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/UF00027829/00090
 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: VID00090
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

Full Text





COPYRIGHT NOTICE

2002 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.


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


all rights to the
and shall be
and images of


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

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

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
VOLUME 55, NUMBERS 3-4 SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2002
Special Issue: The Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet and
Coastal Palm Beach County







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is publishedby the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 6356, Tallahassee, Florida 32314.
Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United States
of America. Membership may be initiated at any time during the year, and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall be
payable on the anniversary of the initial dues payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributedby the Society during
the 12 months of their membership year. Annual dues are as follows: individual $25, family $35, institutional $25, sustaining $35 or
more, patron $100 or more, and life $500. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $5 U.S. to cover added postage and handling costs
for individual, family, or institutional membership categories. Copies of the journal will only be sent to members with current paid dues.
Please contact the Editor for information on recent back issues.

Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the
Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editor to facilitate acknowledgment in
subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editor. Publications
for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (49[1], 1996,
pp. 37-43) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editor with specific questions. Submit four (4) copies
for use in peer review. Only one set of original graphics need be submitted. Thejournal is formatted using Word Perfect for Windows.
All manuscripts must be submitted in final form on DOS-formatted 3.5 inch diskettes or CDs in Word Perfect, Word, or ASCII format.
Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue. The post office will not forward bulk mail
nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist. Such mail is returned to the Society postage due. The journal is published
quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year.


OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY

President: Sheila Stewart, 2130 Burlington Avenue North, St. Petersburg, FL 33713 (sjstew@gte.net)
First Vice President: Phyllis Kolianos,880 Seminole Blvd., Tarpon Springs, FL 34689 (koliano@attglobal.net)
Second Vice President: Linda Allred, 5460 43rd Ave. N., St. Petersburg, FL 33709 (llrred@juno.com)
Corresponding Secretary: Gordon Davis, 2200 N. Oleander Dr., Avon Park, FL 33825 (gordondavis@hotmail.com)
Membership Secretary: Terry Simpson, 9907 High Meadow Ave., Thonotosassa, FL 33592 (tsimpson@luna.cas.usf.edu)
Treasurer andRegisteredAgent: Mary Beth Fitts, 1405 Colonial Dr., Tallahassee, FL 32303 (mbfitts@mail.dos.state.fl.us)
Directors atLarge: Gypsy Graves, 4561 SW 24' Ave., Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 (One Year); Dot Moore, P.O. Box 504, New Smyrna
Beach, FL 32170(dlhmoore@ucnsb.net) (Two Years); Gloria Fike, 2815 SE St. Lucie Blvd., Stuart, FL 34997 (Three Years)
Immediate Past President: Jack Thompson, 576 Retreat Drive, Apt. 202, Naples, FL 34110 (JWTDLT@aol.com)
Newsletter Editor: David Burns, 15128 Springview St., Tampa, FL 33624 (daveburns@prodigy.net)

JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF

Editor: Ryan J. Wheeler, P.O. Box 6356, Tallahassee, FL 32314-6356 (rjwl00@juno.com)
Book Review Editor: Keith Ashley, P.O. Box 350225, Jacksonville, FL 32225-0225 (akashley@fdn.com)
Technical Editor: vacant
EditorialAssistant: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239-5019 (gluer@grove.ufl.edu)
Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304
Bulk Mail: Capital City Mailing, 4013 Woodville Hwy, Tallahassee, FL 32311
BackIssue Sales: Graves Museum of Archaeology and Natural History, 481 S. Federal Highway, Dania, FL 33004, (954) 925-7770,
FAX (954) 925-7064

EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD

Albert C. Goodyear, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (goodyear@sc.edu)
Jerald T. Milanich, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 (jtm@flmnh.ufl.edu)
Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (jeffmitchem@juno.com)
Nancy Marie White, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100 (nwhite@chumal.cas.usf.edu)
Robert J. Austin, P. O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (bob@searchinc.com)

NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Review Board members, the review comments of others knowledgeable in a manuscript's
subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process.








THE FLORIDA


ANTHROPOLOGIST



Volume 55 Numbers 3-4
September-December 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS


SPECIAL ISSUE: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF JUPITER INLET AND COASTAL PALM BEACH COUNTY



Editor's Introduction: Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet and Coastal
Palm Beach County. Ryan J. Wheeler 113

ARTICLES

The Archaeology of Coastal Palm Beach County. Ryan J. Wheeler, Wm. Jerald Kennedy
and James P. Pepe 119

The Archaeology of Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34). Ryan J. Wheeler, James P. Pepe
and Wm. Jerald Kennedy 157

Disease and Population Ecology in the East Okeechobee Area. Kenneth J. Winland 199

The Job6 and Jeaga of the Palm Beach County Area. Ryan J. Wheeler
and James P. Pepe 221

ABSTRACTS OF THE FAS 2002 ANNUAL MEETING 243

FAS 2002 AWARD RECIPIENTS 251

BOOK REVIEWS

Deagan and Cruxent: Archaeology at La Isabela: America's First European Town;
Columbus's Outpost Among the Tainos: Spain and America at La Isabela, 1493-1498. Roger C. Smith 255
Poirier and Feder: Dangerous Places: Health, Safety, andArchaeology. Earl E. "Gene" Quinn 256

About the Authors 259

Cover: Clockwise, from upper left: Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34), circa 1895 (C photo courtesy of the Loxahatchee River Historical
Society, Jupiter); Jupiter Inlet lighthouse, circa 1924 (Photograph by Stuart Mossom, Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee);
and De Brahm's 1770 map of the lower east coast of Florida, showing Jupiter Inlet as "Grenville Inlet."

Copyright Notice: Authors retain all copyrights to materials published in this journal, other materials are copyrighted
by the Florida Anthropological Society.

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










EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION:
ARCHAEOLOGY OF JUPITER INLET AND COASTAL PALM BEACH COUNTY


This issue of The Florida Anthropologist focuses on the
archaeology of coastal Palm Beach County and neighboring
areas. It is hoped that the issue's four articles will help flesh
out this interesting part of the state and contribute to a better
overall understanding of the archaeology of southern Florida.
A thematic issue on coastal Palm Beach County is timely for
several reasons. First, Palm Beach County has a large
population, approximately 7 percent of Florida's 16 million
people reside there. Dramatic population growth and associ-
ated development within the last 50 years has had a negative
impact on archaeological sites in the area. Figures 1 and 2
compare the area around Jupiter Inlet in 1953 and 1995. Note
the loss of natural areas and the considerable increase in
infrastructure and development around the river and coast.
Our review of coastal Palm Beach County archaeological sites
indicates that many have been impacted, if not destroyed, by
development. The good news, however, is that neighboring
Martin County to the north, also within the East Okeechobee
culture area, has many extant sites, including many smaller
ones. Similar small sites likely once existed in coastal Palm
Beach County, but have been lost to development prior to
regulations requiring surveys and preservation of sites.
Second, this issue is important since it complements
research being conducted in other parts of southern Florida.
The archaeology of southwestern Florida has enjoyed a long
history of intensive research, led by several individuals and
organizations (e.g., George Luer, Randolph Widmer, William
Marquardt). Likewise, the archaeology of Broward and
Miami-Dade counties is fairly well studied, largely due to the
efforts of local archaeological societies like the Broward
County Archaeological Society, Archaeological Society of
South Florida and their predecessors, as well as work by
Robert Carr and the Archaeological and Historical Conser-
vancy. Effective county and municipal historic preservation
programs have greatly benefitted archaeological sites in
Miami-Dade County, including the discovery and preservation
of the Miami Circle. Also, the publication ofArchaeology of
the Everglades (Griffin 2002), a reissue of the late John W.
Griffin's 1988 study for the National Park Service, will likely
increase interest in and awareness of the archaeology of
southern Florida. Hopefully, the work presented in this issue
will help broaden the contexts for research in these neighbor-
ing areas.
Third, we hope that this issue will provide a resource for
future work in Palm Beach County and neighboring areas.
The first article presented here, authored by Ryan Wheeler,


Jerry Kennedy, and Jim Pepe, is an attempt to synthesize
previous work, which can be found throughout the pages of
several journals, unpublished reports, as well as document,
photographic and object collections at several institutions,
spanning over 100 years of investigation. Previous research,
especially the work conducted by the Palm Beach County
Archaeological Society and several students from Florida
Atlantic University and the University of Florida, provided a
considerable data set. In this article, we also discuss the
validity of the East Okeechobee Area as a unit of analysis, and
the difficulties in defining and understanding the transitional
nature of the region. The primary goal of the article is to
provide a context for our excavations at the Jupiter Inlet 1
shell mound, presented in the second article.
The second article, authored by Ryan Wheeler, Jim Pepe,
and Jerry Kennedy, had its genesis in excavations conducted
at the Jupiter Inlet 1 site (8PB34) between 1990 and 1992.
The article is based on our 1993 report on the excavations and
analysis (Kennedy et al. 1993). We originally chose the site,
located in DuBois County Park, since it was one of the few
remaining shell mounds in the area and it appeared to have
extensive, well-preserved deposits. The site also is occasion-
ally impacted by park development projects and a thorough
survey was conducted to identify the most significant site
areas. Jupiter Inlet 1 also is believed to be "Hoe-Bay," where
Quaker shipwreck survivor Jonathan Dickinson's party spent
several reluctant days in 1696. Again, this was a corporate
effort, involving the research of several graduate students led
by Dr. Kennedy. The article discusses the original and current
appearance of the site, stratification observed, along with
studies of ceramics, bone and shell artifacts, and faunal
remains. What is most striking, and took me a long time to
appreciate, was that the piling of shells and midden debris
likely represents an architectural endeavor.
The third article, by physical anthropologist Ken Winland,
summarizes his thesis research on the skeletal remains from
the Highland Beach Burial Mound (8PB 11). Winland follows
a demographic approach in his analysis, resulting in discus-
sions of population size, longevity, health, and incidence of
disease. Comparison of the Highland Beach population with
other Florida groups indicates that these people enjoyed good
health and relatively long lives. Evidence of some trauma,
degenerative joint disease, and lesions possibly related to
dietary deficiencies point to the challenging and strenuous
lives led by these people. Also notable was the high incidence
of treponemal infection, a disease that has long interested


VOL.55(34) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2002


VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2002








THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 1. The Loxahatchee River and Jupiter Inlet area in 1953 (United States Department of Agriculture 1953).


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST






EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION 115


Figure 2. The Loxahatchee River and Jupiter Inlet area in 1995 (Department of Environmental Protection 1995).










Table 1. Comparison of proposed East Okeechobee Area sequence with the broader Glades Area sequence.


East Okeechobee Glades

East Okeechobee IV (A.D. 1513 1763) Glades IIIc (A.D. 1513 1763)
European contact period material is present; St. Johns series
wares may dominate ceramic assemblages of some sites

East Okeechobee III (A.D. 1000 1513) Glades IIIb (A.D. 1400 1513)
St. Johns Check Stamped is added to the ceramic Glades liIa (A.D. 1200 1400)
assemblage; St. Johns series wares increase in abundance Glades IIc (A.D. 1100 1200
throughout the area Glades IIb (A.D. 900 1100)

East Okeechobee II (A.D. 800 1000) Glades IIa (A.D. 750 900)
St. Johns Plain pottery is added to the ceramic assemblage;
Belle Glade Plain pottery abundant at some sites (e.g.,
Spanish River and Boca Raton Inlet sites)

East Okeechobee I (750 B.C. -A.D. 800) Glades I late (A.D. 500 750)
ceramic assemblage characterized by sand-tempered plain Glades I early (500 B.C. A.D. 500)
pottery


physical anthropologists.
The final article, authored by Ryan Wheeler and Jim Pepe,
discusses the native peoples who inhabited the coastal Palm
Beach County area during the European contact period (circa
A.D. 1513-1763). Most discussions of southern Florida
Indians of the contact period quickly turn to the Tequesta or
Calusa. In this article we keep the focus on the less well-
known Jeaga and Job6, following them chronologically
through mentions on old maps and in the ethnohistoric
literature. This approach indicates that there may have been
significant shifts in the sociopolitical relationships between
these two groups, possibly related to the introduction of goods
salvaged from shipwrecks. The study, in general, suggests that
southern Florida inter-village and inter-tribal relationships and
alliances were rather fluid.
One final introductory note is necessary. In our initial
Jupiter Inlet 1 report we propose a chronological sequence for
the East Okeechobee Area (Kennedy et al. 1993:174-176).
This chronology was revised by Carr et al. (1995:28-30) and
Pepe (2000:32-34). In general, our East Okeechobee chronol-
ogy is modeled on the St. Johns/Malabar sequence, with
divisions predicated on the appearance of St. Johns Plain and
St. Johns Check Stamped types. Data from Jupiter Inlet 1 and
Suni Sands were used primarily in the formulation, especially
in defining the East Okeechobee Period II (James Pepe,
personal communication, October 2002). This chronology is
compared to the broader Glades Area sequence in Table 1.
Despite the limited utility of many of the Glades subperiods in
coastal Martin and Palm Beach counties, due to the absence or
scarcity of the decorated Glades marker types, I have used the
appropriate Glades period designations throughout this issue.
This choice was made for two reasons: 1) use of the broader
Glades sequence will facilitate comparison of data from


neighboring areas, and 2) Russo and Heide (2002) recently
reported sherds with a St. Johns paste from early contexts at
the Joseph Reed Shell Ring in Martin County. This discovery
indicates that the proposed East Okeechobee sequence may
need further revision, but also demonstrates the potential that
the area offers for further research.

References Cited

Carr, Robert S., Linda Jester, James Pepe, W.S. Steele
1995 An Archaeological Survey of Martin County, Florida.
Technical Report No.124. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc., Miami.

Department of Environmental Protection
1995 Composite orthophotoquads for Jupiter and Riviera Beach.
Scanned images available from Land Boundary Information
System, Department of Environmental Protection, Talla-
hassee.

Griffin, John W.
2002 Archaeology oftheEverglades. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.

Kennedy, Wm. Jerald, Ryan J. Wheeler, Linda Spears Jester, Jim
Pepe, Nancy Sinks, and Clark Wemecke
1993 Archaeological Survey and Excavations at the Jupiter Inlet
1 Site (8PB34), Dubois Park, Palm Beach County, Florida.
Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton.

Pepe, James P.
2000 An Archaeological Survey of St. Lucie County, Florida.
Technical Report No. 280. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc., Miami.


2002 VOL. 55(34)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST






EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION


Figure 3. Location of many of the archaeological sites and site complexes mentioned in this issue.


Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide
2002 The Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist
55(2):67-87.

United States Department of Agriculture
1953 Portion of aerial photo mosaic index sheet for Palm Beach
County area. Aerosurvey program, United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture. On file, Map and Imagery Library,
University of Florida, Gainesville.


RYAN J. WHEELER
October, 2002













Pioneer in Space and Time
John Mo CGggin nd
Fhe DoArnopmt
F6ldoa Ahoogy


So/ t


01191

a fir1olo $!II


9f, hhD[Ges


Anclendt Nlaamlaans
The Tequesta of South Florida


0 ir 3 7



H~i to r


Pioneer in
Space and Time
John Mann Goggin and
the Development of Florida
Archaeology
Brent Richards Weisman
"A must-read for anyone inter-
ested in Florida archaeology and/
or the history of archaeology in the
state of Florida ... a wonderful
portrait that will captivate its
audience. At last I have met John
Goggin, a fascinating man."-
Marvin T. Smith, Valdosta State
University
Cloth $49.95

Archaeology
of the Everglades
John W. Griffin
Edited by Jerald T. Milanich
and James J. Miller
"An extremely important work ...
John has brought his unprec-
edented knowledge of the archae-
ology together with his anthropo-
logical and ecological insights, to
provide the most thorough synthe-
sis of the predrainage aboriginal
use of this area."-Randolph J.
Widmer, University of Houston
Cloth $55.00

Ancient Miamians
The Tequesta of South Florida
William E. McGoun
"Ancient Miamians places a prehis-
toric face on a Miami that too often
is regarded as a modern postscript
to Flagler's railroad. McGoun
paints 10,000 years of human
history onto a missing piece of
Florida archaeology."-Robert S.
Carr, director, Dade County
Historic Preservation Division
Cloth, $39.95

Windover
Multidisciplinary
Investigations of an Early
Archaic Florida Cemetery
Edited by Glen H. Doran
"The contents of this volume
furnish the most complete, impor-
tant, interesting, and thoroughly
documented account of human
activities and intertwining envi-
ronmental conditions that existed
7,500 years ago in Florida or
anywhere in the Western Hemi-
sphere."-Barbara Purdy,
University of Florida
Cloth $75.00


UNIVERSITY PRESS OF


More Than Black
Afro-Cubans in Tampa
Susan D. Greenbaum
"Among the many merits of this
book is the fact that Greenbaum
convincingly places the experience
of this small community within the
widest context. In so doing, she
dexterously reveals the dialectical
interplay among local, state,
national, and international devel-
opments."-Winston James,
Columbia University
Cloth, $55.00

The Archaeology
and History of the
Native Georgia
Tribes
Max E. White
"A sound overview of Georgia's
indigenous peoples [that] will fill
an important void in the available
literature about Georgia's rich
human past."-John E. Worth,
Coosawattee Foundation
Cloth $55.00

The Quest for
the Cuban Christ
A Historical Search
Miguel A. De La Torre
"A sweeping and stunning inter-
pretation of Cuban religion and
culture, from the religious fervor
that surrounded the recent Elian
Gonzalez saga in Miami to a
religious view from the underside
of Cuban history."-Luis Dafiiel
Le6n, Arizona State University
Cloth $55.00


Carnival and
the Formation of a
Caribbean Transnation
Philip W. Scher
"A welcome contribution to
the growing number of recent
anthropological studies of popular
culture in Trinidad."
-David Scott, Columbia
University
March. Cloth $55.00


sville, Tallahassee, Tampa, Boca Raton, Pensacola,
do, Miami, Jacksonville, Fort Myers

Bioarchaeology of
Spanish Florida
The Impact of Colonialism
Edited by Clark Spencer Larsen
"An original and an extremely
important contribution to the
continuing scholarship that
chronicles the impact of Euro-
pean colonization and
missionization on the health,
population history, and lifestyle
of Native Americans of the
southeastern United States."-
Michael Pietrusewsky,
University of Hawaii
Cloth, $55.00

The Archaeology
of Traditions
Agency and History
Before and After Columbus
Edited by Timothy R. Pauketat
"At last, southeastern archaeol-
ogy as history of people, not
just 'cultures'."-Patricia
Galloway, Mississippi Depart-
ment of Archives and History
Cloth, $59.95

Black Seminoles
in the Bahamas
Rosalyn Howard
"An excellent case study of a
little-studied and poorly
known community experienc-
ing the processes of identity
formation and culture
change."-Brent R. Weisman,
University of South Florida
Cloth $55.00


Order through full-service
booksellers, our website at
www.upf.com, or with
VISA, American Express, or
M/C toll free: 1-800-226-3822









THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF COASTAL PALM BEACH COUNTY

RYAN J. WHEELER,1 WM. JERALD KENNEDY,2AND JAMES P. PEPE3

'Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 2026 Chuli Nene, Tallahassee, FL 32301
E-mail: rjw100@juno.com

2Department ofAnthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431
E-mail: kennedy@fau.edu

3Janus Research, 146 Madeira Avenue, Coral Gables, FL 33134
E-mail: jim_pepe@janus-research. cor


The goal of this paper is to review data on the major
archaeological sites of coastal Palm Beach County. Archaeo-
logical studies of the region are limited, and the information
in the present paper will serve as an introduction to our more
detailed study of the Jupiter Inlet 1 site (see Wheeler et al., this
issue) and the consideration of the Jeaga and Jobe peoples that
occupied the area when Europeans first arrived in the Amer-
icas (see Wheeler and Pepe, this issue).
Much of the site-specific information reported here is from
the files of the Department of Anthropology at Florida Atlantic
University (FAU), collected by students and faculty since the
establishment of that school in 1962. The collections of the
Palm Beach County Archaeological Society (PBCAS), dis-
solved in 1988, are stored at FAU and also were used in this
study. We used these files to visit many of the sites discussed
here during archaeological surveys of Palm Beach County in
1989 and 1990 (see Kennedy et al. 1991). It became apparent
that the coastal sites, many once large and complicated, had
been severely impacted by development since the 1950s and
1960s. Remnants remained in some cases, but often it was
impossible to find any trace of the sand mounds, black earth
middens, and large shell mounds that had once dominated the
coast.
Summary of the data allows for a preliminary look at the
temporal and geographic distribution of sites and site com-
plexes, further consideration of settlement systems, a discus-
sion of population, and discussion about the place of coastal
Palm Beach County in the archaeology of southern Florida.
Synthesis ofthis data during the archaeological survey of Palm
Beach County (Kennedy et al. 1991) and additional fieldwork
in the late 1980s and early 1990s indicated that one
site-Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34)-represented one of the last
accessible remnants of the giant shell mounds that had dotted
the coast, and it became the focus of our further research (see
article, this issue).

Previous Research

Major early investigations of sites in coastal Palm Beach
County are lacking, especially when considering projects like


Frank Hamilton Cushing's excavations of the Court of the Pile
Dwellers in Collier County, or even the 1930s WPA studies of
sites in Broward, Dade, and western Palm Beach counties
(Stirling 1935; Willey 1949). Early observations, like thoseby
A.E. Douglass (1885) on Jupiter Inlet, are important because
of their rarity. Douglass' work is considered in more detail in
our article focusing on Jupiter Inlet 1 (see Wheeler et al., this
issue).
Some scientific observations were made early in the
twentieth century, including Ales Hrdlidka's (1940:365, 371)
mention of skeletal remains from a site in the Delray Beach
area, John Kunkle Small's (1927:4) mention of the Riviera
site, Pearson's (1945) notes on the demolition of the burial
mound at Palm Beach, and Gilbert Voss's (1949) discussion
of his excavations of the burial mound near Hypoluxo. Vernon
Lamme (1973:76) provides a fascinating account of a shell
mound being mined for road fill in the vicinity of Lake Worth
and West Palm Beach, sometime in the 1920s. One remark-
able find was a bowl made from a portion of human cranium.
A similar bowl was found during the WPA excavations at
Belle Glade near Lake Okeechobee (Willey 1949:45, Plate 8m)
(see Figure 1).
John Goggin's (n.d.) compilation of information about sites
in the 1940s and 1950s resulted in the recording of 42 sites in
central and coastal Palm Beach and Martin counties, including
many of the major sites discussed here. Most of his informa-
tion came from informants like C.W. Effinger and A.G. Elbon,
who were local collectors, or from his students, like Heidi
Christman, who lived in the area. Goggin made short visits to
some of the coastal Palm Beach County sites, and Christman
made an excavation at the Boynton Inlet site (see below). One
of the more unusual sites recorded by Goggin was the Boynton
Cave (8PB15), which consisted of a subterranean cave in a
beach outcrop of Anastasia Limestone at the town of Briny
Breezes. Goggin reported sherds from the cave, as well as
"cave paintings," and he alludes to a sketch of the geometric
designs, which we have unfortunately been unable to locate.
The 1950s through early 1970s saw little archaeological
research in coastal Palm Beach County. In 1954 Ripley P.
Bullen, at the invitation of photographer and promoter E.G.


VOL.55(3-4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2002


VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2002







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 1. Human skull bowl from the burial mound at Belle Glade (adapted from Willey 1949:Plate 8m). Vernon Lamme
reported finding a similar bowl, though smaller, from a shell mound near Lake Worth and West Palm Beach.


Barnhill, excavated at Boca Raton Sand Mound (8PB13) or
"Barnhill Mound." Bullen's (1957) work produced some
human remains, some data on construction episodes, but little
conclusive evidence about the inhabitants of the region.
Interestingly, between 1953 and 1957 Barnhill used the mound
as part of a tourist attraction called "Ancient America,"
partially due to its proximity to U.S. Highway 1 (Figure 2).
The attraction featured a museum with artifacts and treasure
from Spanish shipwrecks; an assortment of dubious mound
and earthwork features; murals based on the deBry engravings
of the Timucuas; and thepiece de resistance, a tunnel through
the mound that showcased human skeletons, many of which
were carefully placed and arranged by Barnhill.
Florida Atlantic University graduate student John Furey
excavated at the Boca Weir site, a component of a large
midden originally recorded by Goggin (n.d.) as the Boca Raton
BeachMidden (8PB 10). Furey's work was interesting because
it focused on a site close to the supposed boundary between the
Everglades Area to the south and the East Okeechobee Area to
the north. Furey (1972:7-9, 89-91) also recognized that the
site was part of a larger site complex or locality, which
included several middens and sand mounds, including the one
investigated by Bullen. Unfortunately, there is little data from


other sites in the area with which to compare Furey's results.
Between 1970 and 1988 the Palm Beach County Archaeo-
logical Society, a chapter of the Florida Anthropological
Society, conducted excavations at a number of sites in central
and eastern Palm Beach County, including the Boynton
Mounds, Patrician site, Riviera site, Littlefield site, Big Blue
site, and Highland Beach burial mound. Members of the
society and later researchers published results of some projects
(Jaffee 1976; Levy 1981; Ritchie et al. 1981; Wheeler 1992b;
Winland 1993). Artifacts and notes relating to the society's
work are stored at Florida Atlantic University and the Histori-
cal Museum of Palm Beach County.

Palm Beach County and the Glades Area

Perhaps the lack of data from the area made it difficult for
Goggin to assess coastal Palm Beach County's proper place in
his formulation of the Glades Area. Matthew Stirling
(1936:355) originally characterized southern Florida as the
"Glades Area," which Goggin (1947:119-121) further divided
into three subareas: Tekesta, Calusa, and Okeechobee. He
described the area being considered here as the "East Coast
Region" of his Okeechobee subarea, noting some similarities


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, KENNEDY, ~&ND Pr.pE PALM BEACH Couwrv ARCHAEOLOGY


WITH HISTO











/T
fWCITYO


cOWSO INDIANS


...,..................--


Figure 2. Pamphlet from E.G. Barnhill's "Ancient
America" attraction, circa 1954, located at the Boca Raton
Burial Mound or "Barnhill Mound" (8PB13). From the
collection of Ryan J. Wheeler, Tallahassee.

and differences with the areas to the south and north. The
designation was largely a geographic one and apparently was
not intended to reflect cultural affiliations.
Griffin et al. (1979:30-42) discuss the difficulties in
assessing the place of coastal Palm Beach County in the
broader archaeological contexts of southern Florida (see Figure
3). Site types and settlement patterns for central Palm Beach
County (the northern Everglades) clearly differ from the


pattern of tree island sites known to the south. This difference,
coupled with the relative scarcity of decorated Glades series
types and the abundance of Belle Glade Plain and St. Johns
series types eventually led Carr and Beriault (1984:7) to label
the zone as the "East Okeechobee Area," though it is difficult
to ascertain what makes the area distinct based on their
description. They suggest a southern boundary for this area at
the Broward/Palm Beach county line and a northward exten-
sion to the St. Lucie Inlet. The western boundary is difficult
to define, but should probably include the major sites in central
Palm Beach County.
The East Okeechobee Area is distinct as a cultural region
perhaps because of its indistinctiveness. Characterizations of
the area are often made by noting the presence or absence of
certain traits typical of neighboring areas, for example: the
decorated ceramic types of neighboring areas to the south are
rare, while Belle Glade and St. Johns wares are more common;
tree island sites are rare in the interior, while large coastal
shell mounds like those found to the north occur here, but are
rare in Broward and Dade counties to the south; the area's
bone tools and ornaments are typical of the broader Glades
Area; and shell tools types are shared with areas to the north
and south. Griffin (1988:117) recognizes that the East
Okeechobee Area represents a transitional zone, with influ-
ences from neighboring cultures, and perhaps especially strong
influences from the Belle Glade or Lake Okeechobee area,
reflecting Goggin's original observations. The influences
seem to vary through time and from site to site, suggesting a
fairly dynamic cultural system. It is this dynamism that makes
the East Okeechobee Area an interesting case study.

Environment

Palm Beach County is divided into three physiographic
divisions: the Atlantic coastal ridge, which extends 2 to 5
miles inland; the northern reaches of the Everglades in the
western part of the county; and the sandy flatlands that lie
between the coastal ridge and the Everglades (Schroeder et al.
1954:5-6). The archaeological area considered here is
primarily within the coastal ridge division. The coast of Palm
Beach County is dominated by aquatic features, including the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf Stream, Lake Worth, otherfreshwater
lakes and marshes, and natural inlets at Boca Raton and
Jupiter. Upland features include portions of the Atlantic
coastal ridge, relict dunes, and maritime hammocks. Richard-
son (1977) presents a detailed study of the vegetation of the
coastal ridge in Palm Beach County, describing the vegetation
communities, as well as changes in these systems due to
natural and human factors. The coastal ridge was historically
dominated by scrub vegetation, with intermittent pine flat-
woods and maritime hammock communities. Drainage,
beginning in the 1860s with settlement around Lake Worth,
has resulted in some of the most dramatic changes to the
environment.
Mclver (1976:11-12) relates the account of Michael Sears,
who in 1866 discovered that heavy rains had forced an outlet
from Lake Worth about 16 km (10 miles) south of Jupiter


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 3. Comparison of various views of cultural boundaries in southern Florida (from Pepe 1999:Figure 4). We have
followed the boundaries for the East Okeechobee Area as delineated by Carr and Beriault (left, center).


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VoL. 55(3-4)







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM BEAcH Couwrv ARCHAEOLOGY
south to north, beginning at Boca Raton and ending at Jupiter


Inlet. Settlers in the area kept the outlet open, eventually
changing Lake Worth from a freshwater lake to a brackish
lagoon (see Pierce 1970:106-108). Interestingly, a report of
1870 indicates that the opening and closing of the outlet
created a rapid cycling back and forth between freshwater and
marine life in Lake Worth (Hawkes 1939:108-109; also see
Curl 1986:14). Harris et al. (1983:139) note that rising sea
levels following the last ice age changed Lake Worth from a
saltwater lagoon into a freshwater lake. Many of the sites
along Lake Worth are composed of oysters, suggesting that the
lake may have been a saltwater lagoon for some extended time
in prehistory, just as it is today.

Site Types and Distribution

Several types of sites can be described for the East
Okeechobee Area, including large black earth and shell
middens, shell mounds, sand burial mounds, sand earthworks,
and small coastal procurement stations. Limited surveys of
central Palm Beach County have revealed that interior
campsites are infrequently encountered, unlike the pattern of
frequent interior campsites recognized for the Everglades of
Broward and Dade counties, though several large site com-
plexes or localities have been found, often associated with
cypress sloughs. Larger sites known for the interior are
generally near Lake Okeechobee, and are probably associated
with the Belle Glade Culture. For the coastal sector of Palm
Beach County, a number of larger villages or towns can be
identified; we have defined these villages as complexes of one
or more large midden sites, with one or more sand mounds or
burial mounds. Sand earthworks, like those known from the
Lake Okeechobee basin, may be associated with some of these
village sites, and in some cases procurement sites are located
near these villages. Large village sites are usually on the
western side of Lake Worth or on the lee side of the barrier
island, though notable exceptions include the components of
the Spanish River complex and the Patrician site, which abut
the beach dune. Some sites include large shell mounds, which
appear to be architectural features. Shell mound architecture
is quite common on the Florida Gulf Coast and farther to the
north in the Indian River Area, though largely absent from
Everglades Area.
Martin County recently has been the subject of an intensive
archaeological survey, and a few notes on major site com-
plexes of that county are included for comparative purposes.
Figure 4 illustrates the location of these major village sites,
and a short discussion of each follows below.

Major Sites and Site Complexes

Nine major site complexes, probably representing towns or
villages, are known from coastal Palm Beach County. Five
other large sites or site complexes are known in coastal Martin
County, and at least two large site complexes or localities are
known from central Palm Beach County. Many of the coastal
sites have been severely impacted or destroyed. Short descrip-
tions of each are given below. Descriptions proceed from


south to north, beginning at Boca Raton and ending at Jupiter
Inlet.

Boca Raton Inlet Complex

Furey (1972:91-92) already has defined a cluster of three
shell and black earth middens (8PB3, 8PB5, and 8PB6) and a
sand burial mound (8PB4) as a pre-contact settlement com-
plex. These sites all have been impacted by development
around Boca Raton Inlet, though Furey managed to make some
salvage excavations and surface collections before the sites
were covered with fill or mined away. Furey (1972:91-92;
field notes on file at FAU) made surface collections from the
three habitation sites and made two 5 ft by 10 ft excavations
into Boca Raton Inlet Midden 2 (8PB3); the original test, "Test
Pit A," contained only a small lens of midden material, and
was excavated to approximately 3 ft in depth where an old
beach dune was uncovered. Test Pit B consisted of several
inches of humic material, oyster shell and black earth midden
(Level I), and sparse black earth midden (Level II), underlain
by the old beach dune. Some ceramic sherds were collected
from the Level I midden in the following frequencies: 14
(17%) St. Johns Check Stamped, 38 (45%) Belle Glade Plain,
and 32 (38%) Glades Plain. The sherds suggest assignment to
the Glades m Period (A.D. 1200-A.D. 1763). The ceramic
collection made by Goggin and Christman (field notes on file
at FAU) from Boca Raton Inlet Midden 1 (8PB5) is small, but
tends to replicate the pattern described for 8PB3. Furey
(1972:91-92) believed that this complex was contemporary
with or slightly later than the Glades II (A.D. 750-A.D. 1200)
and Glades III (A.D. 1200-A.D. 1763) Spanish River Com-
plex, probably due to the higher frequency of St. Johns Check
Stamped ceramics at the Inlet Complex.
Known from these sites are examples of the West Indian
top shell or Cittarium pica (once called Livona pica). Several
examples of these shells from the Boca Raton Inlet Midden 1
are illustrated in Figure 5. John Goggin (1948:230; also see
Abbott 1974:49; Morris 1956:112) commented on the occur-
rence of the top shell in archaeological sites of coastal southern
Florida, noting that its range is now restricted to the Carib-
bean, with the closest populations on the Cay Sal Banks.
Cittarium pica tends to live on shallow rock outcroppings and
is known from several other Palm Beach County sites, includ-
ing the Boynton Inlet midden (see below). Goggin (1948:230)
reports that sites between Key Largo and Sugarloaf Key
typically have examples of the top shell, as do sites between
Hillsboro Inlet and Singers Island. He suggests this distribu-
tion corresponds to areas with rocky outcroppings. Goggin
(1948:230) states that Cittarium pica is no longer extant in
Florida, though Zischke (1977:29) reports examples from the
intertidal zone at Pigeon Key, and Morris (1956:112) notes
that rare dead specimens are found, and that the top shell
occurs as a Pleistocene fossil in Florida. Goggin (1948:230)
concludes that the large numbers of top shells from some sites
and the proximity of those sites to rocky shorelines indicate
that the shells were collected locally, and not transported to
Florida from the Caribbean. The extinction (or at least


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Lake
Mangonia



Clear '
Lake


Lake


Guest Mound
Complex


Complex


Jupiter Inlet
Complex
ter
Rt -A
r


O


Lake
Ida


4


Figure 4. Map of major site complexes in coastal Palm Beach County. Base map from Pierce (1970).


Osbomrne \




I



.;
i.. *
r
-:


,,* f f
.


Riviera
Complex


Complex



0


ipanish River
Complex


Boca Raton
Inlet Complex


2002 VoL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM BEACH CouwrY ARCHAEOLOGY


Figure 5. West Indian top shells (Cittarium pica) from Boca
Raton Inlet Midden (8PB3).

reduction) of Cittarium pica in Florida may be due to changes
in environment and/or climate, disease, or over-fishing. It is
likely that southeastern Florida is at the extreme margin of the
geographic range of the top shell, and that even moderate
collecting by Native Americans may have been enough to
adversely affect the reproductive capacity of these mollusk
populations.
FAU graduate student Jonathan Dean (2002) has recently
conducted excavations at the Gumbo Limbo Hammock site
(8PB5375) in Boca Raton. This site probably represents a
series of small campsites associated with the Boca Raton Inlet
complex. Like some of the other smaller sites associated with
this complex, Gumbo Limbo Hammock contains black earth
and shell midden deposits, some features, and examples of the
Cittariumpica gastropods mentioned above. Ceramics suggest
occupation during the Glades I and II periods (ca. 500 B.C.-
A.D. 1200).

Spanish River Complex

The Spanish River Complex in Highland Beach and Boca
Raton is one of the largest aboriginal localities in southern
Florida, with four major black earth and oyster shell middens
extending north-south along the coastal hammock (see Figures
6 and 7). Near here an intermittent freshwater stream, the Rio
Seco (or Spanish River), drained nearby marshes. This river
is no longer present (a casualty or victim of twentieth century


artificial drainage work), but its location is marked on the
beach by a large outcropping of coquina limestone, known
locally as Jap Rock (Figure 8) (see Austin 1978). Other
features associated with this aboriginal village complex are a
large, mangrove-covered island composed of midden material
located between the mainland and barrier island (8PB12).
The Highland Beach Burial Mound (8PB 11) is located on the
beach at the northern extreme of the village complex, with the
Barnhill Mound (8PB13) farther to the west, adjacent to an
arm of the extinct river. Furey (1972:89) reports that the
Barnhill Mound, located away from the main village at Boca
Weir, was constructed during the Glades II Period (ca. A.D.
750-A.D. 1763) by the occupants of an adjacent midden
(8PB12) and utilized as a ceremonial site. Boca Weir was
constructed and occupied from the Glades II through Glades
III periods, and it has yielded small quantities of Spanish
artifacts, including olive jar sherds, a glass bead, and an iron
knife.
As noted, the main village of the Spanish River Complex
is a long midden situated on the back dune adjacent to the
beach. John Goggin originally recorded the site as 8PB10,
noting deposits of midden revealed during construction of
State Road A1A. Four house lots are laid out across the site,
and in the 1960s each lot received a separate name and site
number. Boca Weir (8PB56) denotes the southernmost lot,
with Boca Beekman (8PB55), Boca Snead (8PB103), and
Boca Aylward (8PB57) located to the north. FAU graduate
student John Furey (1972) conducted excavations at Boca
Weir in the early 1970s. Furey reports ceramics from Boca
Weir in the following frequencies: 1525 (47%) Glades Plain,
1286 (40%) Belle Glade Plain, 204 (6%) St. Johns Plain, 194
(6%) St. Johns Check Stamped, and less than one percent
miscellaneous types, including Surfside Incised, Opa Locka
Incised, and Gulf Coast types. Other collections from the site
produced Key Largo Incised and Gulf Coast types. This sherd
assemblage supports an assignment to the Glades II and III
periods (A.D. 750-A.D. 1763).
Fradkin's (1980) analysis ofbirdbones from the Boca Weir
site identified 12 avian species and subspecies. Six of these
are year-round residents, including the turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), great egret (Casmerodius albus), great blue
heron (Ardea herodias wardi), royal tern (Sterna maxima),
ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), and limpkin (Aramus
guarauna). Migratory birds that occur in Florida during the
winter months include lesser scaup duck (Aythya affinis), red-
breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), sandhill crane (Grus
canadensis), great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), great
auk (Pinguinus impennis), and razor-billed auk (Alca torda).
Fradkin (1980:114) suggests that the presence of the great
black-backed gull, great auk, and razor-billed auk point to a
broader geographic distribution for these species possibly
related to a cooler climate in Florida's past. The occurrence
of the auk is particularly interesting, as flocks of this large,
flightless bird would paddle their way along the coast during
winter migrations. A few other Florida east coast sites have
auk remains, including Summer Haven, Cotten midden, Castle
Windy, and Green Mound, all in the northern St. Johns Area


WBEELER, YLENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALm BEAcH COUNTY ARcHAiZOLOGY





126 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL. 55(3-4)







S""W7
-l '_ '" ...


C .1_ -
ci ," ..- ~ r

---.I'- f; .... ,,, I o I




]c.:;; "::. *.. ,-
]_ __ r __ [. 4 6> ..





















_^ ------ *
-'- GE 1_























Figure 6. The Spanish River, as shown on United States Coast & Geodetic Survey T-sheet No. 4463A (USC&GS 1930).
The garden plots shown to the northwest are part of the Yamato community.
\l~i ,5..'







I=--==;~;_Zr C ~ '* f* C
1111111 fitY
S






The garden plots shown to the northwest are part of the Yamato community.







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM BL&cH Couwrv ARcHAEOLOGY


200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 feet

Contemporary development
based on 1999 aerial photographs of
Twn 47S, Rng 43 E, Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9


Spanish River Complex


Sites and site comDonents ada ted from
Furey (1972) and Bullen (1957, wth corrections,
numbers indicate shovel tests by Furey.


Figure 7. Spanish River Complex, showing sites, site components and modern development. Some traces of the Spanish
River are still visible in the course of the canals and small channels on the mangrove islands.


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE







THE FLOlUDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


~--~- j~--
-u


Figure 8. Jap Rock, an outcrop of coquina limestone, on Highland Beach, December 2001.


(Fradkin 1980:113).
Salvage excavations of the Highland Beach Burial Mound
produced burials representing at least 120 individuals, one of
the largest skeletal populations from southern Florida (Levy
1981; Winland 1993; also see Winland, this issue). Winland's
(1993:45-47) analysis of the human remains suggests that the
population had high life expectancy, with low infant mortality.
Infectious conditions were evident in the skeletal remains, and
the incidence of treponemal infection is one of the highest in
pre-contact Florida groups that have been studied (Winland
1993:88-89). Portions of the mound still remain under the
driveway at the Parker Highlands condominium.
Recent events at the Spanish River complex have included
the donation of the Boca Weir property to Palm Beach County
for development as Milani Park-a beach access park. A
survey by Archaeological Consultants Inc. (Almy and Koski
2000) confirmed Furey's earlier conclusions about the distribu-
tion of materials on the property. By January 2000, the
residences once located on the property had been removed, and
the site was covered by a dense growth of native and intro-
duced plants.
In December 2000, Wheeler visited the Boca Beekman
(8PB55) portion of the Spanish River complex, where demoli-
tion of one of the older houses was under way, preceding
construction of a new residence. Demolition work focused on
the eastern portion of the lot, near the dune. Some ceramic
sherds and other artifacts were observed, and deeper black
earth deposits were noted near State Road A1A at the western
end of the property (field notes on file with the author).


Visits in 1989 and 1995 confirmed that much of the
Barnhill Mound (8PB13) is preserved in a greenspace within
the gated Boca Marina and Yacht Club, which was built in the
1980s (Figure 9). Residents reported that the developer had
been urged to preserve the mound, which is now landscaped
with grass and ornamental trees. A large furrow cuts across
the mound, evidence of the tunnel that had once allowed
visitors to E.G. Barnhill's "Ancient America" attraction to
view exhibits of skeletal remains.

Boynton Inlet Complex

The Boynton Inlet Complex is composed of a large oyster
shell midden near the Boynton Inlet site (8PB54) and one or
more sand mounds (8PB16) and shell scatter sites (8PB52)
along the beach ridge, and perhaps a habitation site on the
southern end ofHypoluxo Island (8PB52). In the original site
survey files compiled by Goggin, the sand mounds are re-
corded as the Boynton Beach site (8PB16), based on the
informant C. W. Effinger; however, 8PB17 is the number
assigned to the site that produced a series of eight crania
measured by Hrdlitka (1940:329,335,365,371). In all likeli-
hood 8PB16 and 8PB17 are one and the same. Heidi
Christman, a student of John Goggin's at the University of
Florida, excavated in the shell midden (8PB54) in 1956 and
1957 (Christman 1957). Based on note cards and collections
the following brief sketch has been made.
Three units were excavated in the shell midden, including
a 5 ft by 10 ft trench (dug in two 5 by 5 ft pits, labeled Trench


2002 Voj 55(3-4)


TEE FLORIDA ANnMROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM BEACH Couwrv ARCHAEOLOGY


Figure 9. Photograph of the Barnhill Mound (8PB13), April 1995.


A 0'-5' and Trench A 5'-10') and one 5 by 5 ft pit, labeled
Section I 0'-5'. Each test was excavated in arbitrary 6 in
levels; Trench A was discontinued at 72 in below surface when
granular beach sand was encountered. Section I was com-
pleted at 72 inches as well, with a 1 ft square test pit continued
down to 98 inches. A number of features were recorded in
each unit, most of which are described in the field notes as
hearths or fire areas. A feature containing over 850 Busycon
shells was encountered around 60 in below surface and
continued to beach sand in Trench A. Artifacts include
perforated shark teeth, Busycon dippers, "picks," celts and
gouges, Strombus celts, abone bead, bone pendant, and several
bone pins. Along with a considerable amount of faunal
material, a total of 1,046 sherds was recovered in the following
frequencies: 554 (53%) sand-tempered plain, 126 (12%) Belle
Glade Plain, 84 (8%) St. Johns Plain, 262 (25%) St. Johns
Check Stamped, and a small variety of minor types (1%).
Based on the ceramic types recorded, Goggin assigned 8PB54
to the Glades III Period (A.D. 1200-1763). Interestingly, none
of the typical Glades series marker types was found, though
their absence north of Broward County is fairly common.
Presently there is little left of the Boynton Inlet Complex.


Patrician Mound

Excavated by members of the Palm Beach County Archae-
ological Society, the Patrician site (8PB99) in the Town of
Palm Beach also may be considered a major village complex.
Described as a series of four major midden deposits running
north-south along the beach ridge this site produced a large
number of artifacts and apparently contained a mortuary
deposit as well (Ritchie et al. 1981). Excavation of various
parts of the site during construction activities revealed large
lenses of oyster shell and mussel shell, as well as concreted
areas where sea turtles had been roasted in their shells. Peat
or muck material from the bottom of the deposit, associated
with sand-tempered plain sherds, was radiocarbon dated at
3960 +/- 100 years B.P., while skeletal remains recoveredfrom
the site were dated at 1955 +/- 85 years B.P. (uncorrected
dates, although the "C/1'C measurements were made and
suggest little variation would occur if the correction were
applied, see Appendix for radiocarbon dates from coastal
Martin and Palm Beach counties). The most recent date, when
calibrated at 2 sigma, is 170 B.C.-A.D. 240, indicating
occupation during the Glades I early Period (500 B.C.-A.D.
500). The nature of the muck deposit context of the earlier
date (calibrated at 2 sigma to 2145 B.C.-2860 B.C.) is unclear,


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY








THE FLORIDA AI'mmoPoLoGIsT 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 10. Glades Red vessel from Patrician Mound, two views (Cat No. A-2194, Florida Atlantic University).


TnE FLORwDA ANnmROPOIXGIST


2002 Voi. 55(3-4)







WHEELER, KENNEDY, ~&r~D PEPE PALM BEAcH Coum~v ARCHAEOLOGY


Figure 11. Carved shell artifacts from the Patrician site (8PB100) (Cat. No. A-2175, Florida Atlantic University).


and may represent a non-cultural level into which some sherds
from upper deposits became incorporated. Interestingly, Russo
and Heide (2002:68-70) report similar, if not slightly earlier,
dates from the Joesph Reed Shell Ring in Martin County
where sand-tempered and spicule-tempered sherds came from
a cultural context. Unfortunately, we do not have enough
details of the excavation to evaluate the Patrician data.
Ceramics from the site have not been properly analyzed or
classified, though Ritchie et al. (1981:27) describe half the
sherds as "Glades Plain" and the other half as Belle Glade
Plain. Two partially complete, open, globular, sand-tempered
ceramic vessels are among the PBCAS collections curated by
FAU. The more complete of the two is Glades Red, with a red
slip on the interior and exterior surfaces. It is 15.6 cm in
diameter and 10.2 cm high (FAU Cat. No. A-2194) (see Figure
10). A few examples of St. Johns Check Stamped were
recovered, as well as four Key Largo Incised sherds. Bert
Mowers made a more detailed classification of ceramics
consisting of 506 sherds (undated ms. on file at FAU), with the
following results: 191 (38%) Glades Plain, 74 (15%) Belle
Glade Plain, 16 (3%) Glades Red, 6 (1%) St. Johns Check
Stamped, 30 (6%) St. Johns Plain, 117 (23%) Goodland Plain,
and 67 (13%) miscellaneous types, including one Key Largo


Incised. The high frequency of Goodland Plain is interesting,
but it may actually reflect problems in Mower's conception of
the Florida ceramic typology, since Goodland Plain was never
completely defined by Goggin in his discussion of this type
(Goggin 1949:76-77; also see Mowers 1975:errata sheet). A
recent examination of Goggin's type collection revealed that
Goodland Plain may more appropriately described as a sandy
St. Johns Plain type (Ann Cordell, personal communication,
1993). The ceramics and radiocarbon date indicate occupation
during Glades I early (500 B.C.-A.D. 500), Glades Ia (A.D.
750-900), and Glades III (A.D. 1200-1763) periods. Artifacts
from the site include an array of shell implements, including
some unusually carved forms (see Figure 11), as well as a few
examples of bone bipoints.
A sand mound located on the northern end of Hypoluxo
Island in Lake Worth (8PB20), just to the south of the Patri-
cian site also may be a component of this complex. Sketchy
descriptions of these sites by Le Baron (1884) suggest they are
components of a large village settlement; however, the sites
have both been hauled away, leaving little more than their
position and reported existencefor discussion. Voss(1949:31-
33) reports on his salvage excavations at the mainland
Hypoluxo Mound (8PB53) before the complete removal of the


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


Figure 12. Destruction of Palm Beach 3 (8PB25), the village component of the Guest Mound Complex, February 1966.


site; the only product of this investigation was a St. Johns
Plain bowl from the center of the mound.


Littlefield Site


only artifact now curated at FAU from this site is a large
Busycon celt.


Palm Beach Complex


The Littlefield site (8PB 104) was documented by members
of the Palm Beach County Archaeological Society, but was not
considered "a promising site." While only a small corner lot
containing midden material remains, this site once extended
over 150 m (500 ft) and stood about 2 m (6.5 ft) above the
surrounding ground surface. Testing involved a series of post
holes placed at 3 m intervals along an east-west line and five
1.5 m by 1.5 m test pits. Test pits ranged from 75 cm to 100
cm in depth, with the majority of the midden occurring
between 25 cm and 60 cm below the surface, and sterile beach
sand was generally encountered around 1 m, with water at 2 m
below surface. Detailed notes are not available, though the
general documentation (PBCAS notes, on file at FAU)
mentions a variety of charcoal features, including fire pits and
postmolds, as well as lenses of oyster and coquina (?) shell.
Ceramic sherds were recovered in the following frequencies:
113 (88%) Glades Plain, 10 (8%) Belle Glade Plain, and 6
(5%) St. Johns Plain. This collection would generally suggest
a late Glades I or Glades II occupation, though the absence of
good marker types makes this classification nebulous. The


Just north of Sloan's Curve on the barrier island, Palm
Beach 1 (8PB24) and Palm Beach 2 (8PB25) form a midden
and mound village complex, respectively. Unfortunately no
collections are recorded from these sites, and little more than
a scatter of shell and bone remains. Goggin (field notes on file
at FAU) notes that skulls recovered from 8PB25 were pur-
ported to have "horns," though he suggests that these were
probably bony exotoses caused by some form of "bone dis-
ease."

Guest Mound Complex

There are a number of other large midden sites and burial
mounds known from the Town of Palm Beach. Two sites
located near the inlet (8PB28 and 8PB29) already have been
identified as elements of the Riviera Complex (Wheeler
1992b). Since the sites have been severely damaged by road
construction and development it is unlikely that much more
information will be obtained from them, leaving us with a few
avocational and early reports, and the synthesizing comments


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)







































S6 loia l ic Uiv i



Figure 13. Belle Glade Plain vessel from Guest Mound (Acc. No. 86, Florida Atlantic University).






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


of John Goggin (n.d.).
Palm Beach 3 (8PB26) and Palm Beach 4 (8PB27) com-
prise another midden and mound village complex. Pearson
(1945:49-51) reports the removal of the burial mound due to
expansion of the Graham-Eckes School; originally the mound
stood 18 ft high, 100 ft wide north to south, and the village
midden was immediately south of the mound. It was mined
away in the early 1960s (see Figure 12). Pearson (1945:50)
notes, "there appeared little organization of skeletal parts or
isolation ofburial, but a massing of bones which indicated that
the mound might have been used for reburial of skeletons
which were already considerably disarticulated." Over 70
crania were removed from the site, and Pearson suggests 100
to 150 persons were interred in the mound; a local legend of
pigmy aborigines seems to have been exploded by the excava-
tions. Unfortunately, stratigraphic excavation of the "Guest
Mound," the village portion of the site, was not possible before
its removal; the only artifacts recovered were a few miscella-
neous sherds and the greater portion of a large, shallow Belle
Glade Plain bowl, now curated atFAU (FAU Ace. No. 86) (see
Figure 13). This vessel is 36.0 cm in diameter and 11.0 cm
high. Ceramic collections from the site include sand-tempered
plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, St. Johns Plain, and Belle
Glade Plain sherds, though exact frequencies are not available.
Approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) south of the Guest Mound
there was another sand burial mound, the Nebot site (8PB219).
Only a small portion of the site remained when two burials
were excavated there by faculty and students from FAU (iscan
and Kennedy 1987; Kennedy and Iscan 1987). It is unclear if
there was a village midden associated with the cemetery, but
inhabitants of the Guest Mound Complex or the Palm Beach
Complex might have utilized it. The skeletal remains were
identified as female, one 16-17 years old and the other 35 to 39
years old (iscan and Kennedy 1987:148-149). Artifacts found
with the burials include 2 decorated bone pins, 1 decorated and
inlayed bone dagger or knife, 1 well-patinated Marion type
biface, 4 lemon shark teeth, 1 undecorated bone implement
(Kennedy and Iscan 1987). One decorated pin has a carved
and incised representation of a deer, while the other depicts a
human male (with a possible beard or goatee). The bone
dagger or knife is inlayed with diamond and rectangle-shaped
pieces of brass (a copper-zinc alloy, indicating a European
metal was used) and has an undulating incised design,
believed to depict a rattlesnake (Kennedy and Iscan 1987:140-
141).

Riviera Complex

The Riviera Complex is composed of three sites, Riviera
(8PB30), Palm Beach Inlet Midden (8PB28) and the Palm
Beach Inlet Mound (8PB29). Goggin examined the inlet sites
in the 1950s, and the Riviera site was partially excavated by
the Palm Beach County Archaeological Society between 1978
and 1980. A summary of results can be found in Wheeler
(1992b). Careful consideration of ethnohistoric and
ethnocartographic evidence led Wheeler (1992b: 15-16) to the
conclusion that Riviera is likely the location of the principal


town of the Jeaga, known by the same name.
Charles N. Newcomb, a scientist and inventor, prepared a
contour map and description of the Riviera site as it appeared
in 1914, which have been preserved in the National Anthropo-
logical Archives of the Smithsonian Institution (Figure 14).
Newcomb and his family, originally from Davenport, Iowa,
began wintering in the Palm Beach area in the 1890s. Brink
(1976:12) relates that Newcomb ultimately purchased the
Riviera Hotel in 1901, which was constructed on one of the
shell mound components of the Riviera site (Figure 15). The
hotel was converted to a residence and Newcomb arranged for
dredging to provide fill for a swampy area along the lakeshore.
Newcomb also acquired additional property to the west of the
hotel, which included the Riviera site that he described as a
long, high, fish-shaped mound 150 feet wide, 10 feet high and
extending over half a mile. Newcomb's maps of the site
indicate a large sand mound feature situated within the larger
mound described above, as well as one other smaller mound
(Newcomb 1914).
Botanist John Kunkle Small (1927:4) visited the Riviera
site in 1920 and took several photographs of the large sand
mound (see Figure 16 and 17) and ridge-like feature mapped
and described by Newcomb. Of the site he says:

the sand embankments of the aboriginal fortification which
is situated between four and five miles north of West Palm
Beach, originally extending from near the lagoon-Lake
Worth-back into the scrub, are fast disappearing. Unfortu-
nately, a settlement has been established in it, and thus the
most interesting aboriginal monuments of Florida are
becoming things of the past [Small 1927:4].

The embankments mentioned by Small are referred to as "a
sand earthwork and an elevated sand causeway" by Goggin
(n.d.:383). Goggin (n.d.:383) notes some remaining sections
of the sand causeway still present to the west of U.S. Highway
1 in 1946. It is not clear if Small and Goggin are talking
about the entire ridge that Newcomb mapped or if they are
only referring to linear extensions emanating from the so-
called "Big Mound." We hypothesize that the long, sandy
ridge that harbors several mound and midden components of
the Riviera site is actually a transverse or barchan dune.
Transverse dunes are typically found in coastal areas and run
perpendicular to prevailing winds, and in some cases may
evolve into crescent-shaped (barchan) dunes with tips that
point leeward (Bagnold 1971:205-207; Thornbury 1954:310).
Similarly, several site components at Jupiter Inlet 2 are
situated on a crescent-shaped dune.
Ceramic collections indicate that the Palm Beach Inlet
Midden and Burial Mound, constructed during the Glades Ha
Period (A.D. 750-1900), were in use throughout the Glades II
Period (A.D. 750-1200) and into the Glades II Period (after
ca. A.D. 1200). The Archaeological and Historical Conser-
vancy recently conducted a monitoring project at the site that
resulted in the recovery of abundant St. Johns Check Stamped
ceramics and a ground stone celt (Bob Carr, personal commu-
nication, August, 2002). In contrast to the main part of
Riviera, the Inlet Midden (8PB28) is an oyster shell mound.


2002 Voi. 55(3-4)























0


II I I. 0 |






Sketch map of the Riviera site by Charles N. Newcomb, circa 1914 100 meter




Figure 14. Charles N. Newcomb's map of the Riviera site (8PB30). The elongated east-west feature mapped by Newcomb is likely a sand dune that
provided a natural elevation used by the Native American inhabitants. The lakeside shell ridge labeled "Old Shell Mound" is shown in Figure 15. From
the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.








THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 15. View from Lake Worth of shell mound and Charles Newcomb's residence (formerly a hotel) at the Riviera site
(8PB30), circa 1906 (after Brink 1976).


Absence of post-contact materials from the midden may show
abandonment of this site by the end of the Glades III Period
(ca. A.D. 1500-1763). The Riviera site, first inhabited during
the early Glades III Period (ca. A.D. 1200), supported a large
village into the contact period. Contact, perhaps via exchange
networks, with the St. Johns River Area to the north seems to
have been sustained throughout the site's occupation as
suggested by the large quantities of St. Johns Check Stamped
(39%), St. Johns Plain (25%), afew other non-local ceramics,
and ground stone tools. The consistent ceramic frequencies for
all levels at the Riviera site suggest that it was occupied
primarily during the Glades III Period (ca. A.D. 1200-1763).
In examining the ceramic assemblage, there appear to be
similarities or links with the north, yet the earthwork-like
constructions at Riviera, mentioned by Goggin (n.d.:383-384)
and Small (1927:4), suggest a relationship with the Lake
Okeechobee basin. Furey (1972:100) hypothesized that a
mortuary cult spread to the coast from the Lake Okeechobee
Area. At the Riviera Complex, burial ceremonialism probably
centered on the Palm Beach Inlet Mound during the late
occupation of the Inlet Midden and the early occupation of the
Riviera site. The "Big Mound" portion of the Riviera site must
have become the mortuary area after abandonment of the older
Inlet Mound.
The Riviera site has been altered significantly since the
development of urban Riviera Beach in the 1950s and 1960s.
U.S. Highway 1 cuts through the site and many of the older
bungalow homes that once characterized the area have been
razed. A dry marina occupies the area where the Riviera hotel
and lakeside shell mound had been, and expansion of the
marina has claimed areas of the site to the west and north.
Salvage efforts of the Palm Beach County Archaeological
Society between 1978 and 1980 documented intact deposits
and features in one neighborhood yard (see Wheeler 1992b).
The massive sandy ridge mapped by Newcomb is no longer


visible, though remnant midden deposits occur here and there.
One visit to the site to the site in 1994 resulted in a small
collection of sherds, including one with an unusual punctated
triangle motif. Other visits, mentioned above, indicate that
portions of the "Big Mound" may still exist to the west of U.S.
Highway 1.

Jupiter Inlet Complex

This group of sites is located at the mouth of the
Loxahatchee River in northern Palm Beach County (Figure
18). The southern side of the inlet is home to the main village
site, Jupiter Inlet Midden (8PB34), which was the focus of our
more detailed study (see Wheeler et al., this issue). The size
and depth of the deposit indicates that the village supported a
large population (for this area) for some time. Eugene Lyon
argues for Jupiter Inlet as the location of the ill-fated Fort
Santa Lucia established by Pedro Men6ndez in 1566. Charles
Andrews (1943:39) suggests that Jupiter Inlet may have been
the location of the native town Jobe, visited by Jonathan
Dickinson in 1696. Besides Jupiter Inlet 1, this complex
includes at least four other major sites, discussed below.

Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34). This site is the focus of a more
detailed study (see Wheeler et al., this issue). Greatly reduced
through shell mining, this site once included a large shell
mound stretching well over 180 m along the southern side of
the inlet, as well as "shell fields," a sand burial mound, several
shell ridge features and other smaller shell mounds and
platforms. Artifacts recovered from the site include Florida
Archaic Stemmed projectile points, knives, and scrapers (see
Figure 19), pointing to middle to late Archaic Period occupa-
tion in the area. DuBois (1957, 1968) reports on some other
finds found during shell mining at the site, these include an
unusually grooved greenstone axe, a greenstone plummet, as


THE FLORIioA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)








WHEEI KNEY .DPP AL Ec orr RHELG


'-4%-t'


Figure 16. John Kunkle Small's 1920 photograph of "Big Mound" at the Riviera site. Courtesy of the Florida State Archives,
Tallahassee.


well as examples of fiber-tempered pottery. Some of these
items, as well as collections of typical ceramics, shell tools,
stone plummets, and ground stone artifacts from the site are
exhibited at the Loxahatchee River Historical Society museum
in Jupiter. Our excavations, conducted across the remaining
parts of the site, documented a Glades II through early Glades
III occupation.

Suni Sands (8PB7718). This large shell mound is partially
preserved within the Suni Sands Trailer Park, and was
recorded by Elizabeth Kehoe of the Loxahatchee Historical
Society and author Pepe in 1992. DuBois (1968:21) notes that
the site's proximity to the Celestial Railroad terminus probably
contributed to its partial destruction. Like Jupiter Inlet 1, the
mound is composed primarily of oyster shell, though there
appear to be more examples of queen conch (Strombus gigas)
shell in the site. The ceramic inventory includes St. Johns
Plain (14%), sand-tempered plain (84%), and Dunn's Creek
Red (1%) sherds (Pepe 1992).
The absence of St. Johns Check Stamped and Belle Glade
Plain pottery in collections made during ground disturbing
activities in 1992 suggest the site may correspond to the
middle and lower levels of Jupiter Inlet 1, and date between


A.D. 500 and 1000. Other artifacts were similar to those from
Jupiter Inlet 1, and included shell tools, a shell plummet, shark
tooth tools, bone artifact fragments, and a shell cup.

Jupiter Inlet 2 and Lighthouse sites (8PB35). The Jupiter
Inlet 2 site, because of its presence on the U.S. Coast Guard
Station, has received a considerable deal of attention. Like its
counterparts on the southern side of the inlet, Jupiter Inlet 2
has been significantly modified. Douglass' (1885:73) account
of the area describes a sand burial mound "about 200 feet from
the base of the ridge upon which the lighthouse is set." The
mound "was 40 feet across on top, about 20 ft high and 180 ft
diameter at the base," and despite an excavation, no burials or
artifacts were found (Douglass 1885:73). Other components
include the remains of a shell midden or mound, which was
once 105 m in length and at least 1 to 2 m in height (Weed et
al. 1981). Archaeological testing and monitoring projects
have identified remnants of the shell midden extending from
U.S. Highway 1 to the area under the Coast Guard Exchange
and some of the historic structures on the property, including
the World War II era barracks building. Recent testing by
Pepe (2000a:43-44,51-52) revealed that lenses of oyster shell
and midden material in the sandy hill where the lighthouse sits


~


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY


r, 1-














































Figure 17. Detail of mounds at Riviera site (8PB30), based on a manuscript map by Charles N. Newcomb (1914). Compare with Newcomb's site plan, shown
in Figure 14. The so-called "Big Mound" has two arms or lobes that point eastward. Montreal Street is now Broadway/U.S. Highway 1 and Curtiss Street is
Avenue E. Mound Avenue (now W. 121 Street) bordered the mounds on the north. Newcomb's original manuscript map was composed on the reverse side of
12 cardboard posters advertising a glass-bottom boat. The portion illustrated here is just one small segment of the overall map, which is over 8 feet long.







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM BEAcH Courwrv AncIr~oLoGy


Figure 18. Oblique aerial photograph of Jupiter Inlet Numbers indicate (1) Jupiter Inlet 1 site; (2) Suni Sands site; and (3)
Jupiter Inlet 2/Lighthouse site. From the collection of Ryan J. Wheeler, Tallahassee.


reflect additional areas of pre-contact activity and deposition.
Pepe (2000a) also concludes that the horseshoe-shaped ridge
observed by A.E. Douglass at the site is a natural sand dune.
Apparently, midden was deposited on the natural elevation of
this eolian feature. Large collections of artifacts, including
pottery, have not been made from the site, though those
ceramic types reported include sand-tempered plain, St. Johns
Plain, Belle Glade Plain, and an occasional sherd of St. Johns
Check Stamped (Felmley 1993, 1995). Based on ceramic
types and radiocarbon dates from monitoring work around the
lighthouse, the site probably was occupied from around A.D.
500 to 1000, roughly corresponding to the Glades I late and
Glades Ia periods.

Scheurich Midden (8PB9261). The Scheurich site is the
remains of what was probably once another large shell mound,
originally measuring at least 42 m north-south, 20 m east-
west, and over 1 m in height (Snapp 1997; Wheeler and Lewis
1997). Unlike the foregoing sites, this mound was situated
along a bend in Lake Worth Creek-but in close proximity to
the other sites in the complex. When the site was discovered
in 1997 during a Phase I survey, work focused on three
pedestals of oyster shell midden, preserved under hammock


trees, as well as areas described as "shell fields." Features,
some of which may be pits and hearths, were discovered at the
site, and some of the loosely consolidated deposits of oyster
shell may be mound fill (Wheeler and Lewis 1997:24-25).
The pottery sherds reported from the site include especially
thick examples of sand-tempered plain, as well as a few sherds
of fiber tempered or semi-fiber tempered pottery (see Wheeler
and Lewis 1997:27, 38). The semi-fiber tempered sherds
suggest that the Scheurich site, or at least some component of
it, dates to the late Archaic Period, probably pre-500 B.C.,
making it one of the earliest components of the Jupiter Inlet
Complex. The other artifacts reported for the site are similar
to those from Jupiter Inlet 1, including a Busycon adze/celt, a
perforated Arca shell, a shell cup, and shark teeth.

Other sites. DuBois (1968:21) mentions another large
shell mound site in the vicinity of the Florida East Coast
railway bridge built by Henry Flagler. Fred Cabot, circa 1896,
mined shell from this site (DuBois 1968:21). Eroded sherds
and shell tools are occasionally found along the shoreline of
this area. The isolated shell midden components identified by
Kennedy and recorded as 8PB170 may be associated with this
site, or they may be part of yet another Jupiter Inlet site.


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 19. Stemmed Archaic points from Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34)
the collection of the Loxahatchee River Historical Society, Jupit

The sites forming the Jupiter Inlet complex represent
occupation of the area dating back perhaps to the pre-pottery
Archaic Period, with major occupations during the late
Archaic (ca. 500 B.C.-2000 B.C.), Glades II (ca. A.D. 750-
1200) and early parts of the Glades III (ca. A.D. 1200) periods.
As with other settlement complexes in the area, it is difficult
to say if the sites were occupied concurrently, or represent one
or two major villages that moved around within the inlet zone.

Notes on Site Complexes in Central Palm Beach County

Loxahatchee River Complex

The southern branch of the Loxahatchee River, located
approximately 10 km from Jupiter Inlet and the coast in north-
central Palm Beach County, was a major locus of Native
American activity. The freshwater resources of the river,
freshwater marsh, hydric hammocks, and pine flatwoods
dominate the area.
Archaeologist Robert Carr (site forms on file at FAU)
recorded the Loxahatchee Earthworks (8PB49) site based on
aerial photographs. Like other earthwork sites in southern
Florida, it was composed of a village midden, sand mounds,


and crescentric and linear sand earthworks. Unfor-
tunately, the site appears to have been destroyed by
development and sand mining. Other sites recorded
in the area include Loxahatchee River 1 (8PB36), a
conical sand mound located along the same branch
of the river.
Extensive archaeological research in the area
related to the development of Palm Beach County's
Riverbend Park, widening and realignment of State
Road 706/Indiantown Road, and cultural resource
surveys for Jonathan Dickinson State Park have
identified sixty-one sites with aboriginal components
within a 20 square kilometer area (see Carr et al.
1995; Carr et al. 1998; Kennedy et al. 1994; Lewis
et al. 1991). These sites are mainly black earth
middens reflecting exploitation of freshwater re-
sources, though constructed sand mounds and
earthworks are present as well. Pottery inventories
are dominated by sand-tempered plain, suggesting a
major Glades I Period occupation. Belle Glade Plain
pottery was largely absent from these sites, and only
a few sites produced sherds of St. Johns Plain and St.
Johns Check Stamped. Carr et al. (1998:223-225)
also document a possible Middle and Late Archaic
presence in the Loxahatchee Complex. A few
artifacts hint at some post-contact period use of the
area

Boynton Mound Complex

The Boynton Mound Complex (8PB100) is
F rom located in a cypress swamp bordering the Arthur
er. Marshall National Wildlife Refuge (Everglades
Conservation Area No. 1) in central Palm Beach
County, approximately 16 km from the coast. Historically,
this site must have occupied an island, knoll or ridge at the
border between the sandy flatlands and the Everglades marsh,
quite different from its modern environmental setting. Not far
to the north of the Boynton Mound Complex the Loxahatchee
Slough met the Everglades, perhaps providing a transportation
route that connected the Everglades with the coast near Jupiter
(Schroeder et al. 1954:Figure 3).
Site visits and a map made by the PBCAS indicate that the
site is an earthwork complex, similar to others known from the
area around Lake Okeechobee (Figure 21). Components
include a number of sand mounds, at least one sand burial
mound, crescent and linear earthworks, and a loaf-shaped
midden-mound (Figure 22). The site was the subject of
excavations by the PBCAS, summarized by Jaffee (1976).
Sand-tempered plain sherds (41%) dominate the ceramic
inventory, though relatively high frequencies of St. Johns
Check Stamped (12%), St. Johns Plain (17%), and Belle Glade
Plain (13%) sherds suggest occupation during the Glades III
Period. Two radiocarbon dates, and the scarcity of the latter
three types from lower levels of the midden-mound suggest the
first occupation around the beginning of the Glades II Period.
Post-contact period artifacts from both the midden-mound and


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


m2







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM BEACH Couwry ARCHAEOLOGY


Figure 20. Photograph of shell mound at Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34), August 1989.


burial mound indicate occupation during the Glades IIIc
Period (ca. A.D. 1500-1763). A recent reexamination of the
FAU collections from the site revealed three Spanish olive jar
sherds that had been found during the PBCAS work (FAU Cat.
No. A2159), but not identified as such.
Excavations in the burial mound produced the remains of
23 individuals, along with European metal, glass and cut
crystal beads, as well as coin beads reworked from Spanish
silver coins (Jaffee 1976). Most were bundle burials, although
some were apparently primary interments. Analysis of the
human skeletal material by Iscan and Kessel (1988:17)
indicates that female burials were much more common than
those of males, and younger individuals were more common
than in skeletal collections from Fort Center and Margate-
Blount. Cranial deformation was observed in two cases,
including a possible instance of cradleboard deformation, and
another individual with a pronounced occipital bulge and
lobate parietal bones (Iscan and Kessel 1988:17). In general,
the remains exhibited good health.

Notes on Martin County Sites

The Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (Carr et al.
1995; Carr et al. 1998) has recently completed surveys of
Martin County, identifying and evaluating 49 sites for the
area. Many of these sites are shell scatters and shell middens,
though some are constructed shell and sand mounds. Prior to
these surveys, the quality of the site data for Martin County
was considerably sparse compared to that for Palm Beach
County. Review of the survey data and pre-existing site data
indicates that there are several major sites in coastal Martin


County, and at least five major concentrations of sites that may
represent village complexes, with an especially large group of
sites located around St. Lucie Inlet. Few excavations have
been conducted at these sites, and limited information on
ceramics and other artifacts makes it difficult to assess
temporal and cultural affiliation. There is a hint that late
Archaic components may be more common in Martin County
than in Palm Beach County (Carr et al. 1995:24-28, 54-55, 67-
68, 77-79). Four of the five major site concentrations appear
to have at least one late Archaic component. Environmentally,
Martin County varies from Palm Beach, though in some
respects St. Lucie Inlet seems like a larger and more complex
version of Jupiter Inlet. The coast of Martin County is
dominated by marine and estuarine systems, though there is
aboriginal occupation around freshwater lakes a short distance
from the sea (Carr et al. 1995:132-134, 147-148; Carr et al.
1998:6, 63-68). Despite some differences in environment, site
density seems similar-with five major complexes spanning
34 km (21 miles) of Martin County coastline and nine com-
plexes along 71 km (44 miles) of Palm Beach County coast.
Rocky Point 2 (8MT33) is one of the few excavated sites in
coastal Martin County, and therefore provides one of the few
cases for comparison with Palm Beach County sites. Brown-
ing (1975:7-10) describes the excavation of 29 units (2 m2)
into the site, which proved to be fairly thin, ranging from 15
to 30 cm in thickness. Ceramic sherds were recovered in the
following proportions: 240 (45%) sand-tempered plain, 98
(18%) St. Johns Plain, 56 (10%) St. Johns Check Stamped, 8
(1%), 133 (25%) Belle Glade Plain, Miami Incised, 4 (< 1%)
Little Manatee Zoned Stamped, and 1 (< 1%) Okeechobee
Red. Artifact types reported by Browning (1975:13-17) are


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


A-' 10- -A- f -a --





^ /~Midden Jl-l:;t^
-"^ / Mound ~^ ~ ^
--- / -4 -/ 0- -'-t
-'a- -a- -'- -aC -_

-u a0- -e ,'. 'a -- -* a )- ~*
4b- -~ -a -c -a- -a a
SMidden u
'a~ -4
SMound -'a -a- -'- 'a
4a- -'a


0


M


Mo'


_-a- I-
~ ~-a-
qb -'-. --a-- .4k- -h -'-
: 6 -:a -
b- -Al- _*6 -~l-




I.- *a_ .-a a- Qsa-
S ~a- a- -iHb
-a -'a-
'a--

u. -a -a- -'a- -
-a 7- b-



411 -4 -'-


unds Mounds



-4e 4-'- -
\" -.-,... -.

-s \\ .- ,4 -'
_\,\ --*-

Boynton Mounds Complex

8PB100



0 25 50 75 100

0 50 100 150 200 250
FEET
4*












FEET


Figure 21. Plan of Boynton Mound Complex (8PB100) (based on i~can and Kessel 1988:Figure 1).


not particularly unusual for the region, including Busycon
dippers, adzes, picks and hammers, as well as Strombus tools.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of the excavation at Rocky
Point 2 was the clustering of over eighty postmolds and
hearths that have been interpreted as the remains of some sort
of aboriginal structure (Browning 1975:17-20). The large
number of features recorded revealed no particular pattern,
probably due to the type of construction activity noted for the
natives by Jonathan Dickinson (Andrews and Andrews 1945).
When Dickinson and his party were among the Jobe, the chief
added a room for them, appended to his own "wigwam." The
chief began by setting a row of stakes in the ground to which
he tied posts and then thatched the addition with palmetto,
creating a windbreak about 3 ft in height (Andrews and
Andrews 1945:34). If this was a common way of accommo-
dating visitors, the archaeological result would likely be a
chaotic distribution ofpostmolds from the numerous additions.
Based on Browning's (1975) work at Rocky Point 2, data
from other major sites, and preliminary review of site distribu-
tion there seems to be relative homogeneity throughout coastal
Palm Beach and Martin counties, helping affirm their union
in the East Okeechobee Area. The recent survey data further
suggests that sites in coastal Martin County are better pre-
served than those in Palm Beach County, and they may
represent the best place for future investigations of the East


Okeechobee Area. Prior to initiating our Jupiter Inlet 1 study,
there was little data on sites in coastal Martin County. In
many cases, what was available was confusing, and major
sites-like Mount Elizabeth-were not available for study
(Figure 23).

Discussion

Temporal Trends

The recent surveys of Martin County discussed above help
confirm a late Archaic occupation of the region from perhaps
as early as 4,500 years ago. A similar occupation is certainly
present at the Jupiter Inlet Complex, as represented by the
Scheurich Midden, as well as destroyed components of the
Jupiter Inlet 1 Mound. Artifactual evidence for occupation
during the late Archaic Period is based on fiber-tempered
ceramics and occasional Florida Archaic Stemmed bifaces.
Typical sites with late Archaic components include large shell
mounds, like Mount Elizabeth in Martin County and parts of
the Jupiter Inlet Complex in Palm Beach County. The Joseph
Reed Shell Ring (8MT13) in Hobe Sound National Wildlife
Refuge also may be an early site (Russo and Heide 2002).
Interestingly, evidence for late Archaic occupation around
Lake Worth and in southern Palm Beach County is scant, with


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORI]DA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM Bn~cn Cotwrrv ARCHAEOLOGY


Figure 22. Photograph of the midden-mound at Boynton Mound Complex (8PB100), March 1995.


the earliest sites in that part of the area dating to Glades I and
later periods. In general, there are fewer late Archaic sites in
Palm Beach County compared to Martin County.
Russo and Heide's (2002) recent work at the Joseph Reed
Shell Ring in Martin County presents some interesting data
but also raises additional questions. Their excavations
revealed sponge spicule tempered ceramics in strata radiocar-
bon dated between 2,850 and 3,425 B.P. This seemingly early
date for such pottery and the lack of fiber-tempered ceramics
raises questions about'the site, which they indicate is one of
the largest shell rings in the Southeast. Shell ring sites are
most typically a late Archaic phenomenon, often without
ceramics or with examples of fiber-tempered pottery. Russo
and Heide's (2002) unusual data from the Joseph Reed Shell
Ring requires reconsideration of what is considered Archaic in
southern Florida and the origins of the Archaic in this part of
the state. Interestingly, Pepe and Jester (1995:17-18) have
suggested that there may be several contemporary Archaic
traditions within southeastern Florida, including one associ-
ated with fiber-tempered ceramics and another being an
ceramic Archaic tradition. They suggest that the fiber-
tempered pottery tradition is largely a coastal phenomenon,
associated with shell mound building, while the ceramic


Archaic, or Glades Archaic, appears to be a more widespread
phenomenon, perhaps giving rise to the distinctive regional
culture of the Everglades. Pepe (2000b:32) further argues that
this Glades Archaic may have originated with pre-pottery
Mount Taylor culture groups that gradually moved into
southern Florida from the St. Johns River region.
In earlier discussions we presented a regional chronology
for the East Okeechobee Area, though it may be advisable to
adhere to the broader Glades Area chronology (Kennedy et al.
1993:174-176). The scarcity of Glades decorated pottery,
varying temporal influences throughout time and space in the
area, the paucity of radiocarbon dates, and the general lack of
good chronological markers makes discussion of temporal
trends difficult. In some cases, the village complexes defined
here have strong single components, like the Riviera site
where the dominance of St. Johns ceramics indicates a Glades
III Period date, while other complexes seem to represent
occupation during multiple periods. Some sites, like the
Hutchinson Island midden and mound group (8MT37), are
dominated by an early, probably Glades I component, but have
hints of later occupation. This is fairly typical for sites in the
region.
Tables 1 and 2 were constructed in an attempt to illustrate


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







Tm FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 23. Photograph of Mount Elizabeth (8MT30), May 2000.


possible temporal trends reflected in the larger sites and site
complexes in coastal Martin and Palm Beach counties. The
most obvious trend is a decrease in early sites (Archaic and
Glades I) from north to south. It is not clear if this is merely
a reflection of uneven data, or an indication of when the area
was settled and the direction of movement into the area. By
Glades II, however, the data suggests a fairly even occupation
throughout the area. By Glades III the trend seems to be
reversing, with a concentration of occupation toward the south.
During Glades IIIc (A.D. 1513-1763) there are three areas
along the coast with evidence of occupation: the St. Lucie
River, Riviera, and Spanish River. As in Glades II times, this
suggests a fairly even distribution throughout the area.

Preliminary Settlement Analysis

The data, as presented in Figure 4, demonstrate a cluster-
ing of large village complexes around the openings of small
streams flowing out of the Everglades, and around larger
bodies of fresh and brackish water, namely Lake Worth. The
St. Lucie River, Jupiter Inlet, Spanish River, and Boca Raton
Inlet also harbor large site complexes, as do the Hobe Sound
and Jupiter Sound areas. Smaller middens tend to cluster
around the larger complexes, and appear to be specialized sites


for procuring coastal resources (e.g., Dickel's [1988] descrip-
tion of the Singer Island Midden 2). The location of some site
components on the barrier islands and others in more sheltered
areas on the mainland is difficult to understand, but the
arrangement appears to be a typical feature of many of the
larger site complexes. For example, within the Spanish River
complex both village and burial components can be found on
the barrier island dune and in backwater portions of the
freshwater drainage. In other cases, as at Jupiter Inlet, major
shell mound features are distributed on the northern and
southern banks of the inlet, some distance from the sea.
The location of major sites near aquatic features probably
reflects less of a need for fresh water (as natives in the
Dickinson account obtained water from the shallow aquifers of
the coastal islands), but rather settlement near the resources
occurring at the contact between fresh and salt water. Such
locations also provided easy access to water transportation
corridors. The presence of several large sites concentrated
around an aquatic feature (e.g., Jupiter Inlet) may reflect the
long-term occupation of these places, perhaps 4,000 years or
more in some cases. It is possible too that these large sites
within the site complexes were simultaneously occupied. This
is difficult to demonstrate due to the lack of chronometric
dating, the lack of temporally distinct ceramic markers, and


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)









Table 1. Relative frequencies of major plain wares from East Okeechobee Area village complexes.

Ceramic Type
Site Complex SJCS SJP BGP STP FIBER Reference
Mt. Elizabeth 3% 14% 82% Janus Research 1998
Hutchinson Island <1% 1% <1% 75% <1% Carr and Steele 1993
Rocky Point 10% 18% 25% 45% Browning 1975
Jupiter Inlet 4% 31% 6% 58% Wheeler et al., this issue
Riviera 39% 25% 18% 14% Wheeler 1992b
Littlefield 5% 8% 88% PBCAS n.d.
Patrician 1% 29% 15% 38% Mowers n.d.; Ritchie et al.
1981
Boynton Beach 25% 8% 12% 53% Christman 1957
Boca Weir 6% 6% 40% 47% Furey 1972
Boca Raton Inlet 17% 45% 38% Furey 1972
SJCS=St Johns Check Stamped, SJP=St. Johns Plain, BGP=Belle Glade Plain, STP=sand-tempered plain,
FIBER-fiber-tempered wares


Table 2. Chronological position of major sites and site complexes in Palm Beach and Martin counties.

Site or Site Complex Archaic Glades I Glades H Glades Ila-b Glades MIIc
Mt. Elizabeth X X
Hutchinson Island X X X
House of Refuge X X X
Rocky Point X X
Joseph Reed Shell Ring X
Peck Lake X
Jupiter Inlet X X X X
Loxahatchee River X X X
Riviera X X
Littlefield X X
Patrician X X X
Boynton Inlet X X
Boynton Mounds X X X
Spanish River X X X
Boca Raton Inlet X X


the destruction of large portions of these sites. It is possible
that the large sites within site complexes are akin to the more
obvious architectural components found at the shell keys and
similar sites in the Ten Thousand Islands and Caloosahatchee
regions. Torrence (2000) has suggested that the bifurcate
arrangement of many of the shell mound complexes in
southwestern Florida is an architectural reflection of social
organization that has two main divisions within a given tribe
or village. Hudson (1976:234-237) explains that institutions
of dual social organization were common in Southeastern
Indian society. Dual organization was found inside and
outside chiefdoms, and Hudson (1976:237) explains that dual
organization is likely an old pattern in the Southeast. Dual
divisions within tribes may have included moieties, which


involve exogamous marriage relationships, or other dichoto-
mous divisions of clans (Swanton 1946:663-665). Notions of
duality are ubiquitous in Southeastern Indian culture, and a
model invoking social organization to understand village
architecture and planning may help explain the distribution of
site components in the East Okeechobee Area as well.
The factors that make understanding inter-complex
relationships difficult, namely accurate dating of sites, also
make it difficult to analyze settlement patterns on a regional
scale. Table 1 presents a summary of ceramic frequencies for
some of the village complexes discussed above; the multiple
occupations of most of these sites makes a simple seriation
difficult. A simple assessment of distance between major site
complexes in coastal Martin and Palm Beach counties empha-


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VoL. 55(3-4)


sizes correlation with major aquatic features. The average
distance between site complexes is 6.9 km. The site complexes
of Lake Worth, however, are set apart from their nearest
neighbors by 19.25 km on the north and 16.66 km on the
south. Six major site complexes located along Lake Worth
average 4.19 km apart, again emphasizing the settlement
density around this important aquatic feature. Unfortunately,
site destruction limits further settlement pattern studies in
coastal Palm Beach County. Martin County, however,
promises to yield better information, since many large and
small sites are still extant.

Notes on Population

Protohistoric population estimates for southern Florida are
derived primarily from ethnohistoric sources, and few attempts
at paleodemography have been made (see Winland, this issue).
Goggin and Sturtevant (1964) suggest a Calusa population of
4,000 to 7,000 people. Widmer (1988:219) modifies this by
postulating a population of around 5,000 for Charlotte Harbor
and 5,000 for the Ten Thousand Islands, adding up to a
population of 10,000 for the southwestern Florida coast.
Widmer (1988:259-260) derives this from comparative data on
other populations at a similar level of development, utilizing
a figure of 400 persons for a large village, 50 for a small
village. Thus, he estimates population density for Charlotte
Harbor at 6.0 persons/km2 and 9.44 persons/km2 for the Ten
Thousand Islands.
These kinds of calculations have not been made for the
other southern Florida polities, though Hale (1984:183-184)
estimates the Okeechobee Basin, not including the Kissimmee
Valley, population at around 2,000 to 2,500 persons. We
assume that Hale's (1984) information was calculated in a
manner similar to Widmer's, but no specifics on the assumed
number of people per village is given. Using the data supplied
in dissertations by Hale (1989) and Johnson (1991) regarding
large village complexes in the Lake Okeechobee basin, we
have calculated a population at over 5,000 persons; this figure
is based oliy on what we have considered to be large habita-
tion sites (n=25), and does not include information based on
the number of small campsites or isolated house mounds and
earthworks. As further discussed below, a figure of 200
persons per large site has been used to derive this figure.
Direct examination of site file information and calculation of
the total area of the basin is necessary to calculate a more
accurate population and population density for this region.
Wheeler (1992b) suggested that a population of 200
persons was likely for the village Jobe, visited by Jonathan
Dickinson in 1696. Several other major sites are documented
for the East Okeechobee Area, and some of the largest burial
mounds are known from this region. Utilizing the estimate for
200 people per Jeaga village (n=9) and 25 people per campsite
(n=17) (this works out to about half of Widmer's estimate for
Calusa sites), we have calculated the pre-contact population of
coastal Palm Beach County at around 2,225 people. Admit-
tedly, Palm Beach County represents only a portion of the East
Okeechobee Area. Calculating the coastal area of Palm Beach


County as 250 km2 provides an easy method for calculating
population density at 8.9 persons/km2. Like Widmer's
estimate for the Calusa, this does not incorporate the area of
the hinterland, which in Palm Beach County seems scarcely
occupied, but undoubtedly was utilized (Griffin et al. 1979).
Unlike Widmer's correlation of Calusa population density with
ethnographically known groups, our estimate for the Jeaga
provides a more geographically relevant figure.
With regard to population and population density, much
work remains to be done. Widmer's method of calculating
population and population density is appealing, as are his
recognition of the problems associated with it, like what sites
were occupied and when? This method easily can be applied
to the other culture areas, and gains validity if we can factor in
information about temporal occupations of a particular
locality. Information on burial mounds and the number of
individuals interred also seems a likely source for information
on demographics, especially regarding more specific informa-
tion like age estimation, sex determination, stature calculation,
health status and cause of death. For example, Winland's (see
article, this issue) estimated range of approximately 100 to 200
people utilizing the Highland Beach Mound helps re-enforce
some of our estimates for population size.
What is most interesting about these estimates for popula-
tion size and density is the assumption that denser populations
reflect greater social organization. Widmer (1988:219, 222)
points to population increase and population density as
important factors in the development of the Calusa chiefdom.
Several authors have argued that the Calusa were the domi-
nant group in pre-contact and protohistoric southern Florida
(Marquardt 1988:186-187; Milanich 1998:246, 253-254;
Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:241). Our calculation of 8.9
persons/km2 for pre-contact Palm Beach County, compared to
Widmer's estimates of 6.0 persons/km2 for Charlotte Harbor
and 9.44 persons/km2 for the Ten Thousand Islands, suggests
that differences in population density may not be useful indices
for gauging and comparing evolutionary trajectories in
southern Florida, unless we revise our views of the regional
sociopolitical arena. That is, the population figures cited
above may suggest that southeastern Florida's Indians might
have achieved a level of social organization closely comparable
to that of the Calusa, a view that has not received widespread
attention by researchers. However, some researchers have
noted a high level of social complexity in adjacent areas. For
example, it has been documented for the Ais to the north
(Rouse 1951) and noted for the Tequesta to the south (see
"Preface" to The Florida Anthropologist, Vol. 43, No. 4,
December 2000).

Subsistence

Studies of plant remains from archaeological sites in
coastal Palm Beach and Martin counties have not been made,
and studies of faunal remains from the area are limited to a
preliminary analysis of material from Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34)
(see Wheeler et al., this issue) and Card's (1991) more detailed
study of bone and shell remains from the Singer Island site


2002 VOL 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM Bn~cH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY


(8PB219). The Singer Island site is located at MacArthur
Beach State Park on a barrier island beach dune between the
Atlantic Ocean and a small extension of the northern end of
Lake Worth. Ceramics and radiocarbon dates from the site
indicate occupation during the Glades II and early Glades III
periods, with some post-contact use as well (Card 1991:31;
Dickel 1988). Jupiter Inlet 1 is not far north of Singer Island,
and also dates to the Glades II and early Glades III periods.
Remains from both Jupiter Inlet 1 and Singer Island indicate
a primary reliance on locally available, marine and brackish
water fauna.
What is most striking is the considerable diversity of
saltwater fishes found at Singer Island, which was thought to
be a resource procurement site where specific animals (e.g.,
sea turtles) were targeted for collection. Card (1991:49)
reports that two species, sea catfish and gafftopsail catfish,
were the main fish represented. This was the case at Jupiter
Inlet 1. In fact, the inventories of vertebrate and invertebrate
remains from both sites are very similar. There are specific
trends at each site that suggest different, perhaps slightly
overlapping, catchment areas were being utilized. For
example, at Jupiter Inlet 1, oyster (Crassostrea virginica),
cross-barred venus (Chione cancellata) and surf clam (Spisula
solidissima similis) seem to have been targeted species,
collected in large numbers. At Singer Island, however, oyster
was uncommon, with mussels (Mytilidae) and pointed venus
(Anomalocardia auberiana) contributing significantly to the
total biomass (Card 1991:52).
Both sites also have a small number of birds, terrestrial
mammals and turtles, and some freshwater turtles. The
remains of adult sea turtles, likely green turtles (Chelonia
mydas) and/or loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), were
abundant at both sites. These remains include large numbers
of carapace fragments, which are often charred. Adult turtles
of these two species are infrequently found during the winter
months in this area, but the females come ashore in large
numbers to nest between May and September. Juvenile and
subadult green turtles are found on nearshore reefs, ledges and
bioherms year round. Unfortunately, the faunal assemblages
from both sites do not help answer questions of seasonality,
other than indicating occupation during the summer months.
Unusual animals were recovered at both sites. For exam-
ple, Card (1991:76, 102) reports sailfish (Istiophorus
platypterus) remains from Singer Island. Pointed tools made
from sailfish bills are known from a few other sites in south-
eastern Florida, including Riviera (Wheeler 1992:Figure 8b),
Surfside (Image No. Rc11025, Florida State Archives), and
Upper Matecumbe (Goggin and Sommer 1949:51). At Jupiter
Inlet 1, marine mammal remains, including those of the
bottlenose dolphin and baleen whale, indicate these animals
were occasionally captured as described in ethnohistoric
accounts (see Larson 1980:140-143, 145-162; Worth
1995:344-345).
The fauna from both sites indicate that a variety of collect-
ing techniques were used in a number of local environments.
Adult sea turtles were likely collected from nesting beaches,
while juvenile and subadult sea turtles could have been


captured by divers or with spears. Small fish would have been
captured with nets, while larger species could have been
speared or caught with a hook and line. Some fish and
mollusk species were targeted for collection. Some mollusks,
like the worm tubes and dog whelks, were probably inciden-
tally collected along with some of the preferred species. Some
of the less common fish also were probably taken in the course
of capturing preferred sizes or varieties. The fauna recovered
from both sites reflect locally available species, as well as
cultural preferences and individual choices.

Palm Beach County Archaeology and the East Okeechobee
Area

John Goggin (1947, 1949) characterized the Glades Area
as a cultural zone united by a predominance of sand-tempered
pottery, a technology based on shell and bone tools, and an
economic reliance on marine and freshwater resources.
Revisions of Goggin's Glades Area concept by Griffin
(1988:119-121; 1989:182-184) and Carr andBeriault(1984:3-
7, 12) identified five major subdivisions of the area, including
the coastal part of Palm Beach and Martin
counties-identified as an "unclassified" zone or district by
Griffin (1988:117, 121) and the "East Okeechobee Area" by
Carr and Beriault (1984:7). The southern boundary given for
this East Okeechobee Area is the Broward-Palm Beach county
line, with the northern limit in the vicinity of St. Lucie Inlet.
A recent survey of the Pavilion site (8SL1173) in St. Lucie
County included a reassessment of 16 sites on south Hutchin-
son Island, south of Ft. Pierce Inlet and north of St. Lucie Inlet
(Wheeler 2002:33-34). The site distribution pattern and
ceramic inventory indicates that these sites are very similar to
those of the East Okeechobee Area, suggesting that the
boundaries for the area may extend to Ft. Pierce Inlet. The
western boundary is more difficult to assess, although surveys
of Palm Beach and Martin counties suggest two major areas of
site concentration-one along the shore of Lake Okeechobee
and one along the coast (Carr et al. 1995; Griffin et al. 1979;
Kennedy et al. 1991). Sites in the former region are more
typical of the Belle Glade or Lake Okeechobee area, while sites
along the coast seem to exhibit influences from several
neighboring areas. Some sites and site complexes are known
in the interior, and variably have similarities to the lake and
coastal areas.
Pepe (1999) utilized statistical methods to compare relative
frequencies of ceramic types from Jupiter Inlet 1 and other
southern Florida sites. The premise of Pepe's study was to
evaluate assumptions about ceramics and culture area assign-
ments. His study follows Widmer's (1988:78-83) culture area
divisions based solely on ceramic trajectories. Pepe's
(1999:64-65) discriminant function analysis confirms that
prior to A.D. 500 ceramics throughout southern Florida are
dominated by sand-tempered plain, making recognition of
distinct ceramic areas difficult at this time. However, St.
Johns Plain pottery dominates the ceramic assemblage of the
neighboring Indian River Area during the period 500 B.C. to
A.D. 500. Interestingly, following A.D. 500, levels at Jupiter


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Inlet 1 first resemble ceramic assemblages of the Belle Glade
Area and then briefly those of the Everglades Area. Pepe
(1999:64-71) hypothesizes that after circa A.D. 1250 the
ceramic assemblages of sites in the East Okeechobee Area will
be most like those of the Indian River Area.
Likewise, the area's bone and shell artifact assemblage
exhibits influences from neighboring areas. Some tool forms,
like the shell adzes and bone fids, are typical of the toolkit
throughout southern Florida and the Indian River and St.
Johns River areas. Busycon carica hammer/pounders,
however, are uncommon in southern Florida, and probably
represent influences of the Indian River and St. Johns River
areas. Strombus gigas celts, found at East Okeechobee Area
sites, are a typical artifact of the Everglades Area. The
presence of some of these tool types may be more related to the
biogeographical ranges of the species utilized, rather than
cultural similarities to one area or another.
In 1993, the authors organized a symposium at the annual
meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference titled
"The East Okeechobee Area: Fact or Fantasy" (Pepe 1993;
Kennedy and Wheeler 1993; Sinks 1993; Spears-Jester 1993;
Wheeler 1993). We presented some of the initial results of our
excavations and engaged in a dialogue with those working in
neighboring culture areas. When archaeologists Griffin (1988)
and Carr and Beriault (1984) originally offered that the coastal
portions of Palm Beach and Martin counties represented a
distinct culture area, there was little data to support this
assertion, despite the fact that the area did not fit comfortably
within neighboring areas. Pepe's (1999) statistical analysis of
pottery and a better understanding of shell and bone tools in
this and neighboring areas help confirm that the East
Okeechobee Area does, in fact, represent an amalgam of
neighboring areas, and collectively these differences and
similarities help give the coastal portion of Palm Beach and
Martin counties their own cultural flavor.

Ceramics and the East Okeechobee Area

Pepe's (1999) study confirms our broader observation that
sites of the East Okeechobee Area seem to have influences
from several neighboring areas (see above). While variation
in pottery styles and wares are often attributed to variation in
ethnic or tribal affiliation (e.g., see discussion and cautions of
this approach in Hodder 1982; also see Thompson 1958 for
ethnographic information on variations in temper, vessel form,
and use; Balfet 1965 on ceramic diversity within groups; and
Stark 1994 on ceramic vessel exchange), it is unclear what the
manifestations of different ceramic traditions represent in the
East Okeechobee Area. If ceramic traditions represent
different cultural groups, are the shifting ceramic traditions in
the East Okeechobee Area related to actual movements of
people, contact between groups, or physical exchange of
vessels? Certainly some of each of these possibilities may be
involved.
If we assume that sand-tempered pottery is the mainstay of
the local ceramic trajectory, we are left to understand the
introduction Belle Glade Plain and St. Johns series pottery as


possible indicators of cultural change or contact. Griffin
(1988:75-76) discusses varying perspectives on the presence of
St. Johns ware outside of the northern St. Johns Area. He cites
many researchers who believe that St. Johns pottery occurs in
southern Florida due to exchange (e.g., Goggin, Rouse, Sears).
Contrary to this, Espenshade (1983) argues that spiculate paste
wares, with St. Johns series forms and surface treatments (e.g.,
check stamping), were produced locally in southern Florida.
Luer (1989:119-121) argues that Belle Glade Plain vessels
were used to transport exchange items from the Lake
Okeechobee region to neighboring areas, thus explaining the
appearance of this type in the Caloosahatchee and East
Okeechobee areas. It is possible that some Belle Glade and St.
Johns vessels were introduced to the East Okeechobee Area
and then local copies made. It also is tempting to consider that
the shifts in the frequencies of these ceramic wares may be a
material culture manifestation of the shifting socio-political
alliances that seem to have characterized this area during the
European contact period (see Wheeler and Pepe, this issue).
Thus, the presence of these wares may be due to exchange
between allied groups, adoption of the ceramic styles of allied
groups, or redistribution of goods in these vessels. The
possibility that changes in ceramic frequency of Belle Glade
Plain and St. Johns ware pottery is related to shifting alliances
between neighboring culture areas may be strengthened by the
fact that roughly coeval sites within the area can have quite
different ceramic assemblages, suggesting that the alliances
exist on a village level, rather than a broader territorial basis.

Conclusion

The goal of this article, as stated in the introduction, was
to provide a context for our excavations at Jupiter Inlet 1
(8PB34), reported elsewhere in this issue. Within coastal
Palm Beach County, nine major site complexes have been
identified. We have defined these site complexes as an
analytical tool for organizing and understanding aboriginal
settlement in the area. The site complexes usually include one
or more large shell mound or midden features, as well as one
or more burial mounds and associated small midden sites, all
located in close proximity to one another. In most cases these
complexes were situated at inlets, rivers, or other major
aquatic features. As we selected a site for investigation in the
early 1990s, it became apparent that most major sites of
coastal Palm Beach County had been destroyed or extensively
altered. Most sites along Lake Worth had vanished in the
wake of development in the 1950s and 1960s, which is
unfortunate, since this large freshwater lake had apparently
attracted considerable settlement in prehistory. Jupiter Inlet 1
provided a rare opportunity to study a large shell mound in the
East Okeechobee Area.
Aquatic features, especially Lake Worth, obviously played
a big role in the character of the region, and it is interesting to
note that large shell mounds are virtually absent from the
landscape of southeastern Florida to the south of Lake Worth,
and yet are relatively abundant in coastal Martin and Palm
Beach counties. A bountiful environment likely played a


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM BzAcH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY


supporting role in the development of fairly dense population
centered around Lake Worth and other aquatic coastal fea-
tures, like the St. Lucie River, Jupiter Inlet, Spanish River, and
Boca Raton Inlet. Interestingly, Martin and Palm Beach
counties exist at a biogeographical boundary, one which
includes the thick-lipped Strombus gigas conch, often used in
shell tool making in southeastern Florida, as well as the
Busycon carica whelk, more typically associated with shell
cutting-edge tools of the Indian River and St. Johns River
areas.
Shell mound architecture, like the sand earthworks of the
interior Lake Okeechobee country and the shell keys of the
southwestern Florida coast, points to some similar, shared
cultural trajectories for all these areas. It is possible that shell
mound architecture also points to a shared origin in the
Archaic traditions associated with the St. Johns River Area.
As Pepe and Jester (1995) suggest, there may be several coeval
Archaic traditions in southern Florida, including one with few
ties to the fiber-tempered ceramic/shell mound building
cultures that seem to have been present along coastal Martin
and Palm Beach counties circa 4,000 years ago. This Archaic
tradition ultimately developed into the distinctive Glades
Culture. Another possible Archaic tradition, tied to shell
mound building, might have spawned the coastal culture that
we have discussed under the rubric East Okeechobee Area.
Our summary of data on the East Okeechobee Area and the
sites of coastal Palm Beach County points to the difficulty in
understanding this region as a distinct cultural unit. The
following list summarizes the main characteristics noted for
the area:

1) The ceramic assemblage is dominated by sand-tempered
plain, with significant percentages ofBelle Glade Plain and St.
Johns wares at some late period sites. Some decorated Glades
sherds are known from sites in the southern part of the area.
Variations in these ceramic frequencies may reflect shifting
alliances with neighboring culture areas on a village-to-village
level.

2) Shell mound architecture, similar to that of the Indian River
and St. Johns River areas, is present, especially at sites on and
to the north of Lake Worth. This is in contrast to the
Everglades Area to the south where shell mounds are largely
absent.

3) Earlier sites (i.e., Archaic and Glades I periods) are
concentrated in the northern end of the area, with Glades II
Period sites equally distributed across the area. The earlier
trend is reversed in Glades I Period times, with more sites
concentrated in the southern part of the area. Three or four
occupational loci are evenly distributed throughout the area by
the Glades mIc Period.

4) Large site complexes, often with multiple large village
middens and burial areas, are typically found at inlets and
around Lake Worth.


5) Interior freshwater marshes are largely unoccupied, except
for a site complex at Boynton Mounds and a large concentra-
tion of sites in the Loxahatchee River drainage basin. Coastal
and interior (Lake Okeechobee) inhabitants likely used these
hinterland areas, since several sloughs provide natural
transportation corridors linking the coast, Everglades marsh,
sandy flatlands, and Lake Okeechobee regions.

6). Shell and bone technology is shared with neighboring areas
to the north, south, and west.

7) The coastal cultures) of Palm Beach, Martin, and portions
of St. Lucie counties may have had origins in the Orange
Period shell mound Archaic tradition of the St. Johns River
Area to the north.

8) The Jeaga and Jobe tribes of the European contact period
are directly related to the archaeologically known cultures of
the area. There are no indications that the contact period
people of the area represent immigrant groups, though there is
evidence for frequent contact between neighboring tribes.

As this summary indicates, the region is best defined in
terms of similarities and differences with neighboring areas,
and yet emerges with a "feeling" of distinction from these
nearby regions. The tooled ceramics and earthworks of the
Belle Glade Area to the west, the bone and shell technology
and decorated ceramic wares of the Everglades to the south,
and the spiculite ceramics and shell mounds of the Indian
River and St. Johns areas to the north all contribute to the still
rather nebulous East Okeechobee Area. A ceramic inventory
dominated by sand-tempered plain sherds and varying influ-
ences or allegiance through time probably contribute to the
"transitional" nature of the area. In some ways this is similar
to the Indian River Area, which seems to be a transitional zone
between the St. Johns River region and the cultures of southern
Florida. Perhaps these difficult to categorize areas best serve
as reminders of the artificial taxonomic constructs that we
place on what were once fluid and dynamic cultures.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Robert S. Canr, H. Stephen Hale, and
William H. Marquardt for their thoughtful comments and insights
offered when we first presented our research at the 1993 Southeast-
ern Archaeological Conference meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Bob Carr and George Luer read and commented on this manuscript
and provided many helpful suggestions. Bob Carr also provided
copies of the radiocarbon results from the Jupiter Inlet 2 site, which
helped in building the Appendix.

References Cited

Abbott, R. Tucker
1974 American Seashells. 2"d edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.

Almy, Marion, and Steve Koski
2000 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Milani


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Property, Palm Beach County, Florida. Report prepared for
Palm Beach County Planning Department by Archaeologi-
cal Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. On file, Florida Division of
Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Andrews, Charles M.
1943 The Florida Indians in the Seventeenth Century. Tequesta
3:36-48.

Andrews, Evangeline Walker, and Charles McLean Andrews
(editors)
1945 Jonathan Dickinson's Journal, or God'sProtecting
Providence. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Austin, Daniel F.
1978 Spanish River. Broward Legacy 2(1-2):2-5.

Austin, Daniel F., Katherine Coleman-Marois, and Donald R.
Richardson
1977 Vegetation of Southeastern Florida--I-V. Florida Scientist
40(4):331-361.

Austin, Robert J.
1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence
Data from the Kissimmee River Valley: Archaeological
Evidence for Belle Glade Occupation. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 49(2):65-87.

Bagnold, R.A.
1971 The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes. 5th ed.
Chapman and Hall, London.

Balfet, H616ne
1965 Ethnographical Observations in North Africa and Archeo-
logical Interpretation. In Ceramics and Man, edited by
Frederick R. Matson, pp. 161-177. Viking Fund Publica-
tion in Anthropology 41. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New
York.

Brink, Lynn (editor)
1976 A History of Riviera Beach, Florida. Bicentennial Com-
mission of Riviera Beach, Riviera Beach.

Browning, William D.
1975 Archaeological Investigation at the Rocky Point 2 Site:
8Mt33. Miscellaneous Project Report Series 21. Bureau of
Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1957 The Barnhill Mound, Palm Beach County, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 10(1-2):23-26.

Card, James E.
1991 Prehistoric Subsistence at the Singer Island Site (8PB219).
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department ofAnthropology,
Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Carr, Robert S.
1973 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Martin
Plant Tract in Martin County, Florida. Bureau of Historic
Sites and Properties Miscellaneous Project Report Series
8. Tallahassee


1974 The Use of Panchromatic Aerial Photographs for the
Detection and Investigation of Archaeological Sites in
South Florida. Ms. on file, Southeast Archeological Center,
National Park Service, Tallahassee.

1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey ofLake
Okeechobee. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties
Miscellaneous Project Report Series 22, Tallahassee.

1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 38(4):288-301.

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

Carr, Robert S., Linda Jester, James Pepe, W.S. Steele
1995 An Archaeological Survey of Martin County, Florida.
Technical Report No.124. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc., Miami.

Carr, Robert S., James Pepe, and Christopher Eck
1998 A Phase II Archaeological Survey of Martin County,
Florida. Technical Report No. 213. Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy, Inc., Miami.

Carr, Robert S., James Pepe, and W.S. Steele
1998 An ArchaeologicalSurvey ofthe UpperLoxahatchee River,
Martin and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. Technical
Report No. 218. Archaeological and Historical Conser-
vancy, Miami.

Carr, Robert S., and W.S. Steele
1993 An Archaeological Assessment of the Hutchinson Island
Site (8MT37), Martin County, Florida. Technical Report
No. 68. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc.,
Miami.

Carr, Robert S., W.S. Steele, James Pepe, and Linda Spears Jester
1995 An Archaeological andHistoricalAssessment ofRiverbend
Park, Palm Beach County, Florida. Technical Report No.
106. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Miami.

Christman, Heidi
1957 Ceramic and other data for excavations at the Boynton Inlet
site. On file, Department ofAnthropology, Florida Atlantic
University, Boca Raton.

Curl, Donald W.
1986 Palm Beach County: An Illustrated History. American
Historical Press, Sun Valley.

Davis, T. Frederick
1935 Juan Ponce de Leon's Voyages to Florida. The Florida
Historical Quarterly 14:3-70.

Dean, Jonathan A.
2002 Precolumbian Campsites on a South Florida Barrier Island:
Archaeological Investigations at Gumbo Limbo Hammock,
Boca Raton. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Florida Anthropological Society, St. Petersburg.


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE ftowiDA ANTHROPOLOGInT







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM BEACH CouNry ARCHAEOLOGY


Dickel, David N.
1988 Test Excavations at the Singer Island Site (8Pb214),
MacArthur Beach State Park, Palm Beach County,
Florida. Florida Archaeological Reports No. 3. Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Doran, Glen H., and David N. Dickel
1988 Multidisciplinary Investigations at the Windover Site. In
WetSiteArchaeology, edited by BarbaraA. Purdy, pp. 263-
289. Telford Press, Caldwell, New Jersey.

Douglass, Andrew E.
1885 Florida Diaries, 1881-1885. Typescript on file at P. K.
Yonge Library of Florida History, Gainesville, Florida.

DuBois, Bessie Wilson
1957 Celt and Pendant from Jupiter Inlet Mound. The Florida
Anthropologist 10(3-4):15-16.

1968 Jupiter Inlet. Tequesta No. 28:19-35.

Espenshade, Christopher T.
1983 Ceramic Ecology and Aboriginal Household Pottery
Production at the Gauthier Site, Florida. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University
of Florida, Gainesville.

Farnsworth, Susan O.
1998 Reconstructing Predevelopment Conditions of Lake Worth
Creek Using Historical Maps, Accounts, and Aerial
Photography. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of
Geography, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

Felmley, Amy
1993 Letter to Rear Admiral W. P. Leahy, Commanding Officer,
Seventh Coast Guard District, Miami, concerning distur-
bance to 8PB35. On file, Florida Master Site File, Bureau
of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

1995 Letter to George W. Percy, Director, Division of Historical
Resources and State Historic Preservation Officer, Talla-
hassee, concerning monitoring of a chain link fence across
8PB35. On file, Florida Master Site File, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Fradkin, Arlene
1980 Bird Remains from Two South Florida Prehistoric Sites.
Florida Scientist 43(2):111-115.

Furey, John F.
1972 The Spanish River Complex: Archaeological Settlement
Patterning in Eastern Okeechobee Sub-Area, Florida.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department ofAnthropology,
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

Goggin, John M.
1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and
Periods in Florida. American Antiquity 13:114-127.

1948 Florida Archeology and Recent Ecological Changes.
Journal ofthe Washington Academy ofSciences 38(7):225-
233.


1949 Cultural Traditions in Florida Prehistory. In The Florida
Indian and His Neighbors, edited by J. W. Griffin, pp. 13-
44. Rollins College, Winter Park.

n.d. Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. Manu-
script on file, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Goggin, John M., and Frank H. Sommer III
1949 Excavations on UpperMatecumbe Key, Florida. Publica-
tions in Anthropology 41. Yale University Press, New
Haven.

Goggin, John M., and William C. Sturtevant
1964 The Calusa: A Stratified, Nonagricultural Society (with
notes on sibling marriage). In Explorations in Cultural
Anthropology: Essays in Honor ofGeorge Peter Murdock,
edited by Ward H. Goodenough, pp. 179-219. McGraw-
Hill, New York.

Griffin, John W.
1988 The Archeology ofEverglades National Park: A Synthesis.
Southeastern Frontiers, Inc. submitted to National Park
Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee,
Florida, Contract No. CX 5000-5-0049.

Griffin, John W., James J. Miller, and Mildred L. Fryman
1979 A Survey of the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge,
Florida. Cultural Resource Management Inc. Submitted to
Interagency Archeological Services-Atlanta, Contract No.
A5651(78).

Hale, H. Stephen
1984 Prehistoric Environmental Exploitation Around Lake
Okeechobee. Southeastern Archaeology 3(2):173-187.

1989 Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies andSettlement Patterns
in the Lake Okeechobee Basin of the South Florida Penin-
sula. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Hann, John H.
1991 Missions to the Calusa. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.

Harris, Barbara A., Kenneth D. Haddad, Karen A. Steidinger, and
James A. Huff
1983 Assessment of Fisheries Habitat: Charlotte Harbor and
Lake Worth, Florida. Bureau of Marine Research, Florida
Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg.

Hawkes, J.M. (compiler)
1939 The East Coast in 1870 (extracts from The Florida Gazet-
teer, 1871). The Florida Historical Quarterly 18(2):106-
114.

Higgs, Charles D.
1942 Spanish Contacts with the Ais (Indian River) Country. The
Florida Historical Quarterly 21:25-39.

Hodder, Ian
1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of
Material Culture. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.


WHFELER KExNEDY, AND PEPE


PALm BEAcH COUNTY ARcHAEOLOr-Y








THE FWRIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Hrdlika, AleS
1940 Catalog of Human Crania in the United States National
Museum Collections: Indians of the Gulf States. Proceed-
ings of the United States National Museum 87:315464.

Hudson, Charles
1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.

1can, M. Yasar, and William J. Kennedy
1987 Osteological Analysis of Human Remains from the Nebot
Site. Florida Scientist 50(3):147-155.

tMcan, M. Yasar, andMorton H. Kessel
1988 Osteology of the Prehistoric Boynton Beach Indians.
Florida Scientist 51(1):12-18.

Jaffee, Howard
1976 Preliminary Report on a Midden Mound and Burial Mound
of the Boynton Mound Complex. The Florida Anthropolo-
gist 29(4):145-152.

Janus Research
1998 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Indian River-
side Park in Martin County, Florida. Prepared for Martin
County by Janus Research, St. Petersburg.

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

Kennedy, William J., and M. Yasar Fcan
1987 Archaeological Investigation of the Nebot Site (8PB219)
Palm Beach. Florida. Florida Scientist 50(3):136-146.

Kennedy, Wm. Jerald, Linda Jester, James Pepe, Nancy Sinks, and
Clark Wernecke
1994 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Shunk,
Loxahatchee River Corridor and Eastern Loxahatchee
Slough Tracts, Palm Beach County, Florida. Department of
Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

Kennedy, Wm. Jerald, Scott Lewis, Natileene Cassel, Linda Jester,
James Pepe, and Ari J. Sassi
1991 The SR706/Indiantown Road Realignment, Palm Beach
County, Florida: Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
and Gildan Right-of-Way and Bridge/Causeway Excava-
tion. Department ofAnthropology, FloridaAtlantic Univer-
sity, Boca Raton.

Kennedy, Wm. Jerald, Charles Roberts, Shih-Lung Shaw, and Ryan
Wheeler
1991 Prehistoric Resources in Palm Beach County=A Prelimi-
nary Predictive Study. Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton.

Kennedy, Wm. Jerald, and Ryan J. Wheeler
1993 Introductory Study of the East Okeechobee Area, Southern
Florida. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh, North
Carolina


Kerrigan, Anthony
1951 (1723) Chronological History ofthe Continent ofFlorida by
Andres Gonzales de Barcia Carballido yZuniga. University
of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Lamme, Vernon
1973 Florida Lore Not Found in the History Books. Star Pub-
lishing, Boynton Beach.

Larson, Lewis H.
1980 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeastern
Coastal Plain during the Late Prehistoric Period. Univer-
sity Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Le Baron, J. Francis
1884 Prehistoric Remains in Florida. Smithsonian Institution
AnnualReportfor 1882, pp. 771-790. Smithsonian Institu-
tion, Washington, D.C.

Levy, Marlene G.
1981 The Highland Beach Mound (8Pbll). Paper presented at
45* Florida Academy of Sciences meeting, Orlando.

Lewis, Clifford M.
1978 The Calusa. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of
Florida and Southeastern Georgia During the Historic
Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor,
pp. 19-49. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Lorant, Stefan
1965 The New World: The First Pictures of America. Duell,
Sloan and Pearce, New York.

Loubser, Johannes H.N.
2001 Phase II Testing of the Peck Lake Site, Martin County,
Florida. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by
New South Associates, Stone Mountain.

Luer, George M.
1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute
and Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist 42(2):89-130.

Lyon, Eugene
1976 The Enterprise ofFlorida. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.

Marquardt, William H.
1988 Politics and Production among the Calusa of South Florida.
In Hunters and Gatherers 1: History, Evolution and Social
Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James
Woodburn, pp. 161-188. Berg, Oxford.

McGoun, William E.
1989 Prehistory of South Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

McGregor, A. James
1974 A Ceramic Chronology for the Biscayne Bay Region of
Southeast Florida. Unpublished Master's thesis, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton.


Mclver, Stuart B.


THE FLOIRIDA ANMHROPOLOGMS


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE PALM BE~c*i Cour~rv As~cIi~oLoGy


1976 Yesterday's Palm Beach, Including Palm Beach County.
E.A. Seeman Publishing, Miami.

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

Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology ofPrecolumbian Florida. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.

1998 Native Chiefdoms and the Exercise of Complexity in
Sixteenth-Century Florida. In Chiefdoms and Chieftancy in
the Americas, edited by Elsa M. Redmond, pp.245-264.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Morris, Percy A.
1956 A Field Guide to the Shells of our Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts. 3" printing. Riverside Press, Cambridge.

Mowers, Bert
1975 Prehistoric Indian Pottery in South Florida. Privately
printed, Hollywood.

n.d. Ceramic data for the Patrician Mound. Ms. on file, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton.

Newcomb, Charles N.
1914 Notes and maps on the Riviera site. Cat. No. 3235. On file,
National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institu-
tion, Washington, D.C.

Palm Beach County Archaeological Society (PBCAS)
n.d. Notes on excavations. On file, Department of Anthropol-
ogy, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

Parks, Arva Moore
1982 Where the River Found the Bay: Historical Study of the
Granada Site, Miami, Florida: Archaeology and History
of the Granada Site II. Florida Division of Archives,
History and Records Management, Tallahassee.

Pearson, Jay F. W.
1945 Record of a Tegesta Burial Mound in Palm Beach, Florida.
Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Science
8(1):49-51.

Pepe, James P.
1992 Report on Salvage Archaeology at Suni Sands (8PB7718).
Typescript on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida
Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

1993 Ceramic Analysis ofthe "East Okeechobee" Archaeological
Area. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

1999 Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34): A Test Case in the Use of Ceramic
Frequencies and Discriminant Analysis in Determining
Cultural Affinity. Unpublished Master's thesis, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton.


2000a ArchaeologicalExcavations andMonitoring at the Jupiter
Inlet Lighthouse Restoration Project, 8PB35, Palm Beach
County, Florida. Technical ReportNo. 267. Archaeological
and Historical Conservancy, Inc., Miami.

2000b An Archaeological Survey of St. Lucie County, Florida.
Technical Report No. 280. Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Inc., Miami.

Pepe, James P., and Linda Jester
1995 An Archaeological Survey and Assessment of theMt.
Elizabeth Site 8MT30, Martin County, Florida. Technical
Report No.126. Archaeological and Historical Conser-
vancy, Inc., Miami.

Pierce, Charles W.
1970 Pioneer Life in Southeast Florida, edited by Donald W.
Curl. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.

Purdy, Barbara A.
1977 Weapons, Strategies, and Tactics of the Europeans and the
Indians in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Florida. The
Florida Historical Quarterly 55(3):259-276.

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

Richardson, Donald R.
1977 Vegetation of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge of Palm Beach
County, Florida. Florida Scientist 40(4):281-330.

Ritchie, Thomas, Frank Morrison, and Clivia Morrison
1981 Salvage Excavations of the Patrician Shell Mound. The
Florida Anthropologist 34(1):21-37.

Rouse, Irving
1951 A Survey oflndian RiverArcheology, Florida. Publications
in Anthropology 44. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Russo, Michael, and Gregory Heide
2002 The Joseph Reed Shell Ring. The Florida Anthropologist
55(2):67-87.

Schroeder, M.C., D.L. Milliken, and S.K. Love
1954 Water Resources ofPalm Beach County, Florida. Report
of Investigations 13. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahas-
see.

Sinks, Nancy
1993 Faunal Analysis of the Jupiter Inlet 1 Site (8PB34): Coastal
Subsistence Strategies in the East Okeechobee Subarea.
Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the South-
eastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

Small, John Kunkle
1927 Among Floral Aborigines. New York Botanical Garden
Journal 28:1-20, 25-40.

Snapp, Annette
1997 Archaeological Investigations of the Rest and Recovery
Parcel, Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. ScottP. Lewis
Historic Preservation Services, Inc., Ft. Lauderdale.


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Spears-Jester, Linda
1993 Preliminary Analysis of Mollusks Recovered from Jupiter
Inlet 1, an East Okeechobee Area Site. Paper presented at
the 50th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeologi-
cal Conference, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Stark, Miriam T.
1994 PotteryExchange and the Regional System: A Dalupa Case
Study. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited by William A.
Longacre and James M. Skibo, pp. 169-197. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Stirling, Matthew W.
1935 Smithsonian Archeological Projects Conducted Under the
Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1933-1934.
Annual Report of the Board ofRegents of the Smithsonian
Institution 1934, pp. 371-400. GovernmentPrinting Office,
Washington, D.C.

Sturtevant, William C.
1978 The Last of the South Florida Aborigines. In Tacachale:
Essays on the Indians ofFlorida andSoutheastern Georgia
during the Historic Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich
and Samuel Proctor, pp. 141-162. University Presses of
Florida, Gainesville.

Swanton, William C.
1922 Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors.
Bulletin 73. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.

1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bulletin
137. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institu-
tion, Washington, D.C.

Thompson, Raymond H.
1958 Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making. Memoirs No.
15. Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City.

Thornbury, William D.
1954 Principles of Geomorphology. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.

Torrence, Corbett
2000 Caloosahatchee Landscapes: An Architectural Analysis of
Precolumbian Social Structure in Southwest Florida. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Anthropo-
logical Society, Fort Myers.

True, David O. (editor)
1944a Memoir ofDo. d'Escalante Fontaneda Respecting Florida,
Written in Spain about the Year 1575, translated and
annotated by Buckingham Smith. University of Miami and
Historical Association of Southern Florida, Coral Gables.

True, David O.
1944b The Freducci Map of 1514-1515. Tequesta No. 4:50-55.

United States Coast & Geodetic Survey
1930 SheetNo. 4463A, Lake Worth to Lake Wyman (map). Based
on aerial photographs taken in 1927. United States Coast
& Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C.


Voss, Gilbert L.
1949 An Indian Mound at Hypoluxo, Palm Beach County. The
Florida Anthropologist 2:31-33.

Weed, Carol S., L. Janice Campbell, and Prentice M. Thomas
1981 Literature Review and Cultural Resources Survey of the
U.S. Coast Guard Light Station, Jupiter Inlet, Palm Beach
County, Florida. Prepared for National Park Service by
New World Research, Pollock, Louisiana.

Wheeler, Ryan J.
1992a Decorated Bone Artifacts, Florida Archaeology, and the
Greater Southeast. Paper presented at the 49th Annual
Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Little Rock, Arkansas.

1992b The Riviera Complex: An East Okeechobee Archaeological
Area Settlement. The Florida Anthropologist 45(1):5-17.

1993 Spatial and Temporal Distributions of Shell Tools from the
East Okeechobee Area. Paper presented at the 50th Annual
Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

2000 Treasure of the Calusa: the Johnson/Willcox Collection
from Mound Key, Florida. No. 1. Monographs in Florida
Archaeology, Tallahassee.

2002 Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Pavilion Site
(8SL 1173), St. Lucie County, Florida. Prepared for Seppala
Corp. by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tampa.

Wheeler, Skye, and Scott Lewis
1997 Phase II Report: Archaeological Investigations of the
Scheurich Midden Site (8PB9261), Jupiter, Palm Beach
County, Florida. Scott P. Lewis Historic Preservation
Services, Inc., Ft. Lauderdale.

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

Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Publications in Anthro-
pology 42. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Winland, Kenneth J.
1993 Disease and Population Ecology in Southeast Florida.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department ofAnthropology,
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

Worth, John E.
1995 Fontaneda Revisited: Five Descriptions of Sixteenth-
Century Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly
73(3):339-352.

Zischke, James A.
1977 An Ecological Guide to the Shallow-Water Marine Com-
munities of Pigeon Key, Florida. In Field Guide to some
Carbonate Rock Environments: Florida Keys and Western
Bahamas, edited by H. Gray Multer, pp. 23-30. Kend-
all/Hunt, Dubuque.


2002 VoL. 55(34)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PIPE PALM BE~icIi Courwrv ARcHAEOLOGY


APPENDIX: Radiocarbon dates from coastal Martin and Palm Beach counties.


Lab Site Material Uncorrected Conventional "3C IC 2 sigma Reference
No. age BP Age BP ratio calibrated
range
Beta Scheurich shell 3370+/- 60 3770+/- 60* 0.0 %o 2455-1980 Russo and
141466 (8PB9261) BC Heide
2002:69
Beta Mount shell 3550+/- 70 3950+/- 70* 0.0 %o 2175-1785 Janus Re-
116551 Elizabeth BC search
(8MT30) ______1998
Beta Mount shell 3570+/- 50 3970+/- 50* 0.0 %o 2145-1880 Janus Re-
116550 Elizabeth BC search
_(8MT30) 11998
GX Joseph charcoal 2880+/- 130 2850+/- 130 -26.6 %o 3355-2745 Russo and
26118 Reed Shell BC Heide
Ring 2002:69
(8MT13)
WK Joseph shell 2868+/- 58 3280+/- 60 -0.2 %o 3210-2935 Russo and
7435 Reed Shell BC Heide
Ring 2002:69
(8MT13)
GX Joseph shell 3060+/- 80 3455+/- 80 -0.6 %o 3530-3140 Russo and
25976 Reed Shell BC Heide
Ring 2002:69
(8MT13)
GX Joseph shell 3010+/-75 3425+/-75 +0.3 %o 3465-3105 Russo and
25977 Reed Shell BC Heide
Ring 2002:69
(8MT13)
WK Joseph shell 2935+/- 55 3340+/- 55 -0.6 %o 3350-3015 Russo and
7436 Reed Shell BC Heide
Ring 2002:69
(8MT13)
GX Joseph shell 2880+/- 80 3280+/- 80 -0.7 %o 3335-2875 Russo and
26119 Reed Shell BC Heide
Ring 2002:69
(8MT13)
Beta Peck Lake charcoal 1120+/-60 1120+/- 60* -25.0 %o AD 780- Loubser
154050 (8MT351) ___ __1020 2001
Beta Peck Lake charcoal 930+/-70 930+/- 70* -25.0 %o AD 990- Loubser
153937 (8MT351) ____ 1260 2001
Nova Boynton charcoal 1550+/- 60 1550+/- 60* -25.0 %o AD 405- Jaffee
Mounds 640 1976:149;
(8PB100) report on
__file, FAU
Nova Boynton charcoal 2100+/-60 2100+/- 60* -25.0 %o 355 BC- Jaffee
Mounds AD 50 1976:149;
(8PB100) report on
file, FAU
UM Patrician peat 3960+/- 100 3950+/- 100 -25.43 %o 2860-2140 report on
1437 (8PB99) ____BC file, FAU
UM Patrician charcoal 1955+/- 85 1955+/- 85 -24.98 %o 170 BC- report on
1438 (8PB99) _____AD 240 file, FAU
Beta Singer bone 1010+/- 80 ? AD 785- Card
31371 Island 1220 1991:31
(8PB219)


WHEELER, KENNEDY, AND PEPE


PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGY









Lab Site Material Uncorrected Conventional '3C /IC 2 sigma Reference
No. age BP Age BP ratio calibrated
range
Beta Singer charcoal 1260+/- 60 1260+/- 60* -25.0 %o AD 660- Card
31373 Island 935 1991:31
(8PB219)
Beta Singer bone 1320+/- 110 ? AD 540- Card
31764 Island 980 1991:31
(8PB219)
Beta Jupiter 2 shell 1050+/- 60 1440+/- 60 -1.1 %o AD 440- Pepe
139495 (8PB35) 690 2000:43
Beta Jupiter 2 shell 1020+/- 60 1390+/- 60 -2.2 %o AD 540- Pepe
139496 (8PB35) 770 2000:43
A 2836 Jupiter 1 charcoal 910+/- 60 890+/- 60 -25.94 %o AD 1025- Wheeler et
(8PB34) 1255 al., this
issue
A 2898 Jupiter 1 charcoal 1060+/- 110 1050 +/- 110 -25.3 %o AD 720- Wheeler et
(8PB34) 1220 al., this
issue
A 2845 Jupiter 1 charcoal 1290+/- 60 1290 +/- 60 -25.41 %o AD 655- Wheeler et
(8PB34) 885 al., this
_____ issue
*Indicates that the "C /12C ratio is estimated.


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST








THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF JUPITER INLET 1 (8PB34)

RYAN J. WHEELER,' JAMES P. PEPE,z AND WM. JERALD KENNEDY3

'Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 2026 Chuli Nene, Tallahassee, FL 32301
E-mail: rjwl00@juno.com

2Janus Research, 146 Madeira Avenue, Coral Gables, FL 33134
E-mail: jimpepe@janus-research. com

3Department ofAnthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431
E-mail: kennedy@fau.edu


Introduction

Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34) is a large shell mound located on
the southern bank of the Loxahatchee River, less than 0.5 km
from the Atlantic Ocean. The mound and associated archaeo-
logical features have been heavily altered since the beginning
of the twentieth century, when shell mining claimed almost
two-thirds of the mound. The remains of the mound, once
more than 183 m in length and over 6 m high, are currently
covered with some native hardwoods, landscaped grass and
shrubs, and topped by the 1898 frame DuBois House.
Excavations by Florida Atlantic University (FAU), con-
ducted in 1990, 1991, and 1992, revealed extensive shell
midden deposits ("shell fields") surrounding the mound and
covering at least 44,800 m2. Another significant site fea-
ture-a low, crescent-shaped shell ridge-also was found and
tested during the FAU project. Documentary research revealed
that the site originally had included a sand burial mound, as
well.
During the FAU project, designed to develop a better
understanding of the site's horizontal and stratigraphic extent,
a total of thirty 1 by 1 m test units was excavated across the
property known as DuBois County Park. Analyses included
studies of stratification; faunal material; ceramics, bone, shell
and stone artifacts; and radiocarbon dating (Kennedy et al.
1993; Kennedy and Wheeler 1993; Pepe 1993; Sinks 1993;
Spears-Jester 1993; Wernecke 1993; Wheeler and Kennedy
1993).
Research during the FAU project also was designed to
place the Jupiter Inlet 1 site in its broader cultural context.
Wheeler (1992b:13-15) viewed the Jupiter Inlet 1 site, and
neighboring sites in the Jupiter Inlet area, as another example
of a major site complex of the poorly understood East
Okeechobee Area-a transitional zone between the Everglades
and Indian River culture areas (Carr and Beriault 1984:7;
Griffin 1988:117-121). The Jupiter Inlet 1 site seemed to be
an appropriate place to test ideas about this culture area.
The Jupiter Inlet 1 site also presented an attractive candi-
date for further research since it was long regarded as the
location of the village "Hoe-Bay," or Job--where the Quaker


merchant and shipwreck survivor Jonathan Dickinson and his
party spent several reluctant days in 1696.

Site Location and History

Environmental Setting

The Jupiter Inlet 1 site is located on the southern bank of
Jupiter Inlet-the passage that connects the Atlantic Ocean
with the Loxahatchee River and its associated estuary (Figure
1). The Loxahatchee River is the dominant hydrological
feature of the area and probably has existed since 6,000 years
ago, when modern climate and vegetation became established
in the area (Brooks 1974; Watts and Stuiver 1980). Since
then, the Loxahatchee River has oscillated between a mostly
freshwater river and a tidal estuarine river (DuBois 1968;
McPherson and Sabanskas 1980; Wanless et al. 1984). The
diversity of aquatic animals would have been high during
marine/estuarine conditions, and lower, albeit more abundant,
during brackish/freshwater episodes (Law Environmental, Inc.
1991). The changing conditions were related to the opening
and closing of Jupiter Inlet. Pepe (2000:16) has recently
hypothesized that the Indians may have kept the inlet open in
order to maintain a preferred estuarine environmental regime.
The inlet was routinely dug out by hand during the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries.

Historic Configuration

The 1883 map drawn by early archaeologist and explorer
A.E. Douglass (1885) provides a good baseline for the original
configuration of the site and surrounding area (see Figure 2).
Major changes include shell-mining episodes in 1916 and
1932, as well as dredge and fill operations that have altered
and extended the plan of the shoreline (Palm Beach County
Engineering Department 1972). As Douglass (1885:71-72)
notes, the river was once much closer to the mound, actually
cutting into its northern side and making a wall that resembled
a fortification. Douglass describes his digging expedition to
the burial mound, noting that his party cut through the scrub


VOL.55(34) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2002


VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2002







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 1. Location of Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34) and detail of the inlet and site locations.


to access the site. One can imagine the tangle of scrub oaks
and saw palmetto, mixed with more diverse maritime ham-
mock vegetation in places (see Small 1924:70-73; 1927:32-
34). Deputy Surveyor William Reyes (1855:438-439) de-
scribes the vegetation of the area in the mid-nineteenth
century, which included slash pine and oak scrub, cabbage
palm and spruce (sand) pine. Irish landowner, politician, and
adventurer Henry Windsor Villiers-Stuart (1891:136-137)
visited Jupiter Inlet in 1890 and remarked on the shell mound
on the southern side of the inlet-noting that it was 50 ft high,
and covered with "india-rubber-trees [probably gumbo limbo
or strangler fig], Dracaenas, Yuccas, and scarlet-flowering
Salvias." The DuBois family settled in the area at the end of
the nineteenth century, building a house on part of the mound
and using the remaining portions for shell mining (Kersey
1981) (Figure 3). The little stream channel that extends to the
south and runs through DuBois Park is a remnant of the
original inlet, which met the sea about 600 m to the south of
the present inlet. The inlet has been opened by digging and
dredging many times in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, and eventually was fixed in its current location in
1921 (DuBois 1968:20).


Present Condition

Palm Beach County acquired 29.5 acres in 1972 from Mr.
and Mrs. Leo Vickers that would become DuBois County Park.
This acquisition included the remaining portions of the shell
mound and the frame DuBois house, as well as much of the
surrounding shell fields, as well as filled land. Facilities
developed since that time have included picnic pavilions,
parking lots, and beach access. Between 1990 and 1993,
additional facilities were developed, including more parking
and picnic areas, as well as additional restroom and picnic
pavilions. Trenches for underground water and utility lines
were dug in 1991 and helped confirm earlier observations on
the extent of prehistoric midden deposits (Figure 4). Vegeta-
tion at the park is dominated by landscape grass, with some
native and ornamental trees; stands of Australian pine trees
are present in places.

Previous Research

Prior to the main FAU field project of 1992, several
important archaeological studies were conducted at the Jupiter


2002 VoL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPITER INLET 1


Figure 2. A.E. Douglass' 1883 sketch map of archaeological sites at Jupiter Inlet (redrawn from Douglass 1885).


Inlet 1 site. These can be divided into antiquarian studies of
the nineteenth century, observations of the early and mid
twentieth century, and more recent excavations of the site by
FAU beginning in 1965.

Antiquarian Studies

The most interesting nineteenth century archaeology at
Jupiter Inlet is that of A.E. Douglass, preserved in his unpub-
lished diary entries (Douglass 1885). Douglass provides a map
of the inlet area, showing the Lighthouse Mound (also called
Jupiter Inlet 2, 8PB35) on the northern side of the inlet, as
well as the Jupiter Inlet 1 site (8PB34) (Figure 2). Details
shown at Jupiter Inlet 1 include the main shell mound or ridge,
as well as several other shell mounds and ridges, and the sand
burial mound. Douglass describes his excavation in the sand
burial mound, noting that it was 8 ft high and 80 ft in
diameter-he uncovered five human skulls about 2 ft below
the center of the mound.

Twentieth Century Observations

John Goggin (n.d.) reports his 1942 and 1944 visits to the
Jupiter locality, noting that the shell mound on the DuBois
property was the remains of a once much larger site. He
comments on the collections made by surveyor and avocational
archaeologist Francis Le Baron (1884), which included a
coquina limestone plummet, as well as sherds of St. Johns
Check Stamped, St. Johns Plain, Belle Glade Plain, and
Glades Plain.


Florida Atlantic University test, 1965

February 1965 saw the first controlled stratigraphic
excavation at Jupiter Inlet 1, led by archaeologists William
Sears and Wm. Jerald Kennedy. One test trench, 5 by 10 ft,
was excavated in arbitrary levels of 12 in (30.5 cm). The
approximate location of this test, on top of the mound, is noted
on Figure 5. The result was four levels-terminating at 51
inches (129.5 cm), all of which yielded ceramics and faunal
remains.
Analysis of the material collected during the 1965 test
included classification of 120 sherds-sand-tempered plain
(58%) was the most common type, with St. Johns Plain (21%),
Belle Glade Plain (12%), and St. Johns Check Stamped (8%)
in lower numbers. The fieldnotes describe a fairly uniform
stratification of oyster shell, with some bone, including human
bone, with fairly uniform distribution of pottery types through-
out the unit.

Florida Atlantic University tests, 1990 and 1991

Wheeler visited the site in spring 1990 during the construc-
tion of a new parking lot. This construction revealed extensive
midden deposits to the south of the shell mound, and a large
collection of pottery and shell tools was made, along with a
beautiful fine-grained limestone plummet. Permission was
obtained to excavate a 1 m square test to evaluate the construc-
tion damage, and obtain a better understanding of the stratifi-
cation in this part of the site. This unit, excavated in arbitrary
10 cm levels, encountered dense oyster shell midden, with
animal bone and pottery, to a depth of 80 cm where sterile
sand was encountered.


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPTER INLET 1








TIff FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


m'*~- h


Figure 3. Composite panoramic photograph of the Jupiter Inlet 1 shell mound and DuBois house, ca. 1903. Today, the only
remaining portion of the shell mound is under and immediately around the DuBois house, shown at the right side of this
photograph. The large portion of the shell mound to the left (east) is now gone. Photo courtesy of the Loxahatchee River
Historical Society, Jupiter.


In 1991 three additional tests were made to the west of the
1990 unit. Like the earlier unit, these encountered dense
midden deposits, with alternating layers of oyster shell midden
and black earth midden, with occasional lenses of gray sand
and crushed shell. The midden terminated at 80 cm below
surface, where granular beach sand was encountered. The
ceramic distribution for the 1990-1991 tests revealed that St.
Johns Check Stamped, present in the upper levels, was not
found below 40 to 50 cm.

Research Methods and Results:
Part 1-Excavations and Stratigraphy

The 1990-1991 fieldwork demonstrated that extensive
archaeological deposits were potentially present across much
of the DuBois Park property in areas that were seemingly
"ground level." As Palm Beach County continued to develop
the recreational facilities at the park, it became clear that a
better understanding of the distribution of significant archaeo-
logical deposits was needed. A Historic Preservation grant
from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical
Resources was obtained by FAU to aid in this objective.

1992 Fieldwork

The 1992 fieldwork began by establishing a 40 m grid
across the 29.52 acre DuBois Park property. The north/south
portion of DuBois Road and the east/west D Lane formed the
grid axes, with the site datum at their convergence. Square
meter test units were placed within seventeen of the grid
squares. Nine additional 1 m square tests were excavated to
investigate other site areas and features.
All excavated soil was water screened through V2 in, 1A in,
and V1/ in hardware cloth. A 2.75 in (7 cm) bucket auger was
used to test deposits below the depth reached by the excavation
units. Artifacts and samples of shell and bone were retained
from each unit. Data on each 10 cm level, unit, and feature
were recorded on standardized field forms. Profile and plan


drawings, along with photographs, were made of each unit.
Eight 0.25 cm square column samples were retained for faunal
analyses, and to understand better the shell weights and
volumes present at the site.

Site Horizontal and Vertical Extent

The excavations revealed extensive shell midden deposits
across the area tested, much of which appears as ground level,
with no surface features indicating the presence of the archaeo-
logical materials. The following discussion of stratification
and horizontal extent is divided into four major areas-the
area south of DuBois Road, the area north of DuBois Road, the
shell ridge, and the areas north of the shell mound.

Stratigraphy South of DuBois Road. Twelve units were
excavated in the southern half of the park (south of the
east/west line at N100) (Figure 5b). The average depth of
deposit in this area is 40 cm. Only three of the units-the
deepest-in this area had features, including ashy postmolds
or hearths. The most substantial midden deposit in this area
was around N80E80. Five stratigraphic zones were defined in
this unit: Zone I (0-6 cm) contained humus; Zone II(6-12 cm)
was a gray sand; Zone III (12-33 cm) was black earth midden;
Zone IV (33-58 cm) was black earth and shell midden, with a
concreted oyster shell feature; and Zone V (58-72 cm) was
granular beach sand. The concreted shell feature encountered
in Zone IV consisted of tightly packed oyster and gray marl.
It was hypothesized that carbonates leached from the shell
acted as a cementing agent. Similar features were encountered
in other parts of the site, and all appear to be localized.

Stratigraphy North of DuBois Road. A total of eleven
units, including those of 1990 and 1991, were excavated in the
area north of DuBois Road (approximately N100 on the grid)
and to the south of the shell mound (Figure 5b). Test 3 from
1991 is particularly instructive since it demonstrates the
interbedding of black earth and oyster shell middens. In many


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


Tux FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


c~ -re






WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


Figure 4. Photograph of the utility trench excavated in 1991.

cases the shell layers appear as substantial, continuous strata,
but in actuality they are more like long, loaf-shaped lenses that
may represent specific collection or disposal episodes. The
1990-1991 tests had found that the lowest levels of the deposit
did not contain St. Johns Check Stamped sherds, suggesting
that a transition from the Glades II Period (A.D. 750-1200) to
the Glades III Period (A.D. 1200-1763) is represented in this
part of the site.
N120E40 revealed three strata that are characteristic of a
transition zone between the southern and northern portions of
the site. Zone I (0-10 cm) is composed of surface material and
humus. Zone II (10-30 cm) is composed of gray sand and
oyster shell-this zone had a few examples of St. Johns Check
Stamped, which are absent below about 20 cm. Zone III (30-
50 cm) is composed of light gray sand, with the bottom of this
zone representing the bottom of the cultural deposit, since little
bone and few ceramic sherds were found below 50 cm. A
series of ashy postmolds running from the southwest to
northeast across the center of the unit was found in this lowest
zone.
N160E8 contained five distinct strata. Zone I (0-13 cm)
was humus. Zone II (13-45 cm) was a gray sandy soil that
contained ceramics, bone and some shell, as well as numerous


worked shark teeth and several shell tools. Zone III (45-62
cm) represents a calcareous concretion feature composed of
burned organic, bone, and oyster shell. This solid charcoal,
bone, and shell feature may represent an aboriginal attempt to
clear vegetation and debris from the ground surface through
burning. Like the dense oyster shell lenses, this feature seems
to have a fairly localized horizontal distribution. Zone IV (62-
82 cm) was a dark gray sandy soil, with some ceramics and
artifacts, as well as a large ashy feature extending into the
granular beach sand of Zone V (82-102 cm) to 86 cm.
N160E20 is fairly typical of the shell field area, though the
greater number of ceramics and artifacts found is probably
related to its proximity to the shell ridge. Zone I (0-5 cm) and
Zone II (5-25 cm) represent humus and a disturbed plow zone,
respectively. Zone III (25-62 cm) is black earth and shell
midden. This zone produced most of the ceramics and
artifacts, with St. Johns Check Stamped sherds only at the top
of the zone in small quantities. Zone IV (62-80 cm) is black
earth midden.
N160E80 has humus and a disturbed plow zone to 20 cm,
similar to the previous unit. Zone III (20-39 cm) is black earth
midden. Zone IV (39-74 cm) is light gray sandy soil with
oyster shell midden. This zone contains a large pit-like


JUPITER INLET 1








THE FLORIDA ANruRoPoLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


JUPITER INLET 1 (8PB34)

EXCAVATION UNITS 1990-1992

FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY


WHE-EL.ER 1993
0 40 80 120
1 19I


METERS
Extent of major site features,
based on A.E. Douglass map


Figure 5a. Contour map and plan of Jupiter Inlet 1, showing excavation units. Note that a considerable portion of the
area to the north and east of the main shell mound has been filled since 1929.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VoL. 55(3-4)







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPITER INLET 1


JUPITER INLET 1 (8PB34)

EXCAVATION UNITS 1990-1992

FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY


WHEELER 1993


0 40 80 120

METERS


Figure 5b. Contour map and plan of Jupiter Inlet 1, showing site grid.


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPTER INLET 1







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL. 55(3-4)
V 1


profile, west wall
N167 E106


0 20 40 60


I-M M M M m- I


profile, north wall
N167 E106


80 100


Figure 6. Profile of unit N167E106.


feature, which was dug into the midden. The feature is filled
with gray sand, produced no artifacts or shell, and may be the
remains of a shallow, freshwater well. Zone V (74-83 cm) is
black earth and oyster shell midden. This zone has a relatively
restricted horizontal distribution, as it pinches off in the east
wall. Zone VI is beach sand with some cultural material,
including faunal material and charcoal. At the contact with
Zone VII (sterile beach sand), there are several ashy post
molds on the beach sand surface. Several fragments of a
human radius and ribs were found along the eastern wall of the
unit at this level, but no formal burial feature was identified.
St. Johns series ceramics were present only in the upper,
disturbed zones.
N167E106 is one of the deeper units excavated at the site
(Figure 6). The unit was placed on a small rise directly
adjacent to the main shell mound. Zone I (0-7 cm) was
humus. Zone II (7-130 cm) is black earth and oyster shell.
Material from this zone was deposited over and into a pit
feature that had been dug into Zone III (20-75 cm), a solid
oyster shell deposit with little black earth or gray sand matrix.
This material probably represents fill used in construction of


the mound. The black earth and shell midden of Zone II
continues below the oyster shell fill, and two features were
identified in this zone, including a thin lens of charcoal around
92 cm, and a deposit of concreted bone around 110 cm. This
concreted bone feature included the remains of a large sea
turtle, a shark, and several smaller animals. A thin lens of
greasy black earth underlies Zone II, and may represent a
living floor. Zone IV (130-195 cm) is dark gray sand with
cultural material down to 180 cm, where the granular beach
sand of Zone V begins. Zone V (175-195 cm) slopes off to the
east on the northern wall of the profile, probably toward the
ancient shoreline where the midden originally began accumu-
lating. Ceramics from N167E106 are predominantly sand-
tempered plain, with few changes in frequency, suggesting a
rapid accumulation of midden in this area.
N200E8 represents another deep and complex unit (Figure
7). Zone I (0-7 cm) is humus. Zone II (7-19 cm) is a lens of
light gray sand. Zone III (19-36 cm) is oyster shell midden
with some dark gray sandy soil. Zone IV (36-44 cm) is a layer
of black earth and oyster shell. Zone V (44-110 cm) is an
extensive deposit of oyster shell midden with light gray


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPr1'ER INLET 1


IV




V





VII a,,.. :3


IX

profile, south wall
N200 E8


profile, west wall
N200 E8


0 20 40 60 80 100
=I


Figure 7. Profile of unit N200E8.


sand-a lens of black earth and oyster shell runs through part
of this zone. Zone VI (110-132 cm) is black earth and oyster
shell midden with a lens of beach sand present in the southern
wall of the unit. This zone contained an area between 113 cm
and 124 cm with post molds and a large ashy hearth feature;
the latter feature extended into the next two zones. Zone VII
(132-149 cm) is light beach sand with some water-washed
shell and bone. Zone VIII (149-155 cm) is dark gray sand
with charcoal flecks and some faunal material and clay,
suggesting at least a partially subaqueous deposit. This layer
also contained two large ashy features that may have been
hearths (a corrected radiocarbon date of 1050 + 110 B.P. was
obtained from charcoal in this feature). Zone IX (155-175 cm)
is beach sand with some charcoal flecks. Only a small amount
of ceramics was recovered from each zone, with the highest
concentration between 100-110 cm, associated with the top of
the large ashy feature.

The Shell Ridge. A total of four squares were excavated in
the shell ridge (Figure 8). We have attempted to correlate the
strata identified in each unit, though not all of these are
continuous (Figure 9). The shell ridge tests, along with
N200E8 and N167E 106, produced the majority of the ceramics
and other artifacts we recovered from Jupiter Inlet 1.


N160E40 contained six strata. Zone I (0-10 cm) was
humus. Zone II (10-40 cm) was black earth and oyster shell
midden, which contained some St. Johns series ceramics.
Zones III and IV were not present in this unit. Zone V (40-
100 cm) was black earth midden. At the contact between Zone
V and Zone VI there was a series of ashy postmolds and
several sherds from the same vessel. Zone VI (100-120 cm)
was granular beach sand.
N164E40 was a 1 by 2 m unit. Zone I (0-10 cm) was
humus. Zone II (10-35 cm) was black earth and oyster shell
midden with several lenses of gray sand and black earth. Zone
III (35-60 cm) was loosely consolidated oyster shell and gray
sand. Between Zone III and Zone IV (90-110 cm) there was
a tightly packed oyster midden and an extensive lens of surf
clam shells. Level 9 (80-90 cm) produced a corrected radio-
carbon date of 890 + 60 B.P. Zone IV was comprised of dark
gray midden material and oyster shell-St. Johns Check
Stamped sherds were not recovered below this stratum. Zone
V (111-170 cm) was black earth midden, which continued to
the north fromN160E40. Zone VI (170-190 cm) was granular
beach sand in which a series of postmolds and other ashy
features were recorded. Charcoal from these features produced
a corrected radiocarbon date of 1290 + 60 B.P.
N166E40 contained seven strata. Zone I (0-4 cm) was


WBEELEiz, P~EPE, AND KENNmyY


JUPITER INLET 1








TIlE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 8. Photograph of shell ridge feature, looking to the southeast, March 1995.


humus. Zone II (4-36 cm) was black earth and oyster shell
midden. St. Johns Check Stamped sherds occurred in small
numbers in this zone, and were not found below 20 cm. Zone
111 (36-55 cm) was the loosely packed oyster shell. Below this
zone a stratum of dark gray silty sand was encountered (55-88
cm), with a significant decrease in cultural material. Zone IV
(88-97 cm) was oyster shell in dark gray sandy soil-a stratum
that expands significantly to the south. Below Zone IV a
stratum of light gray sandy soil (97-130 cm) with cultural
material was encountered-possibly a continuation of Zone V
from the previous units. The granular beach sand of Zone VI


forms a considerable ridge that declines through the profile to
the south-this probably represents the original sand dune that
habitation occurred on and around. A series of post molds
were documented in the top of this zone.

Stratigraphy North of the Shell Mound. Three units were
excavated to the north of the shell mound (Figure 5b)-all
showed some impact from road building and construction.
N220E60 is typical of these three units, exhibiting seven
strata. Zone I (0-7 cm) was humus. Zone II (7-17 cm) was
granular beach sand-probably dredge spoil. Zone III (17-40


2002 VoL 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST



















..' ; VI
profile, east wall
0 20 40 60 80 100
mf~i~nan;~~


profile, east wall


profile, east wall


****qa:i~ i


plan


N164 E40


N160 E40


Figure 9. Profile and plan of trench excavated through shell ridge feature.


N166 E40







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


cm) was compact black earth and oyster shell midden. Zone
IV (40-74 cm) was loosely consolidated oyster shell and gray
sandy soil. This deposit probably represents material washed
out of the midden, with the more consolidated midden of Zone
III deposited on top. Zone V (74-120 cm) is granular beach
sand with no cultural material. Zone VI (120-160 cm)
resumes the well-washed oyster shell and gray sand deposit,
without any St. Johns series ceramics. Zone VII (160-172 cm)
is granular beach sand.

Summary. As the above descriptions of stratification attest,
there are a range of deposit and feature types at Jupiter Inlet 1,
including black earth or bone middens, black earth and shell
middens, loosely consolidated oyster shell layers, tightly
packed shell lenses (usually oyster or surf clam), as well as
lenses of gray sandy soil, pits, post molds, burned areas,
concretions, and hearths. The difficulty in identifying ash and
charcoal features within the dark midden deposits in unfortu-
nate, since they are almost certainly there and can be seen in
the light colored beach sand substrate. It would appear that
the initial occupation occurred on this granular beach sand.
Deep deposits of black earth midden, with high concentra-
tions of ceramics and artifacts, and almost no shell, may be
accumulated living areas, as the hearths and postmolds at the
base of the deposit in the shell ridge area and at other parts of
the site suggest. Shell and larger items of debris may have
been cleaned away from the living areas, as is documented by
Meehan (1982:114-117) for shellfishing groups of Australian
aborigines. Areas away from the shell ridge seemed to have
more oyster shell midden and less artifactual material. Based
on observation of a utility trench dug in 1991 and the 1965
FAU excavations, the shell mound is mostly shell, much like
the loosely consolidated shell deposits encountered in some of
the units near the mound. The zones dominated by oyster
shell often exhibit evidence of basket-loading, and are likely
related to episodes of mound building.

Major Site Components

Much of the information about the original site configura-
tion is based on A.E. Douglass' description and sketch map.
As noted above, the site has been significantly altered, primar-
ily through shell mining. Despite this, four major site
components-the shell mound, shell ridge(s), "shell fields,"
and sand burial mound-have been identified and evaluated
based on their present condition.

Shell mound. The shell mound historically has been, and
continues to be, the major visual component of the site.
Accounts of the original size suggest it was between 400 and
600 ft (122 and 183 m) in length and at least 20 ft high (Bessie
DuBois, personal communication, 1991). The mound is now
310 ft longby 120 ftwide and 15 ft high. Photographs and the
Douglass description suggest the mound was more of a long
shell ridge fronting the river, with perpendicular ridges
extending from its southern side. The 1965 FAU tests,
examination of a utility trench in 1991, and the tests made


near the mound in 1992 suggest it is primarily built of oyster
shell, purposefully deposited to construct the mound.

Shell ridge. The shell ridge identified and tested during
the 1992 project is likely a remnant of one of at least four shell
ridges, three of which extended from the south side of the
main shell mound. These features may represent primary
habitation deposits, but also seem to include some evidence of
intentional construction and deposition of oyster shell. Shell
ridges are a typical component of sites in coastal southern
Florida-Frank Hamilton Cushing (1897:350, 422) suggested
that the shell ridges or "benches" at Key Marco represented
areas where houses and other buildings were constructed.
Widmer (2000), in recent excavations at Marco Island, has
found additional evidence that these shell ridges were built to
accommodate structures. Shell ridges are depicted on Charles
Newcomb's map of the Riviera site (Wheeler 1992b:6; see
Wheeler et al., this issue), and a recent visit to the Harbor Key
site (8MA15) in Bishop Harbor near Terra Ceia indicated
similar architectural features projecting from a longer shell
ridge (Bill Burger, personal communication, 2001).

"Shellfields. Nineteenth century investigators often used
the term "shell fields" to refer to those portions of sites that
appeared to be at ground level-adjacent to the more topo-
graphic site components-and yet contained deposits of shell
midden. The shell field component at Jupiter Inlet 1 is
extensive and includes primary midden deposits, as well as
evidence of construction episodes. These shell field areas may
have been plazas or other open public spaces.

Burial mound. Carpetbagger, surveyor and sometime
governor William H. Gleason drew the original plat for the
Town of Jupiter in 1891, indicating the location of the sand
burial mound described and excavated by A. E. Douglass (see
above). The mound apparently was located in the vicinity of
the intersection of DuBois Road and D Lane, outside the
boundaries of present-day DuBois County Park. Aerial
photographs from 1953 show what may be the remnants of the
mound, and recent examination of the area by Jim Pepe has
pinpointed a remnant of this long-lost site component. The
mound is primarily made of white and yellowish sand, though
some oyster shells and pottery sherds hint that parts of the
shell fields might have been incorporated in the mound fill as
well. Sherds noted on the surface include sand-tempered
plain, St. Johns Plain, and St. Johns Check Stamped, suggest-
ing that the mound dates to the later period of occupation at
Jupiter Inlet 1, circa A.D. 1200.

Radiocarbon Dates

Three radiocarbon determinations were made by the
University of Texas-Austin Radiocarbon Laboratory (Table 1).
They indicate occupation cross-cutting the Glades II and
Glades III periods. Study of the ceramics, discussed below,
confirms occupation from, perhaps, Glades Ia times (circa
A.D. 750) through the very earliest part of Glades ma (circa


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPITER INLET 1


Table 1. Radiocarbon determinations for Jupiter Inlet 1.


Sample Provenience Radiocarbon "C/1 C ratio Corrected 2 sigma Calibrated
No. __Age (yBP)___ Age (yBP) Date Range*
A2836 N164 E40 L 09 910 + 60 -25.94 %o 890 + 60 A.D. 1025-1253
A2898 N200 E08 L 15 1,060 + 110 -25.30 %o 1,050+ 110 A.D. 721-1217
A2845 N164 E40 L 19 1,300 + 60 -25.41%o 1.290 + 60 A.D. 653-884
* Calibrated using the CALIB 4.3 program (see Stuiver and Reimer 1993; Stuiver and Braziunas 1993; Stuiver
et al. 1998; Stuiver et al. 1998).


A.D. 1200). Despite the strong Glades II occupation at the
site, there are no examples of decorated Glades pottery (e.g.,
Key Largo Incised), which are typical markers for this era at
other southern Florida sites--even at other sites in the East
Okeechobee Area and sites like Belle Glade on the eastern side
of Lake Okeechobee.

Research Methods and Results:
Part 2-Artifact Analysis

Analysis of materials collected from Jupiter Inlet 1 includes
study of the ceramics (2,923 sherds), as well as analysis of the
241 other bone, stone, and shell artifacts recovered during the
excavations.

Ceramics

The ceramic artifacts from Jupiter Inlet 1 were recovered
from twenty of the excavated units (Table 2). A total of 2,923
sherds was identified and analyzed by Jim Pepe, following the
methods used by Ann Cordell (Cordell 1992; Ann Cordell,
personal communication, 1993). This included examination
of all sherds of sufficient size with a 60x binocular microscope
in order to detect differences in paste, temper, and texture.
The majority of the sherds were classified as sand-tempered
plain, Belle .Glade Plain, and St. Johns series types (see
Goggin 1952:99-105; Goggin and Sommer 1949:33-47; Sears
1982:20-25; and Willey 1949b:25-33 for descriptions of these
types).

Sand-tempered plain. Sand-tempered plain sherds are
recognized microscopically as containing common to abundant
quantities of quartz sand, which is very fine to very coarse in
size. Sand-tempered plain is the dominant type at Jupiter Inlet
1, although its popularity fades gradually, eventually losing its
dominance to the St. Johns series types. This can be seen
graphically in Figure 10, which depicts a seriation for unit
N164E40.

Belle Glade Plain. Belle Glade Plain sherds are character-
ized by common to abundant minute sponge spicules and
common very fine to coarse quartz sand. The texture of these
sherds is generally compact and fine grained, and Belle Glade
sherds exhibit grain and drag lines resulting from smoothing


of the vessel surface, with a tool, perhaps of wood. Belle
Glade Plain sherds are exceedingly rare at Jupiter Inlet 1,
making up only 3.35% of the entire ceramic inventory.

St. Johns series. St. Johns series pottery is characterized
microscopically by abundant sponge spicules and occasional to
common very fine to fine quartz sand. The sponge spicules are
generally larger than those observed in other wares. The paste
texture is generally very fine and compact, with a distinctive
chalky quality. At Jupiter Inlet 1 sherds of this series are
primarily represented by St. Johns Plain and St. Johns Check
Stamped, though examples ofDunn's Creek Red and St. Johns
Simple Stamped were found. St. Johns Plain appears rela-
tively early and sporadically at the site until the appearance of
St. Johns Check Stamped, when its numbers increase dramati-
cally, eventually making up almost half of the ceramic count
in the upper levels of several units.
St. Johns Check Stamped was not recovered in the basal
level of any unit at Jupiter Inlet 1. Instead, it usually appeared
in the upper levels of most units, increasing gradually in
number and eventually making up about 20% of the ceramic
inventory of some units. Radiocarbon dates obtained from the
site, and discussed below, indicate that this type appeared at
about A.D. 1000, the same time that it appeared in many
southern and east Florida sites (George Luer, personal commu-
nication, 2002; Purdy 1990:40-42; contra Widmer 1988:81,
85).

Miscellaneous ceramics. Among the miscellaneous sherds
are two unidentified sand-tempered incised sherds, nine
Glades Red sherds, and four sand-tempered check stamped
sherds (Figure 11). Several other sherds deserve additional
comment.
One sherd from the linear shell ridge has a red slip on the
interior, and an incised scroll or volute pendent to an incised
line below the lip. The shape of the sherd suggests it may be
from the neck of a bottle or part of a cylindrical beaker. Our
initial impression (see Pepe in Kennedy et al. 1991:87) was
that this was a Weeden Island type, but it is probably a local
vessel, perhaps copying a Weeden Island or Safety Harbor
form and design.
Five other sherds, probably belonging to the same vessel,
have a chalky paste and a design consisting of a series of
punctations enclosed in triangular incised zones. The field


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1



















sand-tempered plain

LEVEL
6
1 26.57
24
2 51.06
23
3 41.02
13
4 43.33
12
5 33.33
4
6 40.00
13
7 40.15
Is
M 65.22
14
9 70.00
51
10 65.30
15I
11 75.00
34
12 89.47
44
13 89.80
21
14 87.50
90
15 98.90
95
16 9.6.94
120
17 99.17
22
19 100.00

Number of Sherds 616
Percent of Total 77.39


Belle Glade Plain



4
8.51
2
3.64
1
S3.33
2
S5.56


3
U 11.11
1
41 .35
6
30.00
8
10.26
2
S10.00
2
0 2.63
4
0 8.16
2
S.33
1
1.10
3
S3.06
1
S0.83



42
5.28


St. Johns
Check Stamped
5
23.81
8
17.02
7
S12.73
6
1 20.00
10
27.78
2
20.00
1
S3.70
2
8 9.70


3
S3.85S
















44
5.53


Number
of sherds


St. Johns Plain

10
47.62
I
17.02
18
32.73
10
1 33.33
12
1 33.33
4
- J 40.00
7
25.93
5
S21.74


15

2
l 10.00

S2.63
1

S2.04
1
4.17









94
11.81


Figure 10. Ceramic seriation of major types from unit N164E40.







WHEELER, PEPR, AND KENNEDY JUPITER INLET 1


Table 2. Frequencies and percentages of ceramic wares
from Jupiter Inlet 1.

Ceramic Type Frequency Percent
sand-tempered plain 2492 85.25
Belle Glade Plain 98 3.35
St. Johns Plain 224 7.66
St. Johns Check Stamped 83 2.84
Miscellaneous 26 0.89
Totals 2923 100.00


Table 3. Rim/Lip and vessel wall orientation analysis of
rim sherds.

Rim/Lip Form Frequency Percent
Thick 30 7
Flat 96 22
Round 232 53
Thinned 76 18
Total 434 100
Vessel Wall Orientation Frequency Percent
Incurving/Inslanting 81 32
Vertical 94 37
Outslanting 72 29
Compound 5 2
Total 250 100



notes from the 1965 FAU excavation describe a similar sherd.
These sherds correspond to the descriptions of Sarasota
Incised, a type with a widespread distribution throughout
peninsular Florida, and affiliations with the ceramic com-
plexes of Englewood, Safety Harbor, and St. Johns II (Austin
1996:84n; Goggin 1952:108; Luer 1985, 2002; Willey
1949a:474). Similar sherds are in private collections from the
site, and are described in the notes from the 1965 FAU
excavation.

Rim/Lip and Vessel Wall Orientation Analysis. A total of
441 rim sherds was analyzed for rim/lip form and vessel wall
orientation (see Table 3 and Figure 12). The analysis demon-
strated a preference for rounded lips. Vessel wall orientation
appears to be more variable, with a slight preference for
vertical walls over incurving and excurving walls. Analysis by
pottery type demonstrates that the average sand-tempered plain
vessel had an incurving wall with rounded lip, though there
was a great deal of variability in vessel wall orientation (see
Table 4). The typical Belle Glade Plain vessel had a flat lip
and excurvate or outslanting walls. St. Johns Plain vessels
would have been characterized by vertical or outslanting walls
and a rounded lip, while St. Johns Check Stamped vessels
would have had a flat lip and outslanting walls.
The great number of sand-tempered plain sherds allows
investigation into chronological changes in rim and vessel wall
orientation (Table 5). Two subsamples were made-the first
included 110 sand-tempered plain sherds from levels pre-


Table 4. Rim/Lip and vessel wall orientation analysis.


Rim/Lip Form


Count


Percent


Thick 24 7
Flat 59 16
Round 208 57
Thinned 76 21
Total 367 100
Vessel Wall Orientation Count Percent
Incurving/Inslanting 77 37
Vertical 69 33
Outslanting 56 27
Compound 5 2
Total 207 100

Rim/Lip Form Count Percent
Thick 2 11
Flat 15 83
Round 0 0
Thinned 1 6
Total 18 100
Vessel Wall Orientation Count Percent
Incurving/Inslanting 0 0
Vertical 5 31
Outslanting 11 69
Compound 0 0
Total 16 100
C. St. Johns Plain
Rim/Lip Form Count Percent
Thick 2 7
Flat 11 38
Round 14 48
Thinned 2 7
Total 29 100
Vessel Wall Orientation Count Percent
Incurving/Inslanting 2 10
Vertical 10 48
Outslanting 9 43
Compound 0 0
Total 21 100
D. St. Johns Check Stamped
Rim/Lip Form Count Percent
Thick 0 0
Flat 11 73
Round 4 27
Thinned 0 0
Total 15 100
Vessel Wall Orientation Count Percent
Incurving/Inslanting 2 15
Vertical 5 38
Outslanting 6 46
Compound 0 0
Total 13 100


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1







Tm~ FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


d Ewl- 2 3m


e '^ 1 1
mm mm n


Figure 11. Photograph of sherds: a) brushed or combed, sand-tempered plain, A2792, N160 E8 L6; b) St. Johns Simple
Stamped, A2830, N164 E40 L3; c) zoned-punctate, chalky paste, A2830, N164 E40 L3; d) Glades Red, A2882, N167 E106 L20;
e) St. Johns Simple Stamped, A2838, N164 E40 L11; f) Weeden Island Incised(?), A2670, N164 E40 L12.


Table 5. Temporal changes in rim and vessel wall orientation in sand-tempered plain ceramics at Jupiter Inlet 1.


AD 665-1000 Post AD 1000
Rim/Lip Count Percent Rim/Lip Count Percent
Thick 7 6 Thick 5 14
Flat 23 21 Flat 4 11
Round 64 58 Round 22 59
Thinned 16 15 Thinned 6 16
Total 100 100 Total 37 100
Vessel Wall Count Percent Vessel Wall Count Percent
Inc/Ins 16 29 Inc/Ins 6 33
Vertical 20 36 Vertical 8 44
Outslant 19 35 Outslant 4 22
Total 55 100 Total 18 100


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST











Af 9 "(U





a k 1 6- ,I I=
SI0 cm 5
C A


d e


al d
a' b'


Figure 12. Representative rim profiles. Row A: sand-tempered plain; Row B: a-e) St. Johns Check Stamped; a') St. Johns Simple Stamped; Row C: a-f) St.
Johns Plain; a'-d') Belle Glade Plain.







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Table 6. Shell artifacts from Jupiter Inlet 1.

Artifact Taxon
bead? Oliva sayana
disk bead Busycon spp.?
disk bead Oliva sp.
perforated net weight? Arca spp.
disk or gorget blank Busycon sinistrum
cup/dipper B. sinistrum
cup/dipper Cassis madagascarensis
grinder/pounder B. sinistrum columella
grinder/pounder Strombus gigas columella
adze B. sinistrum
celt Strombus gigas
hafted hammer/pounder Busycon carica
gracile hafted cutting-edged tool B. sinistrum
hafted cutting-edged tool B. sinistrum
carved shell node Strombus gigas
perforated shell Dosinia discus
burned & worked shell B. sinistrum
columella fragments B. sinistrum


dating the introduction of St. Johns Check Stamped (ca. A.D.
665-1000) and the second included 55 sherds from levels
containing St. Johns Check Stamped (post A.D. 1000). The
results show that round and thin lips are represented at a
constant rate through time, while flat lips decrease as thick-
ened lips increase through time. Likewise, incurving or
inslanting vessel walls appear to be equally common through-
out time, while outslanting walls decrease and vertical walls
increase.

Shell artifacts

One-hundred twenty-four shell artifacts were identified
from the 1990 through 1992 FAU excavations and collections
(see Table 6). Artifacts range from whole shell Busycon spp.
cutting-edged tools and hammer/pounders, to tools formed
from the outer whorl of the Busycon, including adze/celts,
cups and gorgets. Busycon sinistrum and B. carica are the
most common shells used for these tools and ornaments,
though two cups were made of the body whorl of the queen
helmet, Cassismadagascariensis. Tools made from the queen
conch, Strombusgigas, were rare, and only represented by one
shell celt and one hammer/pounder, both found in 1990.
Other examples of Strombus gigas shell celts are in the
collections of the DuBois family and the Loxahatchee River
Historical Society museum. The area around Jupiter Inlet is
the northern limit of the biogeographic range of the queen
conch, perhaps explaining its relative scarcity (Keegan
1982:81-82). The vast majority of shell artifacts (n=50) are
perforated valves of the Arca shell-perhaps net weights as
described by Gilliland (1975:184, 186-187).
Examination of the whole shell tools indicates that the
most robust examples are hammers/pounders, made exclu-
sively of the right-handed whelk (Busycon carica), and several


of these are reworked examples of hafted
cutting-edged tools (see Goggin n.d.;
Count Marquardt 1992:200-201; WheelerandMcGee
27 1994:365-367). There are six of these ham-
2 mer/pounders in the collection, four of which
1 have perforations in the spire and body
50 whorl-evidence of hating, while two exhibit
1 no evidence of hafting (see Figure 13). This
4 tool type, made of B. carica, is typical of shell
2 tool assemblages in the St. Johns and Indian
1 River areas (see Goggin 1952:115; Rouse
1 1951:230-231, Plate 6), but is infrequent in
8 southern Florida. This whelk's biogeographic
1 range extends to central eastern Florida
6 (Abbott 1974:222), explaining the lack of tools
6 made from this species from the area to the
4 south of Jupiter Inlet; apparently the shell was
1 not typically exchanged to other areas.
1 Ten somewhatfragmentary and incomplete
1 examples of hafted cutting-edged tools, made
7 of the left-handed whelk Busycon sinistrum,
were recovered. These were typical of Type A
tools, with a beveled and sharpened end, and a
perforation in the body whorl. Several have battering damage
in the outer body whorl, above the cutting edge, probably from
use as an adze or gouge in moderately heavy woodworking.
Six examples are extremely gracile, though exhibit perfora-
tions in the body whorl and modification to the distal end (see
Figure 14). Similar gracile whelk shell tools were found at the
Boca Weir site (8PB56) and at Honey Hill (8DA411) in
Miami-Dade County (collections of FAU and Historical
Museum of Southern Florida, Miami). Our initial reaction to
these artifacts was that they were toys, but on further reflection
it is possible they were used in finer woodworking.
Eight shell adzes, made of portions of Busycon sinistrum
body whorl, were recovered (see Figure 15). Many of these
were broken, with only portions of the bit end and shaft or poll
end and shaft present. Trapezoidal and spoon-shaped forms
were present.
Other shell artifacts recovered include shell disk beads;
shell cups; a shell disk cut from the outer whorl of a Busycon
sinistrum; shell debitage-often broken-out columellas; a
polished and faceted shell node cut from a Strombus gigas
shell; and a Busycon columella pounder/grinder, with wear on
the proximal end of the shell (see Figures 16 and 17).

Bone artifacts

Nineteen bone artifacts were identified from the 1992
excavations (see Figure 18). The majority of the bone artifacts
are cylindrical shafts of deer bone with one or two pointed
ends, or fragments of such objects. Several of these have
evidence of hafting, probably in bone, antler, or wooden
handles. Breakage patterns on these artifacts also are charac-
teristic of hafted implements. At least two of these have
slightly flattened, gently curved ends, with some polishing and
vertical striations-wear patterns indicative of use in fabric


THE FLORII)A ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)









WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPITER INLET 1


in 2
- M
o 5. s


2667


Figure 13. Busycon carica shell hammers/pounders: a) A2680, N166 E40 L11; b) A2791, N220 E60 L14; c) A2669, N164
E40 160-180cm; d) A2942, N160 E40 L6; e) A2667, N166 E40 LS. Oyster shell is adhering to specimen "B."


WBEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1


it 7-);



A

::i:`;:
";


9
,.






~te

?. !r~ ?L,

:t
2680













Jcm H cm
' 3 1
In In


Figure 14. Photograph of gracile Busycon sinistrum shell tools: a) outer whorl perforated, A2975, N160 E8 L3; b) body whorl perforated and broken out, A2746,
N160 E80 L10; c) outer whorl perforated, A2938, N164 E40 L3; d) spire and outer whorl perforated, A2975, N160 E8 L3.






WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1


.. i*^ ':,i ,- -,,



-'' ':






2685 T160























01 2679 2428

0 in 5









Figure 15. Busycon sinistrum adzes: a) trapezoidal adze, A2685, N166 E40 L5; b) bit only, A2509,1991 pipe trench; c)
bit broken, A2710, N164 E40 L16; d) A2679, bit broken, N164 E40 L9; e) spoon-shaped adze with bit damage, A2428,1990
surface collection.







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 16. Busycon sinistrum shell cups: left, A2686, N166 E40 L14; right, A2676, N164 E40 L8.


and textile working. While the possibility exists that these
tools represent projectile points or elements of fishing tackle,
examination of wear patterns, breakage patterns, and form
suggest the majority are weaving or leather-working imple-
ments (see Wheeler and McGee 1994:350-353).
Six of the bone artifacts are socketed points. Socketed
bone points are cut from the tibia of small to medium size
mammals, leaving an opening in the base proximall end of the
bone) of the artifact to receive a tenoned handle. All of the
examples from Jupiter Inlet 1 were made from the tibia of
raccoon (Procyon lotor), though one example examined from
Boca Weir was of gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus); there
did not seem to be a preference for the left or right tibia. The
point is created by two transverse cuts across the other end of
the bone, which also leaves an elongated opening behind and
under the point. Much of the interior cancellous bone material
was removed, presumably to facilitate hafting. The wear and
tip morphology of these artifacts is similar to other implements
used in weaving and textile working. Socketed bone points are
present in the bone artifact assemblages in the Everglades
Area (see Richardson and Pohl 1982:117-118) and are present
across much of southern Florida, including examples from
Cash Mound (8CH38) and Josslyn Island (8LL32) (Walker
1992:234-236), Fort Center (Steinen in Sears 1982:89, Figure
6.1), over 100 specimens from Belle Glade (8PB40) (Willey
1949b:38-39, Plate 7), and examples from the Indian River
Area (see Rouse 1951:227, Plate 5). In the East Okeechobee
Area this artifact type also is known from Boca Weir (8PB56)
and Riviera (8PB30). Socketed bone points are not a common
tool in assemblages from the St. Johns River Area. Purdy
(1973:147) confirms that socketed bone points are a largely
southern Florida phenomenon, noting their absence in river
collections from northern Florida. While these socketed bone


tools usually are described as "points," the wear patterns
observed under the binocular microscope are similar to those
observed for many of the other bone artifacts interpreted as
fids or weaving tools.
Three rectangular artifacts, cut from the shell of freshwater
turtles were recovered (see Figure 19). All of these are made
of freshwater or terrestrial turtles, the first two are of softshell
turtle carapace (Apalone sp.) and the third is too modified to
identify, but is clearly a section of turtle plastron. Of the two
fairly complete specimens, one measures 38 mm x 5 mm and
the other 19 mm x 15 mm. These sizes compare favorably to
the 35 mm (3/8 in) and 18 mm (3/4 in) net mesh gauges
discussed by Walker (1992:238-239). Walker (1992:238-239;
2000:32-34) postulates that rectangles of bone and shell were
used in the making of fishing nets. The extensive polish
evident on the margins (and surfaces, to a lesser extent)
support the assertion that these implements were used in fiber
working, like many of the other bone artifacts.
Two auditory bullae (i.e., ear bones) of baleen whales have
been recovered at the site (see Figure 20). The first example
(9.3 cm in length) came from the 1991 pipe trench disturbance
and the second (8.8 cm in length) from the excavation of the
shell ridge in 1992. Both are most likely the bulla of finback
whales (Balaeonoptera physalus) (Gary Morgan, personal
communication, 2001). Both have been greatly reduced from
their original size and shape and exhibit use as hammers, with
distinctive spelling at the ends. Wheeler recently collected
another fragmentary example of this rare artifact type from
Boca Beekman (8PB55), part of the Spanish River complex.
Larson (1980:145-162) reviews the limited archaeological
reports of whale remains in Florida, along with ethnohistoric
literature on Native American whale hunting, and natural
history notes on targeted species. Several whale species


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE noRiiDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPITER INLET 1


Figure 17.. Busycon sinistrum shell disk, A2696, N164 E
Unperforated shell disks are known from sites throughout I
including southern Florida examples from Granada (Griffin in
et al. 1982:77, 80) and Key Marco (Gilliland 1975:175-176). Gog
Sommer (1949:55) refer to these as "Busycon saucers," though
function remains unclear.

congregate in parts of the Gulf Stream at certain times of the
year and may come quite close to shore, including the finback
whale. Finback whales are large, fast whales that frequent
Florida waters where they calve in the winter. There are at
least three independent ethnohistoric accounts of the natives
of southeastern Florida hunting whales, and Escalante
Fontaneda (in Worth 1995:344-345) states that two certain
bones (possibly the auditory bullae) obtained from the heads of
the hunted whales were often buried with chiefs (also see
Larson 1980:145-152).
Several decorated bone pins and pin fragments have been
recovered at Jupiter Inlet 1. One discovered in the 1991


excavations is the highly burnished or fire-polished
top of a bone pin, with fine vertical lines incised in
a recessed area below the expanding head. The use
of fine lines as a decorative or "background" motif is
characteristic of bone carving in southeastern
Florida. The most notable example of decorated
bone was found in the 1992 excavations. This piece
of a bone pin has a very detailed zoomorphic image,
carved in the round, at its head (Figure 21). Specu-
lation on the animal represented varies, though it
would appear to be a snake or other reptile. This pin
is a fine example of the tradition of zoomorphicbone
carving that is characteristic of the late Glades I and
Glades II periods of southern Florida (see Wheeler
1992a; Wheeler 1996:114-147; Wheeler and
Coleman 1996:49).

Shark tooth artifacts

Shark teeth (n=96) comprise a significantportion
of the artifact inventory from Jupiter Inlet 1, and
include examples from the tests in 1990, 1991 and
1992 (see Appendix A). Sixty-two of the teeth were
clearly modified, while 34 were unmodified and
showed only minor edgewear or were too fragmen-
tary for analysis. No fossil shark teeth were identi-
fied, though some teeth were blackened and stained
from burning. Tooth modification patterns were
based on the classification scheme developed by
Richardson and Pohl (1982:94-98) for the Granada
site, with some changes and additions (see Kozuch
1993:25-30; Wheeler and McGee 1994:354, 356-
357). All teeth were examined with a Leicabinocu-
lar microscope, at magnification ranging from 16x
to 40x. Teeth ranged in size from minute examples
only 5 mm long to large examples of 21 mm.
Species identifications were made using the compar-
ative collection of the zooarchaelogy range, Florida
40 L4. Museum of Natural History, and include several
'lorida, species of requiem sharks Carcharhinus spp., the
Griffin lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris), the tiger
gin and shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri), the sand-tiger shark
h their (Odontaspis taurus), and the great white shark
(Carcharodon carcharias).
Some teeth were unmodified or showed only
minor edgewear, while others have extensive modification of
the roots and tooth surface (see Appendix A and Figure 22).
Attempts to identify specific trends in wear were not made,
due to the possibility that shark teeth wear while in the shark's
mouth (Kozuch 1993:3). Extensive edgewear and tip blunting,
however, are likely evidence for use as hafted tools in wood
and bone carving. What is most interesting about the modifi-
cation categories identified is the range of variation within the
Jupiter Inlet 1 site when compared to the other four sites that
have been similarly studied. Presumably most modification is
related to preparation for hafting or damage during use. For
example, in many cases the category "Cut roots" may be better


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1


M2







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55~3-4)


* ftA MI


I =- M I


CM


10


Figure 18. Bone artifacts: a) bipointed bone, A2681, N166 E40 L10; b) bone fid, A2682, N166 E40 L8; c) socketed point
fragment, A2693, N166 E40 L6; d) socketed point, A2671, N166 E40 L12; e) socketed point, A2691, N166 E40 L11; f) bone
awl, A2717, N166 E40 L11; g) zoomorphic bone pin, A2672, N164 E40 L14.


described as broken roots, perhaps from damage during use of
hafted shark tooth tools. The range of variation in modifica-
tion may be due to several factors. Most likely is the differen-
tial collection techniques used at the sites being compared.
Very small teeth and broken fragments of teeth were recovered
from Jupiter Inlet 1 due to the fine screen/water screening
techniques used. Smaller teeth may require different hafting
techniques and accrue different damage and wear from use. It
also is possible that there are regional or very local cultural
patterns related to the specific details of hafting shark teeth;
there may be temporal trends as well. The modification
patterns identified at Jupiter Inlet 1 are most similar to nearby
sites like Whitebelt 1 and Granada, and least similar to more
distant sites like Wightman and Fort Center. These proposi-
tions can be tested by study of collections from multiple sites
in a single area, with attention to other variables like size of
teeth.
Distribution of the shark teeth within the site was biased
heavily toward four of the excavation units, and as noted in the
discussion of stratigraphy, seem to be concentrated in areas
identified as living floors or primary midden disposal strata.
Thirty-seven teeth were recovered from the units forming the
trench excavated through the low shell ridge. Twenty-two


teeth were recovered from unitN167E106, which had evidence
of at least one floor and was generally dominated by strata of
black earth and shell that are likely primary midden deposits.
These units also produced most of the other artifacts recovered
from the site. Unit N160E8 had fourteen shark teeth, and also
contained features associated with primary habitation.

Stone artifacts

Stone artifacts were uncommon at Jupiter Inlet 1, though
Bessie Wilson DuBois (1957) has reported ground stone
artifacts from the site, and additional examples of ground
stone axes are on exhibit at the Loxahatchee River Historical
Society museum in Jupiter. No chert flakes or bifacially
worked chert artifacts were found during our excavations,
though examples are known from the site, including the
Florida Archaic Stemmed points discussed above, as well as
other Archaic form bifaces that members of the DuBois family
shared with us.
Two fragments of a tubular stone pipe, perhaps opposing
ends of the same artifact, were found in Level 8 of unit
N166E40. Smooth on both interior and exterior surface, the
stone is a gray-tan limestone or sandstone. Portions of the lip


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPITER INLET 1


2 E4
cm ^^j cm


E21 1
in in


Figure 19. Rectangular bone artifacts: a) turtle bone rectangle,
1991 column sample, 64-74 cmbs, 5.4 cm in length; b) Apalone sp
bone rectangle, A2977, N164 E40 L3, 2.1 cm in length.


of the pipe are present on both fragments and the bore diame-
ter is estimated at 1.5 cm. Similar stone tubes are known from
other sites, including Belle Glade (Willey 1949b:36), Boynton
Mounds (8PB100) (collections of FAU), Riviera (Wheeler
1992b:10), Patrician (8PB99) (collections of FAU), and Tick
Island (Jahn and Bullen 1978:Figure 48a-b). At least some of
these may be root casts, as described by White (1970:60-61),
though many-like those from Jupiter Inlet 1-appear to be
the product of human hands. Some tubular pipes may have
been used in smoking (see Rutsch 1973:59-64), while others
may have been used by shamans as "sucking tubes" in healing
ceremonies (see Jones 1873:359-365; Swanton 1946:782).
No stone or shell plummets were found during the 1992
excavations, though one squat, gray-brown stone (or clay?)
plummet was found during the 1965 FAU excavation, and a
beautiful, fine-grained yellow limestone example was found in
the area disturbed by the parking lot construction in 1990. A
large collection of limestone, sandstone, and shell plummets
from the site are on exhibit at the Loxahatchee River Historical
Society museum.

Research Methods and Results:
Part 3-Zooarchaeology

Limited zooarchaeological analysis was conducted on four
of the 25 cm square column samples made during the excava-
tion. Material from these samples, collected in 10 cm levels,
was processed by mechanical floatation. The sieve in the tank
bucket had a 1/16 in screen and the outflow sieve had 220
standard carburetor mesh. FAU graduate students Nancy
Sinks and Linda Spears identified bone and shell specimens,
respectively. Considering our interpretation that many of the


shell strata encountered during excavation are fill
related to mound building, detailed faunal analysis
of these layers may not produce useful results for
interpreting diet. Distinguishing primary refuse
disposal strata as opposed to construction fill was
sometimes difficult until close examination of the
samples was made. In the future it may be possible
to target the primary refuse strata for more detailed
faunal analysis. At this point, identification and
quantification of the shell, and general observations
on the volume of vertebrate remains, in these strata
may be the only zooarchaeological analyses needed
to aid in understanding the architectural use of
midden material at the site.

Vertebrate Remains

The synthesis of the non-molluscan remains
presented in our 1993 report (see Kennedy et al.
1993:125-170) was very preliminary. Despite this,
several trends and correlations can be made, and a
species list is presented in Appendix B. For exam-
ple, higher concentrations of bone were noted in


strata of black earth and black earth and shell
midden, as opposed to strata dominated by shell
midden. As noted in the above discussion of stratigraphy,
these latter shell zones may represent mound construction
episodes using reworked midden material or primary deposi-
tion of shell food refuse. The lower bone frequencies and
weights for these zones may help to confirm this. The
reworking and redeposition of the shell material likely effected
bone preservation. Artifacts also are more frequent in the
strata identified as primary refuse deposits, again possibly
supporting our supposition that many of the strata observed
were construction fill.
Terrestrial vertebrates identified from the column samples
and unit levels were, as expected, low in frequency and
dominated by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), with
smaller numbers of gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)
and medium to small-size mammals like raccoon, opossum,
and rabbit. Broad spectrum utilization of vertebrate aquatic
resources-primarily marine-is shown by the identification
of seventeen saltwater fish species, numerous sea turtle
remains, and a high frequency of extremely small fish verte-
brae (ca. 2 mm in length). Remains of Atlantic bottlenose
dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and baleen whale auditory bullae
indicate that these marine animals also were utilized. Fresh-
water animal remains were present, but not abundant, confirm-
ing that Jupiter Inlet was likely open during the aboriginal
occupation, providing for an estuarine environment character-
ized by saltwater species. Interestingly, however, sections of
freshwater turtle carapace were used in making some of the
bone tools recovered (see above), indicating that these types of
resources also were being exploited.


2


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


2 4E
cm rnF cm

-
in in i


Figure 20. Finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus) auditory bul
battering, 1991 pipe trench.


Mollusk Remains

Analysis ofmollusk remains from Jupiter Inlet 1 was more
thorough. Analysis focused on three areas-nutritional
reconstruction, seasonality, and habitat utilization. As with
analysis of the vertebrate remains, it is recognized that the
shells present at the site are the product of human behavior,
are not equivalent to a "fossil assemblage," and represent food
preferences and particular collection strategies. In some cases
commensal, non-food species, like the nerites and ceriths,
appear to have been collected along with targeted species. In


other cases, rare or uncommon mollusks that could
have been eaten may have been collected with target
species when found together.
Data from the column samples and unit levels,
which include identifications of at least 33 species
(see Appendix C), demonstrate a broad spectrum
utilization of available mollusks-with most samples
dominated by oyster (Crassostrea virginica). De-
spite the dominance of oyster, deposits of surf clam
(Spisula solidissima similis), probably representing
collection episodes, were noted in several units. For
example, Unit N160E40, Level 8 yielded 101 surf
clams (MNI); Unit N160E80, Levels 6 and 7 yielded
over 200 surf clams (MNI) each; Unit N164E40,
Levels 3 and 4 yielded over 200 surf clams (MNI);
and Unit N200E8, Levels 10 and 11 contained
approximately 100 surf clams (MNI) each. In
addition to these surf clam collection and deposition
episodes, one deposit of cross-barred venus clams
(Chione cancellata) was noted in Unit N80E160,
Levels 3 and 4, with over 425 individuals recovered.
Seasonality of harvesting, determined from
external "growth rings," was considered for a sample
of quahog (Mercenaria spp.) shells from the site (for
more on this type of analysis see Claassen 1986;
Kent 1988; Kerber 1985; Killingley 1981; Quitmyer
1992; Rollins et al. 1987). Cross-sections of 43
adult, left valve samples of Mercenaria mercenaria
were made, and the growth lines examined under
low magnification (10x). The season of harvest for
the quahogs appears to have been during the fall
quarter of the year. This is consistent with Jonathan
Dickinson's observations in October 1696, when he
states, "all the time some Indians had been out, and
brought home some oysters, and the Casseekey gave
us some" (in Andrews and Andrews 1945:16).
Oyster shells were examined in an attempt to
determine the habitats exploited for this resource. In
a simplified model, elongated, thin valves are typical
of oysters from muddy intertidal or creek environ-
ments, while more ovate, thicker valves are typical
of oysters from subtidal areas, on creek, river and
la with bay bottoms (Kent 1988; Lawrence 1988). The
oysters from Jupiter Inlet 1, from all spatial and
temporal contexts, exhibit valves associated with
both intertidal and subtidal environments. This is
not surprising, since both river and estuarine habitats are
located within the Loxahatchee River basin, and the site
catchment area may have been large enough to include
portions of the Indian River and Hobe Sound to the north.

Quantification of Column Sample Data

Column sample N200 E8 was selected for more detailed
evaluation, in order to provide more information on the ratios
of sea turtle to fish and other species. The results of this
analysis are presented in Appendix D and summarized in


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPrrER INLET 1


Figure 21. Zoomorphic bone pin fragment, A2672, N164 E40 L14.


Table 7. As noted in the discussion of stratigraphy, this is a
complicated unit and has strata representing primary habita-
tion and midden deposition along with some possible evidence
of shell mound construction. These possible construction
episodes are obvious between 10 and 45 cmbs and 55 and 100
cmbs, but seem to interfinger with black earth midden depos-
its, making analysis difficult.
Despite the abundance of marine turtle remains at the site,
the less obvious fish remains tended to overshadow turtle
remains in the quantified column sample in terms of bone
weight. In general, the weight of marine turtle remains was
approximately 10% to 40% of the weight of fish remains,
though in two of the levels the ratios were closely matched.
Clearly both fish and marine turtles represented major protein
contributions to the diet. Closer study of the marine turtle
remains would be interesting since it was noted that while the
vast majority of turtle bones were of adults, presumably
collected from the beach during nesting season, some remains
were of subadult and juveniles, suggesting several fishing
methods were employed for these animals.


Discussion

Our study generated information on the age, physical
extent, and layout of Jupiter Inlet 1. Comparison with the
other sites in the Jupiter Inlet Complex suggests it is fairly
typical, though perhaps larger, than these other sites. The
study also allows for further discussion of several things,
including the architectural nature of shell mounds, the artifact
inventory and technology of the Jupiter Inlet 1 inhabitants, and
the ever illusive Jonathan Dickinson.

Shell Mound Building at Jupiter Inlet 1

If we were asked what finds most surprised us in our work
at Jupiter Inlet 1, we might reply that a major discovery was
the realization that significant portions of the site are inten-
tionally constructed features of shell. In other words, these
sites are examples of prehistoric architecture. In retrospect
this seems like a rather obvious statement, but many people,
both archaeologists and interested members of the public,
continue to regard the shell mounds of the Florida east coast


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Table 7. Summary of Column sample N200 E8.

Major taxon category Weight (g)
Fish 468
Amphibian 2
Snake 1
Marine turtle 151
Freshwater turtle 9
Terrestrial turtle 17
Terrestrial mammal 1
Oysters 28,397
other mollusks 3951



as middens or refuse heaps. In fact, the strata observed at
Jupiter Inlet 1 are a complex combination of primary and
secondary midden deposits, constructed shell features, and
habitation areas. Interestingly, the shell mounds and shell
keys of Florida's west coast have long been recognized as
architectural features built of shell, akin to similar temple,
house and platform mounds built of earth (Beriault 1986:160).
Perhaps one impediment to the recognition of shell mound
architecture in eastern Florida is the lack of early site plans
that document the complexity of these sites before mining and
development took their toll. By the time contemporary
archaeologists began mapping the sites, significant features
had been lost, leaving nothing more than the hulking shell
mound or shell ridge. Both Jupiter Inlet 1 and the Riviera site
are exceptions, and we have plans of each showing similar
architectural details, like projecting shell ridges or benches, as
well as distinct mound and ridge features. These features have
analogies at sites on Florida's west coast, suggesting a shared
architectural tradition. There are hints, though no early maps,
indicating the late Archaic Mount Elizabeth site also had
projecting shell ridges, suggesting some considerable temporal
depth to the tradition of shell architecture in southern Florida.
Unlike their counterparts on the west coast of Florida, the east
coast sites have been badly damaged, forcing archaeologists to
look for clues to architecture in site stratification.
Review of literature relating to analysis of shell bearing
sites reveals that little attention has been given to recognizing
or studying shell construction and architecture. Most deal
with analysis of shell from an environmental and
zooarchaeological perspective, or in terms of discard of shell
material (e.g., Waselkov 1987). Exceptions include Luer and
Almy's (1981:140) consideration of Tampa Bay area temple
mounds, many of which include construction episodes formed
of redeposited shell midden, as well as Luer's recognition of
shell construction episodes at Big Mound Key in Charlotte
Harbor (see Marquardt 1992a:44-47). Both Claassen
(1991:252-254) and Russo (1991:430-443) discuss primary
and secondary midden deposits as elements of shell mound
accumulation, including cautions and techniques for recogniz-
ing both methods in shell mound architecture. When we first
worked at Jupiter Inlet 1 the notion of shell mound building as


evidence of intentional architecture was not a primary consid-
eration, but study of mounds at sites like Mound Key (8LL2)
and Harbor Key (8MA13), along with the considerations of the
above authors has raised our awareness. Intentional deposition
of primary shell midden, along with mining and redeposition
of older shell midden deposits for construction of platforms,
mounds and other features is at least suggested in some of our
data from Jupiter Inlet 1.
Evidence of shell architecture at Jupiter Inlet 1 includes
several lines of evidence. These include A.E. Douglass's early
plan of the site, observations in the field of strata composed of
clean shell (lacking black earth midden) with evidence of
basket-loading, and study of the column samples, which
suggests that constructed strata lack concentrations of midden
material and artifacts. Some of the shell midden mined for
these construction episodes seems to have been originally
deposited in the water, possibly accounting for some of the
commensal mollusk species identified from the site (e.g.,
nerites, ceriths). Some artifacts from these layers, like the
Busycon carica hammer illustrated in Figure 13, are encrusted
with oyster shells, suggesting that they spent some time in the
water before being incorporated in the terrestrial part of the
site. It is possible that both primary and secondary deposition
of shell material, as discussed by Russo (1991:430-433), were
construction techniques represented at Jupiter Inlet 1. If this
is true, then primary midden was disposed of in order to aid in
building the large shell ridge and related structures, along with
older midden deposits that were mined for shell. Future work
at Jupiter Inlet 1 and other shell mound sites on the east coast
needs to focus on this topic of the architectural use of shell
midden material.

Technology of Jupiter Inlet 1

Analysis of the ceramics, shell, and bone artifacts from
Jupiter Inlet 1 confirm earlier suggestions that, at least in
terms of material culture, the East Okeechobee Area represents
a sort of transitional zone with influences from neighboring
cultures to the north, west and south (e.g., Griffin 1988:117).
In the case of shell tools the influence of molluscan
biogeography is readily apparent. The presence of both
Busycon carica hammers and Strombus gigas celts reflects
Jupiter Inlet's position near the southern and northern limits
of these species, respectively. Wheeler (1993), in a study of
Busycon and Strombus tools from Jupiter Inlet 1, demonstrates
that early in the prehistory of southern Florida Strombusgigas
tools and blanks may have been exchanged to areas inland and
farther north outside of the geographic range of the species.
However, by Glades II times this shell no longer was ex-
changed widely outside of southeastern Florida and there are
no indications that Busycon carica tools or blanks were ever
widely exchanged.
The limited collection of bone tools and ornaments at
Jupiter Inlet 1 seems to be characteristic of the bone tool
industry of southern Florida. Interestingly, the socketed bone
tools, which are typical of southern Florida sites, are not
commonly found in the St. Johns River basin. This seems


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, PEPR, AND KENNEDY JTJPITER INLET 1


Table 8. Intersite comparison of modified shark tooth categories.


Artifact type





Cut Roots x x x x
Cut Roots-Tip Worn x x x
Cut Roots/Abraded x
Cut Roots/Abraded-Tip Worn x x
Cut Roots--Filed x
Perforated x x
Perforated-Tip Worn x x
Perforated/Abraded x
Perforated/Abraded-Tip Worn x
Perforated-Cut Roots x
Perforated-Cut Roots-Tip Worn x
Perforated/Abraded-Cut Roots-Tip Worn x
Abraded x x
Abraded-Tip Worn x
Abraded-Filed x
Filed x x x
Filed-Tip Worn x x
Tip Worn x x x x


curious, since other aspects of material culture--especially the
ceramics-seem to link the East Okeechobee Area with the St.
Johns River Area. It does confirm, however, the notion that
East Okeechobee Area people shared toolkits with several
neighboring groups. Modified shark teeth also show marked
variation, both in-site and when compared to sites in neighbor-
ing areas (Table 8). This variation may be due to several
factors, including the possibility that a wide range of shark
tooth tool types are represented (e.g., shark tooth sabers vs.
shark tooth knives); there is considerable personal and
regional variation in hating styles; some modifications, like
"cut roots," may be the result of breakage during use; as well
as temporal variation in hafting styles and tool types.
Study of the ceramics indicated a dominance of sand-
tempered plain and evidence for the first use of St. Johns Plain
and St. Johns Check Stamped types in the area. Minor types
present throughout the temporal occupation include Belle
Glade Plain and sherds typical of the Indian River and St.
Johns River areas. Despite a major occupation during Glades
I times, decorated marker types of the Glades series are
absent Comparison to Boca Weir, which based on the
seriation of St Johns wares dates to the same Glades H/Glades
m transition, reveals some interesting differences. While
sand-tempered plain dominates throughout the sequence at
Jupiter Inlet 1, it is rivaled by Belle Glade Plain at Boca Weir
(Furey 1972:35-41). At Boca Weir and other Spanish River
complex sites, there are examples of decorated Glades types,
as well as some of the minor types found to the north like


Dunn's Creek Red and Savannah Fine Cordmarked (Furey
1972:20-22, 25-26). Comparison to a third site, Belle Glade,
in a neighboring culture area, is even more interesting. While
seriation is not possible, the ceramic type frequencies indicate
a dominance ofBelle Glade Plain, followed by sand-tempered
plain, and St. Johns Check Stamped, with examples of
decorated Glades series sherds in small numbers (Willey
1949b:24-33). In other words, the ceramics from Belle Glade
and Boca Weir are more similar to one another than either is
to Jupiter Inlet 1, though all indicate periods of occupation
during Glades II and Glades m times.

Jonathan Dickinson and "Hoe-Bay"

The Jupiter Inlet 1 site is most well known because of its
intimate association with Jonathan Dickinson and his ship-
wreck ordeal of 1696 (see Andrews 1945:1-3). The account is
well known for its interesting ethnohistoric details, and has
been reprinted many times-making it widely accessible.
Dickinson's vessel, the barkentine Reformation, wrecked on
October 3, 1696, somewhere north of Jupiter Inlet (see our
article on the Jeaga and Job6 Indians, this issue). Shortly after
coming ashore, the party was captured by the Indians.
Following an initial interrogation by the cacique and the
salvaging of the ship's goods, the weary band was forced south
to the village of "Hoe-Bay." The shipwreck survivors spent
five reluctant days at the village, and eventually traveled north
through the territory of the Ais Indians, making their way to


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Figure 22. Photomicrographs of shark tooth tools, showing the variety of modification and wear present in the assemblage:
a) Carcharhinus sp., perforated, with extensive tip and edge wear, A2661; b) Negaprion brevirostris, with beveling and spelling
at tip and edgewear, A2689; c) Carcharhinus obscurus, with beveling and faceting on tip, A2666.4; d) Carcharhinus obscurus,
with lateral striations across tooth surface, A2671.2; e) Carcharhinusplumbeus, with lateral striations across tooth surface,
A2687; f) Carcharhinus sp., perforated, cut roots/abraded, A2692; g) Carcharhinus sp., perforated, abraded, A2694.


St. Augustine with the aid of a Spanish coast patrol.
Dickinson's journal describes aspects of native dress, subsis-
tence, economy, architecture, and politics (see Andrews and
Andrews 1945).
Significant testing at a number of the sites within the
Jupiter Inlet complex have failed to reveal evidence of aborigi-
nal occupation during the era of European contact. As noted
above, most of the sites at Jupiter Inlet have Glades II Period
occupations, with some evidence of Late Archaic habitation.
By way of comparison, the site complex at the mouth of the
Miami River is thought to include the village of Tequesta (see
Hann 1991:220, 314). Archaeological evidence for this
includes European material (e.g., metal ornaments, glass
beads, majolica) from the sand burial mounds and the black
earth midden on the north bank of the river (Eck 2000; Griffin
in Griffin et al. 1982:373). Likewise, Mound Key is thought
to be the site of "Calos," the capital of the Calusa chiefdom;
like the Granada site, Spanish artifacts are abundant at Mound
Key (Wheeler 2000). Material of this type was not encoun-


tered during the present investigation, though there are
indications that some Spanish material has come from the
Jupiter Inlet 1 site. For example, Bessie Wilson DuBois
(1968:23) reports "a large gray glazed jar with one handle
from the site-a Spanish origin was confirmed by archaeolo-
gist Ripley Bullen." This vessel, on exhibit at the Loxahatchee
River Historical Society museum may be Spanish, but it is
saltglazed stoneware and likely dates from the late eighteenth
or nineteenth century. Members of the DuBois family sug-
gested to us that the later component of the site was located to
the west of the park and the area we investigated. It also is
possible that the extensive shell mining in the inlet area has
removed the traces of the contact era occupation.

Conclusion

Jupiter Inlet 1 was targeted for investigation for several
reasons. At the time of our investigation (1989-1992) it was
one of the few extant shell mounds of the East Okeechobee


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPITER INLET 1


Area available for study; the site also provided an opportunity
to generate controlled stratigraphic data about an East
Okeechobee Area site that could be compared to information
from earlier work at the Spanish River complex and the
Riviera site. The potential for association with Jonathan
Dickinson also provided an interesting dimension to excava-
tions at the site. The use of Jupiter Inlet 1 for a public park
also generated a need for better information about the extent
and condition of the site for management purposes.
Study of the site indicated that it had been considerably
reduced through shell mining, though still contained extensive
intact deposits. A.E. Douglass's 1883 map demonstrates the
considerable complexity of the site, and there are indications
that some site features are comprised of intentionally deposited
primary and secondary midden. Artifacts from the site and
radiocarbon dates demonstrate occupation between A.D. 750
and A.D. 1200, representing the transition from the Glades II
to Glades III periods. European contact era artifacts were not
discovered, though the extensive mining of the site may have
removed earlier and later components. Faunal material
confirmed an emphasis on aquatic resources, primarily those
of marine and brackish water environments.
Our results confirm the difficulties faced by other research-
ers in defining an East Okeechobee cultural area. The Jupiter
Inlet 1 shell mound and its attendant features and artifacts
show similarities with sites of several neighboring regions,
including the Everglades area to the south, the Belle Glade or
Okeechobee area to the west, and the Indian River area to the
north. Influences from the north seem most prominent,
though comparison to the contemporaneous Boca Weir site
indicates considerable variation throughoutthe region, making
it difficult to settle on definitions for the culture area. If the
slightly later Riviera site is typical, there seems to be a general
trend toward increasing similarities with the north through
time-perhaps related to the prominence of the Ais chiefdom.
The lack of regional homogeneity during Glades II and early
Glades III times is important, and may be a reflection of the
importance and autonomy of villages in the regional socio-
political system.

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed time and support to this project. Amy
Felmley and Dave Rinker helped with initial excavations in 1990.
Field crews in 1991 and 1992 included Caroline Banks, Jennifer
Berke, Maria Carlineus, Nat Cassell, Kevin Crawford, William
Hyler, Peter Paddock, Andrea Prestridge, Kim Vinot, Ar Sassi,
Nancy Sinks, David Solomon, Inez Storm, Karen Schultz, and Clark
Wernecke. Additional help in processing and analysis was provided
by Mariann Brodman, Joshua Green, Lee Mitchell, and Ann Ross.
Assistance in identifying artifacts and developing methods for
analysis came from Elizabeth Wing, Irvy Quitmyer, William
Marquardt, and Ann Cordell of the Florida Museum of Natural
History, Gainesville. Arlene Fradkin has more recently helped
develop a species list for the project and with identifications for some
of the bone artifacts. Irvy Quitmyer and Laurie Wilkins of the
Florida Museum of Natural History helped in identifying the whale
auditory bullae, as did Gary Morgan of the University of New
Mexico.


Robert Taylor of the Bureau of Historic Preservation and the staff
of the FAU Sponsored Research and Grants and Contracts offices
helped in making the grant-funded portion of this project run
smoothly. Support from State Representative James C. Hill, Jr., U.S.
Congressman Tom Lewis, Nathaniel P. Reed, Katharine Dickenson,
Karen T. Marcus, Patricia Margoran, and Jud Laird helped in
securing the DHR grant.
Dennis L. Eshleman, Eric Hall, and Bill Wilsher of the Palm
Beach County Parks and Recreation Department granted permission
for our project and provided valuable support and encouragement.
John Street, and other park personnel provided assistance and
equipment. Leo and Hope Clark, resident caretakers of the park,
were extremely helpful and cooperative.
Susan Clarke and Elizabeth Kehoe, formerly of the Loxahatchee
Historical Museum (now the Loxahatchee River Historical Society)
generously supplied early photographs, maps, and documents, and
other research materials. Jamie Stuve, new director of that museum
most recently helped us with additional photographic prints. Mrs.
Bessie DuBois and her family provided insights into the historic use
of the property, and shared some of their personal artifact collections
with us.
Review comments from Robert S. Carr, William H. Marquardt,
and George Luer have helped to improve this paper, and their
assistance is greatly appreciated.
The late William H. Sears provided an introduction to the site to
author Kennedy in 1965, the first professional archaeology at the site
and a baseline for FAU's continued involvement with the Jupiter
Inlet sites and DuBois County Park.

References Cited

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

Andrews, Charles M.
1945 The Florida Indians in the Seventeenth Century. Tequesta
3:3648.

Andrews, Evangeline Walker, and Charles McLean Andrews
(editors)
1945 Jonathan Dickinson's Journal, or God's Protecting
Providence. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Austin, Robert J.
1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence
Data from the Kissimmee River Valley: Archaeological
Evidence for Belle Glade Occupation. TheFloridaAnthro-
pologist 49(2):65-87.

Beriault, John G.
1986 Observations Concerning Shell Mounds and a System for
Classifying Shell Material. In Shells and Archaeology in
Southern Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 160-163.
Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 12.
Florida Anthropological Society, Tallahassee.

Carr, Robert S.
1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 38(4):288-301.


Can, Robert S., and John G. Beriault


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1








THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


1984 Prehistoric Man in Southern Florida. In Environments of
South Florida: Present and Past, revised ed., edited by
Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society
Memoir 2, Coral Gables.

Claassen, Cheryl
1986 Shellfishing Seasons in the Prehistoric Southeastern United
States. American Antiquity 51(1):21-37.

1991 Normative Thinking and Shell-Bearing Sites. In Archaeo-
logicalMethod and Theory, edited by Michael B. Schiffer,
pp. 249-298. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Cordell, Ann S.
1992 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability in
Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment in the
Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt,
pp. 105-189. Monograph No. 1. Institute of Archaeology
and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Douglass, A.E.
1885 Florida Diaries, 1881-1885. Typescript on file at P. K.
Yonge Library of Florida History, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

DuBois, Bessie Wilson
1957 Celt and Pendant from Jupiter Inlet Mound. The Florida
Anthropologist 10(3-4):15-16.

1968 Jupiter Inlet. Tequesta 28:19-35.

Eck, Christopher
2000 A Picturesque Settlement: The Diary Notes of Dr. Jeffries
Wyman's Visit to Miami and the First Archaeological
Excavations in South Florida, 1869. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 53(4):286-293.

Espenshade, Christopher T.
1983 Ceramic Ecology and Aboriginal Household Pottery
Production at the Gauthier Site, Florida. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University
of Florida, Gainesville.

Furey, John F., Jr.
1972 The Spanish River Complex: Archaeological Settlement
Patterning in Eastern Okeechobee Sub-Area, Florida.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department ofAnthropology,
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

Gilliland, Marion S.
1975 The Material Culture ofKeyMarco, Florida. University of
Florida Press, Gainesville.

Gleason, William H.
1891 Plat for the town of Jupiter, Florida. Copy on file, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton.

Goggin, John M.
1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archae-
ology, Florida. Publications in Anthropology 47. Yale
University Press, New Haven.


n.d. Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida. Type-
script on file, P.K. Yonge Library of Florida History,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Goggin, John M., and Frank H. Sommer III
1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Publica-
tions in Anthropology 41. Yale University Press, New
Haven.

Griffin, John W.
1988 The Archeology ofEverglades National Park: A Synthesis.
Southeastern Frontiers, Inc. Submitted to National Park
Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee,
Contract No. CX 5000-5-0049.

Griffin, John W., Sue B. Richardson, Mary Pohl, Carl D. McMurray,
C. Margaret Scarry, Suzanne K. Fish, Elizabeth S. Wing, L. Jill
Loucks, and Marcia K. Welch
1982 Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History
of the Granada Site Volume 1. Florida Division of Ar-
chives, History and Records Management, Tallahassee.

Hann, John H.
1991 Missions to the Calusa. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.

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

Jones, Charles C., Jr.
1873 Antiquities of the Southern Indians, particularly of the
Georgia Tribes. D. Appleton and Co., New York.

Keegan, William F.
1982 A Biological Introduction to the Prehistoric Procurement of
the Strombus gigas. The Florida Anthropologist 35(2):76-
88.

Kennedy, Wm. Jerald, and Ryan J. Wheeler
1993 Introductory Study of the East Okeechobee Area, Southern
Florida. Paper presented at the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of
the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Kennedy, Wm. Jerald, Ryan J. Wheeler, Linda Spears Jester, Jim
Pepe, Nancy Sinks, and Clark Wernecke
1993 Archaeological Survey and Excavations at the Jupiter Inlet
1 Site (8PB34), Dubois Park, Palm Beach County, Florida.
Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton.

Kent, Bretton W.
1988 Making Dead Oysters Talk: Techniques for Analyzing
Oysters from Archaeological Sites. Maryland Historical
Trust, St. Marys City.

Kerber, Jordan E.
1985 Digging for Clams: Shell Midden Analysis in New Eng-
land. North American Archaeologist 6(2):97-113.


Kersey, Harry A., Jr.


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPITER INLET 1


1981 The John DuBois Family of Jupiter Inlet: A Florida Proto-
type, 1887-1981. Tequesta 41:5-22.

Killingley, John S.
1981 Seasonality of Mollusk Collecting Determined from 0-18
Profiles of Midden Shells. American Antiquity 46(1):152-
158.

Kozuch, Laura
1993 Sharks and Shark Products in Prehistoric South Florida.
Monograph No. 2. Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Larson, Lewis H.
1980 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeast
Coastal Plain during the Late Prehistoric Period. Univer-
sity Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Lawrence, David
1988 Oysters as Geoarchaeological Objects. Geoarchaeology
3:267-274.

Law Environmental, Inc.
1991 Technical Assessment Report for the West Loxahatchee
River. Volume 1, Environmental, Recreation andEngineer-
ing. Prepared for Jupiter Inlet District by Law Environmen-
tal, Inc., Kennesaw, Georgia.

Layne, James N.
1965 Observations on Marine Mammals in Florida Waters.
Bulletin of the Florida State Museum 9:131-181.

Le Baron, J. Francis
1884 Prehistoric Remains in Florida. Smithsonian Institution
AnnualReportfor 1882, pp. 771-790. Smithsonian Institu-
tion, Washington, D.C.

Luer, George M.
1985 Some Comments on Englewood Incised, Safety Harbor
Incised, and Scarry's Proposed Ceramic Changes. The
Florida Anthropologist 38(3):236-239.

2002 The Aqui Esta Mound: Ceramic and Shell Vessels of the
Early Mississippian-Influenced Englewood Phase. In
Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor, Florida, edited
by George M. Luer, pp. 111-181. Florida Anthropological
Society Publication No. 15. Florida Anthropological
Society, Tallahassee.

Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida
Anthropologist 34(3):127-155.

Marquardt, William H.
1992a Recent Archaeological and Paleoenvironmental Investiga-
tions in Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment in
the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H.
Marquardt, pp. 9-57. Monograph No. 1. Institute of
Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University
of Florida, Gainesville.

1992b Shell Artifacts from the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture


and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by
William H. Marquardt, pp. 191-227. Monograph No. 1.
Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

McPherson, B. F., and Maryann Sabanskas
1980 Hydrology and Land-Cover Features of the Loxahatchee
River Basin, Florida. United States Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Open-File Report 80-1109.

Meehan, Betty
1982 ShellBed to ShellMidden. Australian Institute of Aborigi-
nal Studies, Canberra.

Morris, Percy A.
1956 A Field Guide to Shells of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast and
the West Indies. Third printing. Riverside Press, Cam-
bridge.

Palm Beach County Engineering Department
1972 Boat Docks & Seawall, Sec. 31, Twp. 40S, Rge. 43E,
Dubois Park. Map on file, Palm Beach County Engineer-
ing Department, West Palm Beach.

Pepe, James P.
1993 Ceramic Analysis of the "East Okeechobee" Archaeological
Area. Paper presented at the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

1999 Jupiter Inlet 1 (8PB34): A Test Case in the Use of Ceramic
Frequencies and Discriminant Analysis in Determining
Cultural Affinity. Unpublished Master's thesis, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton.

2000 Archaeological Excavations and Monitoring at the Jupiter
Lighthouse Restoration Project, 8PB35, Palm Beach
County, Florida. Technical Report 267. Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy, Miami.

Purdy, Barbara A.
1973 The Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Bone Points in
the State ofFlorida. TheFloridaAnthropologist26(4):143-
152.

1990 Chronology of Cultivation in Peninsular Florida: Prehis-
toric or Historic? Southeastern Archaeology 9(1):35-42.

Quitmyer, Irvy R.
1992 Seasonal Growth Patterns in the Shells of Southern Quahog
(Mercenaria campechiensis) from the Palmetto Lane
Midden (8SO96), Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 45(3):253-265.

Reyes, W. I.
1855 UnitedStatesFieldNotes: Florida. Volume 191, Township
40 South, Range 43 East, Subdivisions. Microfilm, Florida
State Archives, Tallahassee.

Ritchie, Thomas, Frank Morrison, and Clivia Morrison
1981 Salvage Excavations of the Patrician Shell Mound. The
Florida Anthropologist 34(1 ):21-37.


WBEELMR PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1








THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VoL. 55(3-4)


Rouse, Irving
1951 A Survey oflndian RiverArcheology, Florida. Publications
in Anthropology 44. Yale University Press, New Haven.

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

Rutsch, Edward S.
1973 Smoking Technology oftheAborigines ofthe Iroquois Area
ofNew York State. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press,
Rutherford, New Jersey.

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

Sinks, Nancy
1993 Faunal Analysis of the Jupiter Inlet 1 Site (8PB34): Coastal
Subsistence Strategies in the East Okeechobee Subarea.
Paper presented at the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

Small, John K.
1924 The Land Where Spring Meets Autumn: A Record of
Exploration in Florida in December, 1921. Journal of the
New York Botanical Garden Journal 25:53-94.

Spears-Jester, Linda
1993 Preliminary Analysis of Mollusks Recovered from Jupiter
Inlet 1, an East Okeechobee Area Site. Paper presented at
the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeo-
logical Conference, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Stuiver, Minze, and T.F. Braziunas
1993 Sun, Ocean, Climate and Atmospheric 14C02: An Evalua-
tion of Causal and Spectral Relationships. The Holocene
3(4):289-305.

Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer
1993 Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age
Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35:215-230.

Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, Edouard Bard, J.Warren Beck, G.S.
Burr, KonradA. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Johannes
van der Plicht, and Marco Spurk
1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP.
Radiocarbon 40:1041-1083.

Swanton, William C.
1946 The Indians ofthe Southeastern United States. Bulletin No.
137. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

Villiers-Stuart, Henry Windsor
1891 Adventures Amidst the Equatorial Forests and Rivers of
South American, also in the West Indies and the Wilds of
Florida. John Murray, London.

Walker, Karen Jo
1992 Bone Artifacts from Josslyn Island, Buck Key Shell


Midden, and Cash Mound: A Preliminary Assessment for
the Caloosahatchee Area. In Culture and Environment in
the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H.
Marquardt, pp. 229-246. Monograph No. 1. Institute of
Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University
of Florida, Gainesville.

2000 The Material Culture of Precolumbian Fishing: Artifacts
and Fish Remains from Coastal Southwest Florida. South-
eastern Archaeology 19(1):24-45.

Wanless, Harold, Victor Rossinsky, Jr., and Benjamin F. McPherson
1984 Sedimentologic History ofthe Loxahatchee River Estuary,
Florida. United States Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 84-4120.

Waselkov, Gregory A.
1987 Shellfish Gathering and Shell Midden Archaeology. In
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 10,
edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 93-210. Academic Press,
New York.

Watts, William A., and Minze Stuiver
1980 Late Wisconsin Climate ofNorthern Florida and the Origin
of Species-Rich Deciduous Forest. Science 210:325-327.

Wernecke, D. Clark
1993 Baked Clay Objects from the'Jupiter Midden Site (8PB34):
A Literature Search Regarding Distribution and Uses. The
Florida Anthropologist 46(4):282-290.

Wheeler, Ryan J.
1992a Decorated Bone Artifacts, Florida Archaeology, and the
Greater Southeast. Paper presented at the Forty-ninth
Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Little Rock, Arkansas.

1992b The Riviera Complex: An East Okeechobee Archaeological
Area Settlement. The Florida Anthropologist 45(1):5-17.

1993 Spatial and Temporal Distributions of Shell Tools from the
East Okeechobee Area. Papet presented at the Fiftieth
Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Raleigh, North Carolina.

1996 Ancient Art of the Florida Peninsula: 500 B.C. to A.D.
1763. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

2000 Treasure of the Calusa: The Johnson/Willcox Collection
from Mound Key, Florida. Monograph No. 1. Monographs
in Florida Archaeology, Tallahassee.

Wheeler, Ryan J., and Wesley F. Coleman
1996 Ornamental Bone Carving of Southern Florida: Some Late
Styles and their Associations. The Florida Anthropologist
49(2):49-63.

Wheeler, Ryan J., and Wm. Jerald Kennedy
1993 History and Archaeological Overview of Jupiter Inlet,
Florida. Paper presented at the Fiftieth Annual Meeting of
the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh,
North Carolina.


2002 Voi 55(3-4)


TBE FnORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY JUPrrER INLET 1


Wheeler, Ryan J., and Ray M. McGee
1994 Technology of Mount Taylor Period Occupation, Groves'
Orange Midden (8VO2061), Volusia County, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 47(4):350-379.

White, William A.
1970 The Geomorphology oftheFloridaPeninsula. Bulletin No.
51. Florida Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee.

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

2000 The Archaeology of the Ridge and Canal Features of the
Key Marco Site. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Florida Anthropological Society, Ft. Myers.




APPENDIX A: Shark tooth tools from Jupiter Inlet 1.

TAXON COUNT ELEMENT
Cat Roots
Carcharhinus limbatus 2 lower tooth
Carcharhinus obscurus 1 upper tooth
Carcharhinus plumbeus 1 lower tooth
Carcharhinus sp. 1 upper tooth
Galeocerdo cuvieri 1 tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 4 lower tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 4 upper tooth
Cut Roots-Tip Worn
Carcharhinus obscurus 1 lower tooth
Carcharhinus plumbeus 1 upper tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 2 upper tooth
Cut Roots/Abraded-Tip Worn
Carcharhinus leucas 2 lower tooth
Carcharhinus cf. C. leucas 1 lower tooth
Carcharhinus plumbeus 1 lower tooth
Carcharhinus sp. 1 lower tooth
Carcharhinus spp. 2 upper tooth
Carcharhinidae 1 upper tooth
Galeocerdo cuvieri 1 tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 1 upper tooth
Sphyrna mokarran 1 upper tooth
Cut Roots-Filed
Carcharhinus sp. 1 lower tooth
Perforated-Tip Worn
Carcharhinus plumbeus 1 upper tooth
PerforatedAbraded-Tip Worn
Carcharhinus leucas 1 upper tooth
Carcharhinus sp. 1 upper tooth
Carcharhinidae 1 tooth
Perforated-Cu Roots-Tip Worn
Carcharhinus leucas 1 upper tooth
Carcharhinus spp. 2 upper tooth
unidentified 1 tooth


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

1949b Excavations in Southeast Florida. Publications in Anthro-
pology 42. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Worth, John E.
1995 Fontaneda Revisited: Five Descriptions of Sixteenth-
Century Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly
73(3):339-352.


WBEELMR PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1









I n..f. Ai*3%r4Aaded Cu Rooti-Tr Worn


Carcharhinus sp.


I I upper tooth


Negarion brevirostris 1 lower tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 1 upper tooth
Carcharhinidae I tooth
Abraded
Carcharhinus plumbeus 1 upper tooth
Carcharhinus sp.1 lower tooth
Carcharhinus sp. 1 upper tooth
Nezaprion brevirostris 1 upper tooth
Abraded-Tip Worn
Odontaspis taurus I tooth
Carcharhinus leucas 1 lower tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 1 lower tooth
Negaprion brevirostris I upper tooth
Abraded-Filed
Carcharhinus leucas 1 lower tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 1 upper tooth
Filed
Negaprion brevirostris 1 upper tooth
Filed-Tip Worn
Carcharhinus sp. 1 lower tooth
Tp Worn
Odontaspis taurus 1 tooth
Carcharhinus sp. 1 lower tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 2 lower tooth
.\eaprion brevirostris I upper tooth
Hafling Mastic on Root
Carcharhinus leucas 1 lower tooth
Fragmentary
umdentfied 7 tooth
Carcharodon carcharias 2 tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 2 tooth
Sphvrna sp. 1 tooth
Unmodified and/or Edaeworn_
Carcharhinus leucas 2 upper tooth
Carcharhinus limbatus 1 lower tooth
Carcharhinus obscurus 1 upper tooth
Carcharhinus plumbeus 4 upper tooth
Carcharhinus spp. 4 lower tooth
Galeocerdo cuvieri 2 tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 4 lower tooth
Negaprion brevirostris 3 upper tooth
Carcharhinidae 2 lower tooth

APPENDIX B: Vertebrate taxa identified from Jupiter Inlet 1.

Taxon Common Name
Ginglymostoma cirratum nurse shark
Odontaspis taurus sandtiger shark
Carcharodon carcharias great white shark
Carcharhinus leucas bull shark
Carcharhinus limbatus blacktip shark
Carcharhinus obscurus dusky shark
Carcharhinus plumbeus sandbar shark
Galeocerdo cuvieri tiger shark
Negaprion brevirostris lemon shark


.


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


IC









Taxon Common Name
Carcharhinidae requiem sharks
Sphyrna mokarran great hammerhead shark
Pristis spp. sawfish
Dasyatis spp. stingray
Chondrichthyes cartilaginous fish
Lepisosteus spp. gar
Elops saurus ladyfish
Albula vulpes bonefish
Ariidae sea catfishes
Ogcocephalidae batfishes
Centropomus spp. snooks
Epinephelus spp. groupers
Serranidae sea basses
Caranx hippos crevalle jack
Caranx spp. jacks
Sparidae porgies
Sparidae/Sciaenidae porgies/drum
Pogonias cromis black drum
Sciaenidae drums
Mugil spp. mullet
Sphyraena spp. barracuda
Osteichthyes bony fish
Chelydra serpentina snapping turtle
Deirochelys reticularia chicken turtle
Emydidae pond turtles
Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise
Cheloniidae marine turtles
Apaloneferox softshell turtle
Aves birds
Didelphis virginiana opossum
Sylvilagus spp. rabbit
Sigmodon hispidus cotton rat
Tursiops truncatus bottlenose dolphin
Procyon lotor raccoon
Odocoileus virginianus whitetail deer


APPENDIX C: Mollusk taxa identified from Jupiter Inlet 1.


Taxon Common Name Environmental Notes
Euglandia rosea Rosy Euglandia carnivorous land snail
Lucapina spp. fleshy limpet found on rocks and in intertidal zone, likely a
commensal
Astraea tuber green star shell rocky shorelines
Nerita spp. nerite shells rocky shorelines, likely a commensal
Petaloconchus spp. worm-shell a colonial worm shell, perhaps collected from a
rocky shoreline, oyster bar or nearshore reef
Cerithium spp. cerith shells common in brackish and nearshore areas, likely
a commensal
Crepidulafornicata common Atlantic slipper common in littoral zone, may have been col-
shell elected attached to other shells
Strombus alatus Florida fighting conch shallow water species, especially in bays and
estuaries; beaches beyond surf zone and in
deeper water
Strombus gigas queen or pink conch juveniles or "rollers" are present at some Jupiter
Inlet complex sites, but are rare at Jupiter Inlet 1
Strombus raninus hawk-wing conch


WBEELP, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPrITER INLET 1









Taxon Common Name Environmental Notes
Polinices duplicatus Atlantic moon snail or found in sand nearshore environments
shark eye
Phalium granulatum scotch bonnet intertidal areas
Murexpomum apple murex shallow water species that feeds on oysters
Thais spp. rock shell predatory on other mollusks, and may have been
collected with oysters or clams
Busycon carica knobbed whelk shallow water environments; probably not found
much further south than the Jupiter Inlet area
Busycon sinistrum lightning whelk .bays and estuaries, but present in deeper water as
well
Busycon canaliculatum channeled whelk shallow, sandy areas
Busycon spiratum pear whelk common in shallow, sandy areas
Fasciolaria tulipa true tulip
Oliva sayana lettered olive sandy areas in shallow water, active at night
Bulla spp. bubble shell intertidal areas, active at night; often found
washed ashore
Anadara spp. ark shells common in shallow water and mud
Limopsis minute limopsis (clam) a small clam, common in moderately shallow
water
Glycymeris spp. bittersweet clam found in sandy, shallow water
Brachidontes modiolus yellow mussel common intertidal species, shelters in rocks
Aequipecten spp. scallops common in grassy and muddy areas
Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster common in a variety of intertidal areas, on rocks,
mangrove roots, or in bars
Lucina pectinata thick lucine common in shallow water
Trachycardium spp. cockle common in sand
Dinocardium robustum giant Atlantic cockle
Spisula solidissima similis Atlantic surf clam common below low-water mark on open beaches
Tagelusplebeius stout tagelus common in sand and mud intertidal areas
Ventricolaria rugatina queen venus uncommon to rare, may have been collected with
_______________ _______ other clams in sandy areas along the open beach
Mercenaria mercenaria hardshell clam
Chione cancellata cross-barred venus prefers shallow, protected bays, very common;
Predatory on others clams, crabs, and snails
Dosinia spp. dosinia clam in sandy areas

APPENDIX D: Column sample N200 E8.

Level Major taxon category Weight (g) Level Major taxon category Weight (g)
2 Fish <1 10 Fish 23
Amphibian Amphibian
Snake Snake
Marine turtle Marine turtle 23
Freshwater turtle Freshwater turtle
Terrestrial turtle Terrestrial turtle
Terrestrial mammal Terrestrial mammal
Oysters 3507 Oysters 1788
other mollusks 99 other mollusks 75

3 Fish 2 11 Fish 33
Amphibian Amphibian
Snake Snake
Marine turtle Marine turtle 3
Freshwater turtle Freshwater turtle
Terrestrial turtle Terrestrial turtle
Terrestrial mammal Terrestrial mammal


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST








Level Majortaxon category Weight (g) Level Major taxon category Weight (g)
3 Oysters 3982 Oysters 293
other mollusks 200 other mollusks 92

4 Fish 12 12 Fish 23
Amphibian Amphibian
Snake Snake
Marine turtle Marine turtle 24
Freshwater turtle Freshwater turtle
Terrestrial turtle 1 Terrestrial turtle 16
Terrestrial mammal 1 Terrestrial mammal
Oysters 3397 Oysters 194
other mollusks 108 other mollusks 296

5 Fish 76 13 Fish 9
Amphibian Amphibian
Snake Snake
Marine turtle 26 Marine turtle 1
Freshwater turtle Freshwater turtle
Terrestrial turtle Terrestrial turtle
Terrestrial mammal Terrestrial mammal
Oysters 3115 Oysters 171
other mollusks 1206 other mollusks 35

6 Fish 97 14 Fish I
Amphibian <1 Amphibian
Snake Snake
Marine turtle 9 Marine turtle
Freshwater turtle 6 Freshwater turtle
Terrestrial turtle Terrestrial turtle
Terrestrial mammal Terrestrial mammal
Oysters 2264 Oysters 70
other mollusks 953 other mollusks 160

7 Fish 28 15 Fish
Amphibian Amphibian
Snake Snake
Marine turtle <1 Marine turtle
Freshwater turtle 3 Freshwater turtle
Terrestrial turtle Terrestrial turtle
Terrestrial mammal Terrestrial mammal
Oysters 1847 Oysters 13
other mollusks 305 other mollusks 73

8 Fish 131 16 Fish 4
Amphibian <1 _Amphibian
Snake <1 Snake
Marine turtle 53 Marine turtle
Freshwater turtle Freshwater turtle
Terrestrial turtle Terrestrial turtle
Terrestrial mammal Terrestrial mammal
Oysters 3747 Oysters 42
other mollusks 190 other mollusks 60

9 Fish 28 17 Fish 0
Amphibian Amphibian
Snake __Snake


WHEELER, PEPE, AND KENNEDY


JUPITER INLET 1






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


Level Majortaxon category Weight (g) Level Major taxon category Weight (g)
9 Marine turtle 11 Marine turtle
Freshwater turtle Freshwater turtle
Terrestrial turtle Terrestrial turtle
Terrestrial mammal Terrestrial mammal
Oysters 3920 Oysters 47
other mollusks 97 other mollusks 2















THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
ENDOWMENT


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.










Florida Anthropological Society Chapters









S9 .---10




14

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

1) Broward County Archaeological Society 5
481 S. Federal Highway, Dania Beach, FL 33004

3) Central Florida Anthropological Society ,
P.O. Box 947544, Maitland, FL 32794-7544 4

4) Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society 13 6
P.O. Box 82255, St. Petersburg, FL 33682

5) Indian River Anthropological Society
3705 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, FL 32952

5) Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy 2
195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid, FL 33852 12

7) Northeast Florida Anthropological Society
4144 Torino Place, Jacksonville, FL 32244

8) Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee _
c/o The Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation '
t23 E. Virginia Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301
r-/ ,.,


9) Pensacola Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 13251, Pensacola, FL 32591

10) St. Augustine Archaeological Association
P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine, FL 32085

11) Southeast Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 2875, Stuart, FL 34995

12) Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101


13) Time Sifters Archaeology Society
P.O. Box 25883, Sarasota, FL 34277-2883

14) Volusia Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32175

15) Warm Mineral Springs Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 7797, North Port, FL 34287


1

1
r




r


1



t



r



r








DISEASE AND POPULATION ECOLOGY IN THE EAST OKEECHOBEE AREA

KENNETH J. WINLAND

P.O. Box 324, Portsmouth, RI 02871
E-mail: kwinland@aol.com


Introduction

The purpose of.this article is to assess general health
characteristics, disease patterns, and population structure of
the East Okeechobee Area, and compare them to other groups
in southern and central Florida. Although some biological
reconstruction has been conducted with prehistoric aboriginal
groups in southern Florida, the pre-contact Indians of this
region are some of the least known aboriginal groups in North
America. This is primarily due to the paucity of physical
analyses conducted on excavated human remains. Even the
archaeological record is incomplete, and there are many
questions concerning modes of subsistence and material
culture that have been left unanswered.
Only in the last decade has competent bioarchaeological
work been conducted with pre-contact skeletal collections and
sites in Florida. The first studies of human skeletal remains
in Florida were conducted in the late nineteenth century. The
materials recovered from the St. John's River and Vero
Beach, in particular, received a great deal of attention
(HrdliEka 1917; MacCurdy 1917; Sellards 1916, 1917;
Stewart 1946; Wyman 1874). Avid collectors like Clarence
B. Moore, and others, conducted extensive excavations
throughout Florida, often uncovering large ossuaries.
However, in many cases, the human skeletal material was
rarely studied. Moore (1903, 1907), for example, had
excavated over 400 individuals from the Crystal River site
throughout the first decade of the twentieth century, yet no
biological analysis was conducted on the human remains
(Bullen 1972). His colleague and physician, Dr. Milo Miller,
accompanied him on these excavations and conducted
"paleoautopsies." When such studies did occur, they were
simply done as individual case studies, rather than placed in
the larger framework of site and region. True biological,
environmental and cultural studies would not be implemented
in this region until the latter half of the twentieth century.

Previous Biocultural Studies

Some biocultural reconstruction has been conducted at
southern Florida sites such as Republic Groves (Saunders
1972), Fort Center (Shaivitz 1986), Briarwoods (iscan and
Kessel 1992), Margate-Blount (iScan 1983), Boynton Beach
(Iscan and Kessel 1988), the Santa Maria cemetery (Carr et al.
1984) and the Nebot site (Iscan and Kennedy 1987). Physical
studies in southwestern Florida are lacking, primarily due to


the few burials recovered (Hansinger 1992; Hutchinson 1992,
1999). Of particular interest in this study is the East
Okeechobee culture area (Figure 1), the region to which the
Highland Beach site and Spanish River Complex belong. The
Highland Beach collection offers a superb opportunity to help
define more clearly the variables of disease and populations
structure, which is so lacking in this area.











BRIARWOODS* UTGAHIER
BAYSHORE HOMES
REPUBLIC GROVES--- *
FORT CENTER *
BOYNTON BEACH
HIGHLAND BEACH
MARGATE-BLOUNT


tooee .i


Figure 1. Archaeological sites mentioned in the text.


Materials and Methods

In the East Okeechobee culture area, only two sites offer
large enough samples of recovered skeletal material; the
Highland Beach Burial Mound (8PB 11) (128 individuals) and
the Boynton Beach Mound (8PB 100) (roughly 35 individuals,
see iscan and Kessel 1988). Several other sites in the East
Okeechobee culture area have yielded a handful of human
remains, but they are too small in number and no physical
studies have been conducted on them. For comparison in other
parts of the state, the Fort Center, Margate-Blount, Bayshore
Homes, Briarwoods, Republic Groves, and Gauthier sites all
offer a good opportunity to illustrate disease patterns and


VOL. 55(3-4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2002


VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


SEPTEMBER-DECEMIRER 2002







TIrE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


Life Expectancy (Years)


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Age In Years


- Highland Beach


-9- Fort Center


- Bayshore Homes


Figure 2. Life expectancies of the Highland Beach, Fort Center, and Bayshore Homes populations.


population structure in pre-Columbian Florida (Figure 1).
The Highland Beach Burial Mound (8PB 11) was excavated
in the summer of 1980 by a team of researchers from Florida
Atlantic University, under the direction of Dr. M. Yasar igcan.
The site is located in southern Palm Beach County, some five
kilometers from the northern boundary of the city of Boca
Raton, and is situated 150 meters inland from the Atlantic
Ocean. Unfortunately, excavations occurred during a small
window of time as construction of the Parker Highlands
condominium commenced on the property. Detailed plans of
burials are lacking, though most materials have provenience
designations related to their 2 meter excavation unit of origin.
Notes on file at FAU indicate that at least 35 of these 2 meter
units were excavated to the north and south of the driveway
being built at the condominium. Levy (1981) reports that
burials seemed to be randomly placed in the mound, often
superimposed on one another. Most individuals were buried
with legs flexed back at the knee and arms extended along
their side. Levy (1981) notes that infants were occasionally
found next to adult females.
Artifacts found in the mound include faunal bone and shell
remains, animal long bone implements, one crude limestone
plummet, sand-tempered plain, Opa Locka Incised, St. Johns
Plain, and St. Johns Check Stamped pottery sherds. The
decorated pottery sherds indicate use of the mound between


800 and 1400 years ago (Levy 1981; Shaivitz and Iscan 1981;
see Wheeler et al. on coastal Palm Beach County archaeology,
this issue). An iron disk hints at use during the post-contact
period. The inclusion of faunal bone and shell indicates that
the neighboring midden deposits may have been used for
mound fill. Materials from the site are curated by the Depart-
ment of Anthropology at Florida Atlantic University.
Methods used in analysis of the skeletal materials are
typical of contemporary physical anthropology. Age estima-
tion required the use of several aging criteria since the skeletal
remains from Highland Beach were fragmentary. Analysis of
the public symphysis morphology, morphology of the sternal
end of the rib, dental eruption and attrition, cranial suture
closure, spheno-occipital synchondrosis, and general post-
cranial epiphysial fusion were all utilized. For subadults, long
bone lengths were measured with a sliding caliper or osteomet-
ric board in order to calculate age based on long bone growth.
All of these techniques are outlined by Krogman and Iscan
(1986), Iscan and Loth (1989), and Johnston and Zimmer
(1989). Assessments of age in the Fort Center population were
made by the author in conjunction with another study (Cassel
et al. 1993), and do not differ significantly from previously
published reports (Shaivitz 1986). Data for the age patterning
in the Bayshore Homes site was derived from Snow (1962).
Sex determination utilized analysis of the sub-pubic angle,


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VoL. 55(3-4)







INLAND DISEASE AND POPULATION ECOLOGY


Percentages


10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Age In Years


- Highland Beach


-E- Fort Center


-- Bayshore Homes


Figure 3. Mortality curves for the Highland Beach, Fort Center, and Bayshore Homes populations.


parturition scars, sciatic notch morphology, general cranial
morphology, and several methods for assessing sexual identity
from fragmentary cranial and post-cranial remains. All of
these methods are outlined in Krogman and Igcan (1986) and
St. Home and Iscan (1989). Spreading calipers, sliding
calipers, an osteometric board and tape measure were used
when metric analyses for determining sex were required. Most
individuals aged 15 years or younger were classified as
'subadults' in the demographic study and left unsexed, since
sex determination is often unreliable in younger individuals
(Krogman and Iscan 1986).
To facilitate an assessment of the diseases manifested in
the human hard tissue remains a broad range of general
osteopathological sources were consulted (Aegerter and
Kirkpatrick 1975; Bergsma 1978; Brothwell and Sandison
1967; Jaffe 1972; Janssens 1970; Jarcho 1966; Mann and
Murphy 1990; Ortner and Putschar 1985; Steinbock 1976;
Zimmerman and Kelley 1982). The following categories
outlined by Steinbock (1976) and Zimmerman and Kelley
(1982) were used in assessing the pathological conditions
present in the Highland Beach materials:

1) Congenital disorders
2) Traumatic disturbances
3) Metabolic disorders


Circulatory and hematologic disorders
Arthritis
Infectious diseases
Hyperplastic and neoplastic conditions
Diseases of obscure origin


A strong light and magnifying glass were used in assessing
the skeletal materials in the Highland Beach collection along
with calipers and a tape measure when needed. Data regard-
ing age and sex of each individual were collected, along with
information on the appearance, size and patterning of the
lesions or defects observed, and which elements were affected.
Once data on the presence or absence of disease was recorded,
comparisons were made between the sites considered in the
study.

Results

Paleodemographic profiles, such as sex ratios, life tables,
mortality and survivorship curves, and crude mortality rates
were generated or researched for East Okeechobee Area groups
and several sites from other regions of Florida. For a
paleopathological analysis, the presence and incidence of
pathological conditions were noted in the human hard tissue
remains of several populations, and compared to previously


INLAND


DISEASE AND POPULATION ECOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


Percentages


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Age In Years


- Males


-8- Females


Figure 4. Male versus female mortality in the Highland Beach population.


published reports from other areas. In the Southeast, the
researcher must estimate disease patterning solely from the
skeletal material, and thus models derived from such data may
not quite reflect the true incidence and duration of disease in
past living groups. Some detailed biocultural studies synthe-
sizing paleodemographic and paleopathological data have been
conducted with Florida aboriginal groups, but only with
contact and post-contact groups of northern Florida and
southern Georgia (Larsen 1984; Larsen et al. 1992). Although
some work has been done in central and southern Florida, little
paleodemographic data has been generated.

Demography of
Southern and Central Florida Populations

Appendix A provides a brief demographic summary of the
Highland Beach, Fort Center, and Bayshore Homes popula-
tions, representing regions throughout southern and central
Florida. The male-to-female ratio seen in the Highland Beach
group (roughly 1.20/1.00) seems somewhat common through-
out many Florida aboriginal groups. The tendency to overesti-
mate the number of males in a skeletal population has been
noted in many sources, and what is seen here may be such a
bias (Meindl et al. 1985; Van Gerven and Armelagos 1983;
Weiss 1972). The one exception is the Fort Center group,
which has a sex ratio of 1.64/1.00. Discounting the error of
male bias in sexing individuals, this is much higher than


expected. However, the Fort Center site was most likely
occupied by mortuary/religious specialists of high status, and
this may explain the presence of males in that sample, as men
typically had higher status than women in many aboriginal
stratified societies. The Fort Center site also has no subadults
under the age of 6, which is no doubt the result of mortuary
practices, as the young were buried elsewhere (Winland 1992).
Life tables were generated for several sites and compared
for mortality, survivorship and life expectancy (see Appendices
B-D). The life expectancy at birth in the Highland Beach
group was 29.2 years, and at the age of 15 was 24.44 years.
This is the highest seen so far in demographically modeled
Florida aboriginal groups. Most pre-contact populations in
southern and central Florida had life expectancies at birth of
between 20 and 26 years. Life expectancy is almost impossible
to estimate for the Fort Center population due to the lack of
recovered subadults in the first age cohort (newborn to 5 years
old).
Figure 2 offers the life expectancies experienced through-
out the lifespan of the Highland Beach, Fort Center, and
Bayshore Homes groups. As illustrated here, the Highland
Beach population experienced a higher life expectancy at all
ages when compared to the other groups. Mortality and life
expectancy could not be properly modeled for the Boynton
Beach group due to the poor preservation and fragmentary
status of the skeletal remains.
Figure 3 illustrates the mortality pattern across the lifespan


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







WINLAND DISEASE AND POPULATION ECOLOGY


Percentages


80-



60-



40-



20



0 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Age In Years


- Highland Beach


-- Fort Center


6- Bayshore Homes


Figure 5. Survivorship curves for the Highland Beach, Fort Center, and Bayshore Homes populations.


of the same groups (also see Appendix E). Highland Beach
and Bayshore Homes have a similar infant mortality (between
20-25%). The first age cohorts for the Fort Center population
were estimated based on standard models and assumptions
(Weiss 1973). However, this would not effect observations in
the later cohorts. The Fort Center group follows the same
general pattern as the Highland Beach population, where a
majority of deaths occur within the third and fourth decades of
life. In the Bayshore Homes group, one can see that a majority
of deaths occurred in the third decade. As no individuals were
assigned an age in excess of 50 years by Snow (1962), mortal-
ity trends are accentuated in the earlier years at Bayshore
Homes. If any number of individuals in this group where
assigned an age greater than 50 years, the pattern of the curve
would be similar to the other two groups.
Gender differences in mortality can reveal interesting
social and biological dynamics. Figures 4 and 5 represent the
adult mortality curves, by gender, of the Highland Beach, Fort
Center, and Bayshore Homes populations (respectively). In
the Highland Beach group adult female mortality is higher
than males until the middle of the fourth decade, when the
male mortality exceeds female mortality (in the beginning of
the sixth decade, there is a temporary reversal). In the Fort
Center group, female mortality exceeds the male rate until
early in the third decade, when the reverse becomes true (the


rates become briefly equal in the fifth decade). In the
Bayshore Homes population, female mortality again exceeds
male mortality until the middle of the third decade, where the
reverse becomes true. The mortality pattern seen after the age
of 35 becomes almost equal. The increase in female mortality
between the second and third decades (or between the ages of
15 to 25 years) may be due to the risk inherent in childbearing
(Dunn 1968; Polunin 1953). The high female mortality seen
in the Highland Beach group until the middle of the fourth
decade (35 years of age) is interesting to note, and at this time
cannot be explained.
This 20-25% infant mortality is seen in almost all of the
other aboriginal Florida groups and in prehistoric foraging
groups throughout the world. In the third, fourth and fifth
decades, the Highland Beach group experiences a lower
mortality risk than the other groups. It is interesting to note
that the Highland Beach group also experienced a higher
female mortality rate in the second, third and fourth decades
when compared to males of the same population. A higher
risk in the second and third decades of life may be explained
by the increased risks of childbirth and other factors. How-
ever, the higher mortality seen until the fourth decade of life
is not easy to interpret.
Estimating the size of villages in the East Okeechobee
culture area and other regions in southern and central Florida


INLAND


DISEASE AND POPULATION ECOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


^^Hcm R H


21/2 1
in in


^B
cm ,



U


Figure 6. An example of DJD seen in the Highland Beach population: the left distal humerus of a male, 50+ years of age
[W3*3(4)], showing degenerative remodeling, extensive pitting, and slight ebernation.


is very difficult. The reconstruction of population size from a
skeletal sample is based on the crude mortality of the group in
question (the number of individuals per thousand who died
each year), the total number of deaths, and the length of time
that the burial mound was in use (Ubelaker 1974). The
temporal variable is the most difficult to assess, and several
scenarios are presented below (Winland 1993). The formula
given by Ubelaker (1974) is:

P = 1000N
MT

Where P is the size of the population, N is the total number of
deaths (size of skeletal group), M is the crude mortality rate,
and T is the number of years that the mound was in use.
Aside from the limitation of the temporal variable, excava-
tors estimate that only 20% of the mound was excavated,
which means that as many as 640 burials may have originally
been interred in the mound, though the complete number of
deaths may never really be known (Levy 1981; Shaivitz and
igcan 1981). The crude mortality for Highland Beach is 34.25
(see Appendix E). Assuming that the mound was in use for a
period of 200 years, the formula above provides that the
population utilizing the mound was around 93 people. If the
mound was only used for 100 years, this figure doubles to 187


people. This range of population size, between 93 and 187
people, is consistent with an archaeological attempt to model
East Okeechobee Area population density. Attributing roughly
200 people per Jeaga village and 25 people per smaller
campsite, Wheeler et al. (this issue, on coastal Palm Beach
County archaeology) estimate that there were about 2,225
people living on the pre-contact coast of Palm Beach County.
This would result in a population density of 8.9 persons/km2,
a reasonable estimate for aboriginal foraging communities
(also see Kennedy et al. 1993).

Paleopathological Modeling

The paleopathological modeling of the East Okeechobee
Area groups produced both expected and unexpected results.
The ecosystem of central and southern Florida is varied and
complex, and as such influences the health and population
structure of its aboriginal inhabitants in an almost determinis-
tic sense. Dunn's (1968) generalizations concerning health,
disease, and mortality in hunting and gathering societies are
reflected in the results. He states, among other things, that:

1) Starvation and malnutrition is relatively rare.
2) Chronic diseases occur infrequently.
3) Traumatic mortality varies greatly among foraging


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)







WINLAND DISEASE AND POPULATION ECOLOGY


Scm N


in in


cm


Figure 7. An example of DJD seen in the Highland Beach population: the right distal humerus, proximal ulna, and proximal
radius of an adult male [N3*2(12)], evidencing extensive pitting, with lipping of the capitulum, trochlea, coronoid process and
olecranon.


groups.
4) Parasitic and infectious disease rates of prevalence and
incidence are related to ecosystem diversity and complex-
ity.

Diet and Nutritional Disorders

In foraging groups, starvation and borderline malnutrition
are relatively rare. The few cases of orbital and extra-orbital
porotic hyperostosis (4%) seen in the Highland Beach material
lends credence to the theory that nutritional disorders were in
low incidence among pre-contact Florida aboriginal groups
(see Appendix F). Isler et al. (1985) also found a low inci-
dence of enamel hypoplasia (8%), which would indicate a
"healthy environment and diet." Less than 7% of the Fort
Center group exhibited signs of porotic hyperostosis, and
many other archaeological populations in southern and central
Florida showed a low percentage of such hematological
conditions relating to nutritional stress (Shaivitz 1986; Snow
1962;). An agricultural economy has been suggested for Fort
Center, but this theory needs far more biological and archaeo-
logical support (Johnson 1990; Kessel 1991; Sears 1982).
With the multiplicity of resources available due to the exploita-
tion of three environments riverinee, terrestrial, and marine),


the Highland Beach and Boynton Beach groups no doubt
enjoyed an excellent nutritional status, as the low incidence of
nutritional stress and a high life expectancy bears out. In
support of an agricultural economy for the Fort Center
population, Hogan (1978) proposed a "starvation diet" when
evidence of domesticates was not found in the paleofeces
recovered from the site. However, archaeological,
paleodemographic, and paleopathological evidence points to
foraging and hunting economies in southern Florida (Hale
1984; Kessel 1991; Winland 1993).

Arthritis and Degenerative Joint Disease (DJD)

Degenerative joint disease, or DJD, is seen in almost all of
the archaeological populations in southern and central Florida
with varying degrees of incidence, as this is a common
condition among foragers. Excluding the temporo-mandibular
joint region, some 16% of the Highland Beach group, 9% of
the Fort Center population, and 13% of the Bayshore Homes
group exhibited DJD (Shaivitz 1986; Snow 1962) (see Appen-
dices G-H, Figures 6 and 7). Almost all of the other sites in
southern and central Florida, such as Gauthier, Briarwoods,
Margate-Blount, Republic Groves, and Boynton Beach
showed similar incidence of this degenerative condition (Iscan


INLAND


DISEASE AND POPULATION ECOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(3-4)


2 x 4
cm in cm


1/24jE3/1
in in


Figure 8. A case of trauma in the Highland Beach population. The distal end of the right radius of a 50 to 70 year old male
[3WE*8-3(2)] shows remodeling at the articular surface, possibly due to a traumatic dislocation. The bone remodeling likely
helped to preserve normal functioning of the wrist and hand.


1983; Iscan and Kessel 1988, 1992; Maples 1987; Saunders
1972).

Parasitization

The influence of parasites on mortality and health in
southern Florida is unknown. The analysis of paleofeces
recovered at sites in this region would help create a clearer
picture of parasitization. Hogan (1978) conducted the only
palynological study dealing with a Florida aboriginal group
(Fort Center), and the focus was on diet, rather than the
presence of parasites. Chronic parasitism may lead to a form
of anemia, which may leave traces in the human hard tissue.
Shaivitz (1986) proposed thatbacterial and helminth infection,
as well as iron-deficiency anemia was the cause of the hemato-
logic condition she encountered in skeletal material from Fort
Center. Determining the exact relationship between such a
process and the causative variable is extremely difficult.

Mental Health

Mental health in past hunting and gathering societies is
almost impossible to assess. The study of mental health in a
paleopathological setting relies on ethnohistorical and written
documents (Moss 1967). Such a study is difficult concerning
pre-contact southern Florida Indian groups. Ethnohistorical


accounts only exist well after initial contact. These accounts
are few, and more data exists concerning the Seminoles after
their entry to Florida in the mid-eighteenth century.

Social Mortality and Evidence of Trauma

Also difficult to assess is the influence of social mortality
(infanticide, warfare, geronticide, etc.). Infanticide was most
likely practiced throughout southern Florida (as it is in many
contemporary hunter and gatherer societies), but the preva-
lence of such a practice will no doubt remain unknown (Dunn
1968). The incidence of warfare in southern Florida was most
likely low. Weapons, such as bows and arrows, atlatls, clubs,
as well as spears were used by aboriginal hunters. Less than
3% of the Highland Beach population evidenced some form of
trauma, while 6% of the Fort Center group and 5% of the
Bayshore Homes group showed signs of trauma. Defects
indicative of weapon trauma were rare, as most of the forms of
trauma encountered were fractures and dislocations. Combat-
ive trauma may have been present both at the Highland Beach
Burial Mound and at the Gauthier site (Maples 1987; Winland
1993:63-67). Only three individuals in the Highland Beach
mound exhibited evidence of trauma. A 50 to 70 year old male
showed evidence of bone remodeling on the distal end of the
right radius, possibly related to traumatic dislocation (Figure
8). Solitary bone lesions were present on the parietal and right


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)







WINLAND DISEASE ~&ro POPULATION EcoLoGy


Figure 9. Skull of an adult male [N3-2*41(3)], 24-30 years of age, with lesions indicative of a treponemal infection. Frontal
bone shows several focal superficial cavitations.


coronal sutures of a male aged 50 to 60, and female over 50
showed similar trauma to the left coronal suture. These
solitary lesions, exhibiting some healing, could have several
causes, including traumatic injury from a blunt weapon.

Infectious Diseases

Both specific and non-specific infections are seen through-
out Florida archaeological populations. Some 18% of the
Highland Beach group evidenced infectious conditions in the
bone, and less than 3% of the Boynton Beach population
showed such signs (Appendices I-J). In comparison, 8% of the
Fort Center group and 5% of the Bayshore Homes groups
exhibited infectious lesions in the hard tissue. Less than 4%
of the identified individuals from all of the other sites under
consideration evidenced signs of infectious conditions. In the
East Okeechobee Area population, osteomyelitis andperiostitis
were encountered, as well as lesions indicative ofa treponemal
infection.
Treponematosis was represented in 15% of the identified
individuals in the Highland Beach collection, which is indeed
the highest incidence thus far reported in Florida (Figure 9).
Less than 1% of the Fort Center population and 2% of the


Bayshore Homes group showed signs indicative of
treponematosis. Evidence suggests that the treponemal
infection encountered in pre-contact Florida and North
America was in fact closely related in osteological manifesta-
tion to syphilis, rather than yaws or pinta, which leaves little
and varying evidence in the human skeleton (Hackett 1976;
Ortner and Putschar 1985; Steinbock 1976).
The antiquity of treponematosis in the Americas before
contact has previously been established (Baker and Armelagos
1988; Bullen 1972; Brothwell and Burleigh 1975; Hrdli6ka
1922; Merbs 1992). As mentioned earlier, there is a great deal
of debate as to the origin of syphilis and its prevalence in
aboriginal populations. There are three schools of thought
concerning the origin of syphilis; the Columbian, pre-Colum-
bian, and unitarian schools (Steinbock 1976). The Columbian
school of thought proposes that syphilis originated in the
Americas and was transported to Europe via Columbus' crew,
where it spread rapidly throughout Europe and Asia over a 15
yearperiod (A.D. 1493-1513) (Abraham 1944; Holcomb 1935;
Rabello 1973; Steinbock 1976; Williams 1932). The rapid
epidemic spread is testament to both the virulence of the
disease and the lack of resistance in the Old World (Baker and
Armelagos 1988). The pre-Columbian school of thought holds


INLAND


DISEASE AND POPULAnoON ECOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2002 VOL 55(34)


that syphilis was present in the Old World prior to Columbus'
voyage, but that it was not distinguishable from "leprosy" and
otherdiseases (Hackett 1976; Steinbock 1976). Syphilis would
have evolved from another form of treponemal infection as a
result of the living conditions and population density of
Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Cockburn
1967b; Hackett 1976). Finally, the unitarian school of thought
proposes that syphilis was present in both the New World and
the Old, evolving with human populations universally (Hudson
1965). An interesting fourth theory was proposed by Living-
stone (1991), who posits that syphilis originated in Africa, and
was brought by the Portuguese to Europe in the late fifteenth
century, corresponding to the epidemic outbreak. Although
Old World evidence for syphilis is almost non-existent,
paleopathologists and paleoepidemiologists still have much to
debate (Henneberg et al. 1992).
Treponematosis has indeed influenced human social and
biological dynamics for thousands of years. A majority of the
most convincing skeletal evidence comes from the New World,
which may strengthen the Columbian hypothesis of the spread
of syphilis from the New World to the Old (Baker and
Armelagos 1988). The oldest example of a treponemal
infection may in fact come from a Pleistocene bear (Arctodus
simus) dating roughly 11,000 BP (Rothschild and Turnbull
1987). Treponemal involvement in human spheres easily
dates back four to five thousand years in the New World.
Some populations have shown an incidence of treponemal
infection as high as 50% (Baker and Armelagos 1988; Cook
1984). Thus, understanding this disease is vital to understand-
ing the dynamics of health and population structure, as this
was such a pervasive and chronic condition.
Syphilis was most likely present in Florida since Archaic
times, as the human remains recovered from Tick Island
suggest (dating to the Mount Taylor period of circa 6,000 B.P.)
(Aten 1999; Bullen 1972). Bullen (1972) compared the
presence of syphilis at many sites associated with the Weeden
Island culture, from the western and northern regions of
Florida, possibly extending into southern Georgia. In the
populations outlined and described by Bullen, the incidence of
treponemal infection was most likely less than 3%. This is
difficult to state, as strong bioarchaeological analyses are
lacking for almost all of these sites. As stated previously,
Moore had excavated over 400 individuals from the Crystal
River site, yet no biological analysis was conducted on the
remains. The incidence of treponematosis in the East
Okeechobee Area in general, and the Spanish River Complex
in particular, is difficult to estimate. Based on the previous
biocultural studies in the region of southern Florida, this
author would estimate an incidence of about 3%. However,
Highland Beach has shown a 15% incidence, based on
identified individuals exhibiting specific cranial and post-
cranial lesions. Little bioarchaeological work has been
conducted on the Spanish River Complex itself. Bullen (1957)
recovered some 75 individuals from the Barnhill Mound, and
no analysis was attempted on them. The whereabouts of this
material is unknown at this time. Some of the skeletal
material recovered at the Boca Weir site may have shown


signs of treponemal infection.
Why such a high incidence at Highland Beach? The
Highland Beach population may have been exposed to infec-
tion for a brief period of time, and represent morbidity seen in
a limited temporal range. Less likely, the site may have been
a regional foci for treponemal infection. It has been surmised
that groups with a high degree of contact with other popula-
tions tend to have a higher incidence of infectious diseases
(Cockburn 1967a; Steinbock 1976). This cannot be shown as
the case with respect to the Highland Beach group. Archaeo-
logical studies in the East Okeechobee Area show that there
was contact with neighboring groups to the north, west and
south (Furey 1972; Milanich andFairbanks 1980; Pepe 1999).
However, based on the limited archaeological data with respect
to the Spanish River Complex, evidence for increasing contact
with other regions cannot be demonstrated with certainty.
The high incidence of treponemal infection seen at
Highland Beach at this time cannot be explained, due to the
lack of comparable data within the East Okeechobee culture
area and other areas of southern Florida. The most likely
explanation is that the actual incidence oftreponemal infection
throughout Florida is higher than thus far reported. A high
incidence of treponematosis in the South and Southeast is well
documented (Cook 1984). When more complete
paleopathological studies are conducted on documented and
newly discovered Florida archaeological groups, a more
complete picture should emerge that no doubt will be similar
to paleoepidemiological profiles to the rest of the Southeast.

Discussion and Conclusion

Paleopathological and paleodemographic modeling of
aboriginal groups in southern Florida is difficult due to the
small number of human remains recovered, as well as the lack
of rigorous bioarchaeological methodology. Ecosystem
complexity and diversity influences the patterning of infection
and disease in foraging populations (Dunn 1968; Omran 1971;
Southwood 1987). While some ecosystem modeling can be
conducted using archaeological data, as well as modern data
projected into the past, many of the socio-cultural elements
influencing health and population trends cannot be estimated
in aboriginal southern Florida populations. This is primarily
due to the lack of detailed physical analyses of human remains
by many researchers, as well as the inherent problems of
estimating mortality and morbidity patterns from a skeletal
population (Wood et al. 1992). The information thus far
gathered in southern Florida indicates foraging groups with
fairly stable population trends and a high life expectancy,
suggesting a stable relationship with a complex ecosystem.
Disease patterning also was fairly consistent with models of
hunter and gatherer health (Armelagos 1990; Bronson 1977;
Dunn 1968; Polgar 1964).
Treponemal infection (possibly syphilis in this case) has
proven to be a chronic disease seen throughout aboriginal New
World populations. Baker and Armelagos (1988) proposed
that the treponemal infection seen in the New World before
contact was transmitted in a non-venereal fashion, via close


THF, FOo~iiA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2002 VOL. 55(3-4)




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