• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 From the editors
 A typology of fluted points from...
 The woodland period in northeastern...
 Nail types used in dating eighteenth...
 Editorial policy and style...
 Book reviews
 About the authors














Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00202
 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
Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: December 2007
Copyright Date: 2007
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: VID00202
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA9403
oclc - 01569447
issn - 00153893
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 161
        Page 162
    From the editors
        Page 163
        Page 164
    A typology of fluted points from Florida
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
    The woodland period in northeastern Florida
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
    Nail types used in dating eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Florida architecture
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
    Editorial policy and style guide
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
    Book reviews
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
    About the authors
        Page 219
Full Text



THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.

VOLUME 60, NUMBER4 Decemebr 2007











I'"" "'" ... I . "I
cm 1 2 3














A B C D E



E
78
.F6
F58






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635.
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 distributed by the Society
during the 12 months of their membership year. Annual dues are as follows: student $15, individual $30, family $35, institutional $30,
sustaining $40 or more, patron $100 or more, life S500, and benefactor $2500. 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 Editors 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 Editors to facilitate acknowledgment in
subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editors. Publications
for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (on-line at
www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editors with specific questions. Submit four (4)
copies for use in peer review. Only one set of original graphics need be submitted. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All
manuscripts must be submitted in final form on CD in Microsoft 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: Patty Flynn, P. O. Box 11052 Ft. Lauderdale Fl. 33339 (pflynn@pbmnh.org)
First Vice President: Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818. Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (bob@searchinc.com)
Second Vice President: Steven Martin, 4642 St. Augustine Rd., Monticello, FL 32344 (smartin@tin-top.com)
Corresponding Secretary: Antoinette Wallace, (ab_wallace@(bellsouth.net)
Membership Secretary: Kay Gautier, P.O. Box 13191, Pensacola, Fl 325911 (kaygautier@aol.com)
Treasurer and RegisteredAgent: Joanne Talley, P.O.Box 788, Hobe Sound, FL 33475 (jo@whiticar.com)
Directors at Large: Gloria Fike, 2815 SE St. Lucie Blvd.. Stuart, FL 34997 (GloriaFike@prodigy.net); Bill Lucus, 333 Persimmon
St., Freeport, FL 32439; Christine Newman, 504 17th St., St. Augustine, FL 32084 (aci_staugustine@bellsouth.net)
Immediate Past President: Sheila Stewart, 2130 Burlington Avenue North, St. Petersburg, FL 33713 (sjstew@gte.net)
Newsletter Editor: David Burns, 15128 Springview St., Tampa, FL 33624 (davebums@prodigy.net)

JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF

Co-Editors: Deborah Mullins, P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635-7605 (dmullins.fl.anthropologist@gmail.com)
Andrea White, P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635-7605 (awhite.fl.anthropologist@gmail.com)
Book Review Editor: Dan Hughes, 2301 8th Ave. North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 (hughesarc@juno.com)
Editorial Assistant: 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
Back Issue Sales: Palm Beach Museum of Natural History (www.pbmnh.org)

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.


VISIT FAS ON THE WEB: www.fasweb.org





U OF F


THE FLORIDA A9


ANTHROPOLOGIST s



Volume 60 Number 4
December 2007 Ce-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

From the Editors 163

A Typology of Fluted Points from Florida. 165
David K. Thulman

The Woodland Period in Northeastern Florida: A View from the Tillie Fowler Site. 179
Greg S. Hendryx and Neill J. Wallis

Nail Types used in Dating Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries Florida Architecture. 201
Ted M. Payne

Editorial Policy and Style Guide for The Florida Anthropologist and Florida Anthropological Society Publications. 207

BOOK REVIEWS

Sassaman: People of the Shoals: Stallings Culture of the Savannah River Valley. Myles Bland 215

Kersey: The Stranahans of Fort Lauderdale: A Pioneer Family of New River. James P. Pepe 216

Jacobia: Last Rites for the Tipu Maya: Genetic Structuring in a Colonial Cemetery. Anna C. Novotny 217

About the Authors 218











Cover: Deep-based (A-C) and V-based (D-E), straight-sided points. The flutes are outlined, and the limits of basal grinding are
indicated by the solid bars. Please see David K. Thulman's article for more information.

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










FROM THE EDITORS


In this issue of The Florida Anthropologist we present
three distinct analyses focused on documenting cultural
continuities, disruptions, and transformations experienced
during the Late Pleistocene period, the Woodland period,
and the colonial and antebellum periods in Florida. In our
first article, David K. Thulman presents an analysis of fluted,
lanceolate points with ground basal edges from across north-
central Florida dating to the Late Pleistocene period. Like the
intrepid Ripley P. Bullen and the many who have followed,
Thulman's research is hampered by a lack of sites from this time
period with stratigraphic integrity. Thulman's goal however, is
to create an improved set of diagnostic criteria for establishing
groupings of fluted point forms that archaeologists can use to
chart cultural continuity and change by mapping compounded
shifts in design and regional tradition without examples from
intact contexts and with a lesser reliance on parallels to other
areas of North America.
Our second contribution, from Greg S. Hendryx and
Neill J. Wallis, utilizes the ceramic assemblage from the
multicomponent site of Tillie Flower along the lower St.
Johns River to characterize more fully the Early Swift
Creek, Colorinda, and Sand Tempered Plain ceramic periods
associated with the Woodland period in northeastern Florida.
Analysis of each component of the ceramic assemblage
yielded new information on extralocal influences, geographical
and temporal range, and a better understanding of local
enactments of regional Woodland traditions. Especially
interesting to devotees of Woodland period archaeology is the
documentation of an early Woodland era Sand Tempered Plain
occupation period on the Tillie Flower site; the documentation
of which should certainly stimulate debate and encourage a
more critical approach to plainware analysis.
It is a fact that archaeologists are frequently heard
lamenting over piles of rusty nails. Our third author, Ted M.
Payne, banishes these woes (or at least dulls them) by offering
a much needed review and resource for archaeologists working
on sites with historic components that inevitably produce such
mountains of iron. Payne provides a thorough description and
date range for the full variety of colonial and antebellum period
nail types recovered from archaeological contexts across
northeast Florida. By highlighting identifiable characteristics
of nail types from sites with typical preservation, Payne urges
archaeologists to more carefully utilize nail inventories for
the allied purposes of tightly dating the construction point of
a building, accounting for structural modifications and local
strategy, and dating the abandonment or destruction of a site.
All three of the contributions in this volume of The
Florida Anthropologist are loosely linked by their geographical
focus on northeast and north central Florida. While this is
nothing but an interesting coincidence, the Editors will use
it as pretext to encourage all professional archaeologists and


serious avocationalists to submit manuscripts highlighting
work from across the state and surrounding regions. Since the
Florida Anthropological Society was founded in 1947 and the
first issue of The Florida Anthropologist (Volume 1, No. 1-
2) was published in May of 1948, the Society and thus the
readership of this journal has grown to ten times that size and
is now in its 60'h year of publication. Many of the founders
of southeastern archaeology have been regular contributors
to the journal since its commencement and the annals of past
journal volumes include well over one thousand scholarly
articles dealing with the full scope of archaeological and other
anthropological topics in Florida and adjacent geographic
areas of the Southeastern United States and Circum-Caribbean
region. The Editors are urging you to submit research for
publication in this journal so that all of us can reap the benefits
of your concentrated efforts and to keep alive the fine tradition
of publication and dissemination of knowledge that has defined
The Florida Anthropologist since its inception.
We are currently calling for manuscript submissions for
the September and December 2008 volumes of the FA and thus
an update of the style guide written specifically for this journal
seemed appropriate. For your convenience, the updated style
guide is included in this journal issue as well as on the FAS
website (www.fasweb.org). Please contact the Editors if
you have questions concerning a manuscript submission not
covered in this guide. Submit your work!
Please read the three book reviews contributed by Anna
C. Novotny (on the Tipu Maya of northwestern Belize), James
P. Pepe (on a Fort Lauderdale Pioneer family and community),
and by Myles Bland (concerning the Stallings Culture of the
Savannah River Valley). Also note that this volume includes an
updated distribution map of FAS regional chapters and a few
other goodies. The next issue of The Florida Anthropologist
will feature George M. Luer as Guest Editor and focus on
important Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research and
Florida Department of Environmental Protection work on
state lands in the Charlotte Harbor-Pine Island Sound area of
Charlotte and Lee counties.
Enjoy!

Deborah R. Mullins
Andrea P. White


Manuscript Submissions:
Deborah R. Mullins
Co-Editor, The Florida Anthropologist
P.O. Box 357605
Gainesville, Florida 32635-7605


VOL. 60 (4) THI. FLORIDA AN I URUPULU4IIS I DECEMBER 2007


I I


VOL. 60 (4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


DECEMBER 2007








A TYPOLOGY OF FLUTED POINTS FROM FLORIDA


DAVID K. THULMAN

Department ofAnthropology, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052
Email: dthulman@gmail.com


Florida's Paleoindian Period is receiving increasing
scrutiny and interest in recent years (Hemmings 1999;
Thulman 2006b; Dunbar 2007; Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007;
Faught 2004), but the effort is hampered by the lack of intact
sites of undisputed Paleoindian age and an inventory of
Early, Middle, and Late Paleoindian toolkits from Florida.
Most of what we think we know has been inferred from out
of context artifacts or by analogy to other areas of North
America (Thulman 2006a). One area that has undergone recent
reevaluation is the typology of Paleoindian points' in Florida
(Dunbar and Hemmings 2004; Farr 2006; Schroeder 2002),
which builds on the earlier comprehensive typology of Florida
points by Ripley Bullen (1975). Efforts here focus primarily
on fluted, lanceolate points with ground basal edges, which
were presumably all made during the Late Pleistocene period.
The purpose of this article is to create some hypothetical
groups of fluted point forms from which we can model cultural
chronology and continuity during this period in Florida.
Bullen (1975) identified two fluted forms: the Clovis, which
is always fluted, and the Simpson, which is occasionally fluted.
In their recent publication, Dunbar and Hemmings (2004),
looking more closely at the variation in Florida lanceolates,
added a Waisted Clovis form that is always fluted and included
the Suwannee, which is occasionally fluted. Farr (2006) and
others recognized that fluted forms from outside Florida are
also occasionally found here, such as the Redstone, Quads,
and Dalton points. Regardless, all these researchers would
probably agree that Clovis comes in two varieties waisted
and straight-sided (or slightly excurvate) and Suwannee and
Simpson points are occasionally fluted.
Two major groupings of points were identified in
this analysis from a dataset of 72 fluted, basally-ground
lanceolate points from Florida: Straight-sided and Waisted.
The straight-sided group includes narrow, medium, and deep-
based subgroups, and the waisted group includes narrow
and spatulate subgroups. The details of these categories are
described below. These groups were discerned using both
qualitative and quantitative data on the size and ratios of
attributes of the points, such as minimum width or the ratio
of minimum width to maximum width, hafting technique,
and resharpening trajectory. Like Dunbar and Hemmings
(2004), this article avoids the word "type," which implies a
degree of finality, and uses "group," "subgroup," and "form"
to emphasize the hypothetical nature of this typology. It also
avoids using formalized and loaded terms such as "Clovis" in
these descriptions.
I do not assert that these subgoups necessarily represent
the types that would have been recognized by Florida's


Paleoindians, only that these are reasonable groupings of these
data. My approach to typology assumes that the Paleoindians
made these points based on a particular culturally-appropriate
mental model or template (i.e., the artifact design) and a
degree of acceptable variation in mind, which would tend
to produce highly patterned distributions of points that vary
around a central tendency. These mental models would have
included all aspects of the manufacture, use, resharpening,
and ultimate discard of the point, including how the point was
shaped, flaked, fluted, and hated. Only points that retained
intact bases and flutes were used in this analysis, because these
would retain the original mental model.
It is assumed that over time, point forms (and any other
artifact form) change as people make changes to the mental
model. Typically, changes are made when the maker perceives
that a change to the design is needed, probably a technical
challenge that needs to be resolved, such as the haft does
not fit well on the shaft.2 These changes are usually made to
relatively small aspects of the artifact design, such as the size
the ears on the base or the ratio of the width of the base to
the width of the waist. Over time these design changes are
compounded, and distinct artifact forms are produced by
different groups of people that archaeologists perceive as
regional traditions (Thulman 2006b). With enough examples
in proper chronological context, the evolution of a form could
be reconstructed. Without these examples, we can nonetheless
posit continuity between "types" by speculating how the form
changed.

The Data

The data used in this typology were gathered as part of
a larger effort to collect and preserve information about the
distribution of Paleoindian points in Florida, which are defined
as lanceolate-shaped, bifacial, chipped stone artifacts with
ground bases. Virtually all of the data were gathered from
private collectors, who generously made their collections
available to me. In total, nearly 1000 scanned images of
Early, Middle, and Late Paleoindian points from north-central
Florida were collected. Several attributes were measured
with the digital measuring tool in Photoshop (Figure 1), and
the data were recorded for statistical analysis. In addition
to the scans, data on thickness, grinding, and location were
also collected. Seventy-two of the fluted points were used to
develop this typology. All of the fluted points were collected
as individual specimens, which means they did not come
from an undisturbed stratigraphic context. The data only
includes finished artifacts, which do not provide the kind of


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


VOL. 60 (4)


DECEMBER 2007







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


Total Length










Max. Width


Height


Lat.
Cone.


in. Width


i. Width


Basal Ear
Width


Basal >-
Cone.
Height
Basal Ear Width


Figure 1. The attributes measured on the points.



information on manufacturing trajectories that can be gleaned
from reforms, manufacturing debris, raw material size, or
discarded manufacturing mistakes. While potentially important
for parsing out regional variation in manufacturing technique,
the lack of such data are not crucial for this effort.
Fluting, which is the defining characteristic of the,
presumably, earliest points in Florida (Sellards 1952; Bullen
1975), can be a problematic discriminating criterion. Most
everyone agrees that flutes are intended to facilitate hafting,
perhaps by thinning the base (Wormington 1957; Lahren and
Bonnichsen 1974; Musil 1988). Basal thinning is simply the
removal of flakes from the base of the point for the purpose
of thinning the haft of the point. Several basal thinning


techniques are apparent on the lanceolate points from Florida,
which are generally grouped into basal flaking, in which
flakes are removed by blows to the base of the point; lateral
flaking, in which flakes are removed by blows from the lateral
edge; a combination of basal and lateral flaking; and fluting,
which is specialized basal flaking (Goodyear et al. 1983). To
distinguish them from a more general basal flaking, fluting is
defined here as one or more basal flakes with generally parallel
sides that are taken from the approximate center of the base.
To be included in this discussion, the flutes must be at least as
long as the lateral flakes taken from the lateral margins of the
point. If you were to query Paleoindian archaeologists, most
would envision the classic flute as one or more long parallel-
sided flakes that are significantly different in width, length,
and shape than flakes taken from the edges of the tool (Howard
1990; Fitting 1965). Callahan (1979:15) proposed that "nearly
50 different and specialized means of executing final true
fluting" were possible. Sometimes flutes are unmistakable, but
often it is not clear whether a point was intentionally fluted.
Since fluting is not the only way to thin the base of a
lanceolate, it seems likely that the technique was developed to
facilitate a specialized shaft, although this is speculative since
no fluted point has been recovered still attached to the shaft.
Regardless, the fluting technique was apparently developed
in the New World, where it was widely employed in North,
Central, and South America for several centuries and then
replaced by different hafting techniques and never revived or
reinvented. For this reason, the presence of fluting is a reliable
morphological trait for placing various fluted point forms in
the same or successive time periods.

Assumptions and Definitions

This analysis makes some assumptions about how
lanceolate points were hafted and used. First, they were hafted
to an organic handle or shaft, as opposed to hand-held. They
were likely attached with a binding, such as sinew, and probably
further secured with mastic (Tankersley 1994). Second, the
ground edge of the point defines the approximate extent of
the binding, while the sharp edge of the point is the working
edge. Edges were resharpened when they became dull through
use or damage, although edges could also be resharpened even
when they were not fully dull, if it was important to maintain
a consistent width-to-length ratio or continuous cutting
edge. Third, a completed but unused point was symmetric
around the midline, with blade edges that described a gentle
arc, meaning the blade edge did not have an abrupt change
in direction. An abrupt change in direction indicates that the
blade was resharpened, starting at the location of the change.
In practice, sometimes it is difficult to identify where on the
blade resharpening started.
The pertinent attributes used in this analysis are described
in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. The blade is the working
end of the point above the haft, i.e., it is the part of the point
with a sharp edge. The distal end of the point is the part of the
blade that includes the tip. The resharpening shoulder refers
to the location where the ground edge meets the resharpened
edge. On some points, this location forms a distinctive step or


2007 VOL. 60(4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







Table 1. The attributes used in the typology. Refer to Figure 1 for the location of most of these attributes.


TL: This is the total length from the baseline (which is an imaginary line that connects the bottom of the base of both ears) to the
tip. Total length is affected by resharpening and was not used in any analysis.

MW: Maximum Width of the point measured above the base. The maximum width is approximately parallel with the base line.
Resharpening can affect both the size and location of maximum width and the other measurements that depend on its location on
the point. Figure 4.4 shows the effect of resharpening on this measurement.

BEW: Basal Ear Width is the measure from the outside point of both ears. If one ear is missing, the BEW is estimated by
doubling the distance from one ear to the approximate centerline.

MBW: Minimum Basal Width is the narrowest width above the ears and below the maximum width that is close to parallel to
the baseline.

BCV: Basal Concavity is measured from the baseline to the top of the center of the basal concavity.

LI: Lateral Index is the average ratio of the length of the left and right axes divided by the length of the left and right indentations.
It is a measure of the incurvature of base, or waist.

GR: Grinding is the average of the length of grinding, measured in a straight line from the outer edge of the ear up the edge of
the point.

AFL: Average Flute Length was only calculated for points that were fluted on both sides. If a point had only one flute, the AFL
was the length of that flute.

AT: Average Thickness. The thickness of each point was measured at 10 mm increments up the centerline of the point from the
top of BCV to the tip. AT is supposed to measure the body of the point, as opposed to the distal end, which tends to get thinner
towards the tip. An assessment was made about when to cut off the measurements for the average; AT does not include the part
of the point that tapered. Tapering starts when the thickness decreases by more than one millimeter from one interval to the next
and then continued decreasing. For example, if the measurements were 7, 6, 4.5, and 3, then 7 and 6 were included in the average.
If the measurements were 7, 5.5, 6, 4.5, and 3, then 7, 5.5, and 6 were included in the average.


indentation when the width of the resharpened edges on the
blade of the point is narrower than the width of the ground edge
on its haft. Several examples of the resharpening shoulder are
illustrated below. Asmoothprofile is a qualitative assessment of
the edge of the blade. A smooth profile maintains a continuous
arc; ajaggedprofile includes an abrupt change in the arc.

The Analysis

The point groups were parsed from the data using a
version of exploratory data analysis (EDA), which uses
visual descriptive tools, such as histograms and bivariate
plots, to partition the data into different groups (Hartwig
and Dearing 1979; Whallon 1987). One method in EDA is
to look for "natural" breaks in the visual display of the data,
which may represent different forms. For example, the data
may clump into wide and narrow points. However, EDA, like
any statistical approach, is limited because it is difficult to
describe some differences simply through the measurement
of attributes or ratios. Thus, several executive decisions were
made in the differentiation of points. Qualitative assessments,
such as the shape of the base or whether the tip is pointed or
rounded, were considered in the analyses. Initially, the images
were reviewed to generally discriminate between the forms.
The sample size is too small for rigorous statistical analysis,


and so these classifications are tentative hypotheses. The
partitions in the data are illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2 is
not meant to represent the evolution of fluted point forms in
Florida; it simply illustrates how the data was partitioned in
this analysis. These are not the only possible partitions, and
other researchers may partition the data differently or not
at all. Figure 3, which illustrates the divisions in Figure 2,
provides an example of a typical base of a point from each
of the five groups and summarizes the major distinguishing
differences in each group.
In the initial data partition, points were divided into two
groups of 37 waisted and 35 straight-sided points (although
the latter group includes straight, excurvate, and slightly
incurvate points). The waisted and straight-sided points were
discriminated by the Lateral Index (LI), which is a measure
of the curvature in the haft: the greater the curvature, or
indentation, in the haft, the smaller the LI. The LI discriminated
two distinct groups of points. The straight-sided points had
either an LI of 0 or greater than 27; an LI of 0 indicates the
sides of the points were straight or excurvate, whereas a value
greater than 27 indicates the sides were only slightly incurvate.
The waisted points had LIs of > 0 and < 27.


THULMAN


FLUTED POINT TYPOLOGY





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


Fluted Points


Straight-sided


Deep-base Shallow-base



/\


Narrow-width Medium-width


Waisted


Narrow Spatulate


Figure 2. The data partitions.
The Straight-sided Group

The straight-sided group was partitioned into three
subgroups: deeper-base, narrow-width, and medium-width.
Examples from the straight-sided group are illustrated in
Figures 3-5.
Deeper-base subgroup. The basal concavity (BCV) and
minimum basal width (MBW) attributes were used to make


Narrow Waisted


Spatulate


More waisted, flaring ears


Narrower waist
Narrower blade


Wider waist, wider blade
Less likely fluted both sides


cm 1 2 3


SS Narrow


The Waisted Group


The waisted group can be partitioned into two subgroups:
narrow-based points and spatulate points. Examples from the
waisted group are illustrated in Figures 7-9.
Narrow-based subgroup. This subgroup includes points
with minimum basal widths of < 19 mm. In addition, these
points are relatively long and narrow at the maximum width, in


SS Medium


SS Deep Base


Less waisted, non-flaring ears


Shallower basal concavity, Narrower basal
width


Narrower basal
width
Thinner


Deeper concavity
Wider basal width
C-shaped concavity


Wider basal width


Figure 3. Examples of each of the five groups of fluted points identified in this analysis and descriptions differentiating each
group. This figure complements Figure 2.


the initial partition of the straight-sided group into two subsets
(Figures 2 and 3). All of the deeper-base points had basal
concavities > 4.8 mm, C-shaped concavities, and were on
average the widest of the straight-sided points with MBWs.
The combination of these three attributes (BCV > 4.8 mm,
C-shaped concavities, and wider MBW) defined this subset.
These points also had tips that were more pointed, as opposed
to more rounded, indicating a potentially significant difference
in the morphology of the tip.
Several points with BCV> 5 were not included in this subset
because they were narrower and had V-shaped concavities.
These were included in the medium-width subgroup described
next. Figure 4 shows examples of the deeper-base points with
C-shaped basal concavities (Figures 4A-C) and examples of
medium-width points with the deeper V-shaped concavities
(Figures 4D-E).
Narrower-width and medium-width subgroup. The
remaining straight-sided points appear to fall into narrow-
width (17 21 mm; Figure 5) and medium-width (22 28
mm; Figure 4D-E and Figure 6) groups based on MBW. The
points in the narrow-width subgroup are about 1 mm thinner in
average thickness (AT) than the medium-width subgroup.


2007 VOL. 60(4)






THULAN FUTEDPOIN TYPLOG


cm 1 2 3


A B


C D B


Figure 4. Deep-based (A-C) and V-based (D-E), straight-sided points. The flutes are outlined, and the limits of basal grind-
ing are indicated by the solid bars.




k cm 1 2 3


IA B C D I
Figure 5. Narrow straight-sided points. The flutes are outlined, and the limits of basal grinding are indicated by the solid
bars.


THULMAN


FLUTED POINT TYPOLOGY






THE LORIA ATHROOLOGST 007 OL. 0(4


Figure 6. Medium width, straight-sided points. The flutes are outlined, and the limits of basal grinding are indicated by
the solid bars.


cm 1 2 3


A B


C D E


Figure 7. Narrow waisted points. The flutes are outlined, and the limits of basal grinding are indicated by the solid bars.


C D
%. \2 -' ,'^
C \. )


A B



cm 1 2 3


F G


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)






THULMAN FLUTED PINTTPLG


Figure 8. Spatulate waisted points. Flutes are outlined,
and the limits of basal grinding are indicated by the solid
bars.


contrast to the spatulate subgroup. Figure 7A may represent an
unretouched or barely retouched point within this subgroup.
Spatulate subgroup. The spatulate subgroup has a
significantly wider blade and wider base than the narrow-base
subgroup. Spatulate forms are illustrated in Figures 8 and 9.
Although the blades are of different widths, it appears from the
presence of the resharpening shoulder and smooth edge, which
can be clearly seen in Figures 8A, 8E-F, 9A-C, that the blades
were resharpened. The differences in blade width may simply
result from different degrees of resharpening. It is difficult to
determine how wide the blade was when a typical spatulate
point was completed since none of the examples is obviously
unresharpened, but if we assume that only the top part of the
blade above the maximum width (MW) was first resharpened,
then the width of Figure 8A may come close to a typical
width. The MW of this point is 37 mm, but it clearly has been
resharpened, and its MW may have been approximately 40
mm wide when initially complete.

Discussion

Resharpening Trajectory

Figure 10 overlaps the profiles of the points illustrated in
Figures 4 9 and shows how the hafts of the points within
each subgroup maintain consistency while the blades change
length and shape through what appear to be their resharpening
lives. It appears that all points were resharpened while still
in the haft, and initial resharpening was concentrated at the
tip (Figures 6A, 8A, 8E). However, the entire blade edge was
modified from the tip to the haft in subsequent resharpenings.
This can be seen in the jagged profiles of Figures 4A, and 6B-
C where the jag starts at the approximate limit of grinding.
More pronounced resharpening shoulders are illustrated in
Figures 7C, 8F, 9A, and 9C.


cm 1 2 3
















A B C D
Figure 9. Possible spatulate waisted points showing extensive resharpening. B and D show no obvious resharpening shoul-
der. Flutes are outlined, and the limits of basal grinding are indicated by the solid bars.


-r '







A B C

cm 1 2 3


D E


THULMAN


FLUTED POINT TYPOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


Figure 10: Outlines of the images in Figures 4-9. A waisted narrow, B waisted spatulate, C straight-sided narrow, D
- straight-sided deeper-base, E straight-sided medium-width.


Hafting

Other than blade width, the straight-sided and waisted
groups show the greatest differences in hafting design.
Excluding the deeper-base subgroup, members of which are
simply larger in all dimensions than the other subgroups,
the main differences between the waisted and straight-sided
subgroups is in the MBW and the number and size of the flutes
(Table 2). The "waisted" appearance is created by an average
difference of 2 mm between the size of the basal ear width
(BEW) and the size of the MBW. The highly constrained
variation in the dimensions of the BEW and MBW is notable in
all groups, which can be seen in the small standard deviations
of these attributes (Table 2) and Figure 10, indicating that
partitioning the data based on these size dimensions likely
represents real differences in the Paleoindian cultural model.
In other words, the five subgroups may accurately describe
actual types of Paleoindian points.
Fluting is another attribute that distinguishes the straight-
sided and waisted groups. Points in the waisted group have
shorter flutes on average, and the spatulate points are less likely
to be fluted on both sides (Table 2). The number of flutes per
face and whether flakes had been taken off the base after fluting
were also examined. Figure 8A illustrates multiple fluting and
post-fluting flaking, while Figure 9C illustrates single fluting
and no post-fluting flaking. Both groups showed essentially
the same percentage of post-fluting flaking (straight-sided


40%, waisted 42%). But, when a face of the point was fluted,
77% of the straight-sided points had single flutes compared
with 68% of the waisted points. In sum, waisted points had
shorter flutes, were less likely to be fluted on both sides, and
were more likely to have multiple flutes than straight-sided
points.
The difference in size and number of flutes may have had
something to do with the method of hafting. Since the average
grinding length is essentially the same in both groups (Table
2), we can infer that the size of the binding (i.e., the length of
the binding from the base to the blade) was also essentially the
same. In addition, the fluting does not appear to have made a
significant difference in the thickness of the points; there are
essentially no differences between the waisted and straight-
sided points in average thickness, average flute thickness, and
average difference between the average thickness of the flute
and adjacent thickness of the point (Table 3). Firm conclusions
are difficult to draw from these data, but they indicate that
fluting may not have been as significant a technological
necessity for hafting the waisted points.

Function

A functional interpretation is tempting but highly
speculative and potentially treacherous. Notwithstanding the
danger, it seems clear that the differences in haft shape, fluting,
blade shape, and resharpening trajectories indicate functional


cm 1 2 3


A B C


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)


D E







Table 2. Summary of attribute differences between the subgroups. The mean, standard deviation (s.d.), and range
for the attributes are listed for each attribute. All values are rounded to the nearest millimeter, except basal concavity
(BCV) and average thickness (AT), which are rounded to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. The attributes and ab-
breviations are described in Table 1.

Subgroup Waisted Waisted Straight-sided Narrow Straight-sided Medium Straight-sided

(no.) Narrow (7) Spatulate (30) width (11) width (18) Deeper base (6)

Attribute

MW mean 25 29 22 27 32

(s.d.) (4) (4) (3) (2) (2)

[range] [20-29] [24-37] [18-27] [24-31] [29-34]

MBWmean 17 23 19 25 29

(s.d.) (1) (2) (1) (2) (2)

[range] [15-19] [20-29] [17-21] [22-28] [26-33]

TL mean 74 68 57 71 96

(s.d.) (16) (14) (12) (16) (8)

[range] [55-102] [39-106] [39-82] [45-99] [85-107]



BEWmean 19 25 20 25 29

(s.d.) (1) (3) (1) (2) (3)

[range] [18-21] [21-36] [16-21] [22-28] [26-34]

BCVmean 2.9 3.4 2.1 3.4 6.6

(s.d.) (1.1) (1.2) (.8) (1.4) (1.6)

[range] [1.4-4.7] [1.8-6.2] [1.2-3.3] [1.4-5.5] [4.8-8.4]

AT mean 6.8 6.4 5.8 6.6 6.8

(s.d.) (4) (.8) (.6) (.9) (.9)

[range] [5-7.1] [4.8-9.1] [4.7-6.7] [5.3-8.6] [5.4-8.0]

AG mean 24 27 23 27 34

(s.d.) (4) (5) (7) (7) (10)

[range] [19-31] [16-42] [9-37] [16-42] [24-46]

AFL mean 17 18 22 26 26

(s.d.) (5) (4) (8) (7) (10)

[range] [6-26] [5-23] [6-23] [7-35] [9-40]

Numberfluted on 6 12 10 12 4

both sides (86%) (40%) (91%) (67%) (67%)

(percentage)


THULMAN


FLUTED POINT TYPOLOGY







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


Table 3. The effect of fluting on average thickness (AT) for
the straight-sided and waisted groups. Flute Thickness is
the mean of the thickness measurements in the flute. Mean
values and the standard deviation (s.d.) are rounded to the
nearest tenth of a millimeter.


Groups AT Flute Difference

(s.d.) Thickness (.sd.)

(s.d.)

Straight- 6.3 (.8) 5.9(1) .9 (.7)

sided

Waisted 6.4 (.8) 5.8(1) 1.1 (.8)


differences between the straight-sided and waisted groups,
although the functional differences may be subtle and represent
projectiles intended for hunting different prey. Several lines of
evidence lead me to hypothesize that the straight-sided points,
and perhaps the narrow waisted points, were principally
designed as penetrating tools and the spatulate points were
designed as cutting tools.
If we assume that the artifact differences were developed
to modify perceived flaws in design, then we can infer that
something about the use of the waisted points necessitated the
waist in the haft and did not require longer flutes on both sides
of the point. It is fair to assume that Paleoindians wanted their
stone points to stay firmly attached to the shaft while they were
being used. Thus, it seems safe to infer that the differences
in hafting were meant to compensate for different stresses on
the haft/shaft interface during the use of these tools. Whether
the waisted haft was designed to better hold the point while it
was being used as a knife, while the straight-sided haft was
designed to facilitate thrusting penetration, is a hypothesis that
requires testing, but it seems to be a fair initial interpretation
of the differences in design.
Although the spatulate points were fluted, apparently
it was not as critical for the proper functioning of the tool.
Skilled stone-knappers, like Paleoindians, could thin the base
of a point in several ways: fluting, lateral flaking, basal flaking,
or a combination of these techniques. Since the thickness of
both groups of points is essentially the same (Table 3), basal
thinning probably was not the main reason for fluting. Thus,
it is likely that fluting was perceived as necessary for the
proper functioning of the straight-sided and narrow waisted
points but less so for the spatulate points. It may be that
fluting had something to do with the shaft, or the foreshaft,
that fit in the channel created by the flute. Variations on this
inference constitute the general consensus among Paleoindian
archaeologists as to the purpose of the flute. A foreshaft may


not have been required for the waisted points (Dunbar and
Hemmings 2004).

Chronological Relationships

The chronological relationship among these forms is
speculative without finding them in stratigraphic relation.
Based on the notion that artifact designs change incrementally
through time and in discrete ways that will affect a few of
the design attributes, we can hypothesize that related forms
that share more attributes are likely more closely related
chronologically than artifacts that share fewer attributes
in common. The number of attributes that the waisted and
straight-sided groups share indicates that they were made at
the same time or during immediately subsequent time periods.
Hypotheses that they were made at the same time or the waisted
forms preceded or followed the straight-sided forms can all be
supported based on these data. While no fluted-knife forms
similar to the waisted spatulates have been found in Clovis
(i.e., straight-sided) assemblages from elsewhere in North
America, it is possible this is a Florida-specific Clovis-age
tool. It is also possible that waisted points were derived from
the straight-sided point design, and the differences represent
continuity through time as changes were made to the hafting
and blade designs. Supporting this hypothesis is the unfluted
Simpson type, common in Florida (Bullen 1975). Based on a
preliminary assessment of the unfluted points in my database,
there appear to be few morphological differences between the
fluted spatulate and unfluted Simpson forms. The shorter flutes
and prevalence of single fluting of the spatulate points could
represent the transition to later Paleoindian unfluted Simpson
and Suwannee forms (if, indeed, these are later forms).
In contrast, the spatulate points, and unfluted Suwannee
forms (Dunbar 2007), could have immediately preceded the
straight-sided forms. The waisted points could represent the
development of a nascent fluting technique that was perfected
in the straight-sided forms.

Conclusion

Five hypothetical fluted forms from Florida are presented
in this article, two of which have no obvious counterparts
in North America: the narrow-base waisted and spatulate
subgroups. It appears likely that the medium-width and
narrow-width straight-sided points would be classified as
Clovis points by most researchers, and the Florida examples
likely fit neatly within the range of variation for Clovis points
in North America. The deeper-based straight-sided points may
represent post-Clovis forms that are more commonly found
in the Northeast, but they too may simply fall within Clovis
point variability.
While no "Waisted Clovis" form per se was identified
in these data, there is no doubt that Dunbar and Hemmings'
(2004: figure 1E) Waisted Clovis form is found throughout
North America (e.g., Morrow and Morrow 1999; Anderson
and Sassaman 1996; Justice 1987; Prufer and Baby 1963),
although its frequency has not been established. The
hypothetical spatulate subgroup is differentiated from the


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)






FLUTED POINT TYPOLOGY


Waisted Clovis form in the apparent resharpening trajectory
(Figure 10B). It is possible that resharpened spatulates and
Waisted Clovis points could be indistinguishable near the end
of their use life, in which case several of the points attributed
to the spatulate subgroup would be properly placed in the
straight-sided medium-width subgroup or in a new subgroup.
Several points used in the analysis, such as Figure 9B, may
be examples of the Waisted Clovis form since they show no
obvious resharpening shoulder.
The morphology of the spatulate points, especially their
broad blades, has obvious parallels with "fishtail" points
from Central and South America (Faught 2006). However,
many fishtail points also show a long-fluting technique akin
to the post-Clovis forms in North America (Faught 2006), and
the similarities with fluted spatulates from Florida may be
superficial. If the spatulate points were made at the same time
as fishtail points, it is likely they are post-Clovis forms, since
fishtail points consistently date to post-Clovis periods (Faught
n.d.). Interestingly, Faught (2006: fig. 9.2) illustrates a fluted
point from the Madden Lake site in Panama that looks very
much like a Florida fluted spatulate, suggesting a potential
Caribbean-Gulf of Mexico connection.
The general consensus among Paleoindian archaeologists
is that post-Clovis lanceolates had long flutes, which likely
represent the use of a new fluting technique (Patton 2005).
Folsom, Cumberland, and Redstone points all exhibit flutes
that extend a significant distance up the length of the point
from its base (Goodyear 2006; Justice 1987). The Florida
fluted points do not show this trait, which may indicate they are
not a post-Clovis technology or that the long-fluting technique
was not used in Florida. This is not to say that longer-fluted
forms, such as Redstone, are absent from Florida, but these are
rare and not likely part of the indigenous toolkit (Bullen 1969;
Tesar and Whitfield 2002).
The five subgroups do not sort into any obvious or
statistically significant regional pattern across north Florida,
so it seems unlikely that the subgroups can be explained by
raw material variation. It is also unlikely that the subgroups
could be explained by the relative skill-level of the Paleoindian
knappers. While variation in raw material and skill-level will
cause variation within the subgroup, it does not account for
the variation between the subgroups. Whether fluting was a
defining characteristic remains an open question, however.
It is possible that the fluted spatulate and narrow-waisted
subgroups are simply variations on general, unfluted forms and
do not represent a chronologically distinct cultural model.
The fluted-point traditions in North America represent a
general trend from Clovis, which appears to be a continent-wide
phenomenon, to later distinctive regional fluted forms, such
as Debert and the long-fluted forms found in Folsom, Gainey,
Cumberland, Redstone (Goodyear 2006; Justice 1987). The
trajectory of changes in point design in Florida is not clear, but
Florida appears to have a Paleoindian point evolution that is
unique. Without sites with stratigraphic integrity or dates that
would allow relatively fine-grained discrimination, we can
only speculate about the chronological relationships among
fluted forms in Florida.


Notes

1. I use the term point to refer to these artifacts because they
have pointed ends in their unbroken state. They are referred
to elsewhere as projectile points or projectile point/knives
(PPKs).

2. The impetus to make an artifact design change may
arise in a number of different ways, including methodical
experimentation and serendipitous inspiration. Regardless of
its origins, a design change will only make a lasting difference
in the archaeological record if the maker and others adopt the
changed design.

Acknowledgements

I thank Barbara Purdy, Andy Hemmings, Jim Dunbar,
Michael Faught, and Al Goodyear for the time they put into
reading and commenting an earlier version of this paper and
Louis Tesar for his insightful review of the final draft. Their
comments helped clarify and focus my thinking on the issues.
I also want to thank all of the private collectors and public
institutions that allowed me to scan their Paleoindian points
and use the data in my research.

References Cited

Anderson, David G. and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the
South Carolina Area. In The Paleoindian and Early
Archaic Southeast, edited by D. Anderson and K.
Sassaman, pp. 16-28. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1969 A Clovis Fluted Point from the Santa Fe River,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 22:36-37.

1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile
Points. Kendall Books, Gainesville, FL.

Callahan, Errett
1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted
Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and
Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 7:1-179.

Dunbar, James S.
2007 Temporal Problems and Alternatives Toward the
Establishment of Paleoindian Site Chronologies
in Florida and the Adjacent Coastal Southeast. The
Florida Anthropologist 60:5-20.

Dunbar, James S., and C. Andrew Hemmings
2004 Florida Paleoindian Points and Knives. In, New
Prespectives on the First Americans, edited by
Bradley Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp. 72.


THULMAN







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


Center for the Study of the First Americans, State
College, Texas.

Dunbar, James S., and Pamela K. Vojnovski
2007 Early Floridians and Late Mega-Mammals: Some
Technological and Dietary Evidence from Four
North Florida Paleoindian Sites. In Foragers of the
Terminal Pleistocene, editors Renee B. Walker and
Boyce N. Driskell. University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln.

Farr, Grayal Earle
2006 A Reevaluation of Bullen s Typology for Preceramic
Projectile Points. Unpublished master's thesis.
Department ofAnthropology, Florida State University,
Tallahassee.

Faught, Michael K.
2004 The Underwater Archaeology of Paleolandscapes,
Apalachee Bay, Florida. American Antiquity
69(2):235-249.

2006 Paleoindian Archaeology in Florida and Panama: Two
Circum-Gulf Regions Exhibiting Waisted Lanceolate
Projectile Points. In Paleoindian Archaeology: A
Hemispheric Perspective, edited by J. Morrow and C.
Gnecco, pp. 164-183. University Presses of Florida.

n.d. Archaeological Roots of Human Diversity in the
New World: Comparison of Earliest Radiocarbon
Averages.

Goodyear, Albert C.
2006 Recognizing the Redstone Fluted Point in the South
Carolina Paleoindian Point Database. Current
Research in the Pleistocene 23:100-103.

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

Hartwig, Fredrick, and Brian E. Dearing
1979 Exploratory Data Analysis. Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, CA.

Hemmings, C. Andrew
1999 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Tools of Sloth
Hole (8JE121): An Inundated Site in the Lower
Aucilla River Jefferson County, Florida. Master's
thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of
Florida, Gainesville.

Howard, Calvin D.
1990 The Clovis Point: Characteristics and Type
Description. Plains Anthropologist 35:255-262.


Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the
Midcontinental and Eastern United States: a Modern
Survey and Reference. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington.

Lahren, Larry, and Robson Bonnichsen
1974 Bone Foreshafts from a Clovis Burial in Southwestern
Montana. Science 186:147-150.

Morrow, Juliet E. and Toby A. Morrow
1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points:
A Hemispheric Perspective. American Antiquity
64:215-231

Musil, Robert R.
1988 Functional Efficiency and Technological Change:
a Hafting Tradition Model for Prehistoric North
America. In Early Human Occupation in Far
Western North America: the Clovis-Archaic
Interface, edited by Judith Willig, C. Melvin Aikens,
and John L. Fagan, pp. 373-388. Nevada State
Museum, Anthropological Papers, No. 21. Carson
City, Nevada.

Patton, Bob
2005 People of the Flute: a study in anthropolithic forensic.
Stone Dagger Publications, Denver, CO.

Prufer, Olaf H., and Raymond S. Baby
1963 Palaeo-Indians ofOhio. The Ohio Historical Society,
Columbus.

Sellards, E. H.
1952 Early Man in America: A Study in Prehistory.
Greenwood Press, New York.

Schroder, Lloyd E.
2002 The Anthropology of Florida Points and Blades.
American Systems of the Southeast, Inc., West
Columbia, SC.

Tankersley, Kenneth
1994 Clovis Mastic and its Hafting Implications. Journal
ofArchaeological Science 27:117-124.

Tesar, Louis D., and JeffWhitfield
2002 A Reduction Deduction: A Clovis-like Fluted Base
from the Chipola River. The Florida Anthropologist
55:89-102.

Thulman, David K.
2006 A Suwannee/Bolen Artifact Assemblage from the
Santa Fe River. The Florida Anthropologist 59:21-
34.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)






THULMAN FLUTED POINT TYPOLOGY 177

2006 A Reconstruction of Paleoindian Social
Organization in North Central Florida. Unpublished
dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Florida
State University, Tallahassee.

Whallon, R.
1987 Simple Statistics. In Quantitative Research in
Archaeology: Progress and Prospects, edited by M.
S. Aldenderfer, pp. 135-150. Sage Publications,
Newberry, CA.

Wormington, H. M.
1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum
of Natural History, Popular Series 4. Denver,
Colorado.








Chapters of the Florida Anthropological Society









9 4






1. Archaeological Society of Southern Florida


2. Central Florida Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 947544, Maitland, FL 32794-7544

3. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 9507, Treasure Island, FL 33740 2

4. Emerald Coast Archaeological Society
333 Persimmon St., Freeport, FL 32439

5. Gold Coast Anthropological Society
PO Box 11052, Fort Lauderdale, FL33339 3

6. Indian River Anthropological Society
3705 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, FL 32952
13
7. Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid, FL 33852 15

8. Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee
P.O. Box 20026, Tallahassee, FL 32316

9. Pensacola Archaeological Society


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

11. Southeast Florida Archaeological Society 1
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 25642, Sarasota, FL 34277-2883

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

15. Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 7797, North Port, FL 34287







THE WOODLAND PERIOD IN NORTHEASTERN FLORIDA:
A VIEW FROM THE TILLIE FOWLER SITE


GREG S. HENDRYX' AND NEILL J. WALLIS2

'Environmental Services, Inc., 7220 Financial Way, Suite 100, Jacksonville, Florida 32256
Email: ghendryx@esinc.cc

'Department ofAnthropology, University ofFlorida, 1112 Turlington Hall, PO 117305, Gainesville, FL 32611
Email: njwallis@anthro.ufl.edu


The Woodland period in northeastern Florida currently is
divided into four ceramic periods: Deptford, Sand Tempered
Plain, Swift Creek (Early and Late), and Colorinda. Recent
excavations at the Tillie Fowler Site (8DU17245) along
the lower St. Johns River (Figure 1) provide valuable
information on aspects of three of these ceramic periods. The
multicomponent site contains evidence of Early Swift Creek,
Colorinda, and "Sand Tempered Plain" period occupations.
Examination of the site's Early Swift Creek pottery enables
us to better characterize village assemblages and define
extralocal influence through recognition of earthenware
variability and potentially exotic wares. The presence of a
Colorinda component enlarges the known geographical range
of Colorinda sites, and an AMS date on soot from a Colorinda
Plain sherd helps assess the temporal placement of this Late
Woodland ceramic period. Finally, the recognition of a "Sand
Tempered Plain" component on site provides the opportunity
to comment upon this poorly understood regional ceramic
period. The goals of this article are to provide an overview
of the excavation results from the Tillie Fowler Site, and
document the site's contribution to understanding the local
Woodland period.

General Woodland Overview

There are essentially four Woodland ceramic periods
recognized in northeastern Florida, including Deptford, an
enigmatic sand tempered plain "period," Swift Creek, and
Colorinda. For the broader Atlantic Coast region, Deptford
manifestations date from about 800 B.C. to A.D. 500
(Stephenson et al. 2002), but may not occur in northeastern
Florida after A.D. 1 (Kirkland and Johnson 2000:213-217).
Although relatively little research has focused on Deptford
Phase occupations of northeastern Florida, Deptford sites
are apparently more common near the mouth of the St. Johns
River than further upstream. Few sites of this ceramic period
exist south of the Tillie Fowler Site.
After about A.D. 1, sand tempered plain pottery dominates
Woodland period assemblages in northeastern Florida. From
A.D. 1 to 300, assemblages are almost exclusively comprised of
sand tempered plain pottery with only occasional occurrences
of check and complicated stamping. Although not a formally
named ceramic period, Sears (1957) and other researchers
(Ashley 1998, 2003:74, Russo 1992:115; Wallis 2004:271)


have documented and referred to this "Sand Tempered Plain
Period" in northeastern Florida, which seems to postdate
Deptford occupations. Because plain pottery also persisted in
high frequencies throughout the following Swift Creek and
Colorinda ceramic periods, recognizing sand tempered plain
pottery as a component at multicomponent sites sometimes
proves difficult (see below).
Local Swift Creek pottery traditionally was believed to
represent minority tradewares (Goggin 1952; Wilson 1965), but
more recent recognition of its dominance at numerous mound
and midden sites in the region indicates local manufacture
(Ashley 1992, 1998; Ashley and Wallis 2006; Russo 1992;
Wallis 2004). From a regional perspective, the production
and exchange of Swift Creek pottery seem to have connected
diverse social groups. In northeastern Florida, paddle matches
and similarities in vessel morphology and design indicate
interaction with populations in coastal Georgia and the Florida
panhandle. Recent research has resulted in a local temporal
classification that differentiates Early (ca. A.D. 300 to 600)
and Late Swift Creek (ca. A.D. 600 to 850), corresponding
with the diagnostic traits of charcoal tempering and notched,
scalloped, and ticked rims in the former, and folded rims in
the latter (Ashley 1992, 1998; Ashley and Wallis 2006). The
eventual breakdown in the popularity of complicated stamping,
which may have been concomitant with other social changes,
occurred sometime during the late ninth and early tenth
centuries and has been referred to as Waning Late Swift Creek
(Ashley 2003; Ashley and Wallis 2006; Hendryx 2005).
The Colorinda ceramic period (ca. A.D. 800-900) is short-
lived and thought to span the ninth century (Ashley 2006a). It
was originally defined by Sears (1957, 1959) in the late 1950s,
but remained somewhat enigmatic through the following
decades. However, recently Ashley (2006a) has offered an
overview of the phase that comes on the heels of recent work
performed at the Cedar Point Site (8DU81) in Duval County
(Ashley 2006b). Sites of this time period are often recognized
by the occurrence of pottery that contains crushed St. Johns
sherds as tempering, although non-spiculate grog particles also
make up a portion of the assemblage. Moreover, microscopic
assistance is frequently needed to conclusively categorize
sherd tempering, which can be done by identifying the sponge
spicules within the pieces of grog. The Colorinda ceramic
type consists almost exclusively of undecorated vessels, with
limited exception.


VOL. 60 (4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 2007


VOL. 60 (4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


DECEMBER 2007





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)


I I


Sources USGC i ,. -
Jacksonvlle T I -
and Arlington, '. ... .
Disclamer Information re .- ., -
from secondary data sou i.- .
planrnng purposes only N .- r ... :
accuracy are :. i


i .....*C,' C" ---- : I,
'- '' 4 -_ ." n

, : ,,.. u_,,* -.---. _,- _
..- .. , *, .-.'--' --- .- ,


*' ; *^ --...f*' :\ -* ..,. .. ..:
-+t- ^ 'J~j- -^-t -~--^-- -* -

,.- . . *- ,-, .r. ,

'..- _.-*.^ .. t S, PI.
S-O ..- r" r
,, \ -..\. \ *-- = "".

~ A -- --.a

..- -":'.
-'4.
'* ," \ t *t.
I Li I.
l'f\> ' : i. ^ ...\-


[_ a ': ( [ r 1 ."

... r~? . : "


s- I .Ia
,V --. ..
i _- , ,u .,.; r..,.&: \ 0^ -C-



:" . *** J^
j. iB"- a, \ j_ __ r--...... -,.






.I, a
- -r-- 1.:,-.
--= $,,
o a.i:'-- hiff = .: ...
r:.. -- ^"_: :[.... "; --' 4-^"'' '


Figure 1. USGS location with general vicinity inset.


~,I_,sj


Detailed Area






TILLIE FOLWER SITE 181


Figure 2. Colorinda site distribution.


Sites with major Colorinda components are few and
restricted geographically and temporally. In fact, in Ashley's
(2006a) overview of the culture, he documented seven sites
in the region (including 8DU14683, which is adjacent to
the Tillie Fowler Site), of which six were located in Duval
County (Jacksonville) and the other in neighboring Nassau
County to the north (Figure 2). Given the limited number of
known Colorinda sites, our recent documentation of the Tillie
Fowler Site provides a rare glimpse of the material culture and
settlement of this brief cultural expression.

Environmental Setting

The site was named in honor of Tillie K. Fowler, a
Congress person and local politician, who established the
nearby NROTC building on the Jacksonville University
Campus (Johnson 2005). It is situated on a broad second
terrace 12 to 15 m above the St. Johns River, 200 m to the
west. Secondary mixed forest characterizes the site and soils
are of the moderately well drained Ortega series. The mouth
of the St. Johns River is about 24 km downstream (slightly
north and to the east) at which point it empties into the Atlantic
Ocean. While the brackish river is shellfish-bearing for the first


few km from the ocean, its salinity level is too low to support
oyster populations as it passes the Tillie Fowler Site.

Excavations at and Near the Tillie Fowler Site

Survey and excavation were performed at the Tillie
Fowler Site as a cultural resource management project prior
to residential development. Environmental Services, Inc.
(ESI) performed the excavation work, which took place
between May and August, 2006 (Hendryx and Wallis 2007);
however, the initial survey of the property was performed in
2005 (Johnson 2005). Excavations focused on three areas of
Woodland use labeled Loci A through C (Figure 3), which
were spatially defined by the occurrence of higher subsurface
artifact counts documented during shovel testing. The site itself
measured about 350 by 250 m and also contained a nineteenth
to twentieth century historic component (in Locus C) not
explored in this article. Locus A contained deposits associated
with the Colorinda Phase, and an earlier sand tempered plain
phase, while Loci B and C contained predominantly Early
Swift Creek deposits. The field approach included reduced
interval shovel testing, block unit excavations, and mechanical
stripping.


HENDRYX AND WALLIS






THE LORDA NTHRPOLGIS 200 Vo.. 0(4


5000


4975

A 0Qf


Locus


4925


4900-


4875-


4850
Locus
4825


480


477


475

A "-7"


in


j


- /


p


I A


W W4


F q


F




A


0





h A


S A


r I


y/.r t IM I 0, F
o 0
.. . . . r _, = A&L_


F


p 1


F


*I *1*


- A


Fr

hk I


F U

r


F '


ii !IE+--41----II------E------1 WI i -4----


J L


'P




\ I


W



K>
h


/


.5 ____//
S__ __ ___(/
5

4

1*9*


Locus A
4700


4675-


*
0


0


F


. -- --


Positive Shovel Test dug by ESI
0 Negative Shovel Test dug by ESI 0 25

0 No dig m



Figure 3. Site map showing Loci A-C.


/


~f~i~6


2007 VoL. 60(4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


0T Tw T


0


r 07 0


- I


V 4


0 /


I


* 1







HENDRYX AND WALLIS TILuE FOLWER SITE


Figure 4. Photograph of Block A excavations.


Two other noteworthy sites have been excavated in recent
years that are immediately adjacent to the Tillie Fowler Site
and which offer temporal components suitable for discussion
and comparative analysis in this article. These include the
JU Temp Site # 1 (8DU14683) and the Dolphin Reef Site
(8DU276). Site 8DU14683 was evaluated at the Phase II level
in 2002 in conjunction with a cultural resource management
project. The survey and excavation work was performed by
ESI, and the site area was studied prior to the construction of a
parking pad. The area of archaeological focus was about 40 m
to the east of Locus A at the Tillie Fowler Site. Site 8DU14683
contained multi-component prehistoric and historic artifacts,
but was recommended as an eligible resource based on its
dense Colorinda component. Due to changes in permitting
requirements, the results from that site were never formally
reported. As such, this article also provides the first written
presentation of that data.
The Dolphin Reef Site (8DU276) was recently excavated
at the Phase III level by ESI (Ashley and Hendryx 2008). It is
about 100 m to the west of the Tillie Fowler Site, on a lower
terrace on the bank of the St. Johns River. The Dolphin Reef
Site excavations yielded about 7,000 diagnostic potsherds,
including over 200 Swift Creek and just less than 800 Colorinda


sherds. The primary site component at the Dolphin Reef Site
was Early Mississippian St. Johns II, yet very few artifacts
from this phase were recovered at the Tillie Fowler Site.

The Colorinda Component at the Tillie Fowler Site

To sample the area where moderately dense Colorinda
ceramic artifacts were recovered, we excavated a 14 square m
block (Figure 4), along with a nearby 1 by 2 m unit. However,
as noted above, ESI also performed Phase II work in a
predominantly Colorinda area about 40 m east of this block
unit for another project in 2002 that contained an extension
of these Colorinda deposits. The following discussion begins
with the results of Phase II testing in Locus A at the Tillie
Fowler Site and concludes with the results of Phase III block
excavations.

Phase II Testing

During the Phase II testing, a single 1 by 2 m unit was
placed adjacent to a 50 by 50 cm shovel test that yielded 23
artifacts, including 2 Colorinda Plain sherds (39.3 g), 6 St.
Johns Plain sherds (65.5 g), 7 sand tempered plain sherds (72.9


HENDRYX AND WALLIS


TILLIE FoLWER SITE







Table 1. Ceramic artifacts from Unit 3/Phase II in Locus A, 8DU17245.

Artifact Type L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 L-8 L-9 L-10 L-11 Feature Total
St. Johns Plain 1 6 3 1 1 1 2 1 16
Colorinda Plain 18 6 1 4 1 1 4 35
Swift Creek Complicated Stamped -
Swift Creek Plain 10 10
sand tempered check stamped 1 1 1 3
sand tempered scraped 1 -
sand tempered plain 5 7 11 40 2 2 2 6 75
Diminutive 1 28 65 62 13 7 2 16 194
Total (excluding diminutive sherds) 7 35 101 112 24 11 5 7 1 4 1 27 141


g), and 8 diminutive sherds (12 g). The unit was labeled Unit Phase III Block Excavations
3/Phase II (this is not the same as Unit 3/Phase III as presented
in Table 2). Unit 3/Phase II was dug immediately adjacent and The soil stratigraphy within the 14 square m block at
west of Block A, and the results from this unit prompted the Locus A revealed some variation; however, there were three
placement of the nearby block. Three strata were identified in basic strata documented, including a layer of brown sand to a
the unit that are comparable to those described below for the depth of about 18 cm (Stratum 1), underlain by grayish brown
block unit. One pit feature was documented within the unit; sand (Stratum II) to a depth of about 40 cm, underlain by dark
however, it had sustained considerable impact from rodent yellowish brown sand (Stratum III) to the base of the unit,
burrowing. The roughly oval-shaped, flat-bottomed feature which extended to depths ranging from 60 to 80 cm. The bulk
measured 55 by 85 cm in plan view and extended from 40 of the ceramic artifacts (53.5 percent) were recovered from
to 56 cm below datum. Based on the high incidence of Levels 3 and 4, which largely corresponded with the grayish
charcoal flecks and the presence of sooted sherds, the feature brown sandy second stratum, while only 8.4 percent of the
was interpreted as a Colorinda cooking pit. Three hundred artifacts came from Levels 1 and 2, and 20.5 percent from
and forty-one artifacts were recovered from Unit 3/Phase II, Levels 5-8. The remaining 17.4 percent of the artifacts were
including 335 ceramic artifacts, of which 141 were larger than from the two cultural features identified within the block, as
2 cm in size and subject to formal classification (Table 1). discussed later in this article.
More than 1600 ceramic artifacts were recovered from the
14 square m block, including 546 larger than 2 cm in size and
subject to formal classification (Table 2). The highest ceramic
incidence was sand tempered plain (n=309 sherds) followed
by Colorinda Plain (n=138 sherds).

Table 2. Ceramic artifacts from Block Unit 1 in Locus A, 8DU17245.

Artifact Type L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 L-8 F-3 F-6 Total
St. Johns Check Stamped 1 3 1 1 2 8
St. Johns Plain 5 16 8 9 7 1 4 1 51
St. Johns Complicated Stamped 13 13
St. Johns eroded 1 1
Colorinda Plain 6 49 32 11 5 1 4 30 138
Swift Creek Plain 1 1
Weeden Island Zone Punctated 1 1
sand tempered plain 5 30 84 82 28 27 3 17 33 309
sand tempered check stamped 5 1 1 1 1 9
sand temp punctuated 3 3
sand tempered eroded 3 1 1 5
sand/grog check stamped 1
sand/grog plain 1
grog plain 2 2
grog check stamped 1 1
diminutive sherds 17 243 384 206 104 30 33 2 30 67 1116
Total (excluding diminutive sherds) 5 41 163 130 66 40 6 0 28 67 546


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL,. 60(4)







HENDRYX AND WALLIS TILLIE FOLWER SITE


Figure 5. Features within Locus A.


Colorinda Features

The highly acidic soils of the region are not conducive to
excellent feature preservation; however, 10 cultural features
were identified, including two within the 14 square m block
and 8 within a 132 square m area stripped with a backhoe
(Figure 5). All mechanical stripping was performed in the
vicinity of the block unit with the intent of recognizing
additional cultural features and spatial patterns of land use.
Two of the features represented possible post stains that were
spatially separated and did not offer structural indications; the
remaining 8 features were pits, including two not fully exposed


during mechanical stripping. Pit sizes were fairly consistent,
with plan sizes ranging from about 50 by 55 cm to 78 by 94+
cm. In profile, most features originated at depths ranging from
25 to 45 cm below surface and terminated between 57 and 116
cm below surface.
It is possible that each feature dated to the Colorinda
occupation based on stratigraphic and morphological
similarities, as well as artifact content. Most features contained
moderate-to-dense charcoal flecking and were likely used for
cooking. Feature 3, identified within the excavation block,
was one of the more prominent stains identified at the site


HENDRYX AND WALLIS


TILLIE FoLWER SITE







Ti-w FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


Figure 6. Photograph of Feature 3, Block Unit A.

(Figure 6). This particular feature contained Colorinda and St.
Johns Plain sherds, with a high incidence of sand tempered
plain pottery, and soot from one of the Colorinda sherds was
submitted for AMS dating, as discussed below.
Feature 3 also contained one complete Pinellas projectile
point, which is a small, triangular type that probably served as
an arrow or dart point. Two other such projectile point types
were recovered from nearby surface inspection (Figure 7),
and given that bow and arrow technology was not introduced
until sometime around the beginning of the Late Woodland
period (Nassaney and Pyle 1999), these items are also likely
contemporaneous with the Colorinda deposits. Furthermore,
it is important to note that the closest stone outcroppings are
about 100 km away (Austin and Estabrook 2000:116).

Excavations at the JU Temp Site # 1 (8DU14683)

Site 8DU14683 was evaluated through the excavation of
six 1 by 2 meter excavation units. Three of the units (Units 2, 3,
and 5) yielded few Colorinda sherds and/or evidence of artifact


Figure 7.
8DU17245.


Pinellas-type arrow points from Locus A,


mixing, whereas the other three (Units 1, 4, and 6) produced
between 46 and 165 ceramic artifacts, with many apparently
deposited during the Colorinda Phase. Furthermore, the latter
three units were dug a mere 40 m east of the block at Locus A,
and as such these deposits represent an extension of Locus A.
Accordingly, the data from only Units 1, 4, and 6 (six square
m in total) are considered for this article.
Although soil stratigraphy varied between the three units,
the variations were generally subtle. The documented profile
for the most productive of the three units (Unit 1) revealed
three strata. Grayish brown sand (Stratum I) extended from
the ground surface to about 15 cm, and was underlain by dark
yellowish brown sand with light charcoal flecks (Stratum II) to
about 30 cm, while the lowest level (Stratum III) was identified
as light olive brown sand that extended to the base of the unit
at 50 cm below surface. A shovel test dug in the corner of the
completed unit revealed that Stratum III extended to a depth of
150 cm. During excavation, the presence of charcoal flecking
and lightly scattered burned botanical remains throughout
Stratum II suggested the potential for intact features. In fact,
upon completion of Unit 1, cleaning of the south profile
revealed three faint feature stains that extended from the
base of the occupational zone in Stratum II. No features were
documented within Units 4 and 6.
There were 287 sherds recovered from Units 1, 4, and 6,
including 154 that were larger than 2 cm in size and subject to
formal classification (Table 3). Most sherds (77 percent) came
from Levels 2 and 3, which largely corresponded to Stratum
II. Further, in Unit 1 especially, charred deposits in the soil
coupled with the detection of underlying features, indicated
this layer as a rather intensively used occupational zone.

Excavations at the Dolphin Reef Site (8DU276)

The Dolphin Reef Site is about 100 m west of the Tillie
Fowler Site, on a lower terrace that sits along the St. Johns
River bank. Recently 45 square m were hand excavated
followed by mechanical stripping for feature identification. The
site represents a substantial St. Johns II Phase occupation with
additional Colorinda and Swift Creek components. Ninety-
one cultural features were documented at the site, including
34 temporally assigned based on the presence of ten or more
diagnostic sherds. Four of these were classified as mixed St.
Johns II and Colorinda, two were mixed St. Johns II and Swift
Creek, nine were mixed St. Johns II, Colorinda, and Swift
Creek, three were pure Colorinda, and sixteen were classified
as mixed Colorinda and Swift Creek. Interestingly, no features
were typed as either pure Swift Creek or pure St. Johns II,
albeit this phenomenon may largely be a factor of historic
period disturbance from past agricultural or citrus cultivation
(Ashley and Hendryx 2008:169). Of the nearly 9000 sherds
recovered from the site, just less than 800 were Colorinda and
more than 200 were Swift Creek (mostly Early Swift Creek).

Colorinda Ceramic Series Discussion

At each site in northeastern Florida where Colorinda
pottery has been reported, it has been accompanied by
additional wares that comprise the Colorinda ceramic complex.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)







Table 3. Ceramic artifacts from Units 1, 4, and 6 at 8DU14683.


Artifact Type L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 Total
St. Johns Check Stamped -- 1 1
St. Johns Simple Stamped 1 1
St. Johns Plain 1 15 2 1 19
St.Johnseroded 1 1
Colorinda Plain 1 12 34 1 1 1 50
Colorinda Complicated Stamped 1 1
Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 2 1 3
Swift Creek Plain 1 1 2
sand tempered check stamped 2 6 1 9
sand tempered eroded 1 1
sand tempered plain i 9 33 8 4 1 1 57
grog tempered punctated 3 3
grog tempered plain 1 3 2 6
diminutive sherds 2 48 51 25 2 5 133
Total (excluding diminutive sherds) 6 26 96 15 7 3 1 154


Specifically, these additional types include St. Johns Plain, St.
Johns Check Stamped, and sand tempered plain. St. Johns
Plain pottery is often a Woodland period diagnostic indicator
in the region when it occurs in appreciable numbers in the
absence of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery, albeit substantial
St. Johns I sites are only common to the south of the Tillie
Fowler Site. The application of check stamping on the sponge
spiculate tempered St. Johns pottery is identified locally with
the Early Mississippian period, beginning around A.D. 900,
which closely corresponds with the end of the Colorinda
Phase. At other Colorinda sites, St. Johns Check Stamped only
makes up a very small portion of the assemblage, typically less
than 5 percent (Ashley 2006a:92), as is the case at the Tillie
Fowler Site.
As illustrated in Table 2 and discussed above, there were
546 artifacts larger than 2 cm in the block at Locus A, and
this sample will serve as the focus for the following ceramic
discussion. However, prior to embarking on a discussion
on the Colorinda ceramic series, it must be pointed out that


there is artifact mixing within the block, with some of the
artifacts deposited during occupations other than Colorinda.
Specifically, there was a single Weeden Island sherd recovered
from Level 3, an Early Swift Creek Plain sherd from Level 4,
and a Swift Creek pot burst identified in Level 5. To further
complicate the matter, there is a sizeable incidence of sand
tempered plain pottery, some of which is likely affiliated with
the Colorinda occupation, and some that presumably dates
to the Sand Tempered Plain period between A.D. 1 and 300
and/or potentially the Early Swift Creek occupation that was
prevalent throughout Loci B and C (as discussed below).
Aside from the Colorinda Plain sherds, it is probable that
the balance of the Colorinda ceramic assemblage at Locus A
also contains St. Johns Plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, and
sand tempered plain pottery types, as documented at other
contemporaneous sites (Ashley 2006a); however, based on the
potential for significant artifact mixing within the site's loose,
sandy soils, there exists only a possibility to estimate the
incidences of the ceramic artifacts that make up the Colorinda


Table 4. Ceramic artifacts counts from Block A, 8DU17245, excluding minority wares and features.


Artifact Type L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 Total

St. Johns Check Stamped 1 3 1 1 6
St. Johns Plain 5 16 8 9 7 1 46
St. Johns Complicated Stamped 13 13
Colorinda Plain 6 49 32 11 5 1 104
sand tempered plain 5 30 84 82 28 27 3 259
sand tempered check stamped 5 1 1 1 6 14
Total (excluding dims) 5 41 155 126 63 40 12 442


HENDRYX AND WALLIS


TILLIE FOLWER SITE






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10
y -- -


L-2


L-3


L-4


L-5


L-6


E St. Johns Check Stamped St. Johns Plain
* St. Johns Complicated Stamped 0 Colorinda Plain
sand tempered plain U sand tempered check stamped


Figure 8. Vertical ceramic distribution within Block A, 8DU17245.


ceramic series at Locus A. In an effort to do so, we turn to the
vertical distribution of ceramic artifacts (Table 4 and Figure
8).
To more clearly reveal the patterns of artifact association,
we have removed minority ceramic types (9 types with a total
of 16 sherds), including: St. Johns eroded (n=l sherd), Weeden
Island Zone Punctated (n=l sherd), Swift Creek Plain (n=l
sherd), sand tempered punctated (n=3 sherds), sand tempered
eroded (n=5 sherds), sand/grog tempered check stamped (n=l
sherd), sand/grog tempered plain (n=l sherd), grog tempered
plain (n=2 sherds), and grog tempered check stamped (n=l
sherd). Furthermore, diminutive sherds (n=1,116) and feature-
derived ceramics (n=95) have also been removed from the
table. As depicted in Table 4, and shown graphically in Figure
8, there is a relationship between the levels bearing the highest
incidence of Colorinda Plain and sand tempered plain pottery.
More specifically, the highest incidence of both sand tempered
plain and Colorinda Plain were documented in Level 3, with
the second highest incidence for these two ceramic types
documented in Level 4. Such a correlation indicates that
many of the sand tempered sherds were deposited during the
Colorinda occupation. Unfortunately, the lack of stratigraphic
integrity at sandy, non-midden sites, such as the Tillie Fowler
Site, precludes the reliability of interpreting such artifact
distribution.


Despite the inevitable mixing of artifacts at the site, the
following artifact ratios were calculated for the sand tempered
plain and Colorinda Plain types: in Level 2, the ratio of
Colorinda to sand tempered plain pottery is 1:5, in Level 3
the ratio is about 3:5, in both Levels 4 and 5 the ratio is about
2:5, and in Level 6 the ratio is only 1:5. Furthermore, in each
of the two features excavated in the block (Features 3 and 6),
there were both Colorinda and sand tempered plain potsherds
recovered. Feature 3 revealed a Colorinda to sand tempered
plain ratio of about 1:5 (4 Colorinda Plain and 17 sand tempered
plain) and Feature 6 revealed almost a 1:1 ratio (30 Colorinda
Plain and 33 sand tempered plain) with a slightly higher
incidence of sand tempered plain. Unfortunately, the ratio of
sand tempered plain pottery to that of Colorinda Plain does not
offer an opportunity to reliably estimate the prevalence of sand
tempered plain within the Colorinda ceramic assemblage at this
site, as an unknown number of these sherds are presumably
affiliated with an earlier site occupation that predates that of
the Colorinda by over half a millennium.

Sand Tempered Plain Discussion

The presence of artifacts deposited during an earlier
Woodland era sand tempered plain ceramic period adds
significant frustration to the interpretation of the site.


L-1


L-7


s


-----^


--


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)







Table 5. AMS assays from soot on Early Swift Creek pottery in northeastern Florida.

C13/C12 Calibrated
Measured C14 Ratio Conventional 1 Sigma (AD) Calibrated
Site Beta # Material Age (BP) (o/oo) C14 Age (BP) with intercept 2 Sigma (AD) Reference
8DU68 182333 AMS Soot 193040 -24.2 194040 30 (65) 90 30 BC-135 Stephenson 2002
8DU17245 217829 AMS Soot 183040 -26.7 180040 150 (230) 250 120-340 Hendryx and Wallis 2007
8DU68 182332 AMS Soot 169040 -24.7 169040 330 (385) 410 250-430 Stephenson 2002
430 (460, 480,
8DU96 168177 AMS Soot 156040 -24.5 157040 and 520) 540 410-580 Stephenson 2002
8DU96 190255 AMS Soot 151040 -25.3 151040 530 (560)610 440-640 Wallis 2004


Essentially, many of the sand tempered plain artifacts are
presumably affiliated with the Colorinda occupation, based
on the widespread occurrence of these specimens at other
contemporaneous sites, the stratigraphic association between
the two at this site, and the co-occurrence of these two ceramic
types within Features 3 and 6, yet others were presumably
deposited earlier during the Woodland period. In fact, a single
radiometric date was submitted from a sooted sponge spiculate
tempered complicated stamped sherd recovered from Level 5
that appears to date this sand tempered plain occupation at the
site. Specifically, while the bulk of the Swift Creek artifacts
were found further to the north in Loci B and C, a potburst was
recovered from Level 5 within Block 1 at Locus A. This vessel
had a common Swift Creek complicated stamped design with
concentric ring elements, yet was obviously tempered with
sponge spicules that characterize St. Johns pottery. Quickly
labeled as "Swift John" by the crew, this vessel represents a
typological anomaly and is one of only a few occurrences of
complicated-stamped spiculate paste wares documented. Soot
adhering to the vessel yielded a 2-sigma range of A.D. 120 to
340 (Table 5). Besides an earlier range from the Dent Mound
that appears to be anomalous (Ashley and Wallis 2006:7-8),
this assay represents the earliest complicated stamped (Swift
Creek) context recorded in northeastern Florida. Although its
association with the sand tempered plain occupation is not
clearly substantiated, the overlapping radiometric date for
this complicated stamped sherd suggests the potential for its
deposition during the sand tempered plain period.

Colorinda Ceramic Analysis

In an effort to expound upon the existing data regarding
the Colorinda ceramic series, formal attributes of rim sherds
were recorded when possible. Specifically, all rims larger
than 2 cm in size were examined from 12 of the 14 square
meters within the block unit at Locus A at the Tillie Fowler
Site.' (Appendix A). Forty seven rims were analyzed within
this sample, including 16 Colorinda Plain, 27 sand tempered
plain, 2 St. Johns Plain, 1 Swift Creek Plain (charcoal
tempered), and 1 that was sand tempered with a linear band
of small punctations parallel to the rim. As noted earlier,
there is presently no possible way to determine which of the
sand tempered plain sherds were affiliated with the Colorinda
occupation or which ones were deposited by earlier Woodland
period groups. Accordingly, the following discussion focuses
most closely on the Colorinda Plain sherds.


Interior vessel orifice diameters were obtained from 10
Colorinda Plain sherds that exhibited between 5 and 13 percent
of the total rim; the orifice diameters ranged from 10 to 48 cm,
with an average of 18.4 cm. In fact, seven of these ranged from
10 to 18 cm, while the remaining three measured 22, 28, and
48 cm. Seven of the 16 (43.7 percent) Colorinda Plain rims
were sooted, including the three vessels with the largest orifice
diameters, indicating that the vessels with larger openings were
typically utilized for cooking, while those with the smaller
orifice diameters may have been used for serving, storage,
or some other function. While many of the rim sherds were
small and not conducive to determining vessel morphology,
the largest sherd from this sample (recovered from Level 6 of
Unit 3) was classified as an unrestricted, straight-sided cooking
vessel (Figure 9). Three lip classifications were documented for
the Colorinda Plain sherds. The bulk of the rims were rounded
(n=13), although two were intentionally flattened and one
exhibited a tapered profile. Rim thickness was also calculated,
with measurements taken approximately 3 cm beneath the
rim. Rim thickness ranged from 5.5 to 10.1 mm thick, with an
average of 7.9 mm; however, it must be noted that there was
some variability in thickness within individual sherds. In such
cases, an average thickness was documented.
Ceramic attributes were also recorded for the 27 sand
tempered plain rim sherds; however, given the inability to
differentiate those deposited during the Colorinda from those
deposited during the earlier sand tempered plain period, no
discussion is offered for these sherds. Nonetheless, their
attributes are presented in Appendix A, along with metric
attributes from a single sand tempered punctated sherd, one
Early Swift Creek sherd, and two St. Johns Plain sherds.

Dating Colorinda at the Tillie Fowler Site

Prior to the present research, only three radiometric dates
have been reported for the Colorinda culture, including two
from the Cedar Point Site (8DU81) (Ashley 2006a:96; Ashley
2006b:121) and one from the Coffee Mound (8DU7472)
(Russo 1992:110, 116; Ashley 2006a:96). Russo's (1992)
date from Coffee Mound has recently been calibrated to A.D.
760-1020 at the 2-sigma range, while the ranges for the two
samples from Cedar Point span from A.D. 720 to 1020. As
a result, the temporal placement of the Colorinda Phase has
been established as spanning the ninth century (Ashley 2003,
2006a), with its terminus corresponding with the beginning
dates of the Early Mississippian St. Johns II Phase, which


HENDRYX AND WALLIS


TILLIE FOLWER SITE







TEFOIDAATRPLGS 07VL 04


Figure 9. Sooted Colorinda Plain sherd.


locally dates between A.D. 900 and 1250 (Ashley 2003). The
inclusion of St. Johns pottery (check stamped and plain) in
the Colorinda ceramic series and the use of St. Johns pottery
fragments as tempering agent within the Colorinda Plain sherds
is suggestive of some degree of overlap (Ashley 2006b:112).
Soot from a Colorinda sherd from Feature 3 at the Tillie
Fowler Site returned a date that was largely consistent with the
other three, but with a tight 2-sigma range that spanned from
A.D. 890 to 1020 (Table 6). This 2-sigma range includes only
a small segment of the end of the ninth century. Accordingly,
it might be that Colorinda Phase occupations extended into
the tenth century. Thus, determining the extent of interaction
and temporal overlap with the local St. Johns II archaeological
culture has become a pressing issue that can best be addressed
through more radiometric dating.

Concluding Thoughts on Colorinda Occupations at the
Tillie Fowler Site

Excavations at Locus A at the Tillie Fowler Site revealed
an area of concentrated cultural deposits dating primarily to
the Colorinda Phase, along with ceramic items dating to the

Table 6. Radiometric dates for Colorinda contexts in northeast(


sand tempered plain ceramic "period" and the Early Swift
Creek Phase. Few Colorinda Phase sites are known for the
area, presumably due to the short duration of the phase, and as
such, the phase has remained largely understudied.
The location of the Tillie Fowler Site is unique compared
to the other documented contemporaneous sites, which tend
to be concentrated much closer to the Atlantic Ocean and
its estuarine environment. Accordingly, there are obvious
differences between the Tillie Fowler Site and other sites of
the phase. For instance, the sheer absence of shellfish deposits
denotes a distinction between subsistence adaptation at the
Tillie Fowler Site and those located closer to the coast, which are
marked by some level of shellfish consumption and deposition
(Ashley 2006a, 2006b; Hemmings and Deagan 1973; Russo
1992; Sears 1957, 1959). Furthermore, the presence of three
complete Pinellas-style stone arrow tips also indicates that
non-marine sources of food may have been exploited.
Although the duration of the Colorinda occupation at the
Tillie Fowler Site is unknown, the moderately high number
of artifacts from the sample study area and the presence of
cultural features suggest that the occupation was either
permanent or semi-permanent (seasonal). Two posts were
identified during the excavation, yet there was no clear
indication as to whether they represented structural elements,
or whether they were even erected during the Colorinda Phase;
however, the potential that Colorinda Phase houses existed at
the site is likely. It is very possible that structure detection
went unnoticed, due to extensive leaching of possible posts
that decomposed naturally. The preponderance of cooking pits
within and around the block unit might shed some light on site
structure and the potential location of a living quarter. A semi-
circular arrangement of four cooking pits extends around the
southern half of the block unit (see Figure 5) and four others
were nearby, and it is quite possible that these hearths were in
close proximity to a structure location. Although conclusive
evidence of architecture was not encountered, we may generally
assume that hearths were located near structures, as supported
by ethnological comparisons. For example, ethnographic
analysis of Efe Pygmy campsites in Zaire has illustrated that
exterior hearths are usually found between 0 and 3.25 meters
from structures, and average 0.67 meters from the structure
(sample size=67) (Fisher and Strickland 1989:478), and this
analysis has helped define potential structural elements at
the Orbit Inn Site, a fifteenth-century hunter-gatherer site in
Utah (Simms and Heath 1990:804). Alternately, hearths may
have been internal and not external. However, either way, it


C13/C12 Calibrated
Measured C14 Ratio Conventional 1 Sigma (AD) Calibrated
Site Beta # Material Age (BP) (o/oo) C14 Age (BP) with intercept 2 Sigma (AD) Reference
910-920 and
8DU17245 216691 AMS soot 107040 -24.7 108040 960 (980) 1000 890-1020 Hendryx and Wallis 2007
8DU81 180189 AMS soot 119040 -24.7 119040 780 (870) 890 720-960 Ashley 2006a
8DU81 180188 oyster 119060 -5.2 152060 800 (890) 960 740-1020 Ashley 2006a
8DU7472 47532 oyster 1160160 -- 820-980 760-1020 Russo 1992


c-w


2007 VOL. 60(4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







HENDRYX AND WALLIS TILLIE FOLWER SITE


is strongly suspected that Colorinda-era structures stood at
the approximate location of the block at Locus A, based on
the density of ceramic artifacts and the presence of hearth
features.

Early Swift Creek Excavations at the Tillie Fowler Site

The Early Swift Creek component of the Tillie Fowler
Site was concentrated about 100 m north of Locus A on a
high, well-drained bluff 250 m east of the St. Johns River.
This setting was apparently a typical location for Swift Creek
Phase habitation on the lower St. Johns River, where Swift
Creek sites are consistently identified on high ridges that
parallel the river's course (Ashley 1998). As elsewhere along
the river, Swift Creek pottery has also been recovered from
contexts closer to the water such as at the nearby Dolphin Reef
Site (8DU276), where more than 200 Swift Creek sherds were
documented (Ashley and Hendryx 2008). However, in the
immediate vicinity, the Swift Creek Phase is best represented
at the Tillie Fowler Site within the two adjacent loci of artifact
concentration, labeled B and C. Locus C was the larger of
the two, measuring 75 m across (Figure 10), while directly to
the south Locus B was roughly 30 m wide. Along the eastern


margins of these high density areas, a light scattering of
artifacts continued for another 50 to 75 m toward the east.
Eight excavation blocks totaling 35 square m were
dug within Loci B and C. As elsewhere on the property,
without much shell to neutralize the acidic Florida sands,
bone preservation was generally poor. Only two prehistoric
features were encountered, and no faunal specimens besides
an occasional oyster shell were recovered. In addition to poor
preservation, much of Locus C was heavily disturbed by the
demolition and subsequent scattering of a historic homestead.
In some cases, historic artifacts were recovered as deep as
80 cm below ground surface. Because of this stratigraphic
disturbance, sherd counts for Locus C are not presented by
level. Alternatively, disturbance at Locus B, the southern Swift
Creek concentration, was apparently limited to a small historic
period post ("Feature 4") on the eastern edge of the excavation
block, although without historic artifacts outside of the feature,
more large-scale disturbance cannot be ruled out. Indeed, the
stratigraphy alone did not provide convincing evidence of
widespread disturbance at either loci, and with some minor
variation consisted of four strata: Stratum I was gray sand that
extended to about 30 cm below datum; Stratum 11 was very
dark grayish brown sand that extended to about 50 cm below


5000-2


2 1 1 1 3
49752 -1 A1
Lo us

2 4 30 8 8\ 2 3 8
4950- Block -1-
Block2
6 41 7
3 A 0 S l t Block 4
49253 3' 18 5 326 AR5 7 5
4 -Block 6
Block 1
24 104 9 3 9 1 8 2 1
4900-- A h A-- --
Unit 1
Phase 2 Block5
54 2 3 4 52
4875-- L





SNo d








Figure 10. Locus C map.
Figure 10. Locus C map.


HENDRYX AND WALLIS


TILLIE FOLWER SITE







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


datum; Stratum III was yellowish brown sand that extended
to about 65 cm below datum; and Stratum IV was brown sand
that extended to the floor of the units at about 70 cm below
datum. Thus, historic artifacts provided the best evidence for
disturbance of the Woodland period component at the site.
Even with widespread disturbance, two prehistoric features
were recorded. The two features within the Swift Creek area
included a cooking pit filled with charcoal fragments and
an adjacent posthole. Although only sand tempered plain
sherds were recovered from the cooking pit, it may have been
associated with the Early Swift Creek occupation of the site,
because little evidence of earlier or later aboriginal occupation
was encountered at Loci B and C and because sand tempered
plain pottery typically makes up a large percentage of local
Swift Creek assemblages. Alternatively, the area may contain a
sand-tempered plain component that predates the Swift Creek
Phase, a possibility also discussed for Locus A above. This
possibility is extremely difficult to assess given the widespread
disturbance of the deposits at Locus C.
Excavation within Loci B and C yielded 2214 prehistoric
artifacts, made up almost entirely of pottery (Tables 7 and 8)
along with a trace of chert debitage and a distal fragment of a
bifacial tool. The assemblage was dominated by sand tempered
and charcoal tempered plain wares, along with Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped sherds, two thirds of which were sand
tempered and the other third charcoal tempered. The remainder
of the assemblage was composed of Dunns Creek Red, Weeden
Island Red, and Carabelle Punctated. Excluding a total of 8


Orange fiber-tempered sherds found at the base of some units,
the assemblage represents an Early Swift Creek habitation site
with little evidence of earlier or later occupation. The absence
of Late Swift Creek deposits above an Early Swift Creek
occupation is typical of sites in northeastern Florida, where
Early and Late Swift Creek pottery are rarely found together
at non-mortuary sites (Ashley and Wallis 2006).
Because of widespread historical disturbance, sherd counts
in Locus C are not presented by level (Table 8). Alternatively,
the vertical distribution of sherds in Locus B denotes the
isolated historic disturbance in that locus. Early Swift Creek
series sherds were abundant in Levels 4 and 7 with very few in
between. This distribution is explained by the single historic
post, 40 cm wide, that was dug through the Early Swift Creek
deposits in Level 4 and served to distribute them downward in
and around the base of the post at 78 cm below datum.

Early Swift Creek Ceramic Analysis

For the ceramic assemblage from Loci B and C, a
minimum number of vessels (MNV) was estimated. This
process began by isolating all of the rim sherds and all body
sherds with recognizable surface treatment. These sherds
were then separated based on differences in rim form, surface
treatment, and paste. Sherds without distinguishable rim or
surface treatments, such as sand tempered plain body sherds,
were separated on the basis of paste only. With the greater
ability to distinguish sherds from different complicated


Table 7. Sherd counts by level from Locus B, 8DU17245.

Artifact Class L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 L-8 Feat. 4 TOTAL
Swift Creek Charcoal Tempered Plain 4 0 1 17 2 5 21 0 4 54
Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 1 0 1 4 0 0 5 0 1 12
sand tempered plain 1 3 6 16 6 1 18 0 2 53
Weeden Island Red 2 2
sand tempered scraped 1 1
sand tempered eroded 1 1
diminutive sherd 13 6 18 34 9 1 46 1 15 143
TOTAL (excluding diminutives) 6 3 8 40 8 6 44 0 7 123

Table 8. Sherd counts from Locus C, 8DU17245.

Ceramic Type Count Percent
Sand Tempered Plain 237 38.4
Swift Creek Charcoal Tempered Plain 161 26.1
Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 130 21.07
Swift Creek Charcoal Tempered Complicated Stamped 74 12
Sun City Complicated Stamped 4 0.65
Carabelle Punctated 3 0.49
Orange Plain 6 0.97
Orange Incised 2 0.32
Diminutive 1257
TOTAL (Excluding Diminutives) 617 100


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)







HENDRYX AND WALLIS TILLIE FOLWER SITE


stamped vessels, the MNV estimate inevitably underestimates
the number of sand tempered plain vessels. This process,
which usually yields conservative estimates for all MNV
(Rice 1987:292), produced an MNV of 141 from 765 sherds,
including surface collected sherds not included in the counts
above. These vessels included 3 charcoal tempered vessels
with unidentifiable surface treatments (either due to short
rims or eroded surfaces), 2 Carabelle Punctated, 39 Swift
Creek Complicated Stamped (charcoal tempered), 1 Sun City
Complicated Stamped (charcoal tempered), 42 Swift Creek
Plain (charcoal tempered), 4 Dunns Creek Red, 1 St. Johns
Plain, 1 sand tempered eroded, 19 sand tempered plain, 28
Swift Creek Complicated Stamped (sand tempered), and 1
Weeden Island Red vessel.
Charcoal tempered pottery is unique in that its production
appears to have been a purely local tradition, limited to sites
near the lower St. Johns River from about A.D. 300 to 600
(Ashley and Wallis 2006), and thus its prevalence may serve
as a time marker for the Early Swift Creek Phase. It should be
noted that the frequency of charcoal tempered pottery at the
Tillie Fowler Site is probably slightly greater than the total
sherd count suggests, because only a sample of sherds were
subjected to microscopic analysis. This underreporting of
charcoal tempered wares is probably common because many
sherds contain charcoal temper that is too small to observe
without a microscope. The recorded range of charcoal particle
size (Wentworth scale) is from very fine (.0625-.125 mm) to
very coarse (1.0-2.0 mm) (Wallis et al. 2005). These sizes
occur in combination (e.g., very coarse and very fine charcoal
in the same sherd) or occasionally, in isolation. Of the 141
MNV from Loci B and C, 85 were charcoal tempered. Of
these 85, twenty-four had only charcoal fragments that were
fine sized or smaller and easily could have been misidentified
as sand tempered during sherd classification without sufficient
magnification. Therefore, charcoal tempered pottery, both
plain and complicated stamped, may make up nearly equal
percentages of Early Swift Creek assemblages as sand
tempered plain and complicated stamped sherds.
Of the 141 vessels represented, 86 contained rim sherds
(Appendix B). Rim forms included round (n=45), flat (n=22),


tapered (n=3), notched (n=l 1), and scalloped (n=5). Notched,
ticked, and scalloped rims are diagnostic attributes of Early
Swift Creek pottery (Ashley and Wallis 2006), and their
incidence is noticeably higher among charcoal tempered vessels
at the Tillie Fowler Site. Of the 16 notched or scalloped rims,
2 were sand tempered plain, 2 were Swift Creek Complicated
Stamped (sand tempered), 4 were Swift Creek Plain (charcoal
tempered), and 8 were Swift Creek Complicated Stamped
(charcoal tempered).
Aside from a few anomalies discussed below, vessel
form data conform to our expectations for Swift Creek village
assemblages. The assemblage mostly is dominated by medium-
sized cooking vessels. Orifice diameter was calculated for
78 vessels, representing nearly all of the pottery types at the
loci. Differences in orifice diameters among pottery types
were only slight and probably reflect small sample sizes
more than actual differences in vessel sizes. The Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped (charcoal tempered) vessels (n=17)
had a mean orifice diameter of 20.2 cm, with a range of 13
to 26 cm and a standard deviation of 3.5. Swift Creek Plain
(charcoal tempered) vessels (n=34) had a statistically similar
mean orifice diameter of 19.5 cm, with a range of 8 to 28 cm
and a standard deviation of 5.4. Sand tempered plain vessels
(n=12) likewise averaged 19.4 cm wide, but with the widest
range of 8 to 31 cm and standard deviation of 6.9. Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped vessels (n=12) had the largest (though
not statistically significant) mean orifice diameter, 22.9 cm,
with a range of 14 to 28 cm and a standard deviation of 4.4. The
single Dunns Creek Red, Weeden Island Red, and Carabelle
Punctated vessels had estimated diameters of 20, 12, and 10
cm, respectively.
Taken as a whole, the vessels at Loci B and C had an orifice
diameter range of 8 to 31 cm, a mean of 20 cm, and a standard
deviation of 5.4 (Figure 11). Using orifice diameter as a proxy
for vessel size, these data indicate a similar average size as
other Swift Creek non-mortuary assemblages in northeastern
Florida. For example, the Greenfield Sites #7 (8DU5543) and
#8/9 (8DU5544/5) on the Greenfield peninsula had average
orifice diameters of 24 cm among 63 vessels, and 20 cm among
64 vessels, respectively (Wallis 2007b).


14
12


8





0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Orifice Diameter (cm)
n=78
mean = 19.9
standard deviation = 5.4
Figure 11. Vessel orifice diameters from Loci B and C, 8DU17245.


HENDRYX AND WALLIS


TILLIE FOLWER SITE







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


Morphological attributes indicate fairly typical Swift
Creek vessel forms at the site. With a few exceptions, most
were simple direct-heat cooking vessels, with soot present on
exterior rims and unrestricted orifices with slightly excurvate
rims (Figure 12). Soot was present on 31 percent ofrims (n=27),
equitably distributed among pottery types. All but one sooted
vessel had an orifice diameter 14 cm or more, indicating that
larger vessels were more commonly, though not exclusively,
used for cooking. The smaller vessel forms are similar to
others at contemporaneous sites in northeastern Florida that
took the form of small bowls (Wallis 2007a, 2007b). While
most bases of vessels in the assemblage are assumed to have
been sub-conical or rounded as is typical for Woodland forms
in northeastern Florida (Wallis 2004, 2007a), one unusual flat-
bottomed form was recorded. A basal portion of this vessel
exhibited a sharp corner point between the wall and base from
which we may infer a flat basal form.
The occurrence of Weeden Island Red and Dunns Creek
Red pottery at the site is unusual, since these types are
generally found at ceremonial and mortuary sites on the lower
St. Johns (Ashley and Wallis 2006; Wallis 2004). In fact, a
review of ceramic data from six of the most substantial non-
mortuary Swift Creek sites in northeastern Florida reveals not
a single instance of Weeden Island Red, and Dunns Creek Red
was identified at only one of these sites (Handley et al. 2004;


Figure 12. Sample of vessel rim profiles (first and second
rows) and basal profiles (bottom).


Johnson 1998; Johnson and Ashley 1994; Johnson et al. 1997;
Wallis 2005). Although only two Weeden Island Red sherds
from a single vessel and five Dunns Creek Red sherds from at
least four vessels were recovered at the Tillie Fowler Site, their
presence is unusual.
The Weeden Island Red vessel is represented by a large
rim sherd that gives a good impression of vessel shape (Figure
13). The vessel was fairly thin bodied (ca. 5 mm), with a very
thick, folded lip. With an orifice diameter of 12 cm, this vessel
appears to have been a small bowl with a restricted orifice,
similar to illustrations of many contemporary Weeden Island
vessel forms on the Gulf Coast of Florida (e.g., Willey 1949:412,
418, 421). In fact, Weeden Island-style pottery found at Swift
Creek sites in northeastern Florida is presumed to have been
the result of extralocal contact with Gulf Coast populations,
rendering the wares imports or local copies (Ashley 1998;
Ashley and Wallis 2006). The Weeden Island Red vessel at the
Tillie Fowler Site had been in use for some time before it was
deposited, as evidenced by a large mend hole near the lip. In
addition, paste characteristics consisting of occasional mica
inclusions and subrounded, coarse sand (.5-1.0 mm) temper,
set this vessel apart from the remainder of the assemblage. In
comparison, Woodland period pottery in northeastern Florida
rarely contains much mica or quartz tempers larger than fine
(.125-.25 mm) grains (Wallis 2007b). Both the use-life and
unique paste characteristics of this vessel bolster the idea that
it was manufactured extralocally, perhaps somewhere along
the Gulf Coast of Florida.
The assemblage provides further evidence of long distance
social interaction. Specifically, the identification of four Sun
City Complicated Stamped sherds indicates affinities toward
the Florida panhandle, where this type has also been found.
The design consists of checks or diamonds with raised dots in
their centers (Figure 14) and looks similar to contemporaneous
Swift Creek examples from Wakulla County, 250 km away,
with the alternative label Horseshoe Bayou Complicated
Stamped (Thomas and Campbell 1993:571; Willey 1949:437).
While Willey (1949) regards Sun City Complicated Stamped
as a Weeden Island II Period marker (beginning ca. A.D.


Figure 13. Weeden Island Red rim profile (left) and photo-
graph of exterior (right).


cm 5
0 cm 5


2007 VOL. 60(4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST







HENDRYX AND WALLIs TILLIE FOLWER SITE
interaction may relate to changing patterns of migration,


Figure 14. Sun City Complicated Stamped sherds.

700) in Tampa Bay, its appearance in northeastern Florida
is definitively associated with the Early Swift Creek Phase.
The Sun City type also has been recovered at two large Swift
Creek habitation sites on the Greenfield Peninsula, Greenfield
Sites #7 (8DU5543) and #8/9 (8DU5544/5), as well as at the
Dent Mound (8DU68), but was not documented by this name
at any of these sites (Johnson and Ashley 1994; Smith and
Handley 2002; Wallis 2007b). At all of these sites, as well as
at Tillie Fowler, all Sun City Complicated Stamped sherds
were charcoal tempered, suggesting local production and an
Early Swift Creek age. Whether the design was copied from
similar examples on the Florida Gulf Coast (or vice versa) or
the actual carved wooden paddles bearing these designs were
brought into northeastern Florida from the west, the recovery of
this design corroborates the hypothesis that social interaction
was focused toward Gulf coastal groups during Early Swift
Creek times. In comparison, Sun City Complicated Stamped is
not commonly found in southern Georgia, where Early Swift
Creek sites are comparatively rare (Frankie Snow, personal
communications, 2007).

Early Swift Creek Summary

Work at the Swift Creek concentration of the Tillie Fowler
Site contributes to our understanding of the Early Swift Creek
occupation of northeastern Florida. The site demonstrates that
Early Swift Creek occupations were occasionally substantial,
and while populations asserted local traditions such as the
production of charcoal-tempered wares they also maintained
connections with the Gulf Coast of Florida. These connections
are evident in both the Weeden Island pottery types (Weeden
Island Red and Carrabelle Punctated) as well as Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped designs similar to Gulf Coast examples,
including Sun City Complicated Stamped. A contrast between
Early and Late Swift Creek is clear: not only do complicated
stamped design affinities shift from the Gulf Coast to Atlantic
coastal Georgia, but also Late Swift Creek occupation sites
rarely overlap with Early Swift Creek components (Ashley and
Wallis 2006). At the same time, Late Swift Creek populations
continued to use and expand upon burial mounds initiated
by Early Swift Creek groups. Future research should address
how shifts in site location and the geographical focus of social


0 cm 5


interaction may relate to changing patterns of migration,
marriage alliances, and extralocal patterns of exchange.

Summary and Suggestions for Future Research

Excavations at the Tillie Fowler Site have advanced
our knowledge on Colorinda and Swift Creek occupations
of northeastern Florida and have shed further light on the
presence of the sand tempered plain ceramic period. More
specifically, this research has provided geographic and temporal
information for the Colorinda settlement and complements our
understanding of ceramic variability and extralocal influence
during the Early Swift Creek. Notwithstanding, there are many
unanswered questions for both of the two major components
documented at this site.
The temporal placement of the Early Swift Creek phase
and the nebulous sand tempered plain ceramic period needs
better refinement with many more radiocarbon assays. At
sites with suspected artifact mixing like Tillie Fowler, a suite
of AMS assays from soot on sand tempered plain sherds
may prove especially useful in defining the sand tempered
plain "period." In addition, the suspected Early Swift Creek
influence from the Gulf Coast of Florida needs testing via
compositional studies of pottery such as petrography and
Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA). If the
advent of complicated stamping in northeastern Florida
ultimately resulted from interaction with populations on the
Gulf Coast, this might be reflected in foreign-made vessels in
Early Swift Creek assemblages.
Regarding the Colorinda occupation, an obvious concern
contends with the rise and decline of this short-lived period.
Although radiometric results are limited, it is quite apparent
that this phase fell between Late Swift Creek and St. Johns
II, with perhaps some degree of overlap. Ashley (2006a:96)
has grappled with this issue and has suggested that Late Swift
Creek developed into Colorinda, but that Colorinda groups
were replaced by St. Johns II migrants from the south. The
continuity between Late Swift Creek and Colorinda is reflected
in cultural similarities, such as the use of grog tempering by
both groups (albeit very limited during the Late Swift Creek),
as well as face-down mortuary practices such as seen at the
Colorinda Phase McCormack Site (8DU66) (Ashley 2006a:95)
and some of the Kelvin (waning Late Swift Creek) sites2
investigated on St. Simon's Island in Georgia (Cook 1979:73).
Furthermore, most Colorinda sites have also produced Swift
Creek pottery (Ashley 2006a:96), with stratigraphic evidence
placing Colorinda as the later component. Alternately, the
replacement of Colorinda by St. Johns II is suggested based
on the rapid population rise of the latter culture, as inferred by
more numerous and much larger sites.
Although we are moving forward in our understanding of
the transitional Colorinda Phase, there are many unanswered
questions to be pursued in future research. For instance, with
the Late Swift Creek to Colorinda transition, identifying
differences or similarities in architecture, ceramic morphology,
feature type, and other attributes of these cultures may help
define the relationship between the two. Furthermore, the
co-occurrence of Late Swift Creek and Colorinda sherds in


HENDRYX AND WALLIS


TILLIE FOLWER SITE






THE Fi ORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


features or discrete midden contexts might provide further
hints regarding the nuances of this transition. On the other
end of the temporal range, future work should identify the
relationship between Colorinda and St. Johns II, identifying
how long any temporal overlap existed between the two and
ultimately addressing what the ceramic transition signifies in
terms of population movement and social relations. Such data
might also be obtained through feature and midden analysis
and the recognition of co-occurring pottery types within these
contexts.

Acknowledgements

We would like to begin by extending our thanks to HC
Dolphin Reef Partners I, LP for sponsoring the excavation. The
field crew is greatly thanked for their careful note taking and
dedication, and these participants included: Mike Arbuthnot
(co-Principal Investigator), Steve Ferrell (field director),
Catherine Runyan (field director), Tony Kuhner, Chris
Schaefer, Melinda Hill, Kim Wescott, Sabrina Woofter, Kenny
Richards, Marissa Condosta Gordon, Kate Ryan, Jennifer
Burkhart, Kevin Morrison, and Colin O'Brien. Jamie Mills
operated heavy machinery during mechanical stripping of the
site; Gail Howalt and Brian Mullins diligently produced the
graphics; Ernestyne Charfauros assisted with administrative
responsibilities; Catherine Runyan performed the artifact
analysis (except vessel morphology); and through the years,
Keith Ashley has compiled extensive prehistoric data pertinent
to the region and time periods. Finally, both Keith Ashley and
Vicki Rolland provided valuable feedback on an earlier draft
of this document. Many thanks are extended to each of these
individuals.

Notes
1. Formal rim analysis was not performed for the ceramics
in Units 11 and 12. These artifacts were not placed with the
remainder of the assemblage and regrettably, could not be
easily located during the re-analysis process.
2. The term Kelvin has been used to describe an archaeological
phase recognized along the lower coast of Georgia that was
reported by Fred Cook in the 1970s. Kelvin sites contain
complicated stamped pottery bearing motifs that were faintly
stamped, overstamped, and of"poor workmanship," and these
traits along with other characteristics led Cook to differentiate
Kelvin from Swift Creek; however, many researchers contend
that Kelvin's ancestry lies in coastal Late Swift Creek culture
(Ashley et al. 2007; Ashley and Wallis 2006; Hendryx 2004).

References Cited

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

1998 Swift Creek Traits in Northeastern Florida: Ceramics,
Mounds, and Middens. In A World Engraved:
Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture, edited by


M. M. Williams and D.T. Elliott, pp. 197-221.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2003 Interaction, Population Movement, and Political
Economy: The Changing Social Landscape of
Northeastern Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

2006a Colorinda and its Place in Northeastern Florida
History. The Florida Anthropologist 59(2):91-99.

2006b Archaeological Testing of Colorinda Shell Middens
at the Cedar Point Site (8DU81). The Florida
Anthropologist 59(2):101-122.

Ashley, Keith H., and Greg S. Hendryx
2008 Archaeological Site Testing and Data Recovery and
Mitigation at the Dolphin Reef Site (8DU276), Duval
County, Florida. Report on file, Division of Historical
Resources, Tallahassee.

Ashley, Keith, Keith Stephenson, and Frankie Snow
2007 Teardrops, Ladders, and Bull's Eyes: Swift Creek on
the Georgia Coast. Early Georgia 35(1):3-28.

Ashley, Keith H., and Neill J. Wallis
2006 Northeastern Florida Swift Creek: Overview
and Future Research Directions. The Florida
Anthropologist 59(1):5-18.

Austin, Robert J., and Richard W. Estabrook
2000 Chert Distribution and Exploitation in Peninsular
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 53(2-3):116-
130.

Fisher, J.W., and H.C. Strickland
1989 Ethnoarchaeology Among the Efe Pygmies, Zaire:
Spatial Organization of Campsites. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology 78:473-484.

Goggin, John A.
1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. John's
Archeology. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology #47.

Handley, Brent M., Steve Ferrell, and Neill Wallis
2004 Addendum To: Data Recovery at 8NA32, the McArthur
Estates Tract, Nassau County, Florida. Report on file,
Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Hemmings, Thomas, and Kathleen Deagan
1973 Excavations on Amelia Island in Northeast Florida.
Contributions of the Florida State Museum 18,
Gainesville.

Hendryx, Greg S.
2005 Waning Swift Creek Site Characteristics along the
Lower Atlantic Coast. Paper presented at the 62nd


2007 VOL. 60(4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST






HENDRYX AND WALLIS TILLIE FOLWER SITE


Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Columbia, South Carolina.

Hendryx, Greg S., and Neill J. Wallis
2007 Archaeological Site Testing and Data Recovery and
Mitigation at the Tillie Fowler Site (8DU17245),
Duval County, Florida. Report on file, Division of
Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Johnson, Robert E.
1998 Phase II Archeological Investigations of Sites
8DU5544 and 8DU5545, Queen's Harbour Yacht
and Country Club, Duval County, Florida. Report on
file, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Johnson, Robert E., and Keith H. Ashley
1994 Phase II Archaeological Investigations at Sites
8DU5541, 8DU5542, 8DU5543 at the Queen's
Harbour Yacht and Country Club, Duval County,
Florida. Report on file, Division of Historical
Resources, Tallahassee.

Johnson, Robert E., Myles C. P. Bland, B. Alan Basinet, and
Bob Richter
1997 An Archeological Investigation of the Ocean Reach
Site (8NA782), Nassau County, Florida. Report on
file, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Johnson, Robert E.
2005 An Archeological Survey of the Jacksonville
University North Parcel, Duval County, Florida.
Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.

Kirkland, S. Dwight, and Robert E. Johnson
2000 Archaeological Data Recovery at Greenfield Site No.
5, 8DU5541. Report on file, Division of Historical
Resources, Tallahassee.

Nassaney Michael S., and Kendra Pyle
1999 The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North
America: A Vew from Central Arkansas. American
Antiquity 64:243-263.

Rice, Prudence
1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.

Russo, Michael
1992 Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Mary's Region
of Northeast Florida and Southeast Georgia. The
Florida Anthropologist 45(2): 107-126.

Sears, William H.
1957 Excavations on Lower St. Johns River, Florida.
Contributions of the Florida State Museum 2,
Gainesville.


1959 Two Weeden Island Period Burial Mounds, Florida.
Contributions of the Florida State Museum 5,
Gainesville.

Simms, Steven R., and Kathleen M. Heath
1990 Site Structure of the Orbit Inn: An Application of
Ethnoarchaeology. American Antiquity 55(4):797-
813.

Smith, Greg C., and Brent M. Handley
2002 Addendum To: Archaeological Data Recovery and
Mitigation at 8DU5544/5545, Queen s Harbour Yacht
and Country Club, Duval County, Florida. Report on
file, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Stephenson, Keith, Judith A. Bense, and Frankie Snow
2002 Aspects of Deptford and Swift Creek of the South
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. In The Woodland
Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Robert
C. Mainfort, Jr. pp. 318-351. University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.

Thomas, Prentice M., Jr., and L. Janice Campbell (editors)
1993 Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resources
Investigations at Eglin Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and
Walton Counties. Report of Investigations 192, New
World Research, Inc., Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

Wallis, Neill J.
2004 Perpetuating Tradition on the Lower St. Johns: Pottery
Technology and Function at the Mayport Mound
(8DU96). The Florida Anthropologist 57(4):271-
298.

2005 Social Organization, Interaction, and Communal
Property: Pottery Production and Consumption at a
Swift Creek Circular Village in Northeastern Florida.
Paper presented at 62nd Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Columbia,
South Carolina

2007a Defining Swift Creek Interactions: Earthenware
Variability at Ring Middens and Burial Mounds.
Southeastern Archaeology. 26(2):212-231

2007b Technology, Function, Performance: Toward
an Understanding of Swift Creek Interactions.
Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Knoxville,
Tennessee.

Wallis, Neill J., Ann S. Cordell, and Lee A. Newsom
2005 Petrographic Analysis of Charcoal-Tempered Pottery
from Northeastern Florida. Poster presented at the
70th annual meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Salt Lake City.


HENDRYX AND WALLIS


TILLIE FOLWER SITE








Willey, Gordon R. Wilson, Rex L.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian 1965 Excavations at the Mayport Mound, Florida.
Miscellaneous Collections 113. Washington, D.C. Contributions of the Florida State Museum 13,
Gainesville.


Appendix A. Ceramic rim analysis from Locus A, 8DU17245.

Sherd Interior Orifice Percent of Rim Rim Soot
Provenience Type Diameter (cm) Vessel Rim Thickness (mm) Type Present

Unit 1/Level 3 Colorinda Plain 10 8% 5.5 rounded no
Unit 10/Feat 6 Colorinda Plain 10 13% 8.1 rounded no
Unit 10/Feat 6 Colorinda Plain indeterminate indeterminate 7.3 rounded no
Unit 10/Feat 6 Colorinda Plain indeterminate indeterminate 7.7 rounded no
Unit 10/Feat 6 Colorinda Plain 22 7% 7.6 rounded yes
Unit 14/Level 3 Colorinda Plain 12 5% 8.0 rounded yes
Unit 2/Level 4 Colorinda Plain indeterminate indeterminate 8.8 rounded no
Unit 3/Level 6 Colorinda Plain 48 12% 7.7 rounded yes
Unit 4/Level 4 Colorinda Plain indeterminate indeterminate 10.1 rounded no
Unit 4/Level 4 Colorinda Plain 16 11% 6.2 flat yes
Unit 5/Level 3 Colorinda Plain 28 5% 9.6 tapered yes
Unit 6/Level 4 Colorinda Plain 18 8% 6.8 rounded no
Unit 6/Level 4 Colorinda Plain indeterminate indeterminate 7.4 rounded no
Unit 7/Feat 3 Colorinda Plain 10 9% 8.2 flat yes
Unit 7/Feat 3 Colorinda Plain indeterminate indeterminate 9.8 rounded yes
Unit 8/Level 3 Colorinda Plain 10 10% 7.4 rounded no
Unit 10/Feat 6 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 6.2 rounded no
Unit 10/Feat 6 sand tempered plain indeterminate Indeterminate 7.4 rounded yes
Unit 10/Feat 6 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 9.2 rounded no
Unit 10/Feat 6 sand tempered plain 18 7% 5.9 rounded no
Unit 10/Level 3 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 6.1 flat no
Unit 10/Level 5 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 7.0 rounded no
Unit 13/Level 2 sand tempered plain indeterminate Indeterminate 6.1 rounded no
Unit 14/Level 3 sand tempered plain 20 4% 7.9 rounded yes
Unit 14/Level 4 sand tempered plain indeterminate Indeterminate 5.6 tapered no
Unit 3/Level 5 sand tempered plain 28 12% 8.1 flat no
Unit 4/Level 5 sand tempered plain 22 10% 5.7 flat no
Unit 4/Level 5 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 8.4 rounded no
Unit 5/Level 4 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 8.1 tapered no
Unit 5/Level 4 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 8.0 flat yes
Unit 5/Level 4 sand tempered plain 16 6% 6.1 rounded no
Unit 6/Level 3 sand tempered plain 22 4% 5.9 flat no
Unit 6/Level 4 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 6.7 rounded no
Unit 7/Feat 3 sand tempered plain 10 10% 4.6 rounded no
Unit 7/Feat 3 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 5.8 tapered no
Unit 7/Feat 3 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 8.0 rounded no
Unit 7/Level 2 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 7.1 tapered no
Unit 7/Level 2 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 6.7 tapered no
Unit 7/Level 4 sand tempered plain 12 7% 7.5 rounded no
Unit 7/Level 4 sand tempered plain 22 4% 8.8 tapered no
Unit 8/Level 4 sand tempered plain 16 8% 7.9 rounded yes
Unit 8/Level 4 sand tempered plain 16 5% 6.7 rounded no
Unit 9/Level 6 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 5.3 tapered no
Unit 14/Level 5 sand tempered punctate 16 6% 7.8 rounded no
Unit 10/Level 4 St. Johns Plain 18 10% 7.0 rounded no
Unit 4/Level 3 St. Johns Plain 6 12% 5.2 rounded no
Unit 7/Level 4 Swift Creek Plain indeterminate indeterminate 7.5 rounded no


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)







HENDRYX AND WALLIS TILLIE FOLWER SITE 199



Appendix B. Ceramic rim analysis from Loci B and C, 8DU17245.

Sherd Interior Orifice Percent of Rim Rim Soot
Provenience Type Diameter (cm) Vessel Rim Thickness (mm) Type Present
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered (UID) 22 4% indeterminate round no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered (UID) 20 5% indeterminate scallop yes
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered (UID) 19 5% indeterminate round no
Locus C/surface Carabelle Punctated 10 7% 8.4 round no
STP 4900N/5012.5E Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 18 5% 5.5 round no
Locus B/Block 1 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 22 3% indeterminate notched yes
Locus C/surface Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 20 3% 5.1 scallop yes
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp indeterminate indeterminate 4.2 flat no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 20 8% 6.1 flat yes
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 24 4% 5.6 notched no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 20 3% 6.2 round no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 26 4% 5.3 round no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 13 5% indeterminate flat no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp indeterminate indeterminate 4.8 notched no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 20 6% 6.8 notched no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 23 4% indeterminate notched no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 14 12% 6.4 round yes
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 22 8% 7.9 round no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 21 4% 6.4 round no
Locus C/Block 6 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Temp Comp. Stamp 20 6% indeterminate scallop no
Locus C/surface Sun City Complicated Stamped indeterminate indeterminate 4.9 scallop yes
Locus C/surface Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 23 4% 5.5 flat yes
STP 4912.5N/5037.5E Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 20 3% 3.9 notched no
STP 4912.5N/5037.5E Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 9 10% 7.2 round no
STP 4925N/5021E Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 19 12% 4.6 notched no
Locus B/Block 1 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 24 17% 7 flat yes
Locus B/Block 1 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 16 5% 7 flat no
Locus B/Block 1 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 26 3% indeterminate flat no
Locus B/Block 1 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 8 9% 5.1 round no
Locus B/Block 1 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain indeterminate indeterminate indeterminate round no
Locus C/surface Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 17 7% 5.7 round yes
Locus C/surface Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 26 3% 5.8 round yes
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 17 6% indeterminate flat no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 23 4% indeterminate round no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 24 3% indeterminate round no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 12 6% indeterminate round no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 14 8% indeterminate round no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 24 7% 6.6 round yes
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain indeterminate indeterminate indeterminate round no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 12 7% indeterminate round yes
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 25 5% 6.6 round no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 16 4% 4.8 round no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 16 3% indeterminate flat no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain indeterminate indeterminate 5.7 flat yes
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 25 9% 4.7 flat no
Locus C/Block 5 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 22 7% 6.2 flat yes
Locus C/Block 5 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 13 5% 4.5 flat no
Locus C/Block 5 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 20 3% 7 flat yes
Locus C/Block 5 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain indeterminate indeterminate indeterminate notched no
Locus C/Block 5 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 18 5% 6.1 round no
Locus C/Block 5 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 28 4% 6.2 round no







200 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)

Appendix B Continued. Ceramic rim analysis from Loci B and C, 8DU17245.


Sherd Interior Orifice Percent of Rim Rim Soot
Provenience Type Diameter (cm) Vessel Rim Thickness (mm) Type Present
Locus C/Block 6 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 15 5% indeterminate flat no
Locus C/Block 6 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 20 6% 5.5 flat yes
Locus C/Block 6 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 28 3% indeterminate flat no
Locus C/Block 6 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 28 3% 5 round no
Locus C/Block 6 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 20 5% indeterminate round no
Locus C/Block 6 Sw. Cr. Charcoal Tempered Plain 13 6% indeterminate round no
STP 4912.5N/5037.5E Dunns Creek Red 20 3% indeterminate round no
STP 4925N/5021E sand tempered plain 22 7% 7.3 round yes
Locus B/Block 1 sand tempered plain 31 3% 6.4 round no
Locus B/Block 1 sand tempered plain 14 6% indeterminate round no
Locus C/surface sand tempered plain 24 7% 8.1 round yes
Locus C/surface sand tempered plain 22 22% 8.7 flat yes
Locus C/surface sand tempered plain 22 4% 9.2 flat no
Locus C/Block 3 sand tempered eroded 26 5% 5.4 flat no
Locus C/Block 4 sand tempered plain indeterminate indeterminate 7.2 round no
Locus C/Block 4 sand tempered plain 22 7% 8 notched no
Locus C/Block 4 sand tempered plain 17 4% indeterminate tapered no
Locus C/Block 4 sand tempered plain 26 3% 7.2 round no
Locus C/Block 4 sand tempered plain 18 16% 8.7 flat yes
Locus C/Block 5 sand tempered plain 8 9% 4.6 notched yes
Locus C/Block 5 sand tempered plain 8 7% indeterminate round no
Locus C/Block 5 sand tempered plain 12 7% 7.3 round no
Locus C/surface Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 23 3% 7.8 scallop yes
Locus C/surface Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 24 3% 5.7 round no
Locus C/surface Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 25 9% 5.9 notched yes
Locus C/surface Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 24 5% 6.5 round yes
Locus C/Block 2 Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped indeterminate indeterminate indeterminate round no
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 14 10% 6.6 flat yes
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 16 10% 5.7 round yes
Locus C/Block 3 Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 21 4% 6.5 round no
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 27 4% 7.6 round yes
Locus C/Block 4 Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 26 4% 7.1 tapered no
Locus C/Block 5 Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 28 3% 6.7 round no
Locus C/Block 5 Sw. Cr. Complicated Stamped 24 5% 5.2 round no
Locus B/Block 1 Weeden Island Red 12 13% 5.3 tapered no








NAIL TYPES USED IN DATING EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES
FLORIDA ARCHITECTURE


TED M. PAYNE

American Preservation Consultants, Inc., PMB 290 1093 Beach Boulevard, St. Augustine Beach, Florida 32080
Email: tmprpa@peoplepc.com


Introduction

Establishing narrative history for a standing structure
can involve such sources as architectural characteristics,
cultural material analysis, historic documentation and
informant statements. In a situation where deterioration
or destruction of a structure has taken place, temporal
analysis will be focused on an examination of structural
and material remains represented in the archaeological
record. Often overlooked, nail typology analysis is one
of the most important sources in establishing a building's
construction, repair, and demolition history. This is because
until the last decades of the eighteenth century a blacksmith
manually produced all nails. Thereafter, a variety of
machine manufacturing methods and associated nail forms
were developed and improved upon that finally resulted in
today's wire nail type (Adams 2002:67-69; Nelson 1968).
Dating the remains of late eighteenth or early nineteenth
frame structures in Florida can be refined with better
attention paid to nail analysis. Knowledge of the various
short termed machine-making techniques provide time
period references for construction sequences that are often
more precise then ceramics or other artifact types. This is
especially true in the British colonial, late Spanish colonial,
American territorial, and American statehood periods in
Florida history, when the ceramic styles often recovered
from the archaeological record remained in production and
popular on tables for long periods. The nail assemblages
included in this analysis of colonial and antebellum nail
styles in Florida are drawn from sites dating to the British
abandonment of most rural enterprises by the early 1780s
and assemblages resulting from the Second Seminole War
rural devastation fifty-two years later.

Hand Wrought Nails

Nail manufacture was carried out by a blacksmith using
an anvil, forge, and hammer during Florida's early Spanish
colonial history (1565-1763) and its days as a British
colony (1763-1783). This nail form varied according to
the construction needs for which it was destined. These
have been described by Noel Hume (1982:252-254) and
Lee H. Nelson (1968) and several of the most recognizable
forms have been depicted (Figure 1). A recognizable
form is the Rose Head and can be identified by its tapered
head with panel sides. Shaft characteristics may reflect


the blacksmith's hammer blows and the tip maybe pointed or
flattened. The flattened T-head and L-head forms contrasted the
fully rounded Rose Head. Their shafts also were tapered and may
demonstrate hammering formation and the tip can be tapered to a
point or flattened. These were used for concealed work, framing
and lathing. Other nail forms were brads and sprigs and were used
for finishing purposes.

Wrought Nails used at Richard Oswalds Eighteenth Century
Plantation

During the eighteenth century in Florida, the wrought nail
was the only form available for plantation construction as planned
by the state's first British Governor, James Grant and historical
sources indicate that their acquisition was dependent largely upon
manufacturing sources outside of the colony (Adams 2002:67;
Nelson 1968; Payne 1995:57; Payne and DuToit 1997:30).
Outside procurement of materials for construction purposes was
exemplified at Richard Oswald's twenty thousand acre venture
adjoining the Halifax and Tomoka Rivers in the northeastern
part of present day Volusia County. Mount Oswald (8VO4310),
Richard Oswald's first plantation settlement, was established in
the middle 1760s in what is now Tomoka State Park. At the time
of plantations establishment, a purchasing agent in South Carolina
arranged for the acquisition and shipment of an estimated 68,000
wrought nails consisting of three sizes (20d, 10d, 6d) (Taylor
1984:32). These nails became part of the construction materials
used in the this initial plantation settlement and, some five years
later, a sugar factory and its associated village of slaves called the
Swamp Settlement and known today as the Three Chimneys Site
in the City of Ormond Beach (8V0196) (Payne 1995:57; Payne
and DuToit 1997:16). Archaeological studies have recovered
examples of wrought nails from both settlements. They were
corroded, but their general form was sufficiently recognizable
in most cases to establish their wrought origin. More specific
analysis was not possible, because of the surface deterioration.
Additionally, archaeological research evidenced the use of similar
wrought nails at the Hepworth Carter plantation (8SJ3133) dating
from 1792-1803 and situated in today's Faver-Dykes State Park
in St. Johns County (Payne and Griffin 2000:51). Among the nail
inventory were examples of the Rose Head and T-head types, with
the flattened and tapered tip treatments referenced above also
recognized in the collection.


VOL. 60(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 2Q07


VOL. 60(4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


DECEMBER 2007









NAILS OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND
NINETEENTH CENTURIES


Wrought Nails


T-head


L-head

7D:

--5
1


Early Machine Cut Nail
with Wrought Head

Li_

T,_-.


(Flattened nail end may
instead be pointed)


Early Machine
Headed Cut Nails
and Locally Modified Forms


Modern
Machine Cut
Nail


Brad Modified Common
(Flattened (He
head) (Headless)
head)

r
/ ^P


(Rounded
shank below
head)


Figure 1. Nail types available in Florida that were manufactured during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.


Early Machine Cut Nails with Wrought Heads

The interruption in securing European trade goods during
and shortly after the Revolutionary War increased the need for
manufacturing nails in the United States (Nelson 1968). By
the middle 1770s, an early form of machine made nail with
a wrought head was being produced in Rhode Island (Adams
2002:67). Another source was established by John Little in


Philadelphia (Nelson 1968). With this process nail bodies were
cut from a rectangular iron plate using a powered shear blade and
tips were squared. Manual power entirely produced these nails
at first, with water and steam power later becoming available.
Common nail shafts rendered from the same sides of the plate
have a greater manufacturing range, from the 1790s through
the 1820s, while those that were prepared from opposites sides
of the plate date from 1810 to the 1820s (Nelson 1968). For


Rose Head


Common


I-
'i-T-
L=-
F=



I


Wire Nail


Common


Common


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)


i






i


ii:







PAYNE DATING STRUCUTRES IN FLORIDA WITH NAILS


the purposes of analysis in an archaeological context, these
cutting procedures can be recognized by variation in opposing
edge facets in the earlier form and parallel facets in the later
process. Both cutting procedures produced a regulated shaft
form and squared tip that was headed by manual means (Figure
1). This was accomplished by hammering that produced a
wrought head (Nelson 1968). The hammered head form had
a medial ridge and two opposed sloping sides. All of these
manufacturing techniques are observable in archaeologically
produced nail sets with decent preservation.

Early Machine Cut Nails with Wrought Heads used at the
McHardy Plantation

Archaeological investigations at the Robert McHardy
Plantation (8VO244) in Bulow Creek State Park, Volusia
County, produced the only assemblage represented in this
study where the above described early machine made nails
with wrought heads were recovered. Established in 1808, the
plantation included a residence (Structure 1) where a variety
of nail types were recovered archaeologically both within
the building's foundations and directly around its perimeter
(Payne 1996:18-20). The 59 nails recovered included eight that
were early machine cut with wrought heads, representing 14
percent of the population. Other types present were the early
machine cut and headed form (described below) along with
the modem machine cut nail form. All nail types present on
the site predate the building's burning in the Second Seminole
War (Nelson 1968).

Early Machine Cut and Headed Nails

Developing from the early machine cut with wrought head
form, the early machine cut and headed nail form was the first
completely machine produced nail. The head of this form was
somewhat oval and the area just below constricted and rounded,
with the result of a somewhat irregular oval shaft form (Figure
1). Additionally, there was a slight width enlargement above
the middle section and the tip was squared. Nelson (1968)
attributes the beginning of this nail making process to around
1815, but Adams (2002:67-68) and Phillips (1994:6) state that
the technology was in use by 1794 at manufacturing locations
just outside Boston. This earlier production method consisted
of two steps: shaft cutting with one machine and heading
the nail with a second machine. By 1807 one mechanical
procedure cut and headed the nail. Nelson (1968) describes
the nail cutting technique as being similar to that attributed
to the early machine cut with wrought head and dates the
process from 1815 through the 1830s when the shaft was cut
from common sides and from the 1820s through 1830s when
the cutting procedure was from opposite sides. He also notes
that these nails were locally modified at times because of the
lack of specialized forms; for instance, heads were flattened by
hammering which produced a shape similar to the T- head, an
earlier wrought nail form.


Early Machine Cut and Headed Nails used at the McHardy
Plantation

In addition to the early machine cut nails with wrought
heads (noted above) excavated from Structure 1 at the McHardy
Plantation, 16 early machine cut and headed nails representing
27 percent of the total nail assemblage were also recovered.
This type has been reported to have been manufactured as
early as the 1790s (Adams 67-68; Phillips 1994:6) and was
continuously produced into the 1830s (Nelson 1968). If these
nails did have a beginning manufacturing date in the 1790s,
then they overlap with the manufacturing date range given
for the early machine cut nail with wrought head that date
from as early as the 1770s and continue to be produced until
the 1820s (Adams 2002:67; Nelson 1968). As the McHardy
Plantation was developed after 1808 and likely destroyed
during the Second Seminole War raids of 1835, both nail
forms would have been available during the construction and
use of Structure 1 and entered the archaeological record at the
time of its destruction.

Early Machine Cut Nails with Wrought Heads and Early
Machine Cut and Headed Nails used at the Mala Compra
Plantation

Situated in the Spanish colony of East Florida in what is
today Bings Landing County Park in Flagler County, the Mala
Compra plantation was acquired and developed by Joseph
Martin Hernandez starting in 1816. Remains of the plantation
owner's main residence and detached kitchen (8FL26) were
subjected to preliminary archaeological investigations that
resulted in the recovery of 3120 nails that were suitable
for study and classification. A majority of these (3060) had
manufacturing attributes that were associated with the early
machine cut and headed nail type (Figure 1). Four others were
of the early machine cut and wrought headed type and 56 were
wrought nails, with the wrought nails probably used in an
earlier building construction episode at the beginning of that
century (Payne and Griffin 1999:50-53).
Investigations at Mala Compra has led to the
documentation of what is apparently on-site nail modification
procedures for sites of this time period rarely discussed in
published literature. As noted above, because there was an
absence of specialized nail types during the manufacturing
period for the early machine cut and headed nail, the T-head
and headless flooring types that would have been hand-
produced to order during the earlier production period for
wrought nails were not readily available. This absence left
some construction requirements without a suitable fastener.
Research at Mala Compra indicated that nail modification
procedures took place to solve the problem (Figure 1), i.e. the
flattening or removal of common nail heads to create a form
suitable for finishing and counter-sinking construction needs
(Payne and Griffin 1999:50). Nelson (1963) makes note of the
head flattening modification procedure in his notes pertaining
to early machine headed cut nails.


PAYNE


DATING STRUCUTRES IN FLORIDA WITH NAILS







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


Modern Machine Cut Nails

Nail manufacture reached a certain level of proficiency
with the modem machine cut form in the second half of the
1830s. This type would be dominant until the fourth quarter of
the nineteenth century and the introduction of the common and
finishing forms of the wire nail (Adams 2002:67-68; Nelson
1962). Modem machine cut nails represented a refinement in
the earlier production procedures. Unlike its previous forms,
modern machine cut nails had a rectangular head with rounded
comers, a tapered shaft, and a square tip (Figure 1). There also
were flooring and finishing forms.

Modern Machine Cut Nails used at the McHardy Plantation

Excavation at Structure 1 on the McHardy Plantation
(8VO244) in Bulow Creek State Park also yielded the only
plantation-derived nail population studied by the author that
was dominated by the modern machine cut form (Payne
1996:18-20). The building's construction date is not clear,
however it was built post 1808 (when the plantation was
beginning its development) and was destroyed around 1835
(with the raids related to the Second Seminole War). Given the
predominance of modem machine cut nails in the assemblage,
and given their manufacturing starting date of the second half
of the 1830s, Structure 1 on the McHardy plantation likely
underwent a major building modification very shortly before it
was destroyed during the Second Seminole War raids of 1835
along with most of the plantations in the region (Payne and
Griffin 2001:36). This preliminary interpretation is based on
the recovery of 35 modem machine cut nails that represented
59 percent of the inventory as well as excavation encountered
indications of a structural fire that probably coincides with the
Seminole uprising (Payne 1996:17).

Wire Nails

It was not until the second half of the nineteenth century
that the wire nail type, the form currently in use today, was
introduced (Figure 1). The earliest forms were small in size
and it was not until around the 1880s that types suitable for
a wide variety of construction duties evolved (Nelson 1968;
Adams 2002:69).

Conclusion

Research procedures concerning structural remains need
to include a detailed nail analysis wherever corrosion does not
obliterate the artifact form. Plantations and other sites across
colonial Florida often had short occupation histories that are
reflected in the archaeological record. For example, after British
abandonment in 1783, the east coast system of plantations was
promptly reestablished under the Spanish government (1783-
1821) with saw continuous development by the United States
after 1821 until the Second Seminole War raids interrupted this
system in 1835. The British plantation abandonment and those
destroyed by the Seminoles provided the nail inventories for this
study. In addition to dating archaeological identified structural


remains to the correct occupation era, a closer analysis of nail
styles can help archaeologists establish the construction date
for a structure, delineate periods of modification and repair,
and assist in dating structural abandonment and destruction.

References Cited

Adams, William Hampton
2002 Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American
Production and Use for Dating 19"'- Century and
Early-20th-Century Sites. Historical Archaeology 36
(4):66-88.

Nelson, Lee H.
1968 Nail Chronology As An Aid to Dating Old Buildings.
American Association for State and Local History,
Technical Leaflet 48.

Noel Hume, Ivor
1982 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A.
Knopf, New York.

Payne, Ted M.
1995 Archaeological Assessment for the Three Chimneys
Site and a Reconnaissance Survey at a Project Land
Parcel, Ormond Beach, Florida. Report prepared
for the City of Ormond Beach, Florida by MAAR
Associates Inc., Newark, Delaware. Manuscript on
file at the City of Ormond Beach Planning Office.

1996 Limited Archaeological Investigations at 8V0244 to
Establish a Construction Date for Structure 1, Bulow
Creek State Park, Volusia County, Florida. Report
prepared for the Florida Department of State, Bureau
ofArchaeological Research byAmerican Preservation
Consultants, Inc., St. Augustine, Florida. Manuscript
on file at the Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Payne, Ted M. and Charles DuToit
1997 Preliminary Investigations to locate Mount Oswald:
A British Plantation Settlement in Tomoka State Park,
Volusia County, Florida, Vol. 1. Report prepared
for the Florida Department of State, Bureau of
Archaeological Research by American Preservation
Consultants, Inc., St. Augustine, Florida. Manuscript
on file at the Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Payne, Ted M. and Patricia C. Griffin, Ph.D.
1999 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at the
Joseph Martin Hemandez Mala Compra Plantation
Settlement at Bings Landing County Park, Flagler
County, Florida. Report prepared for the Flagler
County Planning Department by MAAR Associates
Inc., Newark, Delaware. Manuscript on file at the
Flagler County Planning Department, Bunnell,
Florida.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)







PAYNE DATING STRUCUTRES IN FLORIDA WITH NAILS


2000 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at the
Carter and Hemandez Plantations along with St.
Johns Culture Habitation Complexes at the Faver-
Dykes State Park, St. Johns County, Florida. Report
prepared for the Florida Department ofEnvironmental
Protection/Faver-Dykes State Park by American
Preservation Consultants, Inc., St. Augustine,
Florida. Manuscript on file at Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.

2001 Sugar Making in East Florida and the History
of Eight Plantations. Report prepared for the
Volusia Anthropological Society, Inc. by American
Preservation Consultants, Inc. St. Augustine, Florida.
Manuscript on file with the Volusia Anthropological
Society.

Phillips, Maureen K.
1994 "Mechanic Geniuses and Duckies": A Revision of
New England's Cut Nail Chronology before 1920.
APT Bulletin 25(3/4):4-16.

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


PAYNE


DATING STRUCUTRES IN FLORIDA WITH NAILS







:51


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST FUND


An Endowment to



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


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



Inquiries and gifts can be directed to:

The Editors
The Florida Anthropologist
PO Box 357605
Gainesville, FL 32635-7605




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.


:*i wR jiir ']








EDITORIAL POLICY AND STYLE GUIDE FOR
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST AND
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS


The following guidelines are being published to assist
authors who are preparing manuscripts for submission to The
Florida Anthropologist (FA), the official quarterly publication
of the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS), and the Florida
AnthropologicalSocietyPublications,an occasional publication
that focuses on special topics. The guidelines are based on and
adopt many of the style conventions of American Antiquity
(http://www.saa.org/Publications/StyleGuide/styleGuide.pdf),
with which most professional archaeologists and students are
familiar. However, the FA style conventions differ in some
important ways from those of American Antiquity. Thus an
update of the style guide written specifically for the FA seemed
appropriate.
This style guide supersedes any previously published
guide. Authors are urged to consult the present style guide
carefully before submitting manuscripts to the Editors or
Book Review Editor. A perusal of the most recent issue of the
journal is also recommended. If there are questions or uncer-
tainties regarding the journal's conventions, authors should
contact the Editors before submitting manuscripts for review.
Adherence to the journal's style guide will greatly reduce
the amount of time necessary to edit manuscripts, minimize
the time needed to revise manuscripts, and ultimately will
contribute to quicker publication of submitted papers.

Editorial Policy

The Florida Anthropologst and the Florida
Anthropological Society Publications publish original
papers in the subfields of anthropology with an emphasis
on archaeology. Contributions from allied disciplines are
encouraged when concerned with anthropological subjects
or problems. The geographical scope is Florida and adjacent
regions. Authors are not paid for their manuscripts; however,
three copies of the journal issue that includes the published
article are provided to authors free of charge once the issue
has been mailed to FAS members. A final Adobe Acrobat PDF
of the article will also be available to the authors. Additional
paper copies of the journal are provided to authors at cost.
Authors should contact the editors to arrange for additional
copies of the journal.

Author s Responsibilities

Authors must submit their manuscripts (including figures
and tables) in proper form for publication. Authors are solely
responsible for the content of their manuscripts, including
the accuracy of all citations, references, and mathematical
calculations. They are responsible for securing written
permission, when necessary, for the use of materials protected


by U.S. or International copyright laws. Written permission is
also required to publish material that did not originate with the
author including photographs, illustrations, and unpublished
data. Evidence of permission to publish copyrighted materials
or the work of others must be submitted to the Editors with the
author's manuscript.

Submissions

Manuscripts should be sent to the Editors, and book review
manuscripts should be sent to the Book Review Editor at the
addresses given on the inside front cover of the most recent
issue of the journal or on the FAS web page (www.fasweb.
org). Manuscripts submitted to The Florida Anthropologist
should not be under consideration by any otherjournal or have
been published elsewhere. An author many not submit more
than 3 manuscripts for review per calendar year without prior
consultation with the Editors. Manuscripts should be sent by
first-class mail in an envelope or package strong enough to insure
arrival in good condition. An original and four photocopies of
the manuscript must be submitted as well as a dual-platform
CD-ROM containing a file of the article in Microsoft Word
2003 format. Printed copies of photographs, figures, and
tables should be included at the end of the manuscript text;
do not embed figures and tables into the text. High quality
photocopies of photographs and illustrations are acceptable
for the first submission. The final submission should reflect the
revisions requested by the Editors on all matters of style and
content. Once accepted, the authors should send one printed
original along with a dual-platform CD-ROM containing the
manuscript and tables in Microsoft Word 2003 format and all
photographs and figures in digital (600 dpi or higher) JPEG,
TIFF, or PDF format. Apple and Macintosh files must be
converted to IBM DOS-compatible software by the author.

Review of Manuscripts

The Editors will acknowledge receipt of manuscripts
submitted for publication. Manuscripts considered
inappropriate for the journal, using inappropriate style, of
poor quality or of excessive length will be returned to the
authors without review. Manuscripts may also be returned for
reformatting when they do not comply with the journals' style
provisions. The Florida Anthropologist is a peer-reviewed
journal. Manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editors and at
least two professionals knowledgeable in the subject matter
presented. All review comments are confidential and will be
used by the Editors to determine whether or not to accept a
manuscript for publication and to prepare editorial comments.


VOL. 60 (4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 2007


VOL. 60 (4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


DECEMBER 2007







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 Voi~. 60(4)


The Editors make the final decision regarding acceptance
of a manuscript. Authors will be notified of the Editors' decision
within two to three months of receipt of the manuscript. A
manuscript may be 1) accepted as is or with minor revisions,
2) accepted on condition that the author respond adequately to
identified problem areas and resubmit the revised manuscript
for additional review, or 3) rejected outright. Upon acceptance
of a manuscript, copyright privileges are assigned to the
Florida Anthropological Society. This step is needed so that
FAS can, under copyright law, copyright each issue of The
Florida Anthropologist or other publications of the Florida
Anthropological Society as well as protect the authors' rights
and intellectual property. If rejected, photocopies and the
CD-ROM used for review will not be returned and may be
discarded from the Editors' review files when space is required
for more current needs.

Page Proofs

Proofs of articles accepted for publication are sent to
authors, who are to check them for typographical errors. No
text may be rewritten at this point, but editorial errors may be
corrected and significant new data or an absolutely essential
correction may sometimes be added. All changes and additions
by an author are suggestions only, and may be disregarded
at the discretion of the Editors based on time and space
allowances. Corrected proofs should be returned to the Editors
no later than 72 hours after receipt. Authors may be asked to
submit a final draft via email attachment or CD-ROM. Later
returns may be received too late for consideration.


Manuscript Preparation and Form


Manuscript Form


Pages are numbered consecutively through the References
Cited only.

General Style

Write clearly and concisely. Express complex ideas simply
and in a way that someone who is not familiar with the subject
matter can understand. Avoid wordiness and excessive jargon.
If technical terms or concepts are necessary, consider defining
these for nontechnical readers. Criticism of the work of others
should be objective and completely referenced.

Textual Elements

Title

The title of the manuscript should be typed in bold capital
letters, centered at the top of the first page of text, and followed
by two spaces. The name(s) of the author or authors should be
typed in lower-case letters (except for the first letter of first,
last, and middle names) and centered. Each author's name
should be followed by an affiliation and address which should
also be centered and typed in lower-case letters with initial
capital letters for significant words. Two spaces should follow
the last author's name and affiliation, and a short, descriptive
phrase that can be used as a running header should be typed
in lower-case letters with initial capital letters for significant
words. For example:

EXCAVATIONS IN WATER-SATURATED DEPOSITS

AT LAKE MONROE, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA:


AN OVERVIEW


The manuscript should be typed electronically on 8.5
x 11 in (21.6 x 28 cm) paper. Manuscripts, including titles,
block quotes, acknowledgments, notes, references, and figure
captions, should be double-spaced to facilitate editing. Do not
insert extra spaces between paragraphs. All margins should be
about one inch (2.54 cm). Use only 10 or 12 pitch type. The
text should be in a single column. Do not use a two-column
format or include unnecessary formatting.

Sections of the Manuscript

Each of the following sections of the manuscript should
be on a separate page or should start a new page. Additional
information on each section is provided below.
Text (with Title and Author's namess, affiliation, address,
email address, and running header)
Notes (begin new page)
Acknowledgments (begin new page)
References Cited (begin new page)
Figure Captions (begin new page)
Figures
Tables (separate page for each)
Biographical Sketch (begin new page)


Barbara A. Purdy

Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,

Gainesville, Florida 32611

E-mail: purdy@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu

HEADER: Excavations at Lake Monroe

Headings

All headings are typed in lower-case letters with initial
capital letters for significant words. Except for introductory
words, do not capitalize articles, prepositions, and conjunctions
less than five letters long. Primary headings should be typed
in bold letters and centered with two lines of spaces above
and below. Secondary headings should be typed in italics and
flush with the left margin. Tertiary headings should be typed
in italics (or underlined) on the left margin, indented as part of
the paragraph, and followed by a period and two spaces. For
example:


2007 VOL. 60(4)


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST






FA STYLE GUIDE ZU9


Middle Archaic Period. During the onset of the Middle.....

Numbers

Cardinal Numbers. When cardinal numbers are used, and
except as noted below, spell out numbers zero through nine and
use Arabic numerals for numbers 10 and greater with commas
for numbers greater than 10,000. For numbers greater than
1000, Arabic numerals may be used to express the quantity of
thousands or millions while spelling out thousands or millions
(e.g., 1 million or 9.27 million). Exceptions include:
1. Spell out any number that begins a sentence. For example:
"Five hundred years ago...; Twenty projectile points..."
2. Spell out numbers that are used in a general sense. For
example: "Hundreds of archaeological sites have been
reported by amateurs."
3. For a series in the same category where the largest
contains two or more digits use Arabic numerals for all.
For example: "There were 7 flakes in Square A, 56 in
Square B, and 117 in Square C."
4. Use Arabic numerals when referring to site numbers
(e.g., 8HI27), proveniences (e.g., Square 110N500E),
measurements (e.g., 3.1 cm, 6 km), or parts of books or
articles (e.g., Chapter 7, page 3, Figure 1).

Ordinal Numbers. These are always spelled out. For
example: "The thirty-fifth anniversary issue of The Florida
Anthropologist...; the sixteenth century...; the first example...."
An exception is the use of ordinal numbers to refer to papers
presented at annual meetings in the References Cited section.
For example: "Paper presented at the 45th annual meeting of
the Florida Anthropological Society...."
Dates. Dates should be expressed as in the following exam-
ples: 450 years; on April 1, 1996; in the sixteenth century (not
16th); during the 1850s (not 1850's or fifties); from 1527-1540
(not 1527-40). The designation A.D. annoo Domini) should be
placed before a date using the Christian chronology, not after
(e.g., A.D. 500-600). The designations B.C. (before Christ)
should be placed after the numbers used to designate dates
which predate the Christian era (e.g., 800-500 B.C.). Alterna-
tively, the number for the year followed by the designation
B.P. (before Present) may also be used.
Site Numbers. The conventional Smithsonian Trinomial
System should be followed when referring to site numbers
(e.g., 8LL235). Do not use hyphens between components of
the trinomial system and use only capital letters for county
designations.

Metric Measurements

All measurements, distances, area, volume, and weight
should be expressed in the metric system. All measurements
should be expressed with Arabic numerals except when they
appear at the beginning of a sentence or appear nonspecifically.
Metric units are abbreviated without periods except for liters
which is spelled out to avoid confusion with the Arabic numeral
"1." Exceptions include:


1. If reference is made to measurements that were made or
published originally in English units (e.g., in referenced
publications, maps, etc), these may be added in parenthe-
ses after their metric conversions for clarity.
2. Retain standard English units when they are contained
in a direct quote. In this case, no metric conversions are
necessary.
3. Original maps must contain a metric scale but may also
contain an English scale at the author's discretion.
4. Copies of previously published maps that have scales
in English units are not required to have a metric scale
added. To convert from English standard measuring
units to metric use the formulae in Table 1.

Table 1. Formulae for converting English units of measure to
metric.


To Get


Multiply

Length


inches
feet
yards
miles


2.54
.3048
.9144
1.6093


centimeters
meters
meters
kilometers


Area


square inches
centimeters
square feet
meters
square miles
kilometers
acres


6.451

.0929

2.59

.4047


square

square

square

hectares


Mass


ounces
pounds
short tons


28.3495
.4536
.9072


grams
kilograms
metric tons


Volume


cubic inches
centimeters
cubic feet
meters
cubic yards
meters


16.3872

.0283

.7646


cubic

cubic

cubic


Capacity


cubic inches
cubic feet
gallons


.0164
28.3162
3.7853


liters
liters
liters







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


Mathematical and Statistical Copy

All mathematical or statistical variables should be italicized
or underlined (e.g., F = 12.67; df= 1, 12; p = .05). Never use
leading zeros in text, figures, or tables. Mathematical equations
should be set off from the text by spaces above and below the
equation or formula, and centered. For example:

N (S- 1)2 + (2N- S)

Radiometric Ages and Dates

Where radiocarbon dates are being presented for the
first time, the following conventions should be followed: 1)
The initial citation in the text should express the uncalibrated
radiocarbon age in years B.P. followed by the 1-sigma standard
error; 2) the sample identification number provided by the
laboratory should be given; 3) state what material was dated
(e.g., shell, bone, charred wood); 4) state whether the date
has been corrected for isotopic fractionation and supply the
13C value. For example: 3680 60 B.P. (Beta 79188; wood
charcoal;.'"C = -23.8%o). Note that the atomic weight of an
isotope is indicated by a superscript preceding the atomic
symbol (e.g., 14C not C-14 or CI4).
Calibrated dates must be identified as such (e.g., cal B.C.
or cal A.D.) and the particular calibration program that was
used must be identified (e.g., CALIB 2.0 [Stuiver and Reimer
1986]). The author should state whether calibrated dates are
reported as a 1-sigma or 2-sigma range (or ranges when more
than one is possible). For example: "For the date 3680 60
B.P. the two possible calibrated age ranges are 2279-2232 cal
B.C. and 2209-1905 cal B.C."
If a large number of dates is being discussed, this informa-
tion can be placed in a table. In this case, the uncalibrated age
in years B.P. with the 1-sigma standard error followed by the
calibrated age range (if available) are sufficient in the text. For
more detailed information on the reporting of radiometric ages
and dates, the reader is referred to American Antiquity 57:755-
756.

Quotations

Quotations of fewer than five typewritten lines should
be included in the text enclosed in quotation marks. All
quotations require a citation. If the name(s) of the authors)
is included in the sentence that includes the quotation, then
the year and page numbers) should be placed in parentheses
following the author's name. If the author's name is not
included in the text, then the name(s), year of publication,
and page numbers) should be placed in parentheses after
the quotation. For example: According to Tesar (1980:246),
"following the DeSoto expedition in 1540 and prior to..." or
The Late Archaic "...was a time of considerable population
growth, clear regional adaptations, and interregional exchange
of raw materials" (Griffin 1967:178).
Quotations of more than five typewritten lines should be
set off from the text in a block quote, without quotation marks,
double spaced, with two lines above and below. For example:


The available evidence suggests few if any
differences in late Archaic lifeways before and
after the appearance of fiber-tempered pottery. In
fact, there appears to be great uniformity in local
settlement patterns and artifact assemblages -- except
for the absence or presence of fiber-tempered pottery
-- wherever late Archaic sites are found [Milanich
1994:86].

When emphasis is added or was already in the original
material, the source of the emphasis should be noted after the
citation, within the parentheses. For example: (Boyd et al.
1951:101; emphasis add) or (Boyd et al. 1951:101; emphasis
in original). Omissions in a quotation are indicated by using
three ellipsis points (periods when typed) to indicate where
one or more words have been omitted. If these occur at the end
of a sentence, then a fourth period must follow. For example:
"The presence of projectile points...is not in itself evidence of
use of the site during these early times...."

Spelling

Refer to Webster s Third New International Dictionary.
If two or more spellings are given, use the first listed (e.g.,
archaeology, not archeology; catalog, not catalogue; judgment,
not judgement). In all quotations and publication titles, the
actual spelling in the original is used.

Italics

Words in foreign languages are italicized (or underlined).
Use standard orthographies, including diacritical marks (and
explain unusual symbols in the margin). Titles of books,
periodicals, and other literary works are italicized, as are
generic and species taxonomic names (e.g., Neofiber alleni or
Busycon sp.).

Capitalization

Consult the Chicago Manual of Style for capitalization
of nonarchaeological terms. Capitalize the names of specific
archaeological or geographical areas (e.g., Mesoamerica, the
Southeast, Central Gulf Coast). Directional, topographical,
and general geographic terms are not capitalized unless they
are derived from proper names or political or ethnic entities
(e.g., mesoamerican, southeastern, central Florida; but Maya
Lowlands, Eastern Woodlands). Capitalize taxonomic names
of generic or higher rank, but use lower case for species or
lower rank (e.g., Pinus elliotti or Homo sapiens). Capitalize
proper names, including Early, Middle, and Late when they
are part of the name or chronological, cultural, or geographic
divisions, but use lower case for taxonomic division names and
restrictive modifiers. For example: Early Archaic period, late
Holocene, Windover site, Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee
basin, Hillsborough and Alafia rivers, but Lakes Tulane and
Annie. Capitalize the proper names of archaeological classes,
but use lower case for generic terms. For example: Waller
knives, Clovis fluted points, St. Johns Check Stamped.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)







FA STYLE GUIDE 211


Hyphenation

For rules governing hyphenation of nonarchaeological
compound words, consult the Chicago Manual of Style or
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Compound words are
spelled without hyphens if they can be considered permanent
combinations (e.g., rockshelter, subadult, preceramic, postclas-
sic, precolumbian, Paleoindian, but mid-Pleistocene, post-
Archaic, etc.). Prefixes in common use are not hyphenated (e.g.,
noncultural, reanalyze, intrasite). Hyphenate combinations of
words that serve an adjectival function (e.g., check-stamped
pottery, heat-treated lithics, use-wear analysis). Do not hyphen-
ate a combination of an adverb ending in -ly plus a participle
or adjective (e.g., highly developed species, poorly drained
soil).

Abbreviations

Abbreviations are used infrequently. Exceptions include
acronyms for long titles of agencies, institutions, or organiza-
tions that are referred to frequently in the text. These always
follow the first introduction of the full name. For example:
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Florida Museum of Natural
History (FMNH). Metric units are given in abbreviated form
when they follow numbers (e.g., 6.4 mm, 7.2 m, 10 km); the
same is true for English units when they are used for clarity
(e.g., 12 in, 3.5 ft, 25 mi). When referring to square meters
or cubic meters use m2 or m3. Other abbreviations that are
permitted include et al., e.g., i.e., ca., cf., vol., %. Do not use
ibid. or op. cit.

Common Errors

The words "data" and "strata" are plural. The proper
usage is "The data are..." not "The data is...." Similarly,
"strata" is used to refer to two or more stratigraphic zones
or lenses; "stratum" is used to refer to a single zone or lens.
Stratigraphy is the study of soil strata. The word is often
misused to refer to the various strata at a site as in "The
stratigraphy of the site consists of...." Instead, use "stratigraph-
ic sequence" or "stratification" as in "The stratification
of the site is best represented by the profile in Figure 1."

Citations

References, including references to personal
communications, are placed in the body of the text, not in
notes at the bottom of the page or following the article. The
typical citation includes the authors) last name(s) followed
by the year of publication and, where necessary, the page or
page numbers. For example: (Willey 1949), Willey (1949), or
Willey (1949:345-347). Parentheses are used to enclose the
citation except when used with text material that is set off
in parentheses or with quoted text material that has been set
off as a block quote, in which case the citation is enclosed in
brackets. Three or more authors are designated by the use of
"et al." after the first author's name. For example: (Milanich
et al. 1984) or Milanich et al. (1984). The use of "et al." is
limited


to text citations; all of the authors' names must be listed in the
References Cited section.
When several different authors are referenced in a citation,
the authors should be listed in alphabetical order with the works
of different authors separated by semicolons. For example:
(Bullen 1975; Carr et al. 1995; Deagan 1979; Luer and Almy
1982; Milanich 1972, 1994). Note that two or more works by
a single author or authors are separated by a comma. Two or
more references by an author or authors in a single year are
designated by lower case letters (e.g., Lee 1995a, 1995b). All
citations should provide a date if possible. The use of"n.d." or
"ms." should be kept to a minimum and are used only to refer
to unpublished works where a date of completion is impossible
to determine. Personal communication includes written or
spoken correspondence to the author, and should also include
a date. For example (Sam Upchurch, personal communication,
1993) or Sam Upchurch (personal communication, 1993).
Personal communications are not included in the References
Cited section.
References to publications by government agencies,
private companies, or other organizations should include the
full name of the organization in the citation along with the year
of publication and page numbers, if necessary. If the citation
will occur more than once, then an abbreviated acronym may
be placed in brackets following the first full citation and these
abbreviations may be used thereafter. For example: (United
States Army Corps of Engineers [USA COE] 1991) and (USA
COE 1991) or USA COE (1991).
When figures, plates, or tables are included in a citation
these words are spelled out. For example: (Purdy 1981:Figure
2) not (Purdy 1981 :Fig. 2). Do not include the page number on
which the figure, plate, or table occurs unless there is additional
information on the page that should be cited as well.
More detailed instructions on citation format can be found
in American Antiquity 57:758-761.

Notes

Endnotes are inserted at the end of the text, using a
secondary head. Double space all notes and number them
consecutively with superscripts in the order that they appear in
the text. Endnotes should be used judiciously and be limited to
essential information required for clarification when inclusion
of that information in the text would prove disruptive to the
flow of the manuscript or would be tangential to the discussion
in progress. Endnotes do not include references. Footnotes are
not accepted.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments are inserted after the Notes section,
using a secondary head. Acknowledgements are not required,
however all support that went toward completion of a
manuscript should be cited including intellectual, institutional,
financial, and technical.







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


References Cited

TheReferencesCitedsectionfollowstheAcknowledgments
and uses a secondary head. It includes only the publications
that are cited in the text; i.e., it is not a bibliography. All entries
must be listed alphabetically by the last name of the senior
author, and chronologically for two or more entries by the same
authorss. Use the names as they appear on the publication;
i.e., do not abbreviate first or middle names unless they appear
as abbreviations on the publication. All authors names are
included; do not use "et al." or "and others." Titles of books,
periodicals, monographs, titled volumes or monographs in a
series, dissertations, theses, and contract reports are italicized
or underlined. NOTE: The use of italicized or underlined titles
for publications other than books and periodicals differs from
previous usage in The Florida Anthropologist and follows
the most recent American Antiquity (57:764-769) guidelines.
Typical examples of the more common reference formats
include:

Book Title

Purdy, Barbara A.
1981 Florida s Prehistoric Stone Technology: A Study of the
Flintknapping Technique ofEarly Florida Stone Imple-
ment Makers. University Presses of Florida, Gaines-
ville.

Chapter in a Book

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

Article in a Periodical

Dunbar, James S., Michael K. Faught, and S. David Webb
1988 Page/Ladson (8Je591): An Underwater Paleo-Indian
Site in Northwestern Florida. The Florida Anthropolo-
gist 41:442-453.

Volume in a Series

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

Dissertation and Thesis

Johnson, Kenneth A.
1991 The Utina and Potano Peoples of Northern Florida:
Changing Settlement Systems in the Spanish Colonial
Period. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropolo-
gy, University of Florida, Gainesville.


Ifyou consult a University Microfilms copy:

Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/
Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor.

Contract Report

Austin, Robert J., and Jacquelyn G. Piper
1986 A Preliminary Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of
the Avon Park Air Force Range, Polk and Highlands
Counties, Florida. Report prepared for Martin-
Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. by Piper Archaeological
Research, Inc., St. Petersburg. Copies available from
the Natural Resources Division, Avon Park Air Force
Range.

Paper Presented at a Meeting

Johnson, Robert E., and Dana Ste. Claire
1988 Archaeological Investigations in the St. Johns Region
of Florida. Paper presented at the 40th annual meeting
of the Florida Anthropological Society, Winter Park.

When listing an unusual reference, include all infonnation
needed to enable a reader to identify and locate the source. For
example:

Austin, Robert J.
1993 Unpublished field notes, maps, and data sheets from the
excavation of the Dragline site in Highlands County,
Florida. On file, Janus Research, St. Petersburg.

Web pages and electronic documents

Glascock, Michael D.
2001 Archaeometry Laboratory at MURR. Electronic
document, http://missouri.edu/-glascock/archlab.
html, accessed April 12, 2002.

Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory
2001 XRF Information. Electronic document, http://www.
obsidianlab.com, accessed April 12, 2002.

For additional information on the appropriate format for
references consult American Antiquity style guide at http://
www.saa.org/Publications/StyleGuide/styleGuide.pdf

Figure Captions

Use Arabic numerals and number all figures sequentially
in the order that they appear in the text. Provide a concise
description for each figure, in complete sentences, using
sentence-style capitalization. For example:


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)






FA STYLE GUIDE 213


Figure 1. Map of the excavation area showing the
distribution of decorated sherds.

Use lower-case letters to identify sections of a figure. For
example:

Figure 2. Sample of decorated ceramic sherds from sites in
the Kissimmee River valley: a) St. Johns Check Stamped; b)
unidentified cord-marked; c) Matecumbe Incised.

Type all captions together, single-spaced, on a separate
sheet of paper, and place in front of actual figures.

Figures

All illustrative material (i.e., maps, photographs,
illustrations, graphs) are referred to as "Figures." Do not use
"Plates," "Maps," or other such terms Originals should be
prepared on good-quality drawing paper or prepared using a
high-quality laser printer. All lettering must be neatly done
using transfer type, laser printer, or careful hand lettering
with black ink. All lines and lettering must be thick enough
and spaced widely enough to be legible for up to 50 percent
reduction. Large figures are reduced before publication. The
maximum dimensions of a published figure are 6.75 by 7.5
inches or 17.1 by 19.1 cm). Large, complex illustrations with
considerable detail and small lettering will not reduce well.
Each figure should be labeled with its appropriate figure
number. All maps should include a scale in meters. Do not use
the form "1 cm = 400 m" because many figures are reduced
before publication and such scales will not be accurate after
reduction. .
All photographs should be good-quality, black and white,
glossy prints. Each photograph should be lightly numbered on
the back with its appropriate figure number. Photographs of
artifacts should include a scale. If no scale is shown in the
photograph, then the scale of the objects) in the photograph
should be indicated in the caption.
For publication, authors are responsible for supplying
digital high resolution (600 dpi or better whenever possible)
figures suitable for gray-scale printing in TIFF JPEG or PDF
format. The publication of colored figures is at the discretion
of the Editors and at the expense of the author.


type. Provide horizontal rules above and below the column
headings and below the last line of data. If a table exceeds
7 by 9 inches or 17.8 by 22.9 cm in size, the table should be
spilt into two separate pages and two separate computer files
These large tables can be labels Table 1-page 1 and Table 1-
page 2. The table title goes above the first horizontal rule. Each
column and row should have a brief heading. Footnotes for the
tables should be placed below the bottom horizontal rule. Use
superscript, lower-case letters for specific notes.

Biographical Sketch

A brief (3-4 line) biographical sketch is required for each
author of an article. These are placed on a separate page at the
end of the manuscript.


Tables


All tabular material should be separated from the text.
Each table be on a separate page or file and should be labeled
with its appropriate table number. Use Arabic numerals and
provide a short, descriptive title for each table using sentence
capitalization. For example:

Table 1. Cross-tabulation of raw material by functional use
wear.

When constructing a table, keep in mind the size limitations
ofthejournal. Tables with many columns may have to be placed
sideways on the journal page, broken up, or set in reduced







































































Charles H. Fairbanks always looked cool. Photograph taken by Marjory W. Power in 1977 as part of an NEH Summer
Seminar in Historical Archaeology. Fairbanks is explaining the Hawkins-Davison Site at Fort Frederica National Monu-
ment. Photograph courtesy of Nicholas Honerkamp.


TT










BOOK REVIEWS


People of the Shoals: Stallings Culture of the Savannah
River Valley. Kenneth E. Sassaman. With a Foreword and
series edited by Jerald T. Milanich. 2006. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville. xxi + 194 pages, with 48 figures (maps,
site photographs, diagrams, artifact plates, schematics, and
tables), a glossary, a further reading section, and an index, $
39.95, (cloth covered).

MYLES BLAND
4104 St. Augustine Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32207


This volume, which represents the latest edition to the
Native Peoples, Cultures andPlaces ofthe Southeastern United
States series from the University Press of Florida, details, and
arguably for the first time synthesizes, the results of several
decades of research within the Savannah River Valley. The
subject of this book is a Late Archaic period population that
once thrived upon Stallings Island, a 26-acre island located
approximately 13 km upstream of Augusta, Georgia. Over
the last 16 years, much of this Archaic period research has
been spearheaded by Ken Sassaman, first as a student at the
University of South Carolina, and later as a member of the
of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program
(SRARP) of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology (SCIAA). Drawing upon the work of others and
his voluminous research, which includes probably the finest
radio-carbon seriation of any Archaic population along the
South Atlantic Slope, Dr. Sassaman has produced a text which
appeals to the professional archeologist and the public alike.
Following an extensive preface and acknowledgements,
the text opens with a prologue which starts on the day the
People of the Shoals abandoned Stallings Island due to social
strife (inter and intra-group), the partial depletion of available
natural resources, and the desire to associate with either the
Peoples of the Coast along the lower coastal plan, or the Peoples
of the Hills within the middle Savannah River. This prologue
segues into Chapter 1 (of 7 total chapters), which provides
an introduction to the Stallings people from a chronological
and material standpoint; Stallings, series fiber tempered
pottery is their "calling card." Chapter 2 provides a preface
to the Stallings sequence, tracing the entry of Paleo-Indian
populations into the area, and describing their subsequent
discovery of chert and soapstone resources, which led to the
advent of fired pottery. In this chapter, and really throughout
the whole book, Sassaman is particularly diligent at mentioning
(and crediting) all the cast of characters who have contributed


so much to Archaic period research within Georgia, South
Carolina, Florida and throughout the Southeast. Chapter 3
describes the relative archaeological setting for the People of
the Shoals by describing in detail the Paris Island phase and
the Mills Branch phase (the People of the Hills); this chapter
contains an in depth look at soapstone banner-stones and chert
cruciform drills. Chapter 4 describes the classic Stallings
ceramics; the two high-lights of this chapter are the discussion
of the handedness of Stallings series ceramic potters, which
leads to an extrapolation of kinship patterns (pages 82-90),
and the discussion of intra-site organization (pages 92-104).
Chapter 5 is the subsistence chapter, and was the most
unified chapter in the text, concentrating upon sources of
nutrition (deer, nuts, freshwater clams, and fish) and the
means to extract these resources. Of particular graphical
interest within this chapter were previously unpublished
photographs produced as a result of Sassaman's examination
of Stallings artifacts in the Peabody Museum in 2003; these
artifacts included soapstone fishing weights (Figure 5.5; page
119), as well as bone pins and implements (Figure 5.8 through
5.10; pages 124 through 127). Chapter 6 address addresses
the social aspects of feasting, as represented by coastal shell
rings in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, as well as food
storage pits, and mortuary practices, although the data on
mortuary practices is limited by factors outside the control of
the author.
Chapter 7 discusses the demise, or more appropriately, the
departure, of the Stallings Island culture. Possible reasons for
its termination include, catastrophe consideredd unlikely), the
depletion of local natural resources (also considered unlikely,
but examined more deeply), or dissolution along kinship lines
due to its own social rules (considered most likely). Warfare,
while mentioned briefly, is not discussed, and overall, I noted
that competition for resources, or conflict, does not ever
really enter the world of the People of the Shoals. Chapter
7 concludes with a theory of where the People of the Shoals
migrated to / integrated with. The epilogue closes the text out
with an image of Chief Redstalk burying his daughter in 1439
A.D., followed by a flash forward to the Peabody Museum in
2003. A glossary, a further reading section, and an index close
out the book.
Overall, I found the text to be fairly well illustrated with
excellent black and white (only) photographs and diagrams.
While initially reading the chapters, I started to wonder why
the subject matter appeared to jump around somewhat, with
ceramic data and lithic data and past archaeological data
occurring in each chapter, rather than being classified into


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


I I


VOL. 60 (4)


DECEMBER 2007







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


monolithic chapters, as a technical reader would need. Then
it occurred to me that the author is particularly adept at not
cramming all the techno-functional data into one chapter,
which would, of course, make for some rather dense chapters.
The flow of the text is also not interrupted by the use of
footnotes, or in-text (AA style) citation. The book is well
designed for public reading, with manageable-sized chapters,
and overall the book avoids the "telephone book" feel that
so many archaeological books emanate. When I finished the
book, I realized I had comfortably read the book on my couch,
rather than at my desk, with a notepad. To be fair, I must admit
some bias for the source material, however, as I visited at least
a few of those sites along the Savannah River in the 1990's in
my younger days.
While an excellent "read," there are a few trade-offs for
such readability. The text is sometimes quite detailed, which
on occasion sent me to use the index for referential purposes.
Considering the complex interweaving of kinship studies, past
archeological excavations, data concerning cultural material,
radio-carbon dates, and archaeological information, I did
find a four page index rather brief, and it was occasionally
difficult to relocate and compare data regarding something I
had previously read. I found myself using a pack of stickies to
mark pages. While there is a "For Further Reading" section,
it should be noted that there is no bibliography. That being
said, I would strongly recommend the addition of this text to
anyone's library. While it is easy to pick at the weave of any
fabric, there is no doubt that this is one, serious, hand-woven
quilt of a book. It is certainly kind amazing to see all the
radio-carbon dates, archaeological sites, artifact collections,
and a complex set of other data sets all woven together into
a book that thematically holds it together. I have a feeling
that this text will ultimately sit on the book shelves of many
professional and avocational archaeologists between the
numerous, fading, technical reports that generated all the data
that made it possible.

The Stranahans ofFort Lauderdale: A Pioneer Family of New
River. Harry A. Kersey, Jr. 2003. University Press of Florida.
Gainesville. xvii + 197 pp., (hardcover).

JAMES P. PEPE
College of Arts and Sciences, Florida Gulf Coast University,
10501 FGCU Blvd. South, Ft. Myers, FL 33965-6565


Harry Kersey is well known to readers of the Florida
Anthropologist as the man who literally wrote the books) on
Florida Seminole and Miccosukee history. In his latest work,
The Stranahans of Florida: A Pioneer Family of the New
River, Kersey provides an excellent history of one of the most
significant pioneer families in southern Florida. Although its
anthropological and archaeological interest may be limited, it
is worth a read by anyone interested in what life was like here
before the days of condominiums and superhighways.
Kersey is a historian at Florida Atlantic University in Boca
Raton. As a bona-fide native Floridian, much of his extensive
corpus is devoted to important elements of our state's history.


His many publications on the acculturation of the Seminole
and Miccosukee Indians of Florida include works such as,
Pelts, Plumes, and Hides: White Traders among the Seminole
Indians, 1870-1930, The Florida Seminoles and the New
Deal 1933-1942, and Buffalo Tiger: A Life in the Everglades.
Another focus of Kersey's writings is Florida pioneer families,
such as the DuBois family of Jupiter, and, in this work, the
Stranahan family of Fort Lauderdale.
Kersey first became interested in the Stranahan family
during his research into the early Indian trade in Florida. The
"Stranahan Store" was an early landmark in southern Florida
and an significant source for Indian trade during the 1890s
and the first decade of the twentieth-century. As such, the
Stranahan Store features prominently in the aforementioned
Pelts, Plumes, and Hides. During his research, Kersey was
fortunate enough to personally interview Mrs. Ivy Stranahan
late in her life in the 1960s and early 1970s. After Mrs.
Stranahan's death, Kersey became involved in efforts to
restore the famous Stranahan house on the north bank of the
New River in what is now downtown Fort Lauderdale. It
was during this period that members of the Fort Lauderdale
Historical Society began the initial research on a Stranahan
family history. After completing his projects dealing with
the Seminoles and Miccosukees, Kersey finally completed
this history of the Stranahan family. His research was greatly
aided by access to personal artifacts, manuscripts, and records
of the Stranahan family that Mrs. Stranahan bequeathed to the
Fort Lauderdale Historical Society after her death.
The opening ofthe book is reminiscent ofan archaeological
thesis, dissertation, or technical report as it provides the
"environmental setting" of the turn-of-the-century New River
area. However, the organization and contents of the rest of the
book are clearly that of a history rather than an archaeological
study. The remaining nine chapters provide a chronological
and thematic discussion of the lives of Frank and Ivy
Cromartie Stranahan, the founding family of Fort Lauderdale.
Each chapter deals with a certain time period and/or theme of
the Stranahan's lives, such as Frank Stranahan's Ohioan roots,
Ivy's civic activism, or her involvement in the Indian Reform
Movement. The appendices consist of two legal documents
written by or for the Stranahans, the first by Frank and the
second by Ivy. Following the appendices are endnotes, in
keeping with the organization of a history book. Following
the notes is a bibliography, again organized according to the
standards of the field of American history, with published
works and interviews listed separately. The book concludes
with a helpful index.
Before discussing what the book's main subjects, it is
important to note that this book is not about Seminole Indians.
Seminoles can be found scattered throughout the pages of this
work only because it would be impossible to tell the stories of
Frank and Ivy Stranahan and pioneer Fort Lauderdale without
them. Frank Stranahan's store was a favorite destination for
Seminole canoes loaded with alligator hides and other trade
items a century ago. Even after Mr. Stranahan sold his store,
he maintained his friendship with the Seminoles, who had
come to trust him for his honesty and the care he had shown
them. Similarly, Ivy Stranahan spent much of her adult life


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)






BOOK REVIEWS 217


teaching and acting as an advocate for the Seminoles. She
was instrumental in the establishment of the Dania-Hollywood
Seminole Indian Reservation. She also was a co-founder and
active member of the Friends of the Seminoles, a group that
worked to provide better housing, education, and standards of
living for the Seminoles. Mrs. Stranahan and the Friends of the
Seminoles also lobbied hard for the Seminoles at the State and
Federal level and were essential advocates for them during the
threat of Federal termination. But again, Seminole history is not
the focus of this book. Those wishing for detailed information
about the economy and material culture of the nineteenth and
early twentieth-century Seminoles should consult some of
Kersey's earlier works, especially Pelts, Plumes, and Hides.
The main focus of this book is clearly evidenced in the
title: Frank and Ivy Stranahan and pioneer Fort Lauderdale.
Kersey tells the story of a hard-working merchant who only had
three white, male neighbors when he arrived at the New River.
He describes the flurry within the pioneer community when the
young schoolteacher, Ivy Cromartie, arrived in town and how
Stranahan was able to successfully court her. Kersey's book
leads the reader through the Stranahans' married life together
as they worked hard to build and quietly lead the community
that became Fort Lauderdale. The book also describes how
Ivy continued her life as a civic activist and leader even after
Frank's hardships during the Great Depression led him to take
his own life.
Although this book is certainly a book of history and not
of anthropology, it should surely be considered essential for
any Florida Anthropologist readers interested in the history
of southern, especially southeastern, Florida. I believe that
many readers from elsewhere in the state would find it of great
interest, as well. Kersey's portrait of pioneer Fort Lauderdale
is reminiscent of many former small towns throughout Florida.
The Stranahans' story also makes for very compelling reading.
Kersey's writing style is a perfect match for his subject.
He provides a great deal of historical facts and information
without letting the historical data distract from the story. The
book manages to be those rare of history books: an easy and
enjoyable read that also provides a great deal of information.


Last Rites for the Tipu Maya: Genetic Structuring in a Colonial
Cemetery. Keith Jacobia, 2000. University of Alabama Press.
Tuscaloosa. 400 pp., $36.50 (paper).

ANNA C. NOVOTNY
School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona 85281


The humid, tropical climate and acidic soils of Central
America infrequently yield the quantity or quality of data that
is amenable to bioarchaeological analyses. The excavation of
an historic period cemetery (A.D. 1568 1638) at the remote
village of Tipu, located in modern day northwestern Belize,
therefore, offers a rare opportunity to evaluate an array of
anthropological questions concerning culture contact in the
Americas.


In his book, Last Rites for the Tipu Maya, Keith Jacobi
states that his goal is to estimate Maya social relationships from
the historical and archaeological records and to test whether
these relationships are consistent in the biological data. In so
doing, his research provides a foundation for future studies in
diachronic biological relationships among the Maya. Jacobi
utilizes dental metric and morphological traits to reconstruct
familial and social relationships through inter- and intra-group
variation, to reconstruct the historic Maya mortuary program,
and to situate the Tipu Maya within the context of population
variation and population movement after the conquest. These
data are also used to construct a complex of dental traits
specific to the Maya.
Jacobi begins with an excellent assessment of the Spanish
mission system in the Yucatan Peninsula and what is today
northern Belize and Guatemala. His discussion draws on
events reported by the early Spanish chroniclers and describes
the manners that the Spanish friars advanced one of the prime
goals of the Spanish conquest conversion of Maya souls
to Catholicism. This summary is anchored by an account of
the history of the Tipu mission. Tipu was a small and isolated
settlement in the late 1500's that was used by the Spanish as
a staging point for conquest, and conversion, of the last Maya
stronghold Tayasal. The settlement was located on an island
in Lake Peten Itza and was not conquered by the Spanish until
A.D. 1697. After leading a disastrous excursion initiated by
catholic priests in an attempt to subjugate the Tayasal Maya,
eighty Tipu warriors were killed there. The fact that they were
never returned to Tipu for burial is crucial, and an issue to
which Jacobi returns in his analyses of differential burial
treatment. He cautiously notes that the loss of these 80 men
drastically changed the demographics of the Tipu cemetery.
Chapters 2 and 3 are devoted to details of Spanish
Catholic and Maya belief systems and burial practices. The
information in these chapters forms an essential foundation for
the dental analysis that follows. Jacobi's analyses of genetic
relatedness using dental data rely on previous knowledge of
cultural affiliations, practices, and historical context acquired
from historical documents or the archaeological record. This
information also provides a fundamental framework for
reconstructing the degree to which the Maya incorporated
Spanish practices into their belief system and mortuary
program.
In a review of specifically Spanish catholic burial
practices, Jacobi cites the modal Spanish mortuary practices
that may be expected in mission cemeteries. Burial location
often corresponded with age, sex, status, or land ownership of
the deceased. For instance, the most coveted burial location
was one close to the altar and was most often reserved for
older males. The body was not cremated and was interred in
an extended position oriented with the feet to the east, the
cardinal direction associated with judgment day. Suicides,
baptized pagans, and unbaptized infants were given differential
treatment with respect to location. Interments were as close to
the church as possible, beneath church floors and with families
often grouped together. Data from other historic and colonial
Spanish missions in the Maya area, the Yucatan, and Spanish
Florida illustrate the extent to which Spanish mortuary practices






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2007 VOL. 60(4)


were integrated into indigenous ceremonies. For example, at
the sites of Tancah, in the Yucatan, and Lamanai, in modern
day Belize, the Maya observed the customs of burial beneath
the floors of the church, orientation of the body with feet to the
east, very few grave goods, and burial location corresponding
with ones sex and status during life.
In contrast to the organization of a Christian cemetery,
traditional Maya observed a varied mortuary program. The
Maya are described as a people that lived with death constantly
in their midst and who were thus preoccupied with it. Jacobi's
treatment of the complicated Maya worldview and varied
burial practices are succinct and informative. Maya mortuary
patterns that persisted in the face of Spanish conversion
attempts include the use of copal incense, elaborate grave
goods, and offerings of food and drink for the deceased.
Jacobi's summary of these practices portrays quite well where
these two religious groups became assimilated after conquest
and where they continued to differ.
Jacobi discusses the physical anthropological aspect of his
study in Chapter 4. He should be commended for writing such
an accessible yet thorough synthesis of dental development,
the genetics behind inheritance of metric and non-metric
dental traits, and the variation in dental traits inherent in
human populations. Chapter 5 builds on this knowledge of
dental anthropology in a review of current osteological and
dental research in Maya bioarchaeology.
In Chapter 7, Jacobi addresses the Tipu mortuary record,
which proved to be similar to that observed in Spain and at
other missions in Spanish Florida and the Yucatan as described
in Chapters 2 and 3. Corpses were interred in an extended
position with feet towards the east and as close to the altar as
possible. The Spanish Catholic practice of burying high status
individuals closer to the altar was seen at Tipu as was the
practice of burying the sexes in different locations. Males were
more often interred inside of the church and close to the altar
while females were most often buried outside the church than
inside. It seems that burial inside the church was preferred as
there was stacking and overlapping of interments in the back
of the nave at a time when the churchyard was not filled.
No traditional Maya burial practices were observed. Jacobi
interprets this result as an indication of Tipu Maya devotion
to Catholicism, an interpretation weakened by the fact that
the Tipu abandoned the town and church in 1619 when no
Spanish priests were residing there and rebelled against the
Spanish in 1638. Unfortunately, there is not a large sample
of pre-Columbian burials from the Tipu region with which to
compare the historic sample, nor are their historic era burials
that are not from the Tipu church.
Jacobi proposes a set of dental traits that are useful when
analyzing Maya individuals. The complex includes several rare
traits such as labial (outer) curvature of the central incisor.
All of the non-metric dental data was recorded with
reference to the Arizona State University dental cast system.
Jacobi's rigorous standards for data collection will enable
future researchers using this standardized system to accurately
compare their data to the data from Tipu. One of the many
excellent features of this volume is that all the data used in
Jacobi's analyses are published in appendices in the text,


including his primary data for each tooth. These appendices
will no doubt be an indispensable resource for future
bioarchaeologists working with dental data in the Maya area.
Chapter 7 summarizes the inter- and intra-group variation
at Tipu, suggests familial groupings for several burials and
addresses the possibility of admixture between the Spanish
and the Maya. The Tipuans are characterized as homogenous
in dental dimensions and morphology. Jacobi argues that since
the sample becomes less differentiated over time it represents a
stable, regional population. Moving to intra-site comparisons,
comparisons by location revealed no significant differences
between groups interred inside and outside the church. The
Spanish reducciones and the documented migration of the Itza
Maya from the northern Yucatan during the conquest suggest
the possibility of gene flow into the Tipu population. The
homogeneity of the Tipu dentition does not support this model.
In order to assess the influx of new genetic material over time
and to observe the extent of its influence on the historic Tipu
dental complex a larger sample of pre-Columbian skeletons is
needed.
All significant variation in dental morphology between the
sexes was attributed to sexual dimorphism. Several familial
groups were identified based on rare dental morphological
traits and proximity in burial location. The dental data also
reveal that there were no Spanish or European individuals
interred at Tipu.
A comparison of the Tipu sample to other prehistoric and
historic series from throughout the Maya area demonstrated
that the Tipu were significantly different from its closest
geographic neighbor, Lamanai, in the prehistoric and historic
period. Jacobi suggests that Lamanai may have received more
migrants from the Yucatan than Tipu because of its less remote
location or that there was admixture among the Spanish and
Maya at Lamanai than at Tipu. Tipuans were also found to
be very divergent from prehistoric Chichen Itza. While there
is not now an adequate sample of prehistoric data from Tipu
for comparison, Jacobi states that if these data were to come
available it would be further possible to trace the movements
of the Maya before and after the conquest.
True to Jacobi's initial goal, his synthesis has established
a baseline for future analyses of the dynamic Maya social
landscape before, during, and after the conquest. Studies such
as these are valuable because they have broad implications
for how scholars interpret the social milieu of the ancient and
historic Maya. Last Rites for the Tipu Maya is an excellent
contribution to Maya bioarchaeology.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


2007 VOL. 60(4)






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST


About the Authors:

Myles Bland is a senior archaeologist with Bland and Associates, Inc (BAI). He holds an MA in anthropology from the
University of South Carolina and has conducted numerous archaeological projects throughout the southeastern United
States since 1989.

Greg S. Hendryx is a senior archaeologist with Environmental Services, Inc. in Jacksonville, Florida. He has worked as
an archaeologist throughout the southeastern United States since 1990. As a cultural resource manager, his experience is
varied, both temporally and geographically; however, his interests lie with the documentation and interpretation of prehis-
toric lifeways along the Atlantic Coast of Florida and Georgia.

Anna Novotny is a PhD student in the Center for Bioarchaeological Research at Arizona State University. Her research
focuses on ancient Maya bioarchaeology with an emphasis on mortuary practices and she is currently working at the Chan
site in northwestern Belize. She has a degree in anthropology from Kenyon College and a Masters degree in anthropology
from Arizona State.

Ted M. Payne is the Senior Archaeologist with American Preservation Consultants, Inc. of St. Augustine, Florida. He has
been active conducting plantation investigations in the northeast part of the state for the past 12 years.

James P Pepe received his MA in Anthropology from Florida Atlantic University. He is currently an archaeologist with
Janus Research and an adjunct professor with Florida Gulf Coast University.

David K. Thulman is an Assistant Professorial Lecturer at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. and presi-
dent of Archaeological Research Cooperative, Inc. He received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from Florida State University
and his J.D. from George Washington University. His main areas of interest are Paleoindian social organization and
theories of cultural transmission.

Neill J. Wallis is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Florida. His dissertation is focused on understanding patterns of
Woodland period interaction in eastern Florida and Georgia.




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