• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page
 Williams Island shell gorgets from...
 A late nineteenth-century description...
 Reports
 FAS awards notes
 Book reviews
 About the authors






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/UF00027829/00086
 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: VID00086
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Page 65
    Editor's page
        Page 66
    Williams Island shell gorgets from Florida - Ryan J. Wheeler
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    A late nineteenth-century description of shell mounds and middens on the North Peninsula coast of Florida - Jerald T. Milanich
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
    Reports
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
    FAS awards notes
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
    Book reviews
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
    About the authors
        Page 98
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.







THEFLOIDAAN l/~
Pulihd yth LOID," NHRPW6C







THE FLORIDA


ANTHROPOLOGIST



Volume 54 Number 2
June 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editor's Page. Ryan J. Wheeler 66

ARTICLES

Williams Island Shell Gorgets from Florida. Ryan J. Wheeler 67

A Late Nineteenth-Century Description of Shell Mounds and Middens
on the North Peninsula Gulf Coast of Florida. Jerald T. Milanich 75

REPORTS

There Were Apprentices Then, As Now. Arthur R. Lee 81

A Forked Canoe Pole from Florahome, Putnam County, Florida. Ray M. McGee 83

An Experiment at Dating the Pine Island Canal.
George M. Luer and Ryan J. Wheeler 87

FAS AWARDS NOTES

William C. Lazarus Memorial Award. 91

Ripley P. Bullen Memorial Award. 93

BOOK REVIEWS

Andrefsky: Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Robert J. Austin 95
Feder: Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology.
C. Colwell-Chanthaphonh 96

About the Authors 98


Cover: Shell gorget from Mound 3, Lake Jackson Mounds, Tallahassee.


Copyright 2001 by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893


-. ,- e I RRAR










EDITOR'S PAGE


This issue presents two short articles and three brief
reports, as well as notes on the FAS Lazarus and Bullen
awards, and book reviews.
The first article, by this writer, documents those Williams
Island shell gorgets known from Florida. This is a decidedly
Mississippian artifact, known from sites like Etowah,
Moundville, and others in eastern Tennessee and Alabama.
There are, however, nice examples from the Lake Jackson
site, and while I was working on my dissertation I came
across a photograph of another Williams Island gorget from
Jackson County. I first saw the photograph in 1995, and
began working on an article a few years later; it is very
gratifying to finally have this small piece in print.
Jerry Milanich, in the second article, provides a transcript
of an article by Oscar Hershey, originally published in The
Archaeologist. The transcript recounts Hershey's visit to
Florida Gulf Coast sites, including Crystal River. Milanich
also includes background information on Hershey and The
Archaeologist.
In the first report, Art Lee discusses examples of Key Largo
Incised pottery from Chokoloskee Island, noting that a few
may represent the handiwork of a beginning potter. The
design motif of Key Largo Incised is one of the most variable
of the Glades series, and Gary Beiter, in the March 2001 issue
of this journal, discusses some of the variants.


Ray McGee, in the second report, discusses a forked canoe
pole discovered in association with a prehistoric dugout
canoe near Florahome. This report is particularly timely
because of the discovery of the Newnan's Lake canoes last
year. Ray worked just about every day on the Newnan's
Lake canoe project, and prior to that had helped amass a
considerable body of data on Florida's prehistoric and
historic log boats.
The final short report documents an experiment conducted
by George Luer and myself to see if it was possible to
determine the date of the Pine Island Canal by radiocarbon
dating sediments associated with the canal. Unfortunately,
our results were less than satisfying, but raise some interest-
ing questions.
A special section, dedicated to the FAS Lazarus and Bullen
awards, provides a short history of each award and lists of
award recipients through the year 2000. The next issue will
include profiles of this year's recipients.
There also are book reviews by Bob Austin and Chip
Colwell-Chanthaphonh. Please note that the next issue of
the The Florida Anthropologist will combine numbers for
September-December in order to accommodate publication
of a monograph in the Florida Anthropological Society
Publications series.


RYAN J. WHEELER


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


VOL. 54(2)


JUNE 2001







WILLIAMS ISLAND SHELL GORGETS FROM FLORIDA

RYAN J. WHEELER

Bureau ofArchaeological Research, 500 S. Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250
E-mail: rwheeler@mail. dos.statefl. us


The collections of the Florida Museum of Natural History
include a photograph of a shell gorget from Jackson County in
the Florida panhandle. Detailed provenience is lacking, but
comparison with other Mississippian shell gorgets of the
Southeast indicates that this is an example of the Williams
Island or "spaghetti" type. Shell gorgets are rare in Florida,
but three additional specimens of this type are known from the
Lake Jackson site in Leon County. Details of the Jackson
County and Lake Jackson gorgets are presented in this report.
Shell gorgets associated with the Mississippian horizon in
the Southeast are rare occurrences in Florida, despite the
availability of raw materials. Florida may have been, however,
a source of raw materials for the Mississippian artisans of the
Southeast (Phillips and Brown 1978:26-27). The Lake
Jackson site in Leon County, Florida, is recognized as a major
Mississippian center, and has produced burial goods of copper,
shell, and non-native stone, many of which are associated with
the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (Brain and Phillips
1996:176-185; Jones 1982, 1994; Payne 1994). Sites in the St.
Johns River basin and the Gulf Coast area also have produced
Mississippian and Southeastern Ceremonial Complex artifacts,
but shell gorgets from these sites are only tangentially related
to the typical southeastern forms (Brain and Phillips 1996:35-
36, 126).

Williams Island Shell Gorgets

Madeline Kneberg (1959:15, 18-19), in her study of
engraved shell gorgets of the Dallas culture of eastern Tennes-
see, characterizes what we now call Williams Island or
"spaghetti" style gorgets as a conventionalized dancer design.
The typical design is a caricature-like figure in profile, with a
large, skull-like head; bands (of beads?) encircling wrists,
knees and ankles; an exaggerated nose; and lines emanating
from the mouth and from the top of the head. The posture of
the human figure involves raised arms bent at the elbows, open
hands, and legs akimbo. The background incorporates curling
motifs and the use of cut-out areas and perforations to high-
light the design. Kneberg (1959:15) notes parallels with the
more naturalistic "eagle dancer" motif found on other shell
gorgets and suggests a possible connection with the "long-
nosed" god. Brain and Phillips (1996:62-63) suggest that the
chaotic organization of the design elements and the posture of
the caricature-like human figures give a rather jubilant
impression, while the skeletal appearance of the figures fosters
a sinister feeling about these artifacts. The juxtaposition of
these qualities makes the design appealing and enigmatic.


Muller (1966:178-179), like Kneberg, views a group of
conventionalized shell gorget designs of birds, spiders, and
humans as derived from earlier, more realistic portrayals. He
suggests that the lines emanating from the heads of the
conventionalized human figures are derived from the antler
headdresses seen on his "Mound C" style or Hightower style
gorgets, which depict elaborately costumed human figures
wearing antler headdresses, wings, and bird-claw shoes-often
called "eagle dancers" (cf. the Big Toco style gorgets of Brain
and Phillips 1996:44-46; see Muller 1986:67-70, 1989:20).
Muller (1966:178-179) further suggests that elements of the
background on the Williams Island gorgets are derived from
the cut-outs and claw-foot motif found on the Hightower style
gorgets, and notes that they may be even later in age than
some of the other conventionalized design gorgets.
Brain and Phillips (1996:62-63) disagree with the sugges-
tion that the Williams Island or "spaghetti" style gorgets are
a conventionalized version of the Big Toco or Hightower style
gorgets. They note that while both share a human figure as
the central theme, there are significant stylistic differences,
citing the lack of elaborate paraphernalia and costume in the
"spaghetti" style gorgets as one example.
There also appears to be considerable disagreement about
the chronological position of the Williams Island gorgets.
Kneberg (1959:35, 39) suggests that this style dates between
A.D. 1350 and A.D. 1500. Alternatively, Brain and Phillips
(1996:2-3, 395-397) assert that most shell gorgets were
deposited in sites between A.D. 1400 and A.D. 1650. Muller
(1997b: 176-177) argues against the chronological interpreta-
tion of Brain and Phillips, though acknowledges that the
conventionalized design of the Williams Island gorgets is late
and persists into protohistoric times in northern Alabama
(Muller 1986:71).
Geographically, Williams Island gorgets are found concen-
trated in two clusters in central Alabama and eastern Tennes-
see, but examples are known from major sites like Moundville,
Etowah, and Lake Jackson (Brain and Phillips 1996:67;
Muller 1991). Muller (1997a:371-372) places the center of
distribution for this gorget type in north-central Alabama, and
suggests a possible association with the Coosa chiefdom.

Jackson County Gorget

My search among the papers of archaeologist John
Goggin,' stored at the Florida Museum of Natural History,
revealed a photograph of this distinctive Mississippian shell
gorget.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


VOL. 54(2)


JUNE 2001





Tim FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2001 VOL 54(2)


Figure 1. Distribution of Williams Island gorgets in the Southeast, with Jackson County highlighted (based on Brain and
Phillips 1996:67).


Provenience

A paper label and scale are present in the photograph of
the shell gorget. The label indicates that the artifact is from
Jackson County2 in the center of the Florida panhandle.
Jackson County is bordered to the north by Alabama, and to
the east by the confluence of the Flint, Chattahoochee, and
Apalachicola rivers, the former delimiting part of the Florida-
Georgia border (Figure 1). A search through the records of the
Florida Master Site File and the site records at the Florida
Museum of Natural History failed to produce a specific
provenience for the shell gorget. Muller (1997a:372) notes
that shell gorgets are not always associated with elite individu-
als or major centers, though he does indicate that in many
cases Williams Island gorgets are associated with mound
burials. Fort Walton-Mississippian sites are known from the


area, including some with village and mound components
(e.g., Brose and Wilkie 1980:202-203; Bullen 1958; Gardner
1966; Jones et al. 1998:85). The Curlee site (8JA7; White
1982:127-128) and Waddells Mill Pond (8JA65; Gardner
1966:54; Louis Tesar, personal communication, 1998) both
have produced marine shell artifacts.

Description of the Gorget

This artifact is a concave-convex, disk-shaped object,
probably produced from a large specimen ofBusycon sinistrum
(cf. B. contrarium), the lightning whelk (Figure 2). Measure-
ments based on the scale included in the photograph indicate
the gorget is 4.2 inches (10.7 cm) in diameter. The surface is
pitted and eroded, especially at the margins, but despite this
degradation, the engraved design is clear in most places. Two


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2001 VOL. 54(2)





WHEELER WILLIAMS ISLAND GORGETS


Figure 2. Photograph of William Island gorget, Jackson County, Florida. Collections of the Anthropology Division of the
Florida Museum of Natural History.


suspension holes are present at the top of the disk.
The engraved design depicts an abstract human figure in
profile, with protruding tongue and flaring headdress extend-
ing beyond the circular bands that restrict the rest of the
decoration (Figure 3). Other notable features of the human
figure include the large, almost skull-like head, the horizontal
band of pitted rectangles (or belt) below the head, the bent and
widespread legs, and three-toed claw feet. Arms and hands
are not present. Twenty-six fenestrations highlight the human
figure. These design elements and their composition compare
well with the Williams Island gorgets of Muller (1986:71;
1989:20) and the "spaghetti" style gorgets of Brain and
Phillips (1996:62-63) discussed above.

Lake Jackson Gorgets

Salvage excavations of burials from Mound 3 at the Lake
Jackson site in Tallahassee led to the recovery of three Wil-
liams Island type gorgets-the only shell gorget type known
from this site. These gorgets were excavated by Conrad "Joby"
Kidd, a local avocational archaeologist, during the removal of
the mound in 1975-1976. B. Calvin Jones (1982; 1994)
conducted further salvage excavations at Mound 3, and
documented between 22 and 25 burials, many interred with
elaborate grave goods and personal ornaments. Other shell


artifacts found with the burials of Mound 3 include many
small disk beads, long tubular pendants made from shell
columellae, massive shell beads, shell pendants, and shell
dippers manufactured from the body whorls of Cassis
madagascariensis4 and Busycon sp. (cf. B. sinistrum). The
Lake Jackson gorgets have been discussed by Muller (1991)
and cataloged and illustrated by Brain and Phillips (1996:63,
417), though some additional details about these Williams
Island type gorgets were discovered during this study and are
presented below.

Lake Jackson Mound 3

Jones (1994:122-123) identified twelve structural floors
comprising Lake Jackson Mound 3. The three burials (BK2,
BK4, and BK5) that included the shell gorgets were associated
with Floor 1, the most recent structural layer of the mound,
which Jones believed to date to the mid to late fifteenth
century5 (Jones 1994:124). The burials were generally poorly
preserved and incomplete, and specific information on the age,
sex, and health of the individuals represented in these three
burials is not available (Clark Larsen, personal communica-
tion, 2000).
All three of the burials contained grave goods in addition


WHEELER


WILLIAMS ISLAND GORGETS





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2001 VOL. 54(2)


0 .5 1
Inches


Figure 3. Drawing of the shell gorget, Jackson County, Florida.


to the shell gorgets. Burial BK2 contained a wide variety of
elite grave goods, while BK4 and BK5 contained fewer grave
goods in general, as summarized in Table 1. Other burials
from Floor 1 contained a variety of copper objects, including
effigy axes, arrowhead-shaped badges, sheet-copper plates, and
bird cut-outs, as well as ceramic and stone pipes, shell beads
and ornaments, and shell dippers or cups (Jones 1994:142-
144). Brain and Phillips (1996:182-185) suggest that the
artifact assemblage of Mound 3 exhibits strong connections
with the Etowah site in Georgia.

The Lake Jackson Gorgets

Comparison of the Lake Jackson gorgets with study
photographs of the gorgets reveals that little care was taken in
properly reassembling the fragmentary pieces of shell prior to
photography. Many of the fragmentary pieces could not be
matched to one another during this study, and were not used
in the illustrations shown in Figure 4. One notable discovery
made during examination was that the gorget from Burial BK4
(Fla-Le-LJ5) had originally depicted two dancing figures, as


does the gorget from Burial BK5 (Fla-Le-LJ6). Despite
sharing this rather rare depiction of two figures, many of the
details and the overall execution of the design on these two
gorgets are quite different. In fact, comparison to the broader
population of Williams Island type gorgets suggests that
variation and difference may be the rule.
Shell gorget Fla-Le-LJ4. This gorget measures approxi-
mately 15 cm in diameter and is the most complete of the three
examples from Lake Jackson, and is perhaps the most well-
executed (see Figure 4a). The deeply recessed areas give the
solitary human figure a sculptural quality. At least two of the
volutes forming the background emerge as serpent-like figures.
The scalloped belt on the torso and the pitted rectangles above
the head relate this gorget to examples from eastern Tennessee
(see Brain and Phillips 1996:63-64).
Shell gorget Fla-Le-LJ5. This gorget measures approxi-
mately 17 cm in maximum diameter and is rather fragmen-
tary. The body of the human figure could not be properly
cross-mended with the outer ring. Close study revealed that
rather than depicting one central human figure, there were
originally two figures. The right-hand figure is represented by


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2001 VOL. 54(2)









Table 1. Grave goods associated with shell gorgets, Mound 3, Lake Jackson site. Based on information
from Jones (1994:Table 2), and collections held by the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research.


Burial BK2
shell gorget, Fla-Le-LJ4
small stone cups
shell cup/dipper
cloth
leather
wooden boards (burial container?)
small sandstone pebbles
flat flared copper axe
shell pendant
shell beads
pearl beads


cut-out copper falcon plates
triforked eye plate fragment, copper
arrowhead-shaped copper badge
featherlike copper plumes
other copper hair ornaments
feather impressions in copper salts
human hair
human teeth spangles?
sack?
plain round copper breastplate


Burial BK4
shell gorget, Fla-Le-LJ5 shell beads
shell cup/dipper pearl beads
flat flared copper axe plain oval copper breastplate
ceramic elbow pipe
........................................................................
Burial BK5
shell gorget, Fla-Le-LJ6 shell beads
pottery vessel


a portion of the head extending into the outer ring of the
gorget, while the body that is present actually represents the
left-hand figure. Extra hands, legs, and belts help confirm
this. The pieces that are present show elaborately and well-
executed figures, indicating that this must have originally been
an extraordinary piece. Figure 4b shows the gorget fragments
arranged approximately as they would have appeared (cf.
Brain and Phillips 1996:417).
Shell gorget Fla-Le-LJ6. This gorget is approximately 17
cm in maximum diameter. This gorget exhibits two rather
long-bodied human figures, with an array of waving hands and
kicking feet. Several other fragments showing legs and
scrolls, as well as some of the fenestrations, could not be
matched to the main fragments, and were not included in the
drawing in Figure 4c (cf. Brain and Phillips 1996:63).

Discussion

The Williams Island gorgets discussed here represent
exotic items associated with the exchange systems of the
Mississippian-related cultures of northern Florida. Figure 1
illustrates the distribution of Williams Island gorgets and the
position of Jackson County. As noted above, Jackson County
is located at the confluence of the Flint, Chattahoochee, and
Apalachicola rivers, where they meet at Lake Seminole on the
Georgia-Florida border, approximately 40 miles to the west of
the Lake Jackson site in Leon County. The geographic
position of the Jackson County shell gorget may help in
understanding the exchange networks that linked the Missis-


sippian peoples of northern Florida with groups in other parts
of the Southeast. It is not surprising, however, that these
major river systems provided a conduit from the Alabama and
Tennessee sources of these shell gorgets (see Muller
1997a:373).
Comparison of the Jackson County gorget with those found
at Lake Jackson demonstrates broad similarities and some
specific differences. In general, the Lake Jackson gorgets are
larger than the Jackson County gorget; Brain and Phillips
(1996:417) indicate that the three Lake Jackson gorgets range
from 15 cm to 17 cm in diameter, while the Jackson County
example is under 11 cm.6 The Lake Jackson gorgets, perhaps
because of their larger size, exhibit more elaborate designs; the
figures have more detailed and elaborate torsos; and two of the
gorgets illustrate a pair of human characters, instead of the
more typical singular figure. Also, the fenestrations are more
elaborate than those exhibited on the Jackson County gorget.
In general, the Jackson County gorget is more similar to
several gorgets from eastern Tennessee that are illustrated in
Brain and Phillips (1996:64). These gorgets, from the Davis
Farm site, lack torsos and arms, have similar arrangements of
the legs, and share the heavy manner of execution seen in the
Jackson County gorget (cf. Tenn-Po-DF2 and Tenn-Po-DF3 in
Brain and Phillips [1996:64]). In contrast, the Lake Jackson
gorgets resemble examples from the Dallas and Williams
Island sites, also in eastern Tennessee, illustrated in Brain and
Phillips (1996:64). The Dallas site example has a rare
portrayal of two figures (like two of the Lake Jackson gorgets)
as well as the use of numerous perforations to high-


WHEELER


WILLUAMS IsLAND GORGETS



















































Figure 4. Shell gorgets from Lake Jackson: a) Fla-Le-LJ4, approximately 15 cm maximum diameter; b) Fla-Le-LJ5, approximately 17 cm maximum diameter;
c) Fla-Le-LJ6, approximately 17 cm maximum diameter.





WHEELER WILLIAMS ISLAND GORGETS


light details of the design and background. Brain and Phillips
(1996:64) note that the Williams Island site gorget is allied to
one of the Lake Jackson examples by the use of "pitted rectan-
gles" along the top of the head.
One specific similarity, however, between the Jackson
County gorget and Fla-Le-LJ5 from Lake Jackson is the use of
the three-toed claw foot motif. Unlike many other Williams
Island gorgets where the legs terminate without a foot, the
human figures on these two examples seem to have oversized
claw-like feet or shoes. In both cases the motif includes pitted
rondels.

Conclusion

A photograph discovered at the Florida Museum of Natural
History illustrates a shell gorget with anthropomorphic design
from Jackson County, in the northern Florida panhandle.
Details of the gorget ally it stylistically with the Williams
Island gorgets known from eastern Tennessee and central
Alabama. The Lake Jackson site in Leon County, Florida, also
produced Williams Island gorgets. The Lake Jackson and
Jackson County gorgets are different in many respects, but all
four resemble other Williams Island gorgets from eastern
Tennessee. Temporally, the Lake Jackson gorgets are associ-
ated with the final burials deposits in Mound 3, probably
dating to the beginning of the fifteenth century. Geographi-
cally, Jackson County is located at the confluence of a number
of major rivers, and may have been an important location in
Mississippian exchange networks that linked Florida and the
broader Southeast.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Elise LeCompte, registrar of the Anthropol-
ogy Department, Florida Museum of Natural History collections, for
allowing access to Goggin's materials. Roy Lett, photographer, and
David Dickel, collections manager, Florida Bureau ofArchaeological
Research, provided valuable assistance in documenting the Lake
Jackson gorgets. George Luer and Louis Tesar provided insightful
comments and suggestions. An earlier draft was submitted for
publication in Southeastern Archaeology, and the editor and
reviewers of that journal provided helpful suggestions.

Notes

SJohn M. Goggin (1916-1963) compiled a great deal of information
relating to the archaeology of Florida, including a large collection of
photographic prints and negatives. This material is divided between
the P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History and the Florida Museum
of Natural History, both at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
21 believe it is an unfortunate coincidence that the Lake Jackson site
in Leon County and Jackson County share the same appellation,
which could easily lead to confusion over the provenience of the shell
gorget discussed here. There is nothing to indicate, however, that
the anonymous photographer was confused about the origin of the
shell gorget.
3 It should be noted that avocational archaeologist J. Clarence
Simpson and other members of his family collected artifacts and
reported sites in Jackson County and surrounding areas. It is possible
that Goggin obtained the photograph from Simpson. The current


location of the gorget is unknown.
4 Examination of the four Cassis madagascariensis cups or dippers
reveals that they are likely examples of the subspecies Cassis
madagascariensis spinella (see Abbott 1974:162; Clench 1944:15-
16). This subspecies has a larger, more inflated shell, with thinner
walls and less pronounced knobs on the shoulder. This subspecies is
a less common form found primarily in Florida. It should be noted
that large helmet shells and Busycon spp. whelks range along the
Atlantic Coast from Florida to North Carolina, and it is possible that
some of the shells used in producing the Lake Jackson artifacts are
from the Atlantic Coast, well to the north of Florida. Abbott
(1974:162) states that Cassis madagascariensis spinella occasionally
is found in North Carolina. In fact, Muller (1989:18) cites the early
eighteenth century account of John Lawson, which describes gorgets
being made of shells from "the Coast of Carolina."
5 Jones (1994:124) reports four radiocarbon dates from Mound 3 and
the pre-mound midden, and based on these suggests that the mound
was used between A.D. 1260 and 1496. Plotting the dates to their 2
sigma ranges, however, suggests to me that Mound 3 was likely in
use sometime between A.D. 1050 and 1420, and the latest floors
probably represent late fourteenth or early fifteenth century
use-somewhat earlier than Jones' interpretation. Jones (1982:20-21)
notes that there is an inversion of the dates (earlier dates from
superior strata), perhaps suggesting that some caution needs to be
used with these dates.
'This size difference may be related to the fact that the Lake Jackson
gorgets are broken, and no longer retain the original concave/convex
shape of the shell body whorl, which would make them slightly
smaller in diameter.

References Cited

Abbott, R. Tucker
1974 American Seashells: The Marine Mollusca of the Atlantic
andPacific Coasts ofNorth America. Second Edition. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Brain, Jeffrey P., and Philip Phillips
1996 Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and
Protohistoric Southeast. Peabody Museum Press, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts.

Brose, David S., and Duncan C. Wilkie
1980 A Fort Walton Campsite (8Ja201) at the Scholz Steam
Plant Parking Lot, Jackson County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 33(4):172-206.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1958 Six Sites near the ChattahoocheeRiverin the Jim Woodruff
ReservoirArea, Florida. River Basin Survey Paper No. 14.
In Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 169, Smithso-
nian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Clench, William J.
1944 The genera Casmaria, Galeodea, Phalium, and Cassis in
the western Atlantic. Johnsonia No. 16, pp. 1-16, Plates 1-
8.

Gardner, William M.
1966 The Waddells Mill Pond Site. The Florida Anthropologist
19(2-3):43-64.


Jones, B. Calvin


WHEELER


WILLIAMS ISLAND GoRGETs







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIS~1 2001 VOL. 54(2)


1982 Southern Cult Manifestations at the Lake Jackson Site,
Leon County, Florida: Salvage Excavation of Mound 3.
Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology 7(1):3-44.
1994 The Lake Jackson Mound Complex (8LE1): Stability and
Change in Fort Walton Culture. The Florida Anthropolo-
gist 47(2):120-146.

Jones, B. Calvin, Louis D. Tesar, and Jonathan Lammers
1998 B. Calvin Jones: Comments and Commentary, Video-taped
Interview Excerpts. The Florida Anthropologist 51(2):79-
128.

Kneberg, Madeline
1959 Engraved Shell Gorgets and Their Associations. Tennessee
Archaeologist 15(1):1-39.

Muller, Jon
1966 An Experimental Theory of Stylistic Analysis. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Harvard Univer-
sity, Cambridge.
1986 Serpents and Dancers: Art of the Mud Glyph Cave. In The
Prehistoric Native American Art of Mud Glyph Cave,
edited by Charles H. Faulkner, pp. 36-80. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
1989 The Southern Cult. In The Southeastern Ceremonial
Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by Patricia
Galloway, pp. 11-26. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln.
1991 Shell Gorgets at Jackson Lake (sic) in Southeastern
Context. Paper presented at the 48' annual meeting of the
SoutheasternArchaeological Conference, Jackson, Missis-
sippi.
1997a Mississippian Political Economy. Plenum Press, New
York.
1997b Review of Shell Gorgets: Styles ofthe Late Prehistoric and
Protohistoric Southeast, by Jeffrey P. Brain and Philip
Phillips. Southeastern Archaeology 16(2):176-178.

Payne, Claudine
1994 Fifty Years of Archaeological Research at the Lake Jackson
Site. The Florida Anthropologist 47(2):107-119.

Phillips, Philip, and James A. Brown
1978 Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the CraigMound at
Spiro, Oklahoma. Part 1. Peabody Museum Press, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts.

White, Nancy Marie
1982 The Curlee Site (8Ja 7) and Fort Walton Development in the
Upper Apalachicola-Lower Chattahoochee Valley. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland.


2001 VOL. 54(2)


TTtm FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST








A LATE NINETEENTH-CENTURY DESCRIPTION OF SHELL MOUNDS AND MIDDENS ON
THE NORTH PENINSULA GULF COAST OF FLORIDA

JERALD T. MILANICH

Florida Museum ofNatural History, Gainesville, FL 32611-7800
E-mail: jtm@flmnh. ufl.edu


In January, 1893, the Archaeologist, began publication in
Waterloo, Indiana, the product of a small group of avocational
archaeologists who had been involved in founding the Amer-
ican Archaeological Association a year or two earlier. By the
fourth monthly issue, the popular magazine had became the
official organ of that organization. But neither the magazine
nor its parent association-the latter had only 66 members, not
all of whom had paid dues-were financially viable. The
association folded in mid-1893. Warren K. Moorehead, who
would become a major figure in American archaeology, and
several other individuals incorporated the Archaeologist
Publishing Company to continue publication of the magazine.
Stock was sold in the company as one way to garner financial
support and Moorehead was appointed editor. Soon after,
Moorehead became curator for the Ohio State Archaeological
and Historical Society (OAHS) and the editorial offices of the
Archaeologist were moved to Columbus, Ohio, the society's
headquarters. The OAHS subsequently became the maga-
zine's sponsor.
Despite Moorehead's best efforts and articles by some of
the leading professional and avocational archaeologists of the
day (e.g., Gerard Fowke, Frederick W. Hodge, Walter Hough,
Henry C. Mercer, Harlan I. Ingersoll, and Marshall H. Saville,
as well as Clarence B. Moore) the magazine's income was not
sufficient to allow it to continue as an independent periodical.
Beginning with the October, 1895, issue the Archaeologist
was published as a section in Popular Science News, a 29-
year-old magazine with an established circulation. Several
other science-related periodicals, such as the Young Scientist
and the Field and School Naturalist, already had found homes
in its pages. Moorehead continued as editor oftheArchaeolo-
gist through June 1896, though the OAHS's support ceased by
February 1896.
The Archaeologist remained a part of Popular Science
("News" was later dropped from the masthead) into 1902,
though it took on aspects of a tabloid, sometimes featuring
short teaser-type news stories, such as one in the July, 1898,
issue on the origin of kissing. Moorehead would return as
editor in June 1902, perhaps in an attempt to invigorate the
content, but by the end of the year the Archaeologist was no
more.
It was while running down articles by Clarence B. Moore
that I discovered theArchaeologist. Moorehead had serialized
excerpts from Moore's 1894 reports on his St. Johns River
excavations (Moore 1894a, 1894b) in four 1895 issues of the
Archaeologist (Moore 1895). The only complete run of the


magazine that I could find is in the New York Public Library
and it is there I went to read. The magazine's decade-long
contents are fascinating and will be the subject of another
article. I also found Clarence Moore's articles, but they indeed
were excerpts and contained no information not available
elsewhere.
In the pages of the magazine there are two other items of
interest to Florida archaeology. An article entitled "The Water
Hyacinth in Florida," by Dr. Thomas R. Baker published in the
July, 1897, issue (pp. 173-174) is followed by a short news
note "Spiders Destroying the Hyacinths," (on p. 174) attributed
to "N. Y. Sun," undoubtedly the New York Sun newspaper
which was in circulation at the time (it merged with the New
York Press in 1916). Accompanying the two is the first item
of interest, a photograph of a steamboat in a sea of hyacinths
on the St. Johns River (Figure 1). The steamboat is the
Alligator, one of three boats leased by Clarence B. Moore at
various times between 1891 and 1895 for his work in Florida
on the St. Johns and Oklawaha rivers. During those early
years in Florida, Moore spent his time not only excavating
archaeological sites, but fishing and taking photographs as
well (see Aten and Milanich 2000). Might Moore have taken
this very photograph? Certainly the photograph did not
originate with the New York Sun since in 1897 that paper did
not reproduce photos in its pages.
The second item I discovered in the pages of theArchaeol-
ogist is a delightful and informative 2355-word description of
shell mounds and middens along the Florida peninsula Gulf
coast north of Tampa Bay. The article, in the July, 1897, issue
(pp. 131-132) was written by Oscar H. Hershey, a visitor to
that coast. Because of its interest, including a description of
the Crystal River site, the article is reproduced below in its
entirety.
Hershey is not identified in the article, but we can pick up
several clues to his identity. First, he states he was a visitor to
the region and, though not "sufficiently an archaeologist" to
interpret the mounds, he does make a number of erudite
observations, presenting them as a scientist of the time might.
Searching books-in-print and journals led me to an Oscar H.
Hershey, who was born in 1874 and later went on to a distin-
guished career as a geologist in the Coeur d'Alene district of
Idaho and the West. The Library of Congress contains a copy
of his 1916(?) 32-page report "Origin and Distribution of Ore
from the Coeur d'Alene." If this is our man he would have
been about 22 or 23 years of age at the time of the Archaeolo-
gist article.


VoL. 54(2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST JUNE 2001


VOL. 54(2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


JUNE 2001






ThE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2001 VOL. 54(2)


L Y .CIlsU"--O ~ r~l~r y rh ~ .1


Figure 1. The steamboat Alligator amid water hyacinths in the St. Johns River.


More searching took me to the University of Idaho library
where I learned that during the first three decades of the
twentieth-century. Hershey served as a geologist and consult-
ing engineer for the Bunker Hill Mining company and the
Sullivan Company, both of which were in Idaho and traced
their origins to ore discoveries made by grub-staked prospec-
tors in 1885. The two companies later merged and continued
operations until 1991.
Dr. Robert C. Davis of the University of Idaho library staff
graciously steered me to a biographical citation for Hershey in
the National Cyclopedia ofAmerican Biography (vol. 29, p.
377-378) and to several other standard library reference books
(Nineteenth Century Readers; Guide to Periodical Literature,
1890-1899; Poole 's Index to Periodical Literature, vols. 4-6
covering the period 1892-1907; Who Was Who in America,
vol. I, 1897-1942; ). From them I learned Hershey was born
in Blue Rock, Pennsylvania on March 27" and graduated high
school at age 16 in nearby Lebanon. Quite precocious, he
published an article in the American Geologist in 1893 and


became the youngest member of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science. He formally studied geology at
the University of California in 1901, but by that date he
already had published widely on geology.
By the time he went to work for Bunker Hill Mining and
the Sullivan Company in the early twentieth-century the well
traveled Mr. Hershey had published on geological discoveries
in Alaska, California, Cuba. Illinois, Jamaica, Missouri, and
Oregon, and had been on expeditions for the United States
Geological Survey (one to Colorado and one to Illinois). He
also had prospected for gold in Panama. His articles on Cuba
and Jamaica were both in Science in 1898, the year after the
Florida article appeared. Perhaps he had made an extended
trip through Florida and into the Caribbean in those years. An
earlier Science article (Hershey 1893) is the only one I could
find suggesting anthropological interests.
Hershey latter helped found a geological consulting firm
based in San Francisco that advised his old employers and
other mining companies in the West. He died December 11,


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2001 VOL. 54(2)





DESCRIPTION OF SHELL MOUNDS AND MIDDENS


1939. All of this information makes it highly likely geologist
Hershey is the individual who published the article that
follows, but I have not been able to ascertain that in absolute
certainty.
In Hershey's article, I have kept spellings, capitalizations,
and measurements as they were in the original. In my note the
measurements of Clarence B. Moore's are given in feet and
inches rather than meters to allow direct comparison. A
different typeface is used here to help emphasize which are
Hershey's words.

"Shell Mounds of Florida," by Oscar H. Hershey

On the western or Gulf coast of the peninsula
of Florida, extending from about the mouth of the
Withlacoochee river 40 or more miles south,
through the counties of Citrus and Hernando, there
is a very wild and inaccessible region which stands
but little above the ocean level. The inland or
eastern portion has a width of about 4 miles, and
consists of a nearly level plain nowhere more than
a few feet above tide level; it is covered with a
dense vegetation and is of the kind known in
Florida as "hammock." This low swampy plain is
traversed from east to west at regular intervals of
about 8 miles by the great tide-water rivers, which
rise in great springs on the eastern border of the
lowland area, and form so characteristic a feature
of this portion of Florida.
These broad and beautiful esturine-like (sic)
channels were the highways made use of by the
aborigines on their way to and from the coast.
The swampy belt merges on its outer border into
a still wilder area consisting of a vast number of
small islands, separated by saw grass marshes
and waterways. These islands vary in size from a
few square yards to many acres, and are com-
posed partly of a massive white limestone covered
with loose sand, while others consist of old shell-
bars raised slightly above tide level by the waves
during some previous period. Nowhere do they
rise over 10 feet above ordinary high tide, and
during heavy storms the backing up of the ocean
water on the coast causes them to be submerged.
The vegetation is very luxuriant and of a sub-
tropical nature. Between the islands there are
broad level tracts of marsh covered with saw-
grass, which ordinarily are impassible to human
beings. Winding about these marshes, here and
there innumerable small open channels of clear
water, varying in depth from 1 to 10 feet, but
always navigable to small boats. These are
known as creeks when of small size, while the
larger ones are a continuation of the rivers above-
mentioned. They all communicate directly or
indirectly with the open sea, and are scoured by
the tides. Abounding in fish, and near their out-
lets, in oysters, and being the only highways from
island to island, they must have been traversed


constantly by the aborigines.
The island belt, varying from 2 to 4 miles
wide, invades the next division west by sending
out groups and isolated islets into the shallow
lagoon inside the sand bars and reefs, which
protect the coast from the violence of the ocean
waves. This sound abounds in oyster bars, a por-
tion of which are uncovered at low tide. There are
no heavy rollers here as on the Atlantic coast, and
small boats venture out during fair weather to the
distance of several miles from shore. In the hands
of a skilled boatman, a canoe such as the Indians
on inland waters were found to use, would be
perfectly safe inside the bars during four days out
of five.
There are extensive deposits of shells, mostly
in a fragmentary condition, among these islands,
and especially on the outer border of the area, but
they are of natural formation and never rise more
than a few feet above high tide level. All shell de-
posits occurring more than 10 feet above the tide
level are of artificial construction. All the main
islands support one or more such deposits. They
are generally in the form of an irregular mass,
having a hummocky or uneven surface, there
being no apparent design in the form. They are
composed mainly of oyster shells, with a small
admixture of other molluscan species which might
have served for food. They reach a height at
places of 25 feet above high tide, but are mainly
not more than 10 or 15 feet thick. They are the
true kitchen-middens of the Gulf coast, and no
other cause can be assigned for their production
than an effort to pile up the refuse to a sufficient
height to protect the builders from the water during
the unusual high tides which occur every 4 to 10
years during severe storms. These shell deposits
are of very great extent and furnish a large part of
the famous "shell hammock" lands of the Gulf
coast of Florida. The main deposits are situated
on those islands in close proximity to the oyster
beds, consequently on the very verge of the Gulf.
Either the population was quite large, or the race
of the oyster eaters occupied the country for a
very long period. They were evidently people who
lived chiefly on the products of the sea, making an
occasional hunting trip to the mainland.
The next class of mounds to which I wish to
call attention is not nearly so numerous as the
kitchen-middens, but may still be counted by the
dozens. They are generally cone-shaped and
were evidently built by design, the chief purpose
being to make them as high as the amount of
material would permit. They are never much over
25 feet in height, and as the sides are generally
steep, they do not occupy much ground. A fine
example of the class is to be found on Shell
Island, situated in the mouth of Crystal river. This
mound has terraced slopes, but, as it stands in an
exposed situation, the terracing may be due to the


MILANICH






Tm~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2001 VOL. 54(2)


action of waves during the very high tides before
mentioned.
While the common kitchen-midden deposits
are most extensive on the outer edge of the island
belt near the oyster beds, where the main popula-
tion evidently resided, the cone-shaped mounds
increase in number toward the landward side or
mainland edge of the islands. Some are found in
situations distant from any living oyster beds, and
where the absence of buried shell-deposits shows
that no oysters lived during the building of the
mounds. There must have been some special
object in transferring hundreds of tons of oyster
shells several miles in canoes. Perhaps an exami-
nation of the interior of the mounds might throw
some light on the subject, but unfortunately no
excavations, to my knowledge, have been made,
and the very limited time at my disposal during a
short visit to the region precluded the possibility of
my doing so. We are, consequently, reduced to
the alternative of guessing the object of their
construction or of letting the subject alone. I am
not sufficiently an archaeologist to argue the
subject conclusively, but I wish to make a few
suggestions.
1. They were built in or near the village of
their builders. The material used was but the
refuse shells resulting from their daily use of large
quantities of oysters as food. There could be no
object in transferring these shells to any great
distance from the village, but they were simply
piled up in some convenient spot near the place of
residence. Consequently, those villages situated
near certain mounds on Crystal, Salt, and other
rivers, at some distance from the oyster beds, and
in a very unhealthful country, would seem to
indicate a superabundance of population on the
islands.
2. The building of the mounds was compara-
tively slow, as the supply of material was regu-
lated by the daily needs of the people. There is no
evidence that old deposits were worked into the
structure of the mounds. However, a village of
several hundred could complete any one of the
cone-shaped mounds in a few years.
3. The use which was made of these peculiar
constructions can, in the absence of data concern-
ing the internal structure and contents, be only
conjectured. They are too large for ordinary burial
mounds for single individuals and not properly
shaped for a village graveyard. However, it is
possible that they may have been incidentally
used as places of interment for those members of
the community who died during the time of their
building, so that we may expect to find human
remains in some of them. The primary object in
building them may have been either a religious or
warlike one. From their chief occurence (sic) along
a line nearly coincident with the junction between
the island and swamp belts, they would seem to


have been part of a system of defence (sic) or
outlook.
The largest and perhaps the most important
of the many shell mounds in this region is situated
on the north side of Crystal river, about 3 miles
from the village of that name at its head, and 5
miles from the mouth of the stream. It is com-
monly known as Spanish Mound, although no one
believes the Spaniards to have been concerned in
its construction, there being a story current among
the people that the first whites who arrived in that
vicinity were told by the Indians that the mound
was built by a people who lived there before them.
It is situated in a 'hammock" of tall live oaks,
magnolia, bay, and other trees, and cannot be
seen from the river although it stands on its very
edge.
At first sight it appears to be irregular in
shape, owing to the weathering which has affected
it during the centuries that it has stood there. But
a closer examination reveals the fact that its
original form was that of a rectangle having a
length as laid off on the sand previous to construc-
tion of about 150 feet and a breadth of 120 feet.
From this as a base, the mound rises as steep as
the shells will lie, to a height of 35 feet. It has a
flat top which at present is 85 feet in length and 55
feet in breadth.' The corners were originally as
angular as the nature of the material would permit,
but time has gently rounded them off. This mound
stands on a point of dry land which projects out
from the mainland at the junction of a narrow strip
of marsh which borders the river, with a much
larger body of marsh occupying what was origi-
nally a large bay, but which has in the course of
time become filled up with a black mucky deposit
resulting from the decay of vegetation. This
marsh deposit is constantly growing, and at the
time of the construction of the mound was doubt-
lessly much less developed than at present. It
may be persumed (sic) that the borders of the land
in the vicinity of the mound were then free from
marsh vegetation, permitting canoes to approach
to its very base, which cannot now be done. This
postulate may be of some value as indicating the
antiquity of the artificial shell deposits of the
region.
The direction of the mound in greatest length
is N. W. to S. E., evidently having less relation to
the points of the compass than to the trend of the
neighboring waters. On the northeastern or
landward side there is a projection from the side of
the mound. It is about 20 feet wide and extends to
50 feet from the main mass. Beginning at its outer
end the surface gradually rises from the base to
the top of the mound, forming a pathway easy of
ascent. This is so evidently the use to which it
was put, and the cause for which it was cons-
tructed, that many visitors have remarked on it.
The mound is composed principally of oyster


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2001 VOL. 54(2)






MILANICH DESCRIPTION OF SHELL Mour'~ns AND MIDDENS


shells of which the nearest beds are two miles
distant. A rich soil has been formed on the sur-
face by the decay of vegetation and the incor-
portion (sic) of humus among the shells of the
upper two or more feet. There are growing on its
top and sides very large trees of live-oak and
other species similar to the forest growth of the
neighboring land. One large, very old-looking live-
oak on the top must be at the very least several
hundred years old, and holes from which the
stumps of still larger oaks have decayed would
seem to place the age of the mound at 500 years
as a minimum. Its antiquity, however, may be
much greater, as it apparently belonged to a
people who antedated the Indian tribes whom the
Spaniards found in possession of the country, and
who were not mound builders to any great extent.
Very slight excavations in the surface of the
mound failed to reveal anything but shells. It is
reported, however, that a skull, many beads, and
pieces of pottery have been found on and near to
the mound. But these relics occur so close to the
surface and are of such a nature as to throw much
doubt on their belonging to the same people who
built the mound. It was the habit of later tribes of
Indians to make use of existing mounds as places
of burial, and the greater portion, perhaps, of all
superficial finds belong to them. There is, how-
ever, a very large quantity of broken pottery to be
found, at times, on the beaches of certain islands,
as for instance Shell Island, where a very severe
storm in the fall of 1894 laid bare a fresh section
through artificial shell deposits. A portion of this
broken pottery may be older than the Indian tribes
with whom the Spaniards became acquainted, and
a thorough excavation of these mounds might
reveal many objects of interest.
We can only conjecture the object of building
this mound. I am most strongly inclined to believe
that it was part of a line of defense that one tribe
maintained against the encroachment of another.
It is situated on the line where the island belt joins
the low swampy mainland belt, and it is admirably
located for a modern fort on Crystal river, com-
manding that stream for several miles. It is so
situated that two sides of its base were formed by
water. It is flat on top and of sufficient size to hold
the entire population of a moderately sized village.
Its longest diameter has such a trend as to give
the greatest protection to the village back of it.
That this village existed we know from quite
extensive kitchen-midden deposits in the vicinity
of the mound.

The nineteenth-century Florida researches of individuals
like Frank Hamilton Cushing, Clarence B. Moore, and Jeffries
Wyman are well-known to modern archaeologists. Thanks to
the recent reprinting of Cushing's Key Marco report and
Moore's Florida articles and monographs, there is an increased


emphasis on nineteenth-century work and the people responsi-
ble for it. Lesser known archaeologists such as Andrew E.
Douglass and S. T. Walker are now receiving deserved
attention. As this article suggests, there likely are additional
authors who have penned important observations about Florida
archaeology and who are awaiting discovery.

Notes

'Clarence B. Moore (1903:375) measured the height of the same
mound as 28 ft, 8 in, the base 182 ft northwest/southeast by 100 ft
northeast/southwest; he gives the summit platform as 107 by 50 ft,
and notes the ramp is 80 ft long with a width of 14-21 ft.]


References Cited

Aten, Lawrence E., and Jerald T. Milanich
2000 Clarence Bloomfield Moore: A Philadelphia Archaeologist
in the Southeastern United States. Manuscript prepared for
Archaeology andArchaeologists inPhiladelphia, edited by
Don D. Fowler and David R. Wilcox. University of Ala-
bama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Hershey, Oscar H.
1893 Curious Ear of Indian Corn. Science 22:181.

Moore, Clarence B.
1894a Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part
I. Journal of the Academy ofNatural Sciences ofPhiladel-
phia 10:5-128.
1894b Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part
II. Journal ofthe Academy ofNatural Sciences ofPhiladel-
phia 10:129-246.
1895 Archaeology of the St. John's, Florida. The Archaeologist
3:1-5, 35-38, 114-118, 149-155.
1903 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Central Florida West-
Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia 12:361-438.


MILANICH


DESCRIPTION OF SHELL MOUNDS AND MIDDENS






A new video on Florida's native peoples

"Shadows and Reflections:
Florida's Lost People"
Produced by the Florida
Anthropological
A Society
Funded by the
SF:lorida IDepartment
F, A% of State


Produced and Directed by Chaos Productions
Executive Producer: Brent Weisman
Written by Marshall Riggan
Artwork by Theodore Morris


1998 Florida Anthropological Society and the Florida Department of State

To obtain copies send $23.45 ( $18.81, plus $1.14 tax and $3.50 S&H) to:
Terry Simpson, 11714-A Raintree Village Blvd. Tampa, FL 33617
Make checks payable to THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY







THERE WERE APPRENTICES THEN, AS NOW

ARTHUR R. LEE

Craighead Laboratory, Southwest Florida Archaeological Society, P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101
E-mail: arlee@gulfaccess.net


Calusa potters, just like today's. had to learn
their trade.
Striking evidence of that learning process was
noticed by Jean Belknap, staffer of the Southwest
Florida Archaeological Society's Craighead labora-
tory, in potsherds being processed from an explor-
atory excavation on Chokoloskee Island. In material
from 8CR1 Test Pit 4 Level 6 (50- 60 cm from the
surface) she noticed rim sherds incised with the
signature joined loops of Key Largo Incised pottery.
On most the surface was evenly smoothed and the
incisions geometrically correct and neatly inscribed.
On two sherds, however, the clay, especially the
interior, was lumpy and the arcs of the decoration
highly irregular.
The sherds were 6 mm thick and were from a pot
(if the potter had been skilled enough to make it
circular) with an indicated orifice diameter of 16 cm.
Color is yellowish red 5YR4/6. Paste is not well
compacted.
Key Largo Incised pottery appeared in Southwest
Florida during the Glades IIA period (A.D. 700-900)
and continued into the Glades IIB period (A.D. 900-
1000) (Widmer 1988:80-81). Goggin and Sommer
(1949:36-37) discuss the considerable range of FCgure
variations within the Key Largo Incised design
motif, and these crudely executed examples from regul
Chokoloskee certainly add to this diversity. Interest-
ingly, Goggin and Sommer (1949:36) also include modeling
of the rim as a decorative technique found on some Key Largo
Incised sherds; it is possible that the crudely executed interior
of the Chokoloskee examples represents an attempt to model
the rim.
Anthropologist Franz Boas' (1955), in his study of primi-
tive art, refers to technical proficiency in native arts and crafts
as one component of artistic virtuosity. Certainly the simple
and graceful lines of Key Largo Incised required skill to
execute, and the variability within this design motif suggests
that it was an important source for artistic experimentation.

References Cited

Boas, Franz
1955 Primitive Art. Reprint. Dover Publications, New York.

Goggin, John M., and Frank H. Sormner III
1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Publications
in Anthropology No. 41. Yale University Press, New Haven.


1. Comparison of three Key Largo Incised sherds from
loskee. Incisions of a "learner's" pot contrast sharply with the
rly inscribed arcs of a more typical Key Largo Incised sherd.


Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: a Nonagricultural Chiefdom on
the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.


Figure 2. Interiors of "beginners'" sherds are lumpy,
irregular.


VOL. 54(2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST JUNE 2001


VOL. 54(2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


JUNE 2001













THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
FUND

An Endowment to

Support production of
The Florida Anthropologist,
the scholarly journal published quarterly by
The Florida Anthropological Society since 1948.

Donations are now being accepted from
individuals, corporations, and foundations.


Inquiries and gifts may be directed to:

The Editor
The Florida Anthropologist
P.O. Box 6356
Tallahassee, FL 32314


The Florida Anthropological Society is a non-profit organization
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Contributions are tax-deductible as provided by
section 170 of the code.







A FORKED CANOE POLE FROM FLORAHOME, PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA

RAY M. MCGEE

5814 NW 31st Terrace, Gainesville, FL 32653


In 1989, a portion of a broken canoe pole with a forked end
was found in association with a wooden dugout canoe in a peat
deposit in a drained lake or wet prairie to the north of
Florahome in Putnam County, northeastern Florida. The
forked pole is believed to be the first and only specimen yet
found in Florida, but it resembles others used in Minnesota by
the Ojibway.
In May 1989, Jim Davis of R&D Sod, based in
Okeechobee, called the University of Florida's Department of
Anthropology and spoke with Dr. Barbara Purdy. He reported
finding several dugout canoes that his company had encoun-
tered while cleaning drainage canals and leveling fields for a
new sod farm located near Coral Farm Road, northwest of
Palatka and approximately 5.4 km (3.4 mi) north of
Florahome.
Dr. Purdy and I went to the field and saw remains of six
dugout canoes projecting from sides of drainage canals. Four
of the canoes had been damaged significantly, but two of them
were mostly intact, with only an end projecting from the side
of a canal. We uncovered and took notes about these two
canoes, which we labeled "Davis Florahome #4 and #5." This
was to distinguish them from three other canoes that had been
recovered from this area in the 1920s.'
The Davis Florahome canoes were buried under approxi-
mately 1 m (3 ft) of peat, with deeper peat under both canoes.
The two canoes were approximately 30 m (100 ft) from each
other, and both were in the northern side of the northernmost
canal. The canal was part of a system of canals draining an
area that had been a large, shallow lake or wet prairie.2 It was
in this former lake that the peat had formed, and in which the
canoes had been used. The two canoes were close to where the
northern shore of the lake had been, and they were oriented


Table 1. Radiocarbon dates mentioned in the text and endnol
Age ranges are 1 sigma and are in uncorrected radiocarbon y
before present (B.P. = A.D. 1950), unless otherwise noted.


north-south, or perpendicular to the former shoreline.
We uncovered both canoes, which were too deteriorated to
remove, and took wood samples from them as well as from the
other four canoes that were badly damaged. Later inspection
by archaeobotanist Lee Newsom indicated that all the canoes
were made of southern hard pine (Pinus sp.). We also col-
lected wood samples from the two intact canoes for radiocar-
bon dating.
The two intact canoes dated to the Orange Period (ca.
4000-2500 years ago). The Davis Florahome #4 canoe dated
to 3880 +/- 80 uncorrected radiocarbon years (Beta-31847),
and the Davis Florahome #5 canoe dated to 2965 +/- 55
corrected radiocarbon years (A-7539). Jim Davis generously
paid for dating the #4 canoe, and the #5 date was kindly
funded by Dr. Richard Callaghan, of Canada, for the Florida
Canoe Project (Table 1). As of 1996, these two dates were
among the 10 oldest for dugout canoes in Florida and the
southeastern United States (Hartmann 1996:Table 5.1).
The Davis Florahome #5 canoe was of interest because it
had a "thwart" or "foot mount" near its stern (McGee 1989).
It was a narrow, low, raised ridge of wood that was part of the
deck or floor and was perpendicular to the long axis of the
canoe. The ridge had been shaped purposefully during the
reductive or hollowing process that created the canoe. This
kind of feature has been found on other Florida canoes3 and
might have served as a foot brace while poling.
As we uncovered the Davis Florahome #4 canoe (Figure 1),
I discovered the lower portion of a forked canoe pole in direct
association with the canoe. The canoe was perpendicular to
the east-west canal, which had barely clipped its back end.
Thus, the canoe, which was approximately 4 m (13 ft) in
length, extended back into the peat deposit as we uncovered it.
As is typical of many canoes buried in peat deposits,
it was fairly flattened from decomposition and soil
es. pressure. Approximately 1 m (3 ft) inward from the
ears canal bank, we encountered fragments of a cylindri-
cal pole (4 or 5 cm in diameter) that was propped
against the west (port) side of the canoe, near the
stern. At first, we found a relatively small fragment
(20-30 cm in length) that was inside the canoe. It
had broken from a longer fragment (150 cm in
length) that extended beyond the gunwale to the
west, perpendicular to the canoe. As I uncovered
this longer piece of the pole, I was surprised to find
that it had a forked end. Each fork was approxi-
mately 15-20 cm (6-8 in) in length. The tip of each
was blunt and worn. I recovered the two fragments
(totaling approximately 180 cm [6 ft] in length) and


VOL. 54(2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST JUNE 2001


Canoe
Davis Florahome #4
Davis Florahome #5
De Leon Springs #1
De Leon Springs #2
Stricklin #18


*Indicates that the date is corrected for C12/C13 ratio.


Lab Number
Beta-31847
A-7539
Beta-14893
Beta-42456
A-7775


Age
3880 +/- 80
2965 +/- 55*
5140+/-100
6050 +/- 60
3505 +/- 60*


VOL. 54(2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


JUNE 2001






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2001 VOL. 54(2)


Figure 1. View toward north showing Davis Florahome #4 canoe
excavation. Photograph by Barbara Purdy.


took them to the lab, where Lee Newsom identified them as
southern hard pine. Unfortunately, the fragments later dried
out and deteriorated, and they might have been discarded.
Since the upper portion of the pole was missing, its overall
length is uncertain. However, it originally might have been
approximately 3.5 m (10-12 ft) in overall length. This appears
to be the length of forked poles currently used by Ojibway in
Minnesota, according to Vennum (1986:97) and based on
historic photographs of forked poles in actual use (Vennum
1986:Figures 4.7, 4.17, and 5.1).4
I do not know of any other forked canoe poles found in
Florida, although they would have been well-suited for
propelling canoes in Florida's shallow, soft-bottomed lakes.
While I often have found poles, both fragmentary and com-
plete, while uncovering dugout canoes, this forked pole was the


only one that was clearly in direct association with a
canoe. Other poles (not forked) that I have found
have been near canoes, but only one other was
clearly associated with a canoe.5 Some of these poles
might have been from fish weirs. Because of its
direct association with the Davis Florahome #4
., canoe, I assume that the forked pole dates to the
S same age as the canoe, or approximately 3900
S uncorrected radiocarbon years ago, near the begin-
.-u. ning of the Orange Period.

Notes

My research disclosed that these three canoes,
Florahome #1-#3, were part of the Pearsall Collection and
were given to the Florida Museum of Natural History
(FLMNH) when it was first established. A historic
photograph showing the canoes is published in Newsom
and Purdy (1990:Figure 4a) and in Purdy (1991:Figure
111A). In the early 1980s, the Florahome #1 canoe
(FLMNH cat. no. P-2248) was on loan to the Museum of
Florida History in Tallahassee. The Florahome #2 canoe
(FLMNH cat. no. P-2249) was on display at FLMNH in
Gainesville. The Florahome #3 canoe (FLMNH cat. no.
P-2250) was on loan to Tomoka State Park near Ormond
Beach in Volusia County, Florida.
2 My research indicates that this large, shallow lake and
wet prairie once measured approximately 12.8 km (8 mi)
north-south by 3.2 km (2 mi) east-west. Its shoreline, or
edge, was near the 90-ft contour line. It was drained ca.
1900 by the Etoniah Canal and Drainage Co. (Michaels
1976:241-244), leaving'Lake Grandin and several other
lakes and wetlands in its basin.
3 A thwart or foot mount near the stern was a feature on a
number of canoes excavated atNewnans Lake in June-July
2000. Several Newnans Lake canoes even had two
thwarts, one near the stem as well as one in the mid-
section. The oldest known occurrence of a thwart was
from near the stern of the De Leon Springs #1 canoe. This
thwart was approximately 70 cm from the outside end of
the stern, and the canoe had a total length of 2.74 m. The
during De Leon Springs #1 canoe was dated to 5140 +/- 100
uncorrected radiocarbon years (Beta-14893) (Hartmann
1996:83, Figure 5.2). This is the second oldest canoe
known in Florida and is approximately 850 years younger
than the De Leon Springs #2 canoe, found in July1990, that dated to
6050 +/- 60 uncorrected radiocarbon years (Beta42456) (Hartmann
1996:89).
4 A forked end diminishes the tendency of a pole to go deeply into
thick mud, peat, or vegetation. It gives better purchase against the
bottom and is less likely to become stuck, thereby making poling
easier. A firm bottom, such as of sand or rock, does not require a
forked pole.
5 Fragments of a pole were lying within the Stricklin #18 canoe,
which was found in the Stricklin Peat Company's pit in a peat-filled,
former lake near the southern edge of Clay County, approximately 1.6
km (1 mi) north of where the Davis Florahome canoes were discov-
ered. The Stricklin # 18 canoe was fashioned from southern hard pine
and dated to 3505 +/- 60 corrected radiocarbon years (A-7775)
(Hartmann 1996:Table 5.1), which is close to the date of the Davis
Florahome #4 canoe (Table 1).


2001 VOL. 54(2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST






MCGEE FORKED CANOE POLE


References Cited

Hartmann, Mark J.
1996 The Development of Watercraft in the Prehistoric South-
eastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

McGee, Ray M.
1989 Notes on the Davis Florahome #5 canoe, Putnam County,
for the Florida Canoe Project. On file, Bureau of Archaeo-
logical Research, Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee.

Michaels, Brian E.
1976 The River Flows North, A History of Putnam County,
Florida. The Putnam County Archives and History Com-
mission, Palatka.

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

Purdy, Barbara A.
1991 The Art and Archaeology of Florida's Wetlands. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Vennum, Thomas, Jr.
1988 Wild Rice and the Ojibway People. Minnesota Historical
Society Press, St. Paul.


McGEE


FORKED CANOE POLE










AN EXPERIMENT AT DATING THE PINE ISLAND CANAL

GEORGE M. LUER' AND RYAN J. WHEELER2

S3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239
2 Bureau ofArchaeological Research, 500 S. Bronough St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250


On January 2nd and 3rd, 2001, the authors and fellow
Calusa Land Trust members Bud House and Don Taggart
excavated two test pits in the eastern end of the Pine Island
Canal (8LL34) in Lee County, southwest Florida. Our goal
was to collect soil samples for radiocarbon analysis and to see
if we might be able to date the canal.

Test Pits and Soil Profile

We dug two test pits along the east side of an arbitrary,
north-south baseline that crossed the main Pine Island Canal
at roughly a perpendicular angle.' The pits were west of where
the main canal is joined by a lateral canal that runs northward
to a sand mound (8LL40). Our north-south baseline was
approximately 9 m west of the western edge of the lateral


canal, and ran parallel with it. This lateral canal and rem-
nants of the 8LL40 mound are described and shown in plan
view elsewhere (Luer 1989b; Luer and Wheeler 1997:128,
Figures 9 and 10). A surface profile across the main canal in
this same area, approximately 4 m (13 ft) west of our baseline,
is shown as Profile #1 in Luer and Wheeler (1997:Figure 4,
top). The low-lying elevation here is no more than 1 m (3 ft)
above mean sea level.
First, we excavated a test pit, Unit 1, in the slight swale
that represents the mostly-filled channel of the main Pine
Island Canal. Unit 1 measured 1.6 m north-south by 0.7 m
east-west. Its northern edge was near the center of the swale,
and its southern edge was near the southern limit of the swale.
From the southwest corner of Unit 1, we measured southward
3.3 m and inserted a nail in the ground corresponding to the


Figure 1. Test pits in the Pine Island Canal. View toward southeast showing Unit 1 in the canal's swale (in foreground). The
excavators work in Unit 2 in the canal's southern embankment. Non-native melaleuca trees are in the background, and salt-
tolerant rushes grow in the swale. Photo by Bud House.


VOL. 54(2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST JUNE 2001


VOL. 54(2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


JUNE 2001









Table 1. Radiocarbon data from the east end of the Pine Island Canal. Measured and conventional
dates give 1 sigma ranges and are in radiocarbon years before present (B.P. = A.D. 1950). The
calendrical ages are in calendar years and were provided by Beta Analytic based on the INTCAL98
Radiocarbon Age Calibration.


Submitters'
ID


Lab Number


Measured C13/C12 Conventional
Age Ratio Age


1. F.S. #2 Beta-151278 980 +/- 60 -24.9 S

2. F.S. #7 Beta-151279 1180 +/-60 -24.7 11



approximate crest of the southern embankment. The nail
became the southwest corner of a smaller pit, Unit 2, which we
dug through the canal's southern embankment. It measured
1 m north-south by 0.7 m east-west.2
After Units 1 and 2 were dug, we measured and sketched
a profile map of the soil layers in the east wall of each test pit.
Then, we used a hand-powered soil auger to core, extract,
measure, and sketch the soil layers in the area between the two
pits, thereby connecting soil layers in Units 1 and 2. The soil
was composed primarily of sand, with lesser amounts of muck
and root remains.
The soil profile in the test pits and cores did not reveal any
clear, subterranean outline of the canal's filled channel. No
buried bottom or sides of the filled channel could be discerned.
However, the uppermost soil layer of black, mucky topsoil was
thicker in the swale (18-25 cm thick in Unit 1) than it was on
the crest of the southern embankment (10 cm thick in Unit 2).
In addition, the leached subsurface zone (immediately under
the topsoil) was much thinner in the swale (11-14 cm thick in
Unit 1) than it was in Unit 2 (40-50 cm thick). Under this
leached sand, we encountered the dark top of the subsoil in
both our test pits. In Unit 1, it consisted of two zones, an
upper layer (4-13 cm thick) of brown, very compact, wet sand
with numerous root remains, and a lower, slightly wavy,
thinner layer (2-6 cm thick) of black, very compact, wet,
mucky sand with numerous root remains. These two zones
appeared to correspond, in depth and composition, to the "dark
brown peat" that we had located by coring in 1997 at Profile
#1, which we hypothesized might have formed in the channel
as itfilled (e.g., Luer and Wheeler 1997:130[Note 3]). In Unit
2, the top of the subsoil consisted of a single, thick layer (22-
28 cm thick) of dark brown or black, very hard sand with
numerous root remains. Under these dark soil zones was less
compact, very wet sand of brown, tan, or dark gray color that
extended below the bottom of the soil profile in both pits.
These findings in our test pits, plus our soil auger cores
between them, showed that a dark-colored soil horizon (the
uppermost zone of the subsoil or "B horizon") extended across
the entire profile. Such a dark horizon is typical oflmmokalee
sand, which is the soil of this location (United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture 1984:25-26, Sheet #18). Evidently, the
dark horizons comprising the top of the subsoil in Unit 1 had


Calendrical
Range, 2 Sigma


)80 +/- 60 Cal AD 970-1190

80 +/- 60 Cal AD 690-990



reformed where the canal's channel had once penetrated it.
This appeared to be a result of the high water table, which
tends to sit near the top of the subsoil and where organic
matter tends to collect. Indeed, several hours after we exca-
vated our test pits, they were filled by ground water to the level
of the top of the subsoil. A similar but darker, wavy, organic
horizon at the top of the subsoil (called a "hard pan") was
found in an upland area of Myakka fine sand where the Pine
Island Canal was cross-sectioned by a backhoe trench in 1981
(Luer 1989a:94, 96, Figure 3).

Radiocarbon Dating

We collected seven soil samples from our test pits at
locations we recorded in our profile map and in our field notes.
Because of limited funds, we decided first to date two soil
samples to see what results we might obtain. Both were from
within the dark top of the subsoil, or B horizon. One consisted
of highly compressed, black, mucky material, containing root
remains and sand, that was from the thin, black layer in the
filled canal channel (Field Specimen [F.S.] #2). It was from
42-47 cm below the surface, near the northern end of Unit 1.
The other was a hard, dark brown material, containing root
remains and sand, that was from outside the canal, under the
southern embankment (F.S. #7). It was from 57-66 cm below
the surface, near the center of Unit 2. The two soil samples
were from approximately the same elevation or vertical
position, and their different depths reflect the varied ground
surface between the swale and embankment of the canal, both
of which are still clearly visible on the ground surface. Since
F.S. #7 was from the natural hard pan layer beneath the
canal's sandy embankment, we used it as a "control" to
compare with F.S. #2, which was from the filled canal
channel. We expected F.S. #7 to be older than F.S. #2.
The soil samples were submitted to Beta Analytic, Inc.,
where they were processed and dated. First, the samples were
sieved to remove root remains and sand. Second, they were
"pre-treated" fully with acid, alkali, and then acid to get rid of
carbonates, secondary humic acids, and any carbon dioxide
absorbed by alkali in the laboratory (Darden Hood, personal
communication, 2001). Third, they were given "bulk low
carbon sediment" treatment, which removed the finer organic


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2001 VOL. 54(2)





LUER AND WHEELER PINE ISLAND CANAL


fraction in an attempt to offset effects of horizontal and
vertical movement of organic matter carried by seeping and
percolating water in the soil. Then, the more coarse organic
fraction was subjected to standard radiometric dating and
C13/C12 ratio analysis. Resulting data are listed in Table 1.
The two dates are statistically the same because they
overlap when compared at 2 sigma (95 % probability). This
convergence in age may be attributable to organic material
having migrated laterally through the sandy soil and into the
filled canal channel, via seeping ground water, with a major
source of organic material being the surrounding, natural, hard
pan layer. The organic material itself probably is a mixture of
older and younger material derived from plant roots in the soil
and from vegetation that grew on the soil surface, which
decayed and leached downward though the sand in percolating
water (e.g., saw palmettos, pine trees, grasses, sedges, etc.).
Although we did expect, and we did obtain, a younger date for
F.S. #2 than for F.S. #7, it is not different enough to be
considered significant. Both dates indicate the same age.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the sandy, organic soils comprising
remnants of the Pine Island Canal are not suited for determin-
ing the age of the canal by radiocarbon dating. The high water
table has affected them, helping to reform a dark horizon in
the top of the subsoil across the now mostly-filled channel.
Thus, ground water has obscured the profile of the canal, and
it appears to have moved organic material laterally in the soil.
These same conditions and processes (a high water table and
seepage of ground water) helped the canal to function in the
first place.
Although additional radiocarbon dates might help under-
stand the ages of soils surrounding the canal, the costs are
beyond our available funds and the results may not help date
the canal itself (due to the same reasons discussed above:
apparent lateral movement of organic matter in seeping
ground water). We suggest that future attempts to date the
Pine Island Canal need to focus on materials other than sandy
soils, such as mangrove peat, midden shells, carbonized wood,
and other materials that are most likely to be found at Indian
Field, to the east of the canal, or at the Pineland Site, at the
west end of the canal.

Notes

SThis stretch of the main canal runs slightly west-northwest by east-
southeast, so that the north-south baseline was not perpendicular to
the canal.
2 In our test pits, we found that the soil as well as the ground water
were salty. Salt appears to be a recent intrusion from the tidal area
to the east, as evidenced by vegetation changes. For example, saw
palmettos, cabbage palms, and pine trees formerly grew on the
surface outside of the canal and on its embankments, as shown by
their decaying remains, but now have been replaced by white
mangrove bushes, melaleuca trees, and high marsh or saltern habitat.
The area's increase in saltiness may be a result of intensive,
twentieth-century, artificial drainage of the adjacent upland to the
west, which has lowered the upland's water table and apparently


diminished surface run-off as well as seepage of fresh ground water
to the tidally-influenced margin of Pine Island. In addition,
melaleuca trees tend to pull and remove water from the soil. The
salinity and vegetation changes also may be a result of a slight rise in
sea level during the twentieth century.

Acknowledgments

Bud House kindly helped raise funds for the two radiocarbon
dates. John Beriault, Charles Dugan, Jim Gray, Bud House, Peter
Ordway, Charlie Strader, and Don Taggart were generous contribu-
tors. The Calusa Land Trust, as well as Bob Carr of the Archaeologi-
cal and Historical Conservancy, also made significant donations to
offset costs of dating. Darden Hood of Beta Analytic gave expert
advice on dating techniques and sample submissions. Mr. and Mrs.
Don Muske kindly gave us permission to excavate Units 1 and 2 in
their back yard, and we thank them for their continuing interest in our
studies of the Pine Island Canal.

References Cited

Luer, George M.
1989a Calusa Canals in Southern Florida: Routes of Tribute and
Exchange The Florida Anthropologist 42:89-130.
1989b Further Research on the Pine Island Canal (8LL34) and
Associated Sites, Lee County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 42:241-247.

Luer, George M., and Ryan J. Wheeler
1997 How the Pine Island Canal Worked: Topography, Hydrau-
lics, and Engineering. TheFloridaAnthropologist 50:115-
131.

United States Department of Agriculture
1984 Soil Survey ofLee County, Florida. U.S.D.A. Soil Conser-
vation Service in cooperation with the University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural
Experiment Stations and Soil Sciences Department, and the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Tallahassee.


LUER AND WHEELER


PINE ISLAND CANAL








FLORIDA


ANTHROPOLOGICAL]


SOCIETY


CHAPTERS














Pensacola Archaeological Societ
P.O. Box 13251, Pensacola 32591



Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallat
2032 Longview Drive, Tallahassee 32303

Central Florida Anthropological Socie
P.O Box 261, Orlando 32801-0621

Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society
7701 22nd Avenue N., St. Petersburg 33710

Time Sifters Archaeology Society -
P O. Box 25642, Sarasota 34277
Kissimmee Valley Archaeological & Historical Cons
80 Bear Point Lane, Lake Placid 33852

Southwest Florida Archaeological Sc
P O. Box 9965, Naples 34101


Southeast Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 2875, Stuart 34995-2875
Indian River Anthropological Society
272 Terrace Shores Dr., Indialantic 32903
Volusia Anthropological Society
P 0 Box 1881, Ormond Beach 32175
St. Augustine Archaeological Association
P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine 32085

rtheast Florida Anthropological Society
4 Torino PI., Jacksonville 32244


~j. ~


y



iassee


Broward County Archaeological Society -/
6720 Nova Drive #7-102, Davie 33317

Archaeological Society of Southern Florida
2495 NW 35th Ave., Miami 33142


Nor
414







FAS AWARDS NOTES

WILLIAM C. LAZARUS MEMORIAL AWARD


The William C. Lazarus Memorial Award was developed
by the FAS Board of Directors in 1985. It is named for the
late William Lazarus (1911-1965), who was a magazine
editor, glider test pilot, aeronautics instructor, Army Air Force
Colonel, and civil engineer (Lazarus 1934-1935, 1942). He
wrote an authoritative history of early aviation in Florida
(Lazarus 1951) and, after 19 years of civil service, retired in
1965 as Scientific Advisor at Eglin Air Force Base. He also
made significant contributions to the literature of Florida
archaeology, site preservation, and education.
Lazarus was an active FAS member in the late 1950s to
mid-1960s, serving in the Northwest Florida Chapter and as
an FAS officer, including FAS President in 1961. He was
instrumental in helping preserve the Fort Walton Temple
Mound and in establishing the Fort Walton Temple Mound
Museum (Florida Department of State 1998; Lazarus 1962;
Lazarus 1990). His scholarly work led to recognition of the
Elliot's Point Complex (Fairbanks 1959), various studies of
aboriginal sites and artifacts in the Florida panhandle (e.g.,
Lazarus 1960, 1961, 1965a, 1965b), dating of historic period
bricks in the Pensacola area (Lazarus 1965c), and use of coins
to date some Fort Walton Period deposits (Lazarus 1964,
1965d).
The Lazarus Award is designed to recognize members of
FAS who exemplify the spirit and accomplishments of
William Lazarus through their contributions to archaeology,
preservation, and/or education as well as to FAS and the wider
community. Nominations for the Lazarus Award must be
made in writing by an FAS member to the current FAS
President by the date of December 15 prior to the FAS Annual
Meeting. The nominee must be a member of FAS and must
not make her or his living through the practice of archaeology.
The recipient is honored with a plaque at the Annual Banquet.
The formal criteria for qualifications and implementation of
the Lazarus Award are described in the FAS Operating
Procedures Manual, copies of which are in the possession of
FAS officers and Chapter Representatives.

Table 1. William C. Lazarus Memorial Award recipients
through the year 2001.

Year Recipient(s)

1. 1986 Yulee Lazarus

2. 1988 Harold Cardwell

3. 1989 Dan Laxson


Table 1. Continued.


Year

4. 1990

5. 1992a

6. 1992b

7. 1993

8. 1995a

9. 1995b

10. 1996

11. 1998

12. 2000


Recipient(s)

Ben Waller

Arthur R. Lee

Tom and Mary Lou Watson

George M. Luer

John G. Beriault

Walter H. Askew

Lyman O. Warren

Elizabeth L. "Connie" Franklin

Dot Moore


References Cited

Fairbanks, Charles H.
1959 Additional Elliot's Point Complex Sites. The Florida
Anthropologist 12:95-100.

Florida Department of State
1998 Great Floridians 2000, Nomination Form and Letters of
Support; for William C. Lazarus, from The City of Fort
Walton Beach. On file, Florida Division of Historical
Resources, Tallahassee.

Lazarus, William C.
1934-1935 The Floridian. A monthly magazine (Editor-in-Chief, W.
C. Lazarus) printed for Specialty Publications, Inc., by
Tyn Cobb's Florida Press, Inc.,Orlando.
1942 Glider Characteristics and Techniques. Published in
Waco, Texas.
1951 Wings in the Sun, the Annals ofAviation in Florida. Tyn
Cobb's Florida Press, Orlando.
1960 Human Figurines from the Coast of Northwest Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 13:61-70.
1961 Ten Middens on the Navy Live Oak Reservation. The
Florida Anthropologist 14:49-64.
1962 Temple Mound Museum at Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 15:65-70.
1964 A Sixteenth Century Spanish Coin from a Fort Walton
Burial. The Florida Anthropologist 17:134-138.
1965a Alligator Lake, A Ceramic Horizon Site on the Northwest


VOL. 54(2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST JUNE 2001


VOL. 54(2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


JUNE 2001






92 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2001 VOL. 54(2)


Florida Coast. The Florida Anthropologist 18:83-124.
1965b Significance of Dimensions of Big Sandy I-like Projectile
Points in Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
18(3 [1]):187-199.
1965c A Study of Dated Bricks in the Vicinity of Pensacola,
Florida. In: Papers of the 5th Annual Conference on
Historic Site Archaeology, November 5, 1964, New
Orleans The Florida Anthropologist 18 (3 [2]):69-84.
1965d Coin Dating in the Fort Walton Period. The Florida
Anthropologist 18:221-224.

Lazarus, Yulee W.
1990 The Temple Mound Museum: Remembering the First
Twenty Years. The Florida Anthropologist 43:116-125.







FAS AWARDS NOTES

RIPLEY P. BULLEN MEMORIAL AWARD


The Ripley P. Bullen Memorial Award was developed by
the FAS Board of Directors in 1981. It is named for the late
Ripley Bullen (1902-1976), an archaeologist and FAS mem-
ber, who for many years worked closely with FAS and its
chapters and members. He served as an FAS officer, including
President in 1968 and 1969, and was Editor of the Society's
scientific journal in 1970-1976.
Bullen first worked as a mechanical engineer for General
Electric Company in New York and Massachusetts, switching
to archaeology in the 1940s. In 1948-1952, he served as
Assistant Archaeologist for the Florida Park Service. From
1952-1973, he was Curator of the Department of Social


Sciences at the Florida State Museum in Gainesville. During
those years, he did extensive work in Florida and, beginning
in 1961, in the Caribbean area as well (Anonymous 1973).
Bullen was a prolific author and co-author, publishing
numerous papers and working with many interested citizens
(Anonymous 1977; Bullen 1978). He showed that an archae-
ologist should be a selfless servant of the public.
The Bullen Award is designed to recognize professional
archaeologists who foster the spirit of Ripley Bullen by
furthering good working relationships among avocational and
professional archaeologists in Florida. Nominations for the
Bullen Award must be made in writing to the current FAS


Table 1. Ripley P. Bullen Memorial Awards through the year 2001.


Year


Nominating Chapter(s)


Recipient


Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society

Apalachee Anthropological Society

Northeast Florida Anthropological Society

Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society

St. Augustine Archaeological Association

Southwest Florida Archaeological Society


Archaeological Society of Southern Florida

Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society and
Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy

Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society


10. 1996 Southwest Florida Archaeological Society

11. 1997 St. Augustine Archaeological Association

12. 1998 Pensacola Archaeological Society

13. 2001a Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society

14. 2001b Pensacola Archaeological Society


Jerald Milanich

B. Calvin Jones

John W. Griffin

Louis Tesar

Valerie Bell

Bill Marquardt


Robert S. Carr

Bob Austin


J. Raymond Williams

Brent Weisman

Kathleen Deagan

Judith Bense

Nancy White

Elizabeth Benchley


VOL. 54(2) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST JUNE 2001


1. 1982

2. 1983

3. 1984

4. 1987

5. 1989

6. 1990

7. 1992

8. 1993


9. 1995


VOL. 54(2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


JUNE 2001






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2001 VOL. 54(2)


President by an FAS Chapter and its Representative to the
FAS Board by the date of December 15 prior to the FAS
Annual Meeting. The nominee must be a member of FAS.
The recipient is honored with a plaque at the Annual Banquet.
The formal criteria for qualifications and implementation of
the Bullen Award are described in the FAS Operating Proce-
dures Manual, copies of which are in the possession of FAS
officers and Chapter Representatives.

References Cited

Anonymous
1973 Ripley P. Bullen. Florida State Museum Newsletter 2(5-
6):1-2, 4, 6.
1977 Ripley Pierce Bullen, 1902-1976. The Florida Anthropolo-
gist 30:34-35.

Bullen, Adelaide K.
1978 Bibliography of Ripley P. Bullen. In Bibliography of
Ripley P. Bullen; Source References in New WorldArchae-
ology, compiled by Adelaide K. Bullen, pp. 11-25.
Reprinted from Proceedings of the Seventh International
Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the
Lesser Antilles. Florida State Museum, University of
Florida, Gamesville.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2001 VOL. 54(2)









BOOK REVIEWS


Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis by William
Andrefsky, Jr. 1998. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom,
xxvii + 258 pp., figures, tables, glossary, references, index.
$69.95 (cloth), $27.95 (paper).

ROBERT J. AUSTIN
Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc., P.O. Box 2818,
Riverview, FL 33568, bob@searchinc.com

While the study of stone tools has been a cornerstone of
archaeology for nearly two centuries, the emergence of lithic
analysis as a specialized discipline occurred only in the late
1960s and early 1970s. Since then, methods and techniques
have evolved dramatically, and today lithic analysts routinely
design their research to address questions as diverse as how a
site functioned within the larger settlement system to the
allocation of labor time within a nonmarket economy. It is
surprising then that William Andrefsky's Lithics: Macro-
scopic Approaches to Analysis is the first text devoted exclu-
sively to the presentation of basic techniques of lithic analysis.
This fact alone will make it a must-have for anyone who
desires to pursue an interest in the study of stone tools.
Two major themes dominate the book: 1) the need for
standardization in the recording and measurement of artifact
attributes, and 2) an emphasis on the dynamic character of
stone tools, and specifically how tool morphology can change
according to variation in raw materials, use, breakage, and
repair. These two themes constitute the book's greatest
strength.
The text is divided into three broad sections. The first,
which encompasses Chapters 1-3, reviews the basic concepts
necessary to begin an analysis of stone artifacts. In the brief
history of lithic research presented in Chapter 1, Andrefsky
cites the microwear studies of Russian archaeologist Sergei
Semenov and the replication studies of Francois Bordes and
Don Crabtree as seminal events in the development of the
discipline. Chapter 2 introduces basic terms and then moves
on to discuss the mechanical properties of siliceous stone and
how these are manipulated by a flintknapper to manufacture
tools. Chapter 3 is devoted to a discussion of lithic raw
materials.
The second section, composed of Chapters 4-7, is the meat
of the book. Chapter 4 is concerned with classification.
Andrefsky discusses the concepts of "attribute" and "type" and
then presents a typology for chipped stone artifacts. His
typology, which is based on gross morphology, is purposefully
general. This enables one to compare assemblages across
space and time, while simultaneously allowing for expansion
and elaboration so that more specific types of analyses can be
conducted. Chapters 5 and 6 deal with waste flakes, or the
debris that results from the reduction of stone into tools. Basic
flake attributes and techniques for recording and measuring


them are discussed in Chapter 5, while Chapter 6 presents
techniques for analyzing an assemblage of waste flakes. Two
basic approaches are covered: typological analysis, which
focuses on individual flakes, and aggregate analysis, which
focuses on flake assemblages. In Chapter 7 the emphasis turns
to worked stone-cores, flake tools, and bifaces-and the
techniques used to analyze them.
Chapters 8 and 9 comprise the third major section. These
chapters provide the reader with examples of how the analysis
of lithic artifacts can be used to address specific research
questions. The examples provided include site function and
settlement mobility.
Andrefsky should be complemented for presenting a wealth
of information about stone artifacts in a well-organized, easy-
to-read format. Although the writing is rather dry, the
information is clearly presented. Andrefsky uses numerous
well-referenced examples from published studies to illustrate
the discussions. The graphics are plentiful and well done. A
glossary provides the reader with definitions of technical
terms.
By necessity there is much that is not included. As the title
of the book implies, microscopic techniques are not discussed;
all of the analyses can be accomplished with at most a small
hand lens or a light magnifier. This means that identification
of tool use wear is only briefly touched on. While use-wear
analysis (both high- and low-power microscopic approaches)
deserves a text all its own, the limited space given to this
important topic diminishes the discussion of site function,
which may depend in part on accurate identifications of tool
use. Similarly, in the section on raw materials, Andrefsky
provides a brief review of several geochemical techniques for
identifying raw material provenance, yet ignores the substan-
tial body of literature on macroscopic or low-power micro-
scopic techniques. Although macroscopic techniques are less
precise, they often can be used to identify general source areas
with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Moreover, such tech-
niques can be used with large assemblages of artifacts, are
generally nondestructive, do not require expensive equipment,
and are therefore more likely to be employed by most practic-
ing analysts.
These minor criticisms aside, the book is well suited for use
in an introductory course on lithic analysis, particularly if
accompanied by one of several fine texts devoted to flintknap-
ping. While much of the book may be too elementary for the
advanced student, even seasoned analysts can benefit from
exploring Andrefsky's suggestions for standardizing certain
measurements and observations.


I






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2001 VOL. 54(2)


Frauds, Myths, andMysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in
Archaeology. Kenneth L. Feder, Mayfield Publishing Com-
pany, Mountain View, 1999. Third Edition. xvi + 320 pp.,
illustrations, tables, references, index. $20.95 (paper).

C. COLWELL-CHANTHAPHONH
Indiana University, Department of Anthropology, Student
Building 130, Bloomington, IN 47405

Over the last several decades, social scientists have become
increasingly interested in questions concerning the presenta-
tion, manipulation, and appropriation of the archaeological
past. Concurrent to this scholarly interest, the practice of
archaeology is becoming ever more visible in the public sphere
through such fora as the Internet and cable television, which
has allowed for a wider range of interpretations and appropria-
tions of the human past. And while it is certain that archaeol-
ogy has occupied a place in the public imagination for centu-
ries propagated by rumors, myths, and the occasional excava-
tion, students of the archaeological record today must be more
discerning than ever, more critical than ever, to recognize fact
from fiction.
It is this pressing need for critical thinking, especially when
mediating between "real" and "pseudo" science, as well as a
deep seeded interest in the uses of the past in the present, that
inspired Kenneth L. Feder to write Frauds, Myths, and
Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. More
than simply helping students become analytical scholars, Feder
has aimed to "[g]ive you the perspective of a professional
archaeologist on unsubstantiated claims made about the
prehistoric past, as well as on extreme claims made concerning
how we can learn about the past" (p.10). The recent release of
the third edition, updated and expanded, surely attests to the
book's efficacy and popularity.
Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries examines nine well-known
instances in which scholars and laypeople have manipulated
the past, all to various ends. These cases include, (1) the
Cardiff Giant, (2) Piltdown Man hoax, (3) questions of who
discovered America, (4) questions of who arrived in the
Americas after the Indians, but before Columbus, (5) the
moundbuilders myth, (6) lost continents, (7) ancient astro-
nauts, (8) psychic archaeology, dowsing, and photo-fields, and
(9) old religions/new age religions and the archaeological
record. The third edition retains the basic format of its
predecessors focusing on these cases studies, but also includes
new information in most every chapter, such as recent re-
search, updated figures, and additional sections. Like the
previous editions, each chapter includes a "current perspec-
tives" section, which successfully places the debates of the
chapter in their contemporary contexts. A new addition is the
"best of the web," which includes numerous and somewhat
diverse web sites for the curious reader (written sources would
have been welcomed too). Another device used at the end of
each chapter is a section called "frequently asked questions,"
which unfortunately I found to be rather unsophisticated for a
college audience. A final new section to each chapter is
"critical thinking exercises," which generally offers a good


place to begin group discussions and/or individual cerebral
exploration.
While the book serves as an absorbing account of the uses
and abuses of the past, as scholarly prose it is problematic in
several areas. One such problem is an unstated premise of the
book that an unambiguous division exists between "real" and
"pseudo" scientists. Feder does examine how this boundary
may be occasionally blurred (see Piltdown Man), but generally
he pits those who strictly adhere to rationality against those
who are willing to forego, in his view, any semblance of
reason. Essentially Feder seems to claim that any phenomena
that are prima facie "unbelievable" are therefore obviously
suspect. For example, Feder has polled his students about
belief/disbelief in ancient astronauts, King Tut's Curse, and
Atlantis, but not about equally extraordinary claims made by
scientists, be it essentialist theories of ethnicity, phrenology
and craniology, or even some archaeologists' claims about the
genesis of Native Americans in the New World. Scientists also
have made, and make, prima facie "fantastic" assertions, and
it is telling that Feder does not see these claims as bizarre and
thus worthy of critical evaluation, but merely as Science. The
point is not that all theories are equally valid, but rather, that
Feder dismisses one set of theories as ridiculous, while the
other set he does not evaluate, nor hardly even mention. While
reading this fascinating book, I was constantly wondering
where precisely Feder derives his criteria for "real" or
"pseudo" scientific claims. Recent scholarship on major
archaeological sites, such as Stonehenge, the Parthenon, and
Chichen Itza have demonstrated who gets to be heard in the
public and academic spheres, and how and why they're heard
also involves politics and power, not just "good" versus
"weird" science. I thought, for instance, that an evolutionary
chart originally published in 1927, and republished in Frauds
(p.63), which split humans into unique species-"Negro,
Mongol, Mediterranean, Nordic, alpine, and Austra-
lian"-with the Nordics as the epicenter, could provide a
starting point for an insightful chapter on the fraud, myth, and
mystery of the race concept as proposed by anthropologists,
and applied by archaeologists.
Another problematic section of the book was Chapter Two,
which is entitled, "Epistemology: How you know what you
know." While it is understandably a great challenge to
introduce the complicated issues of epistemology to a non-
professional audience, Feder gives rather cursory treatment to
such arguments as whether the world is real and knowable or
real but unknowable (p.21), the post-modern critique (p. 22),
comparing the laws of physics with cultural laws (p.22), and
the source of scientists' hypotheses (pp.32-34). Indeed, the last
point is highly problematic considering Feder's position as an
anthropologist (by virtue of being an archaeologist in the
U.S.). Feder seems to view culture and scientific practice as a
one-way process whereby science may influence society, but
the institution of science as somehow operating in a social
vacuum (p.24). Feder's stance on the impartiality and unques-
tioned objectivity of science contradicts a surfeit of convincing
research that demonstrates the ways in which scientific
practice is inextricably bound up in the larger social processes


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2001 VOL. 54(2)





BOOK REVIEWS 97

of class, gender and race relations, politics, and economics.
These issues aside, the body of the book provides a captivat-
ing survey of frauds, myths and mysteries in archaeological
practice. Feder's accounts are well researched, concise,
readable, and fascinating. While Feder's assumption on the
dichotomy between "real" and "pseudo" science, and his
stance of the omnipotence of "objective" science hinder the
book's impact, Feder successfully makes the reader more
critical of knowledge claims and the strange appropriations of
the archaeological past. The updated and revised book is even
more user-friendly and could thus enliven any undergraduate
archaeology class (especially if supplemented by more anthro-
pologically oriented studies), or provide an enjoyable weekend
read for the professional anthropologist unfamiliar with these
stories of the use and abuse of history and archaeology.






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2001 VOL 54(2)


About the Authors:


Robert J. Austin is Vice President of Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc., a cultural resource consulting firm in
Florida. He is interested in the economic and social uses of stone tools in the prehistoric southeastern U.S.

Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh is Ph.D. candidate in the "Archaeology and Social Context" track, in the Department of
Anthropology, Indiana University. His research interests include the politics of the past, archaeological ethics, and heritage
management.

Art Lee is an avocational archaeologist and member of the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society.

George Luer is an archaeologist who has studied shell tools, ceramics, shell middens and mounds, and canoe canals. He has
conducted hydrological studies of the Pine Island Canal (with Ryan Wheeler), the Naples Canal, and the Cape Coral area.

RayM. McGee was a navigator in the U.S. Air Force (Lt. Col., ret.) and lives in Gainesville, Florida. He obtained an M.A.
in archaeology from the University of Florida in 1995, studying with Dr. Purdy, with whom he worked on the Florida Canoe
Project and at Hontoon Island and Lake Monroe. In the Summer of 2000, Ray helped excavate and document canoes on the
exposed lake bottom of drought-stricken Newnans Lake, near Gainesville.

Jerald T. Milanich is a Curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History in Gainesville.

Ryan J. Wheeler is Archaeology Supervisor with the Bureau of Archaeological Research. His research interests include
prehistoric art, aboriginal canal engineering, and the archaeology of eastern and southern Florida.


2001 VOL. 54(2)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST




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