• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page - Brent R. Weism...
 80K5 revisited : 1992 excavations...
 Cultural resource management and...
 Archaeology and history at Tomoka...
 Tomoka State Park survey and preliminary...
 Tomoka stone : Archaic period coastal...
 Notices of Conoidal stones from...
 The map is not the territory (but...
 The Seminole Old Tiger Tail and...
 Featured photograph : Gabordy canal,...
 Chapter spotlight : Volusia Anthropological...
 Florida Indians poster (reprinted...
 Join the Florida Anthropological...
 About the authors
 Back Cover






Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00050
 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: VID00050
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 292
    Editor's page - Brent R. Weisman
        Page 293
    80K5 revisited : 1992 excavations - Gregory A. Mikell
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
        Page 299
        Page 300
        Page 301
        Page 302
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
    Cultural resource management and grant-funded research in Florida state parks : The Tomoka Point archaeological survey - Clara A. Gualtieri and Vicki L. Cole
        Page 308
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
    Archaeology and history at Tomoka State Park - Bruce John Piatek
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
    Tomoka State Park survey and preliminary excavation results - Bruce John Piatek
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
    Tomoka stone : Archaic period coastal settlement in east Florida - Michael Russo and Dana Ste.Claire
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
        Page 339
        Page 340
        Page 341
        Page 342
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
    Notices of Conoidal stones from southern Florida - Ryan J. Wheeler
        Page 347
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
    The map is not the territory (but it helps): Maps of public lands and cultural resources in Florida - Joe Knetsch and Marion F. Smith, Jr.
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
        Page 355
        Page 356
        Page 357
        Page 358
        Page 359
        Page 360
        Page 361
        Page 362
    The Seminole Old Tiger Tail and the period of isolation - Patsy West
        Page 363
        Page 364
        Page 365
        Page 366
        Page 367
        Page 368
    Featured photograph : Gabordy canal, New Smyrna beach, Florida - Dorothy Moore
        Page 369
    Chapter spotlight : Volusia Anthropological Society, inc. - Mary Poage
        Page 370
        Page 371
    Florida Indians poster (reprinted from FA 44(1), March 1991) - Created by Theodore Morris
        Page 372
    Join the Florida Anthropological Society : FAS membership form
        Page 373
    About the authors
        Page 374
    Back Cover
        Page 375
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 45 Number 4
December 1992
Page Number
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editor's Page. Brent R. Weisman 293

80K5 Revisited: 1992 Excavations. Gregory A. Mikell 294

SPECIAL SECTION: CULTURAL RESOURCE PLANNING AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY IN TOMOKA
STATE PARK

Cultural Resource Management and Grant-Funded Research in Florida State Parks: The Tomoka Point Archaeological
Survey. Clara A. Gualtieri and Vicki L. Cole 308

Archaeology and History at Tomoka State Park. Bruce John Piatek 314

Tomoka State Park Survey and Preliminary Excavation Results. Bruce John Piatek 326

Tomoka Stone: Archaic Period Coastal Settlement in East Florida. Michael Russo and Dana Ste.Claire 336

Notices of Conoidal Stones From Southern Florida. Ryan J. Wheeler 347
The Map is Not the Territory (But It Helps): Maps of Public Lands and Cultural Resources in Florida. Joe Knetsch and
Marion F. Smith, Jr. 352

The Seminole Old Tiger Tail and the Period of Isolation. Patsy West 363

Featured Photograph: Gabordy Canal, New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Dorothy Moore 369

Chapter Spotlight: Volusia Anthropological Society, Inc. Mary Poage 370
Florida Indians Poster (Reprinted from FA 44(1), March 1991). Created by Theodore Morris 372

JOIN THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY : FAS Membership Form 373

Cover: Carved Wooden Figure Dredged from the Tomoka Basin. Of Brazilwood, the specimen is about 9 inches tall and has a
mean radicoarbon age of AD 1480 (according to park files). Design by Theodore Morris based on cover of Tomoka State Park
brochure. Artifact is on display at the park.
Copyright 1992 by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY
ISSN 0015-3893











EDITOR'S PAGE: THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST, VOL. 45(4), DECEMBER 1992


Brent R. Weisman


In this issue I am pleased to feature the recent
archaeology project at Tomoka State Park. This project
illustrates a model cooperative relationship between two
bureaucratically distinct state agencies, the Florida Division of
Recreation and Parks and the Florida Division of Historical
Resources, to preserve archaeological sites on state lands and
to increase public awareness concerning the value of
archaeological resources. The site stabilization at Shell Bluff
Landing (see Newman and Weisman, June 1992 issue), also
recently completed, similarly resulted from a grant awarded to
the Division of Recreation and Parks by the Division of
Historical Resources and provides another excellent example of
cooperation between archaeologists and state lands managers.
No state-owned archaeological site in Florida, with the
exception of San Luis in Tallahassee, is being actively
managed by archaeologists, thus the need for full cooperation
between all of us charged with the responsibility of site
preservation is particularly urgent, no matter how diverse our
interests.
The Tomoka project brings to mind the subject of
archaeological tourism (or the lack of it) in Florida. What are
we doing to promote "siteseeing" in a state where tourists
come by the millions to see an authentic version of a German
beer garden or a tortuous river running through the "Dark
Continent"? Of course, archaeological tourism need not be
thought of in terms of tourist dollars, although in the lesser-
traveled rural areas of Florida any such spending would likely
have a positive impact. In terms of raising public awareness
about archaeology and the importance of preservation, there is
simply no substitute for actually visiting sites. There is every
indication that the interest level is high. On a damp, chilly day
in February, over 150 people showed up to be led by me on a
field trip to sites on the Guana peninsula, north of St.
Augustine. Archaeological tourism need not be an arduous
experience, nor does it have to be slickly-packaged. The
proper amount of basic information about the site presented in
a simple, straightforward fashion will go a long way in holding
the visitor's interest. There are a number of easily accessible


public archaeological sites in Florida where you can begin your
own odyssey. The Crystal River mounds (Citrus County),
Lake Jackson in Tallahassee, Turtle Mound and Castle Windy
(south of New Smyrna Beach), Shell Mound (north of Cedar
Key), Mound Key in Estero Bay, and Fort George Island are
some that come readily to mind.
Several issues raised by Russo and Ste.Claire deserve
further comment. First, I think it is fair to say the the study of
the Florida Archaic period is undergoing something of a
revolution, much of it sparked by Russo's work in middens of
the St. Johns River (literally from one end of the river to the
other) and his investigation of the Horr's Island complex on
the southwest Gulf coast. The newly-discovered social
complexity of Archaic peoples, who, it appears, in favorable
circumstances built mounds and lived in permanent villages or
camps, is a hot topic that I hope will be the subject of future
articles in this journal. Second, for student readers, I draw
attention to Russo and Ste. Claire's excellent methodology,
their crisp discussion of settlement patterns, and their (perhaps
controversial) use of "culture" in referring to what others
identify as "society."
We are also fortunate in this issue to have Greg Mikell's
prompt follow-up of his previous article on 80K5, in which he
tells us more about the interesting Weeden Island structure
excavated in that coastal shell midden. In Patsy West's article
on Old Tiger Tail, we can note the historical role of the media
in promulgating views of contemporary Indians. I should also
point out that the incident recounted by West is not the first
time lightning influenced the course of Seminole history. On
the banks of the St. Johns, William Bartram observed the
Seminole Long Warrior trying to get his way with the trader
M'Latchee by threatening to pull lightning out of the sky
during a severe storm to turn the trader's store into dust and
ashes. Again on the theme of interagency cooperation, the
article by Knetsch and Smith should be required reading for all
state lands managers and their archaeological counterparts.
Finally, I hope the shorter pieces by Wheeler and Dot Moore
stimulate future contributions of this sort.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


DECEMBER 1992


Vol. 45 No.4










80K5 REVISITED: 1992 EXCAVATIONS

Gregory A. Mikell


Introduction

From 1988 to 1990, intermittent archaeological
investigations were carried out at 80K5. The work was
accomplished with the generous aid of the property owners,
avocational volunteers, and volunteers from the professional
community. The results of this work recently have been
published in The Florida Anthropologist (Mikell 1992). Two
distinct and extremely rich Weeden Island occupations were
documented which included domestic refuse, shell middens,
cultural features, and the remains of a structure that, at the
very least, housed exotic ceramics and possible ceremonial
paraphernalia. The Weeden Island occupations of the site are
clearly distinct, one dating to ca. A.D. 600 and the other
dating to ca. A.D. 800. The ceramic assemblages and shell
fish remains associated with each occupation vary and provide
good evidence of the evolution of Weeden Island culture
during 200 to 300 years of its existence on the Northwest
Florida Gulf coast. In addition to the Weeden Island remains,
the previous work at the site indicates that a village or series of
short-term, smaller scale occupations occurred during the
Deptford period.
During June 1992, two archaeologists, a history
professor, and an army of 24 high school students descended
on the site and completed the excavation of 27 one m square
units. During the hectic three and a half week field school,
much was accomplished. The site area was more thoroughly
investigated and two new discoveries were made. First,
further investigation of the Weeden Island structure resulted in
documentation of more postmolds and features and the
recovery of more artifacts. It is now evident that the structure
is oval in shape, measuring about 3.6 m x 5 m. Second, a
Deptford and Alexander component dating to approximately
200 B.C. was identified.

Methods and Excavations

During the present investigations, 27 one m square units
were excavated. Units were placed primarily in areas that
appeared to have potential for producing useful data, and in
some cases to form small blocks of contiguous units. Some
units were also individually placed or paired in various areas to
test for "intactness" of subsurface deposits in both "hot spots"


and previously disturbed areas. A 1/8 inch steel probe was
utilized to determine the horizontal limit of shell middens
identified by previous testing (Figure 1).
Standard archaeological methods were used in conducting
and recording excavations. The majority of the excavated
matrix was screened utilizing 1/4 inch mesh, but all features
and midden deposits were sampled for flotation and
radiocarbon-datable materials. Excavation proceeded in 10 cm
levels, with features and distinct midden deposits excavated
and documented separately. Features were recorded, sectioned,
and excavated as sub-units immediately following recognition
in excavation floors or on unit walls.
As with the previous work at 80K5, certain limits of the
present study should be recognized. First, the entire site could
not be investigated. Not only were certain properties not
available for subsurface testing (the entire site surface area was
examined), but areas extensively disturbed by development
were obviously lost to the present investigation. A second
major limit is the fact that, like all field schools and most
archaeological excavations, the project had a specific
termination date. Work we would like to have accomplished
to gain a more complete picture of portions of the site will
have to wait.
As illustrated in Figure 1, a large linear midden deposit
(Area I) lies along a low bluff above Santa Rosa Sound. The
linear midden is multicomponent, containing Deptford, Santa
Rosa, Swift Creek, Weeden Island, and Fort Walton ceramics
and midden debris. "Hot spots" are evident in the midden
recognizable as concentrations of ceramics and higher densities
of midden materials compared to other areas. One such hot
spot within Area 1, designated Area VIII, was identified
during the field school as the locus of a Deptford and
Alexander activity area distinct from the midden surrounding
it. Previous investigations also revealed the presence of
several discrete midden areas of variable density and
organically-rich soil located inland of the larger linear midden.
The present investigations located five additional midden areas,
bringing the total located on the site to 14 (see Figure 1). The
discrete middens represent household trash deposits or distinct
activity areas that are, in some cases, temporally distinct.
Each midden area investigated is generally 20 to 50 cm thick,
composed of various shellfish species and rich with vertebrate
faunal remains. Pottery sherds are present in each midden


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


DECEMBER 1992


Vol. 45 No.4




























/ UO 58i 159 Area 11T3
)Area X
Area VIII
5253 _--- SantaRosa____ Sound -



-_ Santa Rosa Sound -
0 40


~]--j





S_ I m x im Test Unit with recovery
Shell midden
S- Ware Mound(Area VI)


Figure 1. 80K5 Site Map Showing Areas, Excavation Units, and Other Features of the Site.









area, with Weeden Island and Deptford types dominating the
overall assemblage of recovered materials.

The Excavation Units

Figure 1 shows the location of all excavation units
completed during the most recent phase of site investigations
(Units 24-61) and all previously excavated units (Units 1-23;
see Mikell 1992). Each newly documented midden area and
cultural feature is briefly discussed along with associated
materials in this section. The newly documented features
associated with the Area IV structure are detailed in a separate
section which follows.
Units 24 through 27 were excavated in Area IV adjacent
to units from which the remains of a Weeden Island structure
were uncovered (see Figure 1, Area IV). These units formed a
2 x 2 m square unit. As is shown in Figure 2, in plan view at
30 cm below datum, post molds and features (Features 7-10)
were documented in Units 24-27 as well as Units 41-44. It is
now apparent that the structure is oval in shape, measuring
approximately 3.6 m by at least 5 m. Units 41-44 also formed
a 2 x 2 m unit, which extends the excavation of Area IV south
of the identified structure. The excavation of the two 2x2 m
units identified additional postmolds and features that allow for
better definition of the structure size and shape. They also
provide a larger sample of the materials associated with the
structure and the midden that was deposited on top of it.
Unit 28, also located in Area IV, encountered a scattering
of apparent late Weeden Island domestic refuse sherdss,
scattered shell and bone) situated above a thin (12 cm) Rangia
midden located 17 to 29 cm below the ground surface. The
Rangia midden, which is associated with the structure, also
contained Weeden Island ceramics along with fish, turtle, and
deer bone.
Units 29 and 30 were excavated as a 1 x 2 m unit in a
discrete Rangia and oyster shell midden (see Figure 1). The
unit encountered a basin-like, 10 to 23 cm thick midden
deposit that contained a lens-shaped, 14 cm thick hearth feature
at its base. The midden and hearth contained Weeden Island
ceramics, deer and fish bone, and shellfish remains. The
hearth (Feature 11), oval in plan view and 95 cm in maximum
width, contained a dense deposit of wood charcoal, numerous
pieces of burned and unburned deer bone, freshwater fish and
turtle bones, and ceramics. Wakulla Check Stamped and plain
ceramics, including a partial Weeden Island Plain vessel, were
recovered from Feature 11.
Unit 31 was excavated in an area immediately adjacent to
the former location of the Ware Mound (Mikell 1992). The
purpose of Unit 31 was to test for remnants of the mound.
Unfortunately, in this unit disturbed matrix was encountered,
including a buried telephone line, to a depth of 50 cm. Only
three plain sherds were recovered from the unit.
Units 32-36 were also excavated in the vicinity of the
Ware Mound (Area VI). These units were utilized to test for


TU 14


Featui


TU 18






TU 12

i




TU 25







TU 27






TU 41







TU 4<


TU 15

/ ,--- Tree Root
r 4 / \ Disturbance
r 4e / x x Vessel 2
SVessel 3 .

x Vessel 4 Vessel 1
TU 19




S.Feature 5




Feature 7 ;
x Vesse 5 Feature 9
Vx Vessel 5

.' I TU 24


x Vessel 6



Feature 8



A
___________________ 7 ;' .





., Feature 10






F


TU 26







TU 42


TU 44
'ost Mold


Figure 2. Area IV Structure Floor Plan View
at 30 cm Below Ground Surface.









deposits within 100 m of the mound area. In all of the units,
disturbed matrix was encountered between 20 and 50 cm, but
each recovered a scattering of Weeden Island and/or Deptford
ceramics. Although no intact midden deposits or features were
discovered, an interesting artifact distribution pattern was
documented. First, the lack of Weeden Island domestic refuse
in the vicinity of the Ware Mound was not completely
unexpected given the assumption that a burial mound area was
considered sacred ground where domestic activities did not
take place. Second, in Unit 32 Deptford ceramics were
recovered between 30 and 70 cm below surface, indicating
scattered Deptford materials are located below the sparse
Weeden Island deposits. Modern disturbance has, however,
affected our ability to interpret the Weeden Island presence in
this portion of the site.
The results of the excavation of Units 34 and 36 illustrate
the problem. Units 34 and 36 (Area VII) were excavated in a
disturbed midden area located approximately 60 m west of the
Ware Mound. Although the number and "quality" of ceramics
recovered from Units 34 and 36 increased relative to other
units in the area, it was obvious that they came from disturbed
contexts. A block building constructed in the 1960s and
affectionately known to the owners as the "Indian House" for
the large amount of ceramics found when it was built,
effectively destroyed an area that contained Weeden Island
materials. Ceramics recovered from Units 34 and 36 as well as
those collected during construction of the block building are
clearly Weeden Island and include numerous decorated sherds.
Units 37-40 were excavated in what appeared to be an
undisturbed portion of the site between and north of Areas IV
and VII. The results of these excavations are generally
disappointing. No features or midden deposits were
encountered and only a scattering of ceramics was recovered.
In Unit 38, however, five Deptford Bold Check Stamped
sherds (single vessel) were recovered from 40 cm below
surface. The Deptford sherds, like those found in Unit 32 are
indicative of the scattered nature of Deptford materials across
the site. The excavation of Unit 40 resulted in the recovery of
several Weeden Island sherds that may represent the fringe of
materials deposited in Area IV.
As means of further testing Area VII, Unit 45 was
excavated in an area, which, on the surface, appeared to be
patch of midden possibly associated with the "Indian House."
The unit matrix had been disturbed by a gas line and yielded
only a few ceramics. A large Pensacola Incised sherd was
recovered, providing scant evidence of late prehistoric
occupation of 80K5.
Units 46 and 58-60 form a 2 x 2 m block unit that
identified a "hot spot" or subarea (Area VIII) of the large,
multicomponent shell midden labelled Area I. The block
excavation recovered significant materials and the area will
surely be the subject of future investigations at the site. In the
upper 20 cm of the unit an oyster and Rangia shell midden was
encountered where Weeden Island ceramics were recovered.


This mixed oyster and Rangia midden deposit is, in part,
separated from an oyster shell midden by up to 10 cm of sand
(Figure 3). The lower midden contains Deptford, Bayou
LaBatre, and Alexander ceramics both in the shell deposits and
in a dark-stained sand midden deposit that extends to 30 cm
below the shell. A ground and polished sandstone plummet
was also recovered from the lower midden. Although the two
shell midden deposits are separated by no more that 10 cm and
actually interfaced in the eastern portion of the excavation
block, there is no mixing of the deposits evident in the
associated ceramics. Radiocarbon dates obtained from both
shell and charcoal associated with the Deptford, Bayou
LaBatre, and Alexander ceramics yielded dates of ca. 250 B.C.
and 160 B.C. (Table 1).
Unit 47 was excavated in what appeared to be an
undisturbed shell midden in Area IX. The results of this unit
were disappointing. The midden, which consists of 90 to 95
percent Rangia shell, is only 10 cm thick and contains very
little organic material. It yielded only two plain,
unidentifiable sherds.
Unit 48 was placed to allow excavation of additional
materials associated with previously documented Area III
Rangia midden deposits and Feature 6, which date to ca. A.D.
850 (Mikell 1992). Although no additional features were
encountered in Unit 48, an additional sample of nearly 100
Weeden Island sherds, dominated by Wakulla Check Stamped,
Weeden Island Plain, and residual plain wares was obtained
from the midden. A Busycon shell celt fragment was also
recovered. In addition to the Weeden Island ceramics, a
Mulberry Creek Cord Marked rim sherd was recovered.
Mulberry Creek Cord Marked ceramics are common on
contemporaneous sites along the Tombigbee Valley and Mobile
Bay area of Alabama and Mississippi. In Unit 48, like Units 8
and 22, the dense shell midden deposit is up to 28 cm thick (5
to 33 cm below surface) and contains hundreds of fresh and
saltwater fish, freshwater turtle, deer, and bird bones.
Unit 49 was excavated in Area II, a previously
investigated area that contains no shell middens (Mikell 1992).
Like other units in this locality, Unit 49 produced no evidence
of shell midden. Only four rough-surfaced or residual plain
sherds were recovered, but one is a rather larger body sherd,
measuring approximately 22 cm square. Four altered, dark-
stained conch columella tools (pins?) were also recovered from
the unit, but their function is unclear.
Units 50-53 form a 2 m x 2 m block located near the
western edge of the site (see Figure 1, Area X). The block
was excavated in a large shell midden separated from the larger
Area I midden. The midden was between 28 and 37 cm thick,
extending to as much as 45 cm below the ground surface. The
midden contains both oyster (90%) and various conch species
(9%) as well as a few scallop. Areas of burned shell were
observed in the midden. A circular, thin (10-13 cm), basin-
shaped area of dense burned shell, which was probably a
hearth (Feature 12) measuring about 70 cm in diameter, was









also encountered near the base of the shell midden. Virtually
no charcoal was present in Feature 12, however.
Feature 12 contained three sherds that join into a large,
rough-surfaced plain sherd with a simple, slightly incurvate,
rounded rim. The vessel form and its coarse sand tempered
paste are not temporally diagnostic. Numerous additional
residual, sand tempered sherds were also recovered from Area
X. Other ceramics recovered from the surrounding midden
provide evidence for the cultural affiliation of the deposits,
however. Aside from three Pensacola Plain sherds (all from
one vessel) that were recovered from the top of the midden,
diagnostic ceramics include Saltillo Fabric Impressed, a
Tombigbee River Valley/Mobile Bay area type, Deptford
Linear Check Stamped, Alexander Incised and Bayou LaBatre
Dowel Impressed, and Alexander Pinched. These ceramics
suggest a Deptford occupation. Interestingly, Weeden Island
ceramics appear to be conspicuously absent from this portion
of the site.
Units 54-57 were also excavated in Area X. Units 54 and
55 are discrete 1 m square units and Units 56-57 form a 1 m x
2 m unit. The matrix in Units 56-57 was partially disturbed,
leaving only a 10 to 12 cm thick portion of undisturbed
midden. Although the matrix in Units 54 and 55 appeared
primarily undisturbed, the midden deposits in each were also
thin and more scattered than in the Unit 50-53 block.
Ceramics were also less dense in these units compared to the


North Wall Profile

Stratum


III
IV
iV :;" Alexander Inc

VI



Stratum I: Humus
Stratum II: Shell midden
Stratum III: Black sand midden
Stratum IV: Shell midden
Stratum V: Dark brown sand midden
Stratum VI: Light yellow brown sand


block, but additional Alexander and Bayou LaBatre sherds
were recovered along with rough-surfaced, coarse sand
tempered plain sherds. Again, no Weeden Island ceramics
were recovered.
The excavation of Unit 61 closed out the summer field
school. It was excavated in a fairly thin (16-24 cm) Rangia
midden on the western fringe of Area IX, which contained
scattered Weeden Island ceramics and fish bone. A Lake
Jackson Plain rim sherd (Fort Walton period) was also
recovered from the upper 3 cm of the midden. This patch of
midden is likely associated with the Late Weeden Island
middens located immediately to the east and northeast (Areas
III, IV, V, and IX).

The Area IV Structure and Associated Features

Previous excavations in Area IV (see Figure 2, Units 12, 14-
15, 18-19, and 23) documented four postmolds, a hearth, and
associated concentrations of various artifacts indicative of the
remains of a structure (Mikell 1992). The structure remains
are situated immediately below a shell midden deposit that
dates to approximately A.D. 800. Radiocarbon samples from
the hearth indicate that the structure dates to about A.D. 600
(see Table 1). Material remains associated with the structure
include numerous ornately decorated and plain


0 40
C cm


Figure 3. Units 46/58-60 Midden and Soils Profile. Units 58 and 59, East Wall Profile.


,,.
i :::~.:.
sed Sherd ~:.;
'"`
''
'''

: :1.'.. ~.':..` ; -';:









pottery sherds and items of personal adornment. These
prestige artifacts suggest that the structure may have served a
special purpose such as the setting for ritual or was a high
status residency. No matter what interpretation is applied to
the remains, the large amount of ornate ceramics and other
potential ceremonial regalia recovered from the structure area
distinguish it from the rest of the site. Table 2 presents a list of
the artifacts recovered from the structure floor area and a
refuse pit located outside the structure.
Features 7-10 are newly documented features associated
with the structure floor and wall area. These features include
two trash pits and eight postmolds that better define the size
and shape of the structure. Each feature is detailed here, but
post molds are not described separately in each case of
occurrence.
Feature 7 (see Figure 2: Units 25 and 27) is either a very
shallow, lens-like trash pit (Figure 4) or an accumulated
concentration of refuse located along a presumed segment of
wall within the structure. In plan view at 30 cm below ground
surface, Feature 7 appears as an irregular oval-shaped very
dark brown to black stain containing Rangia (90% by count)
and oyster (10%), burned and unburned animal bone, a deer
bone awl, and ceramics. The stained area measured 106 cm by
an estimated 44 cm at 30 cm below surface. A portion of the
feature extending west of the excavation units was left
unexcavated. Feature 7 initially appeared at 27 cm and
abruptly disappeared at 36 cm below surface. Ceramics
recovered from the stained area are all Weeden Island types


and include Weeden Island Plain, Weeden Island Punctated,
Weeden Island Painted, and Wakulla Check Stamped sherds.
Animal bone remains within the feature include several species
of saltwater fish (76% by count), deer (21%), turtle (2%), and
bird (1%).
Feature 8 consists of three uniformly sized and spaced
postmolds in Units 26-27. In plan view at 30 cm, the post
molds appear as distinct, roughly circular stains measuring 20
to 26 cm in diameter (see Figure 2). The postmolds extend to
between 25 and 38 cm below the point at which they became
clearly visible (26 to 30 cm) and are spaced 32 to 42 cm apart.
No wall trench was discernible and no artifacts were recovered
from the postmolds. This group of postmolds appears to be an
exterior wall segment that is likely part of the previously
documented wall section.
Feature 9 is a group of three postmolds documented in
Unit 24 (see Figure 2). The post molds here consist of one
about the size of the wall posts (Feature 8) and two smaller
postmolds. The larger postmold measured 24 cm in diameter
and extended to 45 cm below surface. The larger postmold
may be the remains of an interior support post. The smaller
postmolds were 12 to 14 cm in diameter and extended to 37
cm. These posts could have served a number of functions, but
were probably not major structural components of the
building.
Feature 10 is a clearly defined trash pit located outside
the presumed structure walls (see Figure 2 and Figure 4). A
single small post mold was located between the pit and the


Table 1. 80K5 Radiocarbon Sample Analysis Results.


Calibrated Date*
Provenience: Context


(Range 1 sigma) Sample#
Beta


TU12/L 2: upper midden, 1140+60 A.D. 826
Area IV (A.D.788 to A.D.868)


TU 8/L 3: Feature 6,
Area III


1110+70 A.D. 855
(A.D.824 to A.D.895)


TU14/L 3: lower midden, 1340+60 A.D. 625
Area IV (A.D.590 to A.D.658)


TU23/L 4: Feature 5,
Area IV


1330+70


A.D. 637
(A.D.600 to A.D.679)


42216


42217


42218


42219


TU46/L 3: lower midden, 2170+60 256 B.C. 54892
Area VIII (327 B.C. to 180 B.C.)


TU46/L 4: lower midden, 2080+90 165 B.C.
Area VIII (226 B.C. to 65 B.C)

*Calibration by CALIB (Stuiver and Becker 1986)


54895






300


Table 2. Area IV Structure Floor Artifact Inventory.



Ceramics

Vessel 1: Complete Weeden Island Punctated, three-sided beaker-like bowl or cup. Inverted on
floor 14 cm north of hearth (see Figure 2, Mikell 1992).

Vessel 2: Rim and body fragments of a Weeden Island Incised, Zoned Red shallow bowl.
Interior incising with "frog eye" effigy on two rim segments (see Figure 2, Mikell 1992).

Vessel 3: Approximately 1/4 of Weeden Island Plain shallow bowl or plate (see Mikell 1992).

Vessel 4: Large Wakulla Check Stamped rim sherd (see Figure 2, Mikell 1992).

Vessel 5: Rim and body fragments of a Weeden Island Painted shallow bowl. This vessel is
painted with hematite and a brown-hued mineral or vegetable dye paint. Design elements are
"negative painted" (see Figure 2, Mikell 1992).

Vessel 6: Partial Weeden Island Punctated shallow bowl. Interior drag and punch punctated
lines present (see Figure 2, Mikell 1992).

Feature 5 (hearth): One large Weeden Island Punctated sherd,three Wakulla Check Stamped,
two Weeden Island Plain, one Ruskin Dentate, four residual plain sherds.

Feature 11 (trash pit): One partial Weeden Island Plain bowl, four Wakulla Check stamped, two
residual plain sherds.

Individual Sherds: Weeden Island Plain (24), Weeden Island Incised (8), Weeden Island Zoned
Red (3), Carrabelle Incised (2), Carrabelle Punctated(6), Wakulla Check Stamped (15), Ruskin
Dentate Stamped (4), Swift Creek Complicated Stamped (3), residual/rough- surfaced plain (16).


Lithic Artifacts

Jackson Projectile Point (chert)
expanded head drill (chert)
bipointed drill (chert)
2 sandstone grinding stones
sandstone disc/gaming piece
quartzite cobble pestle

Bone and Shell Artifacts

deer bone awl/pin (2)
deer bone awls (3)
columella awl (3)
engraved bone pin fragment
drilled shell beads (2)
bird bone bead
engraved bone pendant












Table 3. Ceramics Recovered

by Area, Test Unit, Feature*, and Level


Type/Classification
Level: 1
Lake Jackson Plain
Pensacola Plain
Pensacola Incised

Wakulla Check Stamped 1
Wright Check Stamped
Carrabelle Incised
Carrabelle Punctated
Weeden Island Incised
Weeden Island Punctated -
Weeden Island Zoned Red -
Weeden Island Painted
swift Cr. Comp. Stamped -
Ruskin Dentate Stamped -
Weeden Island Plain 6
Baytown Plain 1
Mulberry Creek Plain 1
Mulberry Cr.cord Marked -
West Florida Cord Marked -

Deptford Linear Ck Stmpd -
Deptford Bold Ck Stamped -
Deptford Simple Stamped -
Alexander Incised
Fiber Tempered Plain
Unidentified Ck Stamped 2
Unident./Residual Plain 8
Unidentified Decorated 1
TOTAL 20



Type/Classification
Level:
Lake Jackson Plain
Pensacola Plain
Pensacola Incised

Wakulla Check Stamped
Wright Check Stamped
Carrabelle Incised
Carrabelle Punctated
Weeden Island Incised
Weeden Island Punctated
Weeden Island Zoned Red
Weeden Island Painted
Swift Creek Comp. Stamped
Weeden Island Plain
Baytown Plain
Mulberry Creek Plain
Mulberry Cr.cord Marked

Saltillo Fabric Impressed
Deptford Linear Ck Stamped
Deptford Bold Ck Stamped
Deptford Simple Stamped
Alexander Incised
Bayou LaBatre tIcised
Alexander Pinch*
Fiber Tempered Plain
Unidentified Check Stamped
Unident./Residual Plain
Unidentified Decorated


TD24-27
2 3 4 5 F7




43 13 3 1 39*
1
1

4 2 2- 3
6 5 1- 5*

-6 2*
1- -
2 -- 4
49 16 6 46*
1 3

- 2
-l- -
2






16 5 1 2 6
34 7 8 1 23
4 6 1
160 62 21 5 135













1
TU38 TU40
3 4 1 2 3 4 5


-- -11---






- 1 -



1 1 1 -


-1 1 -
-1342


Area 4
TD41-44
1 2 3 4 5 F10


33 3


3
2 1
10* 4
1 1

1 1

62 12
3 -


3 10 1
14 48 9
- 3-
40 176 32


1 17*

- 1


- 2




- 1 19


-- 1









1 1 14
- -
2 3 54


Area 7 Area 8
TU45 T 46/TU58-60
12 1 2 3 45

1----- ---------


- I
- 1
- 1
1
3




12 19
3 1


TU28
1 2 3 4


3 4-
3 3-

20 19 1


Area 9
TU47
2


TOTAL 114 1 4 6 6 2 52 1616 2619 6
*Ceramics recovered from features are not presented by level
*Count includes partial or whole vessels) where each specimen = 1


Area 9 Area 6
TU29-30 TU31 T032 TU33 TU34 TU35
1 2 3 4 F11 15 13 4 7 24 2 3 4 2 3 4
I I - - - -
-- - - - -


4 7
3 -

10 28


Area 3
T048
2 3 4
234





3 8-
- 1 -

2
2 1 -




) 16 13 -
I -
- 1 -
1

2


- 2 3-
12 17 26 3

29 42 51 3


Area 2
TU49
2 4


1

2

I 4
I1
l--4
1 4

1117


TU50-53
1 2 3 4 5 712

3


1 -




1





56 -












761
13 13 1


Area 10
TU54
3


- 3 -
2 1 -

- -
- -1
1 -
- 1
1

1 2 -
6 9 13
2
10 15 17


1 -





- 1 -

- 3













- 1
112

226
2 2 6


Area 7
TD36 TU37 Total
1 2 3 4 2 3
0
0


1 1 5- -- 211
1
-1- -- 3
6
18
1 1 -- 36
1 -- 5

1 -- 7
6
1 -5- -- 284
--1- -- 9
3
2
2
- 3


-42-
3 1 8 3
6 6 25 3
6 6 25 3


TU55 TU56-57
36 1 2 3 4


Area 9
T961
1 2 3
123
-1-
- -



1 1 -



1




1


Total

1
3
1


1

2 -


1 2 1 1 2 1

1241 333
Grand Total







West Wall Profile
TU 43 TU 41 TU 27 TU 25 TU 12 TU 18 TU 14 TU 17 Stratum

S' .IV
Salure 1ur 7 Post Mold



0 1
Stratum I: Humus m
Stratum II: Oyster shell midden
Stratum III: Rangia shell midden
Stratum IV: Grey sand
Stratum V: Yellow brown sand

Figure 4. Area IV Midden, Soils, and Features Profile. Units 12,14,17,18,25,27,41, and 43, West Wall Profile.


structure wall, but its function is not known. The deep basin-
shaped pit, which initially appeared at 16 cm below surface,
measured 119 cm by approximately 126 cm at 30 cm below
surface and extended to 42 cm below surface. Although the pit
contained burned animal bone, the charcoal density is light
enough to suggest that the pit is not a hearth. Refuse within
the pit includes scattered Rangia shell, fish (90% by count),
deer (7%), turtle (2%), and bird (1%) bone, and Weeden
Island ceramics. Ceramics include Wakulla Check Stamped
sherds from two vessels, as well as Weeden Island Plain,
Weeden Island Punctated, Carrabelle Incised, West Florida
Cord marked, and residual or rough-surfaced plain sherds.
Many of the sherds are very small and eroded, suggesting that
the materials within Feature 10 are general refuse items
secondarily deposited within the pit.

Materials Recovered

Although long-term prehistoric use of the site is indicated
by the Late Archaic, Deptford, Santa Rosa/Swift Creek,
Weeden Island, and Fort Walton ceramic types recovered from
80K5 (Lazarus 1965; Mikell 1992), excavations primarily
have recovered Weeden Island and Deptford ceramics and
associated materials. There may be areas of the site not yet
sampled that contain greater amounts of Santa Rosa/Swift
Creek and Fort Walton ceramics, but the controlled
excavations conducted to date demonstrate that the Weeden
Island and Deptford occupations were dominant events.

Ceramics

Approximately 1300 sherds (n=1296) were recovered
from the site during the field school investigations. An
account of all ceramics recovered from the most recent
controlled excavations is presented in Table 3. Table 3 is
organized by general provenience (Areas) as well as by more
specific proveniences such as unit, level, and feature.
Ceramics are primarily Deptford and Weeden Island decorated
and plain wares or unidentified, rough- surfaced (residual)


plain sherds, but a few specimens of other types were
recovered.
Numerous Deptford period ceramic types were recovered
from various portions of 80K5. Alexander, Bayou LaBatre,
and fiber tempered plain wares (Norwood Plain?) were also
recovered in direct association with Deptford ceramics. These
Deptford period ceramics include the following types:
Deptford Linear Check Stamped, Deptford Bold Check
Stamped, Deptford Simple Stamped, Alexander Incised, Bayou
LaBatre Dowel Impressed, Saltillo Fabric Impressed, coarse to
medium sand tempered plain (O'Neal Plain?), and fiber
tempered plain. Deptford sherds are sand and grit tempered
and the Alexander Incised, Bayou LaBatre series sherds are
tempered with coarse to medium sand (Wimberly 1953).
Although not detailed, Lazarus (1965:113) lists 80K5 as a site
where Elliot's Point, Alexander, and Deptford components are
present.
Deptford and associated ceramics have now been
recovered from three secure contexts. Deptford Linear and
Bold Check Stamped ceramics, fiber tempered plain ceramics
(Norwood Plain?), and baked clay balls (Elliot's Point) were
recovered from a pit feature (Feature 3); Deptford Linear and
Bold Check Stamped, Deptford Simple Stamped, Alexander
and Bayou LaBatre Dowel Impressed, and fiber tempered
plain ceramics were recovered from a layer of shell and non-
shell midden in Area VIII; and Saltillo Fabric Impressed,
Deptford Linear Check Stamped, Alexander Incised, Bayou
LaBatre Dowel Impressed, and Alexander Pinched ceramics
were found in association in shell middens in Area X. The
remaining Deptford sherds were recovered in general midden
contexts or at the base of Weeden Island occupation debris.
The presence of Deptford and associated ceramics is not
unexpected at 80K5 since numerous Deptford sites are located
in the immediate area of the site (Thomas and Campbell
1985,1990). The association of Deptford and Alexander or
Bayou LaBatre ceramics has also been previously documented
in the area at the Alligator Lake site in Walton County
(Lazarus 1965), and the Tucker (Sears 1963) and Carrabelle
Cemetery sites in Franklin County (Willey 1949). The










association of these ceramic types in contexts dating to
approximately 200 B.C. indicates at least indirect contact
between the indigenous Deptford inhabitants and cultures from
the Mobile Bay/Lower Tombigbee River Valley or lower
Alabama River Valley regions. Lazarus (1965:114-118)
argues that the mix of Deptford, Alexander, Bayou LaBatre,
and fiber tempered ceramics would be indicative of an early
Deptford date of approximately 700 to 500 B.C. based on the
radiocarbon dates from Alligator Lake (8WL29) and other
regional sites, but the dates from 80K5 indicate that the
relationships evidenced by this type of ceramic assemblage
lasts until at least 200 B.C.
A small number of Deptford, Saltillo, Alexander, and
Bayou LaBatre rim sherds was recovered. The Deptford rims
are all simple rim modes that are either straight or slightly
excurvate, with smoothed and rounded lips. Decorative motifs
(check stamping, simple stamping, etc.) extend up to the lip of
the rim. The single Saltillo Fabric Impressed rim sherd
recovered is a simple, straight form with the fabric impressions
extending to the smooth lip of the rim. Four Alexander and
Bayou LaBatre Dowel Impressed rim sherds were recovered
from the site. The Bayou LaBatre Dowel Impressed rims are
simple straight forms with shallow cord wrapped dowel
impressions extending to within 7 mm of the rim. Alexander
Incised sherds exhibit two rim modes: simple straight and
simple excurvate. Rim lips are smoothed and deep incised
decorations extend to within between 5 and 12 mm of the rim
lip in both Alexander rim forms. No fiber tempered rim
sherds have been recovered to date. Three types of vessel
bases have been recovered that appear to be typical of the
Deptford period ceramics. These include a square, flat-based,
Deptford Linear Check Stamped vessel base, one Alexander
Incised vessel base with podial supports, one plain base with
podial supports, and three rounded base check stamped and
simple stamped vessels. Vessel forms appear to be restricted to
small cylindrical beaker- like or jar forms, larger, deep jarss,
and large globular pots and bowls.
Pottery types of the Weeden Island occupation are
Wakulla Check Stamped, Weeden Island Plain, Weeden Island
Incised, Weeden Island Punctated, Weeden Island Zoned Red,
a variant of Crystal River Negative Painted described
previously (Mikell (1992) as Weeden Island Painted,
Carrabelle Incised, Carrabelle Punctated, Keith Incised, Tucker
Ridge Pinched, St. Petersburg Incised, Ruskin Dentate
Stamped, Swift Creek Complicated Stamped (late variety),
West Florida Cord Marked (late variety), Stamped,
Ponchartrain Check Stamped, Wright Check Stamped,
Mulberry Creek Cord Marked, Mulberry Creek Plain,
Baytown Plain, Weeden Island Effigy Vessels (plain, red-
filmed and incised), and unidentified smooth and rough-
surfaced plain. All of these types have been previously
recovered from the site (Mikell 1992) and have been described
by Willey (1949), Jenkins (1981), and Brown (1981).


With the exception of the identification of an additional
check stamped type, the Weeden Island ceramic assemblages
recovered during the field school are virtually identical to
those recovered during previous work. A more thorough
review of check stamped ceramics has resulted in the
identification of Wright Check Stamped sherds in the late
Weeden Island assemblage. Wright Check Stamped sherds are
limestone tempered and are common in Tombigbee and Lower
Alabama River Valley Late Woodland sites. Four sherds
classified previously (Mikell 1992) as Ponchartrain Check
Stamped have been reclassified as Wright Check Stamped. A
few additional Wright sherds were recovered during the field
school (see Table 3). Characteristics of the 80K5 Weeden
Island ceramics are detailed in Mikell (1992).

Lithics

Three points, two chert drills, 13 chert, six quartz, and
17 quartzite flakes, a ground and polished sandstone plummet,
eight grinding stone pieces, three pieces of ground hematite,
and two ground ferruginous sandstone artifacts make up the
entire lithic assemblage recovered from all controlled
excavations to date. Of the lithic debitage recovered from
midden contexts, 18 pieces are tertiary (non-cortical) chert and
quartzite thinning flakes. The remaining flakes are core or
cobble reduction flakes with surfaces partially covered (10-
70%) with cortex. The other lithic artifacts recovered during
the present phase of investigations are described in more detail.

Projectile Point/Knife. A single distal fragment of a
large, broad-bladed point was recovered during the present
investigation from Test Unit 46 (Area VIII). The point tip is
made of Tallahatta quartzite and was recovered from an
apparent Weeden Island context which lies above the
Deptford/Alexander deposits. The point was associated with
Carrabelle Punctated and unidentified plain ceramics.

Plummet. One ground and polished, non-local sandstone
plummet (Figure 5 ) was recovered from the Area VIII midden
where it was in association with Deptford, Bayou LaBatre,
Alexander, and fiber tempered ceramics. The plummet is
teardrop shaped, measuring 6.7 cm in length with a maximum
width of 2 cm. A deep line has been engraved around the top
of the specimen, perhaps for tieing to a line. The origin of the
sandstone from which the plummet was made is not known,
but it is not a locally procured stone and is thus considered an
imported or exotic material.

Grinding Stones. One ferruginous sandstone grinding
stone fragment was recovered from an area outside the
structure floor in Area IV. Two similar sandstone grinding
implements were also recovered from a Deptford midden
context in Area VIII. The grinding stones are generally oval to









square in shape and flat with one surface partially ground
smooth. These tools were probably utilized in food
preparation, but two exhibit evidence of use as an anvil for
heavy pounding.

Ground Stone Artifacts. One piece of ground hematite
was recovered from the Area VIII midden. The 1.5 cm thick
piece is ground flat on one surface and was presumably used
for pigment.
Shell and Bone Tools. Shell and bone tools were
recovered during the present phase of investigations. Unlike
previous excavations in Area IV on the site, no ornaments
(beads, pendants, etc.) were recovered. The most recent work
in Area IV and Area VIII did, however, recover a small
number of shell and bone tools. Shell tools consist of six
Busycon columella picks or gouges, one columella awl, one
oyster shell modified to form a point at its hinge or proximal
end (awl?), one distal end of a Busycon shell celt, and one
Mercenaria scraper. The columella awl was recovered from
the Area IV structure floor along with one deer bone awl. The
oyster shell tool was found in the upper midden in Area IV in
Unit 28 along with a deer metatarsal awl or pin. The
remaining shell tools were recovered from various midden and
non-midden contexts. Each of these shell tools exhibit wear on
either distal ends (columella tools) or one lateral edge


(scraper). The columella awl is noticeably sharpened to a
distal point and is polished from use.
Two long (6.1 and 10.9 cm), broken deer metapodial
bone awls or pins and two smaller awl/pin fragments were
recovered. The larger deer bone awls/pins are made on
proximal to mid-shaft portions of metacarpals and metatarsals
that have been split and carved to form pointed distal ends.
Judging from their size, the larger awls or pins may have been
utilized for fairly heavy hide working or possibly in net or
textile work. The smaller awl/pin fragments are distal end
pieces made on mammal long bone. They could have served a
number of purposes.

Faunal and Botanical Remains

Remains of numerous shellfish and estuarine fish species
comprise the vast majority of faunal remains on the site. The
two dominant shellfish species (oyster and marsh clam) are of
particular interest since they inhabit waters of different saline
content. Rangia cuneata (marsh clam) requires a more
consistent fresh to brackish water environment than
Crassostrea virginica (oyster). Although the two species
inhabit otherwise similar environments Rangia are found in the
muddy bottoms of coastal rivers and marshes while oysters
attach to hard surfaces, including sandy estuarine and shallow


Figure 5. Selected Deptford Period Ceramics and Artifacts. a-c: Deptford Bold Check Stamped; d: Deptford Linear Check
Stamped; e-f: Deptford Simple Stamped; g: Saltillo Fabric Impressed; h: unidentified incised rim; i-l: Alexander Incised; m:
Alexander Pinched; n-o: podial supports; p: ground/polished stone plummet.









water bottoms. Deptford middens and features contain a
majority (82-95%) of small oyster along with minor amounts
of various conch, quahog, and other clams. Weeden Island
middens and features have, thus far, produced either an
overwhelming majority of either Rangia or oyster, with scallop
and conch present, but rarely are undisturbed Rangia and
oyster middens mixed. The presence of distinct shellfish
species in Deptford and Weeden Island, as well as temporally
distinct Weeden Island midden deposits, indicates that either
two distinct estuarine micro-environments were exploited for
shellfishing or that a large-scale environmental change
occurred that affected the availability of one species versus the
other (see Mikell 1992; Thomas and Campbell 1990). The
distinct midden composition suggests several implications
ranging from environmental change to a shift in shellfish
preference when comparing the Deptford and Weeden Island
components.
A large assemblage of vertebrate faunal remains was
recovered from various midden and feature contexts. Although
no quantification will be presented here, analysis of specific
samples indicates that a homogeneous assemblage is present,
dominated by estuarine fish species. White-tailed deer,
raccoon, black bear, domestic dog, rodent, turkey, cormorant,
alligator, saltwater estuarine fish, freshwater turtle, freshwater
fish, and snake remains are also present. Deer and freshwater
turtle bone is quite common on the site, but other non-
estuarine fish bone is only sparsely represented. Certain
features and midden areas such as Feature 7 and the Area IX
hearth (Feature 11) contain greater densities of remains such as
deer or turtle and freshwater fish than more typical features
like the Area IV structure trash pit (Feature 10) which contains
mostly saltwater fish bone. These areas may represent the
remains of specific activities, but the majority of the middens
are somewhat homogeneous and clearly dominated by both
estuarine fish and shellfish remains.
Botanical remains were recovered both from features and
midden contexts. As in previous excavations, no domesticated
plant remains were recovered, but wild plant food remains
were. Grape seeds, persimmon seeds, hickory and acorn
nutshell, and acorn nut meat were recovered from the site
along with sumac seeds. Wood charcoal identified to genus
includes oak, hickory, pine, maple and grapevine. The plant
remains identified are indicative of both hardwood hammock
and forest edge exploitation for plant food and fuel.

The Deptford and Weeden Island Cultures of Northwest
Florida and 80K5

The Late Archaic (Elliot's Point Complex) and Deptford
periods (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 150) provide the first clear
evidence of semi-permanent village settlements on Florida's
Northwest Gulf Coast. Evidence from 80K5 has provided
further documentation of Deptford settlement around 200 B.C.
and the relationships between the Deptford and Alexander or


Bayou LaBatre "cultures" located to the north and west. At
80K5 Deptford villagers settled in the coastal hardwood
hammock, on at least a seasonal basis, where they hunted and
fished the Santa Rosa Sound as well as area freshwater lakes
and streams. To date, 80K5 has not provided information
concerning ceremonial aspects of the Deptford period.
The Deptford dates of ca. 260 and 160 B.C. from 80K5
are important for two reasons. First, they compare favorably
with other Deptford dates from nearby sites. Thomas and
Campbell (1990:600-603) provide the following dates obtained
from area Deptford sites: ca. 630 B.C., 330 B.C., and 320
B.C. at 80K126, a site located less than 5 km from 80K5; ca.
30 B.C., 20 B.C., and A.D. 70 at 8WL36; ca. 50 B.C., A.D.
120, and A.D. 140 from 80K183, another site located within
5 km of 80K5; and ca. A.D. 110 and A.D. 130 from 80K153
on Santa Rosa Island. The Deptford dates from 80K5 predate
the late Deptford Okaloosa phase defined by Thomas and
Campbell (1985) at Pirate's Bay (80K183) and fit into Thomas
and Campbell's (1990:603) proposed, but undefined "middle"
Deptford phase. Second, the 80K5 dates are important
because they reflect a long term association (ca. 700-150 B.C.)
between Deptford and Alexander/Bayou LaBatre ceramics
The direct association of fiber tempered, Alexander, Bayou
LaBatre, Saltillo, and Deptford ceramics indicates that the
Deptford occupation(s) is either longstanding enough to
include what are commonly considered pre-Deptford materials
or that the Late Archaic, Alexander, and Deptford assemblages
are mixed. The former appears to be more likely given the in
situ nature of the majority of the deposits where the
assemblages were associated. The number of cases where Late
Archaic through Deptford materials are associated may be
taken as an indication of the rapid development of ceramics
technology, interregional communication, and trade during the
period of about 700 B.C. to A.D. 100 on the Gulf coast (see
Lazarus 1965; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Following the
Deptford occupation there is scant evidence of use of the site
until about A.D. 600, when a Weeden Island village was
established.
The Weeden Island occupations of 80K5 are defined by
both ceramic assemblages and radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon
dates clearly indicate that significant depositional episodes
occurred between about A.D. 600 and A.D. 900 (Mikell
1992). What is not clear is whether the site was continuously
occupied between A.D. 600 and A.D. 900. It is certain,
however, that these dates are associated with at least two major
Weeden Island occupations of the site. The 80K5 ceramic
assemblage and radiocarbon dates indicate that the remains of
two temporally distinct Weeden Island occupations are present.
The Weeden Island ceramics associated with the lower midden
zones, the lower stratigraphic levels of the site in general, and
with the features dated to approximately A.D. 600 (in Area
IV) contain a greater proportion of Weeden Island decorated
types (24.7%), relative to check stamped and plain types
(75.3%) when compared to ceramics from late Weeden Island









middens on the site. The upper middens, upper stratigraphic
levels, and features dated to about A.D. 800 produced, without
exception, an assemblage consisting mainly of check stamped
and plain wares (88.9% in Area IV), along with smaller
amounts of common Weeden Island decorated types (10.3%).
Wright and Pontchartrain Check Stamped, Mulberry Creek,
and Baytown "imported" ceramics are also more frequently
associated with the later occupation levels.
It is particularly interesting that 80K5 was the locale of
fishing villages that, at least during the earlier period of
Weeden Island occupation, had prominent sacred or ceremonial
aspects. The inclusion of "non-native" Alexander and Bayou
LaBatre ceramics in Deptford contexts may also be indicative
of the importance of the site during at least a portion of the
Deptford occupation. The domestic nature of the site should
not be down-played, however. The midden deposits represent
both long-term general accretion of refuse, such as is the case
for the larger, multicomponent midden (Area I), and more
limited refuse disposal events, such as household or specific
activity middens scattered around the site. With the exception
of the Ware Mound and Area IV structure, each feature so far
recorded appears to be primarily related to domestic activity.
The everyday domestic remains recovered suggest that the
Deptford and Weeden Island villagers enjoyed a rich harvest
from the local estuaries and hardwood hammocks. Although
the Area IV structure (Features 4 and 5, 7-10) may have been a
special purpose building where potential ceremonial or prestige
items were housed, it was the scene of apparent domestic
activities and was not strictly a ceremonial structure. The late
Weeden Island component shows a general continuation of the
earlier subsistence economy, but any hint of ceremonial
activity is conspicuously absent and a general decline in the
quantity and quality of decorated ceramics is notable.

Summary

80K5 is a Weeden Island coastal fishing village site that
lies atop an even larger scatter of Deptford occupations. Two
dates of ca. 250 and 160 B.C. have added to our knowledge of
Deptford and Alexander chronology. Following the Deptford
period occupation, two substantial and distinct Weeden Island
occupations are present on the site identified here as middle
and late Weeden Island period occupations. The middle phase
dates to between about A.D. 600 and A.D. 750 and the late
phase dates to somewhere between A.D. 750 and A.D. 900. It
is interesting that there were apparently no substantial
occupations of 80K5 between the Deptford and Weeden Island
periods or following Weeden Island.
An outstanding feature of the site is the remains of a
structure dating to the earlier Weeden Island occupation, which
at the very least, apparently housed ceremonial or prestige
objects. This structure appears to be temporally related to the
Ware Mound, a small burial mound that contained an elaborate
human effigy vessel among other Weeden Island burial goods.


The structure, which contained numerous pieces of high
quality Weeden Island ceramics, domestic and/or craft-related
tools, items of personal adornment, and subsistence-related
remains, hints of both the "sacred and secular" in Weeden
Island society. The structure and deposits associated with it
are very distinct from other deposits on the site in that the
density of ceramics is much greater and the quality and
ceremonial character of several items is indicative of status or
use in ceremonial functions.
The present phase of investigations has better documented
the structure and its related artifacts. We now know that the
structure was oval in shape, measuring approximately 3.6
meters in width and at least 5 meters in length. Further work
on the site will hopefully define the entire structure. Other
Weeden Island features consist of middens, shell midden and
refuse lenses, organic materials in rich shallow pit hearths
within shell middens, and refuse-filled pits. Subsistence
remains abound in the features and midden deposits and
indicate that the primary focus of food-getting was estuarine
fishing and shellfish collection. A secondary source of
subsistence was hunting and gathering in coastal hardwood
hammocks that surround the site.
One apparent Late Archaic/Deptford pit feature was
previously excavated on the site that contained Deptford
ceramics, plain fiber tempered sherds (Norwood Plain?), and
baked clay balls (Elliot's Point Objects), along with fish and
oyster remains (Mikell 1992). Two additional significant
Deptford deposits were documented during the field school.
Two midden areas, Area VIII and Area X, proved to be
Deptford middens that contain associated Deptford, Alexander,
Bayou LaBatre, Saltillo, and fiber tempered plain ceramics.
The Area VIII midden dates to between about 250 B.C. and
160 B.C.

Acknowledgments

None of this work would have been possible without the
interest, cooperation, and toil of the property owners, the
students, OWCC, and the many volunteers who participated.
Thanks go out to Ginny and Harry Barr, Fred and
Mayrelizabeth Pryor, Dr. Yow, the Anchors, the Kellars, Dr.
Grelneck, Wendell Griffith, Jennifer Lozowski, and last, but
not least, the persons who got this into print. The students
participating in the archaeology field school were: Joseph
Hank, Amy Timms, Loren Boyer, Amanda Cumbie, Barry
Kress, Hillary Heflin, Stephenie Brown, Eddie Griffith, Beau
Arnold, Mark Barrows, Laura Boswell, Kim Bultez, Heather
Cross, Erin Dall, Christy Davis, Nancy Deibler, Jack
Landham, Jeb Lund, Kevin Millard, Nick Moore, Rebekah
Thomas, Jasmine Trice, and Nicole Woram.

References Cited


Brown, Ian W.










1981 An Investigation of Check Stamped Pottery in the Petite
Anse Region. Lower Mississippi Survey Bulletin,Petite
Anse Project Research Notes 9. Peabody Museum,
Harvard University.

Jenkins, Ned J.
1981 Gainesville Lake Area Ceramic Description and
Chronology. Office of Archaeological Research Report
of Investigation No. 12. The University of Alabama.

Lazarus, William C.
1965 Alligator Lake, A Ceramic Horizon Site on the
Northwest Florida Coast. The Florida Anthropologist
18:83-124.

Mikell, Gregory A.
1992 80K5, A Coastal Weeden Island Village in Northwest
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:195-220.

Mikell, Gregory A., Janice L. Campbell, and Prentice M.
Thomas
1989 Archaeological Site Recording and Testing at Tyndall
Air Force Base, Florida. New World Research, Inc.
Report of Investigations No. 183.

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

Percy, George W., and David S. Brose
1974 Weeden Island Ecology, Subsistence, and Village Life in
Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the 39th Annual
Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology,
Washington.

Sears, William H.
1958 Burial Mounds on the Gulf Coast Plain. American
Antiquity 23:274-84.

1960 Ceramic Systems and Eastern Archaeology. American
Antiquity 25:323-29.

1963 The Tucker Site on Alligator Harbor, Franklin County,
Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum,
Social Sciences No. 9, Gainesville.

Stuiver, M. and B. Becker
1986 The CALIB Program for Calibration of C-14 Dates and
Its Implications. Radiocarbon 28:863-910.

Thomas, Prentice and Jan Campbell
1985 The Deptford to Santa Rosa/Swift Creek Transition in
the Florida Panhandle. The Florida Anthropologist
38:110-119.
Thomas, Prentice and Jan Campbell (editors)


1990 Cultural Resources Investigations at Eglin Air Force
Base, Florida: Technical Synthesis (Draft). New World
Research, Inc. Report of Investigations No. 192.


White, Nancy M.
1991 Testing Remote Shell Middens in
Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Florida.
Anthropologist 44:17-29.


the Lower
The Florida


1992 The Overgrown Road Site (8Gu38): A Swift Creek
Camp Site in the Lower Apalachicola Valley. The
Florida Anthropologist 45:17-38.

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

Wimberly, Stephen B.
1953 Bayou LaBatre Tchefuncte Series. In Prehistoric Pottery
of the Eastern United States, University of Michigan,
Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.



Gregory A. Mikell
7707 Shadow Bay Drive
Panama City, FL 32404










CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND GRANT-FUNDED RESEARCH IN FLORIDA
STATE PARKS: THE TOMOKA POINT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Clara A. Gualtieri and Vicki L. Cole


The mission of the Florida Park Service is to provide
resource-based recreation while preserving, interpreting, and
restoring natural and cultural resources under its stewardship.
According to the most recent Jurisdiction Report (July 1992),
the Florida state park system consists of 148 units and accounts
for about 445,735 acres of both uplands and submerged lands.
About 25 parks are classified as historical or archaeological
sites, and almost every unit in the system contains historical or
archaeological resources.
The term "park" encompasses a variety of different
designations: historic sites, archaeological sites, underwater
archaeological preserves, cultural sites, culture center,
museums, trails, recreation areas, ornamental gardens,
preserves, reserves, geological sites, and botanical sites.
These lands are "the real Florida," which are set aside for the
enjoyment of Florida's residents and visitors. They are places
where native plants and animals and prehistoric and historical
sites remain unscathed by the rigors of urban and agricultural
development and expansion.
The park service has enjoyed great success in the
management of its natural resources, but the same cannot be
said for cultural resources. Historically, cultural resources
management has taken a minor role primarily due to a lack of
funding and staff. In an attempt to remedy this, the Division
of Recreation and Parks, which oversees the Florida Park
Service, recently implemented two visionary changes:
establishment of the Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources
and implementation of its Strategic Plan 1992-1994. The latter
was devised as a dynamic tool to clarify and/or reevaluate
goals, objectives, and fundamental issues within the park
service. A total of eight issues was generated, with cultural
resources occupying the third berth. The object of the cultural
resources issue is to increase the role of cultural resources by
obtaining appropriate recognition, funding, and staffing to
preserve, protect, and promote Florida's unique cultural assets.
In 1991, a staff member of the Bureau of Natural and
Cultural Resources, Steven W. Martin, began work on a
radical document. He proposed that the Florida Park Service
develop, adopt, and then activate a cultural resource
management initiative.


Cultural Resource Management Initiative

This section summarizes the statement of purpose of the
cultural resource management initiative (DNR 1992). The
Division of Recreation and Parks is charged by statute to
manage, preserve, regulate, and protect parks, monuments,
memorials, historic sites, and archaeological sites. The
Florida state park system has been effective in managing and
interpreting cultural resources at select archaeological and
historical sites. The lack of specific guidelines for managing
cultural resources at a majority of sites has contributed to the
division's limited success in managing cultural resources across
the state. Virtually every state historic site and parks with
cultural resources now face adverse impacts both on- and off-
site that imperil historic integrity and/or prehistoric remains.
Clearly, a guiding framework that has statewide application
must be emplaced.
The purpose of the initiative, then, is to develop guiding
principles and policies to better manage, protect, preserve, and
interpret cultural resources under the administration of the
Florida state park system. The guiding framework is intended
to assist managers in making long- and short-term decisions
that affect cultural resource programs as well as cultural
resource management. This will be accomplished by educating
staff; by promoting preservation treatments consistent with the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior's standards; and by developing
strategies to avert the deterioration of prehistoric resources,
historic buildings, and objects and artifacts in state parks'
collections.
There are four elements to the proposed initiative: 1)
conduct a cultural resource management "needs" survey, 2)
conduct a forum, 3) draft products derived from the forum,
and 4) publish and distribute the products developed. The
first, a needs survey, will be designed in conjunction with
personnel of the Division of Historical Resources (DHR),
Florida Department of State. The survey then will be
distributed to park managers of all state park units. The
responses will be tallied and evaluated.
A forum then will be conducted to develop
recommendations for a cultural resource program based on site


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 45 No.4


DECEMBER 1992







309


management needs and state and federal guidelines and
standards. This facet of the initiative will include select
cultural resources professionals in the public and private
sectors, historic site managers, and facilitators.
The third step, drafting products derived from the forum,
will produce, among others: the Florida Park Service's
Cultural Resource Management Mission Statement; a
comprehensive list of cultural resource management needs and
recommendations; a compendium of cultural resource
management laws, policies, and references; lists of technical
experts in archaeology, architecture landscape, and cultural
resource objects; site managers' reference manual for cultural
resources; and policies, guidelines, and standards for inclusion
in appropriate state manuals and rules. Once finalized, these
documents will be distributed throughout the state park system.
Benefits from this initiative will accrue not only to the
resources but to the public as well. Personnel in parks and
historic sites will be better informed, which likely will result
in increased recognition by the public, improved interpretive
programs, and more appropriate and responsive visitor
services. In turn, improvement of cultural resources through
preservation, research, interpretation, and so on may draw
visitors from state, national, and international markets.
Increased traffic to these sites can invigorate local economies,
especially the food and lodging industries.

The Grant

Before discussing the grant and its ramifications, it is
important to understand the organization of the Florida Park
Service and Tomoka State Park as well as the granting
agency's perspective on grant-funded research.

Background (Division of Recreation and Parks)

The Florida Park Service, part of the Division of
Recreation and Parks, divides the state into nine districts.
District offices provide local administrative and support
services to the parks. In addition to administrators, district
staffs can include environmental specialists, education and
training specialists, grants and volunteer specialists, and
information specialists. Two of the districts have historic
preservationists.
Tomoka State Park is located in District 4. Six counties
(Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Putnam, Flagler, and northern
Volusia) comprise this district for a total of eleven operational
parks, some of which have additional satellite parks.
Tomoka State Park is located in the City of Ormond
Beach (Figure 1). It was opened to the public in 1946 and now
encompasses approximately 915 acres. The park occupies the
Tomoka Peninsula, which is bounded by the Tomoka River on
the west and the Halifax River on the east. Its primary
physical characteristics are the coastal hammock, the tidal
marsh sand pine scrub, and the relic shoreline ridge. It also is


native habitat for the West Indian manatee, wood stork,
pileated woodpecker, gopher tortoise, osprey, and many other
wildlife species. The word "Tomoka" is a corruption of the
word "Timucua," a term used to identify the native American
peoples who once lived along the Halifax and Tomoka rivers.
The park's archaeological significance derives from its
prolonged use by many groups, possibly beginning in the
Middle or Late Archaic period (ca. 4,000 to 6,000 B.P.) and
extending into occupations by Timucuans and the British.
During the early 1900s, Tomoka Point was the site of Sunset
Park, a popular recreation spot.
Prior to the grant-funded survey, three sites were
recorded on the Florida Site File: 8V081 (Tomoka Mounds
and Midden Site), 8V082 (the village of Nocoroco), and
8V02571 (Tomoka Stone Site). Moreover, the point long has
been recognized as the site of Richard Oswald's plantation,
Mount Oswald; however, it was not formally recorded until
the 1992 survey. This survey work also included test
excavations, which revealed evidence of structural remains
associated with the Oswald Plantation. The discovery has
significantly increased the potential for data to be recovered in
the future. These sites are detailed in Piatek's article in this
issue and in the project report (Piatek 1992). The cultural
resources in Tomoka State Park typify the wealth of sites that
occur throughout the Florida state park system.
In an effort to increase the park staff's and the park
service staff's knowledge of Tomoka State Park, staff at
District 4 submitted an application to the Division of Historical
Resources, Florida Department of State for historic
preservation grant-in-aid assistance. Initially, it was proposed
to use grant funds for an archaeological survey and to prepare
an interpretive trail through Tomoka Point. But because the
Bureau of Historic Preservation would not allow grant funds to
be used to fund interpretation, it was necessary to recast the
project. With assistance from Bureau of Historic Preservation
personnel, it was decided that grant monies would be used to
hire an archaeologist to conduct a reconnaissance-level survey
of the 320 northernmost acres of Tomoka Point. The park
would meet its match by participating in the field work and by
developing a site preservation plan.
The intent was twofold: to obtain additional information
on these sites as well as an inventory of new archaeological
sites so that they could be actively managed, and to educate
and vitally involve park personnel in all facets of cultural
resources management.

Background (Division of Historical Resources)

When the U.S. Congress passed the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, it mandated that each state conduct a
comprehensive survey of its historic resources. Further, the
Act stipulated that states shall nominate eligible properties to
the National Register of Historic Places. To facilitate these
goals, federal grant funds are apportioned annually to each










PENSACOLA














MILES

O 50 lo0


OTALLAHASSEE


;KSONVILLE


BEACH


ORLANDO


U
g
E


Figure 1. Location of Tomoka State Park.


state to be used for historic preservation activities, including
survey and registration projects.
In Florida, these tasks ultimately were placed within the
Bureau of Historic Preservation (BHP), which is a unit of the
Division of Historical Resources in the Department of State.
The Division contains two bureaus dedicated to these pursuits:
the Bureau of Archaeological Research and BHP. Within
BHP, federal funds to conduct historic preservation projects
have been matched (actually overmatched) with state funds to
create the largest historic preservation grants program in the
United States. In addition to survey and registration activities,
state grant funds are used to fund the more expensive
restoration and rehabilitation projects.
The Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
although not mandated to conduct those historic preservation


goals, was tied closely to such interests because it maintained
the majority of state-owned historical resources. And although
DNR had general maintenance funds, it did not have anywhere
near the funding needed to preserve and rehabilitate these
resources.
Thus, during the 1980s, DNR began to apply to the
Bureau of Historic Preservation's grants program to fund
restoration of the historic structures in its parks. Park
personnel, however, rarely were qualified to do such historic
preservation work, and the actual labor on these historic
structures was conducted by outside consulting firms. As a
result, park personnel had little or no interaction in the
restoration or rehabilitation of the historical resources.
Exclusion from these endeavors meant that park personnel
were left with a decreased sense of control over their own










parks. This disenfranchising of personnel created a further
lack of understanding and appreciation for the preservation of
cultural resources.

Project Concept and Implementation

By 1990, Tomoka State Park, which had maintained its
grounds with no outside funding, was in need of a facelift.
District 4 staff and park management were well aware of the
history of the park, but they were not sure exactly what was
contained within its boundaries nor where it all was. Although
the park manager and park rangers did their best to share the
history of the park, using a history and inventory of its cultural
resources, the effort could be conducted only on a piecemeal
basis. The big picture was incomplete.
In March of 1991, DNR applied to the Florida
Department of State for a grant for Tomoka State Park. This
time, however, DNR--no stranger to the Bureau of Historic
Preservation's Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid Program--
did something unusual. Instead of asking for funds to
rehabilitate or restore a historic structure or resource (as DNR
had often done in the past for other parks or state property),
staff asked for funds to conduct a reconnaissance-level
archaeological survey of the Tomoka Point portion of the park.
This was only the second proposed archaeological survey using
BHP funds. The first occurred in 1989 for a survey of the
Spruce Creek State Property.
District 4 staff and park management intended to do more
than conduct a survey of prehistoric and historic archaeological
sites, however. They wanted to take the survey results and do
something with them. Not a radical idea! Or was it? DNR
staff asked BHP to help them use the survey results to create an
interpretive display and other pathway signs so that the visiting
public could benefit and learn about the historic resources as
they toured the park. Although it did not seem so innovative,
it was exactly that.
When BHP staff reviewed the grant application, they
recognized one fundamental problem. BHP does not allow the
use of grant funds to create signs or a display case. Nor could
it fund interpretations, especially if it involved artifacts or
information not directly related to the actual survey. Although
it was an excellent project, BHP staff was unable to
recommend funding for the portion of the project that District
4 staff was so excited about.
Through a series of telephone calls, it was learned that
the project presented in the application was the result of a
simpler and much more basic desire: park personnel were very
interested in learning more about their park. They had gleaned
as much information as they could from previous staff
members and local residents; they were hungry to learn more
to share with park visitors. With that information, both BHP
and District 4 staff knew they were on to something big! What
if park rangers were actively involved in the archaeological
survey? What if they helped the consulting archaeologist to


conduct test excavations? What if they learned what was
involved in a survey, helped to conduct it, and then helped to
write the results and recommendations portion of the survey
report?
What would happen was that DNR cultural resources
objectives would be fulfilled, park staff would learn an
extraordinary amount about their park, and the state would
have a survey completed that would contain results and
recommendations that would be instantly comprehended by the
grantee and could be implemented faster than before. It was a
classic win-win situation. With little fanfare, District 4 staff
revised the application to include the active participation of
park personnel in the survey work.
Why did BHP staff believe it was so important to have
park personnel involved? In previous DNR projects, as with
many surveys in all facets of public and private projects, the
end results usually were compiled and printed. The day-to-day
operations of a facility remained unaffected, however, and no
changes ever were made to preserve or protect the resources.
What was missing was the inclusion of facility personnel in
such a way as to ensure that the final recommendations for
future preservation efforts would be implemented. What was
missing was a sense of accomplishment and pride. And as
most preservationists will tell you, without pride and self-
involvement, preservation stands no chance of succeeding.

Meeting the Match

The reconnaissance-level survey of the northern 320 acres
of Tomoka Point was headed by Bruce J. Piatek, principal
investigator. He was assisted by two core groups: volunteers
from the Volusia Anthropological Society of Ormond Beach,
which is the local chapter of the Florida Anthropological
Society, and Tomoka park staff. Involvement by both groups
was crucial to the success of the project. Both provided the
person power to complete the project and both were sources of
matching funds. Park staff participation at this juncture would
later expedite preparation of the site preservation plan, which
was to be the primary matching activity. Involvement of park
staff in the survey and test excavations was absolutely essential
to the successful completion of DNR's share of the grant.
Once the field work was completed, Piatek drafted the
project report. At the first meeting, the report was distributed
to park management and staff. They were asked to read the
report in its entirety to familiarize themselves not only with the
details of Piatek's field work, but with his interpretations as he
pulled together field work, previous archaeological research,
and the results of his own analysis.
The next meeting was an open forum to discuss the
content and significance of the draft report. We also began
brainstorming categories that would organize our
recommendations for site preservation. Subsequent meetings
were held in which these concepts were solidified. Most
importantly, we decided to recommend plans not only for each









of the four sites recorded, but to look at the "big picture" and
develop suggestions for the park as a whole. We were now
ready to divide into smaller groups of two or three to write
preservation recommendations in three categories: research,
interpretation, and protection. A fourth category, designation,
was considered, but it was decided that this particular topic
would best be handled by a professional. Piatek (1992:69)
included recommendations for designation in his chapter
entitled, "Management Recommendations."
Meetings were held weekly during the planning and
report preparation phases of the match. Once drafts of the
preservation plan were prepared, we met again and discussed
each section individually. The result was that each section
received input not only from its authors but also from each
park ranger involved in the match. Once a revised draft was
developed, we submitted it to the Bureau of Historic
Preservation--and crossed our fingers. We were breaking new
ground, and although direction from BHP personnel had been
extremely helpful, the onus was squarely on us to produce
recommendations that would satisfy the intent of the grant.
The first draft was right on target but conservative. The
grants administrator from BHP visited Tomoka to inspect the
field work that had been done and to meet with staff. This
visit was remarkably fruitful. It resulted in the expansion of
our original draft to include both real and ideal
recommendations. For example, authors of the research
section advised that district staff apply for another grant to
survey the remaining acres of the park. They also advocated
the use of modem archaeological applications, specifically
remote sensing, to investigate the entire park.
Park rangers collectively developed a plan to interpret all
four sites located on Tomoka Point. They proposed limiting
both vehicular and foot traffic and directing visitors to elevated
boardwalks as a way of minimizing continued erosion and
degradation of the sites. Interpretation of the cultural and
natural resources would occur along the boardwalks, from
signage to observation decks, to living history demonstrations
that include a Timucuan village.
With this project, District 4 staff thought they had found
a way to educate and instill pride in park management and
staff. What they found, however, was that the staff of Tomoka
State Park already had pride in its park. What they did not
have was a way to express it in a whole setting. Park
managers, rangers, and support personnel finally were asked
what they knew about the park. They came forward with a
multitude of local folklore, actual archaeological data,
information regarding potential sites, and numerous examples
of intimate knowledge of their park. Their pride was most
apparent. Throughout the survey and in the several meetings
with Bruce J. Piatek, the consulting archaeologist, park rangers
expressed great knowledge of their facility. When it came time
to review the recommendations for future projects, staff from
BHP were amazed at how far ranging and long sighted their
ideas were. The recommendations were inevitably on target


when compared to traditional preservation priorities. The most
difficult aspect of involving park personnel was getting them to
share their views.

Results

Some of the goals championed in the site preservation
plan already have been put into effect. A proposal for funds to
survey the remaining acres of uplands was submitted to the
Division of Historical Resources in August 1992. Test
excavations at the site of Mount Oswald, a British period
plantation, have spurred research and development of a
brochure on the British occupation of the point. Another
brochure on the Timucuan Indians also has been developed. In
February of each year, the park sponsors Tomokafest, which
celebrates the park's natural and cultural resources. In 1993,
for the first time, Tomokafest will include displays and
interactive presentations on the science of archaeology. Park
staff will invite an archaeologist, a historic preservationist, and
an educator to provide a team approach to interpretation for
public enjoyment.
Perhaps most of all, the value of the grant is the
opportunity it offered to park personnel to become more
acutely aware of and better managers of the cultural resources
in their park. This awareness has renewed the staffs
commitment to protect, preserve, and interpret these fragile
resources.

Conclusion

As a result of this successful pilot project, two more grant
applications have been funded for other archaeological surveys
on properties managed by DNR: one at Washington Oaks
State Gardens (also in District 4) and one in the Yellow River
Marsh Aquatic Preserve. Additionally, Koreshan State
Historic Site has been allocated funds to conduct a topographic
survey, which may prove to be a precursor to an archaeological
survey but will ultimately result in the future preservation of
this exotic state resource.
It is hoped that one ramification of the Tomoka Point
Archaeological Survey Project will be the continued
application for funding of such projects by parks throughout
Florida. The state's historic preservation grant program offers
a source of dedicated funding that can assist the Florida Park
Service in achieving its mission to preserve, interpret, and
restore its cultural resources.

Acknowledgments

Thanks first to those who funded this project: Florida
Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, with
assistance of the Florida Historic Preservation Advisory
Council. Clara wishes to thank Michael K. Murphy, district
manager, District 4 Administration, who encouraged and







313


supported this paper from the beginning, as did Brent R.
Weisman, editor. I also am grateful to Douglas R. Carter,
Carl D. Halbirt, Steven W. Martin, Mike Murphy, Mark W.
Nelson, and Robbin N. Trindell, all of whom reviewed earlier
drafts of this paper. Their thoughtful and cogent comments
and insights improved these efforts and are appreciated.
Special thanks to the multi-talented staff at Tomoka State Park
for their keen interest and hard work: Park Manager George
H. Carson, Assistant Park Manager Mark W. Nelson and park
rangers Sylvia D. Bollinger, Stephen M. Gard, Larry D.
Gavagni, Joseph B. Isaacs, and Warren V. Poplin. It was a
joy to work with you!
Vicki wishes to thank Fred Gaske for his input in this
endeavor. His insight and knowledge are always greatly
appreciated. Thanks also to my husband, Gary, for his interest
in the project and his review of this article from a layman's
point of view. Lastly, thank you to my daughter, Angela, for
waiting until I had finished the work to arrive.
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the
authors.

References Cited

DNR (Department of Natural Resources)
1992 Florida State Parks Cultural Resource
Management Initiative, 1993. Report on file,
District 4 Administration, Division of Recreation
and Parks, St. Augustine.

Piatek, Bruce John
1992 The Tomoka Point Archaeological Survey,
Tomoka State Park, Volusia County, Florida.
Report on file, District 4 Administration, Division
of Recreation and Parks, St. Augustine.



Clara A. Gualtieri
Development Specialist
Division of Recreation and Parks
Department of Natural Resources
1340 A AlA South
St. Augustine, Florida 32084

Vicki L. Cole
Historic Preservation Planner
Bureau of Historic Preservation
Division of Historical Resources
R.A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399










ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY AT TOMOKA STATE PARK

Bruce John Piatek


Introduction

The following was extracted from the report on the
archaeological survey and test excavations at Tomoka State
Park, in Northeast Volusia County (Piatek 1992). This project
was the result of District 4, Division of Recreation and Parks,
Department of Natural Resources' need to identify unknown
sites and to understand better the known archaeological sites
within the park. The goal of the project was to collect basic
site data so that these non-renewable resources could be better
understood, protected and interpreted for the benefit of the
public (see Gualtieri and Cole, this issue).
In this first paper, the previous archaeological research
conducted at the sites in Tomoka State Park and the
development of the property during the historic era are
discussed. Compiling this information was an important aspect
of the project because it provided park staff with knowledge of
the resources they are charged with interpreting and protecting.
It also sets the background for the survey and excavation
findings to be discussed in the next paper.
Tomoka State Park is located in the northeast corner of
Volusia County, Florida. The park falls within Township 13
South, Range 32 East, Section 42, and Township 14 South,
Range 32 East, Section 42. Included in the park are the
previously reported sites of 8V081 the Tomoka Mounds and
Midden site, 8VO82 Nocoroco, and 8V02571 the Tomoka
Stone site, reported on in more detail by Russo and Ste. Claire
in this issue. These sites include a complex of mounds and
middens, the prehistoric to seventeenth century aboriginal site
of Nocoroco, a partially inundated Orange Period site, and the
eighteenth century site of the Mount Oswald Plantation. Figure
1 illustrates the general location of Tomoka State Park sites.

Archaeological Background

8V081 Tomoka Mounds and Midden Site

Andrew E. Douglass, while not the first to explore the
archaeological sites of Tomoka State Park, was the first to
report his findings in published form (Douglass 1882, 1884).
He also discussed his findings in letters sent to his wife
(Douglass 1881-1885). His reports concerned three mounds
located in the southwest section of the park (see Figure 1). The
largest and most southerly mound was described as fourteen


feet in height and surrounded on the south and southeast side
by a freshwater depression. Douglass stated, "In this
depression, which extends around one-third of the base, is a
pond of sweet water, nourishing a thick growth of cypresses
with a few dwarf palmettoes" (1881-1885:101).
When Douglass first visited 8V081, a long trench was
already dug into the south side of this largest earthen mound.
The trench was twelve feet long, three feet wide, and four feet
deep on the outer end and five feet wide and eight feet deep at
the interior end (Douglass 1881-1885). He attributed this
excavation to the coastal survey crew that recently had mapped
the area. Douglass's crew cleared the surface of the
southernmost mound of trees and brush. They then excavated a
triangular pit, twenty five feet wide at its base and fourteen
feet deep at the mound's center. All this work was
accomplished in two days.
Douglass further reported that no burials, potsherds, or
ornaments were found the first day. Mound fill, according to
Douglass, was a light yellow sand with Donax (coquina) shells
lightly mixed at intervals into the sand mound fill. Also found
were two sections of shark vertebrae and a small piece of
coquina. The major find of the excavation was a cache of five
bannerstones near center of the mound. Another cache of three
bannerstones was found three feet below the first. These eight
stone objects are unique finds. Each was made of stone
derived from northern sources. Six of the eight bannerstones
were round, and two were shaped like bow ties; each was
approximately five inches long (Douglass 1881-1885) (Figure
2).
Douglass found nothing else that caught his interest other
than these eight spectacular items. He surmised that these
atlatl (spear thrower) weights were later inclusions in the
mound, hidden within the mound but never recovered. It seems
more likely that these stone objects were intentional burial
goods and that Douglass's men simply dug through any
associated burials.
Two other mounds were investigated by Douglass, both
of which were located north of the largest mound. The first
mound to the north of the large mound is described by
Douglass:
The first was four feet high with a diameter at base of
thirty-five feet. It had already a pit sunk near the center, but,
as the excavation was of trifling extent, we removed the entire
center for a diameter of ten feet, with a depth of four feet to


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


DECEMBER 1992


Vol. 45 No.4





































































Figure Tomoka State Park and Sites Discussed in Text.




Figure 1. Tomoka State Park and Sites Discussed in Text.









the original surface, but without results of any importance. It
was composed of one-quarter "Donax" in proportion of three-
quarters shell to one-quarter sand. (Douglass 1881-1885:109)
The last mound to the north was described by Douglass as:
The second, and larger mound of the two, was seven feet
in height, and sixty feet in diameter at the base. For four feet
of its height it was composed of "Donax," the remaining three
being the yellow sand of the county. It was crowned by three
massive palmettos, and flanked by numerous live oak and other
trees. Our labor upon it was entirely unproductive, it being
destitute of burials, pottery or relics, except an oyster shell
chisel or scraper and a few fragments of coquina (Douglass
1882:109).
An interesting observation by Douglass is that there were
no ceramics within the mounds, but Donax and shark vertebrae
were noted in the fill of the largest mound. These two items,
Donax shells and shark vertebrae, are suggestive of Late
Archaic occupation along the east coast (Bond 1988; Bullen
and Bullen 1961; Miller 1992; Ste. Claire 1990).


John W. Griffin and Hale G. Smith conducted the first
modern era archaeological investigation at Tomoka State Park
in October of 1946. At that time, Griffin was the
archaeologist for the Florida State Park Service, and Smith was
his assistant. They visited 8V081 and noted recently exposed
human remains in the sides of some of the numerous pits dug
into the mounds (Griffin and Smith 1946). Douglass,
however, in his early work at the site, did not recognize any
human burials during his excavations. Griffin and Smith
verified that the mounds did contain human burials. They also
reported one additional burial mound that Douglass (1882) did
not locate. At the largest mound Griffin and Smith noted: [a]
large trench, about four to five feet wide, and twelve feet deep
in the center, runs almost through the mound in a general
north-south line. This trench appears to have largely gone
through Douglass' old dig, and was probably unproductive.
No sherds were found in the spoil on the various holes.
However, a human patella and a fragment of human skull were
found, indicating that at least one of Douglass' observations


Figure 2. Stone Axes Found by Douglass in Tomoka Mounds Site (after Douglass 1882; redrawn by Theodore Morris)

Figure 2. Stone Axes Found by Douglass in Tomoka Mounds Site (after Douglass 1882; redrawn by Theodore Morris)








317
was in error" (Griffin and Smith 1946:2).
Griffin and Smith also point out that when examining the
third, or northernmost, mound reported by Douglass that:
"Fragments of bones protruding from a pot-hunter's hole led
us to put a test trench into the north-west slope of the mound
(Griffin and Smith 1946:3)." This excavation revealed human
bones located about eighteen inches below the surface in
yellow sand. The bones were extremely fragmentary, but
Griffin estimated that they were a secondary bundle burial.
Another burial was located approximately six inches below the
first. It appeared to be a flexed burial, which lay with its head
north and face toward the east. Griffin and Smith again
comment on the poor preservation of the bone, stating that:
"[t]he skull was in many fragments not over two inches square
and the teeth were scattered over an area of about a foot
(Griffin and Smith 1946:4)." Based on skull fragments and the
shovel-shaped incisors, Griffin judged that the burial was an
adult Indian male. Griffin and Smith close by noting that
"[n]o potsherds or artifacts were found in this excavation
(Griffin and Smith 1946:4)." Thirty years elapsed before
another archaeological report dealt with this mound complex.
The report was prepared by Randy Daniel and Jay Haviser in
1976. Daniel and Haviser visited the site while working for the
Division of Archives, History and Records Management,
Florida Department of State. Their description of the site was
filed as an update to the Florida Site File for site 8V081. The
report says that thereee are a series of seven or possibly nine
mounds that are scattered along N/S line, for approximately
650 meters" (Daniel and Haviser 1979). The significance of
this work is that it documents and describes the mounds. The
mounds excavated by Douglass are identified based on the
physical description of the surrounding area, mound sizes, and
excavation scars. Daniel and Haviser noted additional
mounds, for a total of seven to nine, assigned a number, and
described each. The question of exactly how many mounds
occur at 8VO81 may be difficult to answer. Past excavations
(such as Douglass digging the center out of one 4- foot
mound), and the topographic variations, either natural or man
made, produced a confusing pattern over this large site.
The mounds and midden of 8VO81 have never been
assigned to a cultural period. The lack of ceramics from work
done by Douglass and Griffin and Smith precluded the
assignment of a relative date based on the local ceramic
chronology. The limited nature of excavations undertaken
after Douglass's work and the lack of any excavation in the
midden deposits may explain the lack of ceramics.
The other explanation for the lack of ceramics and the
presence of bannerstones is that the mounds themselves were
constructed during the preceramic Late Archaic Period. Ste.
Claire notes that: littlee is known of the cultural and temporal
affiliations of the Tomoka State Park mounds. However, the
absence of ceramics and the greenstone and steatite
bannerstones suggest a preceramic Archaic association. If this


is indeed the case, the defined burial mound period in Florida
will need to be reevaluated" (Ste. Claire 1990:6).

8V082 Nocoroco

The first report of the village of Nocoroco was provided
by Alvaro Mexia in 1605. Mexia, a twenty five year old
soldier of the St. Augustine garrison, was on a diplomatic
mission to the Ais Indians for Florida's Governor Pedro de
Ybarra when he wrote the following description of Nocoroco:

Continuing your way for a distance of five leagues a foot
path is taken through the gullies, traversing a wood of live
oaks, and you emerge at a bay which is called Nocoroco,
where canoes are boarded. This bay has a gravely bottom and
there is a cove on the west side, and on the flats of the said
cove are four villages. On the point of land extending on the
south is the town of Nocoroco. A dense woods of live oaks
runs along the west side of the bay, and along the east shore
stretches a thorny thicket (quoted in Higgs 1951:269-270).

Mexia's description makes it clear that site 8VO82 in
Tomoka State Park is the site of Nocoroco. We learn from
Mexia that the village of Nocoroco is an important village that
carries the same name as the river. He also mentions four
other villages but does not provide names for them. The
pattern of names reported by Mexia suggests that Nocoroco
was an important village site. Perhaps it was the center of
control over the peoples of the Nocoroco River and the basin.
The villages and the site of Nocoroco are depicted on Mexia's
map (Figure 3), as provided by Higgs (1951).
Griffin and Smith (1949) conducted the first
archaeological excavations at the site of Nocoroco in 1946.
They described the site as a shell and black dirt midden with a
depth of between sixteen to twenty inches except where pits
extended deeper into the sterile subsoil. The midden generally
overlays a three to six-inch band of yellow sand, which
overlays an extremely irregular surface of coquina bedrock
(known as the Anastasia Formation, dating to the Pleistocene
Epoch). The site was judged to be 700 feet long, extending
south from the point of the peninsula in a band no wider than
fifty feet. Large quantities of cultural materials along the
beach and the presence of trees eroded from the bank suggested
to Griffin and Smith (1949) that much of the site already had
washed away.
Griffin and Smith state that thishs type of midden is
distinctly different from the more common ones of the region,
which are mostly shell (Griffin and Smith 1949:344)." This
reduced deposit of shellfish led the authors to surmise that 1)
the site was seasonally occupied, 2) shellfish was less
important at the time the site was occupied, or 3) shellfish
processing was accomplished at a nearby site and not at
Nocoroco.














































Figure 3. Redrawn from Mexia Map of 1605 (arrow indicates site of Nocoroco [8V082]).


Ceramics were the most common artifact, and they were
placed into two series: St. Johns and Halifax. The St. Johns
sherds are the commonly described chalky wares that mark the
St. Johns archaeological culture of northeast Florida. The
Halifax Series are sand-tempered, gritty feeling wares, first
described by Griffin and Smith (1949). These sand-tempered
ceramics were recovered in approximately the same number as
the chalky wares in each level. Griffin and Smith (1949) point
out that these types were contemporaneous. According to
Griffin and Smith, either two groups of native people lived
together at the site during the historic period, or the
stratigraphic techniques were not fine enough to separate
clearly "old" ceramic production methods (the St. Johns Series)
from "new" methods (the Halifax Series, related to the St.
Augustine period). Griffin and Smith indicate that the data
present more questions than they answer. That statement
stands to this day.


Ripley P. Bullen and Frederick W. Sleight (1959) discuss
the Nocoroco site in comparison to their work at the Castle
Windy midden in Volusia County. They questioned the
identification of site 8V082 as Nocoroco. The identification
by Griffin and Smith, however, is sound, based on this
author's review of the data, primarily Mexia's description and
map. More importantly, Bullen and Sleight point out that "the
Halifax Series sherds from Castle Windy closely parallel those
found by Griffin and Smith at the Nocoroco site about forty
miles to the northwest (1959:23)." Radiocarbon dates from
Castle Windy place the Halifax Series ceramics to the period
between A.D. 1050 and A.D. 1350. "It is evident, hence, that
the site at Nocoroco, where duplicate pottery was found, was
undoubtedly occupied at the same time, around A. D. 1200"
(Bullen and Sleight 1959:24).
Clearly, the Halifax Series as dated from Castle Windy
and based on current knowledge, is not associated with San









Marcos ceramics of the historic era (St. Augustine Period).
Bullen and Sleight (1959) suggest that the influence for these
sandy paste ceramics, the Halifax Series, is from the Alachua
Series. "The similarity in paste between sherds of the Halifax
Series and those of the Alachua Series suggest that the Halifax
ceramics may represent an eastward extension of influences
from Georgia which, at about this time, were establishing the
Alachua Tradition in north central Florida" (Bullen and Sleight
1959:24). The radiocarbon date from Castle Windy, if it is
valid for Nocoroco, places the site within the St. Johns IIa
culture period (Goggin 1952).
The ceramic descriptions for the Halifax Series in Griffin
and Smith's (1949) report suggest that these wares are the same
as, or related to, the Glades or Belle Glades Series of sandy
wares (Rouse 1951). Rouse's (1951:38) interpretation of the
ethnographic data places the Surruque on the Mosquito Inlet,
which "marked the southern limit of the Timucuan a typical
Southeastern culture." If these ethnographic observations are
correct, then the people of Nocoroco were at the boundary
between two cultural areas, represented by St. Johns Series
ceramics to the north and more sandy wares to the south
(Glades and Belle Glades Series). If this is the case, then the
transitional area between St. Johns and the Circum-Glades
could be northern Volusia County rather than Indian River
County (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Comparison of the
ceramics recovered from the upper level of excavation "Y1" at
the South Indian Fields Site in Brevard County (Ferguson
1951:34) indicates that the percentages of St. Johns to Glades
and Belle Glades closely matches the percentages of St. Johns
to Halifax at Nocoroco (Griffin and Smith 1949:351).
Russo's (1992) work at the mouth of the St. Johns River
has identified sand-tempered ceramics at St. Johns Period sites
which suggest that influences (sand tempered ceramics) could
be spreading south from the Georgia coast. It is possible that
sand tempered ceramics moved south along the coast and into
the Halifax River area. The concept of a transitional area might
explain the occurrence of sand tempered wares if it can be
demonstrated that 1) the site of Nocoroco was intermittently
occupied by different cultural groups at different times,
perhaps due to warfare, or 2) cultural traits were blending
through time at the boundary between two geographically
stable cultures. The Halifax Series, based on paste
characteristic, surface decoration and stratagraphic context, is
not related to the historic period San Marcos wares. This does
not mean, however, that the site at Tomoka State Park is not
Nocoroco. It does suggest that Nocoroco was occupied by at
least A.D. 1200, the approximate beginning date for the
Halifax Series, and may have continued to be occupied during
the next 405 years. The source, difussion or independent
development, of the Halifax Series and it cultural relevance is a
question that merits further investigation.

8V02571 Tomoka Stone Site


Recent archaeology at this site and its implications for the
study of the Archaic Period on the Atlantic Coast are fully
discussed by Russo and Ste. Claire (this issue).

Historical Development

Spain established and ruled "La Florida" from the time of
St. Augustine's founding in 1565 until 1763. During this first
period of Spanish rule, the Crown granted land in the Tomoka
River area, but no improvements were made on these grants.
Britain gained control of Florida in 1763 when Spain
negotiated the transfer of Florida for Cuba. British rule would
last only twenty short years before Spain would regain and
hold Florida until 1821. Historic development of the Tomoka
peninsula began during this period of British rule.

8V04310 Oswald Plantation

Richard Oswald received a land grant of 20,000 acres
(Figure 4) on July 20, 1764, from the British Crown (Siebert
1929). At the time, Oswald was a wealthy Scotsman looking
for ways to invest his fortune gained by supplying bread to the
British army during the Seven Years' War (Taylor 1984).
Oswald also profited from the slave trade, which he had
embarked upon in 1748. Henry Laurens became Oswald's
agent for the sale of slaves in Charleston, South Carolina in
1756. Laurens and Oswald developed a friendship and
business relationship that was important in the development of
Oswald's East Florida plantation, known as Mount Oswald
(Taylor 1984).
Oswald's grant agreement called for him to settle white
Protestants upon his lands. Governor Grant (British Governor
of East Florida), however, advised against this and pointed out
that "Upon their landing they are immediately seized with the
pride which every man is possessed of who wears a white face
in America, and they say they won't be slaves and so they
make their escape" (quoted in Rogers 1976:485).
Consequently, Mount Oswald became a plantation built upon
slave labor.
Henry Laurens, Oswald's agent, began to gather the
necessary slaves experienced in plantation work in February of
1765. Laurens advertised in South Carolina to purchase the
following slaves: 2 carpenters, 6 sawyers, 40 young male and
female field hands with experience in indigo making. Grant
suggested sending the following provisions to the settlement:
indigo seed, seed potatoes, red peas, a pump machine with
three pumps for filling the indigo vats with water, a slave
knowledgeable in indigo production, a slave blacksmith with
blacksmith equipment, a set of wooden indigo vats, and a slave
cooper with tools to produce barrels. Oswald asked Grant to
include cotton in the first year's crops and to send assorted
vines and fig plants to be grown there. Oswald also requested
that Grant procure an additional thirty experienced slaves to be
sent to his plantation the first winter. Laurens listed the

























U. I






''1


"-



-"S I ^

r
5




;a
"

'* '


-- .
." 1

P a *' *


N


. I' I Vl"


Ia':


* Pil


I'
* ft


Figure 4. DeBrahm Map of 1769 Illustrating Oswald's Plantation.


a,


i(-~I


~~C
s~i
'
~~'~


..
i-;

r;i
i


n,
:ic









following items sent to provision the plantation: vinegar, salt,
tea, rice, tallow and spermaceti candles, barley, onions, St.
Kitts rum, claret, tobacco, coffee, butter, cheese, castile soap,
blankets, cloth and thread, shoes, and rat poison. Laurens also
sent building materials: 1,500 feet of one-inch boards, 2,500
feet of featheredge (siding), 8,000 shingles, 40,000 20d nails,
20,000 6d nails, 8,000 10d nails, 8 pairs of hooks and hinges,
and two ploughs (Taylor 1984:30-33).
These supplies and others, such as livestock and draft
animals, must have been sent to the plantation. Laurens
selected a Mr. Samual Huey as the plantation's first overseer.
He arrived in August of 1766 (Taylor 1984:34). Huey was not
respected as an overseer and in January of 1767 the slaves
drowned him in the Tomoka River. Laurens replaced Samual
Huey with an Indian named Johnson who proved to be a
valued overseer. Oswald sent an additional seventy slaves
from Africa to his plantation in 1767, including many women.
It is unclear how many survived the voyage, but by 1767 he
had more than 100 slaves working his East Florida land.
Schene (1976) reports that Oswald was a major slave owner in
East Florida with between 230 and 240 slaves. Indigo became
the plantation's primary cash crop.
Richard Oswald sent his nephew, James Anderson, to
Florida in 1776 to take over the operation of his plantation.
East Florida at this time was an unstable frontier colony, still
loyal to the British crown. Indians were also a threat as were
the Spanish, who had entered the revolution on the side of the
Americans. In 1779 the plantation of Robert Bisset was
attacked by Spanish privateers who destroyed his plantation
and took his slaves (Schene 1976:9). Bisset's plantation was
located south of Mosquito Inlet but clearly demonstrated the
threat that existed to Mount Oswald and other plantations.
Oswald, in the face of these perils, ordered his nephew, James
Anderson, to abandon the plantation. Anderson began
removing slaves (estimated to number 240), equipment, and all
other moveable goods to Savannah early in the spring of 1781.
The sloop "Recovery" was captured by two American vessels
off St. Catherine's Island on May 31, 1781, with slaves and
tools from the Oswald plantation (Taylor 1984:75). Some 70
slaves and assorted equipment were lost to the revolutionaries.
Peace negotiations were taking place in England to decide
the settlement of the Revolutionary War. Richard Oswald
participated in the negotiations and held discussions with
Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, John Adams, and Henry
Laurens. The significance of Richard Oswald's plantation is
enhanced by its owner's involvement in these peace
negotiations.
Savannah was evacuated by the British in July 1782.
Oswald had to relocate his slaves who had only recently
arrived in Savannah. He moved his remaining 170 slaves from
Savannah back to Mount Oswald. James Anderson did not
accompany this group. Lieutenant-Colonel John Douglas of St.
Augustine became the new plantation manager in October of
1782. He resided in St. Augustine and made monthly visits to


the plantation (Taylor 1984:80). Crops were planted,
including rice, in the months of April and May of 1783. In
this same year Florida was returned to the Spanish and the
twenty short years of British rule ended. Oswald again
dismantled his plantation, which was removed by April of
1784. Oswald had abandoned his Florida plantation for the
last time.
Oswald's loss of Mount Oswald prompted a claim for
compensation from the government. Oswald died on
November 6, 1784, before the claim was settled but his wife,
Mary Ramsey Oswald, continued the claim. The accounts from
residents of East Florida associated with this claim provide the
best description of Mount Oswald. Siebert's (1929) Loyalist in
East Florida 1774 to 1785 contains eyewitness descriptions of
the plantation. The following is a compilation and summary of
those accounts of Mount Oswald only and does not include the
other four settlements on Oswald's grant. Testimony was
given by John Anderson, Robert Payne, Lieutenant Governor
John Moultrie, and Lieutenant-Colonel John Douglas.
Mount Oswald consisted of 400 acres of improved land,
of which 100 was river swamp or marsh that was dammed, and
contained drains and floodgates for the cultivation of rice.
Indigo was grown on the remaining 300 acres. The Mount
Oswald buildings consisted of a main dwelling house,
described as "good," which measured forty feet by twenty feet.
This house was of frame construction, sided with
weatherboardd," and had a wooden shingled roof and glass
"glazed" windows. The barn measured sixty feet by thirty
feet, was floored (wood or perhaps tabby), and was
constructed of wood with weatherboard siding and a shingled
roof. There was also a stable and cornhouse, likely constructed
of wood. The overseer's house was referred to as shell
construction. This is certainly tabby, a concrete-like mixture
made of lime from burnt shell, sand, whole shells, and water.
The kitchen building and slave houses also may have been built
of tabby, but this is not clear in John Douglas's account. The
buildings are said to be in a bad state of repair in a number of
the accounts. This would be expected, given that the buildings
were constructed in 1767 or 1768 and were at least sixteen
years old in 1784 (Siebert 1929).
The British had lost Florida and the Spanish had returned
in 1784. The Oswald Plantation and the lands in the vicinity
were abandoned until 1803. In July of that year Gabriel W.
Perpal petitioned for 1,900 acres at Mount Oswald. Perpal
was given the land on which he appears to have already
established a settlement that included thirty slaves. Perpal's
petition for this grant provides the earliest detailed map (1803)
of the Mount Oswald area. Figure 5 is a map drawn by Juan
Purcell in 1803, which depicts Perpal's lands at the time of the
petition. The title reads, "Map that Shows the Farm of the
Point of Mount Hoswell, Situated on the Hallifax and Tomoca
Rivers, Belonging to Land Conceded to Don Gabriel Perpal
and Containing 1,900 Acres, St.Augustine, October 20,
1803."










2 Ia 9irJl~t/?a


i5 n t, a y... ,, (J/-i,,,y /f c/.

V ,/ .y-t ,/-. 6/i/ / C


/ ,

g,.j*; b.y% <


PLAN 0

Dt/t!ftc /// 7!77/7
Ded &f

PW'//14 JM t/f I Jtt/'t


* JAd t/ d ,/t / H/ill~xr y.7N/c



M .I 7 Jss c ~ ;.Alcr.

*-' ., 0 ,
::==== ----- --- ,,, _f.' -




t ,& e .. o a c-. IC/ -.
Ile


-=/r


7?-- 1i-
I


Figure 5. Perpal Map.


wi e


__


I


e r










*- -. ,- .









-4-


I*..L..











P ''try~r*'A7~


Figure 6. 1828 Map of A.M. Randolph, Deputy Surveyor for the Commission of East Florida.









The single large house and eight small houses at the north
end of the peninsula would have been occupied by Perpal's
overseer and the plantation slaves. Taylor (1984) believes that
these buildings survived from the Oswald Plantation. This
seems unlikely. The 1803 map more likely indicates Perpal's
building and all earlier structures were gone or in ruin by this
date.
The important feature of the 1803 map is the land-use
pattern that appears to have been maintained since the
eighteenth-century Oswald occupation. The key for the map is
helpful and translates as follows:
1. Landing
2. Houses
3. Trench that crosses from the Hallifax River to Tomoca
4. Road from Mosquitoes
5. Pasture
6. Low woodlands
7. Clear woodlands of several types of wood
8. Pineland
9. Cultivated lands
The area of cultivated lands (number 9), depicts the
indigo and subsistence garden activity on the uplands, whereas
the rice fields are in the marshland along the "Tomoca" River.
The pattern of residential use of the northern end of the
peninsula is maintained from the eighteenth century. Perhaps
the landing site (number 1) at the north end was also the same
landing used for the Oswald plantation. One feature that
clearly is an artifact of Oswald's occupation is the ditch or
trench (number 3) that runs across the peninsula. The ditch
appears to have been dug by slave labor as part of the earlier
occupation. The Perpal map does not offer any indication as to
function of the trench. The function of this trench is examined
and explained in the following paper.
Perpal sold the Mount Oswald property (1,900 acres) to
Paul Dupon on February 9, 1819, on behalf of Thomas Fitch
(Works Progress Administration 1940). The transfer of
property was conducted under the Spanish government, which
held Florida until 1821. The heirs of Thomas Fitch had their
claim confirmed by Congress in May of 1828. A. M.
Randolph, Deputy Surveyor for the Commission of East
Florida, surveyed this claim and produced a map (Figure 6).
The map provides three important bits of historical
information. First, the "Old Rice Field" is identified. This
rice cultivation area is undoubtedly the one established during
the Oswald Plantation era. Second, the ditch on the 1803
Perpal map appears to have been depicted on the Randolph
map as a dotted line that terminates at the "Old Rice Fields."
Third, the map depicts two small buildings and a well at the
northwest corer of the peninsula. The area is indicated on the
map as "Mount Oswald," the elevated area of shell. The
structures and well could be all that remain of the Perpal-era
buildings, or they could be of newer construction, perhaps by
tenant farmers, or squatters. The map provides a good clue to
historical archaeological features within the park. Given the


location of the well and at least the northernmost structure, it
would appear that both may have been lost to erosion.
The Fitch heirs owned the property until 1835 and
beyond (Taylor 1984:98). The Second Seminole War of 1835
ended all the plantation activity beyond the close confines of
St. Augustine. The Halifax River region was virtually
abandoned between the late 1830s and the 1870s when the
towns of Daytona Beach and New Britain (Ormond Beach)
were founded (Taylor 1984:99). A. E. Douglass says that no
development had taken place at Mount Oswald in 1881
(Douglass 1881-1885:14-15).
The land was purchased during the 1920s and developed
as Sunset Park, complete with a small hotel and boat rentals.
The Volusia Hammock State Park Association acquired the
property by eminent domain in the 1930s and after a few years
transferred it to the State of Florida. The land was developed
fully as a state park in the 1950s (Taylor 1984).
The archaeology and history of Tomoka State Park
reveals the significance of the Park's cultural resources. The
Nocoroco site is currently listed on the National Register and
the Oswald Plantation, Tomoka Mounds and Midden site, and
the Tomoka Stone site are eligible for listing. These sites have
the potential of expanding our understanding of human
behavior and historical events from the Archaic Period through
the late historic era in Florida. The prehistoric sites are
providing new data which questions the traditional paradigm of
coastal occupation in Northeast Florida as well as offering new
insights into ritualistic behavior. The historic components of
these sites, from the 17th to the 19th century, offer
opportunities to examine Native/European/African
interactions, acculturation processes, and their consequences,
as well as plantation systems and thier social and economic
impacts. The site at Tomoka State Park and highly significant
resources that merit careful protection and management.

References Cited

Bullen, Ripley P., and Frederick W. Sleight
1959 Archaeological Investigations of the Castle Windy
Midden, Florida. William L. Bryant Foundation
American Studies 1.

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Jay Haviser
1979 Florida Master Site File report, Tomoka State Park
Mounds, Volusia County. Attachment on site file
8VO81, in Florida Site File, Florida Department of State,
Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Douglass, Andrew E.
1881- A. E. Douglass: Florida Diaries (1881-1885).
1885 P. K. Yonge Library, University of Florida,
Gainesville.









1882 A Find of Ceremonial Axes in a Florida Mound.
American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 4:100- 109.

1884 Some Characteristics of the Indian Earth and Shell
Mounds of the Atlantic Coast of Florida. Proceedings:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
31:585-592.

Ferguson, Vera Masius
1951 Chronology at South Indian Field, Florida. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology 45, New Haven.

Griffin, John W., and Hale G. Smith
1946 Field Notes: V-44. MS on file, Florida Museum of
Natural History, Gainesville.

1949 Nocoroco, A Timucua Village of 1605 Now in Tomoka
State Park. Florida Historical Quarterly 27:340- 361.

Higgs, Charles D.
1951 Appendix A: The Derrotero of Alvaro Mexia, 1605. In
A Survey of Indian River Archeology, by Irving Rouse, pp
265-274, Yale University Publications in Anthropology
44:265-274, New Haven.

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

Miller, James J.
1992 Effects of Environmental Changes on Late Archaic
People of Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
45:100-106.

Piatek, Bruce John
1992 The Tomoka Point Archaeological Survey. Ms on file
District 4, Department of Natural Resources, St.
Augustine.

Rogers, George C., Jr.
1976 The East Florida Society of London, 1766-1767. Florida
Historical Quarterly 54:479-496).

Rouse, Irving
1951 A Survey of Indian River Archeology, Florida. Yale
University Publications in Anthropology 44, New Haven.

Russo, Michael
1992 Chronologies and Culture of the St. Marys Region of
Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia. The Florida
Anthropologist 45:107-126.


1990 The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological Evidence
for Early Coastal Adaptations. The Florida
Anthropologist 43:189-197.

Schene, Michael G.
1976 Hopes, Dreams, and Promises: A History of Volusia
County, Florida. News-Journal Corporation, Daytona
Beach, Florida.

Siebert, Wilbur Henry
1929 Loyalist in East Florida 1774 to 1785. The Florida
State Historical Society, Vol. II. Deland, Florida.

Taylor, Thomas W.
1984 Settling a Colony Over a Bottle of Claret: Richard
Oswald and the British Settlement of Florida. Master's
thesis, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Works Progress Administration
1940 Confirmed Claim F 44; G&S IV 591, 592. Spanish
Land Grants in Florida Vol. 3.




Bruce John Piatek
13 Marilyn Avenue
St. Augustine, Florida 32084


Ste. Claire, Dana










TOMOKA STATE PARK SURVEY AND PRELIMINARY TEST EXCAVATION RESULTS


Bruce John Piatek


Introduction

The previous paper discussed the prehistoric sites, the
historic activity, and the past archaeological work conducted at
Tomoka State Park. That discussion established the framework
upon which the findings from the survey and excavations,
reported in this article, are based. The methods and findings
from the systematic survey of the northern 320 acres of the
park are discussed first. The methods and results of the test
excavations at Nocoroco are summarized with a more detailed
discussion of the findings from work at the Tomoka Mounds
and Midden site.
The project was funded through the Florida Division of
Historical Resources, Bureau of Historic Preservation's
matching grant program (as described by Gualtieri and Cole,
this issue), which encouraged the involvement of park staff and
volunteers. This involvement provided matching in-kind
services and more importantly provided training and
experience to park staff and volunteers. As Gualtieri and Cole
point out (this issue) this involvement was highly successful
and raised the park staffs awareness of the need for protecting
and interpreting cultural resources. It also helped to develop a
supportive and knowledgeable constituency within the local
community.

Survey Strategy and Methodology

The goal of the survey was to locate any unreported
archaeological sites and to establish the boundaries of all sites
within the northern 320 acres of the park. The park service
needed these basic data to ensure the proper management of the
cultural resources within the park.
The survey methods consisted of establishing a baseline
through the survey area marked at 25 meter intervals. The
survey crew, using compasses, walked each transect line due
west and due east from the baseline. Along the transect lines
shallow shovel test were placed at 25 meter intervals. The
purpose of the tests was to get below the leaf litter and humus
and assess the presence or absence of midden soils. When
midden soil was detected the location was flagged and plotted
on the base map. Features visible on the surface were also
noted in the field notes and plotted on the base map.


Survey Findings

Two new sites were recorded as a result of this survey,
and new data on the extent of Nocoroco and the Tomoka Stone
Site were collected. Features related to the Oswald Plantation
were also located and documented. The Oswald Plantation and
a small 20th century sawmill site were listed for the first time
in the Florida Site File. Other minor activity areas were
located but did not merit archaeological site designations, nor
discussion here. Most importantly the limits of Nocoroco
(8V082) and the Tomoka Stone site (8VO2571) were better
defined. Awareness of these boundaries (see Figure 1 in
previous article) will aid in the management and protection of
the park's cultural resources as increased use dictates
expansion of visitor facilities. An assessment of damage to the
park's sites was also provided, including recommendations for
shoreline stabilization and mitigation of visitor impacts.
The limits of the site of Nocoroco were expanded to
include a long but rather thin strip of midden deposit along the
edge of the Tomoka River. Erosion and park development have
adversely impacted the site but significant deposits remain. It
is important that this National Register site receive greater
protection in the future.
It should be noted that most of the Tomoka Stone Site
appears to be located in the Halifax River. The terrestrial
deposit is quite limited in comparison to the extent of the
shoreline deposits. It was not possible to assess the integrity or
extent of the cultural deposits submerged in the Halifax River.
The river is quite shallow and inundation should have been a
slow process, resulting from a gradual rise in sea level.
Therefore, it is assumed that the deposits will be relatively
well preserved. Preservation of floral and faunal material at
the terrestrial portion of the site are surprisingly good given
the age of the deposits. Russo and Ste. Claire (this issue)
report that coprolites were recovered in addition to faunal
artifacts. This site has the potential to greatly enhance our
knowledge of the diet and coastal occupation patterns of Late
Archaic Orange Period peoples along the coast.
Site 8VO81, the Tomoka Mounds and Midden Site,
occurs outside the designated survey area, but the site was
visited and the general boundaries were established. The
boundaries are indicated on the base map shown in the


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 45 No.4


DECEMBER 1992








previous article, but more work is needed to correctly define
the limits of the site.
Based on historical data, the site of Mount Oswald covers
the entire peninsula with the southern boundaries of the
plantation falling outside the survey limits. Based on the 1803
Perpal map and the later plat map, however, the residential
compound was located at the north end of the peninsula (Piatek
1992). No artifacts suggestive of the Oswald Plantation were
located during the survey even though a mechanical soil auger
was used along select transects. A large parking lot, roads,
picnic areas, erosion, and construction of the statue of Chief
Tomokie and its associated reflecting pond appear to have
obliterated much of the evidence of the plantation. Interviews
with park staff indicate that historical artifacts of the Oswald
era have been found at the north end of park. Certainly,
features such as wells, cisterns, privies, and perhaps
foundations and floors may exist under the areas now covered
by modern improvements.
One feature that may date to the Oswald Plantation and
which is depicted on the Perpal map of 1803 is the ditch that
bisects the peninsula. The ditch was visited and a measured
drawing was made. Figure 1 provides a typical cross section
of the ditch.
The ditch forms a straight line across the peninsula. It
appears to have been hand dug, and was excavated when the
land was clear of trees. The reason for this ditch across the
peninsula seemed clear at first: It was an agricultural
improvement related to irrigation or water control.
This theory appears sound at first glance; however, there
was no apparent purpose or benefit to be gained by running
brackish water from the Halifax to the Tomoka River. One
reason to connect one body of water to another might be for


ease of transportation. Perhaps it was a canal. The evidence
does not support this theory because the ditch is not deep
enough to have filled with water nor is it wide enough to have
been a meaningful transportation route.
Indians, pirates, and international war were common
concerns on the frontier. Perhaps the ditch served a defensive
purpose. If it did, then its cross section should be typical of
defensive earthworks of the time. Applying this logic and
assuming a land-based attack, then the moat should occur to
the south and the earthen wall should have been erected
immediately to the north of the moat. This was not the case.
The dirt removed from the ditch was frequently on the south
side but also on the north side of the ditch. This is not the
typical pattern for a defensive wall and moat.
This long, deep, straight ditch appears to defy
explanation. Certainly, the expenditure of so much labor must
have had a meaningful and important purpose. The true
explanation appears to be found in the eighteenth-century
writings of DeBrahm (Vorsey 1971). DeBrahm was the
surveyor general for the Southern District of North America.
He published descriptions of the colonies and provided advice
to planters on the type of plants and methods of cultivation. In
his discussion of East Florida, DeBrahm offers this guidance:

Two inconveniences attend the Indigo Plant, viz. Drought
and Caterpillars; the first is without Remedy, but the last been
conquered by making a Trench 3 feet wide round the infected
part of the Field, then by cutting down the indigo within, the
latter deprived them of the necessary shade against the
scorching Sun, and the former prevented them from taking
Refuge in the sound part of the Field; thus the Caterpillar
perish (Vorsey 1971:215).


0 1m


Figure 1. Typical Profile of the Oswald Ditch.


Oswald Ditch Profile









DeBrahm provides the best explanation of the ditch: It
was dug to keep caterpillars out of the Oswald indigo fields.
The ditch is the correct dimension and a review of the
historical maps reveals that the old fields usually occur north
of this feature. In the absence of any other reasonable
explanation, it is concluded that the ditch was a defense earth
work, built to defend against the spread of the economically
devastating indigo caterpillar. This practice of ditching to stop
caterpillars was used as late as 1840 in northeast Florida, as at
the Kingsley plantation on Fort George Island, where cotton
crops were protected from caterpillars by ditches (Fretwell
1984:17).

Excavation Phase

The background research and survey phase of the project
simulated expanded interest in the sites and a desire to answer
additional questions among Department of Natural Resources
staff. Therefore, a test excavation phase was added to the
project (after the Bureau of Historic Preservation funded
survey), with funding provided by the Department of Natural
Resources. The Tomoka Mounds and Midden site and the site
of Nocoroco were selected for limited testing.

Methodology

Four 1 m by 1 m units were excavated. One unit was
placed at Nocoroco (Unit 3) on the top of a high bluff
overlooking the Tomoka River. Three units were excavated at
the Tomoka Mounds and Midden site (Unit A, Unit 1, and
Unit 2). Unit A was placed in the top of Mound 6. Unit 1
was placed midway up the north slope of Mound 6. Unit 2
was located to the northwest of Mound 6 and was placed in the
midden deposit. The soil from each excavation unit was
removed in 10 cm levels within natural soil zones and screened
through 1/4 inch hardware cloth. A 50 cm by 50 cm column
sample was collected from Units 2 and 3. This sample
consisted of removing a 10 cm. soil block and screening it
through both 1/4 inch and 1/16 inch metal fabric. The 1/16
inch screened sample was collected to provide valid data
recovery for faunal analysis. All artifacts from the column
samples were removed from the sample and included in the 1/4
inch artifact collection for each level. Column samples were
not taken from the excavation units placed in Mound 6 since
any midden soil within the mound fill would be a secondary
deposit and offer little value for faunal analysis.

Excavation at Nocoroco

The site of Nocoroco (8VO82), was excavated in 1946 by
John W. Griffin and Hale G. Smith (Griffin and Smith 1949).
The ceramics from this site were used to define a ceramic
series called the Halifax Series. These ceramics are sandy
wares atypical of the St. Johns material culture assemblage.


The goal of the single test unit at Nocoroco (8VO82) was to
recover samples of the ceramics and reassess the chronological
and cultural affiliations. One working hypothesis concerning
the Halifax Series was that the definition of the series was
simply a case of splitting ceramic paste characteristics too
closely. In other words, the "sand-tempered" Halifax ceramics
were not exclusively sand tempered. Perhaps they were a
Transitional ware with a slightly sandy St. Johns paste or were
simply not sand tempered, and therefore, not a valid ceramic
series. If they were not simply misidentified chalky St. Johns
wares, then what do they represent culturally and
chronologically?
Nocoroco today exists as a rather slender line of black
dirt and shell midden along the western edge of the north half
of the Tomoka State Park peninsula. Unit 3 was located near
the picnic building in the southwest corer of the developed
area at the north end of the park. This location was selected to
avoid re-excavating where Griffin and Smith worked in 1946
(Griffin and Smith 1949). The unit was located atop a sand
ridge near a steep slope down to a marsh where the peninsula
narrows slightly. This location also allowed assessment of the
damage caused by development of the north end of the park.
The excavation produced unexpected results, as the bulk
of the data collected from the excavation was of late historic
context. Evidence of a burned structure in the area was
revealed. The upper level contained charcoal, melted glass,
numerous wrought nails, tabby fragments, burnt clay
fragments, and brick fragments. Historic ceramics were rather
rare. One shell-edged pearlware sherd (1780-1830), and two
Redware sherds (1725-1825) were recovered from level one. A
hand-painted pearlware cup fragment (1775-1820) was found
in level 2. These artifacts, though a small sample, provide a
1780 terminus post quem for the deposit. The Oswald
plantation was abandoned for the final time in April of 1784. It
is possible that this deposit dates to the Oswald period but
Perpall's 1803 occupation seems more likely since the terminus
post quem is only four years prior to the end of the Oswald
plantation and no earlier ceramics, such as creamwares, were
found.
The 40 cm depth of the historic deposits virtually
obliterated the prehistoric deposits. Therefore, it was not
possible to address the question of the relationship between the
Halifax Series and the St. Johns Series except to say that both
exist at the site and have distinct pastes. In the three lowest
levels of the unit, five simple stamped sand tempered, six plain
sand tempered, one St. Johns Plain, and 15 Orange Plain
sherds were recovered. Documentation of the existence of an
Orange Period component at Nocoroco and verification of the
existence of sand tempered ceramics were important findings
from the excavation.

Excavation at Tomoka Mound Complex









No temporal assessment had ever been made of the
Tomoka Mound Complex (8VO81) (Figure 2) due to a lack of
ceramics at the site, even though the site was investigated by
archaeologist on two separate occasions (Griffin and Smith
1946; Daniel and Haviser 1979). Prior research at the site
suggested that the middens were primarily coquina shell. No
ceramics had been recovered, but eight bannerstones had been
found in Burial Mound 6. These limited data suggest the
hypothesis that 8VO81 is a preceramic Archaic village site
(Mount Taylor Period) with possible affiliated burial mounds.
This hypothesis is contradictory to the currently accepted
model of cultural development for the Northeast Florida region
(Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:150).
Michael Russo's (1991) work at Horr's Island, in
southwest Florida, revealed the existence of pre-ceramic
Archaic Period coastal occupation including ritual burial
mounds. Russo also recognized that existing archaeological
paradigms can obscure the correct interpretation of
archaeological sites that do not fit the current model. Russo
(1991:502) argues that Archaic cultures along the southwest
Florida coast intensively exploited coastal resources, lived in
permanent villages, and constructed ritual mounds. In 1992,
Russo documented five pre-ceramic coastal sites on the
northeast Florida coast near the mouth of the St. Johns River.
He identified twelve other sites in the same area that may
contain pre-ceramic components below Orange period strata


(Russo 1992:110). Bond (1992) also identified a possible
preceramic horizon at the Crescent Beach site. Artifacts from
the Coontie Island site (Goggin 1952; Parker and Bond 1987)
also indicate a preceramic coastal occupation. This evidence
demonstrates the need to re-evaluate evolutionary models of
coastal exploitation and complex social development (Milanich
and Fairbanks 1980:154) during the Archaic Period.
It is interesting to note, however, that Russo's work is a
return to concepts first expressed by early investigators of
coastal archaeological sites. Goggin's discussion of the pre-
ceramic Mount Taylor Period (1952:40) points out that Nelson
(1918) identified a pre-ceramic horizon at the coastal Oak Hill
site. Goggin (1952:51-53) also discusses under the St. Johns I
period the occurrence of bannerstones in mounds without
ceramics which, therefore, are of undetermined temporal
classification. These are Mound 6 at the Tomoka Mounds and
Midden site (Douglass 1882), and two mounds at the Thornhill
site (Moore 1894a:88-89 and 1984b:167-173). Goggin
discusses other sites that reflect early traits (pre-ceramic) and
states that: "This represents one of the most interesting
problems in the region" (Goggin 1952:53). Site 8V081 offered
the potential to test for the existence on the northeast Florida
coast of a pre-ceramic Archaic Period site with possible
associated ritual mounds. The task, therefore, was to obtain a
sample upon which to determine the age and cultural affiliation
of Tomoka Mounds and Midden site, and thereby test the


Figure 2. General View of 8VO81 Along Strickland Creek.









application of Russo's findings beyond Southwest Florida and
expand our understanding of the Late Archaic culture.

Results (Mound 6)

Unit A

The goal of this excavation was to recover a radiocarbon
sample to be used in determining the age of Mound 6. An
informant indicated the general location of a human burial that
had been uncovered a number of years ago. Therefore, a I m
by 1 m unit was placed adjacent to the north side of the
previously dug pot hole (see Figure 3). The intent of the work
was to excavate until an undisturbed deposit of articulated
human bone was encountered. It was necessary to recover
human bone from an undisturbed context so that the
radiocarbon date would be related to the use of the mound. A
date from the mound fill soil or shell within that fill would
date the midden deposit from which the shell was taken, not
the mound itself.
The soil from Unit A was a yellow sand (10YR7/6) with
infrequent coquina shells scattered throughout. Designated
Zone 1, this soil was present throughout the excavation (70 cm
deep). Levels 2 (10 cm) through 4 (40 cm) contained scattered
human bone, human teeth, faunal remains, and occasional shell
beads.
Level 5 was the beginning of undisturbed soil. At the
base of level 7 (70 cm) a deposit of undisturbed and articulated
human bone was encountered. A radiocarbon sample was
taken from this deposit. The unit was then photographed,
profiled, and backfilled. The radiocarbon sample is currently
being processed and therefore, the date is not yet available.

Unit 1

Unit 1 was excavated to recover data on the mound
construction sequence and to recover a radiocarbon sample
from the base of the mound. These data, combined with the
date from Unit A, would provide a range of dates for the
mound's use, and constitute a test of Archaic Period burial
mound hypothesis.
The excavation unit was located on the slope of Mound 6.
The soil deposits were separated into six distinct zones. Each
zone reflects a major soil color and consistency change, which
is the expression of separate behavioral (cultural) or natural
events. The total unit depth was 200 cm (see Figure 3) and
terminated in a natural brownish yellow sand stratum that
contained no evidence of human activity.
Levels 1 through 6 (0 to 60 cm) were designated as Zone
1. This zone consisted of yellow sand (10YR7/6), which
contained both animal and human bones in the soil matrix.
This zone is the same as Zone 1 in Unit A at the top of the
mound. There was some disturbance of the first five levels. A
.22-caliber shell casing was recovered from both levels 4 and


5. Other artifacts recovered from this zone include a small
lump of reddish orange ocher from level 3, a limestone rock
from level 4, and a non-utilized chert flake from level 5.
The base levels of Zone 1, levels 5 and 6, exposed a
hard-packed and darker band of brown sand (10YR3/3) along
the south wall. This new stratum, the beginning of Zone 2,
contained less bone but larger amounts of coquina shell. This
stratum, C in Figure 3, is included in Zone 2 but is texturally
different than the lose soil below, being hard packed. Perhaps
the compaction was result of use, or an intentional effort to
stabilize the surface soils of the primary mound when it was
exposed. The Zone 2 soils (stratum C and D) represent the
primary mound that was in use for an undetermined period of
time before the Zone 1 mound cap was added. Zone 2
continued for seven levels to a total depth of 140 cm below the
surface.
The soil that was used to construct the primary mound,
Zone 2, may have been derived from midden deposits
surrounding the mound. The fill included coquina shell, a few
freshwater snail shells, and other refuse material, such as
animal bone, lumps of limestone, and an occasional broken
shell tool fragment. Human bone was less common. Other
artifacts from Zone 2 were charred hickory nut shell
fragments, a small coquina stone, and a large oyster shell with
a hole drilled near the hinge. This last artifact appears to have
been a net weight. The location and relationships of these
artifacts within the levels did not indicate any intentional
deposition.
The next zone, Zone 3, was a thin layer of soil darker
than Zone 2. This stratum existed for two levels (20 cm) and
was similar to Zone 2 in shell, bone, and artifact content. The
soil appeared darker, perhaps due to a higher organic content.
It should be noted that mottling due to mixing of soil colors
during mound construction was minimal. This suggests that
different colored soils were not gathered and mixed together
during mound construction. Specific soil colors were selected
for each mound construction phase.
Zone 4 was a yellowish brown sand (10YR5/6)
containing scattered bone fragments. During excavation it
appeared that Zone 3 was a sub-mound midden and Zone 4 was
the beginnings of the sterile, naturally formed subsoil. One
can see that this is not the case given the total profile (Figure
3). Zone 4 is actually an early mound fill level of about 6 cm
in thickness. During mound construction different colored
soils were selected (Zone 3 and Zone 4) and piled one on top
of the other.
It appears that Zone 4 represents the first mound fill
layer. A light-colored sand may have been selected to provide
a contrast with the dark midden soil upon which the mound
was built. This tan sand layer would clearly define the size
and shape of the desired monument to be constructed.
Zone 5, the sub-mound midden, was a hard-packed,
concreted midden deposit. Evidently, the lime from the
abundant shells mixed with the sand matrix to form a hard,








South Profile West Profile


Humus
Yellow Sand (10YR7/6) Mound Cap
Dark Brown Sand (10YR3/3)
Dark Brown Sand with Coquina (10YR3/3) Primary Mound
Very Dark Greyish Brown Sand (10YR3/2)
Yellowish Brown Sand (10YR5/6)
Dark Grey Concreted Midden (10YR4/1)
Brownish Yellow Sand (10YR6/8) Sterile Subsoil


0 20 40cm
Mound 6
Unit 1
8Vo81


Figure 3. Profile of Unit 6, Mound 1, 8VO81.


East Profile


North Profile









mortar-like midden deposit. Zone 6 consisted of one level from
190 to 200 cm below the ground surface. This zone is
brownish yellow iron-stained sand (10YR6/8) that contained
no artifacts and no faunal remains. This zone is the sterile sub-
midden soil.

Unit 2 Results

Unit 2 was placed northwest of Mound 6. The goal of
this excavation was to examine the midden and determine the
cultural and temporal period of the village occupation. A
second goal was to collect zooarchaeological samples for
analysis to determine if occupation was year round or seasonal.
Current work by Russo (1991) has shown serious faults in the
interpretation of coastal sites, specifically Archaic Period sites,
regarding seasonality of occupation, resource exploitation
patterns, and level of socio-technological development. It is
hoped that the zooarchaeological data from this excavation will
expand and improve the archaeological model of coastal
prehistoric life.
Unit 2 revealed three zones. Two were distinct soil and
shell zones and the third was a concreted deposit of midden
material (Figure 4). Zone 1 consisted of brown sand
(10YR3/3) heavily intermixed with oyster shell. Zone 1 was
excavated in two levels. It generally extended to a depth of 20
cm except in the northeast corner, which contained a small pit
feature. This continuation of Zone 1 soil extended to a depth


of 40 cm and is indicated in Figure 4.
Artifacts from Zone 1 primarily were unmodified oyster
shells, fish and animal bones, a few freshwater snail (Viviparus
georgianus) shells, nine lumps of limestone, a shell tool
(Busycon columella), and one unmodified shark's tooth. The
virtually exclusive use of oysters reflected in this zone sharply
contrasts with the deposits of Zone 2.
Zone 2 was a very dark greyish brown sand (10YR3/2)
that was heavily intermixed with coquina shell. It began at 20
cm and continued to 95 cm where the zone terminated
immediately into a concreted midden deposit (Zone 3). The
artifacts within the zone were relatively consistent between
levels. Most of the material was coquina shell and animal
bone. Small lumps of limestone (2 to 4 cm square), that
showed no signs of modification, were found in every level. It
is postulated that the limestone fragments, a locally unavailable
stone, were the thermally fractured remains of boiling stones.
Two large freshwater apple snails were recovered from level 3
(20-30 cm). Level 5 (40-50 cm) produced two rocks that
appear unmodified, one of coquina and one of limestone. Two
shark's teeth also were recovered. One had two perforations
drilled into the base of the tooth and the other was unmodified.
Level 6 (50-60 cm) contained the distal end of a deer
metatarsal with an extremely fine cut perpendicular to the bone
shaft. This appears to be the discarded portion of bone from
the production of one or more bone artifacts. The fine size of
the cut mark indicates that a fine-edged cutting tool was used


North Profile


East Profile


South Profile


West Profile


0 20 40crr


Zone 1 Dark Brown Sand (10YR3/3)


Unit 2 Profiles


Zone 2 Very Dark Greyish Brown Sand (10YR3/2)

Zone 3 Dark Grey Concreted Midden (10YR4/1)


Figure 4. Unit 2 Profiles, 8V081.









to cut this bone (Figure 5). This level also produced two shell
tool fragments, two nonutilized chert flakes, and charred
hickory nut fragments. Levels 7, 8, 9, and 10 produced shell,
faunal remains, numerous limestone rocks, one shell tool, and
one utilized chert flake.
Levels 9 (80-90 cm) and 10 (90-95 cm) were reduced in
size to only the 50 cm by 50 cm column sample. This
reduction in unit size was necessary due to the difficulty in
removing the highly concreted matrix. Level 10 was
suspended after a shovel, chisel, hammer, and pick axe failed
to remove the matrix in any meaningful and undamaged
amounts. This unit was closed at 95 cm below ground surface.

Significance of the Tomoka Mounds and Midden Site

The Tomoka Mounds and Midden site has been a
temporal and cultural enigma. Douglass (1881-1885; 1882;
1884), Griffin and Smith (1946), Goggin (1952) and Daniel
and Haviser (1979) have all addressed the site without
conclusively assigning it to a culture or time period. The
current study places the site within the Mount Taylor cultural
period based on the artifact assemblage, and the radiocarbon
date from the sub-mound midden, Unit 1 Zone 5.
The artifact assemblage as defined by Goggin (1952) and
discussed by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980) for the Mount
Taylor Period matches with the assemblage from the Tomoka
Mounds and Midden site. The uncorrected radiocarbon date


from the midden below the mound six was 4060 + /-70 BP
(Beta-54622), which yields a corrected and calibrated date of
4829 to 4429 BP at a 96% confidence interval, or a mean date
of 4629 BP. This date provides a Mount Taylor/Late Archaic
- Preceramic date for the midden below the mound. These
findings corroborate the Archaic period dating based on the
bannerstones, lack of ceramics, and almost exclusive
exploitation of coquina clams with a minor use of freshwater
snails.
It is possible that earlier and later cultural components
exist at the site. The current sample is very small given the
great horizontal and vertical extent of the site. Given the depth
of the cultural deposits in unit 2, (greater than 95 cm), it seems
highly probable that occupation of the site was prior to 4629
B.P. The size and depth of the site suggest a larger and more
permanent village rather than use by small seasonal bands, or
family units. Construction of mounds, which according to
current evidence, are Archaic in origin, indicate permanent
village life based on intensive exploitation of coastal resources.
These finding combined with those of Nelson (1918) and
Russo (1992) clearly indicate that the coast of North Florida
was occupied at least as early as the preceramic Mount Taylor
period. These data and the hypothesis they support call for
expansion of the existing interpretive paradigm (Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980:154).
The final question to address is Burial Mound 6. Is it an
Archaic Period ritual mound? One key piece of evidence, the


Figure 5. Bone Artifacts and Drilled Shark's Tooth, Unit 2, 8VO81.









radiocarbon date from Unit "A" at the top of the mound is
currently unavailable but is being processed. However, the
remaining evidence suggests that the mound was constructed
during the Mount Taylor period.
The first line of evidence is the date from the sub-mound
midden, Zone 5. This provenience provided a date of 4629 BP,
after which the mound was constructed. Assuming that the
mound was constructed prior to the abandonment of the
midden, then the lack of ceramics from all excavations at the
site (Douglass 1882 three mounds; Griffin and Smith 1946 -
one mound), including Unit 2 in the associated midden,
supports a preceramic mound construction date.
Douglass (1881-1885; 1882) reports that eight
bannerstones were recovered from Mound 6, five at 14 inches
below the surface and three more at 50 inches. This places the
first set of bannerstones within Zone 1 and the second set at, or
near, Zone 2. Goggin (1952) indicated that 38 bannerstones
had been recovered statewide by 1952 and of that 21 percent
are from Mound 6. He also pointed out that the two mounds at
the Thornhill site produced bannerstones and no ceramics, and
that other bannerstones have come from Dillion's Grove,
Mount Taylor, the Stokes Mound, the Shields Mound, and the
Salt Springs Run site (Goggin 1952:52). Hrdlicka (1922:23)
reports two bannerstones from a mound at Horr's Island. It is
not clear if these bannerstones were from the mounds dated by
Russo (1991) to the Archaic Period but it is likely. If we try to
explain away the bannerstones as heirlooms, they would have
been passed between generations for over 1500 years in order
to be placed in mounds of the St. Johns I Period.
At this time the evidence indicates that between six to
nine ritual burial mounds exist at the Tomoka Mounds and
Midden site. The site itself is perhaps the largest Mount Taylor
Period site in coastal northeast Florida. Clearly, Late Archaic
people inhabited the Atlantic coastal area as early as 4629 BP,
well before the Orange Period. Preliminary evidence indicates
that they were well adapted coastal dwellers, and were
sufficiently settled and socially organized so as to construct
ritual burial mounds within large villages. Further research and
additional sampling are needed to provide further
substantiation of these initial findings.

Acknowledgments

The archaeological work conducted at Tomoka State
Park was made possible by the staff of Department of Natural
Resources, District 4 and Tomoka State Park. Much of the
labor for the excavations was provided by dedicated
archaeological volunteers: Roger Alexon, Rosey Ankney, Dot
Moore, Josh Piatek, Tom Schofield, Fred Sorensen, Sandy
Taylor, Marilyn Torchia, Peggy Wilburn, and George
Wolsfelt. Dana Ste. Claire was of great help to the project by
volunteering his equipment and his professional archaeological
training and time to the project. Dr. Jerald T. Milanich, Dr.
John Griffin, and Dr. Michael Russo offered references,


encouragement and professional interest in the project. As
always, I thank my wife and family for the support and
understanding they provided during the evenings and weekends
spent working on this project.
Responsibility for the character and quality of this report
rest solely with the author.

References Cited

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

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Jay Haviser
1979 Florida Master Site File report, Tomoka State Park
Mounds, Volusia County. Attachment on site file
8VO81, on file, Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Douglass, Andrew E.
1881- 1885 A. E. Douglass: Florida Diaries (1881-1885).
P. K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville.

1882 A Find of Ceremonial Axes in a Florida Mound.
American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 4:100-109.

1884 Some Characteristics of the Indian Earth and Shell
Mounds of the Atlantic Coast of Florida. Proceedings:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
31:585-592.

Fretwell, Jacqueline K.
1984 Kingsley Beatty Gibbs and His Journal of 1840-1843.
St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine.

Goggin, John M.
1952 Space and Time Perspectives in Northern St. Johns
Archeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology 47, New Haven.

Griffin, John W., and Hale G. Smith
1946 Field Notes: V-44. Ms on file, Florida Museum of
Natural History, Gainesville.

1949 Nocoroco, A Timucua Village of 1605 Now in Tomoka
State Park. Florida Historical Quarterly 27:340-361.

Hrdlicka, Ales
1922 The Anthropology of Florida. The Florida State
Historical Society, DeLand.

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










Miller, James J.
1992 Effects of Environmental Changes on Late Archaic
People of Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
45:100-106.

Moore, Clarence B.
1894a Certain Sand Mounds of the St. Johns River, Florida,
Parts I and II. Philadelphia Academy of Sciences Journal
10:105, 129-246.

1894b Certain Shell Heaps of the St. Johns River, Florida,
Hitherto Unexplored, Part 6. American Naturalist 28:15-
26.

Nelson, Nels C.
1918 Chronology in Florida. American Museum of Natural
History Anthropological Papers vol 22, pt. 2, 75-103.

Parker, Susan and Stanley C. Bond, Jr.
1987 St. Johns Count Hstorical, Architectural and
Archaeological Survey. Ms. at Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board.

Russo, Michael
1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study
from Horr's Island. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

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

Vorsey, Jr., Louis De (editor)
1971 DeBrahm's Report of the General Survey in the Southern
District of North America, Tricentennial edition, No. 3.
University of South Carolina, Columbia.



Bruce John Piatek
13 Marilyn Avenue
St. Augustine, Florida 32084










TOMOKA STONE: ARCHAIC PERIOD COASTAL SETTLEMENT IN EAST FLORIDA

Michael Russo and Dana Ste.Claire


Recent archaeological investigations in the lower Tomoka
River Basin, an extensive estuarine lagoon formed by the
confluence of the Halifax (Intracoastal Waterway) and Tomoka
rivers in Volusia County, have resulted in the identification of
several Archaic period sites, most of which are shoreline
coquina shell middens. Of these sites, a dense midden on the
western shore of the Halifax River, at the northern end of the
Tomoka State Park peninsula, represents the largest and most
significant. The partially inundated site, named Tomoka
Stone, was discovered by Roger Alexon in the late 1970s and
is characterized by exposed areas of "cemented" coquina
midden fused with Orange ceramics and animal bone
(Ste.Claire 1989, 1990:191).
Tomoka Stone (8VO2571) lies just north of the well-
known Cotten site, a once extensive coquina shell mound
investigated by Griffin and Smith (1954), and later researched
by Hale (1984), and west of a series of coquina middens which
occur along Strickland Creek (Piatek and Ste.Claire 1992;
Piatek 1992). These and other coquina deposits in the Tomoka
Basin area evidence, in part, subsistence patterns for the Late
and possibly Middle Archaic periods.
In an effort to better understand the nature of these
midden deposits, an exploratory 1-by-1 meter excavation unit
was placed in the central portion of the Tomoka Stone site,
which measures approximately 40 by 200 meters. Other
coquina middens in the area are associated with the Late
Archaic and one of the principal goals of the test excavation
was to determine the cultural affiliation of the site. In
addition, the seasons of deposition of selected species of
shellfish and other fauna were measured to test the operative
settlement model of the St. Johns region for the Late Archaic
(Milanich and Fairbanks 1980).
That model forwards that during the Late Archaic or
Orange period, inhabitants of east-central Florida were
primarily hunters and gatherers. Their central base camps
were located along the freshwater St. Johns River to the west
of the Atlantic Coast and served as a focus of fishing
(including shellfishing), hunting, and plant collection during
the warm weather months. During the cold weather months,
the majority of Orange period populations are hypothesized to
have migrated to either the interior highlands to hunt mammals
or to the coastal zone (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:154). On
the coast, small groups collected shellfish during the lean
winter season.
The shellfish identified as the principal resource of these
winter coastal groups is the beach clam or coquina (Donax


variabilis). It is largely believed that Donax represented a
starvation resource in that their small size made them an
inefficient food source, too labor intensive to collect and
prepare except under conditions of duress when other resources
were unavailable (i.e., winter seasons). Coquina are thought
to have been collected from beach environments because sea
levels were so low, estuaries were drained and few other
resources were available (Goggin 1948; Thanz 1977). In
support of the hypothesis, it has been noted that after the
Archaic when continued sea level rise resulted in more
bountiful estuarine environments, prehistoric peoples largely
abandoned the exploitation of coquina (Bond 1988; Claassen
1986b; Goggin 1948; Miller 1991:153-156) and turned to the
exploitation of estuarine resources (Thanz 1977).
The model had gone largely untested until Hale's (1984)
study linked the exploitation of coquina from the Cotten site to
a summer rather than the predicted winter season. Hale further
hypothesized that at least part of the Orange period population
was spending not only the summer but most of the year on the
coast. Faunal studies from along the interior St. Johns River
indicate that Late Archaic populations were also there during
the spring and summer (Russo 1988b, 1986; Russo et al.
1989), fall (Russo, Purdy, Newsom and McGee 1992), and
probably year-round. In addition, a closer look at Orange
period middens along the coast indicated that coquina was a
minority resource component at most sites (Russo 1988a).
The importance of these studies lies in the fact that the
basis of the operative Late Archaic model (i.e., winter period
collection and dependence on coquina and a winter occupation
of the coast and abandonment of the St. Johns River Basin) has
not held up to the scrutiny of empirical tests. Alternative
models of settlement and subsistence clearly are needed. An
alternative model posits that the Orange period people did not
represent one large homogeneous culture that practiced the
same pattern of subsistence and settlement throughout the east-
central Florida region (Russo and Ste.Claire 1991). Although
similarities in ceramic types associate Late Archaic sites in the
region, dissimilarities in settlement and subsistence patterning
suggest distinctive cultural differences (Russo 1988b). Recent
tests and data suggest that separate cultures may have inhabited
the St. Johns River Basin and the east Florida coast during the
Late Archaic period, and that although these peoples were
likely semi-nomadic, nomadism may have been more restricted
to separate exploitation of the Atlantic and St. Johns River
areas, rather than as a seasonal pattern of movement between
coast and river.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 45 No.4


DECEMBER 1"22









To test this latter hypothesis, a wide range of site types
from both the St. Johns River Basin and the Atlantic coastal
zone need to be identified and their season of occupation
determined. Large, centralized camps may reveal longer,
extended periods of occupation, whereas smaller temporary
extractive camps should reveal shorter and more focused
periods of seasonal occupation. There is the possibility that no
centralized base camps existed during the Orange period and
that most Late Archaic period sites will reveal short periods of
occupation characteristic of a more nomadic way of life.
If both the St. Johns River Basin and Atlantic coastal
zone were inhabited by separate and distinctive Orange period
cultural groups, then the complete complex of site types within
each area should reveal year-round occupation. If both areas
were occupied by the same cultures and practiced
transhumance (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980), then faunal and
botanical data from the entire range of sites should reveal
distinctive patterns of seasonality (i.e., warm weather along
the St. Johns River and cold weather along the coast) and the
absence of definitive year-round occupation within zones or
specific sites.

Tomoka Stone Materials

To provide data for testing alternative hypotheses of
seasonal settlement, a test excavation unit was placed in the
highest and most dense portion of the Tomoka Stone midden.
Levels were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm increments and
screened through 6.4 mm (1/4 in) mesh. All artifacts and
quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria) fragments were collected for
analysis. Samples to be analyzed for faunal and seasonal
studies were collected within each level and screened through
fine 1.6 mm (1/16 in) mesh.
The single 1-by-1 m excavation unit produced 393
artifacts, including 390 ceramics, 1 drilled shark tooth, 1 lithic
tool and 1 piece of lithic debitage. A drilled shark tooth, from
a blacktip, bull or spinner shark (Carcharhinus limbatus, C.
leucas, or C. brevipinna) was recovered from level 6 (50-60
centimeters below surface [cmbs]). The left side and tip of the
ventral face of the tooth has its natural serrated edge worn
away, indicating use. It is probable that the tooth was hafted
along with others, with the resulting implement used as a saw
or knife in an unidirectional fashion.
A pointed bifacial tool was recovered from level 7 (60-70
cmbs). Made from chert, it measures 3.2 cm long by 1.1 cm
wide. Although flake scars on both faces indicate that the
biface was originally manufactured by flake percussion, its
final triangular shape was achieved through marginal grinding,
a lithic production technique which generally is associated with
early Florida stone technologies. In that shaping of chert by
abrasion is difficult, evidence for use of this technique at
Tomoka Stone most likely reflects the scarcity of stone
resources in the area. In this case, an otherwise unworkable
piece of stone was shaped by manufacturing techniques other


than percussion flaking in order to extend the life of the tool.
Use-wear at the tip of the implement suggests its use as a drill,
probably hafted as indicated to a prepared base.
Of the 390 pottery sherds recovered, 381 (98%) are
Orange fiber-tempered; the remaining 9 are St. Johns Plain
ceramics. Only two decorated sherds, both fiber-tempered
wares, were found in the ceramic assemblage: an incised,
"zoned" punctated fragment recovered from level 11 (100-110
cmbs) and a simple incised sherd from level 12 (110-120
cmbs); none of the St. Johns pottery collected was decorated.
Although a high percentage of fiber-tempered ware (98%)
indicates that Tomoka Stone was predominantly occupied
during the Orange period (ca. 4000-3000 B.P.; levels 6-12
contained only Orange sherds), the presence of some St. Johns
Plain ceramics with fiber-tempered ware in the upper levels of
the test unit suggest a later Transitional period component
(3200-2500 B.P.; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:152) as well
(see Table 1). It is also possible, based on recent testing
(Piatek 1992), that some portions of the site were occupied or
used during the St. Johns I period and as late as the St. Johns
II period.
The presence of the fiber-tempered incised, "zoned"
punctated sherd and the incised sherd in the lowest levels of
the unit (levels 11 and 12, respectively; see Table 1) suggest
initial occupation of the site no later than the beginning of the
Orange 3 period (ca. 3450 B.P.). The presence of small
amounts of crushed shell inclusion in some fiber-tempered
sherds may suggest an initial site occupation date closer to the
early Transitional period (3200-3000 B.P.) during which time
mixed tempering was introduced (Milanich and Fairbanks
1980:157). No Tick Island types (Jahn and Bullen 1978) are
present, also indicating a later Orange period occupation.
None of these occurrences preclude the possibility of an earlier
component existing at Tomoka Stone. Archaic stemmed and
side-notched projectile points, which have been collected from
the surface of the site, are suggestive of an earlier Archaic
period occupation (Figure 1). More importantly, earlier
contexts have been established for archaeological sites located
nearby, some of which predate 4500 B.P. (Piatek 1992; Piatek
and Ste.Claire 1992).

Subsistence and Seasonality

The Tomoka Stone midden is composed largely of
coquina, a small clam that inhabits the surf zone of Florida
beaches. It migrates with the rise and fall of daily tides to
remain in moist areas of the intertidal zone. Although there is
some controversy regarding the consistency and function of
these tidal migrations, it is generally accepted that movement is
necessary to escape predators and to feed. The large
populations of coquina that often exist and the ease with which
collection could be accomplished simply by sieving through
beach sand made the clam a frequent target for certain
prehistoric groups living on the east coast of Florida.




























Figure 1. Archaic stemmed and side-notched points.




Table 1. Vertical Distribution of Ceramics at 8V02571


St. Johns Orange Plain Incised
Level Plain Fiber-Temper Orange Fiber

1 0 6 0
2 7 10 0
3 1 31 0
4 0 28 0
5 1 53 0
6 0 35 0
7 0 58 0
8 0 35 0
9 0 9 0
10 0 15 0
11 0 53 1
12 0 46 1


Total 9 379 2


There are at least two species of Donax found on east-
central Florida beaches, Donax variabilis and Donax parvula.
Of these, both biologists and archaeologists have centered their
studies on the former, although recent studies suggest that
recognition and separation of both species is essential in
understanding the life history and human exploitation of
coquina.


Miller (1980, 1981) was the first archaeologist to employ
the biological literature for coquina studies and suggest that the
seasonal growth rate of the species could be used to retrodict
the time of collection of the species from shell middens.
Employing a monthly growth curve of coquina shell length
from the Florida Gulf coast (Tiffany 1968), Miller compared a
sample of coquina from a St. Johns II east Florida coastal









midden, the Fletcher site (8SJ57), to the monthly modal size
classes (shell length) of Gulf Coast coquina. The
archaeological sample best fit the October modal size classes
and, based on this observation, Miller suggested that the site
was occupied and coquina were collected in the fall. This
pattern fit well with the model that St. Johns people occupied
the coast during fall and winter and the St. Johns River Basin
during spring and summer in order to plant crops on better
agricultural lands (Miller 1980).
Contrasting this view, Sigler-Eisenberg and Russo (1986)
employed the same method to the Zaremba site (8IR56) in
Indian River County and retrodicted a summer and spring
period of collection for two coquina features from St. Johns II
(Malabar II) period contexts. Hale (1984) also employed the
method on Orange period materials from the Cotten site and
retrodicted a summer period of collection of coquina. At the
Crescent Beach site (8SJ43) on the coast of St. Johns County,
Lewald (1989) retrodicted summer collections for the Orange
and preceramic Archaic contexts and fall collection for the
Transitional period. Recent measures of coquina at two Late
Archaic sites near the mouth of the St. Johns River also
retrodicted warm weather collection (Russo, Cordell and Ruhl
1992).
The method of predicting coquina seasonality has been
used with limited discussion of its merits or limitations (cf.
Claassen 1986a, 1986b; Hale 1984; Lewald 1989) and by some
with cautionary acceptance (Miller 1980, 1981; Sigler-
Eisenberg and Russo 1986). One of the principal areas of
concern lies in the application of Gulf Coast growth statistics
to Atlantic Coast fauna (Miller 1981). Another lies in the fact
that, with the exception of the Zaremba report (Sigler-
Eisenberg and Russo 1986), zooarchaeologists have not
endeavored to identify the separate species of coquina within
their archaeological samples. This is understandable in that
until recently, biologists were divided over the acceptance of
Donax parvula as a separate species; there is still a debate in
progress (Laura Adamkewicz, pers. comm., 1991). Therefore,
caution should be used when identifying coquina and
employing modern biological studies in the measure of
seasonality.
For both species, studies suggest that coquina are
extremely dense during the summer and the warmer months
preceding and following it, while significantly less dense or
absent during cold months (Leber 1982; Nelson 1985; cf.
Mikkelson 1985). In a four-year study conducted at Ft.
Matanzas Beach in St. Johns County (Russo and Ste.Claire
1991), no coquina was recovered during winter monthly
collections except very small numbers of recently spawned
individuals of such small size as to be unsuitable as a food
source.
Although it is difficult to ascertain when coquina density
and size were too small to be of benefit to prehistoric peoples
(cf. Miller 1981), archaeological collections to date suggest
that coquina were not collected when modal size classes were


greater than 20 mm (Miller 1980) or smaller than 5 mm
(Sigler-Eisenberg and Russo 1986). On the southeast Atlantic,
these parameters most often occur during winter months (Leber
1982; Russo and Ste.Claire 1991). At this season, shell
lengths vary greatly. The previous year's cohorts die out and
the new year's population begin growth. Significantly,
populations are sparse and most coquina measure less than 5
mm. The life history of coquina suggests that they are most
abundant and of edible size during warm weather.

Tomoka Stone Seasonality

Samples of coquina (Donax variabilis) were obtained
from all levels of the Tomoka Stone test excavation unit,
through a column sample, to retrodict season of collection.
Results of the Late Archaic/Orange period the later
Transitional/St. Johns period contexts indicate that coquina
were collected throughout the occupation of the site during the
summer months (see Figures 2 and 3). All modal peaks range
between 11 and 19 mm in length, a size range most typical of
months from June to August (cf. Tiffany 1968; Russo and
Ste.Claire 1991). Most growth lines exhibit the normal
unimodal bell curve typical of one time collection. Others
exhibit bimodality with 2 to 5 mm separating each modal size
class. These bimodal curves are most easily interpreted as
resulting from two periods of collection or the presence of both
species, or two cohorts of coquina in a single collection
(Sigler-Eisenberg and Russo 1986). Until samples are
identified to species levels, retrodiction of collection periods
should not be detailed beyond the summer season for all levels.
Other resources were investigated to see if other fauna
were collected in the same or other seasons. To this end,
Quitmyer et al. (1990) have determined the season of
collection of certain levels containing quahog clam
(Mercenaria mercenaria). Tomoka Stone quahog data were
used to calculate best-fit seasons employing the method
outlined in Quitmyer et al. (1985).
The numbers of quahogs present at Tomoka Stone were
very small relative to the numbers and volume of coquina.
Within the midden context, they are considered as a secondary
resource. None were recovered from features or in clusters or
numbers indicating a single period of collection. Rather,
fragments were distributed throughout and amidst the dense
coquina midden. The seasonal interpretations of the quahog
indicate collection during the winter and spring months and
throughout the year in lowest levels (Russo and Ste.Claire
1991). No distinctive summer collections were evident
indicating that, with the possible exception of the lowest
levels, the coquina and quahog were not collected during the
same time of the year.
Other seasonal indicators include pinfish and croaker
remains. All pinfish material analyzed from level 12 (110-120
cmbs) were young adults, which are most abundant in estuaries
during the spring, summer and fall (Russo and Ste.Claire







Orange


0 5 10 15 20 25
length in mm.


Winter
Level (


April/May


June July
Level 7


August
Level 8


September Winter
Level 9


--- Level 11


- Level 12


Figure 2. Coquina Modal Lengths in mm for Orange Period Sample From Tomoka Stone.


30




20




10




0


Level 10


30









St. Johns/Transitional


30-i


20




10




0 -
0 5 10 15 20 25
length in mm.
Winter April/May June July August September Winter
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 --- Level 5

Figure 3. Coquina Modal Lengths in mm for St. Johns/Transitional Sample From Tomoka Stone.


30









1991). This species normally seeks deeper water in cold
weather (Darcy 1985:22). Croakers are generally found in
estuaries throughout the year (Schwartz et al. 1981), but the
abundance of certain size classes are seasonal in occurrence.
The sizes of pinfish and croakers from level 12 were estimated
using allometric principles (Reitz et al. 1987). The largest
individual croakers, those above 300 mm in total length, can
be found in estuaries throughout the year, so it is difficult to
retrodict their season of collection. Those ranging from 93 to
165 mm comprise most of the remaining sample and are
numerically most abundant from August to October (Shealy et
al. 1974). Therefore, a late summer/early fall collection is
suggested for this species.
Finally, hickory nut remains were recovered from a
number of levels of the column sample. These nuts ripen in
the fall and although they can be stored for long periods, their
occurrence with preserved nut meats in regional middens has
been suggested to indicate a late summer/fall occupation of the
site (Russo, Purdy, Newsom and McGee 1992).
The seasonality data gathered from Tomoka Stone fauna
and flora indicate that the site was occupied in all seasons of
the year. Coquina were the dominant fauna and were collected
during the summer months. Atlantic croaker and pinfish also
were collected during the summer and possibly in the spring
and fall. Hickory nuts were most likely collected in the fall
and quahog were most often collected in the winter through
spring (December to April).

Summary and Conclusion

Materials excavated and collected from the Tomoka Stone
coquina midden were used to determine preservational status,
cultural affiliation and to test models of seasonality. The state
of preservation at Tomoka Stone, particularly in the inundated
lower levels, is excellent, having preserved botanical remains,
coprolites and the concreted remains of individual stews (all of
which are undergoing continued analysis). The stew remains
most likely represent the dregs of individual meals of coquina
stews. After the broth and meat were consumed, the remaining
shell was discarded. Due to the dissolution of calcium during
cooking, many of these shells remain conglomerated in situ
along with other elements of the stew, which include primarily
the boney remains of small fish.
Along with coquina and shark eye (a predatory snail of
coquina and most often the second most abundant mollusc in
coquina middens), small fish provided the bulk of the faunal
diet (Table 2) and, as typical of maritime adaptations,
terrestrial mammals were less significant. That is, fishing and
shellfish collecting were primary activities at the site and the
hunting of mammals, birds and other animals was less
important. Freshwater species, including a musk turtle, were
represented in the zooarchaeological sample as well. The
collection of small amounts of freshwater fauna along with
coquina is a common occurrence at coquina middens and has


been observed at the Crescent Beach midden (Bond 1988), the
Cotten site (Griffin and Smith 1954; Hale 1984) and Summer
Haven (Bullen and Bullen 1961). This may suggest that the
locality of coquina collection was at least in part determined by
access to local freshwater resources.
There is some controversy as to if and why the labor-
intensive small coquina were collected during the Late Archaic
and not during more recent prehistoric periods (Griffin and
Smith 1954; Claassen 1986b; Russo 1988a). The data from
Tomoka Stone suggest that the collection of coquina continued
into Transitional and possibly later St. Johns periods. Larger
excavations and radiocarbon dates, however, are necessary to
determine the extent of coquina exploitation during these
times. The notion that due to lower sea levels estuaries were
not developed and estuarine resources were unavailable for
exploitation needs to be reexamined. At Tomoka Stone, nearly
all the fish exploited are typically estuarine and much of the
mollusca, such as oyster, quahog, acorn barnacles, mussel and
odostome among others also inhabit estuaries. This pattern of
both beach and estuarine exploitation is typical rather than
atypical of Late Archaic coquina middens (Russo 1988a,
1988b; Griffin and Smith 1954; Hale 1984; Bullen and Bullen
1961:12-13; Bond 1988; Russo, Cordell and Ruhl 1992).
It is difficult to determine by the excavation of a single 1
m x 1 m unit the site type Tomoka Stone represents. It is clear
that the area excavated did not reveal evidence of continuously
occupied living floors. The unit also lacked visible living
floor features such as fire and storage pits, intensely broken
and trampled remains, post holes or patterned distributions of
artifacts. Some layers of coquina, however, were more
'crushed than others, indicating that at least some activity
occasionally occurred atop the midden. The nature of coquina
deposition, as well as most shell deposition in which large
volumes of shell are discarded in relatively short periods of
time, might often preclude the occurrence of intensive
trampling over any given surface. Shell floors may not have
been lived on for long before more shell was deposited,
effectively sealing that particular surface from further
disturbance. That is, it is probable that our single test unit
simply missed areas of living activity. Living floor activity
within coquina middens, however, has been evidenced at
nearby sites (Bond 1988). Equally likely, living activity may
have occurred off midden toward the estuary to the east and
west. The midden may have served primarily as a dump with
living activities occurring peripherally. Only further
excavations can determine this.
The seasonal, subsistence and artifactual data suggest,
however, that a large number of activities occurred at Tomoka
Stone over an extended period during the annual cycle. These
activities include, but are not limited to, fishing, shellfish
collection, hunting, collection of nuts and other plant
materials, and possibly pottery and lithic tool manufacture,
maintenance and use. This wide variety of activities suggest
that an entire range of societal members, including men,







343


Table 2. Faunal Remains From Level 12, 8V02571


Taxa Common Name MNI Nis r rams


Polinices duplicatus
Fasciolaria sp.
Odostomia sp.
Acteocina sp.
Polygyra sp.
Anadara sp.
Mytilidae
Crassostrea virginica
Donax variabilis
Tagelus sp.
Chione sp.
Mercenaria mercenaria
Parastarte triquetra
Bivalvia
Balanus sp.
Callinectes sp.
Brachyura
Invertebrata
Rhizoprionodon terraenovae
Carcharhiniformes
Brevortia sp.
Clupeidae
Ariopsis felis
Ariidae
Serranidae
Haemulon sp.
Lagodon rhomboides
Micropogonias undulatus
Pogonias cromis
Cynoscion sp.
Mugil sp.
Paralichthys sp.
Osteichthyes
Testudines
Mammalia
Vertebrata


10
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2405
1
2
1
18
1
6
1


Shark eye
Tulip shell
Odostome
Barrel-bubble
Flatcoil snails
Ark shell
Mussel
Eastern oyster
Coquina shell
Tagelus clam
Venus shell
Northern quahog
Brown gem clam
Bivalve
Acorn barnacle
Crab
Crab
Invertebrate
Sharpnose shark
Requiem sharks
Menhaden
Herring
Sea catfish
Marine catfish
Groupers
Grunt
Pinfish
Croaker
Red drum
Sea trout
Mullet
Flounder
Fish
Turtle
Mammal
Vertebrate


33
1
1
1
1
2
1
39
6501
2
3
22
31
1
74
1
33


1 1
7
2 2
3
1 1
6
1 1
1 1
8 8
11 16
1 2
1 1
2 10
1 1
4 7
1 1
1 1


MNI = Minimum Number of Individuals
NISP = Number of Identified Specimens




women and children, and social groups may have occupied
Tomoka Stone.
Taken together, these data allow for a working hypothesis
that the site served as a base camp under a pattern of settlement
known as "residential mobility" (Binford 1980; Russo et al.
1989:96-97; Sigler-Eisenberg 1988). Under this pattern,


entire family units occupy sites (i.e., residential camps for
variable periods of time) and move as a group to other base
camps when local resources are exhausted or reach a point of
unacceptable return. Limited kinds of other site types exist
and these may include temporary collection stations such as
water collection or lithic procurement stations, which are


58.02
13.87
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.45
0.07
25.07
656.49
0.7
0.02
32.29
0.06
0.01
2.72
0.17
0.73
619.03
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.54
0.47
0.01
0.06
3.22
0.04
0.32
0.56
0.11
0.23
0.09
0.33
56.61









characterized archaeologically by small assemblages and
limited varieties of artifacts. Most large sites represent
residential camps and should reveal a more complete inventory
of artifacts and cultural activities than temporary encampments.
This settlement pattern has been contrasted with the
"logistical" settlement pattern in which large villages are
permanently occupied by a number of residential groups, and
specialized groups are sent out to procure resources. These
resources are then brought back to the permanent village. The
resulting site types under such settlement pattern may result in
larger, more permanently occupied villages that exhibit greater
areas of living floor, greater numbers of contemporaneous
residential units, greater numbers and kinds of architectural
components (including ceremonial and burial structures) and
greater artifactual remains than would be expected at
residential camps under the residentially mobile settlement
pattern.
The residentially mobile pattern of settlement identified
for the Orange period in the nearby Upper St. Johns River
Basin (Russo et al. 1989) is suggested to represent the
settlement pattern evidenced at Tomoka Stone. However,
several enigmatic coquina and sand mounds known to exist just
west of the site (Douglass 1882, 1883, 1884; Daniel and
Haviser 1979; Ste.Claire 1989, 1990; Ste.Claire and Russo
1991; Piatek and Ste.Claire 1992; Piatek this issue) may
represent Archaic period special activity, possibly a ceremonial
or other structural element characteristic of a large, settled
community.
The Tomoka Stone seasonal data suggest year-round
occupation; however, the site was probably occupied by small
residential groups who could move quickly en masse when the
variably abundant coquina disappeared from the local beaches.
Under these conditions, the residential group could move up or
down the coast where coquina was present, or during cold
weather months they could return to coquina collection sites or
elsewhere in the coastal zone to exploit other resources such as
estuarine molluscs or nuts. Contrary to the existing model
which postulates the Orange people moving seasonally to and
from the interior St. Johns River Basin to the coast during the
winter, we suggest that the archaeological data support the idea
that the coast was occupied in the summer and throughout the
year by at least some members of the Late Archaic period
community. We must begin to entertain the idea that rather
than peninsular Florida being occupied by one large Late
Archaic group solely linked by association with Orange period
fiber-tempered ceramics, separate and distinct Orange period
cultures may have existed. Separate and mutually exclusive
multiseasonal and year-round settlement and subsistence
patterns have been identified for Late Archaic cultures on
Florida's southwest coast (Russo 1991), Upper St. Johns River
Basin (Russo 1986), Middle St. Johns River Basin (Russo,
Purdy, Newsom and McGee 1992) and on the extreme
northeast Atlantic Coast (Russo, Cordell and Ruhl 1992).
Data from these sites and Tomoka Stone suggest a settlement


and subsistence pattern dissimilar from the currently operative
model of Orange period settlement.

References Cited

Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter-Gatherer
Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation.
American Antiquity 45:4-20.

Bond, Stanley C., Jr.
1988 Preliminary Report: Archaeological Excavations 8SJ43,
The Crescent Beach Site, St. Johns County, Florida. Ms.
on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, St.
Augustine, Florida.

Bullen, Ripley, and A. Bullen
1961 The Summer Haven Site. The Florida Anthropologist
14:1-15.

Claassen, Cheryl
1986a Shellfishing Seasons in the Prehistoric Southeastern
United States. American Antiquity 51:21-37.

1986b Temporal Patterns in Marine Shellfish Species Use
Along the Atlantic Coast in the Southeastern United
States. Southeastern Archaeology 5:120-137.

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and J. Haviser
1979 Florida Master Site File Report, Tomoka State Park
Mounds, Volusia County. Ms. on file, Division of
Historical Resources, Florida Department of State,
Tallahassee.

Douglass, Andrew E.
1882 A Find of Ceremonial Axes in a Florida Mound.
American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 4:100-109.

1883 A Find of Ceremonial Weapons in a Florida Mound,
with Brief Notice of Other Mounds in the State.
Proceedings, American Association for the Advancement
of Science 31:585-592.

1884 Some Characteristics of the Indian Earth and Shell
Mounds of the Atlantic Coast of Florida. Proceedings,
American Association for the Advancement of Science
33:599-601.

Darcy, G.
1985 Synopsis of Biological Data on the Pinfish, Lagondon
rhomboides (Pisces: Sparidae). NOAA Technical Report
NMFS 23, FAD Fisheries Synopsis No. 141. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.











Goggin, John M.
1948 Florida Archeology and Recent Ecological Changes.
Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 38:225-
232.

Griffin, John, and Hale Smith
1954 The Cotten Site: An Archaeological Site of Early
Ceramic Times in Volusia County, Florida. Florida State
University Studies 16, Tallahassee.

Hale, Stephen
1984 Analysis of Fauna from a Late Archaic and St. Johns I
and II Period Site in Volusia County, Florida. Paper
presented at the 41st Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Pensacola, Florida.

Jahn, Otto L., and Ripley P. Bullen
1978 The Tick Island Site, St. Johns River, Florida.
Florida Anthropological Society Publications No. 10.

Leber, K.
1982 Bivalves (Tellinacea: Donacidae) on a North Carolina
Beach: Contrasting Population Size Structures and Tidal
Migrations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 7:297-301.

Lewald, C.
1989 A Seasonality Study of Coquinas from a Prehistoric St.
Johns Region Site. Student paper on file, Florida
Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

Mikkelsen, P.
1985 A Comparison of Two Florida Populations of the
Coquina Clam, Donax variabilis Say, 1822 (Bivalvia:
Donacidae), II, Growth Rates. The Veliger 27:308-311.

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

Miller, James J.
1980 Coquina Middens on the Florida East Coast. The
Florida Anthropologist 33:2-16.

1981 Coquina (Donax variabilis) as a Seasonal Indicator.
Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting, Society for
American Archaeology, San Diego.

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


Morrison, J.


1971 Western Atlantic Donax. Proceedings of the Biological
Society of Washington 83:545-568.

Nelson, W.
1985 Guidelines for Beach Restoration Projects, Part I
Biological. Sea Grant Project No. R/C-4, Grant Number
NA80AA-D-00038. Florida Sea Grant College.

Piatek, Bruce J., and Dana Ste.Claire
1992 The Tomoka Mound Complex in Northeast Florida.
Paper presented at the Forty-Ninth Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Quitmyer, I., H. Hale, and D. Jones
1985 Paleoseasonality Determination Based on Incremental
Shell Growth in the Hard Clam, Mercenaria mercenaria,
and its Implications for the Analysis of Three Southeast
Georgia Coastal Shell Middens. Southeastern
Archaeology 4:27-40.

Quitmyer, I., D. Jones and W. Arnold
1990 The Periodicity of Incremental Shell Growth in the
Hard Clam Mercenaria spp. in the Southern Portion of its
Range and Archaeological Site Paleoseasonality. Paper
presented at the 6th International Conference of the
International Council for Archaeozoology, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.

Reitz, E., I. Quitmyer, H. Hale, S. Scudder, and E. Wing
1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American
Antiquity 52:304-317.

Russo, Michael
1986 The Coevolution of Environment and Human
Exploitation of Faunal Resources in the Upper St. Johns
River Basin. Non-thesis Master of Arts Project,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

1988a A Comment on Temporal Patterns in Marine Shellfish
Use in Florida and Georgia. Southeastern Archaeology
7:61-68.

1988b Coastal Adaptations in Eastern Florida: Models and
Methods. Archaeology of Eastern North America 16:159-
176.

1991 Archaic Sedentism on the Florida Coast: A Case Study
from Horr's Island. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Russo, Michael, and Dana Ste.Claire
1991 Tomoka Stone: Testing Seasonality and Settlement
during the Orange Period along Florida's East-central









Coast. Ms. on file, Museum of Arts and Sciences, Daytona
Beach, Florida.

Russo, Michael, Ann Cordell, and Carl Clausen
1989 Palm Bay: Archaeological Investigations in the Lake
Hellen Blazes Basin, Florida. Ms. on file, Florida
Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.

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

Russo, Michael, B. Purdy, L. Newsom and R. McGee
1992 A Reinterpretation of Late Archaic Adaptations in East-
central Florida: Groves' Orange Midden (8VO2601). In
press, Southeastern Archaeology, Vol. 11:95-108.

Schwartz, F., W. Hogarth, and M. Weinstein
1981 Marine and Freshwater Fishes of the Cape Fear Estuary,
North Carolina, and Their Distribution in Relation to
Environmental Factors. Brimleyana 7:17-37.

Shealy, M., Jr., J. Miglarese, and E. Joseph
1974 Bottom Fishes of South Carolina Estuaries Relative
Abundance, Seasonal Distribution, and Length-Frequency
Relationships. Technical Report Number 6, Marine
Resources Research Institute, South Carolina.

Sigler-Eisenberg, B.
1988 Settlement, Subsistence and Environment: Aspects of
Cultural Development within the Wetlands of East-central
Florida. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara
Purdy, pp. 291-306. The Telford Press, Caldwell, New
Jersey.

Sigler-Eisenberg, B., and Michael Russo
1986 Seasonality and Function of Small Sites on Florida's
Central-east Coast. Southeastern Archaeology 51:21-31.

Ste.Claire, Dana
1989 The Archaic in East Florida. Paper presented at the 41st
Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society,
Jacksonville.

1990 The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological Evidence for
Early Coastal Adaptations. The Florida Anthropologist
43:189-197.

Ste.Claire, Dana, and Michael Russo
1991 Tomoka Stone: Archaic Period Coastal Settlement in
East Florida. Paper presented at the Forty-Fourth
Conference of the Florida Anthropological Society, St.
Augustine, Florida.


346
Thanz, Nina
1977 A correlation of environmental and cultural changes in
northeastern Florida during the Late Archaic period.
Florida Journal of Anthropology 2:33.

Tiffany, W. III
1968 The Life Cycle and Ecology of the Beach Clam Donax
variabilis Say (Mollusca: Pelecypoda: Donacidae).
Master's thesis, Department of Biology, Florida State
University, Tallahassee.




Michael Russo
Regional Archeology Program
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
University of Southwestern Louisiana
P.O. Box 40198
Lafayette, LA 70504-0198


Dana Ste. Claire
Division of Archaeological Research
Museum of Arts and Sciences
1040 Museum Blvd.
Daytona Beach, FL 32114










NOTICES OF CONOIDAL STONES FROM SOUTHERN FLORIDA

Ryan J. Wheeler


There has been a long tradition in the history of The
Florida Anthropologist of publishing brief notices of unusual
artifacts. I believe this trend can be traced to Dr. John W.
Griffin's comment on "an unusual shell pendant" in the first
volume and number of our society's publication, and it has
been maintained by Ripley Bullen, Dan Laxson, and most
recently, by members of the Indian River Anthropological
Society. Perhaps someday a scholar will bring all of these
mysterious items together and tell the rest of us what they are,
but presently I find myself offering a meager contribution of
this nature--two more artifacts that seem to resist placement
within our current framework of Florida archaeology.
During the course of an archaeological survey of Palm
Beach County, two unusual ground stone artifacts were
recovered from a small black earth midden deposit situated in a
low hammock within the Hungryland Slough (Figure 1). This
site, now designated as 8PB6294, the Hungryland Midden,
may be more correctly described as a short term campsite, a
type of site frequently encountered in southeast Florida's Dade
and Broward counties (Kennedy et al. 1991:76-77). The stone
artifacts under consideration were discovered in association
with sand-tempered pottery fragments and faunal remains.
These two artifacts are shaped into very regular cones,
and seem to be made from a fine-grained, grey, sedimentary
stone (Figure 2). The objects vary slightly, with one being
smaller than the other; this smaller artifact (Figure 2b) has a
series of small irregularities near what may be called its base, a
fact that proved useful in making a more distinct lithological
identification. Figure 3 provides an illustration of the larger of
the two cones, with metric scale. The material from which
these cones are fashioned would, at first glance, appear to be
an extremely fine-grained sandstone, quite unlike the
carbonaceous and oolitic limestones and marls native to the
geology of southern Florida. However, Cooke
(1945:266,270), in his survey of Florida geology, notes
sporadic outcrops of a fine-grained coquina sandstone in which
all shell fragments have been reduced to rounded grains of
sand, concentrated primarily along the coast of Martin and
Palm Beach Counties. Indeed, this type of material is found
along the beach strand in prominent outcrops, including
notable exposures at Blowing Rocks, Boynton Cave, and Jap
Rock, as well as in small, water-worn pebbles. Coloration of
this variant of Anastasia limestone ranges from red and pink,
through tan (the most common hue), to grey and black. It
seems likely that the Hungryland cones were produced from
this local material.


I have been unable to locate mention of comparable items
being recovered from Florida sites, but they are known from
elsewhere in the southeastern United States. Wauchope
(1966:205, 209) reports on these objects from his researches in
Georgia, as well as at sites in Missouri and Illinois, and
classifies them as fire-drill or bow-drill stones. This
suggestion was first made by Caldwell and McCann (1941:55),
based on their discovery of a cone-shaped object and a barrel-
shaped object in a grave at the Irene Mound, Georgia. Figure
4 reproduces the manner in which these cones might have been
utilized. Caldwell and McCann (1941:55) describe the
proposed manner of use as follows:

The cone-shaped object is held between the
thumb and forefinger and the other fingers clasp the
barrel-shaped object against the palm. The drill
goes through the latter and the end rests in the
depression in the base of the cone. A considerable
amount of pressure may comfortably be applied to
the top of the cone.

They appear to be far from common in Georgia, as Wauchope
(1966:205) recovered one from the Walt Jones site (Figure 5a)
and reports others from museum collections. Like the
examples illustrated from Georgia, the Hungryland specimens
have concave bases.
Seeman (1979:368-369), Tong (1954:33-34), and
Chapman (1952:142-143) suggest that this type of item may be
Hopewellian in nature, though Seeman does not believe that
they were commonly traded. Tong's specimen from Missouri
(Figure 5b) is constructed of fine-grained quartzite and is very
similar to the Florida and Georgia artifacts; Tong (1954:33)
makes the distinction between the Hopewell conoidal stones,
which are more funnel-shaped with short stems and
pronounced central cavities, and the "mammiform"
manifestations like those from Hungryland. Chapman's
artifacts from the Kansas City area are of the funnel type,
similar to a conoidal stone object reported by Maxwell
(1952:183) from the Crab Orchard site, Lower Ohio Valley
(Figure 6).
Gerard Fowke (1896:113-114) includes a description and
illustrations (Figure 7 and 8) of these conoidal artifacts in his
compendium of aboriginal North American stone working.
Fowke discusses cones of the mammiform type from
Tennessee, Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina and West
Virginia; he offers no comments on their function, but notes


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 45 No.4


DECEMBER 1992

















MARLIN (o
PALM BEA,:* ,:-.


*



S*
Big Mound
BPb6294












S
A A D E S


- Riviera
*


MILES ,
Wheeler 1992


Figure 1. Location of Hungryland Midden.


Figure 2. Stone Cones From Hungryland Midden.


Lake
Okeechobee


Belle Glade


a

























l |1111111 (iliIIII l3jl l I
CENTIMETERS
1 2 3 4


Figure 3. Stone cone from Hungryland Midden (see Figure 2a).


Figure 4. Suggested use of the Cone From Irene Mound, Georgia (after Caldwell and McCann
1941:55).























.





b


a b


Figure 5. Stone Cones; a) Walt Jones Site,
Georgia (after Wauchope 1966:266), b) Cedar
County, Missouri (after Tong 1954:34).


Figure 6. Hopewellian Stone Cones; a) Crab
Orchard Site, Illinois (after Maxwell 1952:183),
b) Kansas City Area (after Chapman 1952:142-
143).


a.


Mammiform Cone of Compact
Ogle County, Illinois (after Fowke


Figure 8. Mammiform Stone Cones From
Tennessee; a) Steatite Cone, Bradley County
(after Fowke 1896:113), b) Hematite Cone,
Loudon County (after Fowke 1896:113).


Figure 7.
Quartzite,
1896:125).









that they were produced from a wide range of materials,
including steatite, hematite, compact quartzite, granite, and
sandstone.

Conclusion

In concluding I can report that the objects recovered from
the Hungryland Midden may be stone bow-drill cones of local
manufacture. This is the first discovery of such artifacts in the
East Okeechobee Area, and possibly southern Florida; I am not
aware of similar artifacts from other Floridian culture areas,
though they do occur in other parts of the southeast and
midwest. The use of these objects in southern Florida, and
their morphological relationship with those artifacts from other
southeastern sites, may be a small indication of Florida's
position in a larger cultural milieu. The Hungryland
specimens seem to be of the mammiform type that is known
from Georgia, Missouri and Tennessee, and is unlike the
funnel type typically associated with Hopewellian cultures.
However, I do not believe that having a name or classification
for these artifacts makes their presence any less mysterious.

Acknowledgments

I must gratefully acknowledge the assistance of my able field
crew, who helped discover and explore the Hungryland site.
William J. Kennedy and Barbara A. Purdy have both been
excellent mentors, and helped me research these stone cones.

References Cited

Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina.
In Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James
B. Griffin, pp. 312-321. University of Chicago Press.

Caldwell, Joseph R. and Catherine McCann
1941 Irene Mound Site, Chatham County, Georgia.
University of Georgia Press, Athens.

Chapman, Carl H.
1952 Culture Sequence in the Lower Missouri Valley. In
Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B.
Griffin, pp. 139-151. University of Chicago Press.

Cooke, C. Wythe
1945 Geology of Florida. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin
29.

Fowke, Gerard
1896 Stone Art. In The Thirteenth Annual Report of the
Bureau of American Ethnology, 1891-1892, pp. 47-178.


Kennedy, William J., Charles Roberts, Shih-Lung Shaw and
Ryan J. Wheeler
1991 Prehistoric Resources in Palm Beach County: A
Preliminary Predictive Study. Department of
Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,
FL.

Maxwell, Moreau S.
1952 The Archaeology of the Lower Ohio Valley. In
Archeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B.
Griffin, pp. 176-189. University of Chicago Press.

Seeman, Mark F.
1979 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere: The Evidence for
Interregional Trade and Structural Complexity. Indiana
Historical Society, Indianapolis.

Tong, Marvin E.
1954 A Prehistoric Object from Cedar County, Missouri.
Missouri Archaeologist 16(2):33-34.

Wauchope, Robert
1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia, with a Test
of Some Cultural Hypotheses. Memoirs of the Society
for American Archaeology 21.



Ryan J. Wheeler
Department of Anthropology
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32603






352


THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY (BUT IT HELPS): MAPS OF PUBLIC LANDS AND
CULTURAL RESOURCES IN FLORIDA

Joe Knetsch and Marion F. Smith, Jr.


This paper emphasizes the value to researchers of three
map sets: (1) early survey maps of Florida public lands, (2)
the topographic maps of the United States Geodetic Survey
(USGS) or "quads," and (3) cultural resource maps of the
Florida Site File plotted on quad base maps. Consulting all
three map sets, and particularly juxtaposing them, is essential
to archaeological field work aimed at prehistoric or historic
sites. Our title is taken from Korzybski's caution about
confusing conceptual systems with the things that they
represent (Korzybski 1958:58).

Maps and Field Notes From Public Lands Surveys in
Florida

Public records of the earliest comprehensive survey
and mapping of the current state of Florida, dating to the early
nineteenth century, are accessible in a single location: the
Land Records and Titles office of the Department of Natural
Resources in Tallahassee, Florida. These records are a trove
of information on cultural and natural features of the Florida
landscape, one that all field archaeologists and historians
should routinely mine. This section describes the trove before
treating U.S.G.S. topographic maps as published and as used
in the Florida Site File as base maps for locating
archaeological sites.
Not all surveys of public lands are the same. This is
true for Florida as well as some of the older states of the
union. Florida began its surveys in 1823-24 with the
exploration of the boundaries of the Spanish land grants.
Because of the uncertainty of the location of many of these
grants, the surveys of them and the adjoining public lands were
not completed by the time Florida entered the union.
Additionally, the survey instructions for differing time periods
asked surveyors for different information. In each case, much
was left to the judgement of individual surveyors as to what
would be included in the official field notes of the survey.
Thus, not only do the surveys differ from time period to time
period, but also from surveyor to surveyor.
For example, the meandering of navigable
waterbodies underwent many changes in the surveying
instruction manuals. The first instructions do not mention
meandering specifically, but the 1831 instructions state that all
navigable streams should be meandered. No definition of the
word navigable is offered to guide the surveyor, so more
judgement went into the surveys. The 1855 instructions noted


that all lakes over 25 acres should be meandered and this figure
changed with subsequent instruction manuals. Thus, no true
consistency existed in this area of the instructions and they
often left much to the judgement of the surveyor in the field.
The confusion caused by these differences is an
important matter for archaeologists, anthropologists, historians
and other users of the U.S. Field Notes: Florida. Because of
the latitude given the surveyors in the field, many sites of
importance are missing from the records of the earliest
observers of the landscape who were not required to record
such data. Excluding the maps of the Indian and earlier
pioneers, these survey maps are the best clue concerning the
condition of early Florida. Yet, many of the surveyors
ignored mounds, villages, grants, private holdings, etc. in
their work. The field notes, therefore, are a source of much
information and frustration at the same time. Matters that are
important to today's explorers of the past are frequently not
recorded in the official record of land surveys.
To comprehend the limitations of the field notes as a
source of information, it will be useful to understand the
reasons for the surveys. The most important reason for the
early surveys of Florida was to get the most usable land on the
market and sold as quickly as possible. Land sales were a
major source of income for the government and it was
important to get these started in the new territory. This meant
that the first surveyors were instructed to ignore swampy or
poor grade lands and survey only those with an immediate
market. In turn, the surveyors had to exercise a great deal of
judgement as to what lands they would survey and report.
Additionally, these brave men were under pressure to get as
much land surveyed as possible as fast as possible, which led
to many omissions of detail. The surveying "season" only
lasted about six months out of the year. Surveyors did not
operate in Florida's wet and fever season, and work time was
cut down to nearly four months by travel, purchasing of
supplies, recruiting of crews and possible difficulties with
Florida's native inhabitants. The early surveys were fast and
rough work under heavy pressure from the government
through the office of the Surveyor General. These pressures
led to surveys which were not as accurate as possible and
Florida became noted for "the careless manner in which many
of the public and private Surveys in Florida have been
conducted ..."(Commissioner of the General Land Office
1854). In the 1880s, Florida's "fraudulent" surveys were
subject of a major Congressional investigation (Board of


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 45 No.4


DECEMBER 1992









Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund 1904).
Another reason for the early surveys was the need to
settle the land disputes arising from the Adams-Onis Treaty
which brought about the American acquisition of Florida.
This treaty guaranteed to the holders of Spanish grants the
validity of their titles if they could prove them to the land
commissions of East and West Florida. To separate these
holdings from public lands became an important reason for the
early surveys and a cause of many errors in these. The major
cause of these errors was the inexact nature of the Spanish
grants. The most notable and important grant, that of F. M.
Arredondo, comprised most of today's Alachua County. The
legal center of the grant was determined to be the "place
known as Alachua" settled by the Seminole Indians. From this
vague point the surveyor was to survey a square "four leagues
to each wind" encompassing an area of 289,645 and 5/7 acres
(U.S. Supreme Court 1832). Here Henry Washington, the
surveyor, used his discretion and placed the center of the grant
in the middle of the Alachua Sink, or today's Payne's Prairie.
This was a very controversial survey and displeased the grant
owners who wished to see the grant's center placed in the
center of the settlement of Micanopy, near Edward Wanton's
store. Because Washington made the survey in such a
controversial location, his work became closely scrutinized by
the Surveyor General's office. Later, when called upon to
divide this grant among the heirs of the holders, Washington
was accused of not tying his surveys into the existing public
surveys surrounding the grant. This led to a very ugly law suit
which forced Henry Washington out of government service in
Florida (Knetsch 1991). The separation of the grant from the
public lands, by implication, was not clear and Washington's
surveys were called into question.
Because some grants were not separated until long
after the public surveys were relatively completed, some
uncertainty remained. One such case was the grant of 3,000
acres to Duncan L. Clinch, which was not cleared at the time
of the Second Seminole War (1835-42). The instructions to
the surveyors for 1831, under which many of the central and
southern Florida surveys were conducted, clearly state that
grants were to be set off from public lands when the lines of
survey crossed them. However, in the case of the Clinch
grant, the U.S. Deputy Surveyor, one John Blocker, did not
set off the grant in his survey of Township 13 South, Range 20
East, the supposed site of Fort Drane and Clinch's Lang Syne
Plantation. Washington's survey of Township 12 South,
Range 20 East, however, does note the edge of Clinch's fields.
Because of Blocker's judgement, or error therein, the exact
location of this famous fort is in question today. If he had
followed his instructions or if the grant had been located and
separated earlier, this confusion would not exist for us now.
An additional complication exists because Clinch was a typical
plantation owner of the day and purchased lands adjacent to his
3,000 acre grant. By doing so, certain modern investigators
have confused the issue of the fort's location. The fort


definitely lies within the original grant and not the later
purchases.
Surveyors of early Florida had a system that was often
frustrating to follow and often led some to bankruptcy court.
The system they had to follow, in simple form, forced the
surveyor to bid on a contract for a survey at so many dollars
per mile of survey. The surveyor then had to purchase his
equipment, purchase supplies for the crew, hire a crew,
acquire the means of transporting same to the survey location
and then commence the work. If all went well, after
approximately four months of labor, the surveyor would get
his field notes in readable shape and finish sketching his survey
area. He would then travel to Tallahassee or St. Augustine and
submit his drawings and field notes to the draughtsman to have
his work platted out. This was often a cooperative effort and
many compromises occurred with the draughtsman, who was
interested in clarity and not every detail. Thus, the plat maps
which emerged were compromises of two skilled professionals.
Once this was effected, the Surveyor General would review the
work and either pass it on to the General Land Office in
Washington, or reject the survey and ask for corrections. If
the former path was taken, the GLO would review the work
for mathematical accuracy and proper closure and would send
the accounts to the Comptroller for payment. All of the
accounts had to add up or time was lost to the surveyor trying
to justify his expenses to the Comptroller's office. If all went
well, the Comptroller would issue a warrant on a bank where
the United States Government had an account. In most cases,
these banks were not within the borders of Florida. The entire
process could take up to a year or more before the surveyor
could realize any profit from his work. If any problem arose
during the process, the surveyor would have a long time to
wait for his money. As noted above, this sometimes led to
bankruptcy for those gentlemen who did not have the resources
available to meet current expenses. Henry Washington, in
1841, suffered this fate. Some of the fault was not
Washington's, as he was an investor in the Union Bank, which
closed its doors and became the center of a heated debate in the
Territorial government. As an investor in the bank,
Washington lost all his assets and could not meet his
obligations.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the development from field
sketch to printed map for Township 17 South, Range 23 East
in what is now Marion and Sumter Counties. The field work
was done and the sketch recorded in 1848 by Benjamin F.
Whitner, Jr. (Whitner 1848). The finished map was revised
and also published in 1848. Two of the more noticeable
differences are in the water features and the roads. Figure 1,
the field sketch, shows a road running from the boundary of
Sections 30 and 19 toward the arm of Lake Weir now known
as Little Lake Weir. There are minor differences in the
outlines of all the water bodies. The finished map, but not the
field sketch, includes ponds at Sections 31/32 and Sections
7/8. These features, located directly on surveyed lines, appear





















































d80n. 2I.JbtAIi
J *!'
Surveyed in 18]d-


32 33 4, 34 35 36 r'



Sr ea l 8 p i o a n In .
*'D S i _. ._Scaal De S caim to an Invl..


Figure 1. Whitner's 1848 Sketch of Township 17 South, Range 23 East.


in the surveyor's running notes, but he did not pause to draw
them on the sketch map, even though the north-south Road to
Fort King bends at Sections 31/32 to avoid one pond.
The payment of surveyors depended upon the total
number of miles in the survey contract because the rate of pay
was determined by x number of dollars per mile. As the
survey season was relatively short, the surveyors often looked
at simple straight line surveys as the most profitable. Under


pressure to achieve quick surveys and ultimate sales, the more
rapidly the survey was done, the better for the treasury. This
nearly precluded the surveyor from making exact and minutely
detailed field notes indicating homesteads, Indian mounds and
villages or other curiosities. Though the surveyors of Florida
did make many notations of these features, if these features did
not fall on a line of survey (exterior line or section line) it was
unlikely that they were reported in the field notes. Even lines













II


ArW 22


ACe. 4


* I





.1
t.l (f 7 (> >




~ i, *


:- ... I -i' -- r- Ai .''' 63 it n


Figure 2. Reduced Official Plat Map of Township 17 South, Range 23 East.


Asr .


alS


s-s


&A 9


ea. /o


a"Ift


AdE. JJ


r ;`~r LI

r









which meandered or traversed streams or lakes seldom
mentioned exceptional features, unless they were used as
witness points or points of departure. On unusual occasions,
site locations were given because they were familiar to those
who were already on the land or were on maps issued by
various agencies and therefore known to many. The
surveyors, interested in getting the survey completed and being
paid for the work, did not have time to make copious notes on
the locations of interesting features unless it was to indicate the
potential value of the land. Quick, straight, rectangular
surveys were what the government wanted and what the
surveyors gave it.
The pressures on the surveyors and their discretionary
powers should not blind the investigator to the valuable
information contained in the field notes and plat maps. Where
else will one find geographic descriptions so minute and clear?
Typically, the field notes read as follows:

"West Boundary of Sec. 36
Run North B. Sec. 35 & 36
24.40 to Cyprs Bog &c pond
30.00 x Pond
40.00 1/2 MPost
Pine N 63 E 60 Links
Do N 1 w 55"
80.00 Set post cor to Sec. 35.26.36.25
Pine 52.4 W 114 Links ...
last mile Chiefly flat
3.d Pine & saw palmetto wood."
(Washington 1843)

As a basic reference, the length of the standard surveyor's
chain is 66 feet, a link is 7.92 inches and 80 chains equals one
mile. In the example above, our surveyor ran his survey line
north on the common line between Sections 35 and 36. He
came into a cypress bog and an open pond, which was 369.6
feet across (5.60 chains x 66 feet). The remainder of his
survey line covered an area which was third rate pine land with
some saw palmetto. The land, he notes, is mostly flat. You
will note that the "witness trees" used by the surveyor were
also pine, confirming the general description of the land. This
basic picture of the land, however, does leave some questions.
For example: How deep was the pond? What was the shape of
the pond? How wide/long was this waterbody? Were there
any homesteads within view? These are questions the surveyor
did not always answer in the field notes; often, however, the
sketch made in the field will have this information.
With some exceptions, the "sketch" map made in the
field was not included with the field notes: this is a great loss
to the history of surveying in Florida, and to those professions
which often depend upon the information contained in these
works. These sketch maps were, as noted above, made in the
field and were taken by the surveyor to the draughtsman's
office to assist him in making the final plat map. In what


appears to be the general case, these sketches made up the
work product of the surveyor and were discarded when no
longer needed. Unfortunately, information the surveyor
thought important enough for his sketch map was often, for the
sake of clarity and uniformity, left out of the final plat map--
and thus lost to future researchers.
Yet, with all of the cautions stated in this article, the
field notes and plat maps are still the best guides to primitive
Florida before the majority of the development, as we know it
today, took place. In fixing the site of an historic structure,
Indian mound or village, Seminole War fort, etc., the plat
maps and field notes are indispensable. Aside from indicating
the exact location of the object, the field notes may give
information regarding the topography which would fit the
placement requirements of a settlement, fort or mound. The
field notes may also indicate the water flow and direction of a
stream or river which could be a valuable clue as to the
location of a site. The field notes and plat maps, therefore, are
still highly important tools. It is in the understanding of the
limitations of the tools that they become even more useful and
less frustrating.
The relationship between the field notes and plat maps
and the location of a site is enhanced by the development of the
modern "quad" map. These topographical maps published by
the U.S. Geodetic Survey show recent changes in the area and,
when related to the historical information in the field notes and
plat maps, give an idea of where the location of the site may be
relative to current conditions. Also, certain anomalies in the
geographic features shown on the quad map may indicate the
position of an historic site. In researching the location of an
old bridge site, e.g., one may look for a "pinching" feature in
the landscape. As bridges were often constructed by filling in
some of the embankment for leveling purposes, this feature
may still show on the quad map as a contour line indicating a
narrowing of the river/stream bank. It is in this fashion that
the site of the bridge for the Finlayson/Bailey road in Jefferson
County became known and confirmed by an oral interview
with an older resident who fished from the bridge in his youth
around the turn of the century. (We later found an 1856 map of
Madison County which depicted this bridge and the roads
running to it.)
As known historical sites recorded at the Florida Site
File are located on quads, it is important to understand the
relationship between them and the original survey maps of the
area. Many of the features noted in the original surveys may
be located on these modern maps. Streams, ponds,
embankments, marshes, etc., are indicated on both. They may
be used in comparison to help locate potential archaeological
sites. Certain trails or roads may also be noted on the modern
maps and these frequently are the routes of present-day
highways. Major sections of U.S. Route 90 follow closely the
old "Bellamy Road" or "Spanish Trail" found on the 1778
Purcell Map and on the plat maps of the townships through
which the road ran. Along this famous trail are many









historically important sites. Thus, a side-by-side comparison
of the plat maps with the USGS quads, complete with known
site locations from the Florida Site File, can be a valuable tool
in locating historically significant buildings, Indian mounds,
etc.

Quads: USGS 1:24,000 Scale Topographic Maps

These maps are produced by the U.S. Geodetic
Survey at a scale of 1" to 2000 feet or 1:24,000. They are also
known as "7.5 minute maps" because each covers that range of
latitude and longitude (7.5 sixtieths of a degree of arc in
latitude and the same in longitude). Until recently, these maps
were published with topographic contours at five foot
intervals, while newer quads use metric contour intervals,
usually two meters in Florida. Quads also depict hydrological,
vegetational, and prominent cultural features, especially
political boundaries, roads, and many individual buildings.
They are, or should be, relatively familiar to all
researchers with regional scale interests or with interests
predating the current built environment, for several reasons.
First, they are the national standard, available for all of Florida
and the continental United States in a standard format familiar
to a very wide and diverse audience. Second, the topographic
detail shown is especially valuable in a historical or
archaeological contexts. It is often the case that forgotten
land-altering human projects of the past can still be read from
the conformation of the land. For example, large mill races or
abandoned railroad beds can often be traced (and sometimes
have been rediscovered) from contours that they leave behind.
Second, quads are relatively large scale, so that vast amounts
of contemporary detail can be shown and so that distances
down to 50 meters (about 50 yards) or less can be readily
distinguished. Third, they are tied into at least four coordinate
systems, so that they are especially likely to be useful in
regional scale studies utilizing information from diverse
sources and in computer representations like geographic
information systems. The first of these is the standard legal
description ultimately derived from the public lands surveys
already discussed, normally with townships six miles square
divided into 36 sections of one square mile each. Others
include the geodetic system familiar to us as latitude and
longitude, the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) metric
system used by archaeologists and others unsophisticated in
spherical trigonometry, and the so-called state plane system.
Of great potential importance to the researcher is the
historical USGS quad, compiled and published in the past
(Hodgson and Alexander 1990). Historical quads are indexed
for the United States by Moffatt (1985, as referenced in
Hodgson and Alexander [1990]). We have not systematically
sought these maps out, but we have used many Florida quads
which were compiled more than 50 years ago. If you have
such outdated quads, you should consider keeping them or
donating them to a map library or relevant government agency.


Finally, we should mention other graphical
representations of much value to those with historical or
prehistoric interests. Where available, the Mark Hurd series of
aerial photographs are arranged according to the USGS quads--
that is, the name, coverage, and scale of each photograph
correspond to a quad. These aerial photographs show
remarkable detail and may be an added source of valuable
information regarding alterations in the landscape. In addition,
the soil survey maps of Florida distributed by the Soil
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
although they are not correlated with USGS quads, are often a
valuable source of general information. Soil categories are
superimposed on 1:20,000 scale aerial photographs. SCS has
published surveys in about 50 of Florida's counties at this
writing; interim maps may be available for some other
counties.

Cultural Resources on a Quad Base: The Florida Site File

The Florida Site File maintains two main map sets. The
first map set records the areas included within documented
archaeological or architectural surveys of Florida: 67 county
highway maps of Florida produced as one or more sheets at a
scale of 1" to 2 miles or 1:126,720. The map set of primary
concern here is the Site File's 1042 topographic maps on which
all sites and certain historic structures are plotted. The Site
File adds to the topographic base maps the locations of all
archaeological sites and of many historical structures (those
that are listed upon the National Register of Historic Places, or
that the Register's Keeper or the State Historic Preservation
Officer has evaluated as eligible for the Register).
How are cultural resources marked on USGS maps of the
Site File? A special dark film-marking pencil is used to draw
the boundaries of each site, as exactly as information permits,
on the map, and the site is identified by writing the site
number omitting the initial digit "8" for Florida. For sites
whose center point is known in terms of latitude-longitude or
UTM coordinates, but whose extent or boundaries are not
known, a triangle is centered at the map coordinate.
Prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are always marked
regardless of significance or condition. Structures are mapped
only if they have been listed on the National Register or
evaluated by appropriate federal or state offices as eligible for
listing on the National Register.
Some aspects of site mapping are identical for standing
historical structures and archaeological sites. A "#" symbol
means that the site or structure has been destroyed, according
to evidence deemed sufficient by the Supervisor of the Site
File, but records of destroyed or even erroneously recorded
sites are only flagged. They are not deleted from the maps or
paper or computer files. If the location of a documented site
or structure is imperfectly known to the Site File, a dashed
boundary line is used to show the area within which we
estimate the site is probably located, and the letters "GV" for






358


"General Vicinity" are suffixed to the site number on the map.
Other abbreviations may also be suffixed to the file number on
Site File USGS maps:
NH National Historic Landmark (automatically Nat.
Register)
NR Listed on the National Register of Historic Places
EL Determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places by the Keeper of the National Register of the
National Park Service or by the State Historic Preservation
Officer.
For archaeological sites only, "?" suffixed to the site
number on the map represents one or more of the following
circumstances: (1) The site was at one time reported to the
Site File as the result of past human activity, but subsequent
documented field work, normally including subsurface testing,
has led the Site File Supervisor to re-evaluate it as non-cultural
or non historical, computerized as site type NONC for "NON-
Cultural." This happens most commonly with unexcavated
mounds that turn out to have been created by natural events or
by recent historic activities like dredging. (2) The site was
originally identified by remote sensing techniques without
ground truthing. While such sites have not been entered on the
Site File for some years, a few still remain in our files, flagged
with the site type NOFR for "NO Field visit--Remotely
sensed." (3) Finally, "?" may indicate that the site's
identification and location were reported by a local informant
secondhand to a recorder who never visited the site. On
computer records of the Site File, this circumstance would be
indicated by the code NOFI for site type, abbreviating "NO
FIeld visit--Informant reporting only."

Comparison of Old Maps With New Ones for Orange
Blossom Hills

We now give an example of the possibilities of
background historical work using public lands survey
information, and topographic information in conjunction with
records of the Florida Site File. Consider the area mapped by
Figures 1 and 2 in Marion and Sumter Counties between Ocala
and Leesburg. We might call it the Orange Blossom Hills
locality after the large development which today occupies its
center. What can a comparison of today's maps with those of
140 years ago tell us? Or just as important, what questions
could such a comparison inspire in one who might be
undertaking archaeological field work in the area? Figures 3
and 4 are placed on facing pages so as to jointly answer the last
question. Figure 3 repeats Figure 2, the published map of
Orange Blossom Hills done by Whitner.
Figure 4, although in black and white, reduces and
mosaics portions of four USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps
(clockwise from the southwest these are Oxford, Belleview,
Lake Weir, and Lady Lake) in Marion and Sumter Counties of
central Florida. The publication dates for these maps
respectively are 1966, 1991, 1980, and 1980.


One category of map information is the known location
of field survey and archaeological sites as read from the
records of the Florida Site File. Township 17 South, Range 23
East is therein recorded, excluding superficial treatment in
superficial countywide surveys, as having received three
archaeological surveys which collectively do not add up to
even 10% of the 36 square miles in the township--a typical
situation in Florida. These surveys identified 10
archaeological sites and 34 standing historical structures.
Focusing on the archaeological sites, eight were definitely
prehistoric. One of the remaining two sites was a preserved
old road segment (8MR1576) and one was an intact brick well
dating to the late nineteenth/early twentieth centuries. Two
points could be made. The first is that any information at all
on early historic settlement could easily serve to improve this
meager haul of previously recorded sites. Another response,
not undertaken by us at this juncture, would be to explore the
historical background for the road and well, using survey
records as well as other avenues like tax records.
What changes are most evident over 140 years of
increasing human impact on the landscape? Some of the
significant differences on the maps indicate the changing nature
of the landscape over the years. Seven specific discrepancies
might be briefly noted. (1) The rise in the water level is
quickly seen in comparing Lake Weir and Little Lake Weir of
the current quad to the same area depicted on Whitner's map
and the plat. The rise has obviously created the islands
mentioned in the 1879 correspondence quoted below and
explains the interest in them. (2) The current quad shows the
well known Bowers Lake, which does not appear on Whitner's
original sketch of the area (Figure 1). (3) In the same quad,
just north of the south border of Section 2, there are today
three small lakes which receive no attention on the plat (Figure
3) or on Whitner's sketch (Figure 1). (4) In the southwest
portion of the township (USGS Belleview quad), the lake
shown on the south line of Section 18 is missing from the
modern map. (5) The shape of the lake in the center of Section
19 is very different today from that illustrated on the plat or on
Whitner's sketch. (6) The lake noted on the plat in the
northwest corner of Section 31 is today signified with the
swamp symbol and does not appear on the original working
sketch by Whitner. (7) The final disagreement is that the
island shown on the section line between Sections 13 and 14 in
Whitner's sketch and the current quad map is left out of the
official plat. These differences demonstrate the necessity of
looking at all available maps to locate potential sites.
There are also some similarities between the current
quad and the field sketch of our township which could assist in
finding historically important sites. For example, the route of
U.S. Highway 301 follows closely the line of the old Fort
King road through the township. Closely related to this road is
the line of County Road 500 which almost connects with U.S.
301 in Section 7. On the plat, this road is labeled as the Road
to Ocala and did connect with the old Fort King road. Of











TXVI I S. R. XIIxIE


Aec.r


tif IT


Arc SO


Arc. 29


.ec. 9


Jr,. /0


it.. 2/


J.-r Jz


xJe


l e- J.f


L'Yr' J.i


I.-. .- A-n


Figure 3. Reduced Official Plat Map of Township 17 South, Range 23 East.


LSt#, J4



























4







OJ 1


r1 '3


'Y


Figure 4. Composite of Four Modem USGS Quads Comprising Township 17 South, Range 23 East: Oxford, Belleview, Lake
Weir, and Lady Lake, Clockwise From Southwest.


significant likeness are the shapes of Little Lake Weir and Lake
Weir on all three maps. By subtracting the swamp/lake area
around the islands in the southeastern portion of Lake Weir,
one can readily see the original configuration of the lakes.
And closely related to this area is the notation of the island on
the current quad and Whitner's sketch, which is located on the
line between Sections 13 and 14, noted below. This is one of
the islands desired by the correspondents of 1879. Thus the
differences and similarities in the maps of the area clearly
demonstrate some of the changes experienced by the land over
the last 140 years.
Reference to the quads often leads to new discoveries
that change the perception of events concerning a piece of
property. In the case under study, a comparison of original


survey maps with the USGS counterparts shows remarkable
changes, including the draining of part of a lake, canalization
of parts of the area near the Armed Occupation Act settlement
in the southwest quarter of the Township, and changes in the
shape of Lake Weir on its western border. These changes were
made by settlers in the area somewhere around the turn of the
century when drainage of land required few permits and little
bureaucratic interference from government agencies. How
much change took place and exactly when is still a matter of
conjecture.

Map Changes and the Historical Record


i~ 1


5
-^ "Sjf ^^ Ia ^F^












fC^v'^p ~3?


3










~77








LA KE\


~~tn~Y~*Mf~n


rV


I1~ I^1~1 UIII \I









One advantage we have in pinpointing the most recent
changes in the Florida landscape is the written record of
letters, diaries, etc., left by the early settlers. In our case, in
1879, letters to the Surveyor General from Thomas M.
Rickards, Oscar Shogren, and John S. Carney demonstrate that
there were problems on the land at that time. Shogren's letter,
dated August 7, 1879, noted the existence of an island in Lake
Weir, of about two acres extent, about a quarter of a mile from
the "most Southerly Island which is about 10 or 12 acres large"
(Shogren 1879). This island, according to Shogren, was not
on the original Township plat and he wished to purchase it for
cultivation. County Surveyor Rickards found that the range
line between Lake Weir and Bowers Lake was off by a number
of degrees because it was on a different variation than the rest
of the range line between Ranges 23 and 24. The neck of land
between these two lakes was very valuable, he noted, bringing
upward of "$100 per acre" (Rickards 1879). Carney, too,
noticed the "jog" in the range line and that it impacted by 125
yards the government lots that he and his associates wished to
purchase. They wanted to develop the land and sell the lots
but getting a clear title depended on the accuracy of the survey.
Carney further noted that the plat maps available in Marion
County showed the island as part of the mainland but that "for
several years it has been an island" (Carney 1879). The
obvious competition for the islands in the lake, for the purpose
of development, adds to our knowledge of the reasons for and
timing of the changes in the landscape, and they may indicate
new features which the archaeologist may wish to locate.

Conclusions

We hope to have shown the importance of map work
before and after going into the field. Before going into the
field, maps indicate early historic changes in the landscape.
Relative to our example, historical accounts of Marion County
have not well documented the early drainage and cultivation of
wetlands. Indeed, none of the "official" histories of the county
even mention the settlement of this area. Yet the historical
background is vital for comprehensive or efficient location of
historical archaeological sites.
After field work is completed, sites originally located
from field evidence alone should be identified and interpreted
in the context of all possible historical sources, especially the
land records. At project's end, placing the recorded
information in an organized archive such as the Florida Site
File ensures the permanent and public nature of the record.
Future field workers will be building upon, rather than
repeating, your results.

Access to Maps Discussed

Records of the public lands surveys referenced here as
U.S. Fields Notes: Florida and accompanying plat maps are
housed in the Land Records and Titles Section of the Bureau of


Survey and Mapping, Division of State Lands, Department of
Natural Resources. The Division of State Lands is the
successor to the staff of the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund. It is through the Board of Trustees that
the State receives and dispenses all State lands. As staff for
the Trustees, the Division, through the Land Records and
Titles Section, handles all requests for copies of the original
survey notes and plat maps of the State of Florida. Copies
may be ordered through the Section by mail, visit, or
telephone, but be sure to reference the township, range, and
section in which you are interested. The Land Records and
Titles Section also houses the Federal and State Tract Books,
which detail the original sale of all lands out of public
ownership. Subsequent sales of the land must be researched at
county level. The address for obtaining copies is:
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Division of State Lands
Land Records and Title Section
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Mail Station 105
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Topographic maps with the location of known
archaeological sites are maintained by the Florida Site File.
Previously known as the Florida Master Site File, this office
keeps an inventory of cultural resources, as required under
federal and state preservation statutes. The Site File is
administered by the Florida Department of State. The Site File
is open for visits 8-5 Monday through Friday. Interested
parties may write for further information in the form of short
handouts (Florida Site File 1991a, 1991b). Records fall into
five major categories (the numbers are correct for the fall of
1992, but they increase by about 11,000 files per year): (1)
about 16,300 prehistoric and historic archaeological sites (at
least fifty years old); (2) about 59,500 historical structures
(normally at least fifty years old), mostly buildings; (3) about
3,100 manuscripts, usually unpublished reports of field
surveys to identify archaeological sites and structures; and (4)
about 3,300 artifact collections of the Department of State's
Bureau of Archaeological Research. The Site File's address is:

Florida Site File
Division of Historical Resources
R. A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0250
Telephone 904-487-2299, Suncom 277-2299.

References Cited

Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund
1904 Minutes of the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund, Volume 3:506-515. Volume 3
covers the years 1881-1889. T. B. Hilson, Tallahassee.









Carney, John S.
1879 Miscellaneous Letters to the Surveyor General, Volume
6: 1878-79. Letter of August 22, 1879, Carney to L. D.
Ball, p. 155.

Commissioner of the General Land Office
1854 Letter of May 20, 1854. Commissioner of the General
Land Office to the Surveyor General of Florida. Cited in
a letter of June 1854 (no specific day) by John Westcott,
Surveyor General of Florida, to John Jackson, U.S.
Deputy Surveyor. This letter is found in Drawer "U.S.
Surveyors H-N" in the file of John Jackson, Department
of Natural Resources, Land Record and Title Section,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Site File
1991a Guidelines for Users of the Florida Site File (two page
flier). Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research,
Tallahassee.

1991b Research Aids at the Florida Site File (two page flier).
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Hodgson, Michael E. and Robert H. Alexander
1990 Use of USGS Historic Topographic Maps in GIS
Analyses. In Countdown to the 21st Century, Technical
Papers of the 1990 American Congress of Surveying and
Mapping, Volume 3, pp. 109-116.

Knetsch, Joe
1991 The Big Arredondo Grant: A Study in Confusion. Paper
presented to the Historical Society of Micanopy, Florida.
September 13, 1991.

Korzybski, Alfred
1958 Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-
Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, 4th edition.
Haddon Craftsmen, Inc., Scranton, Pennsylvania.

Moffatt, Riley M.
1985 Map Index to Topographic Quadrangles of the United
States, 1882-1940. Occasional Paper No. 10. Western
Association of Map Libraries, Santa Cruz, California.

Rickards, Thomas M.
1879 Miscellaneous Letters to the Surveyor General, Volume
6: 1878-79. Letter of August 10, 1879, Rickards to L.
D. Ball, p. 152.

Shogren, Oscar
1879 Miscellaneous Letters to the Surveyor General, Volume
6: 1878-79. Letter of August 7, 1879, Shogren to L. D.
Ball, p. 152.


U.S. Supreme Court
1832 Order of the Supreme Court of the United States. F. M.
Arredondo v. United States.

Washington, Henry
1843 U.S. Field Notes: Florida. Volume 67, p. 284.
Township 21 South, Range 31 East.

Whitner, Benjamin F.
1848 U.S. Field Notes: Florida. Volume 136, p. 146 1/2.
Department of Natural Resources, Land Record and Title
Section, Tallahassee, Florida.


Joe Knetsch
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Survey and Mapping
Mail Station 105
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Marion F. Smith, Jr.
Florida Site File
Bureau of Archaeological Research
R. A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250








363


THE SEMINOLE OLD TIGER TAIL AND THE PERIOD OF ISOLATION

Patsy West


Accounts are rare on the Florida Seminoles during the
two decades following the Third Seminole War, which ended
in 1858. Various attempts to provide a historical overview of
this period recognize it as one in which information generally
is lacking. Charles H. Fairbanks (1978:187) called this era
between the end of the Second Seminole War in 1842 and 1880
the "Withdrawal Phase" noting that, "Little has been written
about the Seminoles during this period simply because they
were lost in the Everglades." William C. Sturtevant
(1971:111) described this era as the period of "isolation"
stating, "we have practically no contemporary published or
manuscript data on the Indians during these years...yet it was
undoubtedly an extremely important period of cultural and
social adjustment". This period is for us a Seminole "Dark
Age" with no official data gathering from the government until
the exploratory visit of R. H. Pratt in 1879 (Sturtevant 1956a).
A dearth of information from this era restricts the
historian, yet it may be instructive to scrutinize what data we
do have to gain at least a glimpse into this unknown period. In
doing so, a singular figure emerges from a large percentage of
the accounts. A person whose adult life begins in the turbulent
years of the Seminole wars, spans the years of Seminole
isolation, and was extinguished with a thunderclap in 1881.
This latter event almost coincides with Clay MacCauley's 1880
ethnographic report, which marked the beginning of an ever-
increasing period of contact with the outside world. This
person is the Mikasuki leader Tiger Tail.
Abiaki, Sam Jones, the powerful spiritual leader of
Second Seminole War fame (despite reports of senility as early
as 1845), was the head of the postwar Seminoles until his death
in 1867 (Sprague 1848:512; Taylor 1991:313). It was Tiger
Tail who stepped into his place of prominence. Tiger Tail,
who unlike the great majority of Seminole head men, was
highly approachable by whites. Indeed, he attracted the
attention of many observers from diverse backgrounds:
Confederates, Yankees, Cowboys, missionaries, scientists,
adventurers, surveyors, writers, politicians, and pioneers.
Some of these individuals made mention of their meetings with
Tiger Tail, giving brief insights into the character of this
leader and his hopes for the welfare of his people. The news
media, who would not let the public forget that these very
Indians had been at war against them just a few years before,
often were quick to speculate about Tiger Tail in sensational
journalistic style typical of the period. In 1883, two years after


his death, the Bartow Informant speculated on Tiger Tail's
possible reaction to the forthcoming Times-Democrat
Everglades Expedition, "should he take it into his head to
oppose the expedition...the dozen men...may find they have
their hands full" (1883).
Tiger Tail appears to have been the nephew of Sam Jones,
which would justify his ascendency of leadership. Seminole
Agent John C. Casey's valuable enumeration made in 1852-
1853 and verified by leader Billy Bowlegs, lists two Mikasuki
men as the nephews of Sam Jones: Kotsa Hadjo, 40 years old,
and Kotsa Chopkco, 44 years old (Casey 1953:13). From
Tiger Tail's own assessment of his age in 1864 as "50 colds"
(Sunbury American, January 9, 1864), it would appear that he
was probably Kotsa Hadjo, Crazy Cat, born in 1813. Like his
Uncle Sam Jones, Tiger Tail was of the Panther Clan, which
the prefix of his name, "Kotsa," denotes.
In the matrilineal culture of the Seminoles, a man's son
would not be of his clan, but of the clan of the boy's mother. It
was a man's nephew, his sister's son, who was his own
clansman and who would fill the role that we call "son." His
nephew also would be his heir. (A note for continuity: Tiger
Tail's nephew was Robert Osceola [father of Cory] and Tiger
Tail's son was Young Tiger Tail.)
It is necessary to discuss who Tiger Tail was not.
Tiger Tail was not Thlocko Tustenuggee, the Tiger Tail
of Second Seminole War fame, the chief of the Tallahassees.
Two papers published in the Florida Historical Quarterly have
offered information in the hope of proving that the two men
were one in the same. The first, published in 1925 by Isabella
Williams and entitled "The Truth Regarding Tiger Tail," was
based on her father's acquaintance with Tiger Tail (Williams
1925). Arthur T. Williams had met Old Tiger Tail (as he was
known by the 1870s) as a boy on his father's surveys on Snake
Creek in southeast Florida and in the Big Cypress in 1870 and
again in 1875. Williams' thesis was based primarily on the fact
that Old Tiger Tail asked the Williamses if they knew the
Gambel family near Tallahassee. Because the war leader Tiger
Tail also had known the Robert Gambels, (seen in John T.
Sprague's The Origin, Progress, and Conclusion of the Florida
War) the Williamses felt assured that Old Tiger Tail was
indeed the Second Seminole War leader (Williams, nd:8;
Sprague 1848:502).
In presenting her theory, Isabella Williams further noted
that the wartime leader Tiger Tail was a known trickster. He


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 45 No.4


DECEMBER 1992









had been involved in a drunken brawl prior to being deported
on the ship that was to take him to the Indian Territory, which
resulted in his face being swelled and deformed (Sprague
1848:499, 502). Williams (1925:74-75) then suggests,
however, that Tiger Tail actually substituted someone else to
leave Florida in his stead.
Next, scholar Kenneth Porter added comments to the
Tiger Tail saga in a Florida Historical Quarterly article in
1946. Porter found intriguing data in "Sylvia Sunshine" that
Tiger Tail was indeed shipped west, but "escaped into Mexico
where he lived as an outlaw" (Porter 1946:217). Porter notes
that this was Wild Cat's group, but found that a Seminole
named Tiger Tail was one of Wild Cat's men. He located a
newspaper article that mentioned a "Cola de Tigre," Tiger
Tail, who accompanied a band of Seminole and Kickapoo
Indians to Mexico City. The Indians returned to the United
States in 1857 at the death of Wild Cat. Porter notes, "Among
these returning wanderers may have been old Tiger Tail, and it
would have been no impossible task... for him to make his way
back to his old hunting grounds" (Porter 1946:217).
Even anthropologist Alanson Skinner -- who made an
expedition to the Big Cypress in 1910, met the elderly widow
of Tiger Tail, and obtained some silver brooches from her --
thought that she was the wife of the war hero (Skinner
1910:6).This was obviously not Old Tiger Tail, although the
evidence is intriguing. Most conclusively, Thlocko
Tustenuggee was leader of the Tallahassees, Old Tiger Tail
was a Mikasuki. Further, Old Tiger Tail frequently related his
war exploits, and the most significant of his accounts comes
from the outbreak of the Third Seminole War in 1855. Had he
pulled off a fantastic ruse, or been with Wild Cat in Mexico,
he would have told these tales often and with relish.
Some valuable information exists concerning Tiger Tail's
family. His father fought with Andrew Jackson against British
Lieutenant General Sir Edward Packenham at the Battle of
New Orleans in January 1815 (Ewan 1903). His father
doubtless would have been an Alabama Creek who perhaps
later moved into Florida to fight against the Americans. Tiger
Tail's mother was a Mikasuki, the sister of Sam Jones. By
May 1832, the Treaty of Payne's Landing, Sam Jones was
considered the leader of the Mikasuki and as previously noted,
it was from this lineage that Tiger Tail became leader of the
postwar Mikasuki.
Some information exists on Tiger Tail's own wartime
exploits. He frequently related battles of the Second Seminole
War (1835-1842) in excited Indian vernacular, calling the
regular troops "Yankees" and the Florida volunteers
"Cowboys" (Williams n.d.:19). Covington has noted that the
Seminoles called the regular troops "Yankees," and that "[t]he
Florida cattlemen would not readily join any of the proposed
foot or infantry companies...as a result, the Seminoles were
pursued only where horses could be used...," becoming "Cow
Boys" to the Seminoles (Covington 1981:39). One of the


Cowboys, Lieutenant John Addison, came to settle in Cutler
(south of Miami) and became a close friend of Tiger Tail's.
Tiger Tail said he was an officer under Osceola in the
Second Seminole War (Stephens 1883:292), and according to
another source, he "often spoke of Osceola" (Ewan 1881). We
learn that he fought in the Battle of the Wahoo Swamp on
November 26, 1836, where he was wounded in the left hand
(Williams n.d.:20).
He does not appear in military documents as a major
leader during the Second or Third Seminole wars, but he did
play a key role in an opening incident of the Third Seminole
War in the Miami area on January 6, 1856. Tiger Tail had
befriended a white settler, a coontie-starch maker named Peter
Johnson, who manufactured his starch at a well six miles south
of the Miami River. Toward the end of his life, Tiger Tail
confessed to his friend J. W. Ewan: "Me tell him three days,
little moon, Indians fight: you my friend go-go! Johnson
laugh; three days me come; Johnson work, make starch; me
kill him, he my friend; me kill him quick; Indians take him kill
him little bit; me not like that; squaws hurt him" (Ewan 1903).
It was not an uncommon practice for a Seminole to offer a
quick death to a white friend (Covington 1981:30; Rockwood
1891:682).
Just days after the Third Seminole War was officially
declared at an end, the Wagner family, newly arrived to the
Miami area, were startled to meet 17 Seminole men on the
road to Fort Dallas. Rose Wagner recounted, "[t]he foremost
one was Old Tiger Tail. Among the others were Matlow, Billy
Harney, Old Alec and Big Tom or Snake Creek Tom. Old
Tiger Tail introduced himself and shook hands with us all, and
so did all the others in turn. I was frightened and hoped the
soldiers [from nearby Fort Dallas] would come. We turned
back home, they all going with us. When coffee was made and
as good a meal as we could hastily set before them, was
prepared, they were told to come up and eat." (in Richards
1903).
Feeding the Seminoles when they came to visit became a
standard procedure of pioneer families. Although this was
considered polite hospitality by the settlers (who also may have
been a bit afraid of the Indians), the offer of food was an
important custom in Seminole culture. This may have
sometimes created hardships for the pioneers due to a lack of
staples. However, it cemented good relations with the area
Seminole who often brought fresh meat and vegetables to
barter for salt and coffee.
There were large Seminole habitations in the Miami
vicinity, which were first documented in 1828 and marked on
surveys in 1870. Most probably the group of men met by the
Richards family lived on these sites near the headwaters of
Little Snake Creek, especially since Snake Creek Tom is
identified with the area (West 1987a).
The Civil War began in 1861. It might be assumed that
the Seminoles were the last thing that the North and South










would think of during these traumatic years. Yet, Robert
Taylor's recent research of Florida's cattle economics during
the Civil War revealed that this was not the case. In 1862 the
first Indian agent was appointed by the Confederate Florida
Governor to make initial overtures to the Seminoles, offering
the state's protection, as well as trade goods, in the hope of
persuading the Indians to ally with the Confederacy.
The fear of Seminole intervention in the War Between the
States escalated as a newspaper article circulated in the South
and in the North as well. In October and November of 1862
the rumor spread from Gainesville, Florida, to Mobile,
Richmond, and Philadelphia that Sam Jones' Seminoles had
been "persuaded by the Yankees on the coast to commit all
manner of depredations upon innocent and helpless men,
women, and children living near Charlie Popka, a branch of
Pea's creek" (The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 3, 1862)
The Gainesville States reported, "Now there are two remedies:
one is to make, if possible, a treaty of peace with these
Indians; and, if that fails, the alternative is to raise five
hundred Florida 'cow boys,' as some call them, to take these
Indians out of Florida, sparing none to tell the tale. The chief
object of the dollar-loving Yankees is to get the savages down
in that portion of the State to murder as many as possible, and
run off the balance of the citizens, so as to be able to get all the
cattle they need" (in The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 3,
1862). The Confederate Seminole agent investigated and found
that these rumors were false (Taylor 1991:303).
Another rumor was reported in December 1863 that
Seminoles from the Miami area were trading with Yankee
woodcutters. An informant had seen deer skins being loaded
with wood for shipment to Key West military headquarters and
assumed that trading had taken place (Taylor 1991:309). This
appears to have been no rumor, but perhaps a common
occurrence. A letter sent home from a member of the Sunbury
Guards, of Sunbury, Pennsylvania, postmarked Key West,
December 31, 1863, noted that some 30 men of their regiment
had been up the Miami River since December 17, 1863
"cutting spiles, wood, etc. to be used for different purposes in
this command. They met many Indians while there, and
among them was the celebrated chief, Tiger Tail... The party
traded with the Indians, and by that means had a supply of
fresh pork, venison, fish, etc." (Sunbury American, January 9,
1864). The threat of Union interaction with the Seminoles and
their possible take over of Florida's valuable cattle herds
continued to stimulate Confederate parlays with the Seminoles
throughout the war years.
Tiger Tail was in the news on August 25, 1869. The
Peninsula stated: "The Indians are in council near the Big
Cypress to select a chief in place of Tiger Tail, who sometime
since hanged himself". A later report noted that he had been
"killed by his squaws as useless" (Townshend 1875:241). The
Jacksonville Union stated in reply to the Peninsula's report on
Old Tiger Tail that he was well and he was going "to the Big
Cypress arrayed in a new coat of paint to hold a council. The


object is to consolidate the different bands into one common
settlement, under one chief, on the islands near the head of
New River" (Peninsula, August 25, 1869).
This location would be the now-landlocked Pine Island
complex in today's western Broward County, which in the late
nineteenth century became the ceremonial grounds for the
eastern Seminoles. It appears that Tiger Tail hoped to set up a
settlement of clan camps on the three large islands with the 200
plus Seminoles left in Florida, reminiscent of the Creek town
system of pre-war days (West 1989:46-47).
The Peninsula may have been accurate, as it was about
this same time (1869-1870) that there was a significant shift of
power among the Seminoles. At a Corn Dance held at the
Muscogean settlement east of Lake Okeechobee at Cow Creek
in today's Martin County, Old Tiger Tail, who had been "chief
so long," was replaced by Tustenuggee, a Mikasuki who had
married into the Cow Creek community (Casey 1853:13). An
eyewitness reported to Frederick Ober, "that came near making
a fight, but it was proved that Tustenuggu was descended from
old Micanopy and had ought to have been chief long ago"
(Ober 1875:142, 144, 171-172).
Micanopy was descended from Cowkeeper and Payne of
Alachua, the early Seminole hierarchy. A politically powerful
man, it was Micanopy and his lineage who appear to have had
the claim to be the overall leader of the bands of Florida
Indians. This was true after officials interferred with the
lineage of leaders. They ousted Micanopy, then appointed first
Neamathla, then John Hicks, as the chief of the Seminoles.
Following Neamathla's tenure and Hicks' death, Micanopy
was each time reinstated by the Seminoles as the overall leader
(Simpson 1956:73). Tustenuggee, Tiger Tail's replacement,
and his brother Hospotakee, were called Tus-te-nug-ul-ki or
"great heroes" of the tribe (MacCauley 1883:508-509). These
data support the findings that the Seminoles maintained their
traditional pattern of heredity chieftainship as late as 1875.
By 1870 Old Tiger Tail's and Old Alec's wives
maintained two large camps one quarter mile apart at the edge
of the Everglades northwest of Miami (Williams 1870). In
1870, surveyor Marcellus A. Williams worked in the
immediate area of these camps while surveying for the Atlantic
Coastline Railroad. The surveyors, and especially young
Arthur T. Williams, got along well with the Seminoles while
they were working on Big Snake Creek, although he noted,
"The older Indians seemed to be suspicious of us and avoided
us, with the exception of Old Tiger Tail" (Williams n.d.:9).
Marcellus Williams was able to rent from Young Tiger Tail a
cypress canoe that measured 20 feet long and four feet wide.
He estimated that it could carry two tons of goods (Williams
1870:9). The canoe proved to be invaluable in the survey of
the prominence of land that jutted into the Everglades and
where the two largest Indian settlements in the area, Old Tiger
Tail's and Old Alec's towns, were located.
Trouble occurred when the surveyors began to work near
these Indian towns. The township line ran directly through the









two towns. At Old Alec's settlement, which was certainly the
most unfriendly of the two, Williams paused to have a smoke.
He asked the Indians for a light, but Old Alec told him to "Hi-
e-pus!" or "Leave!" A woman finally brought him a coal and
he had his smoke and continued running the line.
The next morning at the surveyors' camp, they were
confronted by eighteen young Indian men who formed a
semicircle in front of the tent. "Young Tiger Tail took a box of
caps out of his hunting pouch passed them down the line and
they capped their [Colt] revolvers and held them in their
hands," Williams recalled (n.d.:9, 1931:6). Young Tiger Tail
said that he had been ordered by the older Indians to make
them "hiepus." Marcellus Williams told them where to go,
said that he was surveying for the government and that they
did not intend to leave. Arthur T. Williams recalled, "Young
Tiger Tail was more diplomatic. He commenced to argue with
my father...the matter was finally compromised by my father
agreeing to leave that afternoon" (Williams 1931:6). The
Williams' survey placed the large Indian towns of Little Tiger,
Old Alec, and Old Tiger Tail prominently on the map where
they outlived their existence on area maps well into the
twentieth century.
Apparently Tiger Tail had ideas that were too liberal for
many of the council. He was known for his tolerance of White
religious and educational institutions, which was in direct
conflict with many of his peers. In 1871, the Reverend
William E. Collier of Tampa was named missionary to the
Seminole by the Methodists. That summer, the Peninsula
carried a letter from him beginning, "I am just in from the
Miami country, where I found Tigertail with the bulk of the
Indians. Providence has not only favored my search, but gave
me access to them. The chief received me with every mark of
sincere friendship and, without hesitation, gave his consent to
the establishment of a mission among his people" (1871).
According to Pratt, writing in 1879, Collier's work languished
due to lack of funds (Sturtevant 1956a: 14).
A. T. Williams (n.d.:19) noted, "[In 1875, Tiger Tail]
told my father that he thought it would be best for the Indians
to have schools, but the other Indians did not think so, and his
stand on the question therefore made him very unpopular with
them." Tiger Tail's willingness to at least listen to Christian
theology and to support formal education were bellwether
attitudinal changes in direct opposition to his contemporaries.
The Seminole ultimately would accept Christianity and schools
in the twentieth century as methods of successfully dealing
with the renewed encroachment of the dominant culture. Old
Tiger Tail's realization that whites ultimately must be dealt
with, and his consequent willingness to cement good relations,
is illustrated in an incident that occurred in Miami in 1873. It
was retained in Seminole oral history collected by Sturtevant in
1952 (Sturtevant 1956b:65- 66). A rumor spread among the
isolated settlements near Miami that the Seminoles were going
to attack. Old Tiger Tail found out by accident that the settlers
were actually packing up to leave for Key West. He gathered a


contingent of Seminoles, including Old Alec, to persuade the
settlers who had fled to Fort Dallas to go back to their homes.
That afternoon, eight to ten of the leaders including Tiger Tail
formally presented themselves at the fort. "All were wearing
white feathers in their [turbans], the emblem of peace. A treaty
of peace was written and signed by Old Alec the peace chief,
first, then all the others signed their names, both whites and
Indians. All went to their homes satisfied that the trouble was
over" (Richards 1903; West 1987b).
Despite Tiger Tail's willingness to allay the fears of
common citizens and his general outgoing nature, he did not
meet and speak with any of the major government investigators
such as Pratt and MacCauley, whether by coincidence or
design. The Seminoles where highly suspicious the federal
government. Many late nineteenth century and early twentieth
century talks planned by the government were fruitless due to
avoidance by suspicious Seminole leaders.
The Williams' surveying crew again met Old Tiger Tail
in April 1875. This time, Tiger Tail, Little Tiger, and others
from the Snake Creek camps were hunting in the area of Fort
Shackleford in the Big Cypress, while living in camps some
ten miles northwest.
This demonstrates well the seasonal activities of the
postwar Seminoles, who alternated residences at both the Big
Cypress and on Snake Creek in two remarkably different
ecosystems. In Big Cypress they raised, ate, and sold cattle;
had droves of hogs; rode and used pack horses; and utilized
oxen and carts as well as canoes. The east coast was a
contrast. There the sailing canoe was the sole means of
transportation. The Everglades explorer, Hugh Willoughby
(1898:38) described a canoe that had "been built by Tiger Tail
thirty years ago [or in 1868]." The canoe was painted white
with ornamentation around the bow in red paint, and always
the revolutionary, Tiger Tail's canoe had "the boat's name in
letters on the side" (Willoughby 1898:38). The east coast
camps were close to the coastal ridge were the starch coontie
was prevalent; marine bounty was accessible from the rivers
and ocean; and being just a few miles from the Atlantic, the
Seminoles were active in wrecking, collecting valuable items
and foodstuffs as they washed ashore in crates, barrels, and
demijohns from the numerous shipwrecks that occurred
annually along the coast.
In 1876, Charles Hallowell Stephens, an artist from
Philadelphia, visited the Big Cypress Seminoles. He listened as
a cattle call heralded the arrival of six mounted Seminoles,
some of Tiger Tail's men, to a trading post on the
Caloosahatchee River. Stephens expressed his desire to
accompany them back to their settlement. The trader finally
convinced the Indians that Stephens was not connected with the
authorities in Washington, and the party was allowed to go
"home" with the Indians to the headwaters of the Oka-loa-
coochee Slough [little bad water].
Stephens was warmly welcomed by the Big Cypress
Seminoles. The settlement consisted of around 30 chickees,










"scattered about singly or in groups of three or four each, half
mile intervening in many cases" (Stephens 1883:292).
Stephens wrote, "A dignified old Indian, whom we had not
seen the night before, approached and introduced himself"
(1883:292). He was, of course, Old Tiger Tail.
"Accompanied by the old chief, we visited several of the
fields, situated some distance off in the rich hummock land,
where they had cultivated extensive patches of ground, in
which were growing corn, sweet potatoes, pumpkins, beans
and sugar-cane, with a few banana plants and orange trees"
(Stephens 1883:293). Cattle were raised at Old Tiger Tail's
Big Cypress settlement, which in addition to deer skins and
rawhide, were used as exchange at the trader's at "Fortie
Myer."
From pioneer families who knew the Tiger Tail's well,
we learn that Tiger Tail's wives of the Wind Clan owned
slaves (Ewan 1903; West 1974). Slavery was not new to the
Seminoles. They had kept Black slaves since the eighteenth
century. As noted by Townshend (1875:240), theyhy have
some negroes living with them on their 'islands' and
cultivating the ground." Only a few Seminole slaves have been
enumerated in postwar Seminole camps, however. Neither
Williams (writing in 1870 and 1875), nor Stephens (in 1876),
mention seeing any Blacks, and MacCauley noted only three in
1880 (1887:526). The Tiger Tail's slaves were some of the
very last kept by the Seminoles.
Shortly before his death, Old Tiger Tail said to his friend
John Addison, "Injun no more fight. Then he drew a circle,
and pointing all around it, at short distances, he said, 'Whites
here and here, and here.' Then, pointing to the center, he said,
'Injuns here no more fight'" (Rockwood 1891:682).
In September of 1881, Young Tiger Tail sadly told J. W.
Ewan, "My father, my old man, Old Tiger Tail gone big sleep;
no git up no more" (Ewan 1903). Old Tiger Tail, who
countede] time by moons" (Hawkes 1871:113), was struck by
lightning at his Big Cypress farm. Ewan wrote his obituary,
which appeared in the Key of the Gulf and The Tallahassee
Floridian. He reflected about Old Tiger Tail, "He often
alluded to himself as 'old too much' and had failing eyesight.
After realizing the life of daring and adventure he had lived,
and for which he had so many scars to show...the sudden
messenger lightning which called him to 'the happy hunting
grounds', seemed like a kind release from the ills which follow
age. "He was a man, take him all in all, I shall not look upon
his like again" (Ewan 1881).
Thus, it was frequently in Tiger Tail's company or with
his guidance that records of the postwar Seminoles have been
made. This outgoing individual has provided much of the light
with which to illuminate the Seminole Dark Ages, leaving
behind a notable legacy.

References Cited


1883 November 17, 1883, Bartow, Fla.

Casey, John C.
1853 [Enumeration] Indian Agency Florida, 1850-1853,
pp. 1-23, Gilcrease Institute, Tulsa, Okla.

Covington, James W.
1981 The Billy Bowlegs War, 1855-1858: The Final Stand of
the Seminoles Against the Whites. Chuluota, Fla.

Ewan, J. W.
1881 Old Tiger Tail Dead. Weekly Floridian, October 25,
1881, Tallahassee.

1903 A Seminole Reminiscence Some Interesting Facts
About Old Tiger Tail Written for the Metropolis.

Miami Metropolis, March 7, 1903.

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1978 The Ethnoarchaeology of the Florida Seminoles. In
Tacachale, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel
Proctor, pp. 163-193. University Presses of Florida.
Gainesville.

Hawkes, J.M.
1871 [1939] The East Coast in 1870. Reprinted in Florida
Historical Quarterly 18:106-114.

MacCauley, Clay
1887 The Seminole Indians of Florida. In Fifth Annual
Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 469-
531. Washington, D.C.

Ober, Frederick A.
1875 Ten Days with The Seminoles. Appleton's Journal of
Literature, Science and Art 14:142-144, 171-173.

Peninsula
1869 December 1.

1871 July 15.


Philadelphia Inquirer
1862 Indian Troubles in Florida.
Dispatch, November 3.


From the Richmond


Porter, Kenneth W.
1946 Tiger Tail. Florida Historical Quarterly 24:216- 217.

Richards, Mrs. A. C. (Rose Wagner)
1903 Reminiscences of the Early Days of Miami. Papers
No.1 & 8, Miami News, October 1. In Agnew Welsh


Bartow Informant









Scrapbook, Special Collections, Miami Dade Public
Library.

Rockwood, Caroline Washburn
1891 Leslie's Popular Monthly 32(6):673-686 December.

Simpson, J. Clarence
1956 Florida Place-Names of Indian Derivation, edited by
Mark F. Boyd, pp. 1-158. Florida Geological Survey,
Special Publication #1, Tallahassee.

Skinner, Alanson
1910 Catalogue, Alanson Skinner, Museum Expedition North
American Fund 1910-54, Florida Seminole Indians,
(Entry 2373).

Sprague, John T.
1848 The Origin, Progress, and Conclusion of the Florida
War. D. Appleton, New York. (Reprint University of
Florida Press, Gainesville, 1964.)


Stephens, Charles Hallowell
1883 Iste Semoli.
Philadelphia.


The Continent 3(10):289-293,


Sturtevant, William C.(editor)
1956a R. H. Pratt's Report on the Seminole in 1879. The
Florida Anthropologist 9:1-24.

1956b A Seminole Personal Document. Tequesta 16:55-75.
1971 Creek into Seminole. In North American Indians
in Historical Perspective, edited by Eleanor B. Leacock
and Nancy O. Lurie, pp. 92-128. Random House, New
York.

Sunbury American
1864 Letter from the Sunbury Guards, Key West, Florida,
December 31, 1863. Sunbury, Pennsylvania, January 9,
1864.

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

Townshend, F. Trench
1875 Wildlife in Florida. Hurst and Blackett, London.

West, Ethel M. Freeman
1974 Interview with author, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

West, Patsy
1987a Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Snake
Creek Complex. Robert S. Carr, Director, Miami
(Unpublished).


1987b The Indian Scare of 1873. "Reflections" (No. 48 in a
series), Seminole Tribune, Seminole Communications,
Seminole Tribe of Florida.


1989 Seminole Indian Settlements of Pine
County Florida: An Overview.
Anthropologist 42:43-56.


Island, Broward
The Florida


Williams, Arthur T.
n.d. Memories. On file, Archives, Library of Florida
History, Tallahassee (1-21).

1931 Incomplete Notes of Arthur T. Williams, Sr. of Early
Experiences in Florida Copied from Original Notes.
WPA Writer's Project, Florida State Library (June,
1931).

Williams, Isabella
1925 The Truth Regarding "Tiger Tail." Florida Historical
Quarterly 6:68-75.

Williams, Marcellus A.
1870 Field Notes. Vol. 215, Township 52 South, Range 41
East, May 26, 1870. On file, Division of State Lands,
Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee.

Willoughby, Hugh L.
1898 Across the Everglades: A Canoe Journey of
Exploration. J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia.



Patsy West
1447 S.W. Grand Drive
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312










GABORDY CANAL, NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

Photo and Text Submission by Dorothy (Dot) Moore
Volusia Anthropological Society, Inc.


The Gabordy Canal (also called the South Canal) is one
of the few remaining visible reminders of a colony of
Minorcans, Greeks, and Italians established in the New
Smyrna Beach area in 1768 by Dr. Andrew Turnbull during
Florida's English Period. The colonists dug an extensive
network of canals to drain the low, swampy land west of the
settlement thus allowing the cultivation of crops such as


indigo, corn, cotton, and sugar cane in this fertile soil. During
periods of drought, the canals provided a source of water for
irrigation of the cultivated fields. The Gabordy Canal, dug
through an Indian shell midden at the river shore, drains into
the Indian River. It is the southern boundary line of the city
limits of New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida.


Figure 1. Gabordy Canal, Looking East to the Indian River.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


DECEMBER 1992


Vol. 45 No.4









CHAPTER SPOTLIGHT: VOLUSIA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.

Mary Poage


The Volusia Anthropological Society, Inc. (VAS) was
conceived in the giant ground sloth shell pit by many of those
working in the excavation who were concerned with the
destruction of local sites. We wanted a formal preservation
group with professional association. Even before the VAS
became incorporated, it was decided we would be a chapter of
FAS.
In March, 1978, our first formal meeting was held and
Jay Bushnell, college educator and now Ph.D., was elected
president. Steve Hartman, then Curator of Science at the
Daytona Beach Museum of Arts and Science, was the organizer
and motivation for VAS. He called together all locals who had
information about sites and persuaded them to join VAS. They
then combined their experience and knowledge to identify 21
previously unrecorded prehistoric sites for the Volusia Council
of Governments (now the County Council). Ultimately this
information was incorporated in the County's Planning Board
for the Program for Protection of Tomoka River/Spruce Creek
Basin's Environmental Quality.
Then came the terrible threat of a development the size of
a city to be built north of Tomoka Park. This area included
wetlands and numerous historic and prehistoric sites such as
Indian middens and burial mounds. After many months of
hearings, a compromise was reached which ultimately resulted
in part of the area being saved and being incorporated into
Tomoka State Park. VAS worked closely with the Division of
Historical Resources in identifying sites in this area for the
State Archaeologists. We also spent many grueling hours
presenting information at public meetings to prevent the
development's destruction of the environment and our heritage
resources.
The VAS and the Ormond Anchor Chasers (a scuba dive
club) co-produced the Fourth Underwater Paleontology and
Archeology Seminar with speakers such as Bill Royal, Donald
Keith, Dr. C. Vance Haynes, Gordon Watts, Sonny Cockrell;
and, of course, the sloth "big three" Roger Alexon, Don
Serbousek, and Steve Hartman.
We were recently involved in what became a great
example of coordination with construction workers, a building
contractor and preservation. My son-in-law was working in
construction of a contractor's personal home when he began to
bring pieces of pottery to me that he found at the site. I
contacted our now Vice President, John Williams, to go with
me to meet the contractor who gave us permission to review
the site. We assured the contractor that his privacy would not
be invaded and the location would only be made known on


the Florida Site File. We found the badly eroded remains of
three bundle burials exposed on top of a hill which had been
part of an old orange grove and which, fortunately, was a safe
distance from the actual house site. Wash down had brought
pottery to the house site which was what the workers were
finding. We contacted our then president, Harold Cardwell, to
report that this was indeed a site with burials; and Harold, in
keeping with the new burial law, contacted the Medical
Examiner's Office. The Medical Examiner examined the site
and concurred that the bones were more than 75 years old. In
fact, the site contained archaic points and St. Johns check
stamped and plain pottery. We felt this was a very significant
site as it was near Lake Dias which would have been a mid-
way point from the Atlantic Ocean and the St. Johns River.
We kept our promise not to notify the media and to preserve
the confidentiality of the location, but we sent in a site report
to the State with the owner's approval. We were assured that
the site would be sodded over by the owners to prevent further
erosion.
John Williams keeps a watchful eye on the site and now
notes that the owner has sold his home to a doctor. John has
made contact with the doctor and we are in the process of
getting an appointment with him to explain the importance of
protecting the site.
We believe this was the first site in the state that involved
the Medical Examiner's Office under the burial law (Fl.
Statutes 872.054), and we further are very happy with the
positive cooperation of the contractor. He and his family
planned to have their daughter's 4th grade class visit the site
for an archaeological field trip, but other than that, there was
to be no other publicity. Unfortunately, we could not get
permission to even have our full membership view the site.
We feel there is a lot more to be discovered, but hopefully the
site will be protected until better technology is invented so
sites will not have to be destroyed in order for their secrets to
be revealed.
One of the purposes of VAS is to help educate the public
regarding anthropological and archaeological preservation. We
accomplish this by holding monthly meetings which include a
speaker or a program. Speakers have included such notables as
John Griffin, Jerald T. Milanich, S. David Webb, Barbara
Purdy, Ben Waller, Curtis Osceola (Miccosukee tribe), Pat
Wickman and many others. We also draw on our local
members who give us fascinating facts and anecdotes about
history (Harold and Priscilla Cardwell), the history of jade
(Ivan Mercer, an original Flying Tiger), pictorial history from


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Vol. 45 No.4


DECEMBER 1992









his 3,000+ collection of early postcards (Bill Dreggors), and
cultural anthropology (Dr. Jay Bushnell), to name just a few.
Further, we hold public training events, the most recent being
our October 13 program which was held at the Ormond Beach
City Hall outdoor plaza. Dana Ste.Claire, Curator of Science
and History of Daytona Beach Museum of Arts and Science,
instructed us on identification of pottery and its time periods.
As an advocation group, we have members who work as
volunteers for professionals and have helped in the Tomoka
State Park recent survey, the Washington Oaks historic survey,
and the Hacienda Del Rio current survey.
The officers and directors for 1992-93 are: Mary Poage,
President; John Williams, Vice President; Lelia Wilsey,
Secretary; Margaret Salvioli, Treasurer; Dorothy Moore, FAS
Representative. The Board is: Harold Cardwell, Priscilla
Cardwell, Rosey Ankney, Susan Shunny, Fred Sorensen,
Marilyn Torchia, and Joan Williams.



Mary Poage
257 S. Ridgewood Avenue
Ormond Beach, Florida 32174







THE FAS "FLORIDA INDIANS"
POSTER

Created by Theodore Morris


A new poster, titled "Florida
Indians, Florida's Vanished Native
Americans" has been created by
Theodore Morris for the Florida
Anthropological Society (FAS).
Considerable research and many
hours were devoted to its production
over the last six months.
The poster's two brilliant colors
(reddish maroon and bluish violet)
are printed on a cream-colored heavy
paper measuring 18 by 36 inches. The
main illustration is called "Bird-man
Dancer." This masked Native
American dancer may be acting the
part of a mythological, god-like eagle
or hawk being. The artist's
conception is based on an embossed
copper plate belonging to the
precolumbian Apalachee Fort Walton
culture (circa A.D. 1200 to 1400) at
the Lake Jackson site near
Tallahassee (see The Florida
Anthropologist, December 1980).
Morris is a professional graphic
artist and member of the Time Sifters
chapter of FAS, based in the
Sarasota-Venice area. He also has
created another poster depicting the
history along the West Coast of
Florida from Clearwater to Fort
Myers. For information on the West
Coast History poster, please contact
Mr. Morris at 1121 34th Street,
Sarasota, FL 34234; telephone: 813-
351-1490.



Copies of the FAS poster can be
ordered for $9.00 each, plus $0.63
state sales tax, for a total of $9.63
each. Send check or money order to:

Time Sifters
P.O. Box 25642
Sarasota, FL 34277

Make remittance payable to the
Florida Anthropological Society.


w evFlororda




INDMANS


N. ". +.... ''..o-o.o... 42~2 l0.0222~.0.0 44 j20.2
N-, -i.-. A W lto, r.. .
22 34. / 4 23 ,, t e0a1,r 1 o 30 2322t 222402 221 2- 0 4 d,.iad
0242 22a2 b "0 b 4-jl 22 o2, a24 on ..dok.



Ak AC E A h.,, 2222oe2224 2 IM 4 -1.,,
42.-+ -2001- 2 2 -223 2 2 fu 62w.,
ha.oo, o4.oo 1t, 2322, .. .o-
442117k -1 6-222 222 baw2 d 22322 4,.2122

23 21,2 24 42222 6. 1t22222 f6, 2222222224








qVd -4r d f inkrA itkr db

X_ '41.6-m- YZ
t 4 O 12 2b2202324 2o on $ bu 22224. 22 t 223 u 2




4aon onal wd te














22*242 ** *222 23 2o 02 2 22
222.424223412222322242222232, 12243,tl
O2oA222 1322.22 624.27222222232..223232 211 222442202 J







~T'n4E41132 22222222232242232 22 O22I224
n~ 3222222w 2322023 '0220 2~20222t2'44221
:m2223,50222222.422.
42222 2222222,22114 32322 Y22 22
ual~r ~2323224.2230.2322.22.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY INC. (FAS)
O Box 1013,O Tallah2ss, 2L 232302

,22 .,., -2--+, -, ........... 22-,.222, ,-- '
P~d~~W sr In*2.222 T 2222l 22 32232 222n222.22233., 222 'I~~~qhr ia -r 32
22223 22 22m 22 222 222


Vol. 45 No.4


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


DECEMBER 1992


372











Join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS)!

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


Florida Indian I
Poster
This Bird-man

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

Prnthn, cuvrtesv of
Archaelogrcal Consultants, bIe
Sarasota. FlAndla


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.

-------- --..------------ -
E YES! I want to join FAS!
Membership is only $18 a year, and is tax-deductible.
I YES, I would like to donate an additional $10, also tax-deductible, and
receive a poster by mail (allow 3-5 weeks).
I
I Name:

SAddress:

City: State: Zip:

Telephone: (

MAIL TO:
SFAS Membership, c/o Terry Simpson, 5822 Dory Way, Tampa, FL 33615-3632


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
$10 donation to
FAS, this 18 by
36-inch poster is
printed maroon
and purple on a
cream-colored
heavy paper.

PR-ntny ru",eu ,f
Archavllrcal Con, ullants, ]hk
Sarawta. Fbrnda


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, .-.-- ----'--.
0 YES! I want to join FAS!
SMembership is only $18 a year, and is tax-deductible.
I YES, I would like to donate an additional $10, also tax-deductible, and
receive a poster by mail (allow 3-5 weeks).
I


I Name:
I
I Address:
I


SCity:

Telephone:(
I


I
I


State: Zip:


MAIL TO:
FAS Membership, c/o Terry Simpson, 5822 Dory Way, Tampa, FL 33615-3632


I
I




.,_~.


i' ,, E




About the Authors


Lauren C. Archibald is an archaeologist and preservation planner from Pennsylvania. In Florida, she has -
helped write historic preservation elements for local government plans, and helped create an archaeological
compliance review system for a county government. Her interests include early twentieth century material
culture and historic landscape architecture. She is presently specializing in resource protection in the City and
Regional Planning Department at the University of Pennsylvania. She has contributed articles previously to The
Florida Anthropologist (see FA 44 number 1).

John Darsey is on the board of directors of the Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, a very active
chapter of the Florida Anthropological Society.

Robert F. Edic is an archaeologist and anthropologist working out of Boca Grande, Florida and
Bloomsburg, New York. Bob has been active in the Florida Museum of Natural History's Year of the Indian
project and in the preservation of archaeological sites on the southwest Florida coast.

John W. Griffin, well-known to readers of The Florida Anthropologist, is currently a Research Associate, St.
Augustine Historical Society.

Arthur R Lee, current president of the Florida Anthropological Society, is Director of the Craighead
Laboratory, Southwest Florida Archaeological Society.

Chris Lewis is an avocational diver and former resident of Branford, Florida, on the banks of he
Suwannee River.

George M. Luer is an archaeologist and native of Sarasota. Currently serving as FAS 1st Vice President
he is past president of FAS and has served as a Review Board member and Assistant Editor of The Florida
Anthropologist since 1979. He has contributed a number of articles to the journal since the mid-1970s. His
interests include botany and protecting natural areas. Luer is a graduate of New College of USF in arasota.

GregA. Mikell, an archaeological consultant based in Panama City, is a graduate of FSU and Wake Foret
University (MA, 1986). Greg's major interests include Fort Walton, Weeden Island, and Deptford cultures in
northwest Florida. '

Iy R. Quitmyer is a zooarchaeologist at the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville where he
divides his time between the zooarchaeology and invertebrate paleontology labs. His major interests incl
shell midden archaeology and prehistoric human ecology of the southeastern United States.

Louis D. Tesar, former editor of this journal (and currently on the Editorial Review Board)is an
archaeologist with the Florida Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research
Tallahassee. Louis, who grew up on the panhandle coast, has a long history of involvement with Floida
archaeology and has authored many articles for The Florida Anthropologist



*. BK







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