20-19


"Real Ebony"
Silver medallio
"France"

"Sterling"
Silver handle
with initials
Ivory head

"Audnut's Pharm
cy, 218 Broad
way NY"
"Guaranteed" "7
"S" "England"
Slits filled wi
blue
Similar to the
Prophylactic

"Japan" on side
of head
"Extra Fine" on
front of hand
Bevelled handle


ID#
Mat.
Date




Table 1 (cont.)


Handle
Length
(mm)


Head
Length
(mm)


Width
Hd/Hndl
(mm)


Handle
Curve
(Y/N)


Bristle
Treatment.
(S,T,I)


#Tufts/
Row


Comments


FL BAR 100 ? ?/13 Y ? ? Handle only
B? Rounded base
85.56.09 Gradual neck
1890-1910


NID
B
c1900-1910


NID
C?
1915-1925


CF 1054
C
c1925-1935


NID
C?
1945+


150


50 7/7


155


17-18-18-17


52 8/8


153


11-12-11


45 10/11


158


8-9-8


46 12/13


10-12-12-10


Very flat
Diagonal lines
Pointed base
Poor carving

"Rubberset"
"Medium"
"Pat Pending
Plyable" ?
HANDLE E
Hanging hole
Metal interior?

"Pearl Dental"
"Pure Bristle
100% Steri-
lized"
"This brush is
is made in th
U.S.A."
"Pearly blue"
Hanging hole
Hogs hair brist

"Kingsley"
"Pure Natural
Bristle"
"24M W. German
on side of he
Red/White strip


ID#
Mat.
a'te


Total
Length
(mm)




Table 1 (cont).
Head Width
Length Hd/Hndl
(mm) (mm)


Handle
Curve
(Y/N)


Bristle
Treatment.
(S,T,I)


FL 1081 158 90 50 11/11 N I 10-11-10 Bamboo, nylon
w bristles, gre
1940s "Old Colony
[Motor]...
Athens, Ga.
Hanging hole


45 11/11


10-11-10


Oriental writing
Hogs bristles
Hanging hole
Opaque


ID#
Mat.
Date


Total
Length
(mm)


Handle
Length
(mm)


NE 1003
C
1940s


#Tufts/
Row


157


Comments


rp;"


I


Figure 10. Children's brushes. L-R; 1880-1890, 1880-1890 (Celluloid),
1890-1910, 1910-1920 (Doll brush).


Figure 11. Palate brushes (left and middle) and special brush (right),
1880-1900.
















































Clean-Be-Tween
1920s-1930s


Child's
Insert Brush


Tooth Polisher
without Insert


Figure 12.


Figure 13. Typewriter brushes.


;i
1



i






Figure 18. Changes in toothbrush attributes through time.


11 onf


1 onn


18 Qn


1 afn


186n0


1R8nf


l9nn


190 Q


1940 1950


L U uJ S I I I II

BONE CELLULOID NYLON & OTHER
MATERIALS USED Ivory Bone PLASTICS
Silver Wood Bone
Wood Silver Wood
Silver




SIZE
Overall length 150-170mm, some up to 197mm adult, 95-134 children's
Handle length Not enough data 80-100mm (longer ones before 1850)
Handle width 11-15mm
Head length 50-60mm
Head width 11-13mm



OVERALL SHAPE Not Tended to be flat Usually curved Tend to be straight, but some
enough and straight to fit hand concave
data
Not Tended to be Wide range of pointed, bluntly pointed,
SHAPE OF BASES enough squared squared and rounded
data


SHAPE OF HEADS Not enough Tended to be Tended to be elliptical, Squared or tapered
data squared elliptical tapered I

3-4/avg. 3-4/average 10
NUMBER OF BRISTLE 4-5 / average 21 holes per row 17 holes holes per row
HOLES per row


NECKS OR SHANKS Not enough data Long & Gradual Short, some abrupt

MNames of manufacturers, place of manufacture,
MARKINGS Well executed carving trademarks, cartoon characters on children's (1935+)

Hanging hole (1884) Gum (1936)
SPECIAL FEATURES I (steadily increased) stimulator
_____I ,I I I I I 1 I


1780 1800


1820 1840 1860 1880


0 091 1 920 1 940 1950





182


13512
13512 Tooth Brushes. Florence dental plate,
tra quality, for eleninL artiWcial teeth.
Eac ;..................0.29. Per dozen....
Welhbt. per dozen. 16 ounces.

Figure 14. Dental plate brush (Montgome
1895).


13316 Folding
Pocket Tooth
Brush. all
bristle brusb.
Each...S0.2,
Per doz .2.60

ex-
....$3.10


ry Ward catalog, Figure 15. Folding pocket toothbrush (Montgomery Ward
catalog, 1895).
















Figure 16. Dr. West's Miracle Tuft toothbrush, with the
"Exton" bristle introduced by the Du Pont Company in 1938.












-ar


Ideal Felt Tooth Polishers, 18 in a box............. doz. 2 00
Holders, lone, Irnrn or Celluloid........ 2 75




Figure 17. Felt tooth polisher (Lord, Owen & Co. catalog, 1893).




183


E tpe of the base, 4) number of bristle holes and rows, 5)
i kings or decoration, 6) specific brands or types, 7)
1 Athods of inserting bristles, and 8) special features, such as
I nging holes or gum stimulators. Because the toothbrushes
: st commonly found will date from the development of the
ne brush, Figure 18 represents trends in toothbrushes that
te from 1780. The interpretation given is based on limited
search and is only preliminary.

>ssible Points of Confusion

There are a number of artifacts similar to toothbrushes
at might confuse an archaeologist; the following are a few
amples. There were special brushes with heads shaped
fferently from the standard toothbrush. Among these were
date brushes with short, rounded or squarish heads designed
brush the roof of the mouth (Figure 11A and B), and very
aall brushes designed for teeth that were particularly difficult
reach (Figure 11C). In the 1890s, besides a toothbrush,
oth polishers with insertable felt heads were available
figures 12 and 17). Without the insert, these may be
istaken for some sort of small spoon. Fancy silver handles
,re sometimes used for toothbrushes, probably when they
sre part of vanity or toiletry sets (Figure 7). These could be
nfused with cutlery sets. The "Clean-Be-Tween"
othbrush, popular in the 1920s, had a removable head.
without the head, it could be mistaken for a buttonhook or
me other such implement (Figure 12). Finally, typewriter
aning brushes, which may be present after the invention of
e typewriter in 1873, are very similar to toothbrushes
igure 13), and could be easily mistaken unless labelled by
Manufacturer.

Conclusion

Although toothbrushes have been known to occur
fairly regularly in urban sites, they have not been used
extensively by archaeologists as diagnostic tools. This may be
because there is no established toothbrush typology, no means
of dating them, and no established theories concerning their
significance. Thus far, little research has been done toward
this end.
Because the natural bristles wore out quickly,
toothbrushes were discarded after only three to four months.
They would, therefore, represent a very narrow space in time
and could be very useful as dating tools. A major problem,
however, is the extremely wide range of variations in style and
size that toothbrushes had in single periods of time. A
typology can be attempted, however, when enough examples
of brushes, with adequate provenience formation, are
examined. Research at numerous repositories is possible, even
though hampered at this point because few of these collections
have been cataloged. In addition to creating a means to use
toothbrushes as dating tools, such investigations may shed light


on broader archaeological questions such as, the implications
of the presence or absence of toothbrushes at a site, the
significance of the contexts in which toothbrushes are found,
and how the distribution of toothbrushes or other hygiene
related artifacts compares to other types of artifacts, such as
kitchen ware.
In addition to the examination of artifacts, historical
research can be used to trace various toothbrush brands in
magazines, particularly dental journals and women's
magazines. Histories of companies in France, England,
Germany, Japan, and the United States also would be very
enlightening.

The toothbrush has actually changed very little since
the sixteenth century, and many "new" features are simply the
return of ideas that originated in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. The history of the toothbrush demonstrates
changing attitudes toward personal hygiene and how social
class can affect behavior. For archaeologists, toothbrushes
remain a potentially rich source of information. It is hoped
that this paper will be of use to archaeologists to some degree
now and will serve as a starting point for further research.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Larry Roberts for his incredible
generosity in lending me his entire toothbrush collection and
research materials. Without him, this article certainly could
not have been written. I would also like to thank Roy Lett of
the Division of Historical Resources who volunteered his own
time and expertise to photograph the toothbrushes, Donna
Graves and Liz Milliken at the State Library of Florida who
cheerfully responded to my Interlibrary Loan requests, and the
editors who provided useful and insightful comments.


References Cited


Anonymous
1877 Brushes and Brooms. In Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.
4. J.M. Stoddart, Philadelphia.

1910 Brush. In Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 4. University
of Cambridge Press, Cambridge, England.

Asgis, Alfred J.
1929 The History of the Toothbrush and the Hair-Bristle
Toothbrush. Reprint from The Dental Digest
35(5):unpaginated.

Blackwell-Wielandy Book and Stationary Company
1919 Catalogue





184


Campbell, J. Menzies
1964 Tooth-Picks and Tooth-Brushes. Dental Health
81:24-26.

Chambers Encyclopedia
1881 Brushes. In Library of Universal Knowledge, Vol. 3.
Chambers Encyclopedia, Edinburgh & London.

Church, Charles J.
1929 Where the Tooth Brushes Come From. Reprinted
from The Dental Hygiene News Letter, December: 19-21.

Dunlap, Leona May
1959 The Toothbrush Has a History. n.p., [Houston,
Texas?]. Ms. in possession of the author.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
1937 A Personal Possession: Plastic Makes the Moder
Toothbrush. The Du Pont Magazine, September:7-10.


1938 Introducing "Exton" Bristle. The Du Pont Magazine.
32(11):1-2, 16.

1951 Birth of a Toothbrush. The Du Pont Magazine.
October: 14-15.

Fauchard, Pierre
1969 The Surgeon Dentist or Treatise on the Teeth.
(Translated from the Second Edition published 1746, by
Lilian Lindsay.) Milford House, Pound Ridge, NY.

Garfin, Laurence A.
1964 Something Old, Something New: Toothpicks and
Toothbrushes. Dental Survey. April: 102,
104, 106.

Giesecke, Max
1956 Development of the Tooth Brush. Journal of the All-
India Dental Association 28:206-212.

Golding, Peter S.
1982a The Development of the Toothbrush: A Short History
of Tooth Cleansing, Part 1. Dental Health 21(4):25-27.

1982b The Development of the Toothbrush, Part 2: The
Modern Toothbrush. Dental Health 21(5): 10-11, 14-15.

Hirschfeld, Isador
1939 The Toothbrush, Its Use and Abuse. Dental Items of
Interest Publishing, Brooklyn, NY.


Kauffmann, Joseph H.
1924 A Study of the Toothbrush I. Dental Cosmos 66:300-
313.

1929 A Study of the Toothbrush II. Dental Cosmos
71:132-140.

1932 A Study of the Toothbrush III. Dental Cosmos
74:601-606.

1972 The Toothbrush: Past and Present. New York
Journal of Dentistry 42(9):287-290.

Lord, Owen & Co.
1893 Prices Current of Drugs and Druggists' Sundries.
Lord, Owen & Co., Chicago, Illinois.

McCauley, H. Berton
1946 Toothbrushes, Toothbrush Materials and Designs.
Reprinted from the Journal of the American Dental
Association 33:283-292.

Oral-B Company
n.d. Evolution of the Toothbrush/The Oral-B Toothbrush.
Ms. on file, Oral-B Company, Redwood City, CA.

Remington, Frank L.
1967 Toothbrushes and Such. Health, February: 13-15.

Scott, Robert N. (editor)
1885 The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the
Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.
Series I, Vol. XIV. Government Printing Office,
Washington.

Textoris, James E.
1985 Oral Hygiene and the Development of the Bristle
Toothbrush. Ms. on file, Alexandria Archaeology,
Alexandria, VA.

Wilmington Dental Manufacturing Company
1890 Illustrated Catalogue of Tooth-Brushes. Wilmington
Dental Manufacturing Co.




Barbara E. Mattick
Historic Sites Specialist
Bureau of Historic Preservation
Division of Historical Resources
R.A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399







185


FLORIDA ARCHAEOLOGY SINCE 1980

Jerald T. Milanich


In 1980 Charles Fairbanks and I published Florida
Archaeology, an introductory overview of native American
Indian cultures in precolumbian and colonial period Florida.
The focus ranged from the Paleoindians of twelve millennia
ago to the Seminole people of the nineteenth century. By 1991
it was obvious to me that Florida Archaeology was out-of-date;
indeed, in some places it was simply wrong. I decided to
undertake a new book, one that took advantage of the very
large amount of archaeological data published since 1980.
The first year, 1991, was spent reading. The next year,
1992, was spent reading and writing, and the first four months
of 1993 saw me reading, writing, and revising. The
manuscript, entitled Voices from the Past: Archaeology of
Precolumbian Florida is now completed and has been sent to
the publisher. It should appear in February 1994. A second
volume scheduled to follow in a few years will tell the story of
the native American Indians of colonial period Florida.
In the remainder of this article, I will mention some of
my observations regarding Florida archaeology since 1980,
focusing on the archaeology of precolumbian and early
colonial period native American cultures. I cannot do justice
to all the projects or all the archaeologists that have made
important contributions; there are just too many. Archaeology
in Florida is thriving.
The period since 1980 has been a time of plenty for
archaeological research in Florida. There have been projects
by state agencies, notably the Division of Historical Resources,
and by federal archaeologists on the staffs of the National Park
Service and the U.S. Forestry Service. There are archaeology
emphases within the anthropology departments at Florida
Atlantic University, Florida Museum of Natural Sciences,
Florida State University, Rollins College, University of
Central Florida, University of Florida, University of South
Florida, and University of West Florida. And although not yet
with a separate anthropology department, the University of
North Florida has an archaeologist on its faculty working in
Florida; the University of Miami also sponsors archaeological
research. Graduate students working through these institutions
continue to perform a large chunk of the research being done
in the state, and the resultant theses and dissertations number
into the hundreds.
State moneys, most often administered through the
Division of Historical Resources, and various federal grants,
for instance, the National Science Foundation and the National
Endowment for the Humanities, also fund research in the state.
Other grant funds come from private foundations and


organizations, such as the National Geographical Society,
Colonial Dames, and Wentworth Foundation. Some local and
county governments also fund research. Perhaps all of these
projects together, however, do not equal the number of
projects done by consultant archaeologists and private sector
archaeologists in response to government-mandated laws and
regulations concerning the management of archaeological
resources.
The result of this research is an explosion of new
knowledge. New approaches, new field and analytical
techniques, and an emphasis on interdisciplinary research have
resulted in not only larger quantities of knowledge, but new
types of information. Of special note are the contributions to
knowledge that have come from wet sites, archaeological sites
that have been inundated or sites that were intentionally or
accidently deposited in water, peat, muck, or a similar context.
As we all know, wet sites can provide preservation of artifacts
not normally found in land sites, items which can enhance our
understanding of past cultures.
Recent archaeological investigations blanket the state
from south to north and represent every time period from
earliest to most recent. Some notable projects in southern
Florida are the Granada site in Miami (Griffin et al. 1985), the
Fort Center site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin (Sears 1982,
and John Griffin's synthesis of the archaeology of Everglades
National Park (Griffin 1988). Other large south Florida
projects include the National Park Service's surveys of the Big
Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park
(Ehrenhard, Carr, and Taylor 1978, 1979; Ehrenhard and
Taylor 1980; Ehrenhard, Taylor, and Komara 1980;
Ehrenhard, Komara, and Taylor 1982; Taylor and Komara
1983; Taylor 1984, 1985).
In addition to those projects and the dissertation and
subsequent book on southwest Florida by Randolph Widmer
(1984, 1988), there are the recent interdisciplinary
investigations by William Marquardt and his students and
associates, also centered on the southwest Florida coast
(Marquardt 1984; Russo et al. 1991; Marquardt, ed. 1992).
South Florida is now seen not as a single, Archaic-like cultural
adaptation that existed in marked contrast to the precolumbian
agricultural cultures of northern Florida, but as a series of
regional adaptations, each with its own history that can be
traced from late Archaic times into the colonial period (for
some examples of specific south Florida projects and
overviews, see McMichael 1982; Athens 1983; Williams 1983;
Carr and Beriault 1984; Hale 1984, 1989; Milanich, Chapman


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993







186

et al. 1984; Austin 1987; Carr 1985, 1990; Luer 1989;
McGoun 1989; Newman 1993; Kozuch 1993; Lee et al. 1993).
In south Florida, as elsewhere in the state, biological
anthropologists and scientists from other disciplines are
working with archaeologists to forge a better understanding of
precolumbian and colonial period populations (Iscan 1983; W.
Johnson 1991; Felmley 1990). Detailed analyses of specific
artifact types also continue to yield fresh perspectives in south
Florida (McGoun 1981; Reiger 1981, 1990; Allerton, Luer,
and Carr 1984; Luer 1985, 1992a; Luer, ed. 1986; Walker
1989; and see various chapters in Griffin et al. 1985, and in
Marquardt, ed. 1992), as they do elsewhere in Florida (Purdy
1981; Purdy and Beach 1981; Cordell 1984; Shannon 1986;
Newsom and Purdy 1990).
Michael Russo (1991) has demonstrated the presence of
late Archaic sedentary populations and mound construction on
the southwest coast, while Karen Walker (1992) has expanded
Widmer's model of post-Archaic Caloosahatchee culture,
documenting sea level fluctuations and correlating them with
subtle changes in settlement systems and with the availability
of certain fish and shellfish species (and see Widmer 1986).
Archaeobiological analyses of south Florida animal and plant
remains by Elizabeth Wing and her students and by Lee
Newsom, Margaret Scarry, and others have provided data on:
(1) the nature of coastal and interior subsistence patterns
through time; (2) seasonality; (3) and the use and histories of
specific plants in precolumbian Florida (Wing 1984; Masson
and Scarry n.d.; and see Griffin et al. 1985, and Marquardt,
ed. 1992). Newsom, working with William Marquardt, has
identified what appear to be wild species of chili pepper and
papaya from the Caloosahatchee region (Lee A. Newsom and
William Marquardt, personal communication). These and
other plant remains have been recovered from precolumbian
wet deposits.
Another extraordinary set of data from a wet deposit is
the wooden carvings excavated by William Sears (1982) from
the charnel pond at the Fort Center site. Sears also identified
maize pollen from pre-A.D. 500 contexts at that site. Those
identifications have been checked by Edward Deevey's
paleoecology laboratory at the Florida Museum of Natural
History. Maize pollen, and presumably maize, were present at
Fort Center at the end of the Archaic period, something not yet
satisfactorily explained. I predict that in the not distant future
the analysis of plant remains from Florida wet sites will change
our present models of how maize and squashes came to be in
the eastern United States. A wealth of new data on plants and
their histories is yet to be harvested in Florida.
A host of archaeologists have been involved in projects
around the greater Tampa Bay region in both coastal and
inland locales (Chance 1981, 1982; Gagel 1981; Wharton and
Williams 1981; Welch 1983; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1981;
Daniel 1982; Estabrook and Newman 1984; Deming 1988;
Estabrook and Williams 1992;). Projects associated with the
mitigation of archaeological sites impacted by the construction


of Interstate 75 around Tampa resulted in a particularly large
number of significant studies, many by researchers associated
with the University of South Florida, either as faculty or past
or present students. Sites of almost every period have been
investigated in the region--from Paleoindian to Safety Harbor--
and the results have had a great influence not only on our
interpretations of the native cultures of greater Tampa Bay, but
the rest of the state as well. Especially notable is the work by
Randy Daniel and associates at the Harney Flats Paleoindian
and Archaic site (Daniel and Weisenbaker 1987).
The later Weeden Island and Safety Harbor period
cultures of the central and northern Gulf coasts have received a
healthy dose of reinterpretation, though not enough
excavation, and at long last the synthesis of Gordon Willey
published in 1949 has been refined and greatly expanded (Luer
1992b; Luer and Almy 1980, 1981, 1982, 1987; Luer et al.
1987; Mitchem 1988, 1989). Inundated sites in the region
have also garnered attention (Rupp6 1980; Dunbar 1981;
Goodyear, Upchurch, and Brooks 1980; Goodyear et al.
1983).
Along and near the peninsular Gulf coast north of Tampa
Bay bioarchaeological and archaeological researchers have
examined the interaction between Spaniards and specific native
groups associated with the Safety Harbor culture, providing
dramatic evidence of the European presence and its impact on
native health (Mitchem 1989; Hutchinson 1991). Surveys and
excavations in that region also have produced additional
understanding of both coastal and freshwater cultural
adaptations (Johnson and Kohler 1987; Jones and Borremans
1991; Kohler and Johnson 1986; Mitchem and Weisman 1987;
Weisman 1986, 1987).
On the opposite side of the state Glen Doran and David
Dickel directed the Windover Pond project, which saw the
excavation of 7500-year-old artifacts and human burials, some
with extant brains and other tissue, all preserved in a peat
deposit (Doran and Dickel 1988a, 1988b; Doran 1992).
Preserved items accompanying the interments included a
Lagenaria gourd dipper and various woven and plaited fabrics
made from Sabal palm, saw palmetto, and other plants.
Because of the specialized kinds of analyses that have been
applied to the unique human tissues and the artifact collections
from the site, Windover may turn out to be one of the most
significant archaeological sites excavated (Doran et al. 1986;
Dickel and Doran 1989; Hauswirth et al. 1991; Lawlor et al.
1991). Its importance, as well as a reflection of how far
archaeology has come in Florida, is underlined by Glen
Doran's being named Floridian of the Year by the Orlando
Sentinel newspaper in 1987.
Middle Archaic wet sites with human interments, placed
in ponds and anchored with stakes below the water table in a
fashion similar to the Windover Pond site, also have been
recorded in Florida and have produced normally perishable
artifacts, including atlatl parts (Beriault et al. 1981; Wharton,
Ballo, and Hope 1981. As Barbara Purdy (1991; Purdy, ed.









1988) has demonstrated, the potential of wet sites in Florida is
extraordinary.
North of Windover in northeast Florida surveys and test
excavations by Michael Russo have demonstrated a denser
distribution of coastal late Archaic sites than previously
known, further evidence for the hypothesis that sedentary
populations were common in marine salt marsh and estuary
settings at least by 3000 B.C. (Russo 1992a; Russo, Cordell,
and Ruhl 1992). Sedentary late Archaic populations appear to
have been present along much of the Atlantic coast as well as
inland in the St. Johns drainage (Newman and Weisman 1992;
Ste. Claire 1990; Bond 1992; Russo et al. 1992).
Westerly from Windover Pond at the Hontoon Island site
on the St. Johns River, Barbara Purdy and her research team
excavating in St. Johns period wet deposits have found literally
hundreds of Cucurbita seeds and the site has produced
important data on plant and animal use (Newsom 1986, 1987;
Purdy 1987a, 1987b; Wing and McKean 1987). Analysis of
the Hontoon Island squash seeds and others from elsewhere in
Florida, including a unique, underwater deposit of probable
mastodon digest from the Page-Ladson site radiocarbon-dated
to 12,500 years ago, have led Lee Newsom and her associates
to postulate that weedy, gourd-like squashes are native to
Florida, not Archaic imports from Mesoamerica (Newsom
1992; Newsom, Webb, and Dunbar 1992).
Projects, including surveys, excavations, and syntheses,
also have been completed elsewhere in the St. Johns region,
from Nassau County southward to the marshy headwaters in
Brevard and Indian River counties, including central Florida
(Lee et al. 1984; Sigler-Eisenberg et al. 1985; Russo 1985,
1986, 1988, 1992b; Sigler-Eisenberg and Russo 1986; Russo
et al. 1989; Bense and Phillips 1990; Miller 1991, 1992;
Ashley 1992; Weisman 1993). The focus on the Indian River
region cultures has brought new perspectives to a little known
part of precolumbian Florida.
The post-1980 era also saw the completion of the
McKeithen Weeden Island project in north Florida, which
provided a model for pre-Mississippian Woodland period
social and political organization and yielded greater
understanding of the Weeden Island culture (Sigler-Lavelle
1980a, 1980b; Milanich, Cordell et al 1984; Kohler 1980,
1991; Johnson 1985). Recently that region has been the focus
of a number of excavations and surveys examining the
precolumbian and colonial period cultures and the impact of
the European presence over time (Johnson 1987, 1991;
Johnson and Nelson 1990, 1992). We can now delineate the
territories of known colonial period native groups and correlate
them with both pre- and post-contact archaeological
assemblages (Milanich and Hudson 1993).
Studies of the native groups of the colonial period and
their interaction with the Spaniards in Florida--especially the
Franciscan-Indian missions--have blossomed across northern
Florida from St. Augustine west to Tallahassee, informing
topics as diverse as the roles of women, the architecture of the


187

houses of the missionary priests, and the health of mission
villagers (Marrinan 1985; Saunders 1987; McEwan 1991a,
1991b; McEwan, ed. 1991; Hoshower 1992; Weisman 1992).
In Florida, mission archaeology is being done in conjunction
with excellent historical research (Hann 1988, 1990, 1991;
Worth 1992) against a background of detailed studies of
Spanish colonial material culture (Deagan 1987).
The Tallahassee region and all of northwest Florida have
received significant archaeological attention, including a
number of significant surveys (Tesar 1980; White 1981a;
White and Trauner 1987; Thomas and Campbell 1985a, 1992;
Meadows and White 1992). The precolumbian Mississippian
culture in that region, Fort Walton, has been investigated by
archaeologists, who have written about social and political
organization, subsistence, settlement systems, regional cultural
variations, artifacts, and the emergence of Fort Walton out of
the earlier Weeden Island culture (Payne 1981; Tesar 1981;
Alexander 1984; Brose 1984; Scarry 1985, 1990a, 1990b;
Scarry and Payne 1986; White 1986; Mikell 1990, 1993).
With the publication of B. Calvin Jones' report on the
extraordinary Southeastern Ceremonial Complex paraphernalia
salvaged from the Lake Jackson site (Jones 1982) and the work
of David Brose's students in the early 1980s (Scarry 1980,
1981a, 1981b, 1984a; White 1981b, 1982), Fort Walton
assumed its rightful place within Mississippian studies. Today
any synthesis of Mississippian cultures must take into account
Fort Walton data.
Farther west in the panhandle in Pensacola, Judith Bense
has successful merged archaeological inquiry with public
education and public involvement, resulting in a model project
of how to build support for research and for the preservation of
archaeological sites (Bense 1985). Her Hawkshaw project has
given a boost to the tired Deptford studies I did in the early
1970s. The theme that Bense has emphasized in her project--
building public support through public education--is becoming
increasingly strident in Florida archaeology, as evidenced by
William Marquardt's Year of the Indian project in southwest
Florida and the upcoming (October 1993) Florida Archaeology
Week.
The work by Prentice Thomas and his associates at New
World Research examining late Archaic period Elliott's Point
complex sites should also be noted (Thomas and Campbell
1991). It is clear that late Archaic peoples in the western
panhandle, like the contemporaneous populations on the
Atlantic coast, occupied the coast year-round. Archaeology in
the western panhandle, like the region east of the Apalachicola
River drainage, is alive and well (Claassen 1985; Thomas and
Campbell 1985b; Curren 1987; Little, Curren, and McKenzie
1988).
Two additional projects, both involving wet sites, deserve
mention. One is the site where the mastodon digesta was
found, the Page-Ladson underwater site in the Aucilla River.
James Dunbar, S. David Webb, and their research team are
excavating the site, which is one of nearly thirty Paleoindian







188


sites located thus far in a restricted portion of that river
(Dunbar, Faught, and Webb 1988; Dunbar, Webb, and Cring
1989). The site is not far from the riverine location where a
Bison antiquus skull with a broken stone projectile point still
lodged in it was recovered (Webb et al. 1984).
Page-Ladson and similar sites are validating the
correlation between Paleoindian camps and karstic topography.
James Dunbar and his associates have charted the locations of
literally hundred of Paleoindian points and several dozen ivory
foreshafts in Florida, showing a positive correlation with
Tertiary limestone formations (Dunbar and Waller 1983;
Dunbar 1991). Their contention--limestone formations held
watering holes that drew animals and people--is certainly
supported. When Paleoindians lived in Florida, it was much
more arid than at present. Human settlements were limited by
a lack of surface water and springs, the result of greatly
lowered ground water tables.
The final research focus I will mention is the
investigation of Paleoindian and Archaic sites off the present
Gulf of Mexico coast from Tampa to Apalachee Bay (Stright
1987; Faught 1988; Dunbar, Webb, and Faught 1991;
Garrison 1991; Dunbar et al. 1989; inundated sites also occur
off the Florida Atlantic coast, see Murphy 1990). Such
research may someday revise much of what is known about the
nature and distribution of early human settlements, since
Tertiary limestone formations also extend under the present
Gulf and it is logical to assume that the density of sites
offshore is equal to that in terrestrial karstic regions.
The research I did for the new book on Florida
archaeology made clear several salient points. First, water and
wetlands were the most significant resources for most of the
people of precolumbian Florida throughout most of their
histories. Marine and freshwater habitats provided important
foods for every precolumbian society. Moreover, the
distribution of wetlands had a profound effect on the nature of
precolumbian societies. In areas of extensive wetlands--often
the same parts of the state where less fertile agricultural soils
are found--regional native cultures continued to focus on wild
resources for their sustenance rather than adopting maize
agriculture. It was only in areas where extensive wetlands are
not present and where the more fertile soils are found--parts of
northwest, north-central, and north Florida--that precolumbian
peoples became intensive farmers. Indeed, Mississippian-style
intensive farming, associated with a host of social, political,
and ideological traits, only developed and persisted in the
eastern panhandle, the region of the Fort Walton culture.
The question of agriculture in precolumbian Florida is
controversial. One example of that controversy is the maize
pollen found at the Fort Center site in the Okeechobee Basin.
If maize were being grown in the savannah surrounding Lake
Okeechobee shortly after 500 B.C., it would be the earliest use
of that plant in the eastern United States (the earliest well-
documented maize is from the Icehouse Bottom site in


Tennessee; Chapman and Keel 1979).
There is ample evidence in the archaeological record for
maize farming among the Fort Walton peoples, and maize
kernels have been found at a ninth century A.D. Wakulla
Weeden Island culture site in northwest Florida (Milanich
1974). But definite evidence (kernels and cobs) for maize
cultivation in precolumbian Florida before that date is not
present. The supposition that the adoption of maize agriculture
led to the changes in settlement patterns and artifact
assemblages that are seen across the northern one-third of
Florida at A.D. 750 remains to be proven.
If changes in the archaeological record in northern
Florida at about A.D. 750 correlate with the adoption of maize
agriculture, we would expect to find evidence that corn was
being grown. Perhaps the reason such evidence has not been
forthcoming is that the type of agriculture was not as intensive
as that practiced by the Fort Walton culture.
Another consideration is that in order to find remains of
cultigens in the archaeological record, we must look for them.
With archaeobotanical studies becoming a standard part of
research strategies, perhaps definitive evidence for the
cultivation of maize and other plants in Florida prior to the
ninth century will be forthcoming. Certainly, as demonstrated
at Hontoon Island, Florida's wet sites can provide ample
evidence of plant use.
Several other points should be emphasized. One is that
the precolumbian cultures of south Florida were not as unique
as once was thought. Dividing Florida into northern maize
agriculturists and southern hunter-gatherers-fishers is not an
accurate depiction. Non-maize-agricultural populations
probably existed in both north and south Florida in the late
precolumbian period. Increasingly we are recognizing
similarities among these nonagricultural cultures, both those in
northern and southern Florida.
Past taxonomies have heavily influenced the ways we
classify the precolumbian cultures. It is not easy to change
those taxonomies, but that is what is happening as the
archaeological record receives closer scrutiny. One example is
the area from Tampa Bay south into southwest Florida. In
those regions archaeologists are finding it increasingly difficult
to differentiate respective, late Archaic period cultures.
Likewise, we must explain the presence of Safety Harbor
pottery in mound contexts in both regions.
New data brings both blessings and taxonomic revision.
As more information is produced, we must alter our
taxonomies to reflect new understanding.
Another point that has emerged as a result of increased
research in coastal areas is that Florida's archaeological record
is not complete. Many sites have been inundated by the rising
sea. But enough coastal Archaic sites remain and have now
been studied for archaeologists to realize that by or shortly
after 3000 B.C. year-round occupation of coastal zones took
place. As technologies to locate and excavate inundated







189


Archaic period or even Paleoindian period sites in the Gulf of
Mexico are developed, our knowledge of pre-3000 B.C.
coastal cultures will certainly increase.
The fial point is this: Florida provides an excellent
laboratory to study the evolution of precolumbian cultures and
their interactions with past and present environments. For
instance, comparisons of Fort Walton, a true Mississippian
culture, with the Pensacola and Safety Harbor cultures allow us
to begin to understand the nature of the Mississippian way of
life and the importance of a certain constellation of
environmental and geographical conditions--e.g., soil types, a
location near other Mississippian societies--in the development
of that way of life. Comparisons among Florida's
precolumbian cultures also can provide insights into how
chiefdom societies can evolve in the absence of intensive
agriculture. In the Caloosahatchee region, harvesting marine
resources from shallow, grassy tropical coastal waters provided
the economic base for such complex political developments.
Similar developments also may have taken place in coastal
locales of the Safety Harbor and Pensacola cultures.
We also can learn a great deal about past environments
through archaeological studies of Florida's precolumbian
cultures. Investigations provide information on ground water
levels, sea level fluctuations, and the plants and animals that
once lived here.
In a sense, archaeology and the application of
archaeobiological and similar scientific methods enable native
societies that existed in Florida thousands of years ago to speak
to us today. The worlds of precolumbian Floridians are an
important part of our cultural and environmental heritage. We
are fortunate that archaeologists in Florida, with the support of
groups like the Florida Anthropological Society, can bring
those voices from the past to our world today.


References Cited

Alexander, Michelle
1984 Analysis of Plant Materials from Three Fort Walton
Sites: High Ridge, Velda, and Lake Jackson Sites. Paper
presented at the 41st Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Pensacola.

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

Ashley, Keith H.
1992 Swift Creek Manifestations along the Lower St. Johns
River. The Florida Anthropologist 45:127-138.

Athens, William P.
1983 The Spatial Distribution of Glades Period Sites within
the Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. Unpublished


M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State
University, Tallahassee.

Austin, Robert J.
1987 Prehistoric and Early Historic Settlement in the
Kissimmee River Basin: An Archaeological Survey of the
Avon Park Air Force Range. The Florida Anthropologist
40:287-300.


Bense, Judith A.
1985 Hawkshaw: Prehistory and History
Neighborhood in Pensacola, Florida.
Investigation No. 7. Office of
Archaeological Research, University of
Pensacola.


in an Urban
Reports of
Cultural and
West Florida,


Bense, Judith A., and John C. Phillips
1990 Archaeological Assessment of Six Selected Areas in
Brevard County: A First Generation Site Location
Model. Report of Investigations 32, Institute of West
Florida Archaeology, University of West Florida.
Pensacola.

Beriault, John, Robert Carr, Jerry Stipp, Richard Johnson, and
Jack Meeder
1981 The Archeological Salvage of the Bay West Site,
Collier County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
34:39-58.

Bond, Stanley C., Jr.
1992 Archaeological Excavations at 8SJ42, the Crescent
Beach Site, St. Johns County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 45:148-161.

Brose, David S.
1984 Mississippian Period Cultures in Northwestern
Florida. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited
by Dave D. Davis, pp. 165-197. Gainesville: University
of Florida Press.

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

1990 Archaeological Investigations at Pine Island,
Broward County. The Florida Anthropologist 43:249-
261.

Carr, Robert S. and John G. Beriault
1984 Prehistoric Man in South Florida. In Environments
of South Florida: Present and Past, edited by P.J.
Gleason, pp. 1-14. 2nd ed. Miami Geological Society
Memoir 2. Coral Gables.









Chance, Marsha A.
1981 Investigations at Wetherington Island: An Archaic
Lithic Procurement Site in Hillsborough County. The
Florida Anthropologist 34:109-119.

1982 Phase II Investigations at Wetherington Island: A
Lithic Procurement Site in Hillsborough County, Florida.
Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeological Reports 3.
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Division
of Archives, History and Records Management, Florida
Department of State. Tallahassee.

Chapman Jefferson, and Bennie C. Keel
1979 Candy Creek-Connestee Components in Eastern
Tennessee and Western North Carolina and their
Relationship with Adena-Hopewell. In Hopewell
Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference, edited by
David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp. 157-161. Kent:
Kent State University Press

Claassen, Cheryl
1985 Shellfish Utilization during Deptford and
Mississippian Times in Escambia Bay, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 38:124-135.

Cordell, Ann S.
1984 Ceramic Technology at a Weeden Island Period
Archaeological Site in North Florida. Ceramic Notes
No. 2. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic
Technology Laboratory, Florida State Museum.

Curren, Caleb
1987 Archaeology at Bluewater Bay (80k102), a Late
Archaic Period Site in Northwest Florida. The
University of West Florida Office of Cultural and
Archaeological Research, Report of Investigations 9.
Pensacola.

Daniel, Randy
1982 Test Excavations at the Deerstand Site (8Hi483A)
in Hillsborough County, Florida. Interstate 75 Highway
Phase II Archaeological Reports 2. Bureau of Historic
Sites and Properties, Florida Division of Archives,
History and Records Management, Florida Department of
State. Tallahassee.

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker
1981 Test Excavations at 8Hi450(D): An Inland Archaic
Occupation in Hillsborough County, Florida. Interstate
75 Highway Phase II Archaeological Reports 1. Bureau
of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Division of
Archives, History and Records Management, Florida
Department of State. Tallahassee.


1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site.
Farmingdale, N.Y.: Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

Deagan, Kathleen A.
1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the
Caribbean, 1500-1800, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.

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

Dickel, D.N., and G. H. Doran
1989 Severe Neural Tube Defect Syndrome from the
Early Archaic of Florida. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 80:325-334.

Doran, Glen H.
1992 Problems and Potential of Wet Sites in North
America: The Example of Windover. In The Wetland
Revolution in Prehistory, edited by Bryony Coles, pp.
125-134. Exeter, England: The Prehistoric Society and
Wetland Archaeology Research Project, University of
Exeter.

Doran, Glen H. and David N. Dickel
1988a Multidisciplinary Investigations at the Windover
Site. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by B.A. Purdy, pp.
263-289. Caldwell, N.J.: Telford Press.

1988b Radiometric Chronology of the Archaic Windover
Archaeological Site (8BR246). The Florida
Anthropologist 41:365-380.

Doran, Glen H., David N. Dickel, William E. Ballinger, Jr.,
O. Frank Agee, Phillip J. Laipis, and William W.
Hauswirth
1986 Anatomical, Cellular and Mollecular Analysis of
8,000-yr-old Human Brain Tissue for the Windover
Archaeological Site. Nature 323:803-806.

Dunbar, James S.
1981 The Effect of Geohydrology and Natural Resource
Availability on Site Utilization at the Fowler Bridge
Mastodon Site (8Hi393c/uw) in Hillsborough County,
Florida. In Interstate 75 Highway Phase II
Archaeological Report No. 5, pp. 63-106. Tallahassee:
Florida Division of Archives, History and Records
Management.

1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age










Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In Clovis: Origins and
Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmier,
pp.185-213. Corvallis: Center for the First Americans,
Oregon State University.

Dunbar, James S., Michael K. Faught, and S. David Webb
1988 An Underwater Paleo-Indian Site in Northwestern
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 41:442-453.

Dunbar, James S. and B. I. Waller
1983 A Distribution Analysis of the Clovis/Suwannee
Paleo-Indian Sites of Florida: A Geographic Approach.
The Florida Anthropologist 36:18-30.

Dunbar, James S., S. David Webb, and Dan Cring
1989 Culturally and Naturally Modified Bones from a
Paleoindian Site in the Aucilla River, North Florida. In
First International Bone Modification Conference, edited
by R. Bonnichsen, pp. 473-497. Orono: Center for the
Study of the First Americans, University of Maine.

Dunbar, James S., S. David Webb, Michael Faught
1991 Inundated Prehistoric Sites in Apalachee Bay,
Florida, and the Search for the Clovis Shoreline. In
Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: An Investigation of
Method, edited by Lucille Lewis Johnson, pp. 117-146.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Dunbar, James S., S. David Webb, Michael Faught, Richard
J. Anuskiewicz, and Melanie J. Straight
1989 Archaeological Sites in the Drowned Tertiary Karst
Region of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Underwater
Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical
Archaeology Conference, edited by J. Barto Arnold III,
pp.25-31.

Ehrenhard, John E., Robert S. Carr, and Robert C. Taylor
1978 The Archeological Survey of the Big Cypress
National Preserve, Phase I. National Park Service,
Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

1979 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archeological
Survey Season 2. Southeast Archeological Center,
National Park Service, Tallahassee.

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


Ehrenhard, John E. and Robert C. Taylor
1980 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archeological
Survey Season 3. Southeast Archeological Center,
National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Ehrenhard, John E., Robert C. Taylor, and Gregory Komara
1980 Big Cypress National Preserve: Cultural Resource
Inventory, Season 4. Southeast Archeological Center,
National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Estabrook, Richard W., and Christine Newman
1984 Archaeological Investigations at the Marita and
Ranch House Sites, Hillsborough County, Florida.
University of South Florida, Department of
Anthropology, Archaeological Report 15. Tampa.

Estabrook, Richard W., and J. Raymond Williams
1992 Analysis of Lithic Materials from the Rattlesnake
Midden Site (8Hi980), Tampa Bay, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 45:39-51.

Faught, Michael
1988 Inundated Sites in the Apalachee Bay Area of the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico. The Florida Anthropologist
41:185-190.

Felmley, Amy
1990 Osteological Analysis of the Pine Island Site
Human Remains. The Florida Anthropologist 43:262-
274.

Gagel, Katherine
1981 Archaeological Excavations at Site 8Hi483(B): An
Archaic Habitation Site in Hillsborough County, Florida.
Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeological Reports 6.
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Division
of Archives, History and Records Management, Florida
Department of State. Tallahassee.

Garrison, Ervan G.
1991 Recent Archaeogeophysical Studies of
Paleoshorelines of the Gulf of Mexico. In
Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: An Investigation of
Method, edited by Lucille Lewis Johnson, pp. 103-116.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, and Mark J. Brooks
1980 Turtlecrawl Point: An Inundated Early Holocene
Archeological Site on the West Coast of Florida. In
Southeastern Geological Society Guidebook 22, edited by
Sam B. Upchurch, pp. 24-33. Tallahassee.








192


Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, Mark J. Brooks, and
Nancy N. Goodyear
1983 Paleoindian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay
Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 36:40-66.

Griffin, John W.
1988 The Archeology of Everglades National Park: A
Synthesis. National Park Service, Southeast
Archeological Center, Tallahassee. Contract CX 5000-5-
0049.

Griffin, John W., Sue B. Richardson, Mary Pohl, Carl D.
McMurray, C. Margaret Scarry, Suzanne K. Fish, Elizabeth S.
Wing, L. Jill Loucks, and Marcia K. Welch
1985 Excavations at the Granada Site. Archaeology and
History of the Granada Site, vol 1. Florida Division of
Archives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee.

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

1989 Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies and Settlement
Patterns in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of the South
Florida Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Florida. Gainesville.

Hann, John H.
1988 Apalachee: The Land between the Rivers.
Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

1990 Summary Guide to Spanish Florida Missions and
Visitas with Churches in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries. The Americas 46:417-513.

1991 Missions to the Calusa. Gainesville: University of
Florida Press.

Hauswirth, William W., Cynthia D. Dickel, Glen H. Doran,
Phillip J. Laipis, and David N. Dickel
1991 8000-year-old Brain Tissue from the Windover
Site: Anatomical, Cellular, and Molecular Analysis. In
Human Paleopathology: Current Synthesis and Future
Options, edited by D.J. Ortner and A.C. Aufderheide,
pp. 60-72. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution
Press.

Hoshower, Lisa M.
1992 Bioanthropological Analysis of a Seventeenth
Century Native American-Spanish Mission Population:
Biocultural Impacts on the Northern Utina. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Florida. Gainesville.


Hutchinson, Dale L.
1991 Postcontact Native American Health and
Adaptation: Assessing the Impact of Introduced Diseases
in Sixteenth-Century Gulf Coast Florida. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Illinois. Urbana-Champaign.

Isgan, M. Yasar
1983 Skeletal Biology of the Margate-Blount Population.
The Florida Anthropologist 36:154-168.

Johnson, G. Michael
1985 Lithic Technology and Social Complexity at a
North Florida Weeden Island Period Site. Unpublished
M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington
State University, Pullman.

Johnson, G. Michael, and Timothy A. Kohler
1987 Toward a Better Understanding of North Peninsular
Gulf Coast Florida Prehistory: Archaeological
Reconnaissance in Dixie County. The Florida
Anthropologist 40:275-286.

Johnson, Kenneth W.
1987 The Search for Aguacaleyquen and Cali.
Miscellaneous Project Report 33. Department of
Anthropology, Florida Museum of Natural History.
Gainesville.

1991 The Utina and the Potano Peoples of Northern
Florida: Changing Settlement Systems in the Spanish
Colonial Period. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida. Gainesville.

Johnson, Kenneth W., and Bruce C. Nelson
1990 The Utina: Seriations and Chronology. The
Florida Anthropologist 43:48-62.

1992 High Plain Swamps and Flatwoods:
Archaeological Survey of Portions of Baker, Columbia,
and Union Counties in North Florida. Miscellaneous
Project Report 49. Department of Anthropology, Florida
Museum of Natural History. Gainesville.

Johnson, William G.
1991 Remote Sensing and Soil Science Applications to
Understanding Belle Glade Cultural Adaptations in the
Okeechobee Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida. Gainesville.

Jones, B. Calvin
1982 Southern Cult Manifestations at the Lake Jackson
Site, Leon County, Florida: Salvage Excavation of







Mound 3. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:3-
44.

Jones, Paul L., and Nina T. Borremans
1991 An Archaeological Survey of the Gulf Hammock,
Florida. Report of Investigations submitted to the
Division of Historical Resources, Department of State.
Tallahassee.

Kohler, Tim A.
1980 The Social Dimensions of Village Occupation of
the McKeithen Site, North Florida. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:5-10.

1991 The Demise of Weeden Island, and Post-Weeden
Island Cultural Stability in Non-Mississippianized
Northern Florida. In Stability, Transformation, and
Variations: The Late Woodland Southeast, edited by
M.S. Nassaney and C.R. Cobb, pp. 91-110. New York:
Plenum.

Kohler, Timothy A., and G. Michael Johnson
1986 Dixie County Archaeological Reconnaissance,
Winter 1985-86. Report submitted to the Division of
Historical Resources, Department of State. Tallahassee.

Kozuch, Laura
1993 Sharks and Shark Products in Prehistoric South
Florida. Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 2, Florida
Museum of Natural History, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Lawlor, David A., Cynthia D. Dickel, William W. Hauswirth,
and Peter Parham
1991 Ancient HLA Genes from 7,500-year-old
Archaeological Remains. Nature 349:785-788.

Lee, Arthur R., and John Beriault (with Walter Buschelman
and Jean Belknap)
1993 A Small Site--Mulberry Midden, 8Cr697--
Contributions to Knowledge of Transitional Period. The
Florida Anthropologist 46:43-52.

Lee, Chung Ho, Irvy R. Quitmyer, Christopher T.
Espenshade, and Robert E. Johnson
1984 Estuarine Adaptations During the Late Prehistoric
Period: Archaeology of Two Shell Midden Sites on the
St. Johns River. Report of Investigations No. 5.
University of West Florida Office of Cultural and
Archaeological Research, Pensacola.


Little, Keith J., Caleb Curren, and Lee McKenzie


193
1988 A Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the
Blackwater Drainage, Santa Rosa County, Florida.
Institute of West Florida Archaeology, University of
West Florida, Report of Investigation 13.

Luer, George M.
1985 An Update on Some Ceremonial Tablets. The
Florida Anthropologist 38:273-274, 281.

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

1992a Mississippian-Period Pop-Eyed Bird-Head Effigies
from West-Central and Southern Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 45:52-62.

1992b The Boylston Mound: A Safety Harbor Period
Shell Midden; with Notes on the Paleoenvironment of
Southern Sarasota Bay. The Florida Anthropologist
45:266-279.

Luer, George M., ed.
1986 Shells and Archaeology in Southern Florida.
Florida Anthropological Society Publications No. 12.
Tallahassee.

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

1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The
Florida Anthropologist 34:127-155.

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

1987 The Laurel Mound (8So98) and Radial Burials with
Comments on the Safety Harbor Period. The Florida
Anthropologist 40:301-320.

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

Marquardt, William H.
1984 The Josslyn Island Mound and its Role in the
Investigation of Southwest Florida's Past. Miscellaneous
Project Report 22. Department of Anthropology, Florida
Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.







Marquardt, William H., ed.
1992 Culture and Environment in the Domain of the
Calusa. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental
Studies, Monograph 1, Florida Museum of Natural
History, Department of Anthropology, University of
Florida, Gainesville.

Marrinan, Rochelle A.
1985 The Archaeology of the Spanish Missions of
Florida: 1565-1704. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves:
Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks, edited by
K.W. Johnson, J.M. Leader, and R.C. Wilson, pp. 241-
252. Florida Journal of Anthropology Special
Publication No. 4, Gainesville.

Masson, Marilyn A., and C. Margaret Scarry
n.d. Carbonized Seeds and Corn Cobs from the Honey Hill Site
(8DA411): A Diachronic Glimpse of Plant Use in
Everglades Subsistence. In Historical and
Archaeological Investigations at the Honey Hill Site,
Dade County, Florida, by Robert Carr, A. Felmley, and
Patsy. Report 25, Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Miami.In press.

McEwan, Bonnie G.
1991a San Luis de Talimali: The Archaeology of
Spanish-Indian Relations at a Florida Mission. Historical
Archaeology 25(3):36-60.

1991b The Archaeology of Women in the Spanish New
World. Historical Archaeology 25(4):33-41.

McEwan, Bonnie, editor
1991 The Missions of Spanish Florida [Special Issue].
The Florida Anthropologist 44 (3-4).

McGoun, William E.
1981 Medals of Conquest in Calusa Florida.
Unpublished M. A. thesis, Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton.

1989 Prehistoric Peoples of South Florida. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

McMichael, Alan E.
1982 A Cultural Resource Assessment of Horr's Island,
Collier County, Florida. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

Meadows, Richard, and Nancy M. White
1992 Sam's Creek Cutoff Shell Mound, an Oyster


Midden in the Lower Apalachicola Valley, Estuarine
Wetlands of Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the
44th Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological
Society, St.Augustine.

Mikell, Gregory A.
1990 The Sheephead Bayou Site (8By150): A Single
Component Fort Walton Hamlet Site in Northwest
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 43:198-208.

1993 The Little's Bayou West Site: Evidence of the Late
Weeden Island-Fort Walton Transition in Northwest
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46:12-19.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1974 Life in a 9th Century Indian Household, a Weeden
Island Fall-Winter Site on the Upper Apalachicola River,
Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties,
Division of Archives, History and Records Management,
Bulletin 4, pp. 1-44. Tallahassee: Florida Department of
State.

Milanich, Jerald T., Jefferson Chapman, Ann S. Cordell,
Stephen Hale, and Rochelle A. Marrinan
1984 Prehistoric Development of Calusa Society in
Southwest Florida: Excavations on Useppa Island. In
Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, edited by Dave D.
Davis, pp. 258-314. Gainesville: University Presses of
Florida.

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

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

Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles Hudson
1993 Hernando de Soto and the Indians of Florida.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Miller, James J.
1991 The Fairest, Frutefullest and Pleasantest of all the
World: An Environmental History of the Northeast Part
of Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate Group in City
and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia.

1992 Effects of Environmental Changes on Later Archaic
People of Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
45:100-106.





195


Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1988 Some Alternative Interpretations of Safety Harbor
Burial Mounds. Florida Scientist 51:100-107.

1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/
Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

Mitchem, Jeffrey M., and Brent R. Weisman
1987 Changing Settlement Patterns and Pottery Types in
the Withlacoochee Cove. The Florida Anthropologist
40:154-166.

Murphy, Larry E.
1990 8SL17: Natural Site-Formation Processes of a
Multiple-Component Underwater Site in Florida.
Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers
38, National Park Service. Santa Fe.

Newman, Christine L.
1993 The Cheetum Site: An Archaic Burial Site in Dade
County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46:37-42.

Newman, Christine L., and Brent R. Weisman
1992 Prehistoric and Historic Settlement in the Guana
Tract, St. Johns County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 45:162-171.

Newsom, Lee A.
1986 Plants, Human Subsistence,and Environment: A
Case Study from Hontoon Island (8-VO-202), Florida.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida. Gainesville.

1987 Analysis of Botanical Remains from Hontoon
Island (8V0202), Florida: 1980-1985 Excavations. The
Florida Anthropologist 40:47-84.

1992 Macrobotanical Research Updated at Page/Ladson
Site. Half-Mile Rise Times 4(1): 1, 7.

Newsom, Lee Ann, and Barbara A. Purdy
1990 Florida Canoes: A Maritime Heritage from the
Past. The Florida Anthropologist 43:164-180.

Newsom, Lee A., S. David Webb, and James S. Dunbar
1992 History and Geographic Distribution of Cucurbita
pepo Gourds in Florida. Manuscript on file,
Environmental Archaeology Laboratory, Florida Museum
of Natural History. (Submitted for publication).


Payne, Claudine
1981 A Preliminary Investigation of Fort Walton
Settlement Patterns in the Tallahassee Red Hills.
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24:29-
31.

Purdy, Barbara A.
1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Tool Technology.
Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

1987a Hontoon Island, Florida (8-VO-202) Artifacts. The
Florida Anthropologist 40:27-39.

1987b Investigations at Hontoon Island (8-VO-202), An
Archaeological Wet Site in Volusia County, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 40:4-12.

1991 The Art and Archaeology of Florida's Wetlands.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Purdy, Barbara A., editor
1988 Wet Site Archaeology. Caldwell, N.J.: Telford
Press.

Purdy, Barbara A., and Laurie M. Beach
1980 The Chipped Stone Tool Industry of Florida's
Preceramic Archaic. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 8:105-124).

Reiger, John F.
1981 An Analysis of Four Types of Shell Artifacts from
South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34:4-20.

1990 "Plummets"--An Analysis of a Mysterious Florida
Artifact. The Florida Anthropologist 43:227-239.

Rupp6, Reynold J.
1980 The Archaeology of Drowned Terrestrial Sites: A
Preliminary Report. Bureau of Historic Sites and
Properties, Division of Archives, History and Records
Management, Bulletin 6, pp. 35-45. Tallahassee: Florida
Department of State.


Russo, Michael
1985 Zaremba:
Miscellaneous
Anthropology,
Gainesville.


A Short-term Use
Project Report 25.
Florida Museum of


Malabar II Site.
Department of
Natural History.


1986 The Coevolution of Environment and Human
Exploitation of Faunal Resources in the Upper St. Johns







River Basin. Unpublished M.A. paper, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida.

1988 Excavations at the Palm Bay Development, Brevard
County, Florida: Subsistence and Settlement Pattern.
Report submitted to General Development Corporation,
Inc. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources.
Tallahassee.
1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case
Study from Horr's Island. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.
Gainesville.

1992a Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Marys Region
of Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia. The Florida
Anthropologist 45:107-126.

1992b Subsistence, Seasonality and Settlement at Futch
Cove. Report submitted to Florida Archaeological
Services, Inc. On file, Florida Division of Historical
Resources. Tallahassee.

Russo Michael, Ann Cordell, Lee Newsom, and Robert Austin
1989 Phase III Archaeological Excavations at Edgewater
Landing, Volusia County, Florida. Report submitted to
Radnor/Edgewater Landing, Inc., by Piper
Archaeological Research, Inc. St. Petersburg.

Russo, Michael (with Ann S. Cordell and Donna L. Ruhl)
1992 The Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve,
Phase III Final Report. Southeast Archeological Center,
National Park Service. Tallahassee.

Russo, Michael, Ann S. Cordell, Lee Newsom, and Sylvia
Scudder
1991 Final Report on Horr's Island: The Archaeology of
Archaic and Glades Settlement and Subsistence Patterns.
Part II. Glades, Ceramics, Archaeobotanical, and Soils
Analysis, Plus Appendices and References from Horr's
Island. Submitted to Key Marco Developments, Marco
Island, Florida. Department of Anthropology, Florida
Museum of Natural History.

Russo, Michael, Barbara A. Purdy, Lee A. Newsom, and Ray
M. McGee
1992 A Reinterpretation of Late Archaic Adaptations in
Central-East Florida: Groves' Orange Midden
(8Vo2601). Southeastern Archaeology 11:95-108.

Saunders, Rebecca
1987 Excavations at 8Na41: Two Mission Period Sites on
Amelia Island, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report
35. Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum of
Natural History, Gainesville.


Scarry, John
1980 The Chronology of Fort Walton Development in
the Upper Apalachicola Valley, Florida. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:38-45.

1981a Fort Walton Culture: A Redefinition. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24:18-21.

1981b Subsistence Costs and Information: A Preliminary
Model of Fort Walton Development. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24:31-32.

1984a Fort Walton Development: Mississippian
Chiefdoms in the Lower Southeast. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve
University. Cleveland.

1985 A Proposed Revision of the Fort Walton Ceramic
Typology: A Type-Variety System. The Florida
Anthropologist 38:199-233.

1990a Mississippian Emergence in the Fort Walton Area:
The Evolution of the Cayson and Lake Jackson Phases.
In Mississippian Emergence: The Evolution of Ranked
Agricultural Societies in Eastern North America, edited
by B.D. Smith, pp. 227-250. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.

1990b The Rise, Transformation, and Fall of Apalachee:
A Case Study of Political Change in a Chiefly Society.
In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the
Deep South, edited by Mark Williams and Gary Shapiro,
pp. 175-186. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Scarry, John and Claudine Payne
1986 Mississippian Polities in the Fort Walton Area: A
Model Generated from the Renfrew-Level XTENT
Algorithm. Southeastern Archaeology 5:79-90.

Sears, William H.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake
Okeechobee Basin. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida.

Shannon, George, Jr.
1986 The Southeastern Fiber-tempered Ceramic
Tradition Reconsidered. In Papers in Ceramic Analysis,
edited by P.M. Rice, pp. 47-80. Ceramic Notes No. 3.
Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology
Laboratory, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.

Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda, Ann Cordell, Richard Estabrook,
Elizabeth Horvath, Lee Newsom, and Michael Russo







1985 Archaeological Site Types, Distribution, and
Preservation within the Upper St. Johns River Basin,
Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report 27. Department
of Anthropology, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.

Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda, and Michael Russo
1986 Seasonality and Function of Small Sites on
Florida's Central-East Coast. Southeastern Archaeology
5:21-31.

Sigler-Lavelle, Brenda J.
1980a On the Non-random Distribution of Weeden Island
Period Sites in North Florida. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:22-29.

1980b The Political and Economic Implications of the
Distribution of Weeden Island Period Sites in North
Florida. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New School
for Social Research.

Ste,. Claire, Dana
1990 The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological
Evidence from Early Coastal Adaptations. The Florida
Anthropologist 189-197.

Straight, Melanie J.
1987 Inundated Archaeological Sites of the Florida
Coastal Region: A Regional Overview. Proceedings:
Eighth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer
Meeting. OCS-MMS 88-0035. New Orleans, Minerals
Management Service.

Taylor, Robert C.
1984 Everglades National Park Archeological Inventory
and Assessment, Season 2. Southeast Archeological
Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.


1985 Everglades
and Assessment,
Park Service,
Tallahassee.


National Park Archeological
Season 3: Interim Report.
Southeast Archeological


Inventory
National
Center,


Taylor, Robert C. and Gregory Komara
1983 The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archeological
Survey, Season 5. Southeast Archeological Center,
National Park Service.

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


197
1981 Fort Walton and Leon-Jefferson Cultural
Development in the Tallahassee Red Hills Area of
Florida: A Brief Summary. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Bulletin 24:27-29.

Thomas, Prentice M. and L. Janice Campbell
1985a Cultural Resources Investigation at Tyndall Air
Force Base, Bay County, Florida. New World Research,
Inc., Report of Investigations 84-4.

1985b The Deptford to Santa Rosa/Swift Creek Transition
in the Florida Panhandle. The Florida Anthropologist
38:110-119.

1991 The Elliott's Point Complex: New Data Regarding
the Localized Poverty Point Expression on the Northwest
Florida Gulf Coast, 2000 B.C.-500 B.C. In The Poverty
Point Culture, Local Manifestation, Subsistence
Practices, and Trade Networks, edited by Kathleen M.
Byrd, pp. 103-119. Geoscience & Man 29.

1992 Eglin Air Force Base Historic Preservation Plan:
Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resources Investigations
at Eglin; Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties,
Florida. 2 vols. New World Research, Inc., Report of
Investigations 192.

Walker, Karen Jo
1989 Artifacts of a Fishy Nature: Charlotte Harbor's
Prehistoric Estuarine Fishing Technology. Paper
presented at the 46th Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Tampa.

1992 The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor's
Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation: Spatial and Temporal
Perspectives. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida. Gainesville.

Webb, David S., Jerald T. Milanich, Roger Alexon, and James
S. Dunbar
1984 A Bison Antiquus Kill Site, Wacissa River,
Jefferson County, Florida. American Antiquity 49:384-
392.

Weisman, Brent R.
1986 The Cove of the Withlacoochee: A First Look at
the Archaeology of an Interior Florida Wetland. The
Florida Anthropologist 39:4-23.

1987 A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Crystal River
Archaeological Site (8CI1), Citrus County, Florida.
Submitted to the Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Land and Aquatic Resource
Management, Tallahassee.





198


1992 Excavations of the Franciscan Frontier,
Archaeology of the Fig Springs Mission. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida.

1993 An Overview of the Prehistory of the Wekiva River
Basin. The Florida Anthropologist 46:20-36.

Welch, James M.
1983 Mitigative Excavations of the South Prong I Site, 8-
Hi-418, and the Cates Site, 8-Hi-425, Hillsborough
County, Florida. Archaeological Report 13, University
of South Florida, Department of Anthropology.

Wharton, Barry, George Ballo, and Mitchell Hope
1981 The Republic Groves Site, Hardee County, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 34:59-80.

Wharton, Barry R. and J. Raymond Williams
1981 An Appraisal of Hardee County Archaeology:
Hinterland or Heartland? Florida Scientist 43:215-220.

White, Nancy M.
1981a Archaeological Survey at Lake Seminole, Jackson
and Gadsden Counties, Florida, Seminole and Decatur
Counties, Georgia. Final report submitted to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, in fulfillment
of Contract No. DACW01-78-C-0163. Cleveland
Museum of Natural History Archaeological Research
Report.

1981b The Curlee Site (8Ja7) and Fort Walton
Development in the Upper Apalachicola-Lower
Chattahoochee Valley in Florida. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 24:24-27.

1982 The Curlee Site (8Ja7) and Fort Walton
Development in the Upper Apalachicola-Lower
Chattahoochee Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Case Western Reserve University.
Cleveland.

1986 Prehistoric Cultural Chronology in the
Apalachicola Valley: The Evolution of Native Chiefdoms
in Northwest Florida. In Threads of Tradition and
Culture along the Gulf Coast, edited by R.V. Evans, pp.
194-215. Gulf Coast History and Humanities
Conference, Pensacola.

White, Nancy M. and Audrey M. Trauner
1987 Archaeological Survey of the Chipola River Valley,
Northwest Florida. Ms. submitted to the Bureau of
Historic Preservation, Tallahassee.


Widmer, Randolph E.
1984 The Evolution of the Calusa, a Non-agricultural
Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania
State University. College Park.

1986 Prehistoric Estuarine Adaptation at the Solana Site,
Charlotte County, Florida. Reported submitted to the
Florida Department of Transportation and Federal
Highway Administration. Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural
Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections 113.

Williams, Wilma B.
1983 Bridge to the Past: Excavations at the Margate-
Blount Site. The Florida Anthropologist 36:142-153.

Wing, Elizabeth S.
1984 Faunal Remains from Seven Sites in the Big
Cypress National Preserve. CNRS Notes et
Monographies Techniques 16:169-181. Paris.


Wing, Elizabeth and L. McKean
1987 Preliminary Study of the
Excavated from the Hontoon Island
Anthropologist 40:40-46.


Animal Remains
Site. The Florida


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





Jerald T. Milanich
Curator in Archaeology
Department of Anthropology
Florida Museum of Natural History
Gainesville, Florida 32611





199


IMPROVING ARCHAEOLOGY'S PUBLIC APPEAL

Harry M. Piper and Jacquelyn G. Piper


Florida archaeology is a dynamic activity and to consider
it in its present state also necessitates contemplation of
strategies for continued progress, especially when there is
increasing competition among cultural activities for the
available support. Just as much as it is an imperative of
archaeology and history to continue inquiry into the patterns
and processes of past lifeways, it is vital to the well being of
those fields of study that they be increasingly elevated in the
public's sense of priorities. Consequently, when possible,
energies and finances should be employed to carry interesting
research results beyond traditional goals of interpretation to a
product sufficiently appealing to the general public to be
marketable by private industry. Similarly, projects of higher
visibility such as urban archaeology and those associated with
the recent past such as industrial archaeology offer exceptional
opportunities for interesting the general public.
Because our experience has predominantly been in private
practice, our opinions on the one general and two specific
subjects which follow are expressed from that perspective. It
is a perspective which acknowledges preservation goals and
regulations, while dealing with them at the level of project-
specific implementation; a point of view that values the
esoteric knowledge of anthropology and calls for interpretation
of that knowledge to a lay audience in a meaningful and useful
way. While realizing that our concepts are not new, we will
explore ideas wherein private sector experience can be useful
in meeting some of the evolving needs of our profession.

Archaeology and Public Satisfaction

Most Florida archaeologists have recognized, as Milanich
and Fairbanks (1980:261-262) pointed out thirteen years ago,
that "State and federal laws and regulations are not enough; the
demand that we use our cultural resources wisely must come
from the public, from ourselves." As has been extensively
discussed within the cultural resource community, the
increased level of attention and support by its organized
constituencies during the past decade has not been matched by
the general public to the degree necessary to create a broad and
effective base of public support for the identification and
preservation of significant cultural resources. The importance
of this concern has been expressed in Florida for quite some
time (e.g. Division of Archives, History and Records
Management 1973:10-11,19-20,70; Florida Archaeological
Council 1991:4-5,30-31; Lee 1992:280,282) and coordinated


programs of public communication and awareness have been
established by the state Division of Historical Resources, the
Florida Archaeological Council, the Florida Anthropological
Society and consortia of state and local museums. In addition,
the Florida Archaeological Council's Stewards of Heritage
Preservation Awards, as well as the first Florida Archaeology
Week planned for October 1993 by statewide constituent
organizations, represent excellent special efforts to bring the
merits of research and preservation to public attention.
If it is agreed that "Public satisfaction, the essence of
public benefit, is essential for the justification of appeals for
support ...by the general public" (Division of History,
Archives and Records Management 1973:20), does the
apparent lack of public support indicate that we archaeologists
haven't provided a sufficiently wide segment of the general
public with satisfaction, with something that makes them feel
good about the past and its relevance to the present? In
searching for the answer to that question, it is useful to
examine what we archaeologists have been doing, consider any
impediments, and suggest ways to change or improve our
strategies.

Hindrances to Expanding Public Appeal

Public education in a variety of forms has been put forth
by many interested parties as a critical element in the process
of ensuring both the short and long term advocacy of the
general public. One of the fundamentals seen as integral to the
education of the public is the interpretation of archaeological
data in an entertaining and understandable manner, including a
more prosaic presentation than is traditionally utilized by many
in our profession (Davis 1988:6-7; McManamon 1991:122;
Jameson 1993:8). As a practical matter, however, public
interpretation and other comparable educational undertakings at
the state and local level are often work projects which are in
addition to the demands of one's primary job responsibilities.
Most often they must be carried out in addition to a full
teaching load, resource management demands, the
requirements of private practice, or avocationally in addition to
one's regular job. Only those few who are trained interpreters
with marketing talent may be in a position to consistently bring
their knowledge and facilities to bear on public education, and
then only if they have sufficient funding and it is part of their
primary mission. Therefore, although archaeologists widely
ascribe to the concept of public education, it has necessarily


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993





200


been an ancillary undertaking for most of us, which does not
permit the continuous and pervasive marketing effort that
would be so much more effective.
As we have discussed previously (Piper 1988:112),
applied archaeology was nurtured in a bureaucratic
environment and it has not been easy for practitioners to shift
their orientation from one of centralized institutional support
and leadership to the self-directed requirements of a free
market. Consequently, some of us may still feel that our
state's governmental preservation agencies and anthropology
departments could divert even more of their resources to
programs of public outreach than they are doing presently, but
those of us sincerely interested in creating an informed public
should not expect state agencies and institutions alone to
accomplish our education and marketing goals for us. Even
with that understanding, it is still not a simple matter for
constituent groups to even partially reallocate financial and
personnel resources, regardless of how laudable the new
purposes may be. Many institutions, agencies and societies
concerned with archaeological and historical resources in the
state are related in terms of their general mission, but are
distinct in the methodologies of application to which they must
adhere as a result of their individual policies and funding
sources. The goals, purposes and standards of Florida's
historic preservation agencies, its academic institutions, its
dedicated avocational groups, its private foundations, its
museums and its private consultants are comparable, but each
has a distinct constituency and often disparate political
considerations which frustrate a coordinated, sustained focus
on public appeal.
Historically when planning the promotion of public
awareness, the strategic approach taken by those of us in the
archaeological community has most often been the
identification of sub-divisions of the public audience, and
agreement that messages concerning cultural resources should
be appropriately individualized for each sub-division. The
tactics, or action plans, then include the production of
interpretive displays, video tapes, brochures, lesson plans,
public service announcements for mass media and the like.
Often these intermediate undertakings are intuitively
viewed as ends in themselves or, when actually delivered, only
reach a segment of the public which is already interested in
archaeology and history. As mentioned at the outset, in order
to expand public interest in the patronage and preservation of
archaeological and historical resources in Florida, we believe
that we archaeologists should try not to expend effort on
projects that only culminate at the planning stage, but should
endeavor to devise programs which extend to include results of
direct public benefit. It is important to create a final form of
interpretation which is appealing to the previously uninterested
public; a form for which they are willing to incur a cost in
order to acquire knowledge in an entertaining way.


Explaining Public Appeal

Anyone who has excavated in or near a populated area
knows of the high degree of public curiosity and interest
concerning archaeology, when it is conveniently available. As
we all know, there is a certain small percentage of the public,
avocational and otherwise, who want to participate in
archaeology in a hands-on manner in the field and lab. A
greater proportion has a sincere interest in the results of
archaeological and historical research and analysis, when
knowledge of those results can be easily and comfortably
acquired. The latter group wants the explanation and
description, but is not interested in the esoteric techniques
employed to produce that information. It is equally evident
that the general public does not view the archaeological record
as a scientific resource; rather, they have learned to value such
resources only as a cultural heritage (Dunnell 1987:1). It is
this value as a cultural heritage to which we archaeologists
must appeal if we are to gain the active support of the
pluralistic public.
Our entrepreneurial perspective leads us to ask ourselves
what the "consumer", i.e. the accessible public, wants that can
be provided within the means and standards of the
archaeological/historical community? Common sense tells us
that people usually want a product which satisfies a need or
desire. To carry this thought a step further, a buyer doesn't
purchase a machine for what it is, he purchases it because of
what it does; when working with anthropological data we
archaeologists don't just ask what the data are, we ask what
they mean about people and to people. Rather than deciding
what we think members of the public need in terms of data
interpretation, is it possible to determine what interests them
most, why that is interesting to them and how they prefer to
find out about it? Often the answers to these sorts of
marketing questions can be determined by asking private
industry professionals outside archaeology and history.
The appealing aspects of Florida's cultural resources need
to be brought to the attention of segments of the public whose
initial goals may not have included an interest in learning of
the state's cultural heritage. There are presumably large
segments of the public who would become interested in
archaeology if they were stimulated to learn more about it.
Today, most archaeologists and historians want people who are
looking for interesting entertainment to choose cultural
resource interpretations (written or visual) at least as often as
one of the many other attractions which compete for their
attention. For them to select archaeology, they must be made
aware of its availability and it must be entertaining. We are
not referring to the lowest common denominator of
entertainment; rather, it should be entertaining in a way that
accurately and sensitively presents the values of the past and
their relevance to current society. In terms of popularizing a









cause with the general public, for example, the 1990 moving
picture "Dances With Wolves" may have had a greater positive
impact on behalf of Native American culture history than any
anthropological exhibit of the last decade. Competing
successfully for the public's discretionary time and funds can
engender new public understanding and support for cultural
resources, a result which is less a key to success than a
prerequisite to the survival of those resources.

Getting the Product to Market

Many of us have spent twenty or more years finding sites
and assessing their significance, and perhaps it is now time for
some of us to allocate a major part of our effort toward
bringing the meaning of these cultural resources to the
attention of the general public. Because we recognize that just
reallocating resources does not by itself guarantee successful
results, we believe that it is important to produce outcomes not
only input, that is, to produce ends as well as means.
Accordingly, our comments are oriented toward the
practicalities of utilizing the archaeological record to provide
private industry with incentives to promote cultural resources
to the general public.
For many years interested parties involved in preservation
have worked to build a consensus of what benefits the public,
but have found it difficult to establish a marketing system
capable of extending the appeal of that consensus among new,
public market segments. As previously mentioned, the
principal archaeological organizations in Florida have
undertaken ways and means of accomplishing these goals by
their own efforts and, notwithstanding severe time constraints,
many dedicated archaeologists and historians have contributed
their expertise in diverse formats designed to reach the lay
public. However, the needed, continuous, information
delivery system to the public has been difficult to establish and
the overall impact on the public we wish to reach has
seemingly been insufficient, if lack of widespread support for
site preservation is any measure. The appeal is apparently too
narrow and the marketing, often handled by non-professionals,
is inadequate. In order to be effective, an operative delivery
system must be in place to "get the product to the market" in a
manner which is likely to enhance its acceptance.
We suggest that one way to access a marketing system is
through joint ventures, wherein research results are provided to
a private industry which funds the marketing through an
infrastructure already in place. This sort of joint venture
would embody the coming together of researchers and private
industry to effect the public appeal we archaeologists desire
and, where warranted, the research can perhaps be funded by
grants or non-proprietary contracts. Without hiring outside
consultants, private industry staffs usually don't undertake to
develop meaningful and accurate archaeological/historical
information in house; they can, however, utilize their existing
marketing and media system to effectively offer interpreted


201
information to their appropriately targeted markets. Clearly
the mode of interpretation would have to be compatible with
the business of the private industry partner and its particular
market, and we realize that these arrangements are not easily
formed; however, the results should be well worth the effort.
There are good examples of local Florida projects, some
publicly funded, which reach a substantial number of people
without benefit of a private industry partner. There are,
however, few Florida examples where publicly or privately
supported research having commercial interest is provided to a
private partner whose marketing and distribution facility
accesses the general public. One is the Main Street program
wherein technical advice, as well as initial capital funds, are
made available to qualified local entities, thereby creating an
incentive for local commercial interests to promote community
revitalization and preservation for the benefit of all parties.
This kind of joint venture effort doesn't just produce a set of
means, it attains the desirable end of involving members of the
public to their own benefit.
When appropriately presented to the general public,
archaeology is interesting, infers adventure, satisfies curiosity,
conveys a sense of place and can be commercially attractive
without either diminution of professional standards or breaches
of ethical conduct. In the case where non-archaeological
entities are involved in delivering our message to the public,
we archaeologists may not be able to exercise authoritarian
control over the entire process, as private industry media and
marketing staffs must be free to do what they do best on behalf
of the mutually beneficial project; however, the research
standards and accuracy of data interpretation can be under the
direction of the archaeologists, and it is not a new challenge to
those of us in private practice to coordinate a project without
having complete authority over all parties (Piper 1990). It is
worthwhile to consider solutions that unleash the power of
public self-interest when it can benefit all participants, and we
in the discipline need to blend the best of our traditional
perspectives with innovative thinking.

Urban Archaeology and the Value of Visibility

Archaeological investigations in urban settings have been
taking place in Florida for many years and because of the large
number of people who can conveniently view urban
excavations as they are being conducted, as well as the local
newspaper articles often engendered by such visible
undertakings, urban archaeology can hardly avoid local public
awareness. As explained below, it is our belief that during the
next decade there may be an increase in the relative number of
archaeological projects in urbanized areas and, therefore, an
increase in the number of ready-made opportunities to bring
archaeology's importance as a cultural heritage to the attention
of a larger portion of the general public.
The mandates of the state and local Comprehensive Land
Use Plans, including the concept that suitable transportation







202


and utility infrastructure must be designed and funded prior to
final approval of a development project, will likely slow
development (as opposed to mining) of large tracts of vacant
land as a single undertaking; rather, tracts of that size in
outlying locations will probably be the subject of phased
development and may be considered less frequently for
development at all, especially as compared to the large scale
projects of the past fifty years. Although the regulations under
which development permitting processes are conducted will be
modified and streamlined, the basic implementing legislation is
probably here to stay.
Thus, assuming that the projects are otherwise
economically viable, it is our feeling that there will be more
urban redevelopment than there has been in the past, because
much of the infrastructure is already in place and city
governments are pro-active with respect to downtown
development. To be sure, developers will need to comply with
a list of zoning and land use requirements which did not exist
when many sections of Florida's cities were originally built,
but the necessary modifications to the existing support systems
and site designs can be a far more manageable economic
undertaking than today's site planning for large parcels of
previously undeveloped vacant land. It is therefore our belief
that archaeologists and historians are likely to become involved
in a greater number of urban investigations during the next
decade or so than has been the case in the past, requiring
renewed emphasis on the special problems and methodologies
of either adaptive reuse or urban archaeology.
To the extent that historic preservation elements are
included in regional regulations and local ordinances, city
planning departments will be paying more attention to the
possible impact of urban redevelopment on cultural resources.
Historically, it has been unusual for urban planners to realize
that the site of their modern city has likely been the locus of
human activity for perhaps thousands of years. Moreover,
even when there is widespread local knowledge of prehistoric
and historic period activities in the area, it has often been
assumed that any meaningful manifestations of those earlier
occupations have been destroyed by the impact of urban
development. The numerous urban archaeological projects
which have been conducted from Pensacola to Key West
during the past twenty years have demonstrated the fallacy of
that assumption to archaeologists as well as to planners in
those cities; however, there are many local building and zoning
staffs who have not had that experience and we archaeologists
should help create an awareness of the need to consider cultural
resources in the process of comprehensive urban growth
planning (e.g. Piper 1989).
Even though many Florida cities will not routinely
institute cultural resource investigations incident to
redevelopment, they will likely encounter an occasional
significant archaeological site, as people have preferred to
inhabit the same locales through time because of exploitable


resources and trade. In view of the local notoriety usually
attendant to such finds, there are sometimes instances where
public-private joint ventures between cities and developers to
responsibly deal with the archaeological site can provide public
relations benefit for both parties, as well as educational value
for the citizenry.
If there will in fact be a greater relative number of urban
archaeological investigations conducted in the future, then the
need for baseline compilations of field observations will be
increased. We have in the past suggested (Piper and Piper
1987) that, after sufficient data have been observed from
multiple small scale projects to discern patterns of land use and
human behavior through time in a generally defined urban
area, those data be synthesized with the aim of developing a
research framework for use with future archaeological projects
in the same area. Within such a framework, field expectations
can be established against which to compare and measure
observations, and research questions can often be either
answered or refined. There are doubtless several instances
where such syntheses have been produced and later
comprehensive field studies have utilized that set of
observations to initially inform subsequent investigations. One
example is our baseline synthesis of information from 19
projects in Tampa (Piper and Piper 1987) which was used by
Robert Austin in establishing survey expectations for his
thorough study resulting from a project subsequently
undertaken in that city in 1987 and 1988 (Austin et. al.
1992:25). The application of fundamental processes of data
gathering has always provided information of use for higher
levels of research and, when the knowledge ultimately gained
is successfully interpreted, it can benefit the general public as
well as the scholarly community.
In sum, we suggest that in order to prepare for what may
be an increasing proportion of urban projects, practitioners
should endeavor, where possible, to record patterns discerned
from a composite of previous subsurface investigations in a
single city. The knowledge of past local lifeways gained from
observation and subsequent use of these patterns in urban
investigations, combined with the probable higher incidence of
visible urban projects, can be used to educate both the public
and city planners about Florida's cultural heritage.

Industrial Archaeology and the Value of the Recent Past

Educating the public, as noted earlier in this essay, will
be most successful when the product is directly responsive to
the public's interest. While spectacular finds or sites of great
antiquity have almost universal appeal, people also generally
have a strong interest in their own cultural heritage, i.e. in the
sites, structures and other artifacts that help them to understand
the lifeways of their own forebears. This personal link
between the present and the past provides an opportunity to
build support from the general public for the significance of






203


the relatively recent past.
Because people tend to equate historical significance with
age, sites of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth
century may be demolished or irretrievably altered before their
importance is recognized, and the transience of traditional
industries in our rapidly changing post-industrial country is
well known. Moreover, the impermanence of the built
environment is exacerbated by Florida's high rate of
population growth and development.
Industrial archaeological sites, in particular, have not
received the attention they deserve in Florida. Indeed,
industrial buildings, earthworks and machinery have more
often been regarded "...as utilitarian embarrassments, to be
ignored if possible," rather than as "...essential parts of
American history" (Sande 1976:vii). Although many
individual sites such as water driven mills (Judith Bense, pers.
com.), cattle stations and turpentine camps (Austin and Piper
1986) are usually recorded in archaeological surveys, and
Florida lighthouses, railroad depots, sponge boats and other
structures and objects have been listed on The National
Register of Historic Places, resources associated with the
historical development of agriculture and industry are seriously
under-represented in Florida's site inventory. In addition to
the research potential of agricultural and industrial sites, the
well recognized identification of people with their work,
particularly that of the last several generations, provides an
opportunity to engage the interest of a segment of the general
public that may not usually support historic preservation.
The goals of identifying and evaluating resources
associated with agricultural and industrial development and of
broadening public support for cultural resource protection may
be achieved through joint ventures with private industry. A
statewide thematic survey of the human-produced resources
associated with a particular industry, such as the lumber
industry, can establish an historic context within which
significance assessments can be made. Once the thematic
context exists and representative sites have been identified,
private monies and/or site donations from individual
companies or foundations associated with that industry may be
available to support interpretive exhibits or publications which
market the results of the research and highlight the historic
importance of the industry to the economy of Florida. Such
arrangements can benefit all parties: the preservation
community by identifying, recording and, where warranted,
protecting cultural resources; the private industry by
publicizing the past and present contributions it has made to
the historical development of the state; and the public by
preserving and interpreting a representative portion of
Florida's historic fabric important to a sens of place in a
landscape that is rapidly becoming homogenized.


Conclusion

Finding new and innovative ways to make people care
about Florida's archaeological and historical resources is
especially challenging because, as the Florida Humanities
Council has noted, three out of four residents were born in
another state or country and, therefore, there is little sense of
statewide community or of Florida as "home." In this essay,
we have therefore revisited the related propositions that
maximizing public benefit maximizes public support and that
public benefit derives from public satisfaction.
We have included commentary on urban archaeology and
industrial archaeology because we feel they represent areas of
concern in terms of threatened resources, they provide efficient
opportunities for gaining the support of members of the public
who may not have been previously interested, and each will
require more attention to local baseline research by
archaeologists and historians.
We do not mean to infer that the notion of entertaining
interpretations is new or that joint ventures of the sort that we
propose have not previously been carried out in Florida, but it
is our position that many more such arrangements are advisable
if higher levels of public benefit and advocacy are to be
attained.



References Cited


Austin, Robert J. Kenneth W. Hardin, Harry M. Piper and
Jacquelyn G. Piper
1992 Archaeological Excavations at the Site of the Tampa
Convention Center, Tampa, Florida. Volume 1. On file
City of Tampa Public Works Department, Tampa.

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

Davis, Hester A.
1988 Applied Archaeology in the 80s and 90s: More
Challenges. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for Applied Anthropology, Southern
Anthropological Society, Tampa, FL, April 21-23.










Division of Archives, History and Records Management
1973 Our Past---Our Future: Florida's Comprehensive
Historic Preservation Plan. Division of Archives,
History and Records Management, Florida Department of
State, Tallahassee.

Dunnell, Robert C.
1987 Why Do Archaeologists Care About CRM? The
Newsletter of the Society of Professional Archaeologists
11(5):1-2.


Florida Archaeological Council
1991 The Future of Florida's
Archaeology in the 1990's.
Council 1990 Planning
Florida, October 27-28, 199


Harry M. Piper
Jacquelyn G. Piper
Piper Consulting
150 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1600
P.O. Box 608
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731


Past: An Action Plan for
The Florida Archaeological
Conference, Port Orange,


Jameson, John H., Jr.
1993 Public Interpretation Initiative: New Horizons. Federal
Archeology Report 6(1):8-10. Archeological Assistance
Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Lee, Arthur F.
1992 Lazarus Essay: So Much to Do; So Little Time. The
Florida Anthropologist 45:280-282.


McManamon, Francis P.
1991 The Many Publics For Archaeology.
Antiquity 56:121-131.


American


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

Piper, Harry M.
1988 Subsistence Strategies of Private Archaeological Firms
in Florida: Inside Looking In. The Florida
Anthropologist 41:108-139.

1989 The Archaeological Component in Comprehensive
Growth Management Plans. Florida Preservation News
5(6):6.

1990 Professional Problem Domains of Consulting
Archaeologists: Responsibility Without Authority.
Journal of Field Archaeology 17:211-214.

Piper, Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper
1987 Urban Archaeology in Florida: The Search for Pattern
in Tampa's Historic Core. The Florida Anthropologist
40:260-265.

Sande, Theodore Anton
1976 Industrial Archeology: A New Look at the American
Heritage. The Stephen Greene Press, Brattleboro, VT.


204







205


A TYPICAL WEEK AT THE DESK OF THE STATE ARCHAEOLOGIST

James J. Miller


The Society's editor asked that I write an essay on the
current state of archaeology in Florida, one that would be
reflective, based on the unique experience of the state
archaeologist, not too dry, but not too personal--something just
right. We discussed several possible approaches to the
problem of conveying in a few pages the facts as well as the
flavor of the state archaeology office. What does the state
archaeologist do and why? What does the state archaeologist
not do? I knew it was not feasible to describe the various
programs and projects and successes and failures of the last ten
years--too boring. I knew also that there is a vast difference
between what the work is like on a daily basis and what it
appears to be to someone on the outside. I chose to portray a
typical week at the desk of the state archaeologist, adopting the
literal definition that archaeology is what archaeologists do.
The week is a recent one in 1993. Identifying names have
been replaced with arbitrary initials. Entries do not account
for all activities during the day, only those which would need
to be noted for some future reference. This accounting is not
strictly literal, as the broad scope of state archaeology is not
well represented in any single week. Where useful, I have
replaced some entries of the sample week with items from
previous weeks, while attempting to preserve the pace of the
day and the number of different issues normally encountered
within a week.

Monday, 8:32 A.M
Call from historic preservation board manager regarding
proposed parking on historic cemetery. I agree to call the
archaeologist who has conducted excavations and who is
involved in negotiations as well as the architect to follow up.

Monday, 8:32 A.M
Called archaeologist in reference to proposed parking, left
message.

Monday, 8:33 A.M
Assignment to AA: Please coordinate with AB in Review and
Compliance Section to have a letter sent to the Corps of
Engineers Jacksonville District that would support the
proposed deposition of dredge spoil on two islands to stabilize
ongoing erosion. These are Bird Island where prehistoric
human remains are eroding from the shore and Cotton Island
near Horseshoe Beach in Dixie County. Both were heavily
eroded by the recent no name storm. Thanks.


Monday, 8:35 A.M.
Called National Park Service to discuss their request for
information about relevant portions of the historic contexts of
the State Historic Preservation Plan for units of the National
Park System.

Monday, 8:39 A.M.
Assignment to AC: Please write a letter to the National Park
Service referencing their letter to us and our phone
conversation of this morning. Confirm that they already have
a copy of the State Comprehensive Plan and that they are
satisfied that the plan already presents the major archaeological
research concerns within the counties containing National Park
units. Short letter for my signature. Thanks.

Monday, 9:50 A.M.
AD, staff archaeologist, calls, we set meeting for tomorrow 9
A.M. with physical anthropologist to discuss possible
memorandum of agreement regarding excavation and reburial
of human remains at mission cemetery as a means of satisfying
federal granting agency ethical concerns.

Monday, 10:09 A.M.
I send copy of letter from treasure hunter implying jurisdiction
of federal admiralty court on state-owned historic shipwreck
site to AS, Assistant Attorney General, with note requesting
review and proposed response.

Monday, 10:28 A.M.
Call from attorney in Washington, D.C., whose client, a labor
union, has invested in property in a failed development
containing a burial mound. A court injunction to protect the
mound must be satisfied before any property in the
development may be transferred. She is trying to draft a
conservation easement that would satisfy the intent of the
injuction and release the property. The state law was just
amended to provide for conservation easements for
archaeological and historic preservation purposes, but there are
no models yet to follow. She wants to know who would be the
grantee and whether a grantee is necessary. I told her I would
make some calls and call her back today.

Monday, 10:44 A.M.
I call AE, the archaeologist with personal knowledge of the
burial mound and its legal history. He has been trying to


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993






206


arrange for the protection of the mound from development for
many years, and believes that a conservation easement would
accomplish that purpose and satisfy the court.

Monday, 11:07 A.M.
I call AF, the southeastern regional director of a national
archaeological conservation organization, to learn if anyone
else in the southeast has had success with such easements. He
says such easements have gone to the deed and the current
owner. It is not necessary that there be a grantee, but this
could be a benefit. He referred me to the organization's
southwest regional director for more information.

Monday, 11:13 A.M.
Call from AG, Assistant General Counsel of NOAA, regarding
a possible Memorandum of Agreement between the State of
Florida and Department of Commerce for management of
historic shipwrecks consistent with the Abandoned Shipwreck
Act Guidelines. We will talk by phone again tomorrow at 3
P.M..

Monday, 11:18 A.M.
I call AH, southwest regional director of the conservation
organization, and leave a message. He will call back
tomorrow.

Monday, 11:20 A.M.
I call the Washington attorney in reference to conservation
easements. We review Chapter 704, Florida Statutes. I ask
whether the owner would be willing to convey title to the
mound to a conservation organization for preservation
purposes. She said she would ask.

Monday, 11:52 A.M.
Meeting with AI, graphics designer, regarding progress on
Atlas of Maritime Florida we are producing with support of a
Coastal Zone Management grant.

Monday, 11:59 A.M.
Meeting with building manager about painting of walls in all
offices and other BAR areas including collections storage,
laboratory, and equipment rooms. Everything must be 4 feet
from walls. All computers should be disconnected, and
moved. All phones should be disconnected at the wall jack
and moved away from the wall. Florida Site File computer
network should be disassembled and moved.

Monday, 12:22 P.M.
Assignment to AA: Please assign an archaeologist to work
with someone from Review and Compliance staff on a simple
draft policy for augers. The general understanding was that
augers are not, per se, bad form; rather, they are sometimes
the best tool and other times inappropriate. You will probably


need to call AB first to get her to assign someone to this.
Thanks.

Monday, 12:28 P.M.
Called city director of development about digging on
archaeological site reported by anonymous informant. He
knows the property very well, but is not aware of of a mound
9' high as reported by Goggin in 1952.

Monday, 1:12 P.M.
Returned call from law enforcement officer about surveillance
of burial mound threatened by vandalism. He saw some signs
of active digging six weeks ago, then no new evidence as of
three weeks ago and two weeks ago. He will continue to
monitor.

Monday,1:20 P.M.
Assignment to AC: Archaeologist AJ requests a short list of
speakers for Archaeology Week to be included in publicity.
Please check with staff and respond. The topics don't need to
be about archaeological projects, could also include site file or
conservation lab for example. Thanks.

Monday, 1:22 P.M.
Assignment to AA: Archaeologist AJ requests copies of
physical anthropological reports for the two groups of bones
that were reburied, St. Catherine's mission cemetery and
Mound Avenue Mound. I told him we would be glad to
supply copies of whatever we had in the file, and if we didn't
have copies to duplicate we would supply a reference and he
could contact the author for a copy. Please follow up and let
him know there is a photocopy charge and what it would
amount to before making the copies we can provide. Thanks.

05-13-93, 1:31 A.M.
Call from city manager of public works regarding plans to
widen road adjacent to old city cemetery. No consultants have
responded to his calls regarding archaeological survey.

Monday, 1:38 P.M.
Call from treasure hunt investor. He bought 70% of a venture
and his partner is now trying to take it out from under him.
Now his partner is working with someone else to get the
treasure. He invested $35,000 then borrowed another $35,000
to put in. Attorneys won't return his calls. An anchor was
taken from the wreck by a shrimper, then someone found the
clevis that goes to the anchor, then some iron bars about an
inch wide. It was a whaler sank in 1865 with 2500 barrels of
plunder, according to the log book, he was told. The plunder
is from the Civil War; the whaler was stopped by a Yankee
gunboat which was blown out of the water. Etc., etc., etc.


Monday, 1:45 P.M.






207


Leave for 2:00 medical appointment, and two hours of annual
leave.

Tuesday, 8:22 A.M.
Assignment to AC: Please respond to the attached letter, for
your signature. Thanks.

Tuesday, 8:48 A.M.
Signed 5 letters requesting information or renewal for
outstanding artifact loans from us to them. Signed letter to
New Mexico state archaeologist regarding possible return of
human skeletal material that we received from a local Florida
museum.

Tuesday, 10:03 A.M.
Completed one hour meeting with physical anthropologist and
archaeologist regarding disposition and analysis of human
remains consistent with Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act, Florida Unmarked Human Burial statute,
and desire of granting agency to understand treatment of
human remains encountered during project we are asking them
to support.

Tuesday, 10:03 A.M.
Returned call from an attorney requesting information on
Territorial Sea Boundary as it relates to treasure hunting.
Referred her to the Florida Constitution.

Tuesday, 10:56 A.M.
Completed 45 minute meeting with members of a new working
group intended to foster cooperation among sections within the
Bureau of Archaeological Research.

Tuesday, 10:56 A.M.
Returned call from Museum staff member. She reported that
all items on loan from us to a researcher in Gainesville will be
transported to Tallahassee tomorrow, unless two trips are
necessary. This will allow accessioning of these items within
our new system and allow a more formal loan to be made, if
requested. The researcher may want to photograph the
material at a later date.

Tuesday, 11:04 A.M.
Assignment to AK: I just learned that the material on the
attached loan form will be delivered tomorrow. Please
coordinate receipt and check in. It is for return to our
collections; she does not want any of it back. What won't fit
in one vehicle will arrive next week. Thanks.

Tuesday, 11:09 A.M.
Returned call from AE, left message.


Tuesday, 11:26 A.M.


Call from AS, Assistant Attorney General, regarding Florida's
participation in federal admiralty case in Illinois. He has
discussed with Department of Justice and Illinois attornies. No
brief has been filed. It is expected that the plaintiff's attorney
may seek an extension; if so, Illinois may also seek an
extension, and hearing will not be scheduled until after the end
of August. The Florida Attorney General's office has invited
Attorneys General of all states to join in the brief which
concerns defending the principles established in the Abandoned
Shipwreck Act of 1987. A meeting will be held soon in
Washington to discuss amendments to the Act consistent with
the recent district court ruling on the Columbus-America suit.

Tuesday, 12:58 P.M.
Returned call from AH, southwest regional director, call back
in 15 minutes.

Tuesday, 12:59 P.M.
Returned call from AL, treasure hunter, no answer.

Tuesday, 1:00 P.M.
Called state securities investigator regarding alleged securities
violations in treasure hunting offering, left message.

Tuesday, 1:03 P.M.
Called Department property officer about our inability to
receive permission to surplus property that is no longer
needed. Learned that the state's Surplus Property office will
be disbanded in July. If we send a list of property that we
have already requested to surplus, it may be possible to obtain
approval before then. This will help in preparations for
painting the collection storage area.

Tuesday, 1:50 P.M.
Call from local informant regarding someone who has obtained
a permit to build a home on an island containing a burial site.
It is his understanding there will be earth moving which could
impact the village or the mound site. I said I would contact the
county zoning/building permit office to see what was
permitted.

Tuesday, 2:01 P.M.
Call from Division of State Lands. The management
agreement between Department of Natural Resources and
Division of Historical Resources for the U.S.S. Massachusetts
Underwater Archaeological Preserve has been prepared and is
in the mail to us for review and signature.

Tuesday, 2:08 P.M.
Call from State Library. The meeting scheduled for tomorrow
at 10:00 with AM regarding archival repository and public
access to underwater archaeology and public education project
on the Maple Leaf shipwreck will be in the library conference







208


room. I should notify Museum staff so they can attend.

Tuesday, 2:22 P.M.
Call from AN in Museum, will I review memo to Department
of State General Counsel regarding proposed revisions to the
administrative rule governing collections: yes.

Tuesday, 3:52 P.M.
Meeting with AO, grants coordinator, and AP, archaeologist,
regarding grant funded project for underwater archaeological
assessment.

Tuesday, 3:57 P.M.
Called AG, Assistant General Counsel at NOAA, to discuss
possible Memorandum of Understanding for Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary. Conference call with another
attorney in his office. We discussed the structure of a permit
system that would apply to activities involving search for and
disturbance of shipwreck sites and that would recover collected
data, but that would not apply to recreational divers visiting
shipwreck sites in the Sanctuary.

Tuesday, 4:27 P.M.
Called AH, southwest regional director, again re archaeology
conservation easements. 3 of their 87 archaeological preserves
are easements. They would prefer fee simple ownership
because a violation of an easement can stopped only by finding
a judge who must order an injunction which the sheriff would
carry out. One can impose a deed restriction on a piece of
property, but it is binding only on the original parties to the
agreement, not subsequent owners. Subsequent owners could
show in court that such restrictions are undue or unfair, and a
judge would likely agree. Easements are a way to overcome
this as they run with the land. They monitor their properties,
preserves and easements, with a volunteer program of site
stewards. If any damage is noticed stewards know to call the
sheriff or the conservancy. The owner can also give the sheriff
a letter which states the reasons for protecting the property and
granting authority to enter property and make arrest. Must
also make clear the owner will prosecute. They form a
management committee for each site then devise a 100 year
plan covering security, erosion control, ground cover, public
access, and so on. All their preserves are available for
research for qualified institutions under conditions of
professional responsible practice. He will send some sample
easements.

Wednesday, 8:00 A.M.
Reviewed and signed 10 documents.

Wednesday, 8:05 A.M.
Assignment to AA: Please follow up on this report of
potential disturbance to a burial site reported to me yesterday.
The site form is attached. Please call the county to see if the


building permit has been issued, if there was any knowledge of
the site when the permit was reviewed, and if there is any
control over the construction in relation to protecting
archaeological resources. Then discuss with me and we will
decide how to proceed in contacting the owner and visiting the
site if necessary. Thanks.

Wednesday, 8:15 A.M.
Assignment to AQ: Please remove all your equipment and
supplies from the room used as a photography studio in fourth
floor north before June 10. You can move back in as soon as
painting is complete, but I think it will not be until after July
1. Thanks

Wednesday, 8:20 A.M.
Returned call from AR, treasure hunter, left message.

Wednesday, 9:35 A.M.
Call from AS, Assistant Attorney General, advises not to
worry about false statements in the letter of a treasure hunter's
attorney, as they are refuted by the court transcripts.

Wednesday, 12:16 P.M.
Finished two hour meeting with library, archives, and museum
staff to view demonstration of Maple Leaf video disk of
underwater archaeological project. Confirmed arrangements
for archival curation of Maple Leaf project original records
and installation of video disk player in the State Library for
public use.

Wednesday, 12:20 P.M.
Assignment to AA: Please coordinate this letter with AP. If a
modification to the archaeological research permit is necessary,
please prepare one for my signature. Thanks.

Wednesday, 12:25 P.M.
Returned call from law enforcement officer, number not in
service.

Wednesday, 12:29 P.M.
Contacted his district office, he will call back in half hour.

Wednesday, 12:30 P.M.
Returned call from director of state preservation organization,
left message.

Wednesday, 12:32 P.M.
Assignment to AT: Please file this information in the proper
location in the Florida Site File. Thanks.

Wednesday, 12:41 P.M.
Assignment to AU: Please remember to move the cannon
carriage components and aboriginal canoes and the replica
cannon mold from the "staging area" in 428 before June 10,





209


but the earlier the better, within reason. This stuff can be
moved back when painting is finished. You should probably
plan on a month on the outside. Thanks.

Wednesday, 2:00 P.M.
Call from law enforcement officer regarding illegal digging at
a burial site.

Wednesday, 3:43 P.M.
Returned call from AV at home on vacation regarding whether
a city building permit is required for repairs to state-owned
buildings at San Luis. I advised him to stop all work until this
is resolved. Discussed putting computers in shop for estimate
to upgrade memory and disk drives to be compatible with
current software and other computers in the Bureau.

Wednesday, 3:55 P.M.
Returned AN's call about whether I had reviewed the draft
memo to the General Counsel's office regarding collections
ownership issue. Told her I did it yesterday and sent it back to
her.

Wednesday, 3:56 P.M.
Returned call from AW inviting us to a meeting tomorrow at
8:00 regarding Rodman Resorvoir planning alternatives and
consideration of cultural resources. She apologized for late
notice and for listing a private contract archaeologist as a state
representative on the agenda. I told her we would try to get
someone to attend.

Wednesday, 3:58 P.M.
Called Review and Compliance office to see if they have any
knowledge of this issue. No one available.

Wednesday, 3:59 P.M.
Meeting with Site File supervisor. It will be necessary to close
the Florida Site File from June 3 to June 10 for painting.
Must move 80,000 files, dismantle computer network and
move out, remove any other items that could be damaged by
being moved by the painters.

Wednesday, 4:06 P.M.
AX of Cross-Florida Barge Canal Authority calls regarding
call from DNR (Department of Natural Resources, now part of
the Department of Environmental Protection, ed.) about
planning session tomorrow to study Rodman Reservoir and
Oklawaha River. They want someone with archaeology
background to participate on a panel of state agency
representatives tomorrow at 8:00 A.M. She will fax agenca.

Thursday, 8:45 A.M.
Reviewed and signed 7 documents.


Thursday, 8:46 A.M.


Called AY, NOAA staff, to discuss underwater archaeological
research permit in Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
He will call back.

Thursday, 9:07 A.M.
Call from a treasure hunter who suggests that an area under the
jurisdiction of the federal admiralty court has not been
salvaged for the past several years. He wants the state to
intervene.

Thursday, 9:13 A.M.
Discussed with AA, archaeologist, problem of phone calls
misrouted to him by other bureau that are the business of staff
of the other bureau in the first place. Revised memo to other
bureau.

Thursday, 9:17 A.M.
Assignment to AZ: Please prepare a requisition for this
computer upgrade as soon as possible. Thanks.

Thursday, 12:02 P.M.
Call from archaeologist in Texas requesting information on
state qualifications for archaeologists in Florida.

Thursday, 12:04 P.M.
Assignment to BA: Please mail copy of Rule 1A-31, Rule 1A-
46, Chapter 267 to attached address.

Thursday, 12:10 P.M.
Completed two hour meeting with Native American
representative regarding reburial, repatriation, cemetery
excavation, burial artifacts and a possible memorandum of
understanding.

Thursday, 12:11 P.M.
Returned call from reporter from scuba diving periodical
attempting to verify information given by a treasure hunter and
requesting general information on same.

Thursday, 1:09 P.M.
Call from museum staff member asking whether we would
want a used computer: yes.

Thursday, 1:29 P.M.
Assignment to AC: Please send AM a list of journals that
would be appropriate to review his book on this shipwreck
project.

Thursday, 1:59 P.M.
Reviewed and corrected annual performance report of Bureau
of Archaeological Research for fiscal year ending June 30,
1993: 2 books published, 38 articles published, 45 reports
prepared, 17 papers presented, 79 public tours and lectures
given, 13 professional and other services and appointments, 2





210


professional awards, 5 research grants received, 5 excavation
projects conducted, 242 sites inventoried and recorded.

Thursday, 2:44 P.M.
Call from AV, staff archaeologist, regarding purchase of
refrigerator for film and chemical storage.

Thursday, 3:45 P.M.
Met with BB, museum director, regarding moving items in
storage in our collections area so painting can occur. She will
try to have all items removed within two weeks. This includes
exhibit packing crates, architectural collections, and school
desks. We also discussed whether to refurbish deSoto cases.

Thursday, 3:50 P.M.
Met with BC, preservationist, regarding a county cemetery
preservation committee of which she may be appointed chair.

Thursday, 3:51 P.M.
Met with BB, museum director, and called AD, site director,
to discuss use of state archaeological facility after hours for
function sponsored by another state agency.

Thursday, 4:11 P.M.
Meeting with BD, staff conservator, and AC, staff
archaeologist, about massive metal artifacts we have already
conserved from a coastal fortification that is now a state park.
The site is now closed to the public. How do we give the
artifacts we have conserved back to the park and how can they
store them safely so they don't deteriorate again.

Thursday, 4:12 P.M.
Received budget issues for last year to help in preparing
legislative budget for next year. Final budget submission from
department due by end of the month, one half the usual time.

Thursday, 4:19 P.M.
Call from BE, Division of State Lands, regarding
archaeological survey of state owned land by a state university.
What if they want to conduct excavations at eroding sites?
Explained research permit procedures to him. Also discussed
scheduled opening of the USS Massachusetts Underwater
Archaeological Preserve early next month. He will discuss
final arrangements for a presentation the week before the
event. We also discussed consent to use state lands from
Department of Natural Resources for excavation at the Maple
Leaf shipwreck by East Carolina University. He didn't know
about it, and suggested I talk to BF, an attorney in their
General Counsel's office.

Thursday, 4:28 P.M.
Call from BG, House of Representatives Committee analyst,
regarding request for legislative history on revisions to state


archaeological law since 1965.

Thursday, 4:35 P.M.
Assignment to BH: Please mail this copy of legislative report
via interoffice mail to the attached address. Thanks.

Thursday, 4:41 P.M.
Returned call from BI, director of historic preservation
organization, she will call back tomorrow, 9 A.M. or so.

Thursday, 4:42 P.M.
Meeting with AZ, staff, regarding treasure hunter dredge and
fill permit. Our letter from his attorney says they have
received a use agreement from Department of Natural
Resources. DNR says they have not received a use agreement
and their application has been forwarded to the Tallahassee
office.

Thursday, 4:47 P.M.
Returned call from BJ, owner of archaeological site, thanks for
advice on public acquisition of property.

Thursday, 4:54 P.M.
Call from BK, treasure hunter, do I know a company called
XYZ from Ft. Lauderdale that makes remote sensing
equipment: no. Little work accomplished under his contract
due to lots of bad weather, especially strong wind. El Nino
will keep winds and seas up through early summer, he says.

Friday, 8:08 A.M.
Returned call from AI, graphic designer. He has been working
on our atlas since 5:30 A.M., assembling proof sheets. We
arrange meeting with AP, other author, at 10 A.M. to work on
text.

Friday, 8:32 A.M.
Fire drill 15 minutes out of the building.

Friday, 8:41 A.M.
Reviewed budget issues for legislative budget request due in
two weeks.

Friday, 8:48 A.M.
Wrote 2 page note for FAC Newsletter regarding two reburials
of Native American human remains conducted last month.

Friday, 9:52 A.M.
Signed 9 documents


Friday, 9:52 A.M.
Met with BI to discuss moving or storing boxes now in
collections area during period of painting.





211


Friday, 2:18 P.M.
Meeting with Department of Management Services, Museum
Director and Assistant Division Director to review proposed
changes in building security system.

Friday, 2:19 P.M.
Worked 2 hours on maritime atlas. Finished text except
sources and further reading. Need to proof final draft.

Friday, 2:37 P.M.
Call from AR, treasure hunter, wants to deliver his exploration
contract report personally on Monday, and have it reviewed
while he waits (even though it is one year late), so that his
contract can be renewed. Told him to mail it and we would
get to it.

Friday, 3:29 P.M.
Inspected upstairs dive equipment room to be sure it was ready
for painting.

Friday, 4:06 P.M.
Call from law student at FSU, wants to discuss treasure
hunting law. We arrange appointment for Wednesday.

Friday, 4:19 P.M.
Called BE, Division of State Lands, regarding Use Agreement
for USS Massachusetts preserve. He is out today.

Friday, 4:19 P.M.
Called BF, Assistant General Counsel at Department of
Natural Resources, to discuss use agreements for
Massachusetts and Maple Leaf excavation project. Left
message.

Friday, 4:21 P.M.
Called AS, Assistant Attorney General, to discuss treasure
hunting contract letter. He is out, I should call back Tuesday.

Friday, 4:38 P.M.
Call from BF, Assistant General Counsel, DNR, read him
revisions to Massachusetts use agreement required by our legal
office. He agreed. I should send them to BE, Division of
State Lands, for final typing and get a copy for execution.

Friday, 4:45 P.M.
Fax to BE: I discussed these changes with BF in your absence
this afternoon. He said he had no problem with any of them.
Could you revise the computer disk version you have, which is
now the most current version, print out a new copy, and give
me a call? I will send someone over to pick it up, bring it
here, get it signed, and bring it back to you. Thanks.


Friday, 4:50 P.M.
Call from treasure hunter's attorney, wants information on
location of a particular contract area. Also requests copy of
contract.

Friday, 4:58 P.M.
Assignment to BH: Please send copies of contracts to attached
attorney with a brief cover letter saying these are mailed in
accordance with his telephone request of this date. Thanks.

Friday, 5:00 P.M.
See you Monday.



James J. Miller
State Archaeologist and Chief, Bureau of Archaeological
Research
Room 312, R.A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250







ORIGINS: SOME THOUGHTS AND REMINISCENCES CONCERNING FLORIDA
ARCHAEOLOGY, 1963-1993


Albert C. Goodyear


It is a little sobering for me to be asked to write an essay
on my reflections on Florida archaeology. Inevitably I have to
pause and consider the amount of time which has transpired
since I had a conscious awareness of the subject until present,
which is something on the order of 30 years. I am pleased to
be asked and equally pleased to provide a few comments
which, by necessity, require a comparison of life in the 1960s
to that of Florida archaeology in the 1990s.
I left Florida in 1969 to attend graduate school and
ultimately to pursue a career in archaeology that has essentially
taken place outside the state since that time. This is not to say
that I have not followed developments in Florida archaeology
over the years and even participated from time to time as a
consultant and through the published literature. I must
emphasize, however, that I have followed Florida archaeology
at a distance and my comments should be considered
accordingly.
In retrospect, I would say that my most enduring
impressions were formed by my experiences as an amateur or
avocational archaeologist. What is important about the latter is
the lasting impression that those experiences made on my own
philosophical views on the nature of public archaeology.
Considering public archaeology in the widest possible terms,
what should be the relationship between the archaeological
record and society as a whole as opposed to just
archaeologists?
In the 1960s, there was a relatively minor professional
presence in the state compared to today. For example, in
Pinellas County where I grew up, there were no professional
archaeologists present. The closest thing to a professional
presence was the periodic visits by Ripley Bullen who would
travel down from Gainesville to give a lecture or visit a site he
had heard about. Naturally his visits were a cause for great
excitement and he was bombarded by people like myself
showing him artifacts to be identified and asking many
questions about local culture history. Ripley and his wife
Adelaide were always gracious and respectful of such inquiries
and later on he facilitated my going to graduate school at
Arkansas. Today, there are at least seven professional
archaeologists in the county representing three consulting
firms. Across the bay in Tampa, there are three archaeologists
on the faculty at the University of South Florida, who
regularly work in the state. Professional surveys and


excavations are a relatively common event, public lectures
frequent, and local stories in the newspapers about archaeology
and historic preservation are published routinely.
In the absence of local professional guidance, men often
educated in other fields such as Lyman O. Warren and Francis
Bushnell responded to the occasion. Armed with Gordon
Willey's (1949) Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast, they
pursued time-space systematics as avocational archaeologists.
These individuals also served as mentors for myself and others
of my contemporaries. At least four of us who were
influenced by them received bachelors degrees in anthropology
and two of us received graduate degrees in the same.
Lyman O. Warren was a Harvard-trained physician who
took an active interest in central Gulf coast archaeology.
Warren was keenly interested in, among other things,
Paleoindian and Archaic sites as they were discovered on the
dredges and fills of the Tampa Bay region. The strong
evidence for sea level rise and the inundation of early sites in
this region was largely gathered by Warren and reported by
him in The Florida Anthropologist in the 1960s and 1970s.
Perhaps the most intriguing evidence from these drowned sites
were early preceramic artifacts found through commercial
oyster shell dredging in Tampa Bay. It was Warren who began
systematically recording the artifacts from the oyster shell
(Warren 1964) and drawing them to the attention of others like
myself (Goodyear and Warren 1972). It should also be
remembered that during the 1960s the Tampa-St. Petersburg-
Clearwater area underwent tremendous development along the
coast and many of the fills of today were created by
widespread dredging of bay bottoms. This is not to mention
the regular destruction of terrestrial sites by development.
Sites were uncovered and destroyed within a brief period of
time. Without the observations of Lyman Warren little would
be known of these sites today.
Another person who was actively studying local
archaeology from a systematic standpoint was Francis
Bushnell. Bushnell was a biology teacher where I attended
high school and had a good feel for systematics and natural
history. He was and is an excellent Florida botanist. Frank
Bushnell was a teacher par excellence and won teaching awards
in the public schools. Students were naturally drawn to him
and he was quite knowledgeable in the culture history of
Florida for that time. He also taught an archaeology class to


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


212


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993





213


junior high school students at the St. Petersburg Science
Center. Later in his career, he taught biology and botany at
St. Petersburg Junior College where he also offered course to
the community in Florida archaeology. Two of Bushnell's
more enduring contributions are his excavations and reports on
the Safety Harbor phase sites of Maximo Point and Narvaez.
In the case of Maximo Point, his article (Bushnell 1962) and
William Sears's (1958) brief article are essentially the only
modern information we have for an important Safety Harbor
phase village which was destroyed by private development in
the late 1960s. His work at Narvaez (Bushnell 1966) is the
only report of an extremely important Safety Harbor phase site
which is probably late enough to have received at least indirect
Spanish contact. This site still exists and is in excellent
condition due to the admirable caretaking of the landowner
Harold Anderson. Also known as the Anderson site (8PI54),
the site was the subject of a tour aws part of the 1993 Florida
Anthropological Society meeting.
In addition to the highly positive influence of Warren and
Bushnell during my formative years, I would also have to rank
The Florida Anthropologist very highly for its role in teaching
and intellectual stimulation. The Florida Anthropologist
challenged me to begin to come to grips intellectually with the
archaeological record I was seeing in Pinellas County, and not
just collect it. I began subscribing to the journal in the early
1960s and would literally wait by the mailbox when I thought
the next issue was due to arrive. I found the articles so
interesting I would read them several times. It was from
reading articles in the journal and thinking about sites and
artifacts I had found in Pinellas County that I began to attempt
to write articles myself. And, I must say that of all the articles
published at that time, perhaps the ones by Wilfred T. Neill
fired my imagination about lost ancient worlds more than any
others. Neill, by all accounts, was a brilliant natural historian
able to bridge several fields at once and did so in the field of
archaeology in a way that I found nothing less than awe-
inspiring. As an example, his "water hole" hypothesis (Neill
1964:20) for Paleoindian settlement patterns in Florida was
ahead of its time, not to mention his tight little report on his
excavation at the Paleoindian site at Silver Springs (Neill
1958). The latter, to my knowledge, is the only excavated
case of a pure Suwannee assemblage in Florida. (In my
opinion, the life of Wilfred T. Neill and his impact on Florida
archaeology and other fields would be a very fruitful study).
In recalling the virtues of The Florida Anthropologist, I
must not leave out the time an issue came (The Goggin
Memorial Issue) devoted to matters of historical archaeology.
This in fact was the published proceedings of the Third Annual
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology, founded and chaired
by Stanley South. I remember looking through this issue and
being struck by an article by South (1964) where the sizes of
early American bricks were analyzed for their chronological
significance. At that time my view of what archaeology
consisted of was largely restricted to prehistoric Indian


artifacts. Today, almost 30 years later, Stan South works
down the hall from me and is still fascinated by bricks. In
fact, in April of this year he and Chester DePratter discovered
the first bricks found at the important sixteenth-century
Spanish colonial site of Santa Elena, on Parris Island, South
Carolina. What is so remarkable about these bricks, beyond
their huge size, is that they are low-fired, locally-made bricks
that formed a pottery kiln that had collapsed during firing,
leaving several North American-made Spanish ceramic vessels
inside. There's bricks and then there are bricks.
Beginning with these youthful experiences and by
working closely with the avocational community here in South
Carolina (The Archaeological Society of South Carolina,
sponsored by the South Carolina Institue of Archaeology and
Anthropology) since 1976, it has become abundantly clear to
me that in order to fully reach the goal of knowing the past, a
lot of different people besides professionals need to be
involved. I think that professional and avocational
archaeologists have a common goal, namely, knowing the past.
Given that basic proposition, the challenge is to come together
and to identify more and more legitimate roles for
nonprofessionals and to pool our common resources. A few
years ago, especially before the advent of the legislatively-
driven cultural resource management movement in the United
States, the tendency was to view only those with graduate
training in archaeology as appropriate people to be involved
with the care and study of the archaeological record. With the
expenditure of so much more public money for archaeology
and the desirable expansion of the legitimate roles the public
may play to include even the research process, especially in
education and preservation, I see a positive move toward being
more inclusive in the way archaeology is accomplished.
No doubt the most controversial aspect of the
involvement of avocational archaeologists is their role in
excavation and collecting. It is true that a person's excavation
ability is ultimately tied to their interpretive ability.
Excavation and even surface collecting are always a destructive
process, activities that must be done with a purpose and
design. But under well-supervised conditions, such as seen
internationally in the Earthwatch program or even closer to
home at the last three seasons of excavation at Santa Elena or
the admirable citizen-supported work in southwest Florida
under the leadership of Bill Marquardt, conscientious amateurs
are playing a vital role in the research programs in both the
field and lab.
What about collectors? By collector I am eliminating
those that "collect" by uncontrolled digging with a view simply
to amass and hoard and sell their finds. I do think that the
informed, careful, systematic collector has an important role to
play in American archaeology, especially in the east where
most of the archaeological record is on private land. Why is
this the case? First, because the destructive agencies of natural
forces and private development are outright eliminating sites
on a daily basis from professional inspection and thus





214


removing them from the research pool. Second, the amount of
landscape that has never been inspected by professional
archaeologists or never will be due to the vastness of private
acreage means that archaeologists do not have the greatest
selection possible of the few sites they will excavate in their
lifetimes or have knowledge of sites that need to be preserved.
As everyone knows, collectors find sites and archaeologists
find out about sites (maybe). In evaluating a certain policy or
practice a question I commonly ask myself in this regard is:
How will this affect what we know 100 years from now? Will
a given strategy enhance or diminish what future generations
know?
With the increasing discontent the American citizen is
displaying with higher taxes, not to mention the enormous
federal deficit, it is unlikely that greater and greater sums of
government money will be available for archaeology at both
the federal and state levels. The answer lies in a kind of public
archeology where professional archaeologists (who have
knowledge) team up with interested citizens (who have time,
energy, and resources) to come up with a collaborative effort
that could potentially go well beyond what we have seen
heretofore in American archaeology.
In Florida, great strides are being made in this direction
and I believe that the Florida Anthropological Society, with all
its various chapters so active throughout the state, provides a
working model of what can be accomplished in an archaeology
even more public than was envisioned in the 1970s. I hope I
have made it clear tht I personally benefited greatly from the
Florida Anthropological Society and see in it continued great
possibilities.


References Cited

Bushnell, Francis F.
1962 The Maximo Point Site. The Florida Anthropologist
15:89-101.

1966 A Preliminary Excavation of the Narvaez Midden, St.
Petersburg, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 19:115-
124.

Goodyear, Albert C., and Lyman O. Warren
1972 Further Observations on the Submarine Oyster Shell
Deposits of Tampa Bay. The Florida Anthropologist
25:52-66.

Neill, Wilfred T.
1958 A Stratified Early Site at Silver Springs, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 11:33-52.

1964 The Association of Suwannee Points and Extinct
Animals in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 17:17-
32.


Sears, William H.
1958 The Maximo Point Site. The Florida Anthropologist
11:1-10.

South, Stanley A.
1964 Some Notes on Bricks. The Florida Anthropologist
17:67-74.

Warren, Lyman O.
1964 Possibly Submerged Oyster Shell Middens of Upper
Tampa Bay. The Florida Anthropologist 17:227-230.

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian
Miscellanous Collections 113, Washington, D.C.



Albert C. Goodyear
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology
1321 Pendleton Street
University of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina 29208




215


BOATSTONE ARTIFACT FROM ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA


Robert L. Knight


In April 1992 I found a broken boatstone while surface
collecting artifacts in north central Alachua County. This
boatstone is an unusual find and was presumably imported into
Florida from a more northern prehistoric culture. This article
provides a description of the boatstone and its provenance,
reviews limited information available on boatstones in the
eastern United States, and speculates on the presence of this
artifact in Florida.
The boatstone is of the notched keeled variety, has the
remnants of two drilled holes, and is incised on the keel
(Figure 1). The boatstone is fractured and only partially
complete. Several recent harrow scars appear to be present on
the boatstone. Also, the artifact appears to have been
previously broken obliquely across the cupped face and at both
drilled ends. The boatstone was possibly repolished after the
break across the cupped surface. The dimensions of the
fragmented artifact are: maximum length 58 mm; maximum
width 29 mm; maximum height 40 mm; maximum depth of
cupped face 9 mm. On its ventral surface there is a deeply
notched keel that is 19 mm long, 16 mm wide, and with a
notch that is about 5 mm deep. This keel is incised on both
sides in two directions, with two closely spaced shallow
grooves along the length of the keel where it joins the bottom
of the cup, and about 7 short, shallow grooves engraved
perpendicular from these longer grooves to the bottom edge of
the keel.
The boatstone was taken to Dr. Eades at the Department
of Geology at the University of Florida where the lithic
material was identified. The boatstone is carved from a
greenish, gray hard steatite (B. Weisman, pers. com. from Dr.
Eades, 23 July 1993) and is highly polished on the outside
surface. The inside of the cup is roughly carved and contains
an inclusion of brown pyrite crystal. The two drilled holes are
both broken in cross section. One is round and symetrical
while the opposite end is more angular.
The boatstone was found on gently sloping uplands in an
area with scattered, mostly isolated, shallow wetlands perched
on Hawthorne Formation clays. The specific site where it was
found is approximately 70 m from a shallow, spring-fed dug
pond and about 50 m from a shallow, isolated cypress-gum
basin less than 1 hectare in size. The ground elevation on this
site is less than one meter higher than the edge of the adjacent
wetlands.
A variety of artifacts have been collected on this site by
the author and his family. Most of the projectile points are


whole and there are very few flakes and no pottery, perhaps
indicating that this site was used more for hunting than as a
campsite. Projectile point types indicate a long occupational
period and include a Bolen Bevel, a Santa Fe Dalton, several
Hamilton or Savannah River, Kirk Serrated, a number of
Florida stemmed Archaic points, and a number of Hernando
points (Bullen 1975). We have also found a few chipped axes
and a clay marble near this site. Two other camp and
workshop sites also have been collected by the author within
0.5 km of this site. These two sites have abundant flakes,
broken or partially completed tools, and pottery. No other
non-chert artifacts have been found by the author in this area.
A brief review of available references found no recent
information on the occurrence of boatstones in Florida. Bierer
(1980:173) illustrates a keeled boatstone reported from Florida
by Moore [ed; this may be the boat-shaped pendant found by
Moore at the Shields Mound, 8DU12, see Goggin 1952:121;
Moore 1895:Fig. 15]. The original reference was not
consulted, so the provenance of this artifact was not available.
In form and size, the boatstone illustrated by Bierer is quite
similar to the one described above. Bierer reports that it is
considered to be between 1000-4000 years old.
A review of the indices to Florida Anthropology (Tesar
1984; Tesar 1992) revealed no references to articles concerning
boatstones; however, it is quite possible that boatstones are
discussed with other artifacts in some of these articles.
Boatstones have been illustrated in a number of popular
works on prehistoric artifacts in North America. Hothem
(1992) reports that boatstones are usually made of banded
slate; however, quartz, granite, sandstone, limestone, and
steatite were also used. In his book, Hothem illustrates six
boatstones varying from uncupped (primary) forms to deeply
cupped forms. These artifacts are of unknown use arising
during Archaic times and continuing into Mississippian times.
The boatstones illustrated in his book ranged in length from 70
to 114 mm; 29 to 48 mm in height; with cup depths to 13 mm.
They were all collected in Arkansas (sandstone), or Indiana
and Michigan (banded slate).
Wachtel (1980:155,210) illustrates two keeled, steatite
boatstones, one from Kentucky and one from Ohio. It is not
clear if either of these artifacts are drilled. Unkeeled granite
boatstones are illustrated from Indiana, Ohio, and Georgia; and
a sandstone boatstone from Ohio is shown.
Thompson (1988) also illustrates three keeled boatstones
(pages 48, 191, and 195). While materials and locations are


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993


































































Figure 1. The Alachua County boatstone. Top left) side view; Top right), showing harrow scars; Bottom left)from below, showing
pyrite inclusion; Bottom right) top view.







217


not specified, these appear to be: a steatite boatstone from
Kentucky; two drilled slate keeled boatstones from Ohio; and a
granite, uncupped boatstone from Ohio. The two boatstones
illustrated on page 191 clearly show a notched keel such as the
one reported in this article from Alachua County, Florida.
Based on the reported boatstone occurrences reviewed
above, it can be inferred that boatstones were produced
primarily in the central interior area of North America by
cultures that commonly produced polished lithic artifacts.
While these polished artifacts are sometimes found in Florida,
they have typically been associated with coastal village mound
sites and were likely imported from the more northern
cultures. The boatstone find in Alachua County is unusual,
not only because it appears to be imported but also because the
site that produced this artifact is isolated from recognized
coastal trading routes that more commonly reveal imported
polished artifacts.

References Cited

Bierer, Bert W.
1980 Indians and Artifacts of the Southeast: 1980 Edition.
The State Printing Company, Columbia, SC.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1975 A Guide to the Idenitfication of Florida Projectile
Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville, FL.

Goggin, John M
1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns
Archeology. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology no. 47. Yale University Press, New
Haven.
Hothem, Lar.
1992 North American Indian Artifacts. 4th Edition. Books
Americana, Florence, AL.

Moore, Clarence B.
1895 Certain River Mounds of Duval County, Florida.
Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences 10:449-502,
Philadelphia.

Tesar, Louis D.
1984 Our Past, Our Present: An Overview and Index of
Publications of the Florida Anthropological Society (from
1948-1984). The Florida Anthropologist 37: 120-152.

1992 The Florida Anthropologist: An Index to Volumes 37-45
(1) (1984-1992) With Brief Comments. The Florida
Anthropologist 45: 68-78.

Thompson, Ben W.
1988 Who's Who in Indian Relics. No. 7. The Messenger
Printing Company, Kirkwood, MO.


Wachtel, H.C.
1980 Who's Who in Indian Relics. American Indian Books.
Union City, GA.



Robert L. Knight, Ph.D.
7201 NW 11th Place
Gainesville, Florida 32605






218


KASKASKIA COPPER POINTS OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA

Wesley F. Coleman


The production of conical rolled copper points by
Seminoles and other Eastern tribes presents an interesting
example of the use of European materials, i.e. copper, within a
framework of traditional technology, e.g. the bow and arrow.
What follows is a brief look at the origins of these points
within the context of Seminole sites in southern Florida.

Morphology of Florida Examples

Of the eleven Kaskaskia points found in the Seminole
component of 8DA411 (Figure 1) the average weight was 4.5
grams. These ranged from 2.1 cm to 6.1 cm in length and 0.5
to 1.7 cm in diameter (Carr 1991) (Figure 2). These South
Florida examples are similar in size and shape to their
Oklahoma counterparts. Several other examples are known
from private collections in southern Florida including one
specimen which was 11.2 cm in length. These are not to be
confused with the similarly designed but smaller "cones" of
copper or silver used as ear dangles.

Manufacturing Method

Kaskaskia points can be manufactured in two ways. In
both cases, a piece of copper is cut from a flat sheet. This
material can be acquired either by hammering out copper
vessels, coins, etc. or utilizing the flat copper flashing with
which boat hulls were lined. The copper cut-out could either
be rolled and hammered onto a tapered mandrel (Perino 1971)
or cut into a pre-formed blank. This blank is shaped like a
triangle and scored with incisions radiating from the triangle's
point to the base end. The blank is then folded into a cone
shape. Either case forms a socketed point which could easily
be fitted onto an arrowshaft and secured with gum or pitch.

Point Effectiveness

Based on the average Kaskaskia point's weight along with
that of the arrowshaft one can compute than an arrow with a
weight of 400 grams fired from a standard 45 pound bow
would be an effective weapon at a typical killing range of 18 to
25 yards. This arrow would have 135 foot pound of
penetrative force at a speed of 180 feet per second. Such
energies would allow the arrow to pass clean through the soft
tissue of a target. If such a point were to encounter bone it


should cause severe trauma due to its bullet-like shape which
would tend to induce expansive fracturing of the bone.
This point design also makes for a reusable projectile
which can simple be bent and hammered back into shape if it is
damaged during impact.

Origins and Distribution

The Kaskaskia copper point is recognized as a projectile
point of Seminole manufacture both within Florida (Dunbar
1981) and among the relocated Seminoles of Oklahoma Indian
Territory (Perino 1971). Its origins, however, lay further
north. The earliest examples are of the pre-contact Middle
Woodland period in the Central Illinois regions where native
copper ore was worked into a projectile point resembling a
socketed bone point.
The term Kaskaskia is taken from the Gueber Site
Randolph County, Illinois where the Kaskaskia of the
Algonquin Federation were engaged in trade with French
Jesuits by 1673 (Good 1986). Two types of copper conical
point were noted here, the earlier form having a rivet hole near
the base while the later form lacks this feature (Perino 1970).
Though the historic Kaskaskia point seem to have
originated in the Midwest, southern tribes such as the
Seminole, Creek, Choctaws, etc. were probably well aware of
the copper conical points made by their northern neighbors.
Moreover, the Seminoles may have learned of these points by
contact with those Indian tribes brought into Florida with the
army during the course of the conflict. These "friendly"
Indians who fought for the U.S. forces included the Creek,
Choctaw, Delaware, Shawnee, and Cherokee (Sprague 1848).
Whether by trade, diffusion of ideas, or indigenous
innovation, the Seminoles in Florida and Oklahoma began to
locally manufacture "Kaskaskia" copper points by the early
nineteenth century. During the war in Florida the tribal
councils of the Seminole and Mikasukee people forbade the use
of a firearm while hunting lest the sound of a rifle-shot alert
the U.S. military. Those Seminoles who had been relocated to
Indian Territory in Oklahoma, however, found that the scarcity
of powder and shot necessitated a return to hunting with the
bow and arrow (Perino 1971).
Both cases exemplify the Seminoles' ability to adapt
quickly. Faced by outside pressures, these people were able to
return to the bow and arrow as a weapon for hunting


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


SEPTEMBER 1993


Vol. 46 No. 3

































































I--;----- -: (

i i-_~CL-~~ -----_~.1

~i=...1,.-~ I
r- _
~-i-
r! ,
\:::
rl

ii ---


Figure 1. Location of 8DA411.






220

















''.i '* 'i J-* i o.i l






'u 2 Kaks- s pi







7 I-

.,.-- .- 2.-'























-.--










Figure 2. Kaskaskia points from 8BD411. A-C) points, D) blank showing scored incisions.






221


subsistence after relying of the firearm for so long. The
availability of copper materials, the ease of manufacturing
rolled conical points, and their reusability made Kaskaskia
points the natural substitute in place of lithic projectile points.
In Florida, at least, the art of knapping lithic points seems to
have been forgotten by this time. Moreover, the availability of
chert is limited in the southern part of the state.
Thus, the Kaskaskia was a re-invention of sorts, helping
the Seminoles to survive the duress created by the war and the
following period of isolation. West (1989) relates how the
Henshall Report described the Seminoles hunting game with
bow and arrow at Pine Island in Broward County as late as
1884. As trade relations with the whites improved, however,
the firearm regained its place and the use of the Kaskaskia
point and the bow and arrow declined. By the 1930s Seminole
metalcrafting seems to have ended (Johnson 1972).

Conclusion

The Kaskaskia point can be viewed as a diagnostic artifact
of Seminole occupation. More importantly, the rolled conical
point reflects the shaping of material culture within a definable
period of time due to socioeconomic forces. On the human
level, the Kaskaskia point could be described a a "hardship"
point. It was a peoples's answer to the political and economic
pressures of their time, pressures which necessitated the revival
of a native hunting technology while utilizing the available
materials in order to survive.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dave Jumper of Seminole
Indian Education, Hollywood, Florida, Dr. Joe Fiest, Ph.D. of
Miami, and Joe Davis of Cambridge, England for their help.

References Cited

Carr, Robert
1991 Ms. on 8DA411, to be published by the
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.

Dunbar, James S.
1981 The Kaskaskia Projectile Point: A Seminole Indian
Metal Arrow Point Type Recently Recognized in Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 34:166-168

Good, Mary E.
1986 Guebert Site: 18th Century Kaskaskia Indian Village.
Central States Archaeological Society, Memoir 2.


Johnson, Bryan A.
1972 The Suwannee-Shawnee Debate.
Anthropologist. 25:67-72.


Perino, Gregory
1970-1971 Guide to the Identification of Certain American
Indian Projectile Points. Oklahoma Anthropological
Society #4.

Sprague, John
1848 Origin, Progress, and Conclusion of the Florida.
War. Quadricentennial Edition [1964], University Press
of Florida, Gainesville.

Taylor, Robert A.
1991 Unforgotten Threat Florida Seminoles in the Civil
War. Florida Historical Quarterly 69:300-314.

West, Patsy
1989 Seminole Indian Settlements at Pine Island, Broward
County, Florida: An Overview. The Florida
Anthropologist 42:43-57.

n.d. The Historical Snake Creek Seminole Camps. Ms. on
file, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.



Wesley F. Coleman
10 N.W. 124 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33183


The Florida






222


BEN WALLER: A TRIBUTE

James S. Dunbar


This dedication is to a great friend who shared his
uncompromised enthusiasm for paleontology and archaeology
with many Florida river divers as well as scientists. The
passing of Ben Waller touched us deeply and gave us pause to
reflect upon fond memories of this outstanding and profound
man.
Among the first to SCUBA dive Florida's waters, Ben
taught such notables as Lloyd Bridges, Elvis Presley, Hugh
Downs, and Bill Cosby how to dive. But it is not the VIPs
that Ben certified as divers that he would want us to remember.
It is the passion he held for ancient things and the secrets of
our prehistoric past.


Ben was a collector of relics, a supporter of research, and
a library of information. But his legacy is that he became what
he so dearly wanted professionals in underwater archaeology to
perpetuate. He became the unpaid heir to Ripley Bullen. The
liaison between the professional and avocational community.
If a student or researcher wanted to study a particular type of
artifact, no problem, Ben would loan, sometimes donate,
specimens from his collection and was known to borrow
specimens from others (in his name) to support the research.
He knew, probably better than anyone, what was really
happening to the resource.
He placed himself between a rock and a hard place. Ben


Figure 1. Ben Waller holding Clovis point from the Santa Fe River, ca. 1967-1968. (Photo by Jarl Malwin.)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993







223


was the adhesive which prevented political factions from
sorting the rest of us into opposing bewilderment. Ben was
there during a decade of scientific idealism followed by a
decade of time consuming, mandated archaeology. A time
when the interaction between the professional and avocational
communities sank to an all time low. A time when interested
amateurs were largely ignored by professionals, especially if
they collected, yet were tempted by the rising prices of objects
of antiquity. However, for those of us who listened, Ben acted
as a guide through the seduction of cause without compromise
by reminding us of our true interest. That inquisitive spirit
that originally sparked our imagination and will forever hold
our souls. An object's artistic appeal, its context, and its
scientific information were all important for Ben to point out.
There will never be another Ben Waller, however, he has
left within us the purpose of his spirit. For those of us who he
touched, we will carry out our lives a bit richer and, perhaps,
with luck and faith, leave a meaningful legacy of our own.
Thank you Ben!


James S. Dunbar
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research
R.A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250






224


FLORIDA ARCHAEOLOGY WEEK 1993 EVENTS


compiled by Bruce J. Piatek


KEY TO SYMBOLS:

E Exhibit
F Fieldwork/dig
D Demonstration
A Artifact Identification
T Talks
V Video/Film/Slides
G Guided Tours
L Laboratory Tours


NORTHEAST FLORIDA


2nd 9th Jacksonville History of Jacksonville Exhibit (E)
Visit the recently opened Jacksonville Historical
Center at the Southbank Riverwalk and discover
Jacksonville's archaeological and historical past. Open
Mon-Sat. 11am to 6pm, and Sun. 12pm to 6pm. This
exhibit is free.

2nd 9th St. Augustine Explore Archaeology (E,F)
Doing archaeology is the focus of this exhibit. It is an
active way to do many of the things archaeologist do
and to learn the whats, hows, and whys of
archaeology. Great for kids. Special activities are
scheduled during the week. Two dollars for adults and
one dollar for children which includes admission to
St. Augustine's best historical museum. Open 10 to 4
daily at Government House on the plaza.

2nd 8th St. Augustine Archaeology in St. Johns County
(E)
The St. Augustine Archaeological Association will
present displays on archaeology at the St. Augustine
and Ponte Vedra Public Libraries. Volunteers will
periodically be on-hand to answer questions and
discuss archaeology.

2nd South Ponte Vedra Tour de Guana (G)
Archaeologist Chris Newman will lead a bicycle tour
of archaeological sites at Guana State Park. Meet at


the dam at 9:00am with a fat tire bike, a lunch, and
water. The tour will last until 1:00pm, reservations
are needed and $2.00 park admission fee is charged.
Call (904) 825-5071 for reservations.

3rd Flagler County Archaeology Day at the Gardens
(T,V,A,E)
Washington Oaks State Gardens is hosting
archaeologist Bruce John Piatek and Mr. Deane Smith
for an exhibit, discussion, and tour concerning the
archaeology of Volusia and Flagler Counties. Lectures
will be held at 1:00 and 2:00pm. The day begins at
10:00 am and last until 3:00 pm and there is small
park admission fee.

4th St. Augustine "A" is for Archaeology in the Ancient
City (T,V)
City Archaeologist Carl D. Halbirt will present slides
and speak about the significant excavations conducted
by the City of St. Augustine. This is a free
presentation starting at 7:30pm in the City
Commission Room, City Hall .

5th St. Augustine The Prehistory of the Virgin Islands as
Seen through Its Ceramics (T,V)
Archaeologist Ted M. Payne of American
Preservation Consultants, Inc. will discuss his work in
the Virgin Islands. This free lecture will held at
Government House on the plaza starting at 7:30pm..

6th St. Augustine Pine Sap & Turpentine: The Naval
Stores Industry at Favor-Dykes State Park (T,V)
Archaeologist Stanley C. Bond Jr. will show slides
and discuss the naval stores industry in southern St.
Johns County, including Favor-Dykes State Park.
Free, and starting at 7:30pm at the St. Augustine
Public Library.

6th Jacksonville Brown Bag Lunch & Archaeology
Lecture (T)
Attend an archaeological lecture at noon at the
Jacksonville Historical Center on the Southbank
Riverwalk. Bring your lunch and enjoy this free event


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993





225


no reservations needed. Call (904) 396-6307.

9th Jacksonville Archaeology in Jacksonville (T,V)
Take in a free lecture by Dr. Thunen at the University
of North Florida and learn more about the
archaeology of Jacksonville. Call (904) 399-8840 for
details.

8th St. Augustine Digging Up the Dirt on Florida's
Governors (T,V)
Archaeologist Bruce John Piatek will detail the
findings from the dig at the residence and office site
of Florida's colonial governors since 1598. Meet at
the Government House on the plaza at noon with a
brown bag lunch for this free presentation. Call (904)
825-5033 for information.

8th St. Augustine The Archaeology of Anastasia Island
(T,V)
City Archaeologist Carl Halbirt will present slides and
lecture on the archaeology of Anastasia Island,
including recent excavations at the island's north end.
The program begins at 7:30pm at the Anastasia State
Recreation Area campfire circle. No reservations
required but park admission fee will be charged.

9th Jacksonville Maple Leaf H: The Cruise Continues
(F,G,T,V)
Cruise to the Maple Leaf shipwreck site and watch
divers recover artifacts hidden by St. Johns River mud
since 1864. Closed circuit television on board. Call
(904) 396-6307 to make reservations fee charged.

9th St. Augustine Archaeological Scavenger Hunt (G)
The St. Augustine Archaeological Association is
holding a day long scavenger hunt focused on
archaeology and fun, with prizes for the best team.
The event begins at 10:00am at Government House
downtown on the plaza. No reservations are needed
but a nominal fee will be charged.


EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA

2nd 31st Daytona Area Libraries Focus on Archaeology
(E)
During library hours at Ormond Beach, Edgewater,
New Smyrna, City Island, Daytona Beach Community
College, there will be displays, exhibits, films and
information throughout the month. Look for local
notices about events at these libraries.

2nd Ormond Beach Volusia's First People (T,A,D,E)


An artifact display and identification, demonstrations,
activities and participation will be held at Tomoka
State Park from 10:00am to 4:00pm. There will be a
small park fee. No reservations needed.

2nd Canaveral National Seashore Eldora Walk "The
Town That Forgot" (G)
Canaveral National Seashore Eldora North District.
Hours: 1:00pm to 2:00pm. Visit the site of a 29th
century Florida waterway community and explore the
slow pace of life of Florida.

4th Canaveral National Seashore Turtle Mound Walk -
Learn About Florida's Native Americans (G)
A discussion of Florida's Native Americans and tour
of Turtle Mound, a prehistoric Native American shell
midden site will be held at Turtle Mound Canaveral
Seashore North District from 10:00am to 11:00am.

4th Daytona Beach The Importance of Conserving
Heritage (T,V)
At the Daytona Beach Community College Library,
there will be a talk by Jay Bushnell, Professor of
Anthropology at 3:00pm. No reservations needed. No
fee.

5th Ormond Beach Ormond Mound Interpretative Tour
(G)
On-site tour of the Ormond Burial Mound by
archaeologist Dana Ste. Claire of the Daytona
Museum of Arts and Sciences. Meet at the corner of
Beach Street and Mound Avenue by 10:00am for this
free tour.

6th Daytona Beach Teacher Workshop on Prehistory and
Archaeology
A workshop open to all Volusia and Flagler Count
teachers will be presented by Dana Ste. Claire and
Trish Thompson. The workshop will provide an
overview of the area's prehistory and methods for
teaching prehistory. The workshop will take place at
the Museum of Arts and Sciences' Root Hall
Auditorium at no cost to teachers but reservations are
required. Call (904) 255-0285 for reservations.

7th New Smyrna Beach Old Fort Mound Interpretive
Tour (G)
On-site tour of the Old Fort Mound in New Smyrna
Beach, an extensive prehistoric shell midden which
dates to A.D. 500. This one hour tour, conducted by
Dana Ste. Claire, is free; participants should meet at
the east end on Old Fork Park on Riverside Drive just
prior to 10:00am..





226


6th Ormond Beach Nocoroco and Oswald Plantation (G)
An Archaeological site tour by Archaeologist Bruce
Piatek will be held at Tomoka State Park from
10:00am to 12:00pm. Meet at the museum. Bring a
lunch for an informal discussion, picnic, and tour
from 12:00pm to 1:00pm.. A park admission fee is
charged.

7th and 8th Ormond Beach Prehistoric Life on Florida's
East Coast Outdoor Classroom (D,T)
Todd Kelly will be at Tomoka State Park where he
will display a Timucuan village with artifacts and
reproductions. He will interpret the life-ways of
prehistoric people who lived in Volusia County. Call
904-676-4045 to make reservations. There is a park
admission fee.

7th Daytona Beach True Natives The Prehistoric
Peoples of Volusia County (T,V)
Archaeologist Dana Ste. Claire will lecture at the
Museum of Arts and Sciences' Root Hall Auditorium.
Cost of the lecture is $3.00 and includes a free copy
of "True Natives: The Prehistory of Volusia County".
Reservations are required please call (904) 255-
0285.

7th and 8th Canaveral National Seashore Those Who
Came Before
Canaveral National Seashore is hosting a school
program at Eddy Creek, South District from 9:00am
to 12:00pm. This program is for fourth grade
students. Where did those big mounds of clam and
oyster shells come from? What do they tell us about
today and a new danger that threatens Mosquito
Lagoon?

8th Merritt Island They Would Rather Be Devoured By
The Indians: Archaeological, Investigations At The
Armstrong Site (T,V)
Canaveral National Seashore is sponsoring a lecture at
the Merritt Island National Wildlife Center on State
Road 402 from 7:30pm to 8:30pm. Archaeologist
Elizabeth Horvath of the National Park Service will
discuss the ill-fated French fleet of Jean Ribault,
shipwrecked in 1565 and a surprising discovery made
within Canaveral National Seashore relating to the
event.

9th Port Orange Timucuan! The Prehistoric Indians of
Spruce Creek (D,E,T)
Georgia Zern will present a special program at the


Gamble Place Center near Post Orange. Participants
will travel back in time to a reconstructed Timucuan
Indian village complete with thatched huts, smoke
rack and everyday native foods, tool, and materials,
for an interpreted tour. Reservations are needed call
(904) 255-0285 for directions and other information.

9th and 10th Ormond Beach Plantation Days (D,E,T)
At Tomoka State Park from 10:00am to 4:00pm, there
will be re-enactors, demonstrations, activities and
participation. Also historical artifacts, tools and
interpretation of historical sites. Park fee.

9th Canaveral National Seashore Canoe the Lagoon (G)
Canaveral National Seashore is hosting canoe trip on
Mosquito Lagoon to discover the unique cultural and
natural resources located there. The trip will be from
9:00am-12:00pm. Meet at the Canaveral National
Seashore North District Visitor Center. Reservations
are needed, call 904-428-3384 by October 2.

Call Park Canaveral National Seashore Timucuan Tool
Making (D)
See how the Native Americans used amazing
ingenuity and everyday materials to meet their needs.
Call park, South District for information. Phone: 407-
267-1110.

WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA

Sept. 24th Tampa Teacher's Workshop: Archaeology
and the Florida Indians: 12,000 Years of Florida Prehistory
This workshop for 3rd to 5th grade teachers will
introduce archaeology, what archaeologist do, and
Florida's Prehistoric Native Peoples: with slides,
handouts, artifacts, and teaching materials. Call Bob
Orlopp for information and to make reservation at
(813) 586-1818.

Sept. 25th St. Petersburg Seminole Indians at Fort
Brooke (T,V)
A slide lecture by archaeologists Harry and Jackie
Piper at the St. Petersburg Historical and Flight
Museum in conjunction with the exhibit "Smallwood
Indian Trading Post," 2pm.

2nd St. Petersburg Tour of Tampa Bay Indian Mounds
(G)
Archaeologist Steve Koski and Author Mac Perry will
lead a free tour of several Indian Mounds in the
Tampa Bay area. The tour begins at the Narvaez site






227


and is from 10:00am to 4:00pm. Call Steve Koski at
(813) 484-4037 to make reservations.

2nd and 3rd Archaeological at Sarasota Square Mall (E)
A booth will be open all day at the Sarasota Square
Mall with displays, posters and information relating to
Florida Archaeology.

2nd to 8th Sarasota Display of Archaeological Reading
Materials
Libraries at Gulf Gate, Selby, and Environmental
Libraries (E) will display books and other
archaeological reading materials.

2nd 9th Safety Harbor Safety Harbor Museum of
Regional History (E)
Visit the Safety Harbor Museum and travel back
20,000 years with a special display of the Brian W.
Evevsen collection of over 2,000 fossils and Indian
artifacts, as well as displays on the Philippe Park
Mound. Admission is one dollar. Call (813) 726-1668
for information.

2nd 9th Bradenton Native Americans in Florida (E)
The De Soto National Memorial is hosting a free
exhibit of artifacts recovered from The Shaw's Point
site and a display of Timucuan customs as observed
by Jacques le Moyne de Marques while he visited
Florida in 1564-1565. The exhibit is open from
9:00am to 5:00pm.

3rd Crystal River Tour of the Crystal River State Arch-
aeological Site (G)
Dr. Brent Weisman, Archaeologist with the Florida
Bureau of Archaeological Research will lead a tour of
the park grounds and museum, with a discussion of
the mounds, artifacts, and archaeology of the site. A
park admission fee is charged.

4th 8th Sarasota Archaeological Exhibits: Collections
of Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources (E)
Free exhibits will be presented by the Sarasota County
Department of Historical Resources from 8:00am to
5:00pm, and will focus on Sarasota County
archaeology.

4th Sarasota Florida Archaeology by Land and by Sea:
What Was Found in a U.S. Military Cemetery of the Third
Seminole War (T,V)
Marion Almy, President of Archaeological
Consultants, Inc. will discuss the findings from this
cemetery site. The program is free, and will be held at
7:30pm at the Sarasota County Technical Institute,
Building 5, 4748 Beneva Road.


4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Tampa Brown Bag Archaeology
Lectures (T,V)
Dr. Ray Williams, University of South Florida, is
offering a series of free lunchtime lectures. Bring a
lunch to the University of South Florida's
Anthropology Department and learn about
archaeology. Call (813) 973-2138 for further
information.

5th Tampa The Archaeology at Historic Spanish Point
(T,V)
A free lecture and slide presentation on the
archaeological findings from Historic Spanish Point
will be held at the University of South Florida
Anthropology Department at 7:30pm. Call (813) 974-
2138 for details.

6th Sarasota Florida Archaeology by Land and by Sea:
Florida Shipwrecks (T,V)
James S. Dunbar, Archaeologist with the State Bureau
of Archaeology will hold a free presentation with
slides on Florida's shipwrecks. The talk begins at
7:30pm at the Sarasota County Technical Institute,
Building 5, 4748 Beneva Road.

7th Bradenton Tools of Early Man (T,V)
Joseph Booth give a free lecture and slide presentation
at the Manatee County Public Library from 7:00 to
8:30pm.. Mr. Booth will discuss the Tools used by
Florida's first inhabitants.

8th Tampa Archaeological Film Festival (V)
Dr. Ray Williams and the Department of
Anthropology, University of South Florida, will
present various archaeological films from 1:00 to
5:00pm. This program is free. Call (813) 974-2138
for details.

8th Cedar Key Archaeology Day at Cedar Key Schools
Steve Cardinal, Heidi Weekley, and archaeologist
Nina Borremans, assisted by the Cedar Key Historical
Society, will offer a special archaeology program to
middle school student at Cedar Key schools. The
program will introduce the students to archaeology.

9th Bradenton Archaeology Day for Children and Adults
(D,E,T)
The South Florida Museum and Time Sifter
Archaeological Society will present special hands-on
activities, demonstrations, and discussions at the
South Florida Museum. There is a nominal admission
fee to the museum which is open from 10:00am to
5:00pm.. Call (813) 746-4132 for information.





228


9th Tampa Archaeological Laboratory Tour (L)
The University of South Florida, Department of
Anthropology will offer an all-day tour of its
archaeological laboratory with demonstrations of lab
techniques and field equipment. These tours are free.
Call (813) 974-2138 for information.

9th Cedar Key Guided Tour to Shell Mound
Archaeological Park (G)
The Cedar Key Historical Society and archaeologist
Nina Borremans will offer two introductory lectures
and free tours of the Shell Mound Archaeological
Park. The tours begin at 9:00am and 2:00pm at the
Society's museum and last approximately two hours.
Call (904) 543-5830.

9th Cedar Key Artifact Identification Day (A)
The Cedar Key Historical Society and archaeologist
Nina Borremans will identify your artifacts and
discuss archaeology at the Strong House at the
Society's Museum Complex. The program will run
from 2:00 to 4:00 in the afternoon. Call (904) 543-
5549 for information.

10th Tampa Archaeology Day (D,E,T)
Archaeology day will feature a ceramicist, flint
knapper, and site interpreter, who will demonstrate
their crafts and interpret an archaeological site. The
program is from 10:00am to 3:00pm and is free to the
public. Call (813) 974-2138 for location.

10th Bradenton Re-enactment of Early Florida Indian
Settlement (D,T)
Archaeologist Bill Burger will re-create a early
Florida Indian Settlement at De Soto National
Memorial from 1:00 to 5:00pm.. The public is
welcome at no charge.

SOUTHWEST FLORIDA

2nd Lake Placid Public lecture on excavations at the
Summer Haven Site (T,V)
Dr. Randy Bellemo, Archaeologist, Janus Research,
Inc., is holding a free presentation of his research at
the Summer Haven Site, a Late Archaic village site
and cemetery on the northeast coast of Florida. The
program will be held at the Caladium Arts & Craft
Cooperative 24 Interlake Blvd. from 2:00 to 4:00pm..

2nd 9th Sebring Florida Prehistory & History Learning
Laboratory (T,V,E)
The Highlands Museum of Art and the Kissimmee
Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
offer a free daily program of videos, slides, lectures


and other learning activities, at the Highlands Art
Museum, 351 West Center Avenue.

2nd 9th Lake Placid Florida Arts, Crafts and Artifact
Exhibit (D,E,)
The Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy presents a free exhibit of Florida art
depicting native themes, native pottery making
demonstrations, and local artifacts collections. The
exhibit is open daily call Carol Mills (813) 465-1222
for location.

2nd 9th Lake Placid School Poster Contest
The Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy is holding a poster contest for fifth grade
students throughout the county. Prizes will be given
to the winning posters which address Florida's Native
Americans. The posters will displayed at location in
Lake Placid and winners will announced at the
Archaeological Field Day.

2nd 9th Lake Placid, Sebring, Avon Park Library
Exhibits (E)
The Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy will exhibit artifacts, books, magazines
that concern anthropology and archaeology with an
emphasis on the archaeology of South Florida.

2nd 10th Collier County Museum Film Festival (V)
The Southwest Florida Archaeological Society and the
Collier Count Museum will show free archaeological
films at noon each day. The films will be shown at the
Collier County Museum.

2nd 10th Fort Myers Lee County Libraries
Archaeology Week (E,V)
The Southwest Florida Archaeological Society and
Lee County Library System will have displays and
films related to archaeology during the week, as well
a speakers program focusing on land development and
archaeology. The program is free and open during
library hours.


2nd 10th Naples Collier County Libraries Archaeology
Week (e)
The Collier County Main Library and selected branch
libraries will have books and displays relating to
archaeology. A chance to read all about it during
library hours.

3rd Fort Myers Archaeology Fair (D,E,T)
The Southwest Florida Archaeology Society and the
Fort Myers Historical Museum are holding a free





229


Archaeology Fair at the Historical museum, 2300
Peck Street. The fair, from 3:00 to 5:00pm, will
feature demonstrations of stone tool making, rope-
making, pottery, and other skills that prehistoric and
historic period. Floridians utilized.

3rd Fort Myers Excavations at the Fort Myers Military
Cemetery (T,V)
Archaeologist Marion Almy, of Archaeological
Consultants, Inc., will give a free presentation on her
preliminary excavation findings. The presentation will
begin at 2:00pm. at the Fort Myers Historical
Museum, 2300 Peck Street.

4th & 6th Fort Myers Archaeology for Amateurs (T,V)
The Southwest Florida Archaeological Society and
Edison Community College are offering a training
seminar to teach archaeological methods at Fort
Myers Campus of Edison Community College. The
training classes are free but reservation must be made
with Edison Community College at (813) 774-8517.

5th & 7th Naples Archaeology for Amateurs (T,V)
The Southwest Florida Archaeological Society and
Edison Community College are offering a training
seminar to teach archaeological methods at Naples
Campus of Edison Community College. The training
classes are free but reservation must be made with
Edison Community College at (813) 774-8517.

9th Lake Placid Archaeological Field Day (D,E,T)
Meet with Archaeologist Bob Austin who will identify
artifacts, discuss Florida archaeology, and help you
record archaeological site information. Also tour the
Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy's archaeological laboratory and learn
about native pottery making from Loren Blakley.
Meet at Stuart Park in Lake Placid for this free
program from 9:00am to 4:00pm.. Call (813) 465-
1222 for information.

10th Fort Myers Tour of Mound Key Archaeological Site
(G)
The Southwest Florida Archaeological Society will
lead a tour to Mound Key from 9:00am to noon. Cost
of the tour, including boat ride, is $15.00 or less if
the maximum of 40 people attend. The tour begins at
Weeks Fish Camp, 2.5 mile south of Koreshan State
Park on US 41 then right on Coconut Road. Call
Charlie Weeks for reservations at (813) 992-2200.
10th Naples Archaeology Fair (D,E,T)
The Southwest Archaeological Society and Collier
County Museum Archaeology Fair will feature
demonstration and discussions of archaeology, stone


tool making, rope-making, native pottery making, and
other crafts. The Fair will be at the Collier County
Museum.


FLORIDA KEYS

2nd Islamorada Historic Shipwrecks in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sancturary (T,V)
R. Duncan Mathewson II, of the National Center for
Shipwreck Research, Ltd. offers a free lecture on
shipwrecks of the Florida National Marine Sancturary
at 8:00pm. at the Maritime Museum of the Florida
Keys (mm 102, Bayside). Call (305) 852-1690 for
information.

3rd Islamorada Dive into History (G)
R. Duncan Mathewson II, of the National Center for
Shipwreck Research, Ltd., is sponsoring a trip for
divers and non-divers to the wrecks of the USS
Alliator and the San Pedro. The trip be from 1:30 to
4:30pm. departing from the Cheeca Lodge (mm 82,
Oceanside). Call (305) 852-1690 for reservations and
information.

4th 9th Key West Archaeological Laboratory Tour (L)
The Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Society Museum,
200 Greene Street, will hold special guided tours of
the archaeology and conservation laboratory at
11:00am. Reservations are suggested and a $5.00
museum admission fee is charged. Call the museum at
(305) 294-2633 to make reservations.


NORTHWEST FLORIDA

1st 31st Tallahassee Library Display (E)
Displays, books, periodicals and other literature
pertaining to archaeology in Florida will be available
at the Tallahassee Community College Library.

2nd Tallahassee Archaeology Day at San Luis (D,E,T,G)
From 9:00am to 1:00 pm, site tours, lab tours, book
displays and sales, educational materials, and
children's activities will take place at the state-owned
San Luis Archaeological and Historic Site. No
reservations required, and admission is free. Contact
Bonnie McEwan, San Luis, 2020 Mission Road,
Tallahassee, 904-487-3655.

2nd 9th Tallahassee Library Display (E)
Displays, books, periodicals and other literature
pertaining to archaeology in Florida will be available
at the Florida Collection, second floor of the R.A.








Gray Building, 500 South Bronough Street, from
8:00am to 5:00pm..

2nd 9th Tallahassee Library Display (E)
Displays, books, periodicals and other literature
pertaining to archaeology in Florida will be available
at the Florida State University, Special Collections,
Strozier Library, Florida State University.

2nd 9th Tallahassee Library Displays (E)
Displays, books, periodicals and other literature
pertaining to archaeology in Florida will be available
at the Leon County Public Library.


3rd San Marcos de Apalachee State Historic Site (E,G)
"A Point in Time." Contact Bonnie Allen, 904-925-
6216.

9th Tallahassee Tour of Lake Jackson Mounds State
Park (G)
State Archaeologist Calvin Jones, with the Bureau of
Archaeological Research, will conduct free tours of
the Lake Jackson Mounds site, a major prehistoric
center of political and ceremonial activity. The tours
will begin at 9:00am and at 1:00pm beginning at the
State Park.

9th Tallahassee Florida Archaeology Downtown (G)
The State Division of Historical Resources' offers free
guided tours, from 10:00am to 1:00pm, of the
laboratories and other behind the scenes facilities.
These include the museum, shipwreck and
archaeology conservation laboratory, and the Florida
archive of archaeological site data.

9th Tallahassee Archaeology Open House (T,V,L)
The Florida State University Department of
Anthropology, National Park Service and US Forest
Service are holding a free archaeology open house in
rooms 35 & 49 of Bellamy Building, Florida State
University. Hours are 9:00am to noon, with exhibits,
artifact displays, demonstrations, computers, videos,
films, and resource materials for teachers. Two
lectures will also be held: 9:30 to 10:00am -
Shipwrecks in Florida's National Parks, and 10:30 to
11:00am Archaeology at the Patale Mission (1633-
1647).


WEST FLORIDA

September Okaloosa County Art Contest for Elementary
Schools


Okaloosa County elementary schools will hold an art
contest in which students will draw some aspect of
Fort Walton Beach's history or prehistory. Ms. Anna
Peele of the Temple Mound Museum will present an
award to the winner during archaeology week.

2nd Fort Walton Beach Open House at the Temple
Mound Museum (D,E,T)
The City of Fort Walton Beach and the Temple
Mound Museum offer a free all-day open house at the
Temple Mound Museum. The Museum will be free
with special stone tool making demonstration, artifact
identification, how to get involved in archaeology as a
volunteer and discussions of archaeological issues.
Native American craft demonstrations and sales may
also be conducted.

2nd, 3rd, & 9th Pensacola Arrowheads, Bones and
Common Sense (T,V)
Gulf Island National Seashore will present a
discussion and slide show on archaeological methods,
why sites are important, and why they need to be
protected. Park staff will also describe how you can
become involved in protecting non-renewable
archaeological sites. The one hour program starts at
1:00pm at the Fort Pickens Museum. There is a park
admission fee but the presentation is free.

2nd to 9th Pensacola Protection of Archaeological
Resources Exhibit (E)
Gulf Island National Seashore offers a continuous
exhibit at the Fort Pickens Area Museum. The exhibit
addresses archaeological site preservation and
protection. There is a park admission fee but the
exhibit is free.

2nd to 9th Fort Walton Beach Historic Fort Walton
Beach (E)
The City of Fort Walton Beach offers a free exhibit at
the Fort Walton Beach City Library. The exhibit
concerns the history of the city as well as information
on historic preservation. Call the library for further
details.

3rd Milton Picnic at Arcadia (G)
The Pensacola Archaeological Society and The Santa
Rosa Historical Society is holding a free brown bag
lunch and guided walking tour of the Arcadia Mill
Site. Meet at the Arcadia Mill Site at ll:00am.

8th Pensacola- Pensacola Archaeology and History (T,V)
The Pensacola Archaeological Society is presenting a
free panel discussion with local archaeologists and
historians discussing current excavations at Fort









Pensacola and an underwater excavation of a 16th
century shipwreck. This program begins at 7:30pm at
call (904) 433-1559 for location and details.


SOUTH FLORIDA

2nd Dania Opening of the Graves Museum of
Archaeology and Natural History (E)
The Broward County Archaeological Society
announces the grand opening of the Graves Museum
from 10:00am to 4:00pm. The museum has extensive
exhibits on archaeology and natural history. There is a
one dollar admission fee and call (305) 925-7770 for
information.

2nd, 3rd, and 9th Homestead Survivor of a Spanish
Shipwreck (T)
The Biscayne National Park presents a free play based
on a poem written by a survivor of the Spanish
Treasure Fleet which sank off the coast of Florida in
1733. One of the ships, the Nuestra Senora de
Populo, is located within the boundaries of the park.
A question and answer session will follow the play.
The play begin at 9:15 at the Temporary Visitor
Center Convoy Point. Call (305) 247-2044 for
information.

3rd Key Biscayne South Florida Archaeology Fair
(G,D,E,T)
The Archaeological & Historical Conservancy and the
Archaeological Society of South Florida will conduct
free lighthouse tours, artifact identifications, stone
tool making demonstrations, basket making,
archaeology videos, a re-enactment, meet an
archaeologist, tour of a dig site, and various exhibit
booths. The fair will be all day at Bill Baggs State
Park.

9th Dania Archaeology Fair at the Graves Museum
(D,E,T,V)
The Graves Museum of Archaeology and Natural
History is hosting an archaeological fair with
expository readings in Spanish and English of the
Memoir of D. d'Escalente Fontaneda by Dale San
Miguel and Gary Given. Ernie Marc will exhibit and
demonstrate ancient board games, specialists will
identify artifacts, and the videos "Prehistoric Florida"
and "River of Change" will be offered for sale. There
is a one dollar admission fee and call (305) 925-7770
for information.


231
CENTRAL FLORIDA

2nd Gainesville Field Trip to the Garden Patch Indian
Mounds (G)
Dr. Brent Weisman will lead a guided tour of the
Garden Patch mound site and discuss the prehistoric
occupation of this area of Florida. The program
begins at 9:30am and lasts until 3:00pm. Meet at the
Regional Office, Paynes Prairie State Preserve, North
Rim 4801 SE 17th Street for this free event.
Reservation are needed call John Scafidi at (904)
326-2135.

2nd Apopka Walk Back in Time (D,E,T)
The Central Florida Anthropological Society and
Wekiwa Springs State Park will present six interactive
encampments, each portraying a cultural time period
of Florida's history. Visit an 1864 Cow Camp, Indian
Fighters Camp, Seminole Indian Camp, William
Bartram's Camp, A Spanish Camp, and finally a
prehistoric Timucuan Indian Village. Seminole
County school children will visit the "Walk Back in
Time" prior to October 2nd as a educational activity.
The public will be charge a park admission fee only.

3rd Gainesville Archaeological Laboratory Open House
(L)
The Florida Museum of Natural History at the
University of Florida will open it archaeological
laboratory to the public. Archaeologist will be on
hand to meet you and answer questions as you view a
working laboratory and Prehistoric Florida Indian
artifacts. The free open house is from 1:00 to 5:00pm.

3rd Orlando Artifact Identification Day (A,T,V)
The Orange County Historical Society presents Dr.
Marilyn Stewart and Michelle Alexander who will
identify those interesting things you found like
projectile points and pottery. Bring your artifacts to
the Orange County Historical Museum, 812 E.
Rollins Street, from 2:00 to 5:00pm.. Admission is
charged to the museum. Call (407) 897-6350 for
further information.

4th 9th Orlando Assault on Time
The Orange County Historical Society present the
"Assault on Time" video concerning conservation of
our cultural past. The video will continually play in
the Grand Theatre of the Orange County Historical
Society Museum, 812 E. Rollins Street, during
museum hours. There is a modest museum admission







232


fee.

4th 7th Orlando Archaeology Class 101 (D,E,T)
The Orange County Historical Society offers a hands-
on archaeological program for students in the second
to fourth grades. Students will learn basic archaeology
field techniques in a fun excavation. This program is
offered to groups of 10 to 25 students and must be
booked in advance. The fee is $3.00 per student and
reservation are made by calling (407) 897-6350.

9th Gainesville Becoming Seminole: The Archaeology of
the Early Seminole Indians (G,T)
Paynes Prairie State Preserve presents a slide lecture
by Dr. Brent Weisman on Seminole history and
archaeology in North Florida followed by a trail walk
to a Seminole Re-enactor's camp on the rim of Paynes
Prairie. The presentation begins at 2:00pm at the
Paynes Prairie Visitor Center. A park admission fee is
charged.

10th Orlando Florida Archaeology The Windover Site
(T,V)
The Orange County Historical Society is hosting a
presentation by Dr. Glen Doran, Florida State
University, who will present slides on Florida
Archaeology and the Windover Excavation. A fifteen
minute question and answer period will follow the
lecture. The lecture begins at 2:00pm at the Orange
County Historical Museum, 812 E. Rollins Street.
Reservations are required and museum admission is
charged. Call (407) 897-6350 to make reservations.


Note: Events included in this listing and institutions
or individuals involved do not carry the specific or
implied endorsement of the Florida Anthropological
Society, Inc., or Florida Archaeology Week 1993 and
its sponsors.





233


CHAPTER SPOTLIGHT: INDIAN RIVER ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY


TC Bishop and Greg Jones


IRAS was founded in April 1956, with less than a dozen the comprehensive archaeological survey of Indian River
enthusiastic avocational diggers led by Dr. E.Y. Guernsey. County.
The club participated in various local digs through the 1950s IRAS is affiliated with the Brevard Museum of Natural
and 1960s. Bud Knoderer, Past President, taught an History and held all its meeting there. The society holds both
anthropology course as part of a continuing education a monthly meeting and an associated activity such as cleaning
program. He recruited many new members through the 1970s and cataloging artifacts from past digs. Semiannual campouts
and 1980s. are held in conjunction with the survey and investigation of
Society members have participated in many excavations new sites. IRAS is happy to volunteer its time to any
with professional researchers. Some were: Grant Site professional contemplating work in the area.
(8BR56) and Gauthier Site (8BR193) with Calvin Jones, the In support of Florida Archaeology Week IRAS will be
Windover site (8BR246) from 1985-1987 with Dr. Glen hosting an Identification Day on October 2, 1993, at the Cocoa
Doran and Dr. Dave Dickel, Futch Cove (8BR170), with Bob Library, Cocoa, Florida, from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. This
Johnson, and the Kennedy Space Center survey with Joan event is free and open to the public. Dr. Glen Doran and Dr.
Deming. Dave Dickle will speak during an afternoon update on the
The last five years have been devoted to reporting and Windover research and where it is today. All interested parties
surveying new sites and salvage work at sites being destroyed are welcome to join us.
by development. The society has reported more than two
dozen new sites to the Florida Site File. IRAS has also
worked on updating, clarifying, and removing duplicate entries TC Bishop
to the site file of Brevard County. Greg Jones
We have participated with Dr. Judy Bense, University of Indian River Anthropological Society
West Florida, in preparing a first-generation predictive model 3710 Militia Drive
of selected areas of Brevard County. The group also aided in Titusville, Florida 32796

..


Figure 1. Screeningfor Artifacts. By IRAS member Vera Zimmerman (used with permission).


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 46 No. 3


SEPTEMBER 1993






234


About the Authors


Wesley F. Coleman is a life member of the Florida Anthropological Society and former Director-at-Large (1974-1976). Mr.
Coleman is a Director of the Board, Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., and has for many years been involved in
archaeological preservation in Dade County and the Florida Keys. He is active in living history reenactments, particularly at the
Battle of Okeechobee, where members of the Seminole Tribe reenacted the Indian side of the battle.

James S. Dunbar is an archaeologist with the Florida Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, where
he works in the underwater survey section. His main interests include the association between Pleistocene megafauna and cultural
remains at underwater sites and the relationship between avocational and professional archaeologists in the state. His article on an
eroding site in the Oklawaha River coauthoredd with Robin Denson) appeared in the March 1992 issue of this journal.


Albert C. Goodyear is an archaeologist with the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of
South Carolina, where he is the Associate Director for Research. He received his Ph.D. in anthropology from Arizona State
University in 1976. His interests lie in early prehistory, geoarchaeology, and the Pleistocene-Holocene transition.

Robert L. Knight, a member of the Florida Anthropological Society, is an avocational archaeologist and environmental scientist by
profession.


Barbara E. Mattick is a historian and Historic Sites Specialist with the Florida Department of State where she prepares nominations
for the National Register of Historic Places. She is also pursuing a Master's Degree in anthropology at Florida State University
and intends to write her thesis on toothbrushes as archaeological artifacts.


Jerald T Milanich, Curator in Archaeology at the Florida Museum of Natural History, is a former editor of this journal, a recipient
of the FAS Bullen Award and the coauthor (with the late Charles Fairbanks) of Florida Archaeology, the standard reference work
on the subject. Research for his most recent book (forthcoming), entitled Voices from the Past: Archaeology of Precolumbian
Florida, formed the basis for the article that appears in this issue.

James J. Miller, State Archaeologist and Chief of the Bureau of Archaeological Research (Florida Division of Historical
Resources), oversees the San Luis, Florida Site File, Underwater Survey, C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, Conservation
Laboratory, and Archaeological Research programs. He is responsible also for administering permits to conduct archaeological
research on state lands and for the treatment of unmarked human burials as specified by Florida law. His article "Effects of
Environmental Changes on Late Archaic People of Northeast Florida" appeared in the June 1992 issue of this journal (Volume 45,
no.2).

Jacquelyn G. Piper, an archaeological and historical consultant located in St. Petersburg, graduated from Duke University and the
University of South Florida (MA in Anthropology). Jackie has served on the Florida Review Board of The National Register of
Historic Places and is currently serving as a Vice President of FAS.

Harry M. Piper, an archaeological and historical consultant located in St. Petersburg, is a graduate of Duke University (BA
Economics) and the University of South Florida (MA Anthropology) and has been a member of SOPA since 1980. He was one of
the initial incorporating officers of the FAC and a member of its first board of directors, and was a board member of the Florida
Trust for Historic Preservation where he chaired the search committee which employed its first executive director.




Join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS)!

A non-profit organization founded in 1947, with chapters throughout Florida


Florida Indian
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
$6.50 donation
to FAS, this 18 by
36-inch poster is
printed maroon
and purple on a
cream-colored
heavy paper.


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.

n -o------------------ m .
I
IO YES! I want to join FAS!
I Membership is only $20 per year (individual) and is tax-deductible.
SOther rates: $20 institutional, $25 family, $35 or more, sustaining,
Patron $100, and life $500.
I YES, I would like to donate an additional $6.50, also tax-deductible,
and receive a poster by mail (allow 3-5 weeks).


Name: _

Address:


City:


State: Zip:


Telephone: (


MAIL TO:
FAS Membership, c/o Terry Simpson, CGCAS, P.O. Box 82255,
Tampa, FL 33682


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


Florida Indian (
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
$6.50 donation
to FAS, this 18 by
36-inch poster is
printed maroon
and purple on a
cream-colored
heavy paper.


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.

r = = l ll --------l =m -= --n-
E YES! I want to join FAS!
SMembership is only $20 per year (individual) and is tax-deductible.
SOther rates: $20 institutional, $25 family, $35 or more, sustaining,
patron $100, and life $500.
IO YES, I would like to donate an additional $6.50, also tax-deductible,
and receive a poster by mail (allow 3-5 weeks).
I
I Name:
Address


SCity:

I Telephone:(


State: Zip:


MAIL TO:
FAS Membership, c/o Terry Simpson, CGCAS, P.O. Box 82255,
Tampa, FL 33682






Mickler's Floridiana, Inc.


Has a nearly complete
Anthropologist going back
exception of the (mostly
print, as exclusive agent
Society we can provide pi
needs.


collection of The Florida
to Volume 2, 1949. With the
early) issues which are out of
for the Florida Anthropological
rompt service in meeting your


Write or phone:


Mickler's
P. O. Box 1450,
Phone:


Floridiana, Inc.
Oviedo, Florida
(407)365-6425


INTRIGUED BY THAT REFERENCE?

MICKLER'S FLORIDIANA, INC., is the exclusive agent for
back issues of The Florida Anthropologist. With the
exception of a few of the earlier issues which are out of
print, we can give prompt service in meeting your
requests Our stocks go back to Volume 2, 1949.

Address your inquiries to:


Mickler's
P.O. Box 1450,
Phone:


Floridiana, Inc.
Oviedo, Florida 32765
(407)365-6425


32765




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