• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Editor's page
 Introduction
 Sarasota Bay Mound: A Safety Harbor...
 Osteological Sarasota Bay Mound:...
 Variability in the Sarasota Bay...
 Sarasota county's stone effigy
 Notes on pottery from the Myakka...
 Revisiting the Aqui Esta Mound...
 Revisiting the Aqui Esta Mound's...
 Book reviews
 Contributors
 Back Cover














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/UF00027829/00203
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Series Title: 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: March-June 2005
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: VID00203
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 1
        Page 2
    Editor's page
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Introduction
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Sarasota Bay Mound: A Safety Harbor Period burial mound, with notes on additional sites in the city of Sarasota
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Osteological Sarasota Bay Mound: A Safety Harbor Period site
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    Variability in the Sarasota Bay Mound (8SO44) pottery assemblage
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
    Sarasota county's stone effigy
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
    Notes on pottery from the Myakka Valley Ranches Mound (8SO401)
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
    Revisiting the Aqui Esta Mound (8CH68): Paste variability in the pottery assemblage
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
    Revisiting the Aqui Esta Mound's shell vessels
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
    Book reviews
        Page 141
        Page 142
    Contributors
        Page 143
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text
The Florida Anthropologist
Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
VOLUME 58, NUMBERS 1-2 MARCH-JUNE 2005
Special Issue: Safety Harbor Period Mounds


The Florida Anthropologist is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 6356, Tallahassee, Florida 32314. Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United States of America. Membership may be initiated at any time during the year, and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall be payable on the anniversary of the initial dues payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications 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 $500, 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 Editor for information on recent back issues.
Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editor to facilitate acknowledgment in subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editor. Publications for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (49[1], 1996, pp. 37-43) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editor with specific questions. Submit four (4) copies for use in peer review. Only one set of original graphics need be submitted. The journal is formatted using Word Perfect 8.0. All manuscripts must be submitted in final form on DOS-formatted 3.5 inch diskettes or CDs in Word Perfect, Word, or ASCII format. Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue. The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist. Such mail is returned to the Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year.
Officers of the Society
President: David Burns, 15128 Springview St., Tampa, FL 33624 (daveburns@prodigy.net)
First Vice President: Scott Mitchell, Silver River Museum, Ocala, FL (mitchells@marion.kl2.fl.us)
Second Vice President: Phyllis Kolianos, 880 Seminole Blvd., Tarpon Springs, FL 34689 (koliano@attglobal.net)
Corresponding Secretary: Gordon Davis, 2200 N. Oleander Dr., Avon Park, FL 33825 (gordondavis@hotmail.com)
Membership Secretary: Terry Simpson, 9907 High Meadow Ave., Thonotosassa, FL 33592 (tsimpson@luna.cas.usf.edu)
Treasurer and Registered Agent: Kelly Driscoll, 5910 Benjamin Center Drive, Suite 120, Tampa, Florida 33634
(k. driscoll@mindspring. com)
Directors at Large: Gloria Fike, 2815 SE St. Lucie Blvd., Stuart, FL 34997 (GloriaFike@prodigy.net)(One Year); Linda Allred, 5460 43rd Ave. N., St. Petersburg, FL 33709 (llrred@juno.com)(Two Years); Chuck Wilde, 195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid, FL 33852 (pillpot@strato.net)(Three Years)
Immediate Past President: Sheila Stewart, 2130 Burlington Avenue North, St. Petersburg, FL 33713 (sjstew@gte.net) Newsletter Editor: Sheila Stewart, 2130 Burlington Avenue North, St. Petersburg, FL 33713 (sjstew@gte.net)
Journal Editorial Staff
Editor: Ryan J. Wheeler, P.O. Box 6356, Tallahassee, FL 32314-6356 (rwheeler@nettally.com) Book Review Editor: Keith Ashley, P.O. Box 10074, Savannah, GA 31412 (kashley@scad.edu) Technical Editor: vacant
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: currently unavailable
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


The Florida Anthropologist
Volume 58 Numbers 1-2 March-June 2005
Table of Contents
SPECIAL ISSUE: SAFETY HARBOR PERIOD MOUNDS
Editor's Page
Introduction. George M. Luer
Sarasota Bay Mound: A Safety Harbor Period Burial Mound,
with Notes on Additional Sites in the City of Sarasota. George M. Luer
Osteological Analysis of Sarasota Bay Mound:
A Safety Harbor Period Site. Laurel Freas and Michael W. Warren
Variability in the Sarasota Bay Mound (8S044) Pottery Assemblage. Ann S. Cordell
Sarasota County's Stone Effigy. Daniel Hughes
Notes on Pottery from the Myakka Valley Ranches Mound (8SO401). Ann S. Cordell
Revisiting the Aqui Esta Mound (8CH68): Paste Variability in the Pottery Assemblage. Ann S. Cordell
Revisiting the Aqui Esta Mound's Shell Vessels. George M. Luer and Daniel Hughes
Book Reviews
Gordon: Florida's Colonial Architectural Heritage. Jeffrey H. Rolland Hann: Indians of Central and South Florida 1513-1763. Vicki Rolland Contributors
3 5
57 75 91 99 105 121
141 141 143
Cover: This is an interpretation, as seen from above in expanded radial view, of the scroll design on a Pinellas Incised collared bowl. The design is incised on the shoulder of the ceramic vessel. This scroll design is based on a vessel from the Pillsbury Temple Mound (8MA31), which dates to the pre-contact Safety Harbor Period, ca. A.D. 1000-1500. A sherd from a similar Pinellas Incised vessel was found by the Bullens in the Sarasota Bay Mound (see article in this issue).
Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893




Editor's Page
Presented here is a special issue dedicated to research on Safety Harbor Period mounds compiled and edited by Guest Editor, George M. Luer. The main focus of the issue is the Sarasota Bay Mound, which was excavated by archaeologist Ripley Bullen in the late 1960s. The first three articles present the history of the site and the details of Bullen's excavation; an osteological analysis of human remains from the site, by Laurel Freas and Mike Warren; and Ann Cordell's analysis of pottery recovered from the site. The subsequent articles include Dan Hughes look at a fascinating stone effigy; Ann Cordell's additional analysis of pottery from the Myakka Valley Ranches and Aqui Esta mounds; and George Luer and Dan Hughes' illustrations of the shell vessels from the Aqui Esta Mound. This issue concludes with two book reviews by Jeffrey Rolland and Vicki Rolland. I think that many readers will find the Safety Harbor mounds focus to be especially interesting.
December 2004 Volume 57(4) Errata
Unfortunately, several errors and omissions have been identified in two articles in the December 2004 issue of The Florida Anthropologist (Volume 57, Number 4). Figures 2 and 3 (pages 251 and 252) of Rebecca Saunders article "The Stratigraphic Sequence at Rollins Shell Ring: Implications for Ring Function" are very dark and difficult to see. Happily, Mike Russo of the Southeastern Archeological Center, National Park Service has posted a version of Dr. Saunders' article on his website (www.cr.nps.gov/seac/shellrings/), including high resolution scans of the figures. I apologize for any inconvenience to Dr. Saunders and the readers.
Figure 11 of Neill Wallis' article "Perpetuating Tradition on the Lower St. Johns: Pottery Technology and Function at the Mayport Mound (8DU96)," cited on pages 284 and 285, was omitted. It is reproduced below. Again, I extend my apologies to Mr. Wallis and the readers for the oversight.
Figure 11. Absolute frequency of sooted vessels by interior orifice diameter (cm).
Vol. 58(1-2)
The Florida Anthropologist
March-June 2005




INTRODUCTION
When the Spanish arrived in the 1500s, the central Florida Gulf coast was home to a number of Indian chiefdoms. Today, their artifacts and other material remains comprise what archaeologists call "the Safety Harbor Culture." This name is derived from the Safety Harbor Site, located near the town of Safety Harbor, on Old Tampa Bay, where the culture was first studied in the 1930s and 1940s.
We now know that the Safely Harbor Culture was widespread, with villages and camps dotting the greater Tampa Bay region. They are spread from the Withlacoochee River on the north to Charlotte Harbor on the south. Scattered through this area, Safety Harbor Indians built sand burial mounds. They usually are complicated structures, with varied histories. Many have basal deposits; some have secondary additions. They preserve evidence of burial customs, status differentiation, human health, artistic and religious symbolism, and trade.
Pottery artifacts from these mounds are diverse, such as gourd-effigy vessels and pop-eyed bird head effigies. Their form and decoration give archaeologists insights into Safety Harbor beliefs and relationships with neighboring cultures. Some pottery shows stylistic influence and trade with Missis-sippian Indians in northwestern Florida and southern Georgia and Alabama, specifically the Fort Walton and Chattahoochee River regions.
Today, many Safety Harbor Period burial mounds have been lost to twentieth-century impacts, such as looting and land development. Remaining ones need study and preservation. This issue focuses on three of them: the Sarasota Bay, Myakka Valley Ranches, and Aqui Esta mounds. All three date to before Spanish contact, and all are located in the Safety Harbor Culture Area's South-Central region.
This interesting region stretches from Sarasota to Punta Gorda. Many of its largest sites are shell middens bordering bays and river mouths, where Safety Harbor Period Indians fished and gathered shellfish. The Indians also trekked inland to hunt and gather in pinewoods, saw palmetto prairies, and wetlands. Overland trails must have connected communities, undoubtedly linking the Indians who built the Sarasota Bay Mound with their neighbors to the north, south, and east, including the Indians who built the Myakka Valley Ranches Mound.
Footpaths must have cris-crossed the region. From Myakka Valley, for example, paths probably ran northward to the Wilson Mounds in Old Miakka, westward to Sarasota and the Palmer Site in Osprey, and southwestward to the Laurel Mound, Pool Hammock, and the area of Venice Inlet. Others probably led southward to the Deer Prairie/Blackburn Mound, the Brothers Site and Wrecked Site on the lower Myakka River, and the Englewood Mound near Lemon Bay.
Yet other paths probably ran southeastward to the Myakkahatchee and Nineteen Owner sites to reach the mouth of the Peace River and the Indians who built the Aqui Esta Mound. Communication and trade via such trails help explain the presence of some of the same kinds of artifacts in widespread Safety Harbor Period burial mounds. They include artifacts studied in this issue, such as whelk shell vessels, Safety Harbor Incised bottles, Sarasota Incised beakers, bird-effigy bowls, gourd-effigy funnels, and Lake Jackson Plain and Pinellas Incised vessels with rim lugs and loop handles.
Acknowledgments
Many individuals have cooperated in the multi-disciplinary research presented in this issue. Authors Ann Cordell, Laurel Freas, Dan Hughes, and Mike Warren have contributed their expertise. Reviewers Dale Hutchinson, Jerald Milanich, Jeff Mitchem, Mary Lucas Powell, and Ryan Wheeler have given their valued criticisms. Ryan Wheeler laid out the text and figures. I am indebted to these individuals, and to the Florida Anthropological Society, for making this publication a reality.
George M. Luer Guest Editor March 2005
Vol. 58(1-2)
The Florida Anthropologist
March-June 2005


Florida Anthropological Society Chapters
1) Archaeological Society of Southern Florida
2495 NW 35th Ave., Miami, FL 33142
2) Broward County Archaeological Society
481 S. Federal Highway, Dania Beach, FL 33004
3) Central Florida Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 947544, Maitland, FL 32794-7544
4) Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society P.O. Box 82255, St. Petersburg, FL 33682
5) Indian River Anthropological Society
3705 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, FL 32952
6) Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid, FL 33852
7) Emerald Coast Archaeological Society
333 Persimmon Street, Freeport, FL 32435
8) Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee
c/o The Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation 423 E. Virginia Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301
9) Pensacola Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 13251, Pensacola, FL 32591
10) St. Augustine Archaeological Association
P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine, FL 32085
11) Southeast Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 2875, Stuart, FL 34995
12) Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101
13) Time Sifters Archaeology Society
P.O. Box 25883, Sarasota, FL 34277-2883
14) Volusia Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32175
15) Warm Mineral Springs Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 7797, North Port, FL 34287


Sarasota Bay Mound: a Safety Harbor Period Burial Mound, with Notes on Additional Sites in the City of Sarasota
George M. Luer
The Archaeology Foundation, Inc., 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239
The Sarasota Bay Mound (8S044) overlooked Sarasota Bay at the southern edge of downtown Sarasota. Also known as the McClintock Mound and the Mound Street Burial Mound, it was a sizeable sand mound dating to the pre-contact Safety Harbor Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1500). In 1968, archaeologist Ripley Bullen conducted limited excavations in the mound, before a high-rise condominium was built on the site in the early 1970s. Bullen found ceramics and human burials, but died before writing a report.
The present article is based primarily on Bullen's field cards that I transcribed in 1979, plus my recent analysis of Bullen's collection of field specimens as well as my related research. Skeletal remains are analyzed separately (see Freas and Warren, this issue). However, I offer some interpretations of burials here based on associated artifacts and field photographs showing in situ positions of remains. I also describe pottery from the mound, and a separate analysis of ceramic pastes and vessels has been produced (see Cordell, this issue).
In addition, I discuss sites adjacent to and near the Sarasota Bay Mound. These include the Pinard Midden (8S099), a short distance north of the mound, and sites around Hudson and Whitaker bayous in the City of Sarasota. Radiocarbon dates and contour maps from nearby sites in the city are presented.
History of the Mound
Early History
In the 1880s, the Sarasota Bay area was a sparsely settled part of Manatee County. At that time, the Sarasota Bay Mound was so overgrown with native scrubby vegetation (e.g., saw palmettos, scrub oaks) that it was not shown on the area's 1883 topographic map (Figure l:top). The mound was south of the bayfront clearing and dwelling of "Captain" Albert E. Willard, a pioneer who operated a fish oil and fertilizer business (Grismer 1946:62-64) and who lived in a large log house "with an open porch across the front" (Matthews 1983:322). The map also shows a narrow trail (a precursor of Mound Street) to the south of the mound, running between the bayshore and an unidentified homestead located a short distance inland.
According to Grismer (1946), Willard sold his land to an agent and business associate of Hamilton Disston of Philadelphia. The tract served as an "outlet" parcel, providing access to Sarasota Bay for large interior holdings acquired by Disston in 1881-1883. Disston bought the land from the Internal
Improvement Fund of the State of Florida, thereby relieving the Fund of debt. Disston's Sarasota property, including the Willard tract, was then sold and resold to speculators, being purchased by a British land syndicate in late 1884, which promoted land sales and started the fledgling town of Sarasota on the former Willard tract to the north of the mound (Davis 1939; Grismer 1946:80-81, 98-99, 101-106; Marth 1973:17-27; Monroe etal. 1977:40; Tebeau 1971:277-278; Tischendorf 1954:123). A decade later and in the opposite direction (but near the mound), a long dock was built into the bay from the end of the narrow trail that was the precursor of Mound Street (United States Coast and Geodetic Survey [U.S.C.G.S.] 1895).
By 1900, the mound had suffered "considerable digging," according to Philadelphia antiquarian Clarence B. Moore. He indicated the mound's location, immediately south of Sarasota, with a small, unlabeled cross on his frontispiece map showing the Tampa Bay area, titled "Florida Coast from Clearwater Harbor to Sarasota" (Moore 1900a:350). He also dug in the mound, but found nothing to disclose its identity as a burial mound:
About one-half mile in a southerly direction from Sarasota, Manatee Co., a few yards from the water [the bay], in oak and [saw] palmetto scrub, is a mound on the property of Mr. Adolph Zakezewski [sic], of Philadelphia, Pa. The mound is 20 feet high with somewhat irregular basal outline, and about 130 feet across. Considerable digging done previous to our visit showed no trace of human remains along the sections, nor were our excavations more successful. The mound, which is probably of domiciliary character, seems to be of gray sand without shell. [Moore 1900a:362]
Moore's field notes record the same information, but add that the mound's base was "130 ft. E. & W." and that he dug "on E. side of md."(Moore 1900b:26). The eastern side of the mound was its landward side, farthest from the bay.
At the turn of the twentieth century, Sarasota was beginning to grow, and the land around the mound began to be subdivided. In 1902, "Zakrzewski's Addition to the Town of Sarasota" was filed in Plat Book 1 of Manatee County (of which Sarasota would remain a part until 1921). The mound was noted in the original subdivision plat as "Indian Mound, 100 ft Base, 20 ft High" and it fell within a 100 x 200 ft parcel, Lot 5, in Block A (Manatee County 1902). A north-south street, named Palm Avenue, was platted to the immediate east of the mound. It was crossed by another platted street running east-west, Mound Street (named after the mound), which was 100 ft south of the mound (south of Lot 6, Block A,
Vol. 58(1-2)
The Florida Anthropologist
March-June 2005


Figure 1. Arrows show location of Sarasota Bay Mound. Top: portion of 1883 topographic map (United States Coast and Geodetic Survey 1883a). Bottom: portion of a recent map (United States Geological Survey 1992). The map at top is slightly enlarged compared to the bottom one.


in Zakrzewski's Addition).
Zakrzewski's Addition directiy bordered the bay. As Sarasota continued to grow, however, a third street was built along the shore to the west of the mound and outside Zakrzewski's Addition. Known as Gulf Stream Avenue, it was part of extensive changes to Sarasota's waterfront. By 1908, a post card shows the bayfront sea wall being extended southward from the heart of town, but it was still north of Zakrzewski's Addition (Figure 2:top). As the sea wall continued to be built in 1911-1912, the adjacent tidal flat was dredged up and placed as fill behind it (Grismer 1946:161), and Gulf Stream Avenue was extended southward on the filled land. Marth (1984:66 [lower]) shows a view of Gulf Stream Avenue, raised high and running along the sea wall. In 1913, contractors began laying brick on Gulf Stream Avenue (Grismer 1946:170), and photographs in Marth (1984:88-89, 90 [upper]) show these improvements.
During this period of growth, the parcel to the immediate north of the mound (Lot 4, another 100 x 200 ft parcel in Zakrzewski's Addition) was further subdivided into four smaller lots, called Magnolia Terrace. On this new subdivision map, Gulf Stream Avenue appears, and it is shown bordering the western edge of Block A in Zakrzewski's Addition (Manatee County 1913).
A result of this early work was that the shore was shifted westward. This meant that the mound no longer bordered Sarasota Bay. It now sat to the east, with Gulf Stream Avenue and a strip of filled land between it and the bay. Gulf Stream Avenue ended a short distance southwest of the mound, where it turned eastward onto Mound Street.
On February 10, 1916, Captain R. D. Wainwright of Roanoke, Virginia, visited the town of Sarasota and observed the mound. He wrote:
On the corner of Mound Street and Palm Avenue is a large sand mound; ground level on all sides, more or less covered with shell. Found here pottery fragments; one piece with handle. Was not able to do excavation work here. [Wainwright 1916:140]
McClintock House
In 1920, Dr. Charles T. McClintock built a house on the mound, overlooking Sarasota Bay at 667 South Gulf Stream Avenue (later re-numbered 767 South Gulf Stream Avenue). McClintock, who wintered in Sarasota, was reportedly "a New York physician who became modestly famous in his day as the originator of a germicidal soap, very popular in the early years of the [twentieth] century" (Fritts 1968).
In preparation for building the house, the mound's height was cut down. Grismer (1946:12) reports that the mound was "leveled," but this was in reference to its upper portion. The mound's remaining elevation was high enough, and the water table was consequendy deep enough, for the McClintock house to have a cellar.
Land leveling and excavation of the cellar uncovered ceramics and human skeletal remains. The local newspaper of March 11, 1920, gives the following account:
Leveling of what is known as the Indian mound, and excavations in this locality, this week, by workmen preparing the ground for the erection of residences, have resulted in the discovery of a large number of interesting relics .... Among the interesting finds made by visitors to the scene are various bones of the human skeleton, human teeth, pieces of pottery and flint. It is said that one whole skeleton was found, but that it crumbled to dust as soon as touched. ... Among those most interested in the relics being uncovered is Mr. H. K. Hubbard, of Bellefontaine, Ohio, and he has quite a novel collection on display in one of the windows of the First National Bank, which he picked up on the site.... Among his collection are a number of pieces of pottery, which show exquisite workmanship and must have formed parts of very beautiful vessels.....[Anonymous 1920]
Approximately 25 years later, Grismer gave a secondhand account of these finds in his book, The Story of Sarasota:
Several feet below the surface workmen found many pieces of pottery, beautifully decorated, and six complete skeletons. The position of the skeletons indicated that the bodies had been buried face downward with their heads pointing southeast. A photograph was taken of the skeletons, a fence was built around the spot, signs were posted warning people to stay out, and a telegram was sent to the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences asking if an expert could be sent to study the findings. But during the night of March 10 vandals broke through the fence and stole most of the bones and relics. [Grismer 1946:12]
For several decades after construction of the McClintock house, it stood in a quiet, residential neighborhood a short distance south of downtown Sarasota:
It was one of the few homes in the area with a basement and steam heat. The Indian mound on which it rests made a fine prominence for looking out over the bay, and the front of the structure was graced by an oval, glass-enclosed porch for taking advantage of this view. [Fritts 1968]
Photographs indicate that the McClintock house was a white, frame, two-story house (Figure 2:bottom, and Figures 3 and 4). In architectural terms, it was a gabled cottage, a prevailing American vernacular house type that was widespread in small towns and cities between 1870 and 1920 (Gottfried and Jennings 1988:180-181). This style is consistent with the origin of the house's contractor, C. J. Knighton, who came from St. Louis and had worked there and in other Mid-Western cities before moving to Sarasota (see below and Note 6). The house had a simple T-shaped plan, with the projecting stem toward the street (perpendicular to Gulf Stream Avenue) and the cross-piece behind. This basic plan, however, was embellished to take advantage of the setting amid oak trees and other plants in the yard. A garden theme was reflected by wooden, decorative pieces with scroll-like, knob ends. On the front half of the house, these embellishments projected around the top of the first story, giving the effect of a pergola roof.
The decorative embellishments of a pergola on the


Figure 2. Early Sarasota bayfront Top: 1908 post card shows bayfront sea wall being extended southward from heart of Sarasota toward Zakrzewski's Addition. Sarasota Bay Mound is beyond right edge of photograph, but high ground on which mound was built is in distance, at right (Sarasota County History Center Photographic Collection 1908). Bottom: McClintock house atop Sarasota Bay Mound. View is to east, with South Gulf Stream Avenue in foreground. Photograph ca. 1968 (from Davis 1968b).


Figure 3. Eastern side of McClintock house (overlapping photographs). Top: driveway in foreground, with worker and dirt pile at Trench IX beyond. Bottom: tree at edge of driveway has line level string draped from nail used as an elevation datum; filled Trenches I and II at right. Photographs by Ripley Bullen, July 1968 (FLMNH photographic negatives 94.228.1742a/b).


Figure 4. Northern side of McClintock house. Top: entry to cellar below bay window, with filled Trench HI in foreground. Bottom: view over the bay, with filled Trench VI in foreground. Photographs by Ripley Bullen, July 1968 (FLMNH photographic negatives 94.228.1742c/d).


McClintock house recall elegant gardens and real pergolas at nearby estates of the early 1900s that incorporated Indian mounds and middens at the Acacias (Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound [8S04]), in Sarasota, and at The Oaks (Shell Ridge Midden [8S02]), in Osprey (e.g., Luer 1992b:235, Figures 6 and 7). Such embellishment of the McClintock house reflects an appreciation during the early twentieth century for the garden and surrounding outdoors as integral parts of a house. The embellishment also shows a sophistication befitting the house's location on Gulf Stream Avenue, already an upscale address in Sarasota at that time.
High up, on the house's front and sides, the open gables were ornamented with a triangular, stickwork motif (Figure 2:bottom). The front of the house (overlooking the bay) had the porch projecting from the first floor, with a screen door on centerline and a flight of concrete steps (ascending the mound) leading up to it. The porch's columns and radiating crown of decorative projections resembled a pergola, as noted above. Above the porch, a row of four sash windows occupied the middle of the second-story facade. A one-story sun room (with a flat roof) extended from the ell on the southern side. Farther back, on the sides of the house, each end of the T had a one-story bay window. Each was a three-sided bay, with two canted walls and one parallel to the main wall, with double-hung sash windows with nine lights over one. The decorative projections continued back (from over the front porch and sun room) to embellish the tops of these bay windows.
The back of the house, toward Palm Avenue, was plain and subdued (Figure 3). The roof was dominant as it sloped down to the top of the first story, with a small gable projecting from the upper half of the second story. A small, back porch was enclosed in the northeastern corner of the house. Some of the floor toward the rear of the house, east of the bay windows, was above the ground and on low, brick piers. A subterranean door to the cellar was below the bay window on the northern side of the house, and steps led downward to it from the east. Around the house, the over-hanging eaves were guttered. The roof had a rectangular butt shingle pattern, and the walls had standard clapboard wooden siding (except the front porch and the windowed front of the sun room).
The house apparently had one or two septic systems, possibly dating to different times. Bullen (see below) noted old pipes and an "old cesspool" to the northeast of the house. In a second location, just south of the front porch (in Trench VIII), he noted rocks and a drainfield.
Forty years after the McClintock house was built, its surrounding neighborhood began to change. Approximately 150 ft south of the house was Mound Street, 60 ft wide and paved with brick. In the late 1950s, Mound Street was widened to make a four- to six-lane divided highway, named Bayfront Drive. It became part of re-routed U.S. Highway 41 and was designed as a scenic parkway for motorists. It curved along the bayshore on freshly filled land, spoiling the view from the McClintock house and a number of houses overlooking the bay to the north (Figure 5).
The widening of Mound Street removed most of the southern half of Zakrzewski Addition's Lot 6, a 100 x 200 ft
parcel immediately south of the mound. As a result, the new highway was close to the McClintock house and the mound, then called the McClintock Mound (Fales and Davis 1961). This was the mound's setting in the 1960s, when archaeological work was conducted at the site.
Excavation
In the 1960s, the McClintock house fell into disrepair. The early and mid-1960s saw a general decline in Sarasota's downtown business and residential areas as new highways and shopping centers encouraged sprawl to the east and south. Hurricane Donna in 1960, and Hurricane Alma in 1966, also might have damaged the house. By 1968, the McClintock house was described as "an empty, two-story, much-neglected house" (Fritts 1968). At that time, however, high-rise condominiums were beginning to spread along downtown Sarasota's bayfront. The McClintock house and adjoining parcels were purchased by a Canadian developer, Earl Putnam,1 who was building a 60-unit condominium, The Royal St. Andrew, overlooking the bay a few lots to the north.
Putnam planned to demolish the McClintock house and to build another high-rise condominium. Before razing the house, however, he agreed to allow salvage excavations. The excavations were initiated by Sarasota County Historian Doris Davis,2 the Sarasota County Historical Commission, and the Sarasota County Historical Society. An agreement for the work was formalized, with collections to be the property of Sarasota County (Sarasota County Historical Commission 1968). The Sarasota Board of County Commissioners provided funds to hire four unemployed young men, through the Youth Employment Service (YES), to assist in clearing and digging. Archaeologist Ripley Bullen, who had some experience in Sarasota County,3 was engaged to direct the field work. He was a curator at the Florida State Museum (FSM), in Gainesville, and came to Sarasota in July 1968 to do the work (Anonymous 1968; Davis 1968a, 1968b; Fritts 1968)." He was accompanied by his wife, Adelaide K. Bullen, who was a physical anthropologist and an Adjunct Curator at FSM.
In the early 1970s, the Embassy House, a condominium at 770 South Palm Avenue, was built on the mound where McClintock house had stood (Figures 6 and 7). The 18-story condominium tower was built on the mound's central portion. A pool with surrounding deck was built on the mound's southwestern side. The mound's eastern side was used as an automobile approach to the tower's eastern entrance, with a car ramp (northeast of the tower) leading to two-level parking to the north of the mound and tower.
During the 1970s, traffic on U.S. 41 (Mound Street and Bayfront Drive) became very busy. U.S. 41 was one of only two major, north-south routes through Sarasota. It carried local traffic as well as transient travelers (tourists, truckers) between Tampa, Naples, and points between and beyond. Its congestion was not relieved until Interstate 75 opened in late 1981, finally shifting travelers inland and away from the shore and urbanized areas.
In 1976, the mound was listed in the Florida Master Site


Figure 5. In the late 1950s, a massive fill of Sarasota's bayfront created a scenic parkway, part of re-routed U.S. Highway 41. The fill was west of the Sarasota Bay Mound, spoiling the view from the McClintock house and other houses overlooking the bay to the north. Arrow points to the Sarasota Bay Mound (view toward the southeast, Sarasota County History Center Photographic Collection).
File as 8S044 and described as "destroyed" (Almy 1976). Late in 1976, Ripley Bullen died (Anonymous 1977), without having analyzed and written about his work at the "Mound Street Burial Mound," as he called it (Bullen 1968a, 1968b). Around this time, the mound was delimited on a street map in a preservation survey for the City of Sarasota (Monroe et al. 1977), and it was marked on two maps of southern Sarasota Bay showing locations of significant Indian sites with respect to economically important estuarine areas (bay shallows and mangrove) and twentieth-century shoreline alterations (Luer 1977:Figures 1 and 2). Later, the mound was marked on a map showing additional areas of economic importance to the Indians: former patches of scrubby flatwoods in southern Sarasota (Luer 1995:Figure 3).
In 1979,1 obtained permission from Adelaide Bullen to make handwritten transcriptions of Ripley's field note cards (Luer 1979), then in her possession.5 My transcriptions of Ripley's notes are cited below. Mrs. Bullen died in 1987 (Mitchem 1987), and her husband's original note cards have not been found since. They apparently were discarded.
In 2002, materials excavated from the Sarasota Bay Mound in 1968 were retrieved from storage at the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH), in Gainesville (formerly the Florida State Museum). The collection was still in the same bags and boxes in which it had arrived from the field. In May and June, 2002, the materials were unpacked, placed in labeled storage boxes and trays, and accessioned at FLMNH.


Figure 6. The Embassy House condominium tower occupies the site of the Sarasota Bay Mound and McClintock house. View looks inland (to the northeast) from the shore of Sarasota Bay, with U.S. 41 in foreground, April 1997. This contrasts to an earlier view of this same location shown in Figure 2, bottom.
was transferred to the curated collection (see below). In the following paragraphs, Bullen's field cards are cited simply by number (e.g., card 1, card 2, etc.). Bullen used English units (feet, inches) and those are the units repeated below.
Informant Reports
Bullen recorded that an informant, Mrs. Beryl Knighton Humphreys (the daughter of the contractor, C. J. Knighton,6 who built the McClintock house in 1920), said that her father found a multiple burial with skeletons arranged like the spokes of a wheel, feet at the center and heads to the perimeter. She recounted that it was located "middle down the mound" and "as soon as" it was exposed to air, it turned to "dust" (card 5). This burial might have resembled other "radial burials," such as at the Laurel Mound, also in Sarasota County and dating to the Safety Harbor Period (Luer and Almy 1987).
Humphreys also told Bullen that the mound had been higher than a "two story house" before the McClintock house was built. She said that from a nearby two and a half story house, the mound had been so high that one "couldn't see over it, couldn't see the bay." She reported that her father "hauled most of it [the mound] away" and that he found many "relics: pottery some whole pots, skull, room full of pottery" (card 5). Bullen also wrote that "John B. Browning, resident of Sarasota since 1919, said in old days boys would dig in mound and 'bowl' with skulls" (card l).7
Cellar Excavation
1968 Investigation
Bullen began work on July 10,1968 and continued through July 19. The following account of Bullen's work is based on my transcriptions of his field notes (originally written in pencil on 5 x 7 inch note cards), on his field photographs archived at FLMNH, and on information written on paper bags used to store materials recovered in the field. When these bags were unpacked so that specimens could be catalogued and stored in the FLMNH Collections Range, the information on the bags
Bullen and the workers began Test A on July 10, when he "decided to try to break cellar floor and test below it" (card 2). The cellar measured 20 ft x 12 ft 9 in, with an alcove measuring 9 ft x 7 ft along one long side. As mentioned above, the cellar door was on the northern side of the house. The alcove might have been on the northern side of the cellar, under the bay window where the door provided entrance.
According to Bullen, the cellar floor was approximately 6 ft ("77 in" on card 3; "71 in" on card 13) below an asphalt apron surrounding the outside base of the house. The workers removed the cellar floor, except for a narrow perimeter around the base of the cellar walls. They dug the entire area to a


Figure 7. Plan of Embassy House condominium, based on Cobia and Hebb, Inc. (1975). The 18 story tower footprint is superimposed on the McClintock house plan (see Figure 8). Only a portion of the two-level parking area is shown.
depth of 1 ft, which was called Test A. The concrete floor was 1.5 in thick and rested on a layer of "rubble" of equal thickness. Under the rubble was black sand extending to 4-6 in below the floor, which Bullen interpreted as the "basal zone of mound." Below the black sand was reddish sand (card 3).
Near the cellar's center and within Test A, Bullen dug a 4 x 4 ft test (Test C) to a depth of at least 4 ft, finding reddish sand that was sterile of cultural remains (card 3). Thus, reddish sand was below the base of the mound, and its top in Test C was at 6 ft 9 in to 6 ft 11 in below the asphalt apron around the outside base of the house.
In Test A and several feet from Test C, on July 12, Bullen found a small oval feature extending into the reddish sand. He described it as a "pit leading downward from basal black zone just below cellar floor" and interpreted it as "probably a charcoal 'generating' pit" (card 12). He drew a plan view diagram of the pit at 8 in below the cellar floor, noting a
central zone of black sand surrounded by other dark-colored zones of sand, one containing "charcoal flecks" (card 12). The pit had a rounded bottom, extending to 36-42 in below the cellar floor, and a diameter of approximately 24 in at a depth of 17 in below the floor (cards 11 and 12).
Plan View
Around the outside of the house, Bullen and YES workers dug nine trenches. A plan view map showing their locations is not available. Thus, the positions shown in Figure 8 are approximate locations, based on clues in the field cards, such as the depth and direction of sloping layers in the profiles, as well as on field photographs of backfilled excavation areas. The trenches were numbered with Roman numerals, I through IX, apparently from east to west in the general sequence in which they were begun. The field cards fail to give horizontal


Figure 8. Approximate locations of excavation trenches (Roman numerals) around the McClintock house. The location and plan of the house and garage are based on Sanborn Map Company (1925a, 1965). Other features are based on photographs and field notes.
dimensions for most trenches, although depths are stated for available profiles.
The cards suggest that Bullen established a baseline of lettered stakes that ran from east to west. However, the location of the baseline is unclear. Stakes D and F are mentioned near the initial Tests 1, 2, and 3 (cards 8, 9, and 10), which were northeast of the house. Another stake is mentioned near Trench IX (card 46).
Mound Height
On July 10, Bullen and the workers cleared vegetation from the mound. He wrote that "clearing indicates mound has been leveled off and certainly [is] no where near 20 [ft] high on east side" (cards 1 and 2). Bullen established a datum point by putting a nail in a tree to the east of the house, at the edge of the driveway. The nail was 1 ft 9 in (21 in) above the
asphalt apron that surrounded the outside base of the house. From the nail, Bullen used a string, line level, and tape measure to take vertical measurements.
On July 15, Bullen took measurements of the mound's elevation in eastward and westward directions (Figure 9). He found that the top of the mound, represented by the asphalt apron around the McClintock house, was 6 ft (72 in) above the center of South Palm Avenue to the east. He recorded that some of the eastern side of the mound was buttressed by a retaining wall rising to a height of 4 ft 10 in (58 in) above the sidewalk along South Palm Avenue. The central crown of South Palm Avenue (paved with bricks) was 57 in below the top of the retaining wall. The top of the wall was 3 ft (36 in) below the level of the nail and 15 in below the asphalt apron around the house. In the opposite direction, to the west, the top of the mound was 10 ft above Gulf Stream Avenue (cards 15 and 16). It should be noted that a string and line level


WEST
EAST
ledge of house
3" 6"
9 cement floor
_basal black in cellar Test A
basal zone in Trench I
level line
sidewalk
South Palm Avenue
Figure 9. Line level measurements (approximate). This diagram profile view looks to the north. The tree and nail are east of the house (they are visible in Figure 3). One line runs east to the retaining wall and street. The other line runs west to the house and into the cellar. Horizontal distances are not to scale.
become less accurate with increasing distance, and thus these measurements should be considered approximate only.
Tests 1, 2, 3, and Trench I
In the yard surrounding the house, Bullen began "probing in NE corner [of the yard] all the way from driveway north with negative results except for pipes and old cesspool" (cards 2 and 8). He then began three exploratory tests. Test 1 was approximately "9 ft south of [Stake] D 1/2" and encountered recent fill or disturbed soil to a depth of 2 ft 9 in. Test 2 was begun approximately "7 ft north of [Stake] D 1/2" where Bullen found a "suggestion of a charcoal impregnated basal layer" (card 8). Test 3 was "started 0-10 ft south of stake F' where approximately 10-12 in of recent fill covered the top of the mound. Bullen decided to connect two of the tests to form Trench I, with the idea of surrounding the house with "a series of radial trenches going toward [the] house" (card 8).
Bullen drew a north-south profile of Trench I showing sandy layers of the mound sloping downhill to the north, indicating that the trench ran down the northern slope of the mound. The top of the profile (corresponding to the surface at the profile's southern end) was 18.5 in below the nail in the nearby tree. Thus, the southern end of Trench I was 2.5 in above the apron and at the top of the mound. At a pipe in this southern end of the trench, Bullen established another string and line level for taking vertical measurements in Trench I.
This level line was at a depth of 10 in, or 28.5 in below the nail in the tree (card 14).
The length of Bullen's north-south profile in Trench I is not stated. His profile sketch shows a 10-12 in sloping layer of recent fill across the top of the profile. Below it are layers of the mound: first, a layer of white sand; then, a layer of reddish fine sand under it. Extending across the bottom of the profile was a "charcoal flecked basal" zone at between approximately 5-5.5 ft below the trench's level line, or approximately 6-6.5 ft below the top of the mound (card 14). Trench I was backfilled on My 15 (card 14).
Trenches II and III
On July 15, Bullen and the workers continued by starting Trenches II and III. Profiles of Trench II indicate that it was on the eastern slope of the mound, perhaps near mid-slope. It was dug to a depth of approximately 8 ft below the elevation of the datum (the nail in the tree).
Trench III was dug in a flower bed. The surface of the bed was 18 in below the nail in the tree, and the 10 in thick bed was underlain by a 4.5 ft thick layer of tan sand, then a 5 in layer of white sand, a 6 in layer of black sand, and another 5 in layer of white sand before sterile red sand was reached (card 20). A quantity of pottery sherds was noted "in or on top of basal black zone" in Trench III at a depth of approximately 84 in below the level of the nail or approximately 66 in below the


surface of the flower bed (card 21). Trench IV
In Trench IV, Bullen noted "a piece of conch shell down 6 ft below apron." The trench was located "between asphalt apron and rear porch." Bullen observed that the "fill of mound is very fine white, tan, or light brown sand with an occasional limonitic lump, bits of charcoal, rarely a piece of conch shell and very rarely a sherd." He wrote that the "black basal zone [was] 6 in thick at 97 in below nail" (card 19).
Trench V
This was a 5 x 5 ft unit, possibly located southeast of the house. Its eastern and southern profiles show 1-2 ft of recent fill at the surface, being deepest in the southeastern corner of the unit (Figure 10:top). The fill covered a brown stratum of the mound, which sloped upward toward the north and west. A dark lens was noted at approximately 4 ft below the surface, which yielded a number of sherds (FLMNH 2002-21-27).
In the western portion of the unit, the profile shows a thin (2-3 in) basal grey zone at approximately 6 ft below the surface (card 18). Bullen wrote that the unit was at the southeastern edge of the basal black zone, which was "only present in the NW corner [of the unit] between depth of 5 ft 6 in and 5 ft 8 in" (card 22). He noted that occasional "bits of shells and charcoal lumps [were in the] basal black zone" (card 22).
Trench VI
Trench VI was 10 x 10 ft in area (card 25). It might have been north of the house, judging by Bullen's note that the basal zone sloped downward from the trench's southeastern corner, before pinching out. He also observed "some sherds in basal zone." There were "extensive land slides in Trench VI" (card 29), worsened by heavy summer rains.
Tests F and G
Two tests of undetermined size and location, Tests F and G, might have been near Trench VI (they are described on the same field card as Trench VI). The surface of Test F was 3 ft below the nail in the tree, and contained a recent, disturbed overburden to a depth of 2 ft. Test G also contained a recent, disturbed overburden to a depth of 2 ft. In Test G, however, Bullen noted that there was "shell in lower part of overburden" and "presumably [the] overburden came from top of burial mound" (card 29).
Trench VII
The location and size of Trench VII are unclear. It might have been northwest of the house, judging by layers of the mound that sloped downward to the north and northwest. In plan view, Trench VH's southern side was curved, perhaps following the edge of the porch. The other sides of the trench
were straight.
Bullen drew a profile of the trench's southwestern corner. He noted light brown sand beginning at a depth of 5 in and extending to 2 ft 9 in. It was underlain by tan sand extending to a depth of 6 ft 5 in. Under it was a basal black zone extending to 6 ft 11 in. White sand was below the basal black zone. In the northwestern corner of the trench, the basal black zone was deeper, extending to a depth of 7 ft 3 in. Bullen also noted that the "line between [the] brown and tan sand slopes downward ... to [the] NW" (card 23).
Trench VIII
Trench VIII was near the southwestern corner of the house. The trench's northeastern corner was close to the southern edge of the porch, which curved to the northwest, away from the trench (card 32). Trench VIII measured 3 x 8 ft in area, with its long axis perhaps oriented east-west (card 27). Near the surface, Bullen encountered a small (approximately 1 ft diameter) "recent pit containing bones, 2 chert chips, [and] leaves," which he called "Pit A" (card 24). Deep in the trench, Bullen found the basal black zone at 7 ft 6 in below the level of the apron around the house (card 32).
Bullen's notes identified several human burials near the ground surface. He wrote that "these burials in Trench VIII were probably all originally tighdy flexed but they were disturbed by drainage pipe and drain field and a little by installation of 6-inch peat carpet for grass" (card 30). Bullen also wrote that "all burials in [Trench] VIII suggest ... tied, flexed burials from a charnel house" that were buried in an "area circa 10 feet across" (card 33).
His field note cards showed 13 burial loci in Trench VIII that were labeled as through "#6" (card 26) and "a" through "g" (card 27). The latter were described as follows: "a isolated fragment of jaw, b isolated fragment of jaw, c -isolated skull facing south, d long bones, e skull, long bones to SE, f skull parts, g skull and long bone" (card 27).
The note cards gave very brief descriptions of only three burials (#1, #3, #4). Bullen wrote that "Burial #1 clavicle was below skull, [with] some suggestion of cervical vertebrae" (card 28). He noted that Burial #3 was "flexed on left side, face to west" (card 30) and that it had been "tied, put in pit, femurs on bottom" and that it was 24 in to the "bottom of [the] burial" (card 31). Burial #4 was described as:
lying on right side, face and jaw to east. Jaw caught in large rocks of drain field. Finger bones below skull and humerus leading toward SW. Therefore, head to N. Apparently was articulated but disturbed by drain. Paired long bones to south of chin could be knees. Therefore, tightly flexed, [card 28]
Trench VIII is shown in a color slide in the collection of the Sarasota County History Center (see photograph in Freas and Warren, this issue). The slide shows Adelaide Bullen kneeling in the shallow trench, in the process of removing a burial. Two nearby burials are visible, as is the drainage pipe mentioned in Ripley's field cards. As a physical anthropologist, Adelaide's expertise allowed informed removal of skeletal


EAST PROFILE North South
x
SOUTH PROFILE East West
ground surface
reddish sand
H W W
East
0 1
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
Burial B
black black
SOUTH PROFILE I_I_L
black peat (modern)
Burial A
light-colored sand
reddish sand (below mound)
West
level of nail in tree
ground surface
Figure 10. Profiles in Trench V (top) and Trench IX (bottom), Sarasota Bay Mound. Vertical and horizontal scales are the same.


remains. Trench IX
This trench was near the house, apparently south of it. Bullen drew a profile of the trench's southern face, which had a horizontal width of 9 ft and reached nearly 7 ft below the level of the nail in the tree (Figure 10:bottom). The ground surface was highest in the southeastern corner, where it was 1 ft below the level of the nail and sloped downhill to the west. The basal black zone also sloped downhill to the west. In the trench's southeastern corner, the base of the black zone was at slighdy less than 6 ft; in its southwestern corner, its base was at 6 ft 11 in. Trench IX was 5 ft wide at its eastern end and 3 ft wide at its western end (card 37).
In Trench IX, the uppermost 12 in of soil were described as recent "black peat" (card 37) or "garden black" (card 42), evidendy a landscaping addition to the yard around the house. Under it, Bullen found "Burial A just below top peat and with skull to north cut by installation of wall footing. [It was] buried in a pit, apparendy flexed" (card 34). In addition, he noted that there was "some pink ocher with Burial A, small pieces in 3 or 4 places" (card 35).
Deeper in Trench IX was Burial B. It was between 5 to 6 ft below the level of the nail and in the middle and eastern portions of the southern profile (card 37). Burial B was in a thin lens of grey sand that was between an overlying thin black zone and the underlying basal black zone (cards 37 and 43). "Red ocher" is mentioned with Burial B (card 38). Bullen wrote that the "top of skull [was] 5 inches higher than [the] other bones. Skull crushed by ground pressure but in pretty good shape. Skull to NE of bones, face to NW. Face 2 inches into black zone" (card 43). He also wrote that its "left shoulder and left ribs [were] in anatomical position" and that it was "flexed on right side" with its "head ... to the east" (card 44). Additional skeletal material, Burial C, was noted in Trench IX (card 45).
Field Photographs of Burials
Besides the field collection bags and my transcription of Bullen's field note cards, the only other known documentation of finds in the Sarasota Bay Mound consists of nine field photographs. One of these is the color slide of Trench VIII, mentioned above. The other eight show two in situ burials. Seven of these latter photographs are curated at FLMNH in the form of 35 mm, black and white negatives that were labeled by Bullen. Two are almost identical views of a "flexed burial" (PN94.228.1739a, b). The other five show different views of "deep skeletons, south of house" in Trench IX (PN94.228.1740a, b, c, 1741a, b). Examples of these photographs appear in Freas and Warren (this issue). The eighth photograph is a black and white picture in a local magazine article (Davis 1968b:27) that shows Ripley Bullen brushing sand away from the same burial in Trench IX that he called "deep skeletons, south of house."
Burial B. The photographs of the "deep skeletons" show
remains of a partially disarticulated skeleton, Burial B, in Trench IX. It appears to be a secondary, flexed burial, as indicated by Bullen. In the photographs, a number of bones are clearly visible. Articulated ones include the sacrum and a series of vertebrae (lumbar and adjacent thoracic). Close to the thoracic vertebrae, in approximate anatomical position, are clavicles and a possible rib. These bones indicate that the torso was still largely articulated at the time of interment. To one side of the clavicles are a disarticulated cranium (the right side visible) and disarticulated mandible. Next to them are a left and a right tibia, oriented approximately parallel with the torso. The proximal ends of both tibiae are very close to the cranium and mandible, and there are some cuneiform and metatarsal bones at their distal ends, suggesting that these foot bones still were articulated with the tibiae at the time of interment.
These observations are consistent with the legs having been drawn up next to the torso (the knees near the face), as would be expected in a tightly bound, flexed burial. However, the photographs also show disarticulated femurs, a right and a left, in peripheral positions to the rest of the bones. The proximal ends of the femurs are near the clavicles, and their shafts extend away from the rest of the skeleton. Thus, the femurs were not attached to the skeleton at the time of interment, and the Indians placed them in peripheral positions when they buried the remains.
This suggests the following speculation. Perhaps the Indians stored the body as a bound, flexed bundle in a charnel house, where it became partially disarticulated through decay. The femurs could have become detached at that time. When the bundle was taken from the charnel house for burial, perhaps the Indians intentionally removed the femurs as part of mortuary ritual. Intentional dismemberment of the bodies of chiefs, and reverence of their bones in ossuary houses or temples, was practiced by early historic period Tocobaga and Tequesta Indians, including removal of "the larger bones" by the Tequesta (Hann 1991:318-319; Worth 1995:344). In the case of Burial B, its detached femurs may reflect some special mortuary treatment, which is of interest considering the location of Burial B near the central mound base, and its sex, age, and health (see below).
Comparison of several visible bones in the "deep skeletons" photographs with those in Bullen's skeletal collection yields positive matches. For example, the left and right clavicle, left tibia, the vertebrae, cranium, and mandible are among remains identified as Burial B (FLMNH 2002-21-15). The "deep skeletons" photographs also show a sherd or shell that is close to the right clavicle and cranium, and some possible sherds at the edge of the shadow near the mandible. The latter sherds may be those that Bullen attributed to Burial B (2002-21-15). On the field collection bag, Bullen described them as "pottery found at level and near Burial B (1 ft west of)" (Appendix I).
Unidentified Burial. The two views of what Bullen labeled a "flexed burial" show a partially uncovered adult skeleton lying horizontally on its right side in a tightly flexed or fetal position. The head is bent forward so that the chin is on the chest, the hands are in front of the face, and the knees are


drawn up near the forearms. The presence of metacarpal bones, and the articulated position of the long bones, vertebrae, and cranium suggest that it was a primary interment. The photograph shows a tape measure stretched in front of the burial, showing that it was approximately 1 m (3 ft) in length from head to toe. Attempts to match bones in the photograph with those in Bullen's collection and with some in a Sarasota County collection (see below) were unsuccessful, perhaps because the photograph is not clear enough (e.g., some bones are partially buried) and existing bones are too fragmentary and incomplete. It is assumed that the photograph shows one of the burials in Trench VIII.
This flexed burial rests in sand, without any pottery, shells, or other associated materials except a single, disc-shaped object resting on the lateral margin of the skull and mandible, where the left ear lobe would have been. The disc is not present today in Bullen's collection from the mound. The disc appears to be fashioned from shell or stone, and is approximately 3 cm in diameter. Its anatomical position suggests that it was a plug inserted in a pierced and stretched ear lobe.
Shell discs of similar size are known from a number of sites in Florida (e.g., Gilliland 1975:175, Plate 112D), but I am not aware of any reported with a burial. However, several ear spools of wood, stone, and copper have been found in Safety Harbor Period burial mounds. For example, a copper specimen was uncovered in the pre-contact, Englewood Period stratum (ca. A.D. 1000) in the Tatham Mound, north of Tampa. There, Burial #105 had "a copper ear spool... directly fused to the right mastoid process" (Mitchem 1989:478). Two wooden ear spools with copper covers on their convex out-sides, and a stone ear spool with a copper cover on its flat outside, were found at the Picnic Mound, east of Tampa Bay (Bullen 1952:65, Table 6, Figures 21 and 22c; Sears 1967:69). At Moundville, Alabama, copper ear spools were one kind of artifact correlated with very high status (superordinate dimension, Cluster LB) burials of children and adult males dating to the Mississippian Period (Peebles and Kus 1977:43 9, Figure 3). By analogy and extension, a high-status association of ear spools can be suggested for Safety Harbor Period burials.
Summary
Available data from field cards and field photographs indicate that Bullen dug a series of trenches around the McClintock house, finding scattered sherds and shells as well as a basal black zone under much of the mound. In two trenches to the south and southwest of the house, he uncovered burials, some of which were disarticulated interments and others in flexed positions. These burials and other finds are described below, on the basis of existing collections.
Description of Collections
Bullen's collection from the Sarasota Bay Mound was taken to FSM, where it was kept in its original field bags and boxes, unprocessed, and placed in storage. Approximately 28 years later, the collection was listed in a 1996 inventory of
human osteological materials housed at FLMNH compiled by Lane Beck to comply with the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The collection was treated as a single unit and given FLMNH accession number 96-24. At that time, it was not unpacked from its original field containers.
In May, 2002, Scott Mitchell, then Collections Manager at FLMNH, unpacked the collection. In June and July, he and an assistant transferred it from the original, brown paper field bags and cardboard boxes to labeled, acid-free boxes and trays for permanent storage in the museum's Collections Range. Mitchell gave it FLMNH accession number 2002-21 (superseding the earlier accession number), and he assigned catalog numbers 2002-21-1 through 2002-21-49 to identify each separate provenience and set of materials, as recorded on the field bags. A few of the human burials still were encased in sand because each had been removed as a unit and placed in a cardboard box. Mitchell and the assistant removed the remains from the sand matrix, and then separated the bones, unless they were too delicate or decomposed. Delicate and decayed bone was treated with a common archival (acid-free) physical stabilizer, acryloid/paraloid "B-72," a small amount of which was mixed with acetone and applied to the bone, giving it a shiny appearance.
For purposes of storage, the collection was divided in two, with human bones stored in one area of the Collections Range, and artifacts and other items (e.g., sherds, shells) stored in another. Most artifacts were sherds. They were roughly sorted and identified by Luer in September 2002, with many placed in labeled plastic bags. In April 2004, these sherds were studied more carefully by Ann Cordell (this issue), who placed paper labels identifying paste categories with the sherds.
Another collection from the Sarasota Bay Mound exists at the Sarasota County History Center (formerly the Sarasota County Historical Archives). It consists mostly of cranial material from two individuals, which County Historian Davis removed in July, 1968, from one of Bullen's open excavations. She took that step because she wanted something to remain in Sarasota (it belonged to the County Historical Commission as per the agreement with Putman) and because she thought it likely that once material went to Gainesville, she would not see it again, which became true. (Davis knew that Bullen was overwhelmed by other commitments.) Davis entrusted the material to Dr. Frank Evans, a Sarasota dentist and long-time member of the Historical Society of Sarasota County, who brought it to the Sarasota County History Center for permanent curation after Davis died (Frank Evans, personal communication 2002).
Artifacts
In September 2002,1 identified the artifacts and other non-human bone materials in Bullen's collection at FLMNH (Appendix I). The pottery sherds are typical of a Safety Harbor Period assemblage (Pinellas Incised, Pinellas Plain, Lake Jackson Plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, St. Johns Plain, Belle Glade Plain, sand-tempered plain, and miscellaneous


sherds). Most are plain, but a few are decorated (Figures 11-14).
Four loop handles are in the collection (all 2002-21-20, Trench II), two of which occur on a single rim sherd of Pinellas Incised and one each on Lake Jackson Plain rim sherds (Figure 11). One unusual sherd, with a vertical row of nodes, appears to be from the hunch back portion of a Safety Harbor Incised human effigy bottle (2002-21-21, Trench II) (Figure 12b and 13). Three matching rim sherds are from a portion of a St. Johns Plain miniature vessel (2002-21-23, Trench III) (Figure 14a).
There are stratigraphic associations for some of these sherds. Many came from the basal black zone in Trenches III, IV, VI, IX, and the Cellar Test (2002-15, -23, -25, -28, -36, -42). They include sand-tempered plain, Pinellas Plain, St. Johns Plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, and Belle Glade Plain sherds, as well as an incised sherd that appears to be a flake of an applied strip or lip (Figure 14c).
Some sherds in the basal black zone may reflect ritual activity during early mound construction. This is supported by Bullen's observation of many sherds lying "in or on top of the black basal zone" in Trench III (card 21) and by Cordell's cross-mending of a few sherds from Trenches III and IV (Cordell, this issue:Appendix A). Such cross-mending suggests that sherds were broken and then scattered across a portion of the basal black zone when it was a surface.
Although their stratigraphic origin is less clear, several decorated Safely Harbor Period sherds came from Trench II, apparently in the body of the mound (not in the basal zone). These latter sherds include the two Lake Jackson Plain rim sherds with loop handles, the Pinellas Incised rim sherd with two loop handles, and a fragment from the base of a Safety Harbor Incised bottle neck (all 2002-21-20). Somewhat deeper, in the lower portion of Trench II, Bullen found the apparent Safety Harbor Incised body sherd with the vertical row of nodes (2002-21-21). It was 5 ft 3 in below the 1968 ground surface of Trench II, or 3 ft 6 in below what might have been the mound's 1920 buried surface (covered with sand when the top of the mound was leveled in 1920). Other sherds from the body of the mound came from lenses of black and mottled dirt in the middle of Trench V, including one Sarasota Incised sherd (2002-21-27) (Figure 14d).
Fighting conch (Strombus alatus) shells are the most common shells in the collection. They were abundant in the nearby Pinard Midden to the north (see below). Almost all the shells are highly eroded, soft, and chalk-like in consistency. They are too degraded to use for radiocarbon dating. In contrast, a number of sherds have residue or soot on their surfaces, and this material could be used for radiocarbon dating. Three samples of carbonized wood ("charcoal") also may be suitable for radiocarbon dating (2002-21, -24, -42).
A few shells and/or sherds were associated with burials. In Trench VIII, a fighting conch shell (2002-21-1) accompanied Burial #1, and three highly eroded remnants of fighting conch shells (2002-21-6, -7) were with Burial #3. High in Trench IX, three fighting conch shells and sand-tempered plain, St. Johns Plain, St. Johns Simple Stamped, and Pinellas Plain
sherds (2002-21-17A, -17B, -35) were associated with Burial D. In a similar fashion, fighting conch shells accompanied some burials at the Manasota Key Burial Site (8S01292), dating to the mid-Manasota Period, ca. A.D. 200 (e.g., one fighting conch shell with Burial #2 [FS 13], six shells with Burial #14 [FS 175], and two shells with Burial # 18 [FS 380]). Bullen's collection from the Sarasota Bay Mound does not include any shell beads, nor did his field cards mention any. Shell beads have been found in some Safety Harbor Period burial mounds (e.g., Austin 2000; Mitchem 1989:474-495; Mitchem et al. 1985).
Also in Trench IX, sherds were associated with Burial B. They consist of six sand-tempered plain sherds (2002-21-36), a St. Johns Simple Stamped body sherd (2002-21-15), and a body sherd painted orangish red with a small incised circle and a broken line (formed by punctations run together) (Figure 14b). The latter sherd is probably the Weeden Island" sherd mentioned by Bullen (2002-21-15), which Cordell (this issue) identifies as a Papys Bayou Punctated sherd. At the Englewood Mound, Papys Bayou Punctated sherds (and a few other sherds of the Weeden Island ceramic complex) were found in association with sherds of the Englewood and Safety Harbor ceramic complexes, all of which Willey (1949:131-135) assigned to the Englewood Period (early in the Safety Harbor Period).
Skeletal Remains
Most skeletal remains are from Trenches VIII and IX. Table 1 lists proveniences. Appendix II lists FLMNH catalog numbers and information written on the original field bags and boxes.
Remains of four individuals were recovered from Trench IX. Two were high in the trench (Burials A and D) and their burial mode could not be determined due to insufficient data. The others were deep at the base of the mound (Burials B and C). Burial B is a partially disarticulated, flexed, secondary burial of an adult male in relatively good health and of comparatively old age (late 30s or early 40s) (Freas and Warren, this issue). Burial C represents a juvenile, possibly a bundled secondary burial according to Freas and Warren. Both could be contemporary interments, with Burial C in the basal black zone south of Burial B, and Burial B located slightly higher and in sand. Burial B is noteworthy for its disarticulated femurs (see "Field Photographs of Burials," above). Given their location at the base of the mound, near its center, Burials B and C appear to be important burials.
Trench VIII yielded remains of 10 individuals, all high up in the body of the mound. Bullen's field cards indicate 13 burial loci in Trench VIII ("a" through "g" and "1" through "6"), and some of these could refer to parts of the same individual. In Bullen's skeletal collection, ten individuals are identifiable among the remains from Trench VIII (Burials #1 -#9). The skeletal material in the Sarasota County Collection apparently represents additions to these same individuals, from Trench VIII based on their identical texture and color compared to material in the Bullen collection from


Figure 11. Three rim sherds from Sarasota Bay Mound (front and side views), a, b: Lake Jackson Plain loop handles; c: Pinellas Incised with two loop handles (all 2002-21-20, Trench II).


Figure 12. Two decorated sherds from Sarasota Bay Mound (top, front, and side views), a: fragment of applied ring from base of neck of a Safety Harbor Incised bottle (2002-21-20, Trench H); b: body sherd with a vertical row of nodes, apparently from the hunch back of a Safety Harbor Incised human effigy bottle (2002-21-21, Trench H).


Figure 13. Intact vessel forms suggested by some sherds from the Sarasota Bay Mound. Left: hunch back human effigy bottle; center: incised collared globular bowl with loop handles; right: bottle with applied ring at base of neck.
Trench VIII. Thus, 10 individuals are represented in the existing collections ascribed here to Trench VIII. Two small fragments of human bone also were recovered from an intrusive pit ("Pit A") in the top of Trench VIII, but they appear to be isolated, displaced remains rather than a burial.
Further Comments
Initial construction of the Sarasota Bay Mound appears to date to the early Safely Harbor Period (ca. A.D. 1000). The transition between the late Weeden Island Period and the early Safety Harbor Period is discussed by Sears (1967:68-69). In cases of the early Safety Harbor Period, it is evidenced by small amounts of Weeden Island Period pottery in mounds that otherwise contain Safety Harbor Period ceramics, such as the Tierra Verde and Englewood mounds (Sears 1967:60, Figure 6; Willey 1949:131-135).
An early Safety Harbor Period assignment for at least the lower portion of the Sarasota Bay Mound is supported by the assemblage of sherds from the mound's base. They include numerous Pinellas Plain and a small quantity of St. Johns Check Stamped sherds from the basal black zone (e.g., in Trench III, 2002-21-23), and a single Papys Bayou Punctated sherd and a single St. Johns Simple Stamped sherd from close to the basal zone (in Trench IX, 2002-21-15). Papys Bayou Punctated is a late Weeden Island ceramic type (Willey 1949:397, 443) that has been found in small amounts with early Safety Harbor Period ceramics at the Englewood Mound (Willey 1949:131-135) and the Aqui Esta Mound (Luer 2002a: 140-142, Figure 18 [Vessel #29]). An apparent Papys Bayou Punctated sherd also is pictured from the Tierra Verde Mound (Sears 1967:Figure 6:3). Pinellas Plain and St. Johns Check Stamped ceramics appear in the Tampa Bay area by or
during the late Weeden Island Period, and both types continue into the early Safety Harbor Period (e.g., Luer and Almy 1980; White 1995). St. Johns Simple Stamped also dates to both the late Weeden Island and early Safety Harbor periods.
Other sherds from the body of the Sarasota Bay Mound are clearly Safety Harbor Period ceramics. They include the Lake Jackson Plain rim sherds with loop handles, Sarasota Incised and Safety Harbor Incised body sherds, and the fragment from an apparent human effigy bottle. The Pinellas Incised rim sherd may date to the Safety Harbor Period's Pinellas Phase (ca. A.D. 1200-1500).
Since post-contact period artifacts have not been reported from the Sarasota Bay Mound, it might not have been used after ca. A.D. 1500. However, the removal of the upper portion of the mound in the early twentieth century, and the fact that artifacts from that part of the mound are not available for study, makes a terminal date uncertain. Nonetheless, the lack of historic period materials in the parts of the mound excavated by Bullen probably indicates that the mound dates to the pre-contact period.
Florida Indians typically smashed ceramic vessels (often knocking out their bottoms) before some of the resulting fragments were placed in burial mounds. Large or showy rim sherds often were interred, and the mound's three specimens with loop handles might have been selected by the Indians for these reasons. Such handles were not common among ceramic vessels in western central Florida, although a number of them have been recovered from widespread burial mounds. Loop handles from such contexts occur typically on Lake Jackson Plain sherds, and occasionally on Pinellas Incised sherds, which may represent non-local vessels obtained through exchange.
The sherds with loop handles from the Sarasota Bay


Figure 14. Selected sherds from Sarasota Bay Mound. Note that profiles do not represent rims, a: top and side views of three matching St Johns Plain sherds from a miniature vessel or compartment with a suspension hole (2002-21-23, Trench III, basal black zone); b: body sherd of possible Papys Bayou Punctated red-painted ware (2002-21-15, Trench EX, basal zone); c: unidentified incised sherd (flaked-off, applied strip or lip) (2002-21-23, Trench in, basal black zone); d: sand-tempered body sherd of Sarasota Incised (2002-21-27, Trench V).
Mound suggest relationships with surrounding Safety Harbor Period groups, who built and used burial mounds where similar handles have been found. For example, loop handles are reported from the Pillsbury Temple Mound (8MA31) west of Bradenton (private collection), Myakka Valley Ranches Mound (8SO401) near Myakka River River State Park (Luer 1996), Laurel Mound near Venice (Luer and Almy 1987:306), and Englewood Mound in Englewood (Willey 1949:132). In addition, Wainwright (1916:141) found sherds from two vessels with "ornamented" handles at the Whitaker Mound (8S081) (Luer 1992b:228), approximately 3 km (2 mi) north of the Sarasota Bay Mound. Wainwright also found a sherd with a loop handle at the Sarasota Bay Mound (see his description of the mound, above). Additional examples of Mississippian-style loop handles from burial mounds in west-peninsular Florida are listed by Luer (1996:185).
The Pinellas Incised rim sherd with loop handles (Figure 11c) appears to have come from a collared globular bowl (Figure 13:center). This bowl was decorated with a series of incised scrolls, surrounded by punctations, that ran along its shoulder, encircling the vessel. Placement of the sherd on a
diameter template suggests that it represents approximately 13 percent (47 degrees) of the vessel's circumference and that the vessel had an inside orifice diameter of approximately 24 cm. The sherd's two handles are spaced at an interval of 10 percent (36 degrees) of the vessel's circumference. Handles typically were spaced at regular intervals around a vessel's orifice. Given the measurements from the template, it appears that the original bowl had ten handles. A vessel with similar form and decoration is in a private collection from the Pillsbury Temple Mound (see illustration on the cover of this journal issue), except that the Pillsbury vessel has a notched lip and eight lugs rather than ten loop handles. However, the handles on the Sarasota Bay Mound sherd are lug-shaped, even having flat tops.
The Sarasota Bay Mound's fragment of an applied, fluted ring (Figure 12a) appears to come from the base of the neck of a Safety Harbor Incised bottle (Figure 13:right). It has some similarity to a fragment (FLMNH catalog number 92-42-1) from the Smith Mound (8LL36) at Pineland, west of Fort Myers (Cordell 2005 Figures 18c and 19b). It also has resemblances to a fragment from the Picnic Mound (8HI3),


Table 1. Skeletal material by provenience. The location is stated first, followed by the burial number or letter (if any) and then by the FLMNH catalog number or other identification.
1. Trench VIII: Burial #1: 2002-21-1.
Burial #2: 2002-21-2, -3, -4, -5, -43.
Burial #3: 2002-21-6, -7, -8, -9.
Burial #4: 2002-21-10.
Burial #5: 2002-21-11, -12.
Burial #6: 2002-21-13.
Burial #7: 2002-21-14.
Burial #8: 2002-21-34.
Burial #9:2002-21-32.
Scattered bone: 2002-21-33.
Burial #1 and/or Burial #2: 2002-21-43.
Individual #1: Sarasota County.
Individual #2: Sarasota County.
2. Trench IX: Burial A: 2002-21-37. Burial B: 2002-21-15, -38. Burial C: 2002-21-16. Burial D: 2002-21-17A, -35.
3. Isolated remains: Trench II: 2002-21-20. Trench VII: 2002-21-29. Trench VIII, Pit A: 2002-21-30. Undetermined provenience: 2002-21-39. Miscellaneous: 2002-21-44, -46, -49.
west of Tampa Bay (Bullen 1952:Figure 23J), and with an applied ring at the base of a bottle neck from the Aqui Esta Mound (8CH68) near Punta Gorda (Luer 2002a:Figure 15 [vessel #6]).
The sherd with a row of vertical nodes (Figure 12b) could be from a human effigy bottle (Figure 13:left). It appears to be a fragment of a "hunch back," with the row of nodes representing the spine under the skin of the back. This is suggested by similarities to a number of widespread Mississippian Period human effigy bottles, such as one from a mound in Apalachicola, Florida (FLMNH catalog number 45255; Bullen 1965:Figure 4, upper left), one from the Cemochechobee Site in Georgia (Schnell et al. 1981:77, Plates 2.9 and 2.11), and several from Tennessee (Fundaburk and Foreman 1957:Plate 120, lower row, center; Hudson 1976:391) and Arkansas (Hathcock 1976:Figures 500, 501). On these vessels, the hunch backs have the same bulbous shape, each with a row of nodes ("the spine") occurring as separate, distinct points.
At least one human effigy bottle is known from another Safety Harbor Period burial mound assemblage. That bottle, consisting of lower and mid-portions of a typical Mississippian-style kneeling human effigy, is in a private
collection from 8LL8. Additional similar bottles may be represented by sherds with applied portions of apparent arms from a mound in Hillsborough County (FLMNH collection) and a sherd with an applied forearm and hand or "paw" (although flaked off, leaving a scar) from the Aqui Esta Mound (Luer 2002a: 129, Figure 18 [Vessel #13]).
Other Mississippian-style ceramic effigies have been reported from Safety Harbor Period burial mounds, including an owl effigy bottle from Parrish Mound 2 in Manatee County (Stirling 1935:380; Willey 1949:149) and a frog effigy bowl from Picnic Mound (Bullen 1952:67, Figure 22J). Some of these vessels, including the possible human effigy bottle from the Sarasota Bay Mound, could be trade items from the Fort Walton region of northwestern Florida. Supporting that possibility is the presence of mica in the noded sherd from the Sarasota Bay Mound (Cordell, this issue). The close similarities among widespread ceramics noted above demonstrate that the builders of the Sarasota Bay Mound were in close contact with neighboring Indians in west-peninsular Florida during the Safety Harbor Period. They participated in widespread, Mississippian-influenced culture that extended through west-peninsular Florida.
The noded form of the apparent hunch back sherd might have led the Indians to select it for ritual use and interment. I have noted previously that Mississippian-influenced Indians in west-peninsular Florida broke ceramic vessels and used effigy fragments as independent objects. They include human face medallions from the walls of bottles as well as pop-eyed bird-head effigies from the rims of bowls (Luer 1986, 1992a, 1993:246). The hunch back sherd may be analogous to these other effigy sherds.
Finally, I should note that the varied pottery vessel forms from the Sarasota Bay Mound, such as the bowls, bottles, and effigies mentioned above and by Cordell (this issue), are typical of Safety Harbor Period burial mounds. Many appear to be functionally related forms that probably were used together. It is hoped that future research will divulge more knowledge about their uses and symbolism.
Discussion of the Mound
Bullen's work confirmed that the Sarasota Bay Mound contained burials. While burials can occur in Safety Harbor Period platform mounds ("temple mounds"), there is no mention of a ramp and flat top on the Sarasota Bay Mound by Moore or Wainwright, and thus these features apparently were not present. Nor is there evidence of residential or occupational (midden) debris in the mound. This, combined with the mound's generally circular basal outline, sandy composition, and basal black zone (charcoal and sand) support the interpretation that the Sarasota Bay Mound was a burial mound.
The mound's basal black zone may represent a prepared mound base, like those described for some other sand burial mounds in the Tampa Bay area, such as the Cagnini (8HJ9), Jones (8HJ4), and Lykes mounds (Bullen 1952:27-28, 33-35, 43). The recovery of sherds scattered horizontally "in or on top of [the] basal black zone" in Trench III, and the presence


Table 2. Size data for four large, pre-contact Safety Harbor Period sand burial mounds, from south to north. Dimensions are approximate only.
Site Name and Number Diameter Height Source(s)
1. Englewood Mound (8S01) 33 m (110 ft) 4 m (13 ft) Willey 1949:126
2. Sarasota Bay Mound (8S044) 30-40 m (100-130 ft) 2+m (6+ft) Moore 1900a:362, 1900b:26; Manatee County 1902
3. Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound (8S04) 29 x 37 m (95 x 120 ft) 2.4 m (8 ft) Milanich 1972:22, Figures 2 and 3; Moore 1900a:362, 1900b:27; Luer 1992b:235, Figure 7
4. Tierra Verde Mound (8PI51) 24-30 m (80-100 ft) 2-2.4 m (6-8 ft) Sears 1967:25, 65, Figures 2 and 3
of Burials B and C in or very near the basal zone in Trench IX support a case for ritual mortuary activity at the beginning of mound construction. The fact that more human remains were not recovered from the basal horizon may be due to limited excavation.
Available stratigraphic data are meager, but there might have been at least two major stages of mound construction. An initial stage is indicated by the basal black zone and its overlying deposit of clean sand, and these together may form a primary mound. The buried surface of a primary mound, with a second stage above it, is suggested by the profile in Trench V. The dark lens in the middle of the Trench V profile, which yielded sherds (2002-21-27), may represent the base of a secondary mound that was added over the primary mound. Mrs. Humphreys' report of burials located "middle down the mound" (see "Informant Reports," above) could have been at the base of a secondary mound. The paucity of profile data, however, plus the 1920 leveling of the mound's upper portion, severely limit interpretation of mound construction.
Bullen stated that Burial A, near the top of Trench IX, was "buried in a pit," and that all the burials near the top of Trench VIII might have been buried at the same time in a large "hole." These are suggestive of interments made after this portion of the mound already existed. This implies at least two episodes of interment (those burials at the base of the mound in Trench IX, and those near the top of Trenches VIII and IX). The latter burials, located up in the body of the mound, are reminiscent of burials in the body of the Aqui Esta Mound (in Zones 2, 3, and 4). Burials also are reported in the body of the Englewood Mound and the Tierra Verde Mound. These three mounds also had basal interments: an extended burial in the Aqui Esta Mound, a mass interment of primarily secondary burials in the Englewood Mound, and clusters of secondary flexed and bundle burials in the Tierra Verde Mound (Luer 2002a: 117-122; Sears 1967:30-31, 62-65, Figures 2 and 3; Willey 1949:126-135).
The large size of the Sarasota Bay Mound could reflect two or more stages of mound construction. Its reported diameter of approximately 28-37 m (100-130 ft), and its substantial height (greater than 2 m [6 ft]), are large compared to many burial mounds, such as some located in inland areas or dating to the post-contact period. Nonetheless, its size resembles three other sand burial mounds in the greater Sarasota-Bradenton area, namely the Englewood, Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker, and Tierra Verde mounds, all located along the coast and dating to the pre-contact Safety Harbor Period (Table 2). At least one of these, the Englewood Mound, consisted of a primary mound with a superimposed, secondary mound (Willey 1949:126-135). The large sizes ofthese mounds could reflect their locations adjacent to productive, food-rich estuaries (i.e., Lemon Bay, Sarasota Bay, and southern Tampa Bay) that could support sizeable Indian populations and substantial labor for mound-building. Their large sizes also may reflect construction during the pre-contact period, before Indian populations declined due to post-contact period diseases, warfare, and slave raids.
The height of the Sarasota Bay Mound was augmented by its location on a high piece of land, approximately 3-3.5 m [10-12 ft] above sea level.8 This was one of only several natural high spots along the mainland shore of southern Sarasota Bay.9 The nearest comparable high ground bordering the bay was at Yellow Bluffs, approximately 2.3 km (1.4 mi) to the north. The high land under the Sarasota Bay Mound made the mound more imposing, especially for Indians who approached it in dugout canoes on Sarasota Bay. The mound also would have offered an impressive view over the bay. In the Sarasota-Bradenton area, Indians during the Weeden Island and Safety Harbor periods apparently selected such excellent vantage points for building some of their mounds, such as the Sarasota Bay Mound, the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound, the Pillsbury Temple Mound (8MA31), and the Pillsbury Burial Mound (8MA30).


Finally, the claim of radial burials at the Sarasota Bay Mound (see above) is of interest considering widespread reports of such burial patterns in peninsular Florida. Although many claims of radial burials lack support (including the one for the Sarasota Bay Mound), some appear to be credible, including one for the Laurel Mound in Sarasota County reported by J. E. Moore in 1932 (Luer and Almy 1987). Another unsubstantiated report dates to the 1890s by J. H. Simpson, who wrote:
Mr. John Crowley of Braidentown [sic] reports a sand mound on the south east of this key [Longboat Key] in which many persons were buried. He says there were three layers of bodies which had been placed about six inches apart. In each layer the heads had all been placed pointing towards the center of the Mound. [Simpson 1896:71]
Today, this site is un-recorded in the Florida Master Site File and its location is unclear. It might have been the same site mentioned by C. B. Moore in 1900 as a "burying ground dug away" that was near "Quick Point 1 m [mile] N. [north of] New Pass" (Moore 1900b: 2). This was the southeastern portion of Longboat Key, approximately due west of the mainland's Whitaker Site complex. The presence of such a burial mound or cemetery on southern Longboat Key suggests that the key probably had more intensive use than posited by Luer and Almy (1979:42). In addition, Brinton (1859:171) notes a burial area on Longboat Key, and Bickel (1942:15) mentions "a mound" and skeletal remains. The location and cultural affiliation of these burials are unknown. Nonetheless, they are further support for aboriginal use of Longboat Key and its surrounding area.
Sarasota Bay Mound's Surrounding Area and Sites
Bayshore Area
A large shell midden once stretched along the shore to the north of the Sarasota Bay Mound. As Sarasota began to grow early in the twentieth century, Wainwright (1916:140) noted that the midden was "three feetfhigh" and that "streets have been cut through it." The streets were McAnsh Court and Strawberry Avenue, which ran perpendicular to the shore (Sanborn Map Company 1925b). Strawberry Avenue had a railroad spur that ran onto a pier over the bay (Marth 1973:43, 104, 147). This area became part of downtown Sarasota, and a number of substantial houses were built on the midden overlooking the bay. By the mid-twentieth century, portions of the midden still were present in their yards, and were called the "Gulfstream Avenue-Palm Avenue Site" by Fales and Davis (1961).
In the mid-1960s, the shell midden began to suffer renewed impacts. Some of it was destroyed when Strawberry Avenue was widened and incorporated into an extension of Ringling Boulevard, which was routed westward to reach Gulf Stream Avenue. Shortly afterward, the midden immediately south of Ringling Boulevard was destroyed by construction of the St. Regis Condominium at 301 South Gulf Stream Avenue. Later,
around March 1968, another portion of the midden (slighfly farther south) was destroyed by construction of the Regency House Condominium, at 435 South Palm Avenue, and human skeletal remains ("skulls") reportedly were found (Bullen 1968a:card4).
In the 1970s, the two remaining portions of the site were each given a name and separate Florida Master Site File number. The midden's northern end (north of Ringling Boulevard) was recorded as the Church of the Redeemer Midden (8S043) (Almy 1976). The midden's mid-section and southern end (south of Ringling Boulevard) were recorded as the Pinard Midden (8S099), with sections noted as destroyed or existing (Monroe et al. 1977:Figure 8). Both sites were between Gulf Stream and South Palm Avenues, and together extended for approximately 430 m (1400 ft) parallel to the shore of Sarasota Bay.
These two site designations are artificial and reflect site fragmentation due to twentieth-century land development. However, dual midden areas might have been a feature of the site because paired shell middens occur at some sites in the Sarasota area. For example, pairs of shell middens occur at the Old Oak Site (8S051) (Luer 1977:Figure 3, 2003) and at Indian Beach's Boylston Mound (8S035) and Shell Road Midden (8S094) complex (Luer 1992b, 1992d; Monroe et al. 1977:Figure 7). A contour map of the latter pair is shown below. Such paired midden-mounds are suggestive of dual mound and bilateral intra-site plans in the Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound areas. Today, intra-site arrangements and uses are poorly understood and in need of research, especially in the Sarasota area while sites still exist.
At Gulf Stream Avenue, the name "Pinard Midden" was applied to the southern and mid-portion of the midden in 1977 to honor an early commercial photographer, Felix Pinard, who worked in the Sarasota-Manatee area in the 1880s and 1890s (Matthews 1985:61-73). He and his family lived near the northern end of the midden, in a rustic wooden house overlooking the bay. Several of his early photographs of the yard around his house show midden shells. One shows shells around the roots of a cabbage palm (Florida State Archives n.d.:Rc02816), and another shows large left-handed whelk shells, apparently grubbed from the yard and placed in a pile near an outbuilding (Florida State Archives n.d.:Rc03650).
Unfortunately, most of the Pinard Midden has been destroyed in recent years. In the mid-1980s, a large part of the shell midden was removed by a developer, who had it dug up and hauled away from the parcel at 500 South Palm Avenue. There, a deposit containing fighting conch and left-handed whelk shells, approximately 1 m (3 ft) in thickness, was conspicuous in the sides of the resulting enormous "crater." The remaining midden (around the perimeter of the parcel) was impacted in the mid-1990s when Tessera, a high-rise condominium, was built there.
In 1994, the City of Sarasota required a developer to have an archaeological survey to delimit the portion of the Pinard Midden at 341 South Gulf Stream Avenue. Here, the midden also was called the "Tangerine Midden." This portion of the site was immediately south of the St. Regis Condominium,


mentioned above. The survey found shell midden deposit on more than half the property, so that it covered approximately 2700 m2 (29,000 ft2). The midden was highest near the property's center, and it supported numerous cabbage palms and some live oaks, cedars, and exotic trees (Janus Research 1995:2, Figure 2).
The survey was followed by salvage work. Its purpose was to obtain:
1) a stratigraphic profile of the midden so that the developmental history of the site can be reconstructed, 2) a representative sample of artifacts so that the cultural affiliation(s) of the site can be determined, 3) shell or charcoal samples for radiocarbon dating, and 4) a column sample for detailed analysis of faunal remains so that the diet of the site's inhabitants can be reconstructed. [Janus Research 1994]
The salvage excavations consisted of only two 1 x 1 m units, plus a 50 x 50 cm column sample. A third 1 x 1 m unit was begun and then abandoned due to prior disturbance. The combined area of the two completed units and column sample (2.25 m2) represents less than one tenth of one percent of the midden area on the property. The excavations revealed a rich midden deposit, approximately 60-70 cm (2-2.5 ft) thick, containing abundant food remains and artifacts. Sand-tempered plain sherds were predominant, and several decorated pieces of pottery were found, including one Englewood Incised and three Wakulla Check Stamped sherds. Shell artifacts included a shell disc bead, two left-handed whelk columella hammers, a whelk shell Type D hammer, a whelk shell cutting-edged tool, and several possible or fragmentary shell tools. Also recovered were a lithic thinning flake, three bone artifacts fashioned from mammal longbone (probably deer metapodials), and a drilled mammal tooth (Janus Research 1995).
This is a very interesting assemblage of artifacts, but its small size makes it difficult to characterize activities at the site. Presumably they included shellfish extraction using hammers, wood-hewing using cutting-edged tools, and cooking using pottery vessels. More could be said with a larger sample of artifacts.
Two fighting conch shells from one test unit were radiocarbon dated. The deeper shell yielded a 2 sigma calibrated age range of cal A.D. 620-830, and the shallower shell produced a 2 sigma calibrated age range of cal A.D. 1060-1290 (Janus Research 1995; see Appendix III). These dates (in both measured and calibrated form) do not overlap at the two sigma range, and thus are different. Did they come from two components of different ages? Or, is there one component of extended duration? When did the midden's occupation begin and end? Additional dates and stratigraphic data are needed to reconstruct the Pinard Midden's developmental history, a stated goal of the project.
Indeed, making an age determination using radiocarbon dating is a sampling and statistical process involving sets of dates, usually comprised of at least several dates from a target deposit (and the more dates, the better parden Hood, personal communication 1982]). Thus, two dates from a single test unit
in the Pinard Midden only suggests a general time of site occupation, ca. A.D. 600-1300. This broad age range overlaps with that indicated by the ceramic assemblage from the Sarasota Bay Mound, and hints that a portion of the Pinard Midden might have been associated with the mound.
From the wall of one test unit, a 50 x 50 cm column sample was excavated (in 10 cm levels) and water-screened in the field through three nested screens (1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 in). Recovered materials were taken to the laboratory, where remains of sharks, rays, and a number of kinds of bony fish (gar, hardhead catfish, gafftopsail catfish, silver perch, sea trout, stripedburrfish, sheepshead, and mullet) were identified, as well as bones of amphibian, snake, turtle, bird, and mammal (many only to the taxonomic rank of class or order). The column sample also included mollusc shells and remains of sea urchins and crabs (Janus Research 1995:Appendix A). Archaeo-botanical analysis was not conducted.
Portions of only two 10 cm levels from the column sample, each from a different stratigraphic zone, were analyzed for taxa and minimum numbers of individuals (MNI). From each of the two levels, "twenty-five percent" of the combined 1/4 and 1/8 in fractions "were subjected to intensive analysis," while the 1/16 in fraction was omitted (Janus Research 1995:9). The resulting data are of inadequate size to assess subsistence and diet, another stated goal of the project. First, the fine-screen (1/16 in) fraction should have been included as well as more material from the coarser screens. Second, the MNIs and identified taxa are too few: only 15 and 17 vertebrate MNI were estimated, while more than 95 percent of the vertebrate bone fragments (2,861 in one sample, 1,584 in the other) were assigned to unidentified bony fish (Janus Research 1995:Appendix A). Zooarchaeological analyses in southern Florida indicate that a sample should have several hundred vertebrate MNI before it can begin to be considered adequate, as long as the MNI of one or a few vertebrate taxa are not too large (Luer n.d.; Wing and Loucks 1983:264, Figure 11). Third, the analysis of the two Pinard Midden samples used aggregate bone weight and skeletal mass allometry to estimate vertebrate biomass, a method that poses problems (e.g., Grayson 1984:173-174; Jackson 1989). Linear allometry, for comparison with specimens of known size, should be used if possible.
The invertebrate remains from the two column sample levels were identified and weighed. Weights of each mollusc taxon were used to estimate MNI by dividing aggregate shell weight by an "average" weight per individual of each taxon. The resulting total invertebrate MNIs of 220 and 323 (Janus Research 1995:Appendix A) are small. Zooarchaeological work in the Charlotte Harbor area indicates a figure of at least 600 invertebrate MNI before a sample can begin to be considered adequate (Quitmyer and Massaro 1999:100; Walker 1992:304-306). Nonetheless, the estimated MNIs and biomass (calculated using aggregate shell weight and skeletal mass allometry) indicate that, for both samples, fighting conch and unidentified gastropods were the largest contributors of biomass, followed by quahog, scallop family, and unidentified bivalves (Janus Research 1995:9, Appendix A).


Figure 15. Sarabande condominium tower on the location of a former portion of the Pinard Midden. This view looks inland the northeast) from U.S. 41, February 2004.
After this limited testing and analysis, a construction permit was approved in January 1995 (City of Sarasota 1995a, 1995b), with the archaeological report appearing in April. A wider cross-section of midden should have been exposed and investigated, and a larger volume of midden should have been sampled and analyzed. Such work could have provided significant, irreplaceable data about Sarasota's history during the late Weeden Island and Safety Harbor periods. The midden was destroyed in 1996-1997 by construction of Sarabande, a 60-unit high-rise condominium at 341 South Gulf Stream Avenue (Figure 15).
Today, the site's northern end, the Church of the Redeemer Midden, may be the only sizeable portion of the midden remaining, but it has suffered impacts from construction of the church and associated buildings. Narrow strips of midden also may exist along some property boundaries. In all cases, the integrity of midden remnants is unclear.
One other nearby site was approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to the northwest of the Church of the Redeemer Midden. Now destroyed, it is recorded as the Cedar Point Midden (8S042)
(Fales and Davis 1961; Monroe et al. 1977). Its precise location is unclear, but its vicinity is now occupied by Golden Gate Point and adjacent areas, which had been dredged and filled by 1926 (Figure 16).
Hudson Bayou Area
The Sarasota Bay Mound was near the mouth of tidal Hudson Bayou,10 which extends inland for at least 1 km (0.6 mi). Before urbanization, the soil surrounding the bayou was poorly-drained Leon fine sand (U.S.D. A. 1959:Sheet 8) that supported scattered slash pine, saw palmetto, and wire grass. A few small, better-drained areas supported patches of scrubby flatwoods, while some low-lying areas held shallow, seasonal marshy ponds. Periodic fires kept most of the terrain open and sun-drenched. These conditions provided good habitat for a kind of bright red, terrestrial orchid that still grew in vacant lots throughout this area as late as the 1960s (Luer 1972:117-119).
Several locations around Hudson Bayou have been reported as former archaeological sites, now destroyed by land development. None appears to have been a substantial site, and their ages and cultural affiliations are not known. Two sites, both described as small shell middens, were near the mouth of Hudson Bayou. They were the Selby Midden
(85046) on the northern side, and the Bay Point Site
(85047) on the southern side (Almy 1976; Fales and Davis 1961; Monroe etal. 1977). The Bay Point area was covered with fill by 1926 (Figure 16), and traces of the Selby Midden were not found during development of The Marie Selby Botanical Gardens in the 1970s.
During the Safety Harbor Period and into the late 1800s, Hudson Bayou received upland runoff from four tributaries draining an area of approximately 7 km2 (2.7 mi2). Today, these tributaries are highly altered by urbanization. One drained the area to the north and east of the Sarasota Bay Mound, flowing southward from near the present-day downtown Sarasota post office to cross Merrill and Oak streets in the Laurel Park neighborhood. Another drained the area around the former Payne Park and Sarasota Mobile Home Park, where a remnant is visible just northwest of the First Presbyterian Church (Sanborn Map Company 1965). Near Alderman Street, these two tributaries entered a northern branch of Hudson Bayou. Near the mouth of this branch, Fales and Davis (1961) noted scattered midden shells that they called "Hudson Bayou North" (8S045) (Almy 1976; Monroe et al. 1977).
The third tributary drained an inland area to the east-northeast. It flowed from a pair of seasonal, marshy ponds that were south of today's Ringling Boulevard, west of Turtle Avenue. As it neared Hudson Bayou, the tributary became deeply incised, producing better-drained land on each bank. Before artificial drainage, such land was sought by pioneers, and this patch became the location of the Bidwell homestead, shown on the 1883 topographic map (Figure l:top).u As late as the 1930s-1940s, the tributary was "a rippling creek, the banks of which were densely covered" with trees, forming an


Figure 16. The Sarasota bayfront in 1926. Arrow points to location of Sarasota Bay Mound. Note Gulf Stream Avenue on fdled land to west of mound. Note bright white areas representing fresh fill: upper left corner shows Golden Gate Point (former Cedar Point), and lower center shows Bay Point (at mouth of Hudson Bayou). Low-altitude aerial mosaic photograph (Sarasota County History Center Archival Collection 1926).
attractive part of Luke Wood Park (Grismer 1946:307). Today, the park has been dismembered by highways and other construction, and a remnant of the incised stream exists as a deep drainage way near U.S. 41 and running through Central Park condominiums (formerly the site of Florasota Gardens apartments).12
The fourth, and largest, tributary drained the inland area to the southeast. Flowing from a bayhead swamp near today's Arlington Park, between Hyde Park and Waldemere streets, its upper and middle reaches were ditched and drained for orange groves and residential housing. Its lower reach supported a narrow tidal marsh (now erased) between Bahia Vista Street and Osprey Avenue. Close-by, scattered artifact finds were reported as the "Sarasota High School Site" (8S048, now destroyed) (Almy 1976; Fales and Davis 1961; Monroe et al.
1977). This general location is where a ford across Hudson Bayou would be expected. That is, given local topography, it can be hypothesized that an Indian foot-path would have deviated around Hudson Bayou, to the west, crossing it in this area where the bayou became narrow and shallow enough to ford by foot.
Additional Nearby Sites
Besides the Pinard Midden and small sites around Hudson Bayou, the Indians who built and used the Sarasota Bay Mound probably were associated with other nearby sites. These include several shell middens along the shore of southern Sarasota Bay. One is the Wells Midden (8S095), also known as the Post Office Point Site, which is approxi-


Figure 17. A portion of Indian Beach in the City of Sarasota, April 2004. Contour map shows two parcels (outlined by long dashes) in Sarasota Bay Park subdivision, at 900 and 901 Alameda Lane, that contain a paired shell midden complex. It is comprised of the Boylston Mound (8S035) in the southern parcel, and a portion of the Shell Road Midden (8S094) in the northern parcel. Slightly farther north are Jessie's Mound (8S01354) and the Fort Armistead site (8S01873). All house outlines (dotted) and contours (in feet) are approximate. A more detailed map of the Boylston Mound appears in Luer (1992d:Figure 2).
mately 1.3 km (0.8 mi) south of the Sarasota Bay Mound. Another, located 1.3 km farther south, is the Old Oak Site, which dates to the late Weeden Island and Safety Harbor periods (Luer 1977). Both of these are significant shell middens containing important data about subsistence and other facets of domestic life. When a portion of the Old Oak Site's northern midden was destroyed in February 2001,1 collected surf clam shells from a deeply buried lens and obtained a radiocarbon date in the early Safety Harbor Period, cal A.D. 1020-1260 (Appendix III).
In the opposite, northern direction, there were a number of sizeable mounds and middens near Whitaker Bayou and at Indian Beach, approximately 2.3-4 km (1.4-2.5 mi) north of the Sarasota Bay Mound. Together, these mounds and middens comprised one of the larger site complexes in the
Tampa Bay region. At Indian Beach, there is a pair of large shell middens, the Boylston Mound and Shell Road Midden (Figure 17). The Boylston Mound is radiocarbon dated to the early Safety Harbor Period, ca. cal A.D. 1250 (Luer 1992d:268) (Appendix III).
Near Whitaker Bayou, the Weber Mound (8SO20) was a burial mound apparently dating to the Safety Harbor Period. It was approximately 18 m (60 ft) in diameter and 3-3.6 m (10-12 ft) in height (Bullen 1950:22-27). Bullen probably correcdy attributes a 1930s or 1940s collection by Harry L. Schoff to the Weber Mound, while its attribution to a different mound (8S04, see below) by Willey (1949:344), Milanich (1972:21-22), and Mitchem (1989:220) appears unlikely. Today, remnants of the Weber Mound are centered under houses at 937 and 949 Caloosa Drive (Figure 18).


Table 3. Size data for seven mounds near Whitaker Bayou. Dimensions are approximate only.
Site Name and Number Basal Dimensions Height Source(s)
1. Calvert Mound (8S036) 15 m (50 ft) 2 m (6 ft) Monroe et al. 1977
2. Whitaker Mound (8S081) 45 x 70 m? (150 x 225 ft?) 4-5 m (12-15 ft) Luer 1992b:228, Figure 2; Southern Construction Engineers, Inc., 1925
3. Cedar Terrace Mound (8S04494) 23 x 45-53 m (75 x 150-175 ft) 1.5 m (5 ft) Southern Construction Engineers, Inc., 1925
4. Sylvan Drive Mound (8S04493) 38 x 45-53 m (125 x 150-175 ft) 1.8 m (6 ft) Southern Construction Engineers, Inc., 1925
5. Weber Mound (8SO20) 18 m (60 ft) 3-3.6 m (10-12 ft) Bullen 1950
6. Bullock Mound (8S093) 18 m (60 ft) 1 m (3 ft) Monroe et al. 1977
7. Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound (8S04) 29 x 37 m (95 x 120 ft) 2.4 m (8 ft) Milanich 1972:22, Figures 2 and 3; Moore 1900a:362, 1900b:27; Luer 1992b:235, Figure 7
Another mound near Whitaker Bayou was the Whitaker Mound (8S081), an apparent temple mound of sand containing burials and sherds of the Safety Harbor Period, which was destroyed ca. 1925 (Bullen 1950:22; Grismer 1946:11-12; Wainwright 1916:140-141). An early twentieth-century post card suggests that it had a height of approximately 4 or 5 m (12 or 15 ft) (Luer 1992b:228, Figure 2). An engineering contour map, dating to April 1925, of the Sylvan Shore Subdivision (Figure 19) shows the footprint of the Whitaker Mound, freshly removed for fill material, which suggests basal dimensions of roughly 45 x 70 m (150 x 225 ft). If these dimensions are correct, the Whitaker Mound might have been in the same size range as the largest temple mounds in the Tampa Bay area. These are the Class A and Class B "large" volume mounds, such as at Safety Harbor, Bayshore Homes, and Snead Island (see Luer and Almy 1981).
The same engineering map shows two other adjacent mounds (Figure 20). Both appear to have been sizeable sand mounds, and are now mostly or completely destroyed. I have recorded them (Luer 2004) as the Sylvan Drive Mound (8S04493) and Cedar Terrace Mound (8S04494). They are of undetermined age and culture period, but might have been associated with the Whitaker, Weber, and other nearby mounds (Table 3).
The Sylvan Drive Mound had an oval-shaped basal outline measuring approximately 38 m (125 ft) northwest to southeast and 45-53 m (150-175 ft) northeast to southwest, and reached slightly more than 1.8 m (6 ft) in height. The Cedar Terrace Mound had a teardrop-shaped basal outline, with the attenuated end toward the west and the wider end toward the east.
The base measured approximately 23 m (75 ft) north-northwest to south-southeast and 45-53 m (150-175 ft) east-northeast to west-southwest, and reached slightly more than 1.5 m (5 ft) in height. The Cedar Terrace Mound had a long, narrow ridge-like feature (perhaps a causeway paralleled by a borrow trench) running westward from its attenuated western side. This feature led toward the Weber Mound (Figures 18 and 20).
South of Whitaker Bayou was the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound (8S04), a sand burial mound containing remains of the Safely Harbor Period (Milanich 1972). It measured approximately 29 x 37 m (95 x 120 ft) in plan view and 2.4 m (8 ft) in height (Luer 1992b:235, Figure 7). The mound was visited by C. B. Moore, who wrote in his field notes:
About 1/4 m. [mile] E. & S. [east and south] from mouth of Snell's [Whitaker] Bayou, E. [east] side of SarasotaB. [Bay], in sight of the water, mound on property of Mrs. F. E. Brooks (Birmingham, Mich.) whose winter residence is near the md., is a md. of brown sand 109 ft. across base & 10 ft. in height. A central trench was without result. [Moore 1900b:27]
Moore's field notes are helpful because they record the location of the mound, which matches that of the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound (8S04). This location also matches that of a small, unlabeled cross just north of Sarasota in Moore's frontispiece map showing the Tampa Bay area, titled "Florida Coast from Clearwater Harbor to Sarasota" (Moore 1900a:350). However, Moore did not include the mound's location in his short, published paragraph about the mound (Moore 1900a:362), leading Mitchem (1999:6, 20) to mis-identify it as the Weber Mound (which is on the opposite,


Figure 18. 19 and 20.


Figure 19. Contour map showing footprint of former Whitaker Mound in 1925. Southwestern corner of this map overlaps with northeastern corner of Figure 20 (based on Southern Construction Engineers, Inc., 1925).


Figure 20. Contour map dating to 1925 showing the Sylvan Drive Mound (8S04493) and the Cedar Terrace Mound (8S04494) (based on Southern Construction Engineers, Inc., 1925).


northern side of Whitaker Bayou).
Moore's trench in the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound accounts for a filled trench found by Milanich (1972:21) that was "three by fifteen feet in size and five feet deep." Milanich found the filled trench under the pergola that was built atop the mound, ca. 1911, approximately a decade after Moore's visit.13 Within the mound, Milanich found cultural materials that were retained by the Sarasota County Historical Commission, but he did place some zooarchaeological remains at FLMNH (Zooarchaeology collection #93).
Subsistence Resources
The diet of the Indians who built the Sarasota Bay Mound is poorly understood. Available evidence is scarce and skewed by differential preservation and archaeological recovery methods. It is assumed, however, that most food was obtained by fishing, hunting, and gathering. Important food animals are assumed to have included many kinds of saltwater fish and shellfish, sea turtles, deer, and raccoon, as well as freshwater animals including fish, amphibians, and turtles.
It is unclear which carbohydrate sources were important. Cabbage palm berries, saw palmetto dates, huckleberries, sea grapes, and other wild fruits probably provided sugars. Other wild plants, such as cattail, arrowhead, pond lily, coontie, greenbriar, and seeds of grasses might have furnished starches.
The seasonality of wild foods would have influenced the Indians' food-getting activities. Many of the area's Indians might have moved around Sarasota Bay following variations in the seasonal, stochastic, and geographic abundance of fish, shellfish, and fruits. Bay scallops, for example, were abundant in the bay in the late Spring through the Summer. Toward the end of Summer, sea grapes ripened and, late in the year, palm and saw palmetto fruits became prolific. Also late in the year, mullet formed schools for their annual spawning run through the passes to the Gulf. During the Winter, migratory birds, especially flocks of ducks, were common on Sarasota Bay. The sandy shallows around Big Pass attracted massive aggregations of sharks, at various times of year, and rays in the Summer (e.g., Clark 1963).
Hudson Bayou, before dredging in the 1910s (Anonymous 1914), would have supported abundant oysters, crabs, and fish such as sheepshead, toadfish, redfish, and snook. Similar resources would have characterized the mangrove-fringed shallows to the immediate south of Hudson Bayou. This is the area of today's Bay Point Park and Harbor Acres, which were dredged and filled ca. 1925 and ca. 1940, respectively.
In Sarasota Bay, sea grass shallows provided habitat for sea trout, pinfish, pigfish ("grunt"), pufferfish, and burrfish. The extensive "flats" surrounding Bird Key, before they were dredged and filled in the late 1950s, were known for bay scallops. The bay also yielded sharks, jacks, drumfish, groupers, Spanish mackerel, and sea turtles. Small squid also might have been abundant. In the early 1950s, fishermen on the original wooden Ringling Causeway still netted small squid attracted by lanterns at night (Jane Luer, personal communication 1973).
A number of fighting conch shells were found in the Sarasota Bay Mound (some with burials), and fighting conch shells were common in the Pinard Midden. It is assumed that the Indians ate the meat of fighting conchs, and that they gathered the molluscs from high-salinity shallows in Sarasota Bay and the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. The bay's southern portion might have been favorable habitat for fighting conchs, especially if it lacked a barrier island as it did in the 1800s and early 1900s. It was not until the 1920s that Lido Key was created by dredging and filling, thereby separating southern Sarasota Bay from the Gulf (Antonini et al. 1999; Luer 1992d:274-278, Figures 8 and 9; Smally et al. 1970; U.S.C.G.S. 1883a, 1883b).
Sarasota Bay also supported localized "reefs" of worm shell (Figure 21), especially near Cortez and Yellow Bluffs. They apparently were removed by dredging and filling in the early twentieth century. Extensive formations of worm shell also are reported for the outer fringe of the Ten Thousand Islands, in southwestern Florida (Shier 1969). In Sarasota Bay. worm shell was observed by geologist Angelo Heilprin in 1886:
We were informed that ... near the northern end of the [Sarasota] Bay, we would find a coral rock or formation skirting the shore .... The rock in question turned out to be a vast mass of growing Vermetus (V. varians), which from a short distance actually presented the appearance of a clump of rocks. ... The same growth of Vermetus reappears at Whittaker's, a few miles further down the bay, where the matted tubes of the gasteropod [sic] form organic "boulders" or reefs stretching over acres of territory, one of the most striking features of this part of the coast. [Heilprin 1887]
A second observer of that time, geologist William H. Dall, wrote the following:
Another species of rock which strikes the observer as curious is in the process of formation by immense compact colonies of Vermetus (Petaloconchus) nigricans, which raise the orifices of their minute blackish tubes several inches above low-water mark, and in some of the larger bays have formed extensive reefs. ... It is locally known as "worm-rock" .... Pall and Harris 1892:153]
Although worm shell is inedible, Florida Indians sometimes reduced dense chunks of worm shell to make perforated anchor weights. One from Chokoloskee Island (Figure 22) was pictured by Moore (1900a:379, Figure 28), and another from Weeden Island was shown by Fewkes (1924:Plate 21). Willey (1949:111-112) called the latter "coquina-stone perforated sinkers." In Sarasota shell middens, I have found fragments of worm shell in late Weeden Island Period deposits at the Old Oak Site and in mid-Manasota Period deposits at the Palmetto Lane Midden (8S096), near Yellow Bluffs and Whitaker Bayou.
A bountiful natural environment, however, did not guarantee an easy life for the Indians, who had to work to extract resources from it. Interruptions in securing food came from natural causes, such as bad weather (e.g., cold fronts, hurricanes), perhaps red tide, and possibly from social causes, such


Figure 21. Two views of a boulder of worm shell (Vermetus sp.) and oyster (Crassostrea virginica) shell, apparently from Sarasota Bay and in the collection of the Sarasota County History Center (photograph courtesy of Dan Hughes, Sarasota County Archaeologist).


Figure 22. A perforated anchor stone from Chokoloskee Island, Collier County, that was fashioned by the Indians from a chunk of worm shell (from Moore 1900a:Figure 28).
as warfare. Apparent military symbols on Safety Harbor ceramics, such as human hands, bird feet, and zig-zag or lightning motifs, suggest that warfare had a role in Safety Harbor Culture (Luer 1993, 2002b). In addition, diseases, infections, and parasites might have contributed to stress and health problems (Freas and Warren, this issue).
The role of cultivated plants in Safety Harbor Period subsistence is little known. A squash seed (Cucurbita sp.) was found in the Tatham Mound (Mitchem 1989:464, 485, 501, Figure 25), and effigy funnels and dippers resembling hard-shelled gourds {Cucurbitapepo var. ovifera) and bottle gourds (Lagenaria siceraria) occur among Safety Harbor Period ceramics (Luer 1996,2002a). Rare pottery smoking pipes and pipe fragments suggest limited cultivation of tobacco. Wild cotton also might have been used for cloth, cordage, and netting. It also appears that a small amount of corn was grown in the northern portion of the Safety Harbor Culture Area. In A.D. 1528, members of the Narvaez expedition landed on Florida's central Gulf coast, finding Indians who used canoes and whose foods included fish, venison, and corn (Nunez Cabeza de Vaca 1993[1542]:34-36). The account of the expedition, however, is too vague to allow identification of a landing spot, and Boca Ceiga Bay, Lemon Bay, and Sarasota Bay have been suggested (e.g., Phinney 1925; Sheppard 1995; Weddle 1985:220).
Considering the strong influence of Mississippian vessel forms and decorative styles on Safety Harbor Period ceramics, it would be consistent for corn, another item of Mississippian
Culture, to have been known in the Safety Harbor Culture Area. As Neill (1978:202-205) indicates, a number of Florida soils and habitats that many archaeologists dismiss as unsuited for growing cultivated plants could have been used by the Indians for such a purpose. However, the general lack of caries in the teeth of Safety Harbor Period skeletal remains from sand burial mounds, coupled with isotopic data, argue against intensive ingestion of corn (Hutchinson 2004). If corn had been present, it apparently had a minor role, supplementing a diet based primarily on natural food resources.
Population Speculation
The Safety Harbor Culture area supported a number of post-contact period chiefdoms, notably the Tocobaga and Mocozo (or Mococo) at the time of early European contact. In the mid-1500s, their populations were reported by the cosmographer Juan Lopez de Velasco as 6,000 and 1,000, respectively (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964 Appendix 2; Hann 1991:317; Worth 1995:351). Assuming that this figure of 7,000 is prior to depopulation, it can be used for speculation. Most of these Indians probably lived in a five county area (today's Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Sarasota counties), with the rest living in surrounding areas (e.g., portions of today's Citrus, Hernando, Polk, Hardee, and DeSoto counties). If a figure of6,000 is divided evenly among the core five counties, it suggests a population of roughly 1,200 for the area of today's Sarasota County around the time of early European contact.
Safety Harbor Period sites in Sarasota County indicate that most of the county's Indians, during this period, lived primarily along the coast (i.e., the southern Sarasota Bay, Osprey, Venice-Laurel, and Englewood areas), with some Indians living inland (e.g., the Myakka area). Some of these sites include a western portion of the Shell Ridge Midden at the Palmer Site in Osprey (e.g., Kozuch 1998; Quitmyer 1998), the Laurel Mound, Pool Hammock, and Snake Island Site in the Venice-Laurel area (Koski and Peres 2001; Luer and Almy 1987; Willey 1949:343-344), the Englewood Mound and portions of the Paulsen Point Midden and Cedar Point Shell Heap in the Englewood area (Bullen 1971; Luer 1999b; Willey 1949:126-135), the Wilson Mounds and Myakka Valley Ranches Mound in the Myakka area (Luer 1993, 1996; Mitchem 1989:199-201), as well as other inland burial mounds, such as the True Site or Deer Praire Creek Mound (Mitchem 1989:220-222; Willey 1949:344, Figure63c) and at the Myakkahatchee Site (Luer etal. 1987:144-148). These are in addition to sites already mentioned for the southern Sarasota Bay area, such as sites on Longboat Key, the Boylston Mound, Shell Road Midden, Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound, Pinard Midden, Sarasota Bay Mound, Wells Midden, and Old Oak Site.
Judging from the sizes and locations of known Safety Harbor Period sites, as well as the natural food resources that were available to the Indians, it can be speculated that perhaps half, or slightly more than half (ca. 700?), of Sarasota County's total population during the early post-contact Safety


Harbor Period might have lived in the southern Sarasota Bay area. Their population probably had a low rate of growth, based on archaeo-demographic research of nearby groups (high fertility coupled with high infant and young adult mortality) (Dickel 1991:9,20,25, 31; Widmer 1988:219-220; Winland 2002). Assuming a growth rate of 0.1 percent per year (or a doubling in approximately 700 years) (see Widmer 1988:219-222), a population of perhaps 400 Indians might have lived in the southern Sarasota Bay area ca. A.D. 1000. If there had been a local population of roughly 400 to 700 Indians during the period when the Sarasota Bay Mound was used, the relatively few burials reported in the mound would be a small portion of potential burials. Considering their location in a large, imposing mound, burials in the Sarasota Bay Mound may represent only a small sub-group of the total population, such as individuals of high rank.
Additional Finds
In the 1970s, a carved stone effigy human head was found near Hudson Bayou. A pen and ink depiction of the head, based on a photograph, appeared on the cover of the Program (events and paper abstracts) for the 48th Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, held in Sarasota in 1996. The head was an isolated find near the Orange Avenue Bridge crossing Hudson Bayou, a short distance southeast of the Sarasota Bay Mound, and is now in the collections of the Sarasota County History Center (see Hughes, this issue).
Also in the 1970s, a chipped stone biface was found by Carlyle Luer approximately 100 m (330 ft) south of the Sarasota Bay Mound, on the southern side of U.S. 41 (Mound Street). It was an isolated find on the sandy surface between the sidewalk and the brick street at 811 South Palm Avenue. This was in front of the Administration Building (Marquette House) of The Marie Selby Botanical Gardens.
Archaeologist Bob Austin, an expert on Florida lithic artifacts, identified it as a "classic example" of a "recycled" distal end of what had been a larger biface. The fragment's base had been re-flaked to make a new stem, yielding a Levylike form. The re-worked portion was very slightly lighter in color than the rest of the biface, and the older flake scars were very slightly smoother than the newer ones, due to weathering. A lack of use-wear indicates that the re-worked tool experienced little, if any, use. Austin's microscopic inspection showed that it was fashioned from Hillsborough River chert, a greyish mudstone with a few, small fossil inclusions, that occurs near Tampa. The biface's form and material are not diagnostic of a particular period, and thus its age is uncertain (Bob Austin, personal communication 2002). The artifact may be related to the Sarasota Bay Mound, or could predate it. Mitchem (1994:153-154) reports a number of stemmed bifaces from the Safety Harbor Site (8PI2) that may date to the Safety Harbor Period.
Conclusion
The Sarasota Bay Mound was a large sand burial mound
overlooking Sarasota Bay. Early in the twentieth century, it was reported to have a diameter of 100-130 feet and a height of 20 feet. In 1920, the mound was diminished in height when its upper portion was removed before construction of a house atop the remaining mound, replete with a basement dug into the mound's remaining lower portion. At that time, human burials and decorated pottery were found, but they were not recorded and have been lost since.
In 1968, archaeological excavations in the mound uncovered more burials and pottery sherds. This relatively small sample of the mound's original content is analyzed in this study. The 1968 archaeological field work preceded construction of a condominium, in the early 1970s, which destroyed the mound. Such disregard for a cultural resource is part of a long trend in the City of Sarasota. Today, the city is undergoing intensive re-development, and it needs to take better care of its remaining archaeological resources, including preservation measures and higher standards for archaeological work.
The Sarasota Bay Mound was poorly understood before this study. Now it is clear that the mound was built and used during the pre-contact Safety Harbor Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1500). Mississippian influence is present at the site, such as fragments of Lake Jackson Plain and Pinellas Incised collared vessels with loop handles, a fragment from the base of the neck of a Safety Harbor Incised bottle, and a sherd apparently from a hunch back human effigy bottle. Other ceramics from the mound include St. Johns Check Stamped, St. Johns Plain, St. Johns Simple Stamped, Pinellas Plain, Belle Glade Plain, and sand-tempered plain sherds. Some pottery may represent vessels obtained through trade, such as sherds of Belle Glade Plain, which is most common in the Kissimmee, Okeechobee, and Caloosahatchee regions, and the fragment of an apparent hunch back human effigy bottle, which may be from the Fort Walton region of northwestern Florida.
Excavation trenches show that the mound was built of sand and had a black basal zone, apparently a prepared base. Sherds were associated with this basal zone, and some appeared to have been scattered across it when it was an exposed surface, perhaps at the time of initial mound construction. The secondary interments of two individuals, an adult male (Burial B) and a juvenile (Burial C), were near the base of the central portion of the mound in Trench IX. Burial B consisted of tightly flexed remains, perhaps of an important person, whose femurs were detached and placed peripherally to the rest of the skeleton at the time of interment, possibly reflecting mortuary ritual.
Remains of two more individuals (Burials A and D) came from higher up in the mound, near the surface in Trench IX. Also from high up in the mound were the remains of ten individuals near the top of Trench VIII (as represented by Burials/Skulls #1 #9, plus the material in a Sarasota County History Center collection). Most of these latter burials were reported to be secondary flexed interments, although at least one (based on a field photograph) apparently was a primary flexed interment. Several of the mound's burials were associated with small numbers of sherds and fighting conch shells, and two were accompanied by pink or red ocher. The


physical attributes and pathology of the human remains are the subject of a separate study.
We now know more about the Sarasota Bay Mound's cultural affiliation, structure, artifacts, and burials. Like a study of the former Brookside Mound and its vicinity (Luer 1995), this report about the Sarasota Bay Mound adds to our understanding of aboriginal geography and land use in the Sarasota area. The mound might have been associated with the nearby Pinard Midden, much of which was destroyed in the 1980s and 1990s.
This report also adds new information about sites in the northern portion of the City of Sarasota. At Whitaker Bayou, two newly-recorded mounds are described, and new data are suggested for the Whitaker Mound, once the largest mound in Sarasota. At Indian Beach, a new map of significant shell middens is presented. The Whitaker-Indian Beach site complex was one of approximately a dozen of the largest sites in the Tampa Bay region.
Mounds like the Sarasota Bay Mound are structures that were built intentionally by the Indians and are part of the architectural history of Sarasota. Shell middens also are architectural in the sense that they reflect the spacial organization of village life. Like so much of Florida Indian art and architecture, mounds and middens need to be included in our history and consciousness. Throughout Florida, our American Indian heritage needs greater appreciation and protection.
Notes
1 Earl Putnam was Chairman of Canada Health and Accident Insurance Company. In the mid-1960s, he moved from Southhampton, Ontario, to Sarasota's St. Armands Key. With developer Robert Skalitzky, also from Ontario, he built several condominiums in Sarasota in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Anonymous 2003).
2 Doris Anderson Davis (b. 1918, d. 2002), a native of Sarasota, worked as Sarasota County Historian from 1958 to 1982 (Scheibner 2002). Beginning in the late 1950s, she assisted in making an inventory of known aboriginal sites in Sarasota County (Fales and Davis 1961) and in testing a sand mound in Old Miakka (Fritts 1961). She helped organize excavations by Sarasota County personnel in 1965-1966 at the Paulsen Point Midden in Englewood, and later encouraged Ripley Bullen to analyze materials collected there (Bullen 1971). Davis helped secure Bullen's work at the Dunwody Site near Englewood in 1965 (Cortes 1965) and at the Sarasota Bay Mound in 1968, as well as the University of Florida's work at the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound inl 969 (Milanich 1972). She directed additional digging at the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound before it was destroyed by land developers. In 1970, Davis helped convince the State of Florida to send underwater archaeologist Carl Clausen to Warm Mineral Springs, leading to excavations there in 1972 (Clausen et al. 1975:1). In the 1970s, she provided assistance to archaeologist Ray Ruppe and co-workers during investigations in Venice, Florida (Ruppe 1980:34), and she helped Asa Pillsbury in an effort to preserve the Pillsbury Site, west of Bradenton. In late 1980, Davis was one of the first to observe fresh bulldozer damage on Big Mound Key in Charlotte County and to report it to state authorities.
3 Ripley Bullen (b. 1902, d. 1976) worked at the Whitaker Site
Complex in the City of Sarasota in 1950 (Bullen 1950; Luer 1992b). In 1959-1962, he and Adelaide conducted excavations in Osprey, between Sarasota and Venice, at the Palmer Site, including the Palmer Burial Mound (Bullen and Bullen 1976). In January 1968, he worked in the Sarasota County Commissioners' offices to analyze materials collected by county personnel from the Paulsen Point Midden in Englewood, in the southern part of Sarasota County (Bullen 1971:5; Luer 1999a:6, 10, Figures 5 and 6). In February 1968, Ripley Bullen was elected President of the Florida Anthropological Society and served in that post for two years. Afterward, he was Editor of the society's journal through 1976.
4 Fritts was a newspaper reporter who penned other articles of archaeological interest, such as about a mound in Old Miakka and artifacts unearthed at Fort Center (see Allerton et al. 1984:MT#26; Fritts 1961, 1962; Luer 1993:242). He also wrote in defense of wildlife and conservation (e.g., Fritts 1964, which was reprinted in The Reader's Digest). By the 1970s, he moved to Lee County's Pine Island, where he and his wife started one of the first native plant nurseries, the Pine Breeze Nursery. After he passed away, 1.5 acres of their Pine Island property was sold in 1995 to the Calusa Land Trust (CLT), which created the Walbridge Otto "Bill" Fritts Park at the end of Beach Daisy Lane in Bokeelia. Fritts Park provides a launching place for the CLT's Big Jim Creek Canoe Trail (Buchanan 1998:73, 90-91, 122).
51 met the Bullens in early 1968, when they were in Sarasota to identify collections from the Sarasota County Mound (a.k.a. Paulsen Point Midden) (Bullen 1971). Later that year, I was out of town (finding Hexalectris in Texas [Luer 1975:272-278]) during the Bullens' work at the Sarasota Bay Mound, but the mound was familiar to me because I walked and rode by it many times in the 1960s.
6 C. J. Knighton was a building contractor who moved his family to Sarasota in 1907, when he was 50 years old. He was well-known in St. Louis, Missouri, where he built the railroad station, and he also worked in other Mid-Western cities. In Sarasota, he built many leading residences and super-intended construction of the Spanish-style Sarasota County Courthouse. When he built the McClintock house, Knighton lived just a block to the north at 611 South Palm Avenue (Florida-Piedmont Directory Co. 1918:206,1921-1922:221). He died in 1938 at the age of 81 (Anonymous 1938).
7 John Bowie Browning (born inl898 in Bradenton) was a descended of a Scottish family that came to Sarasota in 1885. After serving as a pilot in World War I, he settled in Sarasota, working as a contractor, realtor, and newspaper and radio manager (Grismer 1946:249, 303-304). At the time of Bullen's work at the Sarasota Bay Mound, Browning was a director and former Chair of the Sarasota County Historical Commission (Fritts 1968).
8 The high ground extended southward through what is now the northern portion of The Marie Selby Botanical Gardens and a short distance northward to 621 South Gulf Stream Avenue and the intersection of Alderman Street and South Palm Avenue. From there and northward along the shore, the land became less elevated as the high ground pulled back slightly in an eastward direction. This high ground was part of an area of Lakewood fine sand (United States Department of Agriculture [U.S.D.A.] 1959:Sheet 8) extending from Hudson Bayou at the south to near today's Tenth Street at the north. There, the high ground was cut by Hog Creek, the only tributary to Sarasota Bay between Hudson and Whitaker bayous. Originally, the mouth of Hog Creek was west of today's Eleventh Street (Sanborn


Map Company 1925b; U.S.C.G.S. 1883a), but was shifted northward when it was filled with dredged material (the area of today's Centennial Park) and converted to a drainage ditch. In the latter half of the 1800s, the pioneer Whitaker homestead overlooked the low-lying mouth of Hog Creek, from where the Whitakers shipped hogs by boat (Grismer 1946:72-73).
9 Natural high areas bordering the bay attracted early Spanish and American settlement, such as Philipe's rancho at Cherokee Park, Albert E. Willard's homestead near the Sarasota Bay Mound, the Whitakers' homestead at Yellow Bluffs, and the Pacheco/Elzuardi rancho and Fort Armistead at Indian Beach. The Yellow Bluffs and Indian Beach area apparently was the "rocky and high" shore where Williams (1837:24) observed traces of habitation in 1828, and it is the same area that marked the western end of the northern boundary of Seminole Indian land on a contemporary British map (Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 1834).
10 Hudson Bayou was named after an early American settler, whose house probably was burned by Seminole Indians in the Third Seminole War in 1856 (Matthews 1983:220, 238). During that period, the term "bayou" was first applied locally to the mouths of tidal creeks at Hudson Bayou and Snell's or Whitaker Bayou (later it was applied to other bodies of coastal water, e.g., Hanson and Coconut bayous on northern Siesta Key). The first local use of the term can be traced to settlers from Middle Florida, a plantation area between the Apalachicola and Suwannee rivers in the early 1840s, while Florida was still a territory (Matthews 1983:149-151). Ultimately, the term "bayou" was derived from a Choctaw Indian word for "small stream" (Guralnik 1970:121).
11 The homestead belonged to Alfred Bidwell, who ran a general store on the bay south of Hudson Bayou in the rural, dispersed pioneer community of Sara Sota (two words, which preceded the town of Sarasota to the north). Bidwell was among several men convicted of murdering the community's postmaster in 1884. Bidwell's homestead house has been preserved as the Bidwell-Luke Wood House (Grange 1977; Grismer 1946:76, 79, 87-88; Matthews 1983:331). At one meeting of conspirators at the Bidwell House, Matthews (1983:327-328) mentions the drinking of aguardiente (Cuban rum), although she discounts it. However, the man who shot the postmaster fled to the isolated homesteads of Charlotte Harbor area (Shell Creek) pioneers Smallwood and Huckeby, both of whom probably had access to aguardiente from Cuba (Luer and Edic 2002:197-198, 202-203; Matthews 1983:346-348). Although given little attention by historians, perhaps a local rum trade, and the postmaster's opposition to it, played a role in this tragedy.
12 Incised gullies, formed by down-cutting of upland, were uncommon landforms along the mainland of the Sarasota area. Another incised gully carried runoff from Red Bug Slough to Phillippi Creek (Luer 1995). The lower reaches of the two tributaries that entered the northern branch of Hudson Bayou also appear to have been incised, based on the 1883 topographic map (U.S.C.G.S. 1883a). In 2003 or 2004, much of the remnant gully in Luke Wood Park was filled.
13 The pergola was part of the Acacias Estate, and was located a short distance north of the mansion. This location should be noted because the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound was actually slightly southeast of where it was located by Monroe et al. (1977:Figure 7) and slightly farther north than shown in Luer (1992b:Figure 1). The correct location is documented by an engineering contour map (Mosby Engineering Associates, Inc., 1969). The map shows that the
southeastern portion of the mound was crossed by the southern boundary of Lot 14, Block "B," in Whitaker's Subdivision. The Bay's Bluff condominium, at 1100 Imperial Drive, was built just north of the mound, and its construction was the pretext for destroying the mound in 1969. Today, the Sarasota Bay Club, a pair of tall condominiums, has been built to the south, where the rest of the Acacias Estate once stood.
Acknowledgments
In May 1979, Adelaide Bullen let me make hand-written copies of Ripley Bullen's field cards about the Sarasota Bay Mound. At that time, Jerald Milanich kindly facilitated this effort, allowing me to use his office to copy information from the cards. In 1986, Mary B. Davis of the Huntington Free Library and Reading Room provided access to C. B. Moore's field notes.
In 2002-2004, Scott Mitchell of FLMNH made collections from the mound available for study. Dan Hughes and Ann Shank of the Sarasota County History Center provided helpful information, as did Frank Evans of Sarasota, and Ryan Wheeler of Tallahassee. Hughes and Wheeler also provided computer versions of images. Bill Burger kindly showed me the original engineering map of Sylvan Shores. Bob Austin generously looked at the lithic biface and gave his expert opinion. I am indebted to Laurel Freas and Michael Warren for their work with skeletal remains. Ami Cordell generously analyzed sherds from the mound. Jerald Milanich, Jeff Mitchem, and Ryan Wheeler reviewed the manuscript, and Dan Hughes also gave helpful comments. Jeff Mitchem's review was especially helpful.
References Cited
Allerton, David, George M. Luer, and Robert S. Carr 1984 Ceremonial Tablets and Related Objects from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 37:5-54.
Almy, Marion M.
1976 A Survey and Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in Sarasota County, Florida. M.A.Thesis on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Anonymous
1914 Dredging Out Hudson Bayou: Yacht Basin for Harboring Boats with a Channel to Deep Water. The Sarasota Times, July 9, page 1.
1920 Pre-Historic Relics Are Uncovered: Bones of Human Skeleton and Pieces of Pottery Are Brought to Light By Excavations on Indian Mound. Tourists Find Many Souvenirs. The Sarasota Times, March 11, page 1.
1938 C. J. Knighton, 81, Pioneer Builder in Sarasota, is Dead. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, April 6. Copy of obituary on file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
1968 County Funds Aid Mound Excavation. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Wednesday, July 10, Section one, page 2.
1977 Ripley Pierce Bullen, 1902-1976. The Florida Anthropologist 30:34-35.
2003 Condo-Dominions of the 1960s: Builders of the First Luxury High-Rises Part I. In Historic Sarasota: A Graphic and Pictorial History of Sarasota and Its People


(complimentary newspaper). Historic Publications, Inc., Fort Myers.
Antonini, Gustavo A., David A. Farm, and Paul Roat
1999 A Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways: Volume One, Anna Maria Sound to Lemon Bay. Florida Sea Grant Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Grant Number NA76RG-0120, Gainesville, Florida.
Austin, Robert J.
2000 Microlithic Drills from the Anderson Mound at Jungle Prado: Possible Evidence for Late Prehistoric Craft Production on the Gulf Coast of Florida. North American Archaeologist21:291-321.
Bickel, Karl A.
1942 The Mangrove Coast: The Story of the West Coast of Florida. Coward-McCann, Inc., New York.
Brinton, Daniel G.
1859 Notes on the Floridian Peninsula, Its Literary History, Indian Tribes and Antiquities. Published by Joseph Sabin, Philadelphia.
Buchanan, Phillip G. (editor)
1998 The Nature Lover's Guide to Pine Island. Prepared by The Calusa Land Trust and Nature Preserve of Pine Island, Inc., Lee County, Florida.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1950 Tests at the Whittaker Site, Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 3:21-30.
1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Report of Investigations Number 8, Tallahassee.
1965 Florida's Prehistory. In Florida from Indian Trail to Space Age: A History, by Charlton W. Tebeau, pp. 305-316. Southern Publishing Co., Defray Beach, Florida.
1968a Field notes about the Mound Street Burial Mound. Formerly in the possession of Adelaide K. Bullen in Gainesville, Florida.
1968b Photographic negative numbers PN94.228.1738-1742 for Mound Street Burial Mound. On file, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.
1971 The Sarasota County Mound, Englewood, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 24:1-30.
Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen 1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society Publications Number 8, Gainesville.
City of Sarasota
1995a Staff Report regarding Preliminary Site and Development Plan Petition No. 95-PSD-D to construct a 60 unit condominium at 341 South Gulf Stream Avenue. Agenda Item HI-A-l. Pp.5. January 4. On file, Planning Department, City of Sarasota.
1995b Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency held January 4 in the City Commission Chambers. On file, Planning Department, City of Sarasota.
Clark, Eugenie
1963 Massive Aggregations of Large Rays and Sharks In and Near Sarasota, Florida. Zoologica 48:61-66.
Clausen, Carl J., H. K. Brooks, and A. B. Wesolowsky 1975 Florida Spring Confirmed as 10,000 Year Old Early Man Site. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 7, Gainesville.
Cobia and Hebb, Inc.
1975 Embassy House: A Condominium. Exhibit "A," sheet 1 of 7, land surveyors plan dated March 24. Scale 1 inch = 30 feet. In Sarasota County Condominium Book 9, page 27. On file, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, Florida.
Cordell, Ann S.
2005 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability at the Pineland Site Complex. In Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Village Complex, edited by Karen J. Walker and William H. Marquardt. To be published by the University of Florida, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4, Gainesville.
Cortes, Josephine
1965 Burial Mound Study Set If Any Bones Are Left: Archaeologist Arrives Today. Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Copy on file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
Dall, William H, and Gilbert D. Harris
1892 Correlation Papers; Neocene. Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey. Pp. 349. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Davis, Doris
1968a Letter to the Honorable William C. Cunningham, Chairman, Board of Sarasota County Commission from the Sarasota County Flistorical Commission re: proposed excavation of Indian burial mound on private property, located between Gulf Stream Avenue and Palm Avenue in the City of Sarasota. Dated March 12. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
1968b Indian Mounds: Sarasota Bay Mound. Sarasota Scene 7(8):26-27, 30. Fall edition, dated August. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
Davis, T. Frederick
1939 The Disston Land Purchase. The Florida Historical Quarterly 17(3):200-210.
Dickel, David N.
1991 Descriptive Analysis of the Skeletal Collection from the Prehistoric Manasota Key Cemetery, Sarasota County, Florida (8S01292). Florida Archaeological Reports 22. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.


Fales, John, and Doris Davis
1961 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Sarasota County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
Fewkes, Jesse W.
1924 Preliminary Archeological Explorations at Weeden Island, Florida. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Volume 76, Number 13, pp. 1-26, 21 plates, Washington, D.C.
Florida State Archives
n.d. Felix Pinard Photographs. Florida Photographic Collection. Accessed at http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/memory /PhotographicCollection/. 1997.
Florida-Piedmont Directory Company
1918 Sarasota, Fla., City Directory. Florida-Piedmont Directory Company Publishers, Asheville, North Carolina.
1921-1922 Sarasota, Fla., City Directory. Florida-Piedmont
Directory Company Publishers, Asheville, North Carolina.
Fritts, Bill
1961 Shovels Bite Deep Into County's Past. The Herald-Tribune (Sarasota), October 1.
1962 More Valuable Artifacts are Dug Up in Everglades. The Herald-Tribune (Sarasota), January 11, page 18.
1964 Who Owns This Land? The Herald-Tribune (Sarasota), March 22.
1968 Excavation of Indian Mound Commenced Near Sarasota. The Herald-Tribune (Sarasota), Thursday, July 11, Section two, pages 13, 21.
Fundaburk, Emma L., and Mary F. Foreman 1957 Sun Circles and Human Hands: The Southeastern Indians Art and Industries. Published by Emma L. Fundaburk, Luverne, Alabama.
Gilliland, Marion S.
1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida. The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Goggin, John M., and William C. Sturtevant 1964 The Calusa: A Stratified Nonagricultural Society (With Notes on Sibling Marriage). In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor ofGeorge Peter Murdoch, edited by Ward H. Goodenough, pp. 179-219. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gottfreid, Herbert, and Jan Jennings
1988 American Vernacular Design: 1870-1940. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
Grange, Roger T.
1977 Excavation at the Luke Wood House, Sarasota, Florida (8So91). Prepared for the Sarasota County Historical Society. Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Grayson, Donald K.
1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida.
Grismer, Karl H.
1946 The Story of Sarasota: The History of the City and County of Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Grower Press, Tampa.
Guralnik, David B. (Editor in Chief)
1970 Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. The World Publishing Company, New York and Cleveland.
Harm, John H.
1991 Missions to the Calusa. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Hathcock, Roy
1976 Ancient Indian Pottery of the Mississippi River Valley. Hurley Press, Inc., Camden, Arkansas.
Heilprin, Angelo
1887 Explorations on the West Coast of Florida, and in the Okeechobee Wilderness. Transactions ofthe Wagner Free Institute of Science of Philadelphia 1:1-134. Philadelphia.
Hudson, Charles
1976 The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Hutchinson, Dale L.
2004 Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Jackson, H. Edwin
1989 The Trouble with Transformations: Effects of Sample Size and Sample Composition on Meat Weight Estimates Based on Skeletal Mass Allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 16:601-610.
Janus Research
1994 Letter regarding "Archaeological testing, Pinard Midden 8S099, 341 S. Gulfstream Ave., Sarasota, Florida" from Robert J. Austin to Jim Claybaugh, Tangerine Development Company. Dated December 12. Pp. 3. On file, Planning Department, City of Sarasota.
1995 Limited Archaeological Excavations at the Pinard Midden (8S099), Sarasota County, Florida. Report dated April. Prepared for Tangerine Development Company, Sarasota, Florida, by Janus Research, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Koski, Steve, and Tanya Peres
2001 Archaeological Testing of the Snake Island Site (8So2336) and Survey at Jim Neville Preserve and Palmer Point Park, Sarasota County, Florida. Report dated July 31. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. New South Associates Technical Report 827.
Kozuch, Laura
1998 Faunal Remains from the Palmer Site (8S02), with a Focus on Shark Remains. The Florida Anthropologist 51:177-


192.
Luer, Carlyle A.
1972 The Native Orchids of Florida. The New York Botanical Garden, W. S. Cowell, Ltd., Ipswich, England.
1975 The Native Orchids of the United States and Canada, excluding Florida. The New York Botanical Garden, W. S. Cowell, Ltd., Ipswich, England.
Luer, George M.
1977 Excavations at the Old Oak Site, Sarasota, Florida: A Late Weeden Island-Safety Harbor Period Site. The Florida Anthropologist 30:37-55.
1979 Hand-written transcriptions by G. Luer of Ripley Bullen's field notes about the Mound Street Burial Mound. Transcribed from 5x7 inch note cards in the possession of Adelaide K. Bullen, with her permission. On file, with G. Luer.
1986 Ceramic Faces and a Pipe Fragment from South Florida, with Notes on the Pineland Site, Lee County. The Florida Anthropologist 39:281-286.
1992a Mississippian-Period Popeyed Bird-Head Effigies in West-Central and Southwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:52-62.
1992b Urban Archaeology in the City of Sarasota, Florida: The Whitaker Archaeological Site Complex. The Florida Anthropologist 45:226-241.
1992c The Palmetto Lane Midden (8S096): Some Stratigraphic, Radiocarbon, and Shell Tool Analyses for a Manasota Period Site in Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:246-252.
1992d The Boylston Mound: A Safety Harbor Period Shell Midden; With Notes on the Paleoenvironment of Southern Sarasota Bay. The Florida Anthropologist 45:266-279.
1993 A Safety Harbor Incised Bottle With Effigy Bird Feet and Human Hands from a Possible Headman Burial, Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46:238-250.
1995 The Brookside Mound, Sarasota County, Florida: Notes on Landscape, Settlement, Scrub Habitat, and Isolated Burial Mounds. The Florida Anthropologist 48:200-216.
1996 Mississippian Ceramic Jars, Bottles, and Gourds as Compound Vessels. Southeastern Archaeology 15:181-191.
1999a An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Lemon Bay Area. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 1-22. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 14, Tampa.
1999b Cedar Point: A Late Archaic through Safety Harbor Occupation on Lemon Bay, Charlotte County, Florida. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 43-56. Florida Anthropological Society Publica-
tion Number 14, Tampa.
2002a The Aqui Esta Mound: Ceramic and Shell Vessels of the Early Mississippian-influenced Englewood Phase. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor, Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 111-181. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 15, Tallahassee.
2002b Ceramic Bottles, Globular Vessels, and Safety Harbor Culture. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor, Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 95-110. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 15, Tallahassee.
2002c Helen Sawyer (obituary). The Florida Anthropologist 55:47-50.
2003 Florida Master Site File form update for the Old Oak Site (8S051). On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
2004 Florida Master Site File forms for the Sylvan Drive Mound (8S04493) and the Cedar Terrace Mound (8S04494). On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
n.d. Mound-Building and Subsistence at Big Mound Key's West Mound during the Late Weeden Island Period. Ms. in preparation.
Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1979 Three Aboriginal Shell Middens on Longboat Key, Florida: Manasota Period Sites of Barrier Island Exploitation. The Florida Anthropologist 32:34^45.
1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 33:207-225.
1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida Anthropologist 34:127-155.
1987 The Laurel Mound (8S098) and Radial Burials, With Notes on the Safety Harbor Period. The Florida Anthropologist 40:301-320.
Luer, George, Marion Almy, Dana Ste. Claire, and Robert Austin 1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8S0397), A Large Multi-Period Inland from the Shore Site in Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 40:137-153.
Luer, George M., and Robert F. Edic
2002 Glass Demij ohns and Liquor Trade in the Charlotte Harbor Area. h\ Archaeology oj'Upper Charlotte Harbor, Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 195-209. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 15, Tallahassee.
Manatee County
1902 Zakrzewski's Addition to the Town of Sarasota, Lot 1, Section 30, Township 36 South, Range 18 East. Plat Book 1, page 151, filed December 12, 1902, recorded January 12,1903. Also in Sarasota County Subdivision Plat Book A, page 33. On file, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, Florida.


1913 Magnolia Terrace, being a subdivision of Lot 4 Block "A" of the Zakrzewski Addition, Sarasota, Florida. Plat Book 1, page 290, filed December 30, 1913. Also in Sarasota County Subdivision Plat Book A, page 67. On file, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, Florida.
Marth, Del
1973 Yesterday's Sarasota, Including Sarasota County. E. A. Seemann Publishing, Inc., Miami.
Matthews, Janet S.
1983 Edge of Wilderness: A Settlement History of Manatee River and Sarasota Bay, 1528-1885. Caprine Press, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
1985 Sarasota: Journey to Centennial. Continental Heritage Press, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1972 Excavations at the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound, Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25:21^11.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1987 Obituary: Adelaide Kendall Bullen. The Florida Anthropologist 40:169.
1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
1994 An Analysis of Stone Artifacts from the Safety Harbor Site (8PI2), Pinellas County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 41': 147-160.
1999 Introduction: Clarence B. Moore's Work in Western and Central Florida, 1895-1921. In The West and Central Florida Expeditions of "Clarence BloomfieldMoore, edited by Jeffrey M. Mitchem, pp. M8. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M., Marvin T. Smith, Albert C. Goodyear, and Robert R. Allen
1985 Early Spanish Contact on the Florida Gulf Coast: The Weeki Wachee and Ruth Smith Mounds. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks, edited by Kenneth W. Johnson, Jonathan M. Leader, and Robert C. Wilson, pp. 179-219. Florida Journal of Anthropology, Special Publication No. 4. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Monroe, Elizabeth, Sharon Wells, and Marion M. Almy 1977 Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Survey of Sarasota, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series, Number 51. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee.
Moore, Clarence B.
1900a Certain Antiquities of the Florida West-Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:349-394.
1900b Field notes, notebook 17. On file, Huntington Free Library and Reading Room, The Bronx, New York.
Mosby Engineering Associates, Inc.
1969 Survey in W. H. Whitaker's Subdivision, Sect. 13, T. 36 S., R. 17 E., Sarasota, Fla., for Aurora Development Corporation. Contour map dated February 14, showing Lot 14, Block "B," and adjacent areas. Copies on file with J. Milanich, Florida Museum ofNatural History, Gainesville, and G. Luer, Sarasota.
Neill, Wilfred T.
1978 Archaeology and a Science of Man. Columbia University Press, New York.
Nunez Cabeza de Vaca, Alvar
1993 [1542] The Account: Alvar Nunez Cabeza deVaca's Relation, translated by Martin A. Favata and Jose B. Fernandez. Arte Publico Press, Houston, Texas.
Peebles, Christopher S., and Susan M. Kus 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42:421-448.
Phinney, A. H.
1925 Narvaez and De Soto: Their Landing Places and the Town of Espiritu Santo. The Florida Historical Quarterly 3:15-21.
Piper Archaeology/Janus Research
1992 Phase II Excavations at the Acacias Site (8So97B & C), Sarasota County, Florida. Report dated March. Pp. 50. On file, Planning Department, City of Sarasota.
Quitmyer, Irvy R.
1998 Zoological Indicators of Habitat Exploitation and Seasonality from the Shell Ridge Midden, Palmer Site (8S02), Osprey, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 51:193-205.
Quitmyer, Irvy R., and Melissa A. Messaro
1999 Seasonality and Subsistence in a Southwest Florida Estuary: A Faunal Analysis of Precolumbian Useppa Island. In The Archaeology of Useppa Island, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 99-128. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph Number 3. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Ruppe, Reynold J.
1980 Introduction to the Five Articles Dealing With Underwater Archaeological Research at the Venice Site. Pp. 33-34. In: Florida Bureau of Historic Properties, Bulletin Number 6, Tallahassee.
Sanborn Map Company
1925a Sarasota, Fla., Area 12. Dated May. Map produced by Sanborn Map Company, New York. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
1925b Sarasota, Fla., Index Map. Dated May. Map produced by Sanborn Map Company, New York. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
1965 Sarasota, Florida. Map dated 1954, with additions through


January 1962, February 1963, and August 1965. Sanborn Map Company, Pelham, New York. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
Sarasota County Historical Commission
1968 Agreement between Earl Putnam Organization, Inc. (Robert Skalitzky, Vice President) and the Sarasota County Historical Commission (Richard Glendinning, Chair) regarding planned archaeological work, liability, disposition of artifacts, etc., at Lot 5, Block A, Zakrzewski's Addition. Dated June. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
Sarasota County History Center Archival Collection 1926 Black and white aerial photograph #6 (33-36A) showing Hudson Bayou and downtown Sarasota. Photograph from the Clyde Wilson Collection. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
Sarasota County History Center Photographic Collection 1908 Black and white photograph looking southward (probably from roof of Belle Haven Inn) along Sarasota bayfront and showing sea walls under construction and exposed tidal flat. The same photograph appears on a post card from the Eula Lastinger Tucker Collection; it is post marked May 1, 1908, and was mailed from Fruitville. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
Scheibner, Hildegard
2002 Historian unearthed early Indian record. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Sunday, March 24, section 2, page 2.
Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, Jr., and Gail S. Schnell 1981 Cemochechobee.: Archaeology of a Mississippian Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee River. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Sears, William H.
1967 The Tierra Verde Burial Mound. The Florida Anthropologist 20:25-73.
Sheppard, Donald E.
1995 DeSoto's Trail to Apalache. The Florida Anthropologist 48:174-193.
Shier, Daniel E.
1969 Vermetid Reefs and Coastal Development in the Ten Thousand Islands, Southwest Florida. Geological Society of America Bulletin 80:485-507.
Simpson, J. H.
ca. 1896 The Mound-Builders of Florida and Their Works. Unpublished typescript, pp. 247. On file (ms. # 4326), National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Smally, Donald, Marion Wellford, and Robert Nalven
1970 Shoreline Analysis of the City of Sarasota, Florida. Prepared for the City of Sarasota by Smally, Wellford, and Nalven Consulting Engineers, Sarasota.
Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 1834 Map of "North America, XTV, Florida." Published Febru-
ary 1st by Baldwin and Cradock, 47 Paternoster Row, London.
Southern Construction Engineers, Inc.
1925 "Topography of Sylvan Shores." Engineering contour map in 1 ft intervals above sea level for Sylvan Shores subdivision. Dated April 18. Scale 1 in = 50 ft. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
Stirling, Matthew W.
1935 Smithsonian Archeological Projects Conducted Under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1933-1934. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1934, pp. 371-400. Washington, D.C.
Tebeau, Charlton W.
1971 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.
Tischendorf, Alfred P.
1954 Florida and the British Investor, 1880-1914. The Florida Historical Quarterly 33(2): 120-129.
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey
1883a "Sarasota Bay, Florida." Topographic (T) sheet. Register #1517a. Scale 1:20,000. J. E. Hilgard, Superintendent. Washington, D.C.
1883b "Sarasota Bay, Florida." Hydrographic (H) sheet. Register #1559a. Scale 1:20,000. J. E. Hilgard, Superintendent. Washington, D.C.
1895 Lemon Bay to Tampa Bay, Florida. Coast chart, scale 1:80,000. W. W. Duffield, Superintendent. Treasury Department, Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture
1959 Soil Survey: Sarasota County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and the University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations. Series 1954, Number 6. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
United States Geological Survey
1992 Sarasota, Fla. Original map dated 1973, photo-revised in 1987, and minor revision in 1992. 7.5 minute topographic sheet, scale 1:24,000. Washington, D.C.
Wainwright, R. D.
1916 Two Month's Research in the Sand and Shell Mounds of Florida. The Archaeological Bulletin 7(6):139-144. The International Society of Archaeologists. Hico, Texas.
Walker, Karen J.
1992 The Zooarchaeology of Charlotte Harbor's Prehistoric Maritime Adaptation: Spatial and Temporal Perspectives. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 265-366. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph Number 1. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Weddle, Robert S.
1985 Spanish Sea: The Gulf of Mexico in North American


Discovery, 1500-1685. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas.
White, Susan L.
1995 Technological and Formal Variability in Ceramics at Yat Kitischee. In Yat Kitischee: A Prehistoric Coastal Hamlet 100 B.C. A.D. 1200, pp. 88-128. Conducted for the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners by Janus Research, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Volume 113 (whole volume), Washington, D.C.
Williams, John Lee
1837 [1962] The Territory of Florida: or Sketches of the Topography, Civil and Natural History, of the Country, the Climate, and the Indian Tribes,from the First Discovery to the Present Time. Published originally by A. T. Goodrich, New York. Reprinted by Floridiana Facsimile and Reprint Series, University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Wing, Elizabeth S., and L. Jill Loucks
1983 Granada Site Faunal Analysis. In Excavations at the Granada Site: Archaeology and History of the Granada Site, Volume I, by John W. Griffin et al., pp. 259-345. Prepared for the City of Miami by the Florida Division of Archives, Ffistory, and Records Management, Tallahassee.
Winland, Kenneth J.
2002 Disease and Population Ecology in the East Okeechobee Area. The Florida Anthropologist 55:199-220.
Worth, John E.
1995 Fontaneda Revisited: Five Descriptions of Sixteenth-Century Florida. The Florida Historical Quarterly73:339-352.
Appendix I. Bullen's collection of non-skeletal material from the Sarasota Bay Mound. The collection is listed in sequence according to the catalog numbers assigned at FLMNH. For each entry, Bullen's handwritten label, on the field bag, is given in quotation marks. In some cases, his short-hand is augmented with letters or a word in brackets to aid in clarity and meaning. The general provenience (e.g., burial, trench) has been added in brackets, based on Luer's transcription of Bullen's field cards. Items described here are primarily artifacts and other non-human bone materials (e.g., shells). Sherd types are based on Cordell (this issue). Human skeletal material is noted, but it is described more fully and analyzed in a separate report (Freas and Warren, this issue).
2002-21-1, "Skull #1" [Burial #1, Trench VIII]: shell (1 eroded fighting conch shell).
2002-21-6, "#3 lower pottery piece, distal end of humerus" [Burial #3, Trench VIII]: shell (2 highly eroded central fragments of fighting conch shells), 1 very small piece of soft sandstone.
2002-21-7, "#3, l[e]g bo[ne]s" [Burial #3, Trench VIII]: shell (1 highly eroded central fragment of a fighting conch shell), 2 very small pieces of soft sandstone, 1 chert flake. Recent item: 1 twig or root fragment.


2002-21-15, "B, pottery found at level and near Burial B (1 ft west of). Depth 4 ft below apron. 5 Vi ft below datum. Good W. I. [Weeden Island] pottery, W. I. Incised" [Trench IX]: 2 sherds (1 Papys Bayou Punctated body sherd with reddish-orange slip (has a single, recessed, small circle and a single line on exterior surface comprised of punctations run together); 1 St. Johns Simple Stamped body sherd (has linear marks or impressions on its exterior surface).
2002-21-17A, "D fragments, proximal end of tibia. (? displaced [from Burial] 'B') ck. [check]" [Trench IX]: shells (2 fighting conch shells), 12 sherds (9 small, fragmentary sand-tempered plain body sherds from same vessel; 2 St. Johns Plain thin body sherds; 1 sandy St. Johns Plain body sherd).
2002-21-17B, "large plain rim sherd w[ith] [Burial] 'D' near top, other sherds deeper near region of upright long bone" [Trench IX]: 6 sherds (1 Pinellas Plain body sherd; 3 sand-tempered plain sherds [one is a rim sherd with a flat lip and soot on interior surface]; St. Johns Simple Stamped body sherd [in 2 fragments]).
2002-21-18, "Trench I, from ba[s]al charcoal fleck[ed] zone": shell (2 central, eroded portions of moderate-sized left-handed whelk shells; 2 eroded fragments of left-handed whelk body whorl; misc. unidentified small fragments of shell). Recent items: un-eroded, fresh-looking, apparent non-artifact recent shells (fragments of at least 2 fighting conch shells, 1 cut-rib ark valve, 1 small fragment of a quahog valve).
2002-21-19, "Trench I, top of (Indian) white sand": shell (1 fragment of eroded left-handed whelk shell body whorl; 1 fragment of eroded left-handed whelk siphonal canal apparently smoothed or flattened on ventral surface; 1 quahog left valve with chip in lip and possible use-wear on posterior edge of lip; 1 small fragment of eroded apparent left-handed whelk shell body whorl), small fragments of charcoal. Recent item: 1 chunk of concrete with burlap impressions.
2002-21-20, "Trench II, upper part": shell (4 quahog valve fragments including a left and a right valve umbo fragment; 1 possible sunray venus or surf clam valve fragment), 8 sherds (1 Pinellas Incised rim sherd with two loop handles; 2 Lake Jackson Plain rim sherds, each with a loop handle [apparendy from different vessels]; 1 Lake Jackson Plain body sherd; 1 Safety Harbor Incised body fragment of a pinched applied ring from the base of a bottie neck; 1 St. Johns Check Stamped body sherd [recentiy broken into 4 matching fragments]; 1 Pinellas Plain body sherd [recentiy broken into 4 matching fragments]; 1 sand-tempered plain body sherd), 1 charcoal fragment. Recent items: 1 small piece of concrete, 1 small piece of plaster.
2002-21-21, "Trench II, below 3 W. I [?] she [?], 5 ft 3 in below surface, 3 ft 6 in below old surface": shell (2 highly eroded central portions of 2 fighting conch shells; 1 quahog left valve), 5 sherds (2 sand-tempered plain body sherds [each broken into 2 fragments, possible residue or soot on exterior surface]; 1 Pinellas Plain body sherd; 1 Belle Glade Plain body sherd; 1 possible Safety Harbor Incised body sherd with a vertical row of nodes [possible effigy bottle wall fragment]), charcoal fragments.
2002-21-22, "Trench III, in mid[dle]": shell (1 highly eroded quahog right valve [broken recently into four pieces, plus tiny decayed fragments]; 4 highly eroded central portions of 4 fighting conch shells); 3 sherds (1 Lake Jackson Plain body sherd [large, curved fragment with hard paste]; 1 Belle Glade Plain body sherd [broken recently into 3 fragments]; 1 Pinellas Plain body sherd [small, fragmentary]). Recent item: 1 un-eroded quahog left valve with concrete adhering on interior surface.
2002-21-23, "Trench III, basal black zone": shell (1 large quahog left valve; 5 fragments of left-handed whelk shell [all probably from 1 shell]), sherds (68 Pinellas Plain [12 rim, 56 body] from two vessels, one with soot; 32 sand-tempered plain sherds [4 rims, 28 body], some with soot; 3 St. Johns Check Stamped [1 rim, 2 body, from same vessel]; 1 St. Johns Check Stamped body sherd [with rectangular or linear checks and some reddish coloration on exterior surface]; 1 St. Johns Plain body sherd [broken recently into three pieces]; 3 St. Johns Plain sherds [matching] from a miniature vessel or compartment with a suspension hole; 1 St. Johns Plain rim sherd [thin body wall] from a small vessel; 1 unidentified incised fragment of a flaked-off, rounded, ridge-like, applied strip with an incised line running along it [resembling lip on Vessel #44 from Aqui Esta Mound]; 3 Belle Glade Plain body sherds; 4 Pineland Plain sherds [1 rim, 3 body]).
2002-21-24, "Trench IV, basal zone": charcoal fragments (carbonized wood).
2002-21-25, "Trench IV, basal black zone, Bag 2": shell (2 highly eroded central portions of fighting conch shells; 1 unidentified fragment of eroded shell), 4 sand-tempered plain sherds (3 matching fragments including one large rim sherd with a flat lip and soot on the exterior; 1 small rim sherd with a flat lip; 3 matching body sherd fragments; 1 small body sherd).
2002-21-26, "Trench V": shell (5 highly eroded central portions of fighting conch shells), 1 small sand-tempered plain body sherd.


2002-21 -27, "Trench V, upper part of mid-trench, some sherds associated] [with] lenses of black and mottled dirt of 3 ft 3 in to 4 ft below sod 3 ft below": shell (6 eroded fighting conch shells [4 of which are very fragmentary]; 1 eroded horse conch columella fragment [basal portion of small columella]; 3 pieces of quahog shell [ 1 left valve, 1 umbo fragment [eroded] of a left valve, 1 central basal fragment of a right valve]), 17 sherds (12 sand-tempered plain sherds [2 rim sherds with a rounded lip, 1 very small, thin rim sherd with a flat lip, 9 body sherds and additional small fragments]; 1 Pinellas Plain rim sherd with a rounded lip; 1 St. Johns Plain rim sherd with a rounded lip; 1 Sarasota Incised body sherd [with fine incised lines forming portion of possible triangular field filled with tiny punctations]), 4 small chunks of sandy hard pan, 1 thin leaf-shaped piece of unidentified metal (recent?).
2002-21-28, "Trench VI, basal black zone": shell (5 highly eroded fighting conch shells), 9 sherds (7 sand-tempered plain sherds [1 rim, 6 body]; 3 Pineland Plain [1 rim, 2 body]), 1 mineralized fossil sea cow rib.
2002-21-29, "Trench VII, fill": shell (7 highly eroded fighting conch shells; 1 highly eroded fragment of a quahog valve [posterior basal portion]), 1 sand-tempered plain rim sherd with variable rounded or flat lip, 2 small chunks of bog iron, 5 small chunks of sandy dried clay-like material. Recent item: 1 pebble of river gravel (common driveway surfacing material).
2002-21-31, "Trench VIII, upper ca. 1.8-16 in b.": shell (1 fighting conch shell), 2 small chunks of sandy dried reddish material (clay-like?).
2002-21-33, "Trench VIII, scattered bone": shell (2 highly eroded fighting conch shells), 1 Lake Jackson Plain body sherd. 2002-21-34, "Trench VIII, [Burial] #8, misc. bone": 1 small chunk of soft limestone or marl.
2002-21-35, "Trench IX, burial 'D,' 18 in below apron, bones-shell. Odd bones: patella, foot bones, etc., tibia. Check if disturbed part of [Burial] 'B'": shell (1 highly eroded fighting conch shell).
2002-21-36, "Trench IX, sherd from black zone, burial 'B' 4 ft 3 in B. 7 ft 4 in F. K. 5 TS 6 ft 1 in F.": 6 sand-tempered plain body sherds plus some additional small fragments, 2 small light-weight chunks of soft material (organic soil particles?).
2002-21-37, "Trench IX, Burial A": 1 small fragment of charcoal, 1 small fragment of mineralized fossil bone. Recent: 1 rusted fragmentary head and upper shaft of a nail.
2002-21-40, "Trench G, sherd from old dune line": shell (1 highly eroded fragment), 1 Lake Jackson Plain body sherd.
2002-21-41, "Test in cellar": shell (6 highly eroded fighting conch shells, 1 quahog valve fragment [posterior basal portion of left valve] with adhering material that may be recent concrete with small crushed shell aggregate), 1 mineralized fossil bone fragment of possible rib.
2002-21-42, "Cellar test, contents [of] Pit A": shell (13 highly eroded fighting conch shells), 6 sherds (4 Pinellas Plain body sherds [degraded, friable]; 1 small sand-tempered plain body sherd; 1 Belle Glade Plain body sherd); charcoal fragments (carbonized wood).
2002-21-45, "Plain rim sherd, deep east of [Burial] 'D' ([Burial] ?B fragments) [Trench IX]": 1 St. Johns Plain rim sherd with rounded lip and black burnished and polished exterior surface.
2002-21-47, "Sherd from ground roots near K55 South (not in beach [black?] dirt from Trench B and C)": 1 sandy St. Johns Plain rim sherd with variable round or flat lip, pinkish-buff surfaces, and black core.
Appendix II. Proveniences and FLMNH catalog numbers of skeletal material. For each entry, Bullen's handwritten label, on the field bag, is given in quotation marks. Words and letters in brackets have been added for clarity and meaning, based on Luer's transcription of Bullen's field cards. The different boxes in the museum storage trays, and their different labels, correspond to different field bags.
2002-21-1, "Skull #1" [Burial #1, Trench VIII].
2002-21-2, [Burial] "2" [Trench VIII].
2002-21-3, "Burial #2 (? disturbed) fragmented long bones near beach [black?]" [Trench VIII].


2002-21-4, [Burial] "#2 nearer top" [Trench VIII]. 2002-21-5, [Burial] "#2 deeper bones" [Trench VIII].
2002-21-6, [Burial] "#3 lower pottery piece, distal end of humerus," "Lower #3 ulna + distal humerus," and "w/Lower #3 pottery fragment ck. W. I." [Trench VIII].
2002-21-7, [Burial] "#3, l[e]g bo[ne]s" and"#3 longbone" [Trench VIII]. 2002-21-8, [Burial #3] "3" [Trench VLU].
2002-21-9, "Tighdy flexed [Burial] #3 deep. Long bones RT. side, bone with linea aspera up[,] burial face down" [Trench VIII].
2002-21-10, [Burial] "#4 Skull" [Trench VIII].
2002-21-11, "Skull #5," and "#5 skull fragments" [Trench VET].
2002-21-12, [Burial] "#5, long bones (plus displaced skull fragments see notes)" [Trench VIII].
2002-21-13, "Skull #6 mandible + [and] long bone over (upper [Burial] #5 long bones + [and] pelvic area) check skull fragments w/ #5 inverted" [Trench VIII].
2002-21-14, [Burial] "#7, fragments from the rt. [right] near pipe" [Trench VIII].
2002-21-15, several bags labeled: "B," "Burial B," "'B' remnant of hyoid," "'B' RGT foot (+ ankle)," "'B' left foot (+ ankle)," and "B fragments" [Trench IX].
2002-21-16, several bags labeled: "Skull C," "C below Burial B, C in [basal] Black [zone]," and "C, long bones, etc." [all Burial C, Trench IX].
2002-21-17A, [Burial] "D fragments, proximal end of tibia. (? displaced [from Burial] "B") ck. [check]" [Trench IX].
2002-21-20, "Trench II, upper part."
2002-21-29, "Trench VII, fill."
2002-21-30, "Trench VIII, Pit A."
2002-21-32, "Trench VIII, [Burial] #9."
2002-21-33, "Trench VIII, scattered bone."
2002-21-34, "Trench VIII, [Burial] #8, misc. bones."
2002-21-35, "Trench IX, burial 'D' 18 in below apron, bones-shell. Odd bones: patella, foot bones, etc., tibia. Check [to see] if [it is a] disturbed part of [Burial] 'B'."
2002-21-37, "Trench IX, Burial A."
2002-21-38, "Trench IX corner Burial B."
2002-21-39, "Trench [IX?] [Burial?] B, upper ca. 1.8-16 inb." [below?]. 2002-21-43, "Misc. skull [fragments] ([from] near [Burials] #1 or #2)" [Trench VIII]. 2002-21-44, "Odd long bone at edge near porch (front)."


2002-21-46, "Bones from pipe area (left front of house)."
2002-21-48, "Material from Hfilton] Leech, Hillview St[reet], Sarasota, Fla." This is NOT from 8S044, but perhaps from the Casey Key Burial Mound (8S017), where Leech collected materials in the 1950s (see Bullen and Bullen 1976:48; Luer 2002c:47, note 8).
2002-21-49, no provenience.
Appendix UL Radiocarbon dates from the City of Sarasota. The measured and conventional ages are in radiocarbon years before present (B.P.; present = A.D. 1950) and are rounded to the nearest ten. The values for stable isotopes, the 13C/12C ratios, are typical for the kinds of materials dated, with estimated marine shell = 0 o/oo, with a single exception being the value of+9.0, which is unusually high. The estimated conventional ages for marine shell reflect correction for stable isotopes (13C, 12C) by adding 410 years to measured ages. Asterisks indicate estimated ratios and ages. The other conventional ages reflect the addition of 410 years plus additional years for positive 13C/12C values (at 1 o/oo = 16 years) (e.g., + 2.5 = 40 years). All the conventional and calibrated dates in this table have been derived by Beta Analytic, Inc., using the IntcaI98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration. The uncorrected dates and 13C/12C ratios for the Pinard Midden are based on Janus Research (1995:9, 21), and those for the Acacias Midden are based on Piper Archaeology/Janus Research (1992:Table 3). The other dates are based on Luer (1992c:TabIe 1,1992d:Table 1), Luer and Almy (1980:216), and a previously unpublished date obtained by the author from the Old Oak Site. One sigma age ranges have 68% probability, and two sigma age ranges have 95% probability.
Provenience, Lab ID# or Submitter's ID#, Material Measured, Uncorrected Age B.P., 1 Sigma 13C/12C Ratio (* indicates estimate) Conventional, Corrected Age B.P., 1 Sigma (* indicates estimate) Calibrated, Calendrical Range, 2 Sigma
Boylston Mound (8S035)
1. Beta-44390, fighting conch 950 +/- 70 0* 1360 +/- 70* cal A.D. 900-1200
2. Beta-44391, surf clam 680 +/- 60 0* 1100+/-60* cal A.D. 1200-1400
3. Beta-44392, surf clam 810 +/- 70 0* 1220 +/- 70* cal A.D. 1040-1300
Pinard Midden (8S099)
1. Beta-80927, fighting conch 760 +/- 50 +2.5 1210+/-50 cal A.D. 1060-1290
2. Beta-80928, fighting conch 1230 +/- 60 +2.5 1680 +/- 60 cal AD. 620-830
Old Oak Site (8S051)
1. Beta-1482, lightning whelk 1250 +/- 70 0* 1660 +/- 70* cal A.D. 620-890
2. Beta-154160, surf clam 860 +/- 60 -0.1 1270 +/- 60 cal A.D. 1020-1260
Palmetto Lane Midden (8S096)
1. Beta-54002, quahog valve 1820 +/- 60 0* 2230 +/- 60* cal 30 B.C. to cal A.D. 250


Provenience, Lab ID# or Submitter's ID#, Material Measured, Uncorrected Age B.P., 1 Sigma 13C/12C Ratio (* indicates estimate) Conventional, Corrected Age B.P., 1 Sigma (* indicates estimate) Calibrated, Calendrical Range, 2 Sigma
2. Beta-54003, quahog valve 1990 +/- 60 0* 2400 +/- 60* cal 210 B.C. to cal A.D. 70
3. Beta-54004, quahog valve 1730 +/- 60 0* 2140 +/- 60* cal A.D. 90-380
Acacias Midden, Area B (8S097B)
1. 91-107-1, fighting conch 1180+/- 70 +2.8 1640 +/- 70 cal A.D. 640-900
2. 91-108-1, fighting conch 1230 +/- 60 +9.0 1790 +/- 60 cal A.D. 470-700
3. 91-92-1, quahog valve 1750 +/- 60 +0.6 2170+/-60 cal A.D. 50-330
4. 91-90-7, quahog valve 1770 +/- 60 +4.2 2250 +/- 60 cal 40 B.C. to cal A.D. 240


/\ new video on Florida's native peoples
Produced and Directed by Chaos Productions Executive Producer: Brent Weisman Written by Marshall Riggan Artwork by Theodore Morris
1998 Florida Anthropological Society and the Florida Department of State
To obtain copies send $23.62 [$18.81 plus $1.31 (sales tax) and $3.50 (S&H)] to: Terry Simpson, 9907 High Meadow Ave., Thonotosassa, FL 33592 Make checks payable to The Florida Anthropological Society


osteological analysis of sarasota bay mound:
A Safety Harbor Period Site
Laurel Freas1 and Michael W. Warren2
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117305, Gainesville, FL 32611 E-mail: 'lef6@ufl.edu;2mwarren@ufl.edu
Introduction
The Sarasota Bay Mound (8S044) is a large burial mound attributed to the Safety Harbor Culture and dated to circa A.D. 1000-1500. The site was excavated by archaeologist Ripley Bullen in the late 1960s, with some assistance from his wife, physical anthropologist Adelaide Bullen. Excavations in two separate trenches within the mound revealed a total of 13 burials (Bullen's Trench VIII and Trench IX, with nine and four burials, respectively). Bullen's field notes refer to flexed burials, as well as some interments that had been disturbed by recent landscaping and plumbing activities on the property. Photographs taken at the time of excavation document these observations (Figures 1-3).
Following excavation, the remains and associated cultural materials were placed in storage at the Florida State Museum, while still in the original brown paper bags and cardboard boxes from collection at the site, and without having undergone any subsequent analysis. Much of the skeletal material remained encased in blocks of sandy matrix. Bullen never published on the site. In May of 2002, the remains were finally unpacked and accessioned into the collections of the Florida Museum of Natural History. Those remains which were sturdy enough to withstand additional excavation were freed from their matrix encasements; to date, portions of only one burial remain partially contained within such matrix blocks. The remains bear evidence of this less-than-ideal curation history, as they are severely fragmented and show significant recent post-mortem damage.
As part of a recent effort to finally document the excavations at the Sarasota Bay Mound and to place the site within the broader context of Florida archaeology, we conducted an osteological analysis of the human skeletal remains from this site. In addition to collecting basic demographic information, our analysis focused on the development of pathology and trauma profiles, with the hope that this might in turn yield insight into the diet and overall health status of this population.
Materials and Methods
The skeletal material from the Sarasota Bay Mound was examined over the course of several months in late 2002 and early 2003, in the collections of the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida (FLMNH Catalog Numbers 2002-21-1 through 2002-21-49). A cranium and
associated mandible, plus a second isolated mandible, all of which were removed from the site in 1968 by an individual associated with Bullen's excavation, were also examined; this material is currently held in the collections of the Sarasota County History Center (SCHC). Analysis began with a complete inventory of all cataloged lots attributed to the Sarasota Bay Mound site. During the inventory process, the minimum number of individuals (MNI) was estimated and any indicators of trauma and pathology were noted. Diagnostic elements were set aside for further analysis using standard bioarchaeological and forensic anthropological techniques for the determination of sex, stature, and age at time of death (Bass 1995; Brothwell 1994; Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Unfortunately, given the highly fragmentary nature of these remains, such analyses were only applicable to a small proportion of the available skeletal material. Reconstructions of conjoining bone fragments were attempted in instances where it was felt such reconstruction might yield analyzable diagnostic elements, but these attempts were generally unrewarding.
Results and Discussion
Condition of Remains and Minimum Number of Individuals
The fragmentary nature of the remains from the Sarasota Bay Mound is readily apparent in Table 1, which presents the complete inventory of all skeletal materials from this site. Note that there are only two intact long bones (a humerus and a radius) and only one relatively intact cranium amongst these remains, as well as over 3500 fragments which are too small to be identified. Most long bones are lacking their proximal and distal epiphyses due to postmortem damage, thus precluding the measurement of these elements for stature determination, or the use of epiphyseal union stages to determine age at time of death. The pelvic bones (os coxa) are also heavily damaged, such that key diagnostic areas (e.g., the pubic symphyses, sciatic notch and auricular surface) are absent. The bone itself is very dry and friable, and even the most gentle handling of individual elements often results in damage.
The remains are deeply stained, in colors ranging from light yellow-buff to dark brown. Based on Bullen's field notes, these differences in staining can be attributed to the individual burials' specific proveniences within the mound, with bone from Trench VIII considerably darker than much of the
VOL. 58(1-2)
The Florida Anthropologist
March-June 2005


Figure 1. Recovery of burials from Trench VIII in the Sarasota Bay Mound, July 1968. Right to left: Ripley Bullen, Adelaide Bullen, and Youth Employment Service worker. Note drainfield pipe and long bones in foreground. Photo from a color slide, courtesy of SCHC.
material from Trench IX. Furthermore, the skeletal material from Trench VIII exhibits greater cortical delamination than that from Trench IX. In several cases, similarities in staining and texture allowed us to corroborate and more clearly interpret Bullen's hand-written notes on the field collection bags and boxes, and to determine that lots which had been assigned separate catalog numbers (based on their initial packaging in paper bags and boxes) were, in fact, from the same burial.
Determination of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) present was complicated by several factors, including the removal of remains from the site, the separation of individual burials into several distinct catalog lots, and the inclusion in the collection of remains of unknown provenience given to Bullen by a third party. Determination of MNI was thus a two-step process. First, it was necessary to determine which catalog lots contained skeletal material from each of the individual burials described by Bullen. Fortunately, however, Bullen wrote fairly detailed notes on the original packaging materials as to the provenience of the skeletal material contained within. These notes allowed us to assign groups of individual catalog lots to specific burial numbers. To confirm these assignments, the separate catalog lots in each group were considered to be from the same burial if:
1. Conjoining fragments were found in separate lots;
2. Obvious antimeres were found in separate lots;
3. The taphonomic conditions of the bones in separate lots was highly similar;
4. No repeating elements were found amongst the separate lots.
As noted above, Bullen'sfield notes indicate that 13 individual burials were uncovered in two trenches at the Sarasota Bay Mound. Bullen designated the nine burials from Trench VIII with Arabic numerals 1 through 9, and the four burials from Trench IX with capital letters "A" through "D." Table 2 presents a list of these burials, the FLMNH catalog lots which constitute each, and the means by which the lots' assignments to each burial were confirmed. Once the materials from each individual burial were assembled, the minimum number of individuals present in each burial was determined. This allowed a conservative site-wide estimate of MNI = 18 individuals.
Trench VIII: Eight of the nine burials from Trench VIII each represent a single individual. The exception, Burial 3, includes the remains of two individuals, as evidenced by the presence of two proximal right femora. The skeletal material from the catalog lot containing the second right femur (2002-


Figure 2. A flexed burial from the Sarasota Bay Mound (8S044). Note the disc-shaped artifact resting on the lateral margin of the skull and mandible, where the earlobe would have been. Photo by Ripley Bullen. FLMNH PN94.228.1739a. Courtesy of FLMNH.
21-7) is a slightly different color and texture than the bone from the other lots assigned to this burial. We were unable to associate this material with any of the other burials via the criteria listed above. Some of Bullen's field notes on Burial 3 refer to "lower" and "deep" bones; therefore, it seems likely that Burial 3 actually represents two separate, superimposed interments. Thus, the nine described burials from Trench VIII represent an MNI = 10 individuals.
Trench IX: The four burials from Trench IX each represent a
single individual, for an MNI = 4 individuals.
Miscellaneous: Additional human remains were discovered by Bullen at four other locales within the Sarasota Bay Mound: Trench II, Trench VII, Trench VHI-Pit A, and Test B. As these proveniences are quite distinct from one another and from Trenches VIII and IX, it seems likely that each represents a single individual, for an MNI = 4. As each of these individuals is represented only by a very few, small, non-diagnostic bone fragments, they will be considered only in broad terms hereafter.
Although no provenience information is available for the cranium and mandibles held by the Sarasota County History Center (SCHC), given their taphonomic condition (i.e., color and texture), it seems likely that these elements originated in Trench VIII. If so, the cranium and associated mandible may belong to the second individual in Burial 3, as this is the only set of remains from Trench VIII which does not include any cranial elements or dentition. Although Burials A and D from Trench IX also lack cranial elements, these remains are much lighter in color than the SCHC cranium. It is unknown as to which burial in Trench VIII the isolated mandible belongs.
There are several lots of bone (FLMNH catalog numbers 2002-21-33, -44, and -46) which cannot be assigned to any of the identified burials, but which also cannot be ruled out as not belonging to any of these burials, and as such, may or may not constitute additional individuals. To be conservative, since their associationor lack thereofcannot be conclusively determined, these remains are not included in the site-wide MNI estimate and will not be discussed further.
Also included in this collection are a number of bones, including an intact femur and several non-human bones, which were given to Bullen by one "H. Leech, Hillview St., Sarasota, Fla." The taphonomic condition of these bones is dramatically different from the rest of the Sarasota Bay Mound skeletal materials, and it is known from Bullen's records that they probably did not originate from this site. Thus, these remains are not included in the site inventory or MNI, and will not be discussed further.
Population Characteristics
Age estimates are available for seven of the fourteen individuals from Trenches VIII and IX, and for the SCHC cranium and associated mandible. Age ranges were estimated


Figure 3. Burial B from Trench LX, Sarasota Bay Mound. Note disarticulated femora in foreground. Photo by Ripley Bullen. FLMNH PN 94.228.1740b. Courtesy of FLMNH.
using epiphyseal union data (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Garn et al. 1967; Krogman and Iscan 1986; McKern and Stewart 1957; Ubelaker 1989) and dental attrition scores (Brothwell 1994). Degree of dental wear depends heavily on both the consistency of the diet and the way in which food is prepared and processed. These cultural factors are, of course, population specific, so age estimates based on dental wear must be considered with due caution. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 3. Most of these individuals were in their late 20s to early 30s at the time of death. The individuals from Burial 5 and Burial C are considerably younger (16-22 years and 12-16 years, respectively), while the individual from Burial B is likely somewhat older, perhaps late 30s to early 40s in age.
Burial B is the most complete skeleton in the collection, and is in an excellent state of preservation. The remains include an intact humerus and radius, a complete femur reconstructed from four fragments, a nearly complete ulna reconstructed from two fragments, a relatively complete os coxa, and a nearly intact (though considerably taphonomically deformed) cranial vault. The intact humerus and radius and reconstructed femur and ulna are the only whole long bones present in the entire Sarasota Bay Mound collection. Burial B is thus the only burial from the Sarasota Bay Mound for which
we were able to determine sex or obtain an estimation of stature. Based on cranial and pelvic morphology, this individual is male. Estimated stature was calculated using maximum femoral length and the regression formulae provided by Genoves (1967) for prehistoric Mesoamerican males, and Trotter and Gleser (1952) and Trotter (1970) for Asian males. These formulae yielded estimated statures of 157.7 cm 3.42 cm (5'2" 1.3") and 159.3 cm 3.8 cm (5'3" 1.5") respectively. A complete inventory of all catalog lots attributed to Burial B, as well as the measurements taken on these remains, are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
The SCHC cranium is the only other material associated with the Sarasota Bay Mound which is complete enough to permit accurate measurement and sex determination. Cranial morphology suggests that this individual is a male (Figures 4 and 5). Measurements of the cranium are presented in Table 6.
Burial C is also worth brief discussion here, for the unfused proximal radius epiphysis which allowed age determination was found encased in a block of matrix along with a portion of proximal ulna and two other unidentified long bones (Figure 6). The orientation of these bones, plus the character of the postmortem damage they present, are strongly suggestive of a bundled secondary burialthe only physical evidence of this


Table 1. Inventory of skeletal material from Sarasota Bay Mound (8S044) housed at FLMNH1.
Element Total Right Left Midline, or Complete Indeterminate
relatively intact cranium 1
frontal 22 2 5 6 9
temporal 46 19 25 2
parietal 65 15 23 27
occipital 22 4 1 12 5
2ygomatic 6 1 5
sphenoid 11 3 6 2
lacrimal 1 1
maxilla 14 2 3 9
mandible 18 5 10 1 2
incus 1 1
malleus 1 1
hyoid 1 1
vertebra 103 6 7 49 41
rib 19 7 5 7
sacrum 9 1 1 7
clavicle 17 6 8 1 2
scapula 8 2 6
humerus 19 4 8 1 6
radius 10 4 5 1
ulna 14 6 5 3
hamate 1 1
scaphoid 2 1 1
metacarpal 12 2 10
manual phalange 18 18
os coxa 27 5 6 16
femur 46 18 17 25
patella 3 2 1
tibia 65 16 18 31
fibula 8 2 6
calcaneus 7 1 2 4
talus 3 1 2
navicular 4 1 1 2
cuboid 3 2 1
1st cuneiform 4 1 1 2
2nd cuneiform 4 1 1 2
3rd cuneiform 1 1
metatarsal 16 7 1 8
pedal phalages 10 10
indeterminate 345 345
minute fragments ~3200 ~3200
1 Does not include SCHC cranium or mandibles


Table 2, Burials and Catalog Numbers.
Bullen's Burial Number FLMNH Catalog Number Association Confirmed by
Trench VIII
Burial 1 2002-21-1 -
Burial 2 2002-21-2 2002-21-3 2002-21-4 2002-21-5 2002-21-43 taphonomy, no repeated elements
Burial 3 Individual #1 2002-21-6 2002-21-8 2002-21-9 Antimeres (21-6 & 21-9), conjoining elements (21-8 & 21-9), taphonomy, no repeated elements
Individual #2 2002-21-7 2nd right proximal femur
Burial 4 2002-21-10 -
Burial 5 2002-21-11 2002-21-12 taphonomy, no repeated elements, severe pathology
Burial 6 2001-21-13 -
Burial 7 2001-21-14
Burial 8 2002-21-34
Burial 9 2002-21-32 -

Trench IX
Burial A 2002-21-37 -
Burial B 2002-21-15 2002-21-38 antimeres, taphonomy, no repeated elements
Burial C 2002-21-16 -
Burial D 2002-21-17a 2002-21-35 conjoining elements, taphonomy, no repeated elements
burial practice from the Sarasota Bay Mound.
Paleopathology and Health
The interpretation of skeletal indicators of illness and disease is one of the most difficult aspects of the analysis of prehistoric populations. Although humans are vulnerable to many factors which impinge upon an individual's health in very specific, negative ways, comparatively few of these factors leave such tell-tale traces on the skeletons of the afflicted individuals. In many cases, the most specific statement the anthropologist can make with any certainty is only that there is evidence of ill heath or disease at some time during the individual's life (Goodman et al. 1988). Despite this somewhat disheartening outlook, there is still a great deal of
information to be gained from the analysis of pathology-related changes in the skeleton, and such analyses remain at the core of bioarchaeological research.
Rather than engage in frustrating, and often fruitless, attempts to correlate specific skeletal lesions with specific diseases, we feel it is much more methodologically sound, and ultimately more rewarding, to focus instead on broad, general indicators of systemic health. Once developed, such profiles of overall health can be fitted within the greater context of known or inferred cultural practices, such as subsistence economies. An excellent approach is that of Hutchinson (1993) and Hutchinson and Mitchem (1996), who recommend that in order "to adequately reconstruct prehistoric health using skeletal remains, lesions representative of both malnutrition and infection must be considered, because nutrition and


Table 3. Age estimates.
Burial Number Age Estimate Method Notes
Trench VIII
Burial 1 30-35 D Right mandibular molars.
Burial 2 - -
Burial 3 Individual #1 Individual #2 20-25 D, E Left and right mandibular molars. Proximal ulna, distal humerus completely fused.
Burial 4 22-30 D Left mandibular molars; M3 lost antemortem.
Burial 5 16-22 D,E Right mandibular molars. Sacral vertebra SI and S2, proximal humerus unfused; iliac crest unfused for at least 2" of total length.
Burial 6 - -
Burial 7 - -
Burial 8 - -
Burial 9 22-35 D Left mandibular molars; M3 lost postmortem.

SCHC Cranium 30-35 D Left and right mandibular molars

Trench IX
Burial A - -
Burial B 35+ D, E,0 Right mandibular M3 only. All epiphyses completely fused. Osteoarthritic lipping on lumbar vertebra centrum, right 1st metacarpal.
Burial C 12-16 D,E Maxillary M3 has very small wear facets. Rest of dentition encased in matrix block with mandible and maxillae. Proximal radius completely unfused; distal humerus completely fused.
Burial D -
D = Dental attrition, after Brothwell 1994. All 3 permanent molars used unless otherwise noted.
E = Epiphyseal union stage, after Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Garnet al. 1967; Krogman and Ljcan 1986; McKern and Stewart 1957; and Ubelaker 1989. 0 = Other.
disease are synergistic processes" (Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996:53). Paleopathological analysis and interpretation of the skeletal material from the Sarasota Bay Mound thus focused on three such indicators of systemic health: linear enamel hypoplasia, periostitis, and porotic hyperostosis/cribra orbitalia (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Goodman and Carpasso 1992; Ortner and Putschar 1985; Skinner and Goodman 1992; Stuart Macadam and Kent 1992). Table 7 presents the distribution of these pathological lesions within the Sarasota Bay Mound population. For reference, the frequencies of these lesions are compared to those reported for four other Safety Harbor Period sites: Aqui Esta Mound (Hutchinson 2002), Safety Harbor Mound (Hutchinson 2004), Tierra Verde Mound (Hutchinson 1993), and Weeki Wachee
Mound (Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996).
Enamel hypoplasias are a suite of related developmental defects in tooth enamel which arise from interruptions in enamel deposition on tooth crowns during amelogenesis. Among the most common of these enamel defects are linear enamel hypoplasias, which manifest as distinct horizontal grooves or furrows running horizontally around the circumference of the tooth crown (Figure 7). These grooves are most frequently seen on the labial surfaces of the anterior dentition (i.e., incisors and canines) (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Goodman et al. 1988; Skinner and Goodman 1992). Such defects are believed to reflect periods of extreme stress, wherein all the body's resources are diverted to the vital functions necessary to sustain life, while non-vital activities,


Table 4. Inventory of skeletal material from Burial B (FLMNH catalog # 2002-21-15 and 2002-21-38).
Element Total Right Left Midline, or Complete Indeterminate
partial cranial vault 1
indeterminate cranial 22
temporal 3 1 2
occipital 5 5
zygomatic 3 2 1
sphenoid 5 2 1 1 1
lacrimal
maxilla 4 2 2
mandible 1 1
vertebrae 58 1 1 38 18
sacrum 6 1 1 4
rib 30 6 2 22
clavicle 4 3 1
scapula 3 1 2
humerus 5 4 1(R)
radius 1 1(R)
ulna 2 2
metacarpal 2 2
manual phalanges 1
os coxa 5 4 1
femur 9 4 5
patella 2 1 1
tibia 12 11 1
fibula 3 1 2
calcaneus 1 1
talus 2 1 1
navicular 2 1 1
cuboid 2 1 1
1st cuneiform 2 1 1
2nd cuneiform 2 1 1
3rd cuneiform 2 1 1
metatarsal 10 4 5 5
pedal phalanges 1
minute fragments -240 -240
such as amelogenesis, are allowed to lapse until homeostasis is restored (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Skinner and Goodman 1992). Since enamel formation in the permanent dentition occurs early in life, linear enamel hypoplasias thus reflect periods of stress during infancy, childhood, and early adolescence (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Hillson 2000; Skinner and Goodman 1992).
Of the eight individuals with preserved anterior dentition, seven (87.5%) presented with linear enamel hypoplasias (LEH), and many of these individuals had multiple defects on
the affected teeth (see Table 7). Since the anterior dentition is preserved in only a portion of the individuals from the Sarasota Bay Mound (n = 10/18, 56%), it is impossible to determine the true population frequency of LEH. However, given the prevalence of LEH among those individuals with preserved anterior dentition, it seems likely that the frequency of LEH for the Sarasota Bay Mound population is very high. This frequency is comparable to the LEH frequency (75%) reported for the Weeki Wachee Mound (Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996), but is considerably higher than those reported


Table 5. Measurements of Burial B.
Measurement Value Measurement Value
(in mm) (in mm)
Rt. Humerus Lt. Clavicle
Maximum Length 300 Sagittal Diameter @ midshaft 12.5
Epicondylar Breadth 60 Vertical Diameter @ midshaft 10
Max. Vertical Head Diam. 42
Max. Diameter @ midshaft 26 Rt. Femur
Min. Diameter @ midshaft 17 Maximum Length 415
Bicondylar Length 408
Rt. Ulna Max. Head Diameter 45
Maximum Length 248* ATP Subtrochlear Diameter 44
Physiological Length 217 Transverse Subtrochlear Diam. 24
Dorso-volar Diameter 15 Sagittal Diameter @ midshaft 32
Transverse Diameter 17 Transverse Diam. @ midshaft 29

Rt. Radius Rt. Calcaneus
Maximum Length 230* Maximum Length 83
Sagittal Diameter @ midshaft 13 Middle Breadth 39
Transverse Diam. @ midshaft 18
* = Measurements approximated, due to slight damage to distal epiphyses of the radius and ulna.
Table 6. Measurements of SCHC Cranium.
Measurement Value Measurement Value
(in mm) (in mm)
Max. Length (g-op) 189 Interorbital Breadth (d-d) 26
Max. Breadth (eu-eu) 149 Frontal Chord (n-b) 117
Basion-Bregma Ht. (ba-b) 146 Parietal Chord (b-1) 108
Cranial Base Length (ba-n) 108 Occipital Chord (l-o) 105
Biauricular Breadth (au-au) 138 Foramen Magnum Length (ba-o) 36
Orbital Height1 41 Foramen Magnum Breadth 33
Orbital Breadth (d-ed)1 33 Mastoid Length 27
1 Right orbit only.
for the Aqui Esta Mound (23%) (Hutchinson 2002), the Safety Harbor Mound (35%) (Hutchinson 2004) and the Tierra Verde Mound (2%) (Hutchinson 1993).
The mostfrequendy citedand also most probablecause of LEH formation is childhood malnutrition. Some authors have suggested a correlation between the formation of linear enamel hypoplasias and the weaning period, when children would be expected to be under exceptional nutritional and metabolic stress (see Goodman et al. 1988, and Skinner and Goodman 1992, among others). However, the timing of LEH formation coincides with several possible metabolic insults and the evidence linking LEH formation and weaning age is not absolute (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Hillson 2000). Other posited etiologies of LEH formation include premature birth, newborn hypoxia, hemolytic diseases of the newborn, childhood fevers, vitamin deficiencies (Aufderheide
and Rodriguez-Martin 1998:407), nutrient robbing by intestinal parasites (Suckling et al. 1983, 1986), and acute infection (Hillson 2000; Skinner and Goodman 1992). It is important to note that many of these metabolic insults and disease processes are not mutually exclusive, and that LEH formation may be the result of synergistic/opportunistic interactions among chronic or episodic malnutrition, parasite load, and infection (Wells 1964). Thus, the linear enamel hypoplasias present in the skeletal material from Sarasota Bay Mound cannot be conclusively attributed to any of these causes, but rather are taken as broad evidence that a significant portion of this population, like most other human populations, endured a period of severe physiological stress during childhood.
Another pathological lesion frequently observed in the archaeological record is periostitis, an inflammation of the periosteum and underlying cortical bone secondary to a


Figure 4. SCHC skull, anterior view.
number of irritations, including chronic infection and repetitive trauma (Ortner and Putschar 1985; Steinbock 1976). Unfortunately, as with linear enamel hypoplasia, it is not possible in many cases to distinguish among these possible etiologies, nor to determine the specific nature of the trauma or infection, based on gross examination of the skeletal lesions (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Ortner and Putschar 1985; Steinbock 1976). Goodmanetal. (1988) argue instead that periosteal reactions can be viewed as another indicator of biological stress, suggesting that the body is under attack on a number of fronts.
Periostitis causes remodeling of the surface of the cortical bone into a characteristic "woven bone" formation; healing lesions have a dense, "sclerotic" appearance (Figure 8).
Periosteal lesions were observed on the long bones of 9 individuals (69% of observable individuals; see Table 7) from the Sarasota Bay Mound. This frequency is considerably higher than those reported for Aqui Esta (9%) (Hutchinson 2002), Safety Harbor (6%) (Hutchinson 2004), Tierra Verde (12.5%) (Hutchinson 1993), and Weeki Wachee (16%) (Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996). The periosteal lesions were most frequently observed on the tibia, followed by the femur and humerus, but were also occasionally observed on the radius and ulna. This distribution is similar to those reported for the four other Safety Harbor Period mounds (Hutchinson 1993, 2002, 2004; Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996), as well as in other archaeological skeletal populations (Hutchinson 2004; Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996; Ortner and Putschar 1985,


Figure 6. Bundled bones, including a proximal radius and ulna, from Burial 5. Note missing proximal radial epiphysis (to the right of catalog number).


Figure 7. Linear enamel hypoplasias in the dentition of an individual from the Sarasota Bay Mound.
amongst many others). All stages in the progression of periostitis are visible in the Sarasota Bay Mound skeletal material, from areas of fresh, "woven" bone indicating active, advancing inflammation, to areas of sclerotic bone indicating resorption and healing.
When observed in archaeological populations, periosteal lesions of the tibiae are often attributed to treponemal infections such as yaws or syphilis. This is particularly true when the periosteal lesions on the tibiae are accompanied by round or stellate lesions in the cranial vault (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Ortner and Putschar 1985; Steinbock 1976). Cranial and postcranial lesions indicative of treponemal infection have been documented in skeletal remains from other sites attributed to the Safety Harbor culture [Aqui Esta: Hutchinson (2002); Safety Harbor: Hutchinson (2004); Tierra Verde: Hutchinson (1993) and Bullen (1972); Weeki Wachee: Hutchinson and Mitchem (1996)], and to other archaeological populations in Florida (Hutchinson 2004). No cranial lesions were observed in the Sarasota Bay Mound population; however, the presence of cranial lesions is not a requirement for diagnosis of treponemal infection. The presence of periosteal lesions in the long bones of the Sarasota Bay Mound population raises the possibility of yaws or syphilis infection among this Safety Harbor group.
Porotic hyperostosis is a skeletal lesion characterized by prominent porosities in the bones of the cranial vault, particularly the parietal and frontal bones; cribra orbitalia is evidenced by similar porotic lesions in the roof of the orbits (Figure 9). These lesions are caused by an expansion of the hematopoetic tissue within the diplbe of the cranial bones in response to the need for increased erythrocyte production, and are generally interpreted as indicative of chronic anemia. Since hereditary anemias such as sickle-cell anemia or thalassemia are unknown in the Americas before European contact and cause qualitatively distinct skeletal lesions, porotic
Figure 8. Periosteal lesions on the tibiae from Burial 5.


Table 7. Distribution of Pathological Lesions.
Burial LEH Periostitis Porotic Cribra
Number Hyperostosis Orbitalia
Trench VIII
Burial 1
Burial 2 X X
Burial 3
Individual #1
Individual #2 -
Burial 4 X X -
Burial 5
Burial 6 X --
Burial 7 X -
Burial 8 X X X
Burial 9 -

SCHC Cranium ~

Trench IX
Burial A X
Burial B X X
Burial C X -
Burial D -
= Pathological lesion observed.
X = Pathological lesion NOT observed.
- = Diagnostic elements missing.
hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia in Native American skeletal populations are normally attributed to iron-deficiency anemia (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996; Stuart Macadam and Kent 1992; Walker 1986). However, the condition of iron deficiency may be brought about by any of several factors, including dietary insufficiency (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Ortner and Putschar 1985; Stuart Macadam and Kent 1992), bacterial infection (Stuart Macadam and Kent 1992), and intestinal parasite load (Walker 1986). Cribra orbitalia is more common than porotic hyperostosis, and is thus considered to be a more sensitive index of the underlying anemic condition (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998; Walker 1986).
Porotic hyperostosis occurs in 5 individuals (45% of observable crania) from the Sarasota Bay Mound, while cribra orbitalia was observed in 3 individuals (60% of observable crania); 3 individuals presented with both lesions (Table 7). This frequency of porotic hyperostosis is somewhat higher than frequencies reported for Aqui Esta (30%), Safety Harbor (30%) and Tierra Verde (28.5%), and is significantly greater than that reported for Weeki Wachee (4.3%) (Hutchinson 2002, 2004, 1993; Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996).
It is an interesting exercise to compare the skeletal markers
of pathology observed in the bones of the individual from Burial B, the oldest individual in this population, to those observed in the individual from Burial 5, the second youngest in the population. The individual from Burial B had only slight to moderate linear enamel hypoplasias, no porotic hyperostosis or cribra orbitalia, and the periostitis lesions on his tibiae and femora show evidence of advanced remodeling and healing. All things considered, this individual appears to have been in relatively good health during life and to have enjoyed a longer life than any of the other individuals recovered from the Sarasota Bay Mound. In contrast, the individual from Burial 5 has multiple, deep linear enamel hypoplasias, moderate cribra orbitalia, and severe "woven bone" periostitis lesions on the tibia and femora, which are indicative of aggressive, active inflammation at the time of death (see Figure 8). The LEH and periostitis lesions present on Burial 5 are the most pronounced of all those observed in this population. The severity of these lesions, coupled with a comparatively early age at death, suggests that this individual endured a lifetime of ill health.
Discussion and Conclusions
One final factor which must be taken into consideration


Figure 9. Cribra orbitalia in the right orbit of the SCHC cranium
when discussing the health of any population is, of course, diet. The question of whether the people of the Safety Harbor Period were practicing maize agriculture has been raised repeatedly, although recent osteological and isotopic analyses have repeatedly concluded that these populations were not heavily dependent on maize as a dietary staple (Hutchinson 1993, 2004; Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996; Hutchinson and Norr 1994). As a whole, our analysis of the skeletal material from the Sarasota Bay Mound supports these conclusions.
Not surprisingly, the dentition provides critical evidence for the reconstruction of dietary patterns in archaeological populations. A number of features of the dentition, such as dental wear and pattern, and incidence of dental patnology (i.e., caries and periodontal disease), are thought to be heavily influenced by the nature of one's diet. Isler and coworkers (1985) present the results of an analysis of the dentitions of an archaeological skeletal population from the Highland Beach site in coastal southeast Florida. This population, which dates to A.D. 600-1200, is believed to have practiced a hunting, fishing and gathering subsistence strategy which relied
primarily on marine resources, small game, and wild plants (Isler et al. 1985:140; Bullen 1965; Swanton 1946). This subsistence economy is identical to that posited for the Sarasota Bay Mound and for other Safety Harbor Period sites (Hutchinson 1993, 2002, 2004; Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996; Hutchinson and Norr 1994). The dentitions from Highland Beach are characterized by advanced tooth wear for age, attrition (particularly of the molars) and alveolar resorption and by low rates of caries, abscesses, and enamel hypoplasias. With the exception of a high frequency of LEH, the dentitions of the Sarasota Bay Mound population are very similar to those from Highland Beach. Antemortem loss of the cheek teeth with advancing remodeling of the alveolar bone was very common in the Sarasota Bay Mound population (Figure 10), while no caries and only one small periapical abscess were observed.
Isler and his coauthors posit that the high rate of dental attrition they observed at Highland Beach was likely due to the abrasive character of the diet, as well as the inevitable presence of abrasive particles, such as sand and shell fragments, in the food. The plane of wear in dentitions from the Sarasota Bay Mound is nearly horizontal and perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth (Figure 11), a pattern which is consistent with a hunting and gathering subsistence and unlike the angled lingual-buccal wear plane observed in agriculturalists (Smith 1984). As teeth become progressively worn, they are pushed farther up out of their alveoli, so that the normal occlusal plane is maintained. As the teeth continue to erupt, however, their roots lose some of their anchorage in the bone. This, combined with thinned enamel resulting from heavy wear, makes the teeth more susceptible to breakage and antemortem loss during mastication of relatively unprocessed gathered foodstuffs (Hillson 2000; Isler et al. 1985; Smith 1984). It is not surprising, then, that the greatest antemortem tooth loss is observed in the oldest individuals from the Sarasota Bay Mound. It is also suggested that the consumption of marine flora and fauna containing high levels of molybdenum, aluminum, titanium and fluorideminerals which are known to strengthen enamel and inhibit tooth decaymay have contributed to the low incidence of caries observed in the Highland Beach population (Isler et al. 1985:142). By contrast, caries formation is frequently attributed to the high carbohydrate content of maize-reliant diets (Cohen and Armelagos 1985; Hutchinson 1993; Hutchinson and Mitchem 1996). Given this dental evidence, it thus seems unlikely that maize agriculture was a significant component of the subsistence strategy of the Sarasota Bay Mound population.
Additional dietary information may be gleaned from pathological lesions elsewhere on the skeleton. As noted above, porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia were relatively


Figure 10. Mandible from Burial B. Note antemortem loss of posterior dentition, with subsequent remodeling of the alveolar bone.
common in the skeletal material from the Sarasota Bay Mound. These lesions have often been attributed to hypoferremic anemia induced by dependence on maize, which is relatively iron-poor, as a dietary staple (Cohen and Armelagos 1985; El Najjar et al. 1976). However, Walker (1986) suggests an alternative hypothesis to explain the high incidence of porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia observed in archaeological populations from California's Channel Islands, who did not practice maize agriculture, but instead practiced a hunting, fishing and gathering subsistence strategy focused on marine resources, which are relatively iron rich. Walker hypothesizes that the paradoxically high rates of porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia may be due instead to diarrhea and blood loss as a result of infection by enteric bacteria from contaminated water sources, and from high counts of intestinal parasites, such as tapeworms, acquired from marine fish and mollusks in the diet. He notes that children are already pre-disposed to iron-deficiency anemia because human breast milk is iron poor, and that children are also highly susceptible to such infections at weaning, when they make the transition from sterile breast milk to contaminated solid foods. As further evidence, he notes that the appearance of the porotic lesions suggests that they had developed early in life and had undergone subsequent healing. This pattern is highly similar to the patterns of porotic lesions observed in the Sarasota Bay Mound population, wherein the most severe lesions were observed in one of the youngest individuals, while the lesions in the older adults displayed remodeling indicative of healing.
The possibility that the hypoferremic anemia inferred for many Florida archaeological populations may be due to high intestinal parasite burdens has also been put forth by Hutchinson in his recent survey of Florida Gulf Coast bioarchaeology (Hutchinson 2004:68-69, 113, 150). He notes that populations living along the warm, shallow waters of the Gulf Coast would have been particularly vulnerable, given their longstanding reliance on marine resources. This is borne out by the observation of higher frequencies of porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia in Florida Gulf Coast populations than are seen in non-coastal Florida populations or in coastal populations from Georgia and North Carolina who had shifted their subsistence strategy to maize agriculture.
It is unclear why the frequencies of skeletal markers of systemic health are so much higher for the Sarasota Bay Mound population than for the other Safety Harbor Period sites. One possibility is that the discrepancies may be the result of nothing more than statistical error, given that the sample size under analysis for the Sarasota Bay Mound (n = 14) is considerably smaller than that for the Safety Harbor (n > 100), Tierra Verde (n = 48) and Weeki Wachee (n = 84) mounds. Although Aqui Esta Mound also had a relatively small sample size (n = 22), this is still nearly double the number of individuals from the Sarasota Bay Mound.
Alternatively, Hutchinson (2004) presents a much more satisfying interpretation, noting that despite a superficial homogeneity, the Gulf Coast of Florida presents a myriad of dynamic and highly variable local environments, such that neighboring sites may possess rather distinct ecological characteristics. He concludes that such localized ecological variation could have had a profound effect on the health and disease status of local populations. Perhaps the relatively higher frequencies of LEH, periostitis, porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia observed in the Sarasota Bay Mound collection are indicative of higher rates of diarrheal infections and intestinal parasite burdens endured by this population, relative to other Safety Harbor Period sites. Did the local marine fauna suffer from greater rates of parasite infestation due to some idiosyncrasy of the area's topography and/or ecology? Could the local fresh water supply at the Sarasota Bay Mound site have been contaminated by wastes from settlements further inland? We will likely never receive answers to these questions, but they nevertheless present intriguing hypotheses.
Summary
This paper has presented the results of an osteological analysis of the human remains from the Sarasota Bay Mound. Although the fragmentary nature of the remains prevented construction of a detailed demographic profile of this population, the skeletal material nevertheless yielded significant information on the health status of these individuals. High frequencies of skeletal markers of systemic stress indicate that this population endured periods of relatively severe metabolic stress and illness. The presence of active lesions in younger individuals and healing/healed lesions in older individuals strongly suggests that these health insults were greatest during


Figure 11. SCHC cranium, inferior view. Note heavy, horizontal planar wear on the maxillary dentition.
childhood. Observed frequencies of linear enamel hypoplasia, periostitis, and porotic hyperostosis / cribra orbitalia for the Sarasota Bay Mound population are much higher than those reported for other Safety Harbor Period coastal sites. Although this disparity is likely due to idiosyncrasies of the local biogeographic environment at the Sarasota Bay Mound site, the role of stochastic processes cannot be ruled out.
Acknowledgments
This paper was intended from the beginning to run parallel with George Luer and Ann Cordell's analysis of the excavations at Sarasota Bay Mound. Analysis of this skeletal material would have been meaningless without George's knowledge of the site, his background work transcribing and interpreting Dr. Bullen's field notes, and his in-depth knowledge of the Safety Harbor Period. The authors gratefully acknowledge Scott Mitchell, the Florida Museum of Natural History staff, and Scott's student interns for their careful and organized curation of the Sarasota Bay Mound collection. Dan Hughes of the Sarasota County History Center was also very helpful. We are also grateful to the editorial staff and referees of this journal for the opportunity to continue the long-standing tradition of the University of Florida's faculty and students publishing in The Florida Anthropologist. This research is supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship granted to the lead author.
References Cited
Aufderheide, A.C., and C. Rodriguez-Martin 1998 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bass, W.M.
1995 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual, 4,h ed. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.
Brothwell, D.R.
1994 Digging Up Bones. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Buikstra, J.E., and D.H. Ubelaker, Editors
1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No. 44, Fayetteville.
Bullen, A. K.
1965 Florida Indians of Past andPresent. InFloridafrom Indian Trail to Space Age: A History, edited by C.W. Tebeau, R.L. Carson, R.S. Chauvin, R.P. Bullen and A.K. Bullen, pp. 317-350. Southern Publishing Company, Defray Beach.
1972 Paleoepidemiology and Distributions of Prehistoric


Treponemamiasis (Syphilis) in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25:133-175.
Cohen, M.N., and G.J. Armelagos
1984 Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture. Academic Press, New York.
El Najjar, M.Y., D.J. Ryan, C.G. Turner, and B. Lozoff 1976 The etiology of porotic hyperostosis among the prehistoric and historic Anasazi Indians of southwestern United States. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 44:477488.
Garn, S.M., C.G Rohmann, and F.N. Silverman 1967 Radiographic standards for postnatal ossification and tooth calcification. Medical Radiography and Photography 43:45-66.
Genoves, S.
1967 Proportionality of the Long Bones and Their Relation to Stature Among Mesoamericans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 26:67-77.
Goodman, A.H., and L.L. Capasso, Editors
1992 Recent Contributions to the Study of Enamel Developmental Defects. Journal of Paleopathology Monographic Publications No. 2.
1988 Biocultural Perspectives on Stress in Prehistoric, Historical and Contemporary Population Research. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 31:169-202.
Hillson, S.
2000 Dental Pathology. In Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, edited by M.A. Katzenberg and S.R. Saunders, pp. 249-286. Wiley-Liss, New York.
Hutchinson, D.L.
1993 Analysis of Skeletal Remains from the Tierra Verde Site, Pinellas County, West-Central Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46:263-276.
2002 Osteological Analysis of the Aqui Esta Mound Population. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor, edited by George Luer, pp. 183-193. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 15.
2004 Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict and Change. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Hutchinson D.L., and J.M. Mitchem
1996 The Weeki Wachee Mound, and Early Contact Period Mortuary Locality in Hernando County, West-Central Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 15:47-65.
Hutchinson D.L., and L. Non-1994 Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Diet in Gulf Coast Florida. \n In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to Conquest, edited by C.S. Larsen and G.R. Milner, pp. 9-20. Wiley-Liss, New York.
Isler, R., J. Schoen, and M. Y. Iscan
1985 Dental Pathology in a Prehistoric Human Population in
Florida. Florida Scientist 48:139-146. Krogman, W.M. and M. Y. Iscan
1986 The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, 2"d ed. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
McKem, T., and T.D. Stewart
1957 Skeletal Age changes in Young American Males, Analyzed from the Standpoint of Identification. Technical Report EP45. Headquarters, Quartermaster Research and Development Command, Natick, Massachusetts.
Ortner, D.J., and W.G.J. Putschar
1986 Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Skinner, M., and A.H. Goodman
1992 Anthropological Uses ofDevelopmental Defects of Enamel. In Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples, edited by S.R. Saunders and M.A. Katzenberg, pp.153-174. Wiley-Liss, New York.
Smith, B.H.
1984 Patterns of Molar Wear in Hunter-Gatherers and Agriculturalists. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 63:39-56.
Steinbock, R.T.
1976 Paleopathological Diagnosis and Interpretation: Bone Diseases in Ancient Human Populations. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
Stuart Macadam, P., and S. Kent
1992 Diet, Demography, and Disease: Changing Perspectives on Anemia. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Suckling, G.W., D.C. Elliot and D.C. Thurley 1983 The production of developmental defects of enamel in the incisor teeth of penned sheep resulting from induced parasitism. Archive of Oral Biology 28:393-399.
1986 The macroscopic appearance and associated histological changes in the enamel organ of hypoplastic lesions of sheep incisor teeth resulting from induced parasitism. Archive of Oral Biology 31:427-439.
Swanton, J.R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 137. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Trotter, M.
1970 Estimation of Stature from Intact Limb Bones. In Personal Identificationi in Mass Disasters, edited by T.D. Stewart, pp. 71-83. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Trotter, M., and G.C. Gleser
1952 Estimation of stature from long bones of American Whites and Negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 10:463-514.
Ubelaker, D.H


1989 Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation, 2nd ed. Taraxacum Press, Washington, D.C.
Walker, P.L.
1986 Porotic Hyperostosis in a Marine-Dependent California Indian Population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 69:345-354.
Wells, C.
1964 Bones, Bodies and Disease. Thames and Hudson, London.


Variability in The Sarasota Bay Mound (8S044) Pottery Assemblage
Ann S. Cordell
Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Dickinson Hall, Box 117800, Gainesville, FL 32611 E-mail: cordell@flmnh.ufl.edu
Introduction
This paper contains the results of a paste characterization analysis conducted on the pottery assemblage from the Safety Harbor Period Sarasota Bay Mound site, 8S044 (Luer 2005, this issue). This assemblage consists of229 sherds, representing, at most, 68 individual pottery vessels. Descriptions of the site and contexts for the pottery are found in George Luer's report.
Description of the Pottery Assemblage
The pottery assemblage includes an abundance of sand-tempered plain sherds (representing, at most, 29 vessels), 19 Safety Harbor-related vessels, 14 St. Johns chalky paste vessels, three Belle Glade Plain vessels, two Pineland Plain vessels (see Cordell n.d. for description of Pineland Plain), and one unidentified (UTD) incised sherd (Appendix A). The figures cited here are reprinted, courtesy of George Luer (2005, this issue).
The Safety Harbor-related pottery includes:
two Safety Harbor Incised sherds, one bottle neck fragment (Figure la) and one body portion of a fluted human effigy bottle (Figure lb);
two Lake Jackson Plain rims with loop handles, representing two different vessels (Figures 2a and 2b);
one Pinellas Incised rim with loop handles (Figure 2c);
one Sarasota Incised sherd (Figure 3a);
four Lake Jackson Plain body sherds, representing up to four different vessels; and
80 Pinellas Plain sherds, representing nine individual vessels.
The St. Johns paste pottery includes:
12 St. Johns Check Stamped, representing four different vessels;
eight St. Johns Plain sherds, representing five different vessels;
three sandy St. Johns Plain sherds, representing two different vessels;
three St. Johns Simple Stamped sherds, representing two different vessels; and
one Papys Bayou Punctated sherd (Figure 3b).
Other categories include:
one unidentified incised sherd (Figure 3 c) that appears to resemble Vessel #44 from the Aqui Esta Mound (8CH68) assemblage (see Cordell 2005, this issue, Figure 4; Luer 2002:Figure31);
eight Belle Glade Plain sherds, representing three individual vessels;
six Pineland Plain sherds, representing two individual
vessels;
97 sand-tempered plain sherds, representing, at most, 29 vessels.
The pottery assemblage consists of mostly sherds with only one true partially reconstructable vessel, a miniature St. Johns Plain carinated restricted bowl (Figure 3d). There are, however, many sizable rim sherds that are diagnostic of vessel form. The average sherd weight is 10 g per sherd, but the Safety Harbor-related sherds with Lake Jackson paste weigh an average of 43 grams per sherd. The estimate of minimum number of vessels (MNV or vessel lots) may be more of a "maximum" number of vessels, as it is possible that some matching undecorated sherds from different proveniences may have been overlooked.
Methods of Analysis
The paste characterization analysis was directed toward identifying the composition of aplastic constituents or tempers. A binocular stereomicroscope (with up to 70X magnification) was used to identify predominant constituents and to distinguish gross paste or temper groupings. The microscope was equipped with an eyepiece micrometer and fiber optic illuminator. All observations were made on fresh breaks made on a non-articulating sherd edge using pliers. Size of aplastics was estimated with reference to the Wentworth Scale (Rice 1987:38). Estimated percentages of particle abundance were assigned to a relative abundance scale as follows: abundant (20-30%), common (10%), frequent (5%), occasional (1-3%), and rare (<1%). The reader is referred to Figure 12.2 in Rice (1987:349) for visual estimates of percent particle abundance.
Other pottery attributes considered include core color/degree of coring, sherd thickness, and rim/lip shape and vessel wall orientation when applicable. Core color/degree of coring was recorded from fresh breaks with reference to five nominal categories, ranging from no coring to heavy dark coring (see Cordell 1992:147 [Figure 16] for an illustration of core color/degree of coring categories). Limited reconstruction (with archival white glue) of several sherds was undertaken so
VOL. 58(1-2)
The Florida Anthropologist
March-June 2005


Figure 1. Safety Harbor Incised bottle fragments (la:
2002-21-20; lb: 2002-21-21).
that minimum number of vessels and vessel wall orientation and could be more accurately estimated. Rim and vessel body thickness ranges (in mm) were recorded using metric calipers. Orifice 'diameter was estimated using a rim diameter template. All analyses were carried out in the ELMNH-Ceramic Technology Laboratory (CTL). A pottery inventory by FLMNH catalog number and field provenience, with sherd counts, weights, and other observations, is listed in Appendix A. Paste and color data are listed by paste category in Appendix B. Vessel form, rim data, and thickness ranges are listed by pottery type in Appendix C.
Results: Paste Variability in the Pottery Assemblage
The diagnostic paste constituents in the assemblage include quartz sand, sponge spicules, crushed grog or sherd temper, rounded clay lumps, and mica. The presence/absence and/or frequency of these constituents provided the basis for sorting the pottery into six paste categories. This same approach was used to characterize pottery from the Aqui Esta Mound in Charlotte County (Luer 2002; Cordell 2005, this issue) and Smith Mound (8LL36) in Lee County (Cordell n.d.), two other burial mounds containing Safety Harbor period ceramics. The
relevant paste categories in the Sarasota Bay Mound assemblage include sand-tempered paste, chalky St. Johns paste, grog or sherd-tempered paste, Pinellas paste, Belle Glade paste, and intermediate spiculate paste. These categories are described briefly in Table 1.
Sand-tempered paste is the predominant paste category. Ninety-seven sherds of sand-tempered paste represent, at most, 31 individual vessels (MNV) (Table 1). This paste is characterized by common to abundant quartz sand (Table 2). Sponge spicules were not observed in most sherds (SANDA paste [Cordell 1992:107-109]) but are rare to occasional constituents (SANDB paste [Cordell 1992:107-109]) in 17 plain sherds representing five vessel lots. This paste group includes 29 sand-tempered plain vessel lots, one Sarasota Incised sherd, and one unidentified (HID) incised sherd (Appendix B). Traces of red pigment are present on the exterior surfaces and/or broken edges of three sand-tempered plain vessel lots (Appendix A), indicating post-breakage application of or contact with red ochre. The LTD incised sherd is a fragment of an incised appliqued strip or lip with a residual red exterior slip (Figure 3c). This sherd resembles the rim section of the "miscellaneous" incised Vessel #44 from the Aqui Esta Mound (Cordell 2005, this issue, Figure 4; Luer 2002:Figure 31). The Aqui Esta Mound vessel, made of Pineland (SPCB) paste, also is red slipped, although on its interior surface (Cordell 2005, this issue). Most of the sand-tempered plain vessel lots and the Sarasota Incised and UTD incised sherds have heavy dark coring (Appendix B). Five sand-tempered plain vessel lots have moderate coring and four have no coring (Appendix B).
St. Johns chalky paste occurs in 14 or 21% of the MNV (Table 1). This is a spiculate paste characterized by abundant sponge spicules and lesser quantities of quartz sand (Table 2). Most of the vessels have "fine" St. Johns paste with frequent very fine to fine quartz sand, including most of the plain, all of the St. Johns Check Stamped, and one of the St. Johns Simple Stamped vessel lots (Appendix B). Some have sandy St. Johns paste with common fine to medium quartz sand, including two plain and one St. Johns Simple Stamped vessel lot and the Papys Bayou Punctated sherd (Appendix B). The Papys Bayou Punctated sherd has a reddish-orange slip on both surfaces (Appendix A). Both St. Johns Simple Stamped, two St. Johns Check Stamped, two St. Johns Plain, and one sandy St. Johns Plain vessel lots have traces of red pigment on one or both surfaces and/or edges (Appendix A). One St. Johns Plain sherd is burnished on its exterior surface and is uniformly black. Most of the chalky paste vessel lots have heavy dark coring (Appendix B). Two St. Johns Check Stamped and one simple stamped vessel lots have moderate coring (Appendix B).
Belle Glade paste is a spiculate ware characterized by abundant sponge spicules and frequent to common fine to medium quartz sand. Eight sherds are Belle Glade Plain, making up three vessel lots, 4% of the total MNV (Table 1, Appendix A). Two sherds (from one vessel) have an uncharacteristically smoothed exterior for Belle Glade Plain (see descriptions by Austin 1996:75; Cordell 1992:111; Sears 1982:20-22) (Appendix A). One of these sherds has traces of


Figure 2. Lake Jackson Plain (2a and 2b: 2002-21-20) Pinellas Incised (2c: 2002-21-20) rim sherds.
red pigment on its exterior surface. Most of the sherds have heavy dark coring.
Nine sherds have Lake Jackson paste with crushed sherd temper, accounting for 13% of the 68 MNV (Table 1). This includes the two Safety Harbor Incised sherds, two Lake Jackson Plain rims with loop handles (Figures 2a and 2b), one Pinellas Incised rim with loop handles (Figure 2c), and four Lake Jackson Plain body sherds. The Safety Harbor Incised sherds consist of one bottle neck fragment (Figure la) and one fragment of a fluted human effigy bottle (Figure lb). The human effigy bottle fragment also has minute amounts of mica in the paste indicating a distinctively different clay source for this piece. Mica is not unknown in sherd-tempered pastes (see Cordell n.d.) and it occurs in some of the Lake Jackson and Fort Walton pottery in the type collection at FLMNH-CTL. The Lake Jackson Plain rims with loop handles and the Pinellas Incised sherd also contain rounded clay lumps. These inclusions were noted in a Marsh Island Incised vessel from the Aqui Esta Mound (Cordell 2005, this issue; Luer 2002:Figure 30) and in some Lake Jackson paste sherds from the Smith Mound (Cordell n.d.). Petrographic analysis of the
Pineland sherds indicated that this paste was unrelated to Pinellas paste (Cordell n.d.). The two Safety Harbor Incised sherds have moderate and heavy medium coring (Appendix B). One Lake Jackson Plain rim sherd with loop handles has moderate coring, and one Lake Jackson Plain body sherd lacks coring. The remaining Lake Jackson Plain sherds and the Pinellas Incised sherd show heavy dark coring.
Eighty sherds have Pinellas paste, representing up to nine individual vessels (Appendix A). Pinellas paste is characterized by rounded clay lumps and variable amounts of quartz sand, but no sherd temper (Cordell n.d.). Most of the sherds have heavy dark coring (Appendix B).
Six sherds, representing two vessels, have intermediate spiculate paste (SPCB) which I refer to as Pineland paste (Tables 1 and 2; Cordell 1992, n.d.). This paste is characterized by frequent to common quartz sand and frequent to common sponge spicules (Table 2; Cordell 1992:108, 111, n.d.). All sherds have heavy dark coring (Appendix B).
Results: Vessel Morphology
Fourteen sand-tempered plain rim sherds, representing nine vessel lots, have either flat-squared lips or somewhat rounded lips (Appendix C). Only six rims are large enough to permit estimation of vessel size and/or orientation, however. Vessel forms include two medium open bowls, ranging 20-22 cm in mouth diameter; one open bowl of unknown size, one large restricted bowl, approximately 30 cm in diameter, one large open bowl approximately 40 cm in diameter, and one small restricted bowl approximately 12 cm in diameter (Appendix C).
Three St. Johns Plain rim sherds (3 MNV) have rounded and flat-squared lips (Appendix C). Vessel forms include two small open bowls, ranging 10-12 cm in mouth diameter, and one small, restricted bowl approximately 12 cm in diameter (Appendix C). An additional St. Johns Plain vessel lot represents a miniature carinated restricted bowl approximately 5 cm in orifice diameter, although the lip is apparently lacking or excessively eroded (Appendix C; Figure 3d). One St. Johns Check Stamped rim has a flat-squared lip and represents a medium open bowl approximately 24 cm in diameter. One sandy St. Johns Plain rim has a round to flat-beveled lip and represents a large open bowl approximately 30 cm in diameter. Mend or suspension holes are present on two St. Johns Plain vessel lots.
No rims are present in the Belle Glade Plain grouping and none of the body sherds is diagnostic of vessel form.
The Safety Harbor Incised bottle neck fragment has an approximate neck diameter of 7 cm. The human effigy vessel is relatively small, probably less than 15 cm in body diameter. The Pinellas Incised and Lake Jackson Plain rim sherds with loop handles are from collared jar or bowl forms, ranging 18 to 24 cm in diameter (Appendix C). The Pinellas Incised rim has a flat/squared lip. The Lake Jackson Plain rims have flat-squared and rounded lips (Figures la and lb).


Table 1. Paste category by decorative pottery categories or traditions (counts listed are total sherds and minimum number of vessels [MNV]).
Categories Belle Glade SPCA St. Johns chalky SPC2/3 Lake Jackson sherd-tempered GROG1 Pinellas paste GROG3 sand-tempered SANDA/B Pineland paste SPCB Total sherds/ MNV
Belle Glade Plain 8/3 - - 8/3
St. Johns chalky wares3 27/14" - - 27/14
Safety Harbor-related types - 9/9" 80/9 l/ld 90/19
UTD Incised - - 1/1 1/1
sand-tempered plain - - 97/29 6/2 103/31
Total MNV 3 (4%) 14 (21%) 9 (13%) 9 (13%) 31 (46%) 2 (3%) 229/68
a4 St. Johns Check Stamped; 2 St. Johns Simple Stamped; 5 St. Johns Plain; 2 sandy St. Johns Plain; 1 Papys Bayou Punctated. b2 Safety Harbor Incised; 6 Lake Jackson Plain; 1 Pinellas Incised. c9 Pinellas Plain. dSarasota Incised.
Table 2. Description of paste categories.
Paste Category Abbreviation Sample Paste Description References
Belle Glade paste SPCA 3 common sponge spicules; frequent to common quartz Cordell 1992, n.d.
St. Johns chalky paste SPC1/2 10 abundant sponge spicules; occasional to frequent quartz Goggin 1952; Cordell n.d.; Cordell and Koski 2003
sandy St. Johns paste SPC3 4 frequent to common sponge spicules; common to abundant quartz Cordell n.d.; Cordell and Koski 2003
Lake Jackson (sherd-tempered) paste GROG1 occasional to common sherd temper; frequent to abundant quartz sand; rare mica in one case; subrounded clay lumps in three cases Cordell n.d.; Cordell 2005
Pinellas paste GROG3 frequent rounded clay lumps; frequent to common quartz sand; laminated/contorted paste texture Cordell n.d.
sand-tempered paste SANDA/B 31 common to abundant quartz sand; rare to occasional sponge spicules in some (SANDB paste) Cordell 1992, n.d.
Pineland (intermediate spiculate) paste SPCB 2 common quartz sand; frequent to common sponge spicules; often difficult to distinguish from sand-tempered paste Cordell 1992, n.d.


Table 3. Comparison of pottery pastes at three southern Florida Safety Harbor mounds.
Mound Site Belle Glade SPCA St Johns chalk} SPC1-3 Lake Jackson sherd-temp. GROG1 Pinellas paste GROG3 sand-tempered SANDA/B Pineland paste SPCB Micaceous paste Pasco Paste Total
Total MNV 8S044 Sarasota Bay Mound 3 (4%) 14 (21%) 9 (13%) 9 (13%) 31 (46%) 2 (3%) - 68
Total vessels 8CH68 Aqui Esta Mound 16 (30%) 15 (28%) 10 (18%) 5 (9%) 6 (11%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 54
Total sherds 8LL36 Smith Mound 580 (29%) 336 (17%) 76 (4%) 15 (1%) 714 (35%) 225 (11%) 56 (3%) 26" (1%) 2028
"In some cases, the temper is probably Fuller's Earth rather than limestone (Cordell n.d.).
Thirteen Pinellas Plain rim sherds, representing three vessel lots, have rounded lips (Appendix C). One vessel lot, consisting of 10 rims, is a large open bowl, approximately 40 cm in diameter (Appendix C).
Three Pineland Plain rim sherds, representing two vessel lots, have flat-squared and rounded lips (Appendix C). One vessel lot, consisting of two rims, is a medium open bowl, approximately 20 cm in diameter (Appendix C).
Manufacturing Origins and Significance of the Sarasota Bay Mound Paste Categories
This analysis shows that the Sarasota Bay Mound assemblage consists of a diverse group of local and non-locally made pottery. Local central peninsular Florida manufacturing origins should apply to sand-tempered paste. This would pertain to the sand-tempered plain sherds as well as the Sarasota Incised and UTD incised sherds. Nonlocal manufacturing origins may apply to the remaining paste categories.
Tampa Bay manufacturing origins (north of the Sarasota Bay area) may apply to the Pinellas Plain pottery, on the basis of its relative abundance in the region (Cordell n.d.; Luer 1992:270; Luer and Almy 1980:221). Northwestern Florida/Fort Walton manufacturing origins are suggested for the sherd-tempered pottery in the present study (see Cordell 2005, this issue). This applies to all of the Lake Jackson Plain and Safety Harbor Incised vessels, excluding the Sarasota Incised sherd. Belle Glade area or Lake Okeechobee origins are presumed for Belle Glade paste (Bullen and Bullen 1976:22; Luer 1989:116-121, 2002:155,157; Luer and Almy 1980:212; Sears 1967:101, 1982:22; Widmer 1988:84-85). Northeastern Florida or northern St. Johns River manufacturing origins are traditionally considered for the origin of St. Johns chalky paste pottery (Bullen and Bullen 1976:22; Goggin 1952:78; Sears 1982:26-28; cf. Borremans and Shaak 1986:128; Mitchem 1986:69-70; Rolland and Bond 2003). Charlotte Harbor and/or Caloosahatchee area manufacturing origins may apply to intermediate spiculate Pineland paste (SPCB) on the basis of its relative abundance in that area (Cordell 2005, this issue). However, the manufacturing origins of Pineland paste are not yet well understood.
Comparison to Other Safety Harbor Pottery Assemblages
Paste variability in the Sarasota Bay Mound assemblage was compared to that of pottery from the Aqui Esta Mound and the Smith Mound (Table 3), two Safety Harbor pottery assemblages that also have been analyzed by the author, using comparable methods. The Sarasota Bay Mound pottery differs from the Aqui Esta Mound vessel assemblage in at least two important ways. First, reconstructable pots are rare in the Sarasota Bay Mound assemblage, indicating a difference in ritual vessel use and breakage patterns, although this could be attributable at least in part to looter activity, modern construction disturbance, and to the limited excavations conducted at the site (George M. Luer, personal communication 2004). Second, the predominant paste categories are different between the two sites. Sand-tempered paste is predominant in the Sarasota Bay Mound assemblage, accounting for 46% of the MNV, versus only 9% in the Aqui Esta Mound assemblage. Pinellas paste is a significant minority paste category in the Sarasota Bay Mound assemblage, accounting for 13% of the MNV, but this paste was not observed in the Aqui Esta Mound assemblage. Belle Glade paste was the most common category at the Aqui Esta Mound, accounting for 30% of the vessels, while this paste is in the minority in the Sarasota Bay Mound assemblage, accounting for only 4% of the MNV. The proportion of Pineland paste is lower at this site, accounting for 3% of the MNV, versus 11% at the Aqui Esta Mound. The proportions of St. Johns chalky paste and sherd-tempered Lake Jackson paste are only slightly lower at this site, accounting for 21% and 13% of the MNV, respectively, versus 28% and 17% at the Aqui Esta Mound. One Lake Jackson paste vessel lot from the Sarasota Bay Mound also is micaceous. One vessel in the Aqui Esta Mound assemblage is micaceous (Cordell 2005, this issue), but it is not sherd-tempered.
The differences in paste categories between these two sites is not surprising, given their respective geographic locations. The more northern location of the Sarasota Bay Mound may account for the greater occurrence of Pinellas paste pottery. The lower proportion of Belle Glade paste in the Sarasota Bay Mound assemblage also is predictable in light of the greater


>
used to construct the Smith Mound as well as ritual offerings (Cordell n.d.).
Conclusions
This paste characterization analysis of the Sarasota Bay Mound pottery assemblage supplements our understanding of ritual pottery assemblages and their implications for far-reaching interregional interactions and exchange during Safety Harbor times in central peninsular Florida. The data collected illustrate the value of objective, standardized methods of analyzing paste and paste constituents. More thorough explication of the nature and extent of interregional interactions during the Safety Harbor period will follow as more assemblages are similarly analyzed.
Acknowledgments
Figure 3. Sarasota Incised (3a: 2002-21-27), Papys Bayou Incised (3b: 2002-21-15), UED incised (3c: 2002-21-23), and St. Johns Plain carinated vessel (3d: 2002-21-23).
distance away from established exchange systems for this ware. This also may explain the lower frequency of Pineland paste. Lake Jackson and St. Johns pastes come from more distant sources. The more or less similar proportions of nonlocal Lake Jackson and St. Johns wares at both the Sarasota Bay Mound and Aqui Esta Mound sites reflect their importance in ritual practices of the mound-builders.
The Sarasota Bay and Smith Mound assemblages are similar in that both lack reconstructable pots, although this could be attributable at least, in part, to more limited excavations at the Sarasota Bay Mound (Luer 2005, this issue) and looter activity at the Smith Mound (Cordell n.d.). Comparison of paste categories (Table 3) is not straightforward since the percentages obtained for the Sarasota Bay Mound are based on minimum number of vessels, while the percentages for the Smith Mound are based on sherd counts. Sand-tempered plain is the predominant paste category in both assemblages, accounting for 46% of the Sarasota Bay Mound MNV and 35% of the Smith Mound sherds. But the Smith Mound assemblage has higher relative amounts of Belle Glade and Pineland pastes, 29% and 11% at Smith Mound versus 4% and 3% at the Sarasota Bay Mound, respectively. Mica was not observed in the sherd tempered pastes of the Smith Mound. Micaceous paste is present in the Smith Mound assemblage, but occurs primarily in Weeden Island series sherds (Cordell n.d.). The Sarasota Bay Mound has higher percentages of Lake Jackson, Pinellas, and St. Johns pastes. The differences in percentages of Belle Glade, Pineland, and Pinellas pastes might be attributable to geographic location with respect to manufacturing regions for these wares. The lower percentage of Lake Jackson paste at the Smith Mound might be attributable to inflated amounts of sand-tempered plain and other categories that may include sherds that were present in fill
George Luer drew the figures used in this paper, which also are included in his paper in this issue. This paper has benefited from constructive criticisms of George Luer, Dr. Jerald T. Milanich, Jeffrey Mitchem, Ryan Wheeler, and reviewers of The Florida Anthropologist.
References Cited
Austin, Robert J.
1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence Data from the Kissimmee River Valley: Archaeological Evidence for Belle Glade Occupation. The Florida Anthropologist 49(2):65-87.
Borremans, Nina Thanz., and Graig D. Shaak
1986 A Preliminary Report on Investigations of Sponge Spicules in Florida "Chalky" Paste Pottery. In "Papers in Ceramic Analysis," edited by Prudence M. Rice, pp. 125-131. Ceramic Notes 3. Occasional Publications of the Ceramic Technology Laboratory, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.
Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen 1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 8.
Cordell, Ann S.
1992 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability in Southwest Florida. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp.105-189. Monograph Number 1, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville.
2005 Revisiting the Aqui Esta Mound (8CH68): Paste Variability in the Pottery Assemblage. The Florida Anthropologist 58(1-):105-120 (this issue).
n.d. Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability at the Pineland Site Complex. To be published in: The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Village


Complex, edited by Karen J. Walker and William H. Marquardt. Monograph 4, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Cordell, Ann S., and Steven H. Koski
2003 Analysis of a Spiculate Clay from Lake Monroe, Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(2): 113-124.
Goggin, John M.
1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 47, New Haven.
Luer, George M.
1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute and Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist 42:89-130.
1992 The Boylston Mound: A Safety Harbor Period Shell Midden; With Notes on the Paleoenvironment of Southern Sarasota Bay. The Florida Anthropologist 45(3):266-279.
2002 The Aqui Esta Mound: Ceramic and Shell Vessels of Early Mississippian-influenced Englewood Phase. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor, Florida, edited by George M. Luer. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 15, pp. 111-181.
2005 Sarasota Bay Mound: A Safety Harbor Period Burial Mound, with Notes on Additional Sites in the City of Sarasota. The Florida Anthropologist 58(l-2):7-55 (this issue).
Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 33:207-225.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1986 Comments on Some Ceramic Pastes of the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast. The Florida Anthropologist 39:68-74.
Rice, Prudence M.
1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press.
Rolland, Vicki L., and Paulette Bond
2003 The Search for Spiculate Clays Near Aboriginal Sites in the Lower St. Johns River Region, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(2):91-111.
Sears, William H.
1967 Archaeological Survey in the Cape Coral Area at the Mouth of the Caloosahatchee River. 77;e Florida Anthropologist 20:93-102.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa, a Non-agricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections No. 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.


FLMNH# Provenience Count Rims MNV weight Type Name Paste Comments
2002-21-15 trench LX, burial B, basal zone 1 1 11.7 Papys Bayou Punctated SPC3 Figure 3b (Luer Figure 14b); red-orange slip on both surfaces
2002-21-15 trench IX, burial B, basal zone 1 1 7.1 St. Johns Simple Stamped SPC2 trace red pigment on both surfaces
total 2

2002-21-17A trench FX, burial D, upper zone 1 1 2.1 sandy St. Johns Plain SPC3
2002-21-17A trench FX, burial D, upper zone 9 1 15.1 sand-tempered plain SANDA trace red pigment on exterior
2002-21-17A trench IX, burial D, upper zone 2 1 4.2 St. Johns Plain SPC2
total 12

2002-21-17B trench IX, burial D, upper zone 1 1 27.1 Pinellas Plain GROG3
2002-21-17B trench FX, burial D, upper zone 1 1 1.1 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-17B trench FX, burial D, upper zone 1 1 5.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-17B trench LX, burial D, upper zone 1 1 1 24.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA soot in interior surface
2002-21-17B trench LX, burial D, upper zone 2 1 16.2 St. Johns Simple Stamped SPC3 trace red pigment on exterior
total 6 1

2002-21-20 trench II, upper portion 1 1 1 81.4 Pinellas Incised GROG1 Figure 2c (Luer Figure 1 lc); collared bowl or jar w/ loop handles
2002-21-20 trench II, upper portion 1 1 1 49.0 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 Figure 2b (Luer Figure 1 lb); collared bowl or jar w/ loop handles
2002-21-20 trench II, upper portion 1 1 1 49.0 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 Figure 2a (Luer Figure 1 la); collared bowl or jar w/ loop handles
2002-21-20 trench II, upper portion 1 1 18.0 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1
2002-21-20 trench II, upper portion 1 1 27.5 Safety Harbor Incised GROG1 Figure la (Luer Figure 12a); bottle neck
2002-21-20 trench II, upper portion 1 1 2.0 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-20 trench II, upper portion 4 1 94.9 Pinellas Plain GROG3
2002-21-20 trench II, upper portion 4 1 89.7 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2
total 14 3 CO

2002-21-21 trench II, lower portion 1 1 25.7 Belle Glade Plain SPCA
2002-21-21 trench II, lower portion 1 1 31.9 Safety Harbor Incised? GROG1 Figure lb (Luer Figure 12b); human effigy bottle; trace red pigment on exterior
2002-21-21 trench II, lower portion 1 1 6.9 Pinellas Plain GROG3
2002-21-21 trench II, lower portion 2 1 9.6 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-21 trench II, lower portion 2 1 10.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA
total 7 5


FLMNH# Provenience Count Rims MNV weight Type Name Paste Comments
2002-21-22 trench III, middle portion 3 1 17.1 Belle Glade Plain SPCA smoothed ext; trace red pigment on int; may crossmend w/ 2002-21-23
2002-21-22 trench III, middle portion 1 1 83.8 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1
2002-21-22 trench III, middle portion 1 1 2.5 Pinellas Plain GROG3
total 5

2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 3 1 1 36.9 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 4 1 21.6 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 trace red pigment on interior surface and edges
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 1 1 26.2 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 trace red pigment on exterior
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 3 31.0 Belle Glade Plain SPCA smoothed exterior, may crossmend w/ 2002-21-22
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 8 2 1 38.3 sand-tempered plain SANDB
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 3 1 20.9 St. Johns Plain SPC2 Fig. 3d (Luer Fig. 14a); miniature carinated bowl; trace red both surfaces; mend hole
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 1 1 1 5.3 St. Johns Plain SPC2 one mend hole and one mend or suspension hole
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 3 2 1 15.1 sand-tempered plain SANDA extensive sooting on outer surface near rim
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 1 1? 1 3.5 UID incised SANDA incised appliqued lip like 8CH68 Vessel 44; red pigment on ext.; Fig. 3c (Luer Fig. 14c)
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 2 1 10.6 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 2 1 14.8 sand-tempered plain SANDA -
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 4 1 42.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA crossmends with 3 from 2002-21-25 (30.5g)
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 3 1 4.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA -
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 4 1 1 114.0 Pineland Plain SPCB see Cordell n.d. for description of Pineland Plain
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 11 1 262.5 sand-tempered plain SANDA -
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 3 2 1 65.5 Pinellas Plain GROG3 some soot on both surfaces
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 33 10 1 234.1 Pinellas Plain GROG3 one mend hole
2002-21-23 trench III, basal black zone 32 - 142.4 Pinellas Plain GROG3 very small body sherds; crossmend with one of above vessels
total 121 20 16

2002-21-25 trench IV, basal black zone 3 - 30.5 sand-tempered plain SANDA crossmends with 4 from 2002-21-23 (42.4g)
2002-21-25 trench IV, basal black zone 3 1 1 121.8 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-25 trench IV, basal black zone 1 1 1 4.7 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-25 trench IV, basal black zone 1 1 1.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA
total 8 2 3

2002-21-26 trench V 1 1 1.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA


FLMNH# Provenience Count Rims MNV weight Type Name Paste Comments
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 2 1 1 10.0 sand-tempered plain SANDB trace red pigment on lip and one edge
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 4 3 1 8.0 sand-tempered plain SANDA may crossmend with 2002-21-28 (10.4g)
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 1 1 1 8.1 Pinellas Plain GROG3
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 1 1 1 3.6 St. Johns Plain SPC2 trace red pigment on exterior
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 1 1 3.2 Sarasota Incised SANDA Figure 2a (Luer Figure 14d)
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 2 1 1 1.5 sand-tempered plain SANDB
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 4 1 30.6 sand-tempered plain SANDB
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 1 1 1.6 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 1 1 5.8 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-27 mid-trench V, upper portion 2 1 3.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA
total 19 7 10

2002-21-28 trench VI, basal black zone 2 2 1 86.6 Pineland Plain SPCB see Cordell n.d. for description of Pineland Plain
2002-21-28 trench VI, basal black zone 4 1 40.0 sand-tempered plain SANDA reddish exterior (not slip or pigment); soot on exterior
2002-21-28 trench VI, basal black zone 3 1 10.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA may crossmend with 2002-21-27 (8.0g)
total 9 3 2

2002-21-29 trench VII, fill 1 1 1 3.8 sand-tempered plain SANDB
2002-21-33 trench VIII 1 1 5.5 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1
2002-21-36 trench DC burial B, basal zone 13 1 37.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA trace red pigment on sherd edges
2002-21-40 1 1 7.7 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 categorized initially as "chalky paste"

2002-21-42 cellar test, Pit A, basal black zone 1 1 19.9 Belle Glade Plain SPCA
2002-21-42 cellar test, Pit A, basal black zone 1 1 1.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA
2002-21-42 cellar test, Pit A, basal black zone 2 1 12.2 Pinellas Plain GROG3
2002-21-42 cellar test, Pit A, basal black zone 2 1 11.0 Pinellas Plain GROG3
total 6 4

2002-21-45 trench IX, near burial D 1 1 1 9.4 St. Johns Plain SPC2 burnished, black exterior
2002-21-47 unknown 2 2 1 11.2 sandy St. Johns Plain SPC3 trace red pigment on both surfaces

TOTAL 229 40 68


Appendix B: 8S044 Paste and Color Data by Paste Category.
FLMNHJ Count Rims MNV weight Type Name Paste Core color Figure No. Comments
2002-21-20 1 1 27.5 Safety Harbor Incised GROG1 3 la Luer (2005, this issue, Figure 12a)
2002-21-21 1 1 31.9 Safety Harbor Incised? GROG1 4 lb with rare mica; Luer (2005, this issue, Figure 12b)
2002-21-20 1 1 1 81.4 Pinellas Incised GROG1 5 2c with subrounded clay lumps; Luer, this issue, Figure 11c
2002-21-20 1 1 18.0 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 5
2002-21-22 1 1 83.8 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 5
2002-21-33 1 1 5.5 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 1
2002-21-40 1 1 7.7 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 5
2002-21-20 1 1 1 49.0 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 5 2b with subrounded clay lumps; Luer (2005, this issue, Figure lib)
2002-21-20 1 1 1 49.0 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 3 2a with subrounded clay lumps; Luer (2005, this issue, Figure 11a)
total 9 3 9 353.8

2002-21-17B 1 1 27.1 Pinellas Plain GROG3 5
2002-21-20 4 1 94.9 Pinellas Plain GROG3 3
2002-21-21 1 1 6.9 Pinellas Plain GROG3 5
2002-21-22 1 1 2.5 Pinellas Plain GROG3 4
2002-21-23 3 2 1 65.5 Pinellas Plain GROG3 5
2002-21-23 33 10 1 234.1 Pinellas Plain GROG3 5
2002-21-23 32 - 142.4 Pinellas Plain GROG3 5 very small body sherds; crossmend with one of above vessels
2002-21-27 1 1 1 8.1 Pinellas Plain GROG3 5
2002-21-42 2 1 12.2 Pinellas Plain GROG3 5
2002-21-42 2 1 11.0 Pinellas Plain GROG3 3
total 80 13 9 604.7

2002-21-20 4 1 89.7 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 3
2002-21-23 3 1 1 36.9 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 5
2002-21-23 4 1 21.6 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 3
2002-21-23 1 1 26.2 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 5
2002-21-15 1 1 7.1 St. Johns Simple Stamped SPC2 3
2002-21-17A 2 1 4.2 St. Johns Plain SPC2 5
2002-21-23 3 1 20.9 St. Johns Plain SPC2 5 3d Luer (2005, this issue, Figure 14a)
2002-21-23 1 1 1 5.3 St. Johns Plain SPC2 5


Appendix B: 8S044 Paste and Color Data by Paste Category, continued.
FLMNHJ Count Rims MNV weight Type Name Paste Core color Figure No. Comments
2002-21-27 1 1 1 3.6 St. Johns Plain SPC2 5
2002-21-45 1 1 1 9.4 St. Johns Plain SPC2 5
2002-21-17A 1 1 2.1 sandy St. Johns Plain SPC3 5
2002-21-47 2 2 1 11.2 sandy St. Johns Plain SPC3 5
2002-21-17B 2 1 16.2 St. Johns Simple Stamped SPC3 5 sandier than 2002-21-15
2002-21-15 1 1 11.7 Papys Bayou Incised SPC3 5 3b Luer (2005, this issue, Figure 14b)
total 27 14 266.1

2002-21-21 1 1 25.7 Belle Glade Plain SPCA 5
2002-21-22 3 1 17.1 Belle Glade Plain SPCA 5 crossmends w/ 2002-21-23
2002-21-23 3 31.0 Belle Glade Plain SPCA 5 crossmends w/ 2002-21-23
2002-21-42 1 1 19.9 Belle Glade Plain SPCA 3
total 8 93.7

2002-21-23 4 1 1 114.0 Pineland Plain SPCB 5 see Cordell n.d. for description of Pineland Plain
2002-21-28 2 2 1 86.6 Pineland Plain SPCB 5 see Cordell n.d. for description of Pineland Plain
total 6 200.6

2002-21-27 1 1 3.2 Sarasota Incised SANDA 5 3a Luer (2005, this issue, Figure 14a)
2002-21-23 1 1? 1 3.5 UID incised SANDA 5 3c Luer (2005, this issue, Figure 14c)
2002-21-17A 9 1 15.1 sand-tempered plain SANDA 3
2002-21-17B 1 1 1.1 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-17B 1 1 5.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-17B 1 1 1 24.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-20 1 1 2.0 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5 rare ferric lumps
2002-21-21 2 1 9.6 sand-tempered plain SANDA 3
2002-21-21 2 1 10.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-23 3 2 1 15.1 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-23 2 1 10.6 sand-tempered plain SANDA 1
2002-21-23 2 1 14.8 sand-tempered plain SANDA 3 -
2002-21-23 4 1 42.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5 crossmends with 3 from 2002-21-25 (30.5g)
2002-21-23 3 1 4.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5 -
2002-21-23 11 1 262.5 sand-tempered plain SANDA 1 -
2002-21-25 3 30.5 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5 crossmends with 4 from 2002-21-23 (42.4g)
2002-21-25 3 1 1 121.8 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-25 1 1 1 4.7 sand-tempered plain SANDA 1


Appendix B: 8S044 Paste and Color Data by Paste Category, continued.
FLMNH# Count Rims MNV weight Type Name Paste Core color Figure No. Comments

2002-21-25 1 1 1.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 1
2002-21-27 4 3 1 8.0 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5 may crossmend with 2002-21-28 (5.8g)
2002-21-27 1 1 1.6 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-27 1 1 5.8 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-27 2 j 1 3.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 3
2002-21-28 4 1 40.0 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-28 3 1 10.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5 may crossmend with 2002-21-27 (8.0g)
2002-21-36 13 1 37.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-42 1 1 1.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5
2002-21-26 1 1 1.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 3
2002-21-23 8 2 1 38.3 sand-tempered plain SANDB 5
2002-21-27 2 1 1 10.0 sand-tempered plain SANDB 5
2002-21-27 2 1 1 1.5 sand-tempered plain SANDB 5
2002-21-27 4 1 30.6 sand-tempered plain SANDB 5
2002-21-29 1 1 1 3.8 sand-tempered plain SANDB 5
total 99 31 779.5


FLMNH# Count Rims MNV weight Type Name Paste body thick rim thick lip shape Vessel Wall Orientation diameter Comments
2002-21-20 1 1 27.5 Safety Harbor Incised GROG1 6 mm - compound 7 cm neck Figure la (Luer Figure 12a); bottle form; 6mm thick at neck
2002-21-21 1 1 31.9 Safety Harbor Incised? GROG1 3-5 mm - compound Figure lb (Luer Figure 12b); human effigy bottle
total 2 2 59.4

2002-21-20 1 1 1 81.4 Pinellas Incised GROG1 4.5-6 mm 5.5-6 mm flat-square compound 18 cm Figure 2c (Luer Figure 1 lc); collared bowl or jar w/ loop handles
2002-21-27 1 1 3.2 Sarasota Incised SANDA 4.5-5 mm - - Figure 3 a (Luer Figure 14d)
2002-21-23 1 1? 1 3.5 UID incised SANDA - incised - incised appliqued lip(?) like 8CH68 Vessel 44; Fig. 3c (Luer Fig. 14c)

2002-21-20 1 1 1 49.0 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 6.5-7 mm 6.5-8.5 mm flat-square compound 18 cm Figure 2b (Luer Figure 1 lb); collared bowl or jar w/ loop handles
2002-21-20 1 1 1 49.0 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 7.5-9 mm 5-6.5 mm round-bevel compound 22 cm Figure 2a (Luer Figure 1 la); collared bowl or jar w/ loop handles
2002-21-20 1 1 18.0 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 4.5-6 mm - -
2002-21-22 1 1 83.8 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 5-7 mm - -
2002-21-33 1 1 5.5 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 6-7 mm - -
2002-21-40 1 1 7.7 Lake Jackson Plain GROG1 6 mm - -
total 6 2 6 213.0

2002-21-17B 1 1 27.1 Pinellas Plain GROG3 6-8 mm - -
2002-21-20 4 1 94.9 Pinellas Plain GROG3 6.5-8 mm - -
2002-21-21 1 1 6.9 Pinellas Plain GROG3 8 mm - -
2002-21-22 1 1 2.5 Pinellas Plain GROG3 7 mm - -
2002-21-23 3 2 1 65.5 Pinellas Plain GROG3 5-7 mm 6 mm round-bevel -
2002-21-23 33 10 1 234.1 Pinellas Plain GROG3 7-9 mm 6-7 mm round vertical 40 cm large open bowl; one mend hole
2002-21-27 1 1 1 8.1 Pinellas Plain GROG3 6.5 mm 5.5 mm round -
2002-21-42 2 1 12.2 Pinellas Plain GROG3 8 mm - -
2002-21-42 2 1 11.0 Pinellas Plain GROG3 10-11 mm - -
2002-21-23 32 - 142.4 Pinellas Plain GROG3 6-7 mm - - very small body sherds; crossmend with one of above vessels
total 80 13 9 604.7

2002-21-15 1 1 11.7 Papys Bayou Punctated SPC3 4-5 mm - - Figure 3b (Luer Figure 14b)


FLMNH# Count Rims MNV weight Type Name Paste body thick rim thick lip shape Vessel Wall Orientation diameter Comments
2002-21-20 4 1 89.7 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 7.5-10 mm - -
2002-21-23 3 1 1 36.9 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 4-5 mm 5 mm flat-square slightly out 24 cm medium open bowl
2002-21-23 4 1 21.6 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 5-6 mm - -
2002-21-23 1 1 26.2 St. Johns Check Stamped SPC2 6.5-10 mm - -
total 12 1 174.4

2002-21-15 1 1 7.1 St. Johns Simple Stamped SPC2 3-4 mm - -
2002-21-17B 2 1 16.2 St. Johns Simple Stamped SPC3 4-6 mm - -
total 3 23.3


2002-21-17A 2 1 4.2 St. Johns Plain SPC2 3.5-4.5 mm - -
2002-21-23 3 1 20.9 St. Johns Plain SPC2 4.5-6 mm 4 mm carinated 5 cm Figure 3d (Luer Figure 14a); miniature carinated restricted bowl
2002-21-23 1 1 1 5.3 St. Johns Plain SPC2 2.5-3 mm 3 mm flat-square slightly out 10 cm small open bowl; 1 mend hole, 1 mend/suspension hole
2002-21-27 1 1 1 3.6 St. Johns Plain SPC2 5 mm 5 mm round outslanting 12 cm small open bowl
2002-21-45 1 1 1 9.4 St. Johns Plain SPC2 3 mm 5 mm round-bevel incurving 12 cm small restricted bowl
total 8 3 5 43.4

2002-21-17A 1 1 2.1 sandy St. Johns Plain SPC3 3.5 mm - -
2002-21-47 2 2 1 11.2 sandy St. Johns Plain SPC3 4 mm 4.5-5 mm variable outslanting 30 cm round-bevel to flat-bevel ext rim; large open bowl
total 3 2 13.3

2002-21-22 3 1 17.1 Belle Glade Plain SPCA 4-4.5 mm - - may crossmend w/ 2002-21-23
2002-21-23 3 31.0 Belle Glade Plain SPCA 4-5 mm - - may crossmend w/ 2002-21-22
2002-21-21 1 1 25.7 Belle Glade Plain SPCA 5-5.5 mm - -
2002-21-42 1 1 19.9 Belle Glade Plain SPCA 4.5-5 mm - -
total 8 93.7

2002-21-23 4 1 1 114.0 Pineland Plain SPCB 5.5-8 mm 4.5-5 mm flat-square - see Cordell n.d. for description of Pineland Plain
2002-21-28 2 2 1 86.6 Pineland Plain SPCB 5-6 mm 6-7 mm round-bevel outslanting 20 cm medium open bowl; see Cordell n.d. for description of Pineland Plain
total 6 3 2 200.6


FLMNH# Count Rims MNV weight Type Name Paste body thick rim thick lip shape Vessel Wall Orientation diameter Comments
2002-21-28 4 1 40.0 sand-tempered plain SANDA 4.5-5 mm - -
2002-21-20 1 1 2.0 sand-tempered plain SANDA 4.5 mm - -
2002-21-27 1 1 1.6 sand-tempered plain SANDA 4.5 mm - -
2002-21-25 1 1 1.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 4-4.5 mm - -
2002-21-17B 1 1 1 24.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5.5-7 mm 5-6.5 mm flat-square outslanting 20 cm medium open bowl
2002-21-26 1 1 1.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5.5 mm - -
2002-21-27 2 1 3.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5-5.5 mm - -
2002-21-17B 1 1 1.1 sand-tempered plain SANDA 5 mm - -
2002-21-27 1 1 5.8 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6.5-7.5 mm - -
2002-21-21 2 1 9.6 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6.5-7 mm - -
2002-21-21 2 1 10.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6.5-7 mm - -
2002-21-23 2 1 14.8 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6.5-8 mm - - -
2002-21-28 3 1 10.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6.5-8 mm 6 mm round-bevel - may crossmend with 2002-21-27 (8.0g)
2002-21-42 1 1 1.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6.5 mm - -
2002-21-25 1 1 1 4.7 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6-7 mm 4.5 mm flat-sq/bev ext -
2002-21-23 11 1 262.5 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6-8 mm - - -
2002-21-17A 9 1 15.1 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6 mm - -
2002-21-23 3 1 4.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 6 mm - - -
2002-21-36 13 1 37.9 sand-tempered plain SANDA 7-8.5 mm - -
2002-21-23 3 2 1 15.1 sand-tempered plain SANDA 7mm 8-8.5 mm flat-square outslanting
2002-21-25 3 1 1 121.8 sand-tempered plain SANDA 7 mm 8.5-10 mm flat-square vertical 40 cm large open bowl
2002-21-25 3 30.5 sand-tempered plain SANDA 8-10 mm - - crossmends with 4 from 2002-21-23 (42.4g)
2002-21-17B 1 1 5.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 8-9 mm - -
2002-21-23 2 1 10.6 sand-tempered plain SANDA 8-9 mm - -
2002-21-27 4 3 1 8.0 sand-tempered plain SANDA 8 mm 7 mm round inslanting 30 cm may crossmend with 2002-21-28 (5.8g); large restricted bowl
2002-21-23 4 1 42.4 sand-tempered plain SANDA 9-10 mm - - crossmends with 3 from 2002-21-25 (30.5g)
total 80 9 24

2002-21-23 8 2 1 38.3 sand-tempered plain SANDB 3-5 mm 5 mm round-bevel inslanting 12 cm small restricted bowl
2002-21-27 2 1 1 10.0 sand-tempered plain SANDB 4-6 mm 4-4.5 mm round outslanting 22 cm medium open bowl
2002-21-27 2 1 1 1.5 sand-tempered plain SANDB 4 mm 3 mm flat-square -
2002-21-27 4 1 30.6 sand-tempered plain SANDB 8-9 mm - -
2002-21-29 1 1 1 3.8 sand-tempered plain SANDB 6 mm 5.5m round-square -
total 17 5 5


Sarasota County's Stone Effigy
Daniel Hughes
2301 8th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Email: Hughesarc@juno.com
Introduction
In 2001, a rare piece of American Indian art was donated to the Sarasota County History Center, an entity of Sarasota County government charged with protecting the county's historical, architectural, and archaeological resources. Found by the late Mrs. Margaret Dill of Sarasota in the 1970s, the stone effigy head (Figure 1) is believed to be related to the Sarasota Bay Mound Complex that once existed from Mound Street, northward along the bay. The complex consisted of a large linear shell midden, running parallel to the bay shore, and a large burial mound close to its southern end toward the mouth of Hudson Bayou. Several smaller middens reportedly existed at the mouth of the bayou and near adjacent tributaries. Today, almost all the middens and the mound have been destroyed, giving way to modern development.
Throughout Florida, American Indian groups produced art for many purposes. Some were simple aesthetic decorative motifs applied to enhance material such as cooking pots, while others were symbolic, representing power and religious beliefs. Throughout the state, examples of art can be seen expressed in ceramics, shell, wood, and stone.
The depiction of the human form in central and southern Florida is not as common as more decorative motifs or animal symbolism. The basic concept of using the human form is believed to have come from external influences such as Woodland (Weeden Island) and Mississippian societies in the Southeast and Mid-West, the latter known archaeologically as the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (SECC). Typically, the human form in Weeden Island art is that of a closed-eyed male seated, kneeling, or standing (Wheeler 1996). However, some depictions are masks and adornos that only represent the head. In a few known cases, the art was further enhanced with natural pigments, such as on some of the anthropomorphic masks from Key Marco (Gilliland 1975).
Background
In order to understand the archaeological context in which the artifact was found, it is necessary to understand the Sarasota Bay coastal area prior to European contact. Before the current city of Sarasota's development, an American Indian community thrived along the shores of Sarasota Bay (Figure 2). The area was inhabited by a sizeable population that mainly subsisted on marine resources and, most likely, a variety of wild plants. Some of the area's early people formed what archaeologists call the Manasota Culture, dating to approximately 2,500 to 1,300 years ago. After this Manasota
Period, a late Weeden Island Culture spread into the region bringing with it new ceremonialism. Around 1,000 years ago, these same people became part of what is now called the Safety Harbor Culture, which was organized as a number of independent chiefdoms scattered through west-central Florida. People of the Safety Harbor Culture lived along the bay when Spanish explorers arrived in the 1500s, after which the local native Florida population was devastated by new diseases, warfare, and forced labor.
The remains left by these native cultures were once plainly visible in the form of archaeological sites along Sarasota Bay. Near Mound Street in downtown Sarasota, five of these archaeological sites were shell middens and the sixth was a large burial mound. They are described briefly in the following paragraphs.
The Cedar Point Midden (8S042) was on a point of land and was reported to contain lithic and ceramic materials by local informants. It was identified during an archaeological site inventory conducted by John Fales and Doris Davis (1961). By that time, the Cedar Point Midden had been destroyed by earthmoving and dredging activities that expanded the land around the point to create what is now called Golden Gate Point. Today, no evidence of the midden exists (Almy 1976; Fales and Davis 1961; Monroe et al. 1977).
The Church of the Redeemer Midden (8S043) gets its name from the church that sits on it. This site is the northern extension of 8S099, the Pinard Midden. Construction of roads and buildings along the Sarasota Bay front have divided what was once one midden into two. Initially reported by Captain R. D. Wainwright (1916), the site was described as a large shell midden that was three feet high with streets cut through it. The shell midden was reported to have been comprised of conch, clam, and mussel shells. Fales and Davis (1961) identified 8S043/99 as the Gulf Stream Avenue-Palm Avenue Site, which included the Sarasota Bay Mound (8S044). The site was reported as a kitchen midden and an associated burial mound. Today, little is known about the Church of the Redeemer Midden as no investigation of it has been done.
In 1994, Janus Research conducted a survey and limited testing on the Pinard Midden. The work involved 27 shovel tests and three 1-x-l -meter units. In addition, a column sample was taken from next to one of the 1-x-l-meter units, and two radiocarbon dates were obtained suggesting that the site was occupied from ca. A.D. 700-1200 (Janus Research 1995). Faunal remains from the site include at least nine species offish, 19 species of gastropods, and 21 species of bivalves.
Vol. 58(1-2)
The Florida Anthropologist
March-June 2005


Figure 1. Front and left side views of the Sarasota stone effigy head.
The Sarasota Bay Mound (8S044) also was observed by Wainwright (1916). At that time, it was a large mound located at the corner of Mound Street and Gulf Stream Avenue. Within four years of Captain Wainwright's observations, the site would be significantly impacted by land leveling and construction of a house and basement. An unconfirmed report claimed that a number of skeletons were uncovered, laid out like spokes of wheel (Fales and Davis 1961). Numerous decorated pottery fragments also were found in the mound. Unfortunately, these remains were removed before they could be studied.
In 1968, the Sarasota County Historical Commission arranged for excavation of the remaining portion of the Sarasota Bay Mound by archaeologist Ripley Bullen. Pottery sherds and a few skeletons were excavated. They allow archaeologists to date the mound to the pre-contact Safety Harbor Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1500) (see Luer, this issue).
The Hudson Bayou North Site (8S045) was located along a branch of Hudson Bayou. This bayou is directly connected to the southern end of Sarasota Bay and provides a short, natural transportation route for canoes into an inland area. Scattered shell midden deposits were reported by Fales and Davis (1961), but little else is known of the site. Since 1961, the site has been destroyed by development.
The Selby Midden (8S046) also was near Hudson Bayou. In 1961, a shell midden was reported during the Fales and Davis survey, but this site has not been located since. Very little is known about the site other than its location near the mouth of Hudson Bayou (Almy 1976; Fales and Davis 1961;
Monroe etal. 1977).
The Bay Point Site (8S047) represents a combination of two separate sites (Almy 1976; Monroe et al. 1977) that were identified originally by Fales and Davis (1961). TheBay Point Site is a combination Fales and Davis' "Bay Point Site" located on a point just south of the mouth of Hudson Bayou and the "Hudson Bayou South Site" located along the southern bank of Hudson Bayou. The original Bay Point Site is reported by Fales and Davis (1961) to be a shell midden, while the Hudson Bayou South Site was reported to have been a shell and artifact scatter. Today, the site areas are covered by large amounts of fill dredged from the bay and bayou in 1926. When combined with the close proximity to the Selby Midden, the Hudson Bayou North Site, and the Sarasota High School Site, the Bay Point Site demonstrates the inter-connectivity that Hudson Bayou provided between the bay and inland areas.
The Sarasota High School Site (8S048) was at the eastern end of Hudson Bayou. It was in the immediate vicinity of the National Register-listed Sarasota High School (8S0416) and might have been destroyed during its construction in the 1920s. Over the years, artifacts have been reported by students (Almy 1976; Fales and Davis 1961; Monroe et al. 1977).
The Sarasota stone effigy head was an isolated find on the northern side of Hudson Bayou. It is reported to have been found by Mrs. Dill while gardening in her back yard at the Hudson Manor Apartments, just northwest of the Orange Avenue bridge over Hudson Bayou (Marion Almy, personal communication 2004). No formal archaeological investigation has been conducted on the parcel where it was found, but its


| Location of Archaeological Sites
Figure 2. Locations of archaeological sites and find spot of Sarasota stone effigy head near Sarasota Bay.
close proximity to the Hudson Bayou middens and scatters may indicate an association with them.
Background Summary
While very little remains of the archaeological sites located along the downtown Sarasota bay front and Hudson Bayou, we can still visualize the occupation of the area by American Indian groups. Sarasota Bay was the location of a vibrant post-Archaic Period cultural development (after 1000 B.C.).
It was an area where Native American populations increased, and habitation sites accumulated to form linear ridges that paralleled the Sarasota Bay shoreline. Hudson Bayou itself provided a convenient half-mile transportation corridor into inland areas and, while the bayou was tidal and salty, its tributaries offered fresh water.
The development of this coastal community is believed to have commenced during the Manasota Period. This is not to say that the use of the area did not start during the Archaic Period, but to date no evidence of it has been found. Habita-


Figure 3. Hontoon Island (left) and Blueberry (right) effigy heads. Courtesy of Anne Reynolds.
tion of the downtown Sarasota area is believed to have continued into the Safety Harbor Period, but it might have been unoccupied during the late Safety Harbor Period, as no European trade goods have been recovered from any of the sites. Furthermore, during its latest occupation, the inhabitants might have been vassals to a more powerful Safety Harbor group centered slightly to the north. This is suggested by the presence there of larger mounds than are known for downtown Sarasota. For example, a large temple mound, the Whitaker Mound (8S081), is known to have existed farther north near
what is today Whitaker Bayou (see Luer, this issue). That nearby area might have been a focus of political power in the Sarasota Bay area.
Analysis of the Effigy Head
In my approach, I provide metric analysis, a description of manufacturing techniques, and a discussion of the art represented by the effigy head. While it is beyond the scope of this research to source the stone, the effigy head is fashioned from


0 cm _3
0 in 1
Figure 4. Bottom of Hontoon and Blueberry effigy heads. P
a metamorphic rock rich in quartz grains that is from outside Florida, possibly from the Piedmont of Georgia or Alabama (Peter Harries and Robert Austin, personal communication 2005). Thus, it is exogenous stone and may be a trade item, although it might have been crafted locally. The effigy head was found in a part of Sarasota that has been inhabited intensively for more than a century, and it is possible that its source and deposition are from that relatively recent period. However, it is my perspective that the effigy head is not a recent import or lost item (e.g., Lazarus 1989), and that it is part of the local, ancient, aboriginal archaeological record.
The effigy head has numerous cracks running along its surface that are filled with lighter dust from the matrix in which the stone was buried. The stone has a black-gray patina with a gray interior that has been revealed by a fresh gash (a possible shovel scar) on one side. The carving is in bas-relief and appears to have been created by repeated abrasion. As Whitaker (1994) notes, ground stone work is often preceded by a manufacturing stage during which the overall shape of the material is reduced by pecking with another stone. This work crushes and crumbles away small pieces of the target stone to achieve a rough pattern or image that can be smoothed over later by abrasion and grinding. Following this model of manufacture, it is important to note that the Sarasota stone effigy head appears to lack any cortex material. This may be a result of having the cortex removed by pecking, while the final features where shaped by abrasion. The head exhibits features including eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth, cheeks, and chin.
The fist-sized stone is 9.6 cm in height, 7.3 cm in width across the face, and 6.5 cm in thickness. The nose is 2.4 cm in length and 1.8 cm in width at the nostrils, while the width
0 cm 3
0 In 1
holes in base for handle or stick. Courtesy of Anne Reynolds.
of the nose at the bridge is 1.3 cm. The left eye is 1.2 cm in length, while the right eye is 1.4 cm in length. Both eyes are 0.8 cm in width and 0.9 cm height. The mouth is 1.7 cm in length and has a 0.2 cm opening. The bottom of the face has been carved to create a chin and jaw, while the top of the stone also has been worked to give a curve to the top of the head. This rounding of the top comes down onto the face at what could be interpreted as the hairline. This feature adds to the appearance of a forehead above the face. In addition, the eyes have been recessed into the face to give the appearance of eyebrows or eye sockets. Carved lines around the nose and mouth define the mouth and provide the appearance of cheeks. There appears to be no damage or wear that would indicate special use, such as hafting.
Interpretation
While it is difficult to base an argument or analysis on a single artifact that lacks a strong provenience, the Sarasota stone effigy head is not completely in a class of its own. Through some speculation and comparison with other artifacts that depict human imagery, we can begin to understand the broad cultural context of the stone effigy head and thereby elicit some meaning or understanding of its nature. In looking at Hopewellian-related cultures as well as later Mississippian-related and other cultures in Florida, there is strong evidence of the use of human figurines and the human form as a motif (Wheeler 2000). Figurines made of solid wood and fired clay have been found in Florida, as well as small human head adornos (Luer 1986) and numerous effigy vessels (Wheeler 1996).
Examples from Florida that are similar to the Sarasota


stone effigy head include artifacts from Hontoon Island in Volusia Comity and from the Blueberry Site in Highlands County (Figure 3). Both the latter effigy heads were made of solid fired clay (not stone). While human effigy ceramic vessels exist, such as one from the Ware Mound in Okaloosa County (Miked 1992:206; Wheeler 1996), the Hontoon and Blueberry artifacts provide the closest similarity in form to the Sarasota specimen. Other heads are clearly portions of ceramic vessels, while the Hontoon and Blueberry effigy heads have no clear connection to vessels and are less well-understood (Reynolds 2001; Wheeler 1996). The Blueberry effigy head clearly shows facial expression, open eyes, and topknot hairstyle. The Hontoon Island face, although well worn, clearly depicts a nose and mouth. Both have a square hole at their base that possibly was used for attachment to a ceramic vessel or larger figurine (Figure 4).
The Sarasota effigy head, while it is a distinctive portrayal of a human face, has similarities to both the Hontoon Island and Blueberry effigy heads, including a centralized face and a large nose. The Sarasota effigy differs, however, as it is carved in bas-relief. The Sarasota effigy's eyes may be open, similar to those of the Blueberry effigy head, but instead of having orbs depicted, the Sarasota specimen has more stylized, horizontal eyes.
Other stone effigy heads exist outside Florida. One example was recovered from the Town Creek Mound in North Carolina (Coe 1995:230). This artifact is made from carved stone and has been identified as representing the "Long Nose God." It is approximately one-third the size of the Sarasota effigy head and has its interior hollowed out from the back. It has three perforation holes. These holes are believed to have allowed the effigy to be used as a clasp or ornament (Coe 1995). But while there appears to be some similarity between the Sarasota and Town Creek artifacts at first, a closer inspection shows the Town Creek effigy to be more stylized, whereas the Sarasota effigy is more detailed with clear eyes, flared nostrils, and defined cheeks, set off from the mouth. Even fine details have been added to give the lips some definition in the Sarasota effigy head.
But to what purpose were these heads created? As stated above, one purpose for the Hontoon and Blueberry artifacts might have been as an attachment to a larger ceramic figurine. Wheeler (2000) indicates that the hole on the bottom of the Hontoon head may suggest it was part of a larger solid ceramic figurine built upon a stick framework. Another hypothesis is for the use of a peg in the central hole to create a handle (Reynolds 2001:52). If either is the case, then the function of the Sarasota stone effigy head is difficult to discern since it is clearly not part of a larger item and only general comparison can be made between the three. If we assume that the Sarasota effigy head is a stand-alone item, it is possible that it can be interpreted simply as a depiction of human form. In which case, Wheeler (1996,2000) suggests that the human form may represent deities, ancestors, or leaders within Hopewellian and Weeden Island cultures.
But if we interpret the head as something meant to be carried and displayed on the body or in the hand, then the
possibility arises that the head may represent the trophy head concept and may be part of the SECC. Among later Mississippian-influenced groups, such as the Safety Harbor peoples, there is an increased use of warrior symbolism such as hand imagery on ceramic vessels (Luer 1993, 2002). In addition, at major SECC centers, dancing hawk impersonators are often depicted (Wheeler 1996), such as those from the Etowah and Lake Jackson sites. These dancing hawk figures hold a baton and a human head. If this is a real human head, then a stone or ceramic effigy head may represent a real human head and thereby may be symbolism with ties to the SECC.
Evidence suggesting the taking of human heads does exist in the central Florida Gulf Coast region. Mitchem (1989) noted at the Tatham Mound that Burial #105 contained three additional crania. Also with this burial was a copper plume and copper ear spool. Mitchem (1989:480) noted that such items are sometimes included in high status Mississippian burials and may be associated with Mississippian warfare and cosmology. In the later post-contact period, there are direct accounts of southern Florida natives taking trophy heads and using them during ceremonies. Harm (2003:48) notes that it was a "custom among the Calusa to dance with the heads of enemies or rivals whom they captured or killed." Therefore, it can be speculated that the Sarasota stone effigy head may represent an actual trophy head associated with Mississippian warfare and cosmology.
Discussion
The Sarasota stone effigy head is an example of the artistic abilities of Native Americans. It suggests that local cultures around Sarasota Bay had achieved a level of cultural complexity that allowed the creation or use of such art. But what does this art mean? In this article, I have attempted to put forward ideas about its possible meaning, such as representing an ancestor or trophy head. We may never know the exact purpose of this particular artifact, but as long as we explore possibilities, we may be able to elicit meaning behind the use of the human form by Florida Indians.
Conclusions
The creation of the Sarasota stone effigy head is believed to be associated with the Manasota, Weeden Island, or Safety Harbor people. It has been the perspective of this article that the artifact is part of the Florida Indian archaeological record, although there is the possibility that its deposition was more recent. Further testing of the stone is required to source it, but it appears to be some form of metamorphic rock. Once the source is identified, we should be able to assess the possibility of the carving coming from another region and its implication of exchange or its being locally made.
By comparing the stone effigy with prehistoric Native American art recovered in Florida and outside the state, we can see similarities of artistic expression between it and other artifacts. It is my belief that because the Sarasota stone effigy


head was found in part of Sarasota that was occupied by Weeden Island and pre-contact Safety Harbor Indians, and because the effigy has some stylistic similarities with known Weeden Island Period artifacts, it may date to the late Weeden Island Period, ca. A.D. 700-1000. Furthermore, the Sarasota stone effigy head shows no sign of hafting and might have been used as an idol for purposes of ancestor or deity worship, as suggested by Wheeler (2000) for ceramic effigy heads from the Hontoon Island and Blueberry sites. The complexity of the use of the human form in American Indian art has yet to be fully understood, but it is clear that form and function have a grounding in more than regional contexts and that if we, as Florida archaeologists, are going to look for answers, we must continually seek a better understanding of the Southeast region and not Florida alone.
Acknowledgments
Although Margaret Dill is no longer with us, a first thanks goes out to her for finding the effigy and seeing it donated to the Sarasota County History Center. I would like to thank George Luer and Ryan Wheeler for all their help and encouragement throughout the research process. I want to thank Skye Hughes for her artistic and editorial help. Thanks also go to Anne Reynolds and Scott Mitchell for use of their photographs and art work, and to Marion Almy, who first met Mrs. Dill and helped her understand the significance of her find. Finally, I would like to thank Robert Austin and geologist Peter Harries for taking the time to look at the stone's composition.
References Cited
Almy, Marion M.
1976 A Survey and Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in Sarasota County, Florida. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Coe, Joffre L.
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Fales, John, and Doris Davis
1961 Archaeological and Historical Survey of Sarasota County, Florida. Ms. on file at the Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota.
Gilliland, Marion S.
1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Hann, John H.
2003 Indians of Central andSouthFlorida, 1513-1763. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Janus Research
1995 Limited Archaeological Excavations at the Pinard Midden (8S099), Sarasota County, Florida. Report dated April. Conducted for Tangerine Development Company, Sarasota, Florida, by Janus Research, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Lazarus, Yulee W.
1989 Fort Walton Wonders: Four Odd Artifacts Found in the
Florida Panhandle. The Florida Anthropologist 42:158-162.
Luer, George M.
1986 Ceramic Faces and a Pipe Fragment from South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 39:281-286.
1993 A Safety Harbor Incised Bottle with Effigy Bird Feet and Human Hands from a Possible Headman Burial, Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46(4): 180-188.
2002 Ceramics Bottles, Globular Vessels, and Safety Harbor Culture. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor, Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 95-110. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 15, Tallahassee.
Mikell, Greg A.
1992 80K5: A Coastal Weeden Island Village in Northwest Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45(3): 195-211.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Monroe, Elizabeth, Sharon Wells, and Marion Almy 1977 Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Survey of Sarasota, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series, Number 51. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee.
Reynolds, Anne
2001 A Ceramic effigy Head from Highlands County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 54( 1 ):50-54.
Wainwright, R. D.
1916 Two Month's Research in the Sand and Shell Mounds of Florida. The Archaeological Bulletin 7:139-144. Hico, Texas.
Wheeler, Ryan J.
1996 Ancient Art of the Florida Peninsula: 500 B.C^ to A.D. 1763. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
2000 2000 Years of Human Portraiture in Florida: Images in Clay. Unpublished ms. on file with author.
Whitaker, John C.
1994 Flint/mapping. University of Texas Press, Austin.


THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
FUND
An Endowment to
Support production of The Florida Anthropologist, the scholarly journal published quarterly by The Florida Anthropological Society since 1948.
Donations are now being accepted from individuals, corporations, and foundations.
Inquiries and gifts may be directed to:
The Editor The Florida Anthropologist P.O. Box 6356 Tallahassee, FL 32314
The Florida Anthropological Society is a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are tax-deductible as provided by section 170 of the code.


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