|Table of Contents|
Table of Contents
From the editor
The archaeology and history of Fort Center during the second and third seminole wars
New ams radiocarbon dates on the orange period in coastal Volusia County
Yon mound and village: A Fort Walton center in the middle Apalachicola River valley of northwest Florida
About the authors
Back Cover 1
Back Cover 2
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST
Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
VOLUME 67, NUMBER 1 MARCH 2014
COP N OR4T
p S6TRUCIURE 2
FORT CENTER EARTHWORKS asg o
0 SAND WOUIND p POND low-TI1E
___ MIDDEN H AMMQCX
L ~ ~ ~ m M*. ~ fn0
PERCU OM F
E3C k E.d.UI
78 t* .-. .
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635. Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United States of America. Membership may be initiated at any time during the year, and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall be payable on the anniversary of the initial dues payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributed by the Society during the 12 months of their membership year. Annual dues are as follows: student $15, individual $30, family $35, institutional $30, sustaining $100 or more, patron $1000 or more, and benefactor $2500. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $25 U.S. to cover added postage and handling costs for individual, family, or institutional membership categories. Copies of the journal will only be sent to members with current paid dues. Please contact the Editors for information on recent back issues.
Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editors to facilitate acknowledgment in subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editors. Publications for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (on-line at www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editors with specific questions. Submit four (4) copies for use in peer review. Only one set of original graphics need be submitted. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All manuscripts must be submitted in final form on CD in Microsoft format. Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue. The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist. Such mail is returned to the Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year.
OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY
President: Patty Flynn, P.O. Box 11052, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 33339 (firstname.lastname@example.org) First Vice President: Jeffrey T. Moates, FPAN West Central Regional Center, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., NEC 16, Tampa FL 33620
Second Vice President: Theresa Schober, 1902 Florrie Court, N. Fort Myers, 33917 (email@example.com) Corresponding Secretary: Jon Simon Suarez, 1710 NW 7th St, #304, Gainesville, FL 32609 (firstname.lastname@example.org) Membership Secretary: Pat Balanzategui, P 0 Box 1434, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434 (email@example.com) Treasurer and Registered Agent: Joanne Talley, P.O.Box 788, Hobe Sound, FL 33475 (firstname.lastname@example.org) Directors at Large: Chris Hardy, '1668 Nantucket Ct., Palm Harbor 34683 (email@example.com); Sherry Svekis, 406 Woodland
Dr., Sarasota, FL 34234 (firstname.lastname@example.org); Tommy Abood, 3857 Indian Trail, Suite 403, Destin, FL 32541 (lost.horizon@
earthlink.net); and Jason Wenzel, Gulf Coast State College, Social Sciences, 5230 W. US Highway 98, Panama City,
FL 32401 (email@example.com.)
Immediate Past President: Robert J. Austin, P. 0. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33657-2818 (firstname.lastname@example.org) Newsletter Editor: David Burns, 15128 Springview St., Tampa, FL 33624 (email@example.com)
JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF
Co-Editors: Keith H. Ashley Department of Anthropology, Building 5 1, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659 (firstname.lastname@example.org). Vicki L. Rolland, Department of Anthropology, Building 51, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659 (email@example.com)
Book Review Editor: Jeffrey T. Moates, FPAN West Central Regional Center, 4202 E. Fowler Ave NEC 116, Tampa FL 33620
Editorial Assistant: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239-5019 (firstname.lastname@example.org) Technical Assistant: Michael Boyles, Center for Instruction and Research, UNF, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659 Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304 Bulk Mail: TCB Marketing, 2818 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301
EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD
Albert C. Goodyear, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (email@example.com)
Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (firstname.lastname@example.org) Nancy Marie White, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8 100 (email@example.com)
Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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
Volume 67 Number 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FROM THE EDITOR 1
THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF FORT CENTER DURING THE SECOND AND THIRD SEMINOLE WARS 5
AMANDA D. ROBERTS THOMPSON NEW AMS RADIOCARBON DATES ON THE ORANGE PERIOD IN COASTAL VOLUSIA COUNTY 23
DOROTHY L. MOORE AND ROGER T. GRANGE, JR. YON MOUND AND VILLAGE: A FORT WALTON CENTER IN THE MIDDLEAPALACHICOLA RIVER VALLEY 37
OF NORTHWEST FLORIDA JEFFREY P. Du VERNAY
IN MEMORIUM 63
ABOUT THE AUTHORS 69
Cover Figures represented in the articles: Roberts Thompson, Moore and Grange, and Du Vemay
Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
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 being accepted from individuals, corporations, and foundations.
Inquiries and gifts can be directed to:
Jeffrey P. Du Vernay, Co-Editor The Florida Anthropologist School of Geosciences University of South Florida Tampa, FL 33620
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.
FROM THE EDITORS
This issue represents both a first and a last. It is the first explores its origins, and contextualizes Yon within its broader issue of 2014 and the last issue for us as editors of The Florida regional (Apalachicola) and extraregional (Mississippian Anthropologist (more on that later). This issue hits upon three world) spheres of interaction. This discussion is bracketed different time periods in three different parts of the state: Late by recognition of earlier Woodland and post-contact Lamar Archaic (northeastern Florida), Fort Walton Mississippian occupations at Yon. This paper answers the call of researchers (panhandle Florida), and Seminole (southern Florida). We demanding quality documentation on the occupational history are saddened to announce the passing of Bette Northrop, of a Fort Walton mound site. a co-founder of the Valley Archaeological and Historical With this issue, we say good bye as editors of The Florida
Conservancy. Please read Anne Reynolds tribute to Bette. Anthropologist. We wish to thank the FAS Board and all its Finally, don't forget that the 2014 Annual FAS Meetings will members for their help and support during our tenure. We be in Punta Gorda from May 9-11. Hope to see you there! also appreciate the many peer reviewers who took time out of
The first article by Amanda Roberts Thompson concerns their busy schedules to critique and comment on the many fine one of Florida's premier archaeological sites: Fort Center. manuscripts submitted over the past three years. Ending our Instead of focusing on the site's remarkable Woodland- last issue with an article by Jeff Du Vemay is a nice segues into period component, Roberts Thompson turns her attention to introducing the new co-editors of The Florida Anthropologist, the site's namesake, a Second and Third Seminole War fort. because Jeff forms half of this duo. We would now like to This topic has been of modest interest to past excavators who introduce the new co-editors, Jeffrey Du Vernay and Julie have focused mostly on the site's prehistoric earthwork and Rogers Saccente. canal constructions. Roberts Thompson cobbles together bits Jeff holds a Ph.D. in Applied Anthropology from the of information on Fort Center's historic component from past University of South Florida (USF) and a Master's degree in investigations, including coring, limited testing, and remote Anthropology from Florida State University. He is presently sensing in 2010, to bolster previous claims that the fort was a full-time Faculty Research Associate and archaeologist at positioned near the northeastern edge of the Great Circle. the Alliance for Integrated Spatial Technologies-a research While the archaeological record of the actual fort and related center housed in USF's School of Geosciences that specializes occupation is still not strongly defined, this article provides a in 3D scanning technology applications for archaeological nice glimpse into the site's research potential. research and cultural heritage preservation. Jeff's primary
The second article by Dorothy Moore and Roger Grange, research area is in the archaeology of the Southeastern United Jr. examines the Late Archaic Orange component at two sites States, especially Florida. Julie received her MA in Applied in Volusia County. As was the case with the previous article, Anthropology from the University of South Florida in 2013 this research partly grew out of a project initially centered on and her BA in Anthropology from the Florida State University a different time period; in this instance, the eighteenth century in 1999. She has worked in CRM for the last 15 years in both Turnbull Colonist's House site. Instead of ignoring the Orange the public and private sectors. Her research interests include component, the authors (themselves the excavators) decided colonial Spanish and Southeastern archaeology with a focus to examine and report on the Late Archaic remains form the on Florida archaeology. She currently is president and owner Turnbull House as well as the nearby Cotten site. A significant of Next Generation Cultural Services, Inc. contribution of their work is the reporting of AMS dates from For those of you wishing to submit manuscripts in each site. In the end, the authors agree with Kenneth Sassaman the future you can email them to Jeff and Julie at editors. and others who openly question the validity of Ripley Bullen's email@example.com. Hard copies of manuscripts Orange-period chronology based on stylistic changes in fiber no longer need to be snail mailed, everything can now be tempered pottery. submitted digitally via email. With that said, it is our honor to
The final contribution is by Jeffrey Du Vemay, Drawing turn over the editor reigns to Julie and Jeff and wish them luck. on his dissertation research Du Vernay, tackles the Yon site, We hope you enjoy this issue. a major Fort Walton mound and village located along the
Apalachicola River in northwestern Florida. His research Keith Ashley provides a much needed overview of the site, bringing together Vicki L. Rolland the results of excavations over the past century. Moving
beyond a mere synthesis, Du Vemay anchors the site's Fort
Walton occupations solidly to Middle Mississippian times,
VOL. 67(l) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2014
4 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL 67(l)
THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF FORT CENTER DURING THE SECOND AND THIRD SEMINOLE WARS
Amanda D. Roberts Thompson
Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30606 E-mail: arobthom~duga.edu
The Fort Center site (8GL 13) is located in Glades County, detail site background and previous research and then present Florida adjacent to Fisheating Creek, a tributary of Lake the results of the 2010 investigations as they relate to the Okeechobee (Figure 1). The site is named after a Second and Seminole War period occupation of the site. Finally, I discuss Third Seminole War fort that was once located in the vicinity, the need for more research on the historic component of Fort The fort was named after Lieutenant J. P. Center, an officer Center. It is important to note that the 2010 fieldwork was killed in the Battle of Lake Okeechobee during the Second not focused on the historic component of the site, but rather Seminole War (1835-1842). Archaeological ly, Fort Center is research on this aspect of the site came after the fieldwork was most famous for its mortuary pond and intricate wooden effigy finished. As a result, many questions will remain unanswered carvings that Sears (1982) recovered during his excavations until more research can be done. In the meantime, this article at the site. The site also is home to more than 24 Native provides a preliminary look at the less well-known historic American earthworks that were occupied from 800 B.C. up component of the famous Fort Center site. to Spanish contact when the earthworks were abandoned in
the early 1700s (Sears 1982; Thompson and Pluckhahn 2012). Fort Center and Florida's Seminole Wars
Less well known, however, is the part this site played during
Florida's Seminole wars. The historic fort along Fisheating First Seminole War Creek was an important American military way station
that supplied boats and military personnel navigating the Throughout much of the time from 1817-1858 the United waterways surrounding Lake Okeechobee. Understanding States engaged in a series of wars with the Seminole Indians
both the history and archaeology of such a place and its role of Florida. These wars were the most expensive Indian wars within the broader landscape of conflict can provide insight fought in American history (Knetsch 2003:7; Missall and into this era of American history. Missall 2004:xiv; Weisman 1999:44). Already a burgeoning
Two historic drawings provide information on the location multiethnic and political landscape under the second Spanish and construction of the fort (Webb 1909:419). Lt. Alexander occupation of Florida (1784-182 1), the area had become home Webb (1909:419) during his time at Fort Center in 1855, to runaway slaves from the United States. Often these slaves drew the eastern side of historic Fort Center (Figure 2). The sought refuge with groups of Seminole Indians leading to a second drawing shows Fort Center as a bastioned fort along mutual reliance between the Seminole and runaway slaves Fisheating Creek and adjacent to a Native American mound (Knetsch 2003:12). Attempts by slave owners to retrieve them (Figure 3). The drawing also shows two historic roads, one from their Seminole homes were met with resistance, inciting of which is labeled Fort Deynaud Road. John Goggin (195 1), anger on the part of slave owners outside of Florida (Knetsch William H. Sears (1982), and Robert Carr (1975) place the 2003:8; Tebeau 1971:115). historic Fort Center along Fisheating Creek, specifically near The First Seminole War lasted only one year (1817-1818); the northeastern edge of the Great Circle-a large prehistoric however, it did nothing to mediate the strains between white ditch and berm construction. Historic documentation as well settlers and slaves and Seminole, but rather fueled them (Belko as recent remote sensing and excavation conducted at the site 2011:54-56; Heidler and Heidler 1996:232; Tebeau 1971:15 1; in 2010 (Thompson et. al 2012), appear to corroborate the Weisman 1999:48). In 182 1, Spain ceded Florida to the United location of the fort. The primary purpose of this paper is to States and Andrew Jackson became the new governor of present new information regarding the probable location of Florida (Heidler and Heidler 1996:23 1; Tebeau 1971:117). At the historic-period Fort Center and to provide a preliminary this point, conflicts again began to increase. Indian removal analysis of it within the wider context of the Second and Third was a primary goal of the United States government, but the Seminole wars. In what follows, I present the historical context first war with the Seminole had little success with this policy. for Fort Center and its role during the Seminole wars. Next, I According to Elder (2004:59-60), Jackson thought "allowing
VOL.67(1) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2014
6 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
110 55 0 110 Kilometers N
Figure 1. The location of Fort Center in Florida.
the Indians to remain scattered in Florida would be a mistake." Seminole. Forts were placed in strategic locations throughout Several treaties were enacted that would remove Indians from Florida, and patrols were instituted on Florida's waterways Florida. The removal date was set for 1836; however, the (Knetsch 2003:91-104; Knetsch 2011:142-145; Mahon Second Seminole War began before this process was begun 1985:190-219; Missall and Missall 2004:124-125). (Heidler and Heidler 1996:232; Knetsch 2003:7; Tebeau In southern Florida, several forts were constructed along
1971:151,154, 156; Weisman 1999:46). important tributaries around Lake Okeechobee. Fisheating
Creek, already occupied by the Seminole community, soon
Second Seminole War became an important waterway to the American military,
supplying forts on the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee
The Second Seminole War (1835-1842) took place in (Knetsch 1996:19-26; Knetsch 2011:144). Lieutenant eastern and central Florida and brought to national fame the John Rodger's official report of a canoe expedition in 1842 names of Seminole chiefs such as Osceola, Jumper, Wildcat, describes the nature of Fisheating Creek as "very tortuous and Sam Jones, and Micanopy (Tebeau 1971:125; Weisman sometimes swells into a river, and then dwindles into a brook"
1999:50). In December of 1835, Seminole forces attacked but also describes the creek as being "covered with game, and Major Francis L. Dade's men who were on their way to help its waters filled with fish" (Preble 1883:31-32). Lt. Joseph C. reinforce Fort King (near present-day Ocala). The Seminole Ives (1856), a topographical engineer, gives some insight as overwhelmed the American troops, killing 105 and leaving to why the American military chose the Fort Center site as only three of Dade's men alive (Knetsch 2003:72; Missall and a good location for a military garrison, although its location Missall 2004:95-96). The American government responded during the rainy season would have provided some difficulty. by sending troops to pursue the Seminole. These were mostly Ives (1856:37) pronounced the Fort Center area as "much futile as the Seminole were adept at evading large groups higher and better suited for a post than any other point near the of troops. The Seminole, throughout this time employed western shore of Lake Okeechobee, but is a sickly position and a wartime strategy that ran counter to military operations difficult to approach during the wet season." normally encountered by American forces (Knetsch 2003:70- Colonel Persifor F. Smith, upon establishing Fort Center, 141; Missall and Missall 2004:114; Watson 2011:155). The states "I erected on this spot, which is about 35 miles S. by E. American government realized that they would have to change from Fort Deynaud a small work in which I placed 20 days their tactics if they wanted to gain any ground. The military rations & one company of La. Volunteers, naming the work, decided to expand forces in Florida to include the navy as until the General's pleasure is known, after one of the officers well as volunteers and militia in an effort to wear down the who fell with Major Dade" (Knetsch 1996:19-26). Establishing
ROBERTS THOMPSON Fort Center during the Second and Third Seminole Wars 7
03 SELECTIVE TEST B
99- STRUCURE 5 03
STRUCTURE 3 OVEN ~ ~
965 990 995 1000
Figure 2. Drawing of historic Fort Center and Native American earthwork by Alexander Webb (1909:419).
these fortifications was part of General Jesup's larger plan John Rodger and lasted 60 days. Eighty-seven people, involving four columns of troops to trap the Seminole in the including officers, sailors, marines, an Indian guide, his wife, Everglades (Elder 2004:154). Despite some small victories and one child, made the journey (Mahon 1985:3 19). Preble's with Jesup's plan, including Zachary Taylor's "success" with diary gives a glimpse into life at Fort Center. Arriving to the the Battle of Lake Okeechobee, the Seminole continued to fort in March, the members of the expedition were ordered evade the American military (Elder 2004:154-155; Knetsch to "fill up gaps and put the fort (a cabbage tree stockade) in a 2003:102; Missall and Missall 2004:142; Weisman 1999:55). state of defen[s]e. Cut trees and stuck them up like the others" In 1837, Jesup captured several Seminole chiefs. Among them (Preble 1883:39). Preble also mentioned that the garrison was was Osceola, who died in confinement the following year at well and had plenty to eat during his visit. The expedition used Fort Sumter (Knesch 2003:105; Mahon 1985:216; Mahon and Fort Center as a point of reference, leaving and returning to Weisman 1996:193; Tebeau 1971:125; Weisman 1999:55). the fort several times during March of 1843. From Preble's
Several other individuals including Brevet Brigadier diary, it appears that the fort, at this point during the Second General Zachary Taylor, Walker Keith Armistead, and Colonel Seminole War, had around 20 men to guard the provisions left William Jenkins Worth, took command over the years of 1838- for the expedition (Preble 1883:39-46; Buker 1997:129). Also 1841 and attempted to remove the Seminole. Colonel William included in the publication of Preble's diary is Lieutenant John Jenkins Worth, in 184 1, put into action a summer campaign to Rodgers' official report of the expedition. Rodgers details deprive the Seminole of summer plantings and to destroy any how the expedition group found "the Indian towns deserted, goods found (Elder 2004:158-164; Knetsch 2003:130; Missall camps abandoned, and fields uncultivated, but only once did and Missall 2004:192-193; Weisman 1999:56-57). Worth we get near the Indians" (Preble 1883:32). Ending in April of
again instituted patrolling and exploring Florida's waterways 1843, Rodgers sums up the mission: "... we returned to Key (Knetsch 2003:130-131; Missall and Missall 2004:197; Biscayne, having been living in our canoes fifty-eight days,
Sunderman 1950:25-33). with less rest, fewer luxuries, and harder work than fall to
The diary of George Henry Preble provides important the lot of that estimable class of citizens who dig our canals" insights into the nature of the Fort Center region during the (Preble 1883:32). Second Seminole War. He recounts his southern Florida canoe Expeditions, such as the one that went through Fort expedition that included traveling Fisheating Creek during Center, were conducted to explore the waterways and flush 1842. The expedition was commanded by Navy Lieutenant out any Seminole strongholds and to serve as a psychological
8 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
Figure~ ~ ~ ~ 3.Hsoi rwn.fFr.etr ot rsneo otDyadRa n Ntv mrcniiu oreyo
the Seioe HO
deontato t teSeiol ha tee a n lae ht h wrwa "ipl o ae if o ierbe orte einl
they~~ ~ ~ colie(ntc 031 ) hs taeispoe htte ol eidcdt urne n esipdws.
effectiveI anytebgnigf14_atogsal al n15, uvy noSmnleln obndwt
as 136)grops f Sminoe bganto urrnde, an wee a inreae introps nd iliaryscouingangredSemnol deprte wetwhie sme rops etrate ito he verlaes eadrs.Seera diferntdetchmnts ld b L.. Hnr
and~~~~~__ ara ofBgCpesSap hog nareetwt enoGog atuf n hmsMDryVnet
Woth te an i te ouhen orio o te tae ast b eplre te egonofCaooahtceeRier Fshatn
a teporry eseratin fr te Seinoe wth he brdes Ceek andtheLak Okechoee reato ind outs aros
patrolled~. by~ Amria forces If th eioe eet tac h vrlae omltayisaltin ntewetros
fire 3.Fsoric dhermawigootCntpouainwer Nte prsene of Fortenu oa aprndl NtiseAeia mound. hecouaprtesyco
dnoemnstrationd oe t Semnoe Ateed wcuasiono Ace tha82t er, as "siplre tohae life son mierble friheSinole tecohie(Knetsch 2003:13 1). Thson n esaiega traegescprove taha d hey wol beicd trourndather andte shippedet."n astee 186hgops Seminoldwie beantorsu edradwr an inease inheroopslancd iar scoutin aered Seminole
depotedwes, wile omegrops etretedint th Eveglaes eadr. Several ifrencite achmenos ed e byrLs.wHny anid aeSofBCpessol Swamp Throug anaremnhwtensn Gre Harcufe ad theioas Mcttlrhdy Vinet
Worth,~~~~~~~~~~~ thmadiih othr oto fte tt a ob xltrd theregnc tof Casretoosate RiEr, Fisheat).In ah temprd reemaione for the8Seminoleith thferder Crek byJnand the 15,lel Hakeeoe reawt fecind iroutacos patolle by0Amerian fores f th oe Semtioed wefre toatac the Everiladlchues mlty isalationesinte wesFotentoas anty white-tterthe wertobelbrutiotial (Cmovinto of Fselria. othey diesvrda in gOecoenea Ths ro was 1964:49e waseth 2003:142 Moaon and Wmeisan 1996:201;t diffiul to Maneuverliand HactocodingtoEc H2rtsuff not even Missgade and Mig 2004:200 Seau 1971:170; WhAeiman fy iteo uan habitatio (eck 2909029; Knetslcman 203:49 1999:58. Althaog anyle ofete Semitno haween thremved meey 1963:5i6) VintCentexred Fhuitsheoating Crek and otI fromlie Flori, ths remat poationsi weestilleonsaiere ay Centmer as apparentlyote irtaced her hecould aroach proemeia forvhiernsetthot thad minced teir presenhe thedbans oftheee (Eck 2002:8 t 019; Seley 1963:)Fro intonSeminole laind dut thenig Armed2-25 Occuatio Act e aFrtientr he exporenther wshoreed onete sida fiding "o
ROBERTS THOMPSON Fort Center during the Second and Third Seminole Wars 9
retaliatory attacks by Billy Bowlegs on Hartsuff's men and formulated a plan to occupy forts in Florida and move troops were commanded to join others in the search for survivors into Seminole territory. from this attack (Jennings 2001:33, 35-36). The military shifted focus once again to using the
Lt. Alexander Webb detailed the several months in 1855 waterways to flush out the Seminole. Ives (1856:42) states that he spent at Fort Center as one of the units on rotation. "vessels that could command this extensive sheet of water Webb and his men relieved Lt. Molinard and Company I in would interfere with these movements of the Indians, and March of 1855. His opinion of Fort Center is as follows: "Fort considerably narrow their field, of operations." The previous Center proved to be, both in location and its surroundings, wars had taught the Seminole that eluding the military was an more disagreeable, unhealthy and devoid of interest than I had effective strategy, and the Big Cypress Swamp and hammocks expected" (Webb 1909:4 18). Upon arriving, Webb proceeded provided the Seminole with such refuges. However, the to try to make improvements so that there could be better shores and hammocks around Lake Okeechobee and adjacent air flow within the bastioned fort. It appears that Webb had rivers were more difficult for the Seminole to hide in after the wanted to construct entrances with gates to accomplish this, American military created boat companies to capture Seminole but there were no carpenters to do this work. Excerpts from (Covington 1993:136-137). Webb's journal detail the boredom as well as the heat and In 1857, Secretary of War John Floyd authorized Florida mosquitos that plagued the men during their time at the fort, volunteers to form boat companies made up of sixteen men The journal does reveal that the men, although isolated, had and nine boats to be employed in a form of riverine warfare plenty of fish and game to eat. Webb even talks about picking against the Seminole. During the Second Seminole War, the ripe tomatoes off his vine and that the corn in his garden was task forces patrolled and scouted waterways in Florida. During nine or ten, feet high. Numerous days were spent fishing and the Third Seminole War the operations were more aggressive killing alligator, turtle, and other small animals. In general, in seeking out Seminole holdouts (Buker 1997:136). During it appears that fulfilling military service at Fort Center was this time, Fort Center was still used by the American military, difficult due to its remote location and the threat of Seminole and Jacob Mickler, a boat company commander. Mickler attack (Webb 1909:418). frequently used Fort Center as a way station to find the
Fort Center was again abandoned by the American military various Seminole hideouts in the waterways surrounding Lake in the summer of 1856 due to strong rains (Eck 2002:90; Okeechobee (Jennings 2001:40; Weisman 1999:59). Mickler's Jennings 2001:38, 41; Webb 1909:422-424). On June 2, Webb boat company of six boats and 30 men searched the islands and and his men dismantled Fort Center. The men filled their boats shores of Lake Okeechobee for any sign of Seminole activity with equipment, loaded the boats onto wagons, and made their (Covington 1993:137). Andrew P. Canova became part of way to Fort Deynaud, the primary military center for the Lake Mickler's company in July of 1857 and later wrote a book Okeechobee area (Eck 2002:90; Jennings 200 1:38, 41; Webb about his experiences during the Third Seminole War (Canova 1909:425).Webb relates that the Seminole had "gone to the [E] 1906:7). His account details how the boat company with their verglades, from which they could not be driven by any force Seminole captives in tow arrived at Fort Center to "a company we had in Florida, and from which they could not come to of regulars, who welcomed us heartily, and were much attack Fort Center" (Webb 1909:42 1). surprised at our success" (Canova 1906:21). Fort Center's
Small-scale Seminole attacks had continued after location along Fisheating Creek proved again important for
the Hartsuff conflict, causing panic once again. Oscen supplying militia boats that navigated the waterways of thc Tustenuggee, a major Seminole leader in these initial Lake Okeechobee area (Jennings 2001 :39).The Everglades attacks of the Third Seminole War, lived with his brothers, represented the last chance for the Seminole to maintain their Micco Tustenuggee and Old Tustenuggee in villages along freedom, but by early 1858, the war was slowing down and Fisheating Creek (Covington 1993:130). Oscen Tustenuggee many Seminole including Billy Bowlegs were removed to and Seminole war parties attacked settlements and a group Indian territory. However, a small group defiantly remained in of military officers in January of 1856. The only survivor the Lake Okeechobee and Everglades area (Knetsch 2003:156; of the attack on the military officers identified Oscen as the Weisman 1999: 1). Seminole leader (Covington 1993:13 1). The Seminole and the
American military clashed for the next few months in small- Fort Center on Historic Maps scale skirmishes throughout Hillsborough and Polk counties,
including a conflict along the Peace River that killed Oscen There are several military maps that show the location of Tustenuggee (Covington 1993:133-135). Fort Center in the vicinity of Fisheating Creek; however, these
These skirmishes made the American military realize maps do not really locate the historic fort in relation to the that the militia was short-staffed and prone to problems as prehistoric features and are thus excluded from this paper. The militiamen "took advantage of their position to become idle, to most important information about historic-period Fort Center drink, and to steal from those they were supposed to protect" are historical accounts from Alexander Webb (1909) and John (Covington 1993:135). In addition, Jennings (2001:39-40) C. Ives (1856) that place the fort on the edge of Fisheating states that the army needed new and better ways to supply Creek. Lt. Alexander Webb (1909:4 19) during his time at Fort the military outposts. Brevet Brigadier General William S. Center in 1855 drew the eastern side of historic Fort Center. Harney took command of troops in September of 1856 and Webb's drawing shows a bastioned fort constructed of what
10 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
appears to be logs, but according to Preble's (1883) description by government officials (Weisman 1999:14). These groups of the fort it was most likely built of cabbage palms (Figure retained some Creek traditions but had separated themselves 2). Forts during the Seminole wars were often erected quickly and formed a unique culture (Tebeau 1971:1989). and only used for a short period of time (Carr 2012:186). Fort After the wars were finally over, the Seminole remained Center appears to have been built, occupied, and abandoned distrustful of encroaching white settlers for many years. The more than once before it was finally abandoned at the end of remaining Seminole in Florida lived in several small groups the Third Seminole War. Along with the drawing of the fort, around Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, and Big Cypress Webb included a sketch of a prehistoric mound (see Figure Swamp. A census in 1879 put the number of Seminole at 2). Unfortunately, the writing is faint and difficult to discern. 236, with 90 living at the Chief Tustenuggee's (Tustanugga) However, this mound drawing may actually be Mound B. village near Fort Center, although this number may not be
In 1856, Lt. J.C Ives (1856:37) included a description of accurate (Covington 1993:156; Sturtevant 1956:1-29). In historic Fort Center in his memoir that accompanied his map 1881, Clay MacCauley visited the Seminole and discovered of Florida. His description of historic Fort Center is as follows: that there were 37 extended families living in five different areas including Big Cypress Swamp, Miami River, Fisheating
Creek, and Cow Creek (Covington 1993:156-157; MacCauley
The site of Fort Center is immediately upon the bank 1887:478). In the 1880s, groups of Seminole from Fisheating of the creek, upon an elevated plateau eight feet in Creek joined other groups around Lake Okeechobee. Today's height, and extending more than a hundred yards Florida Seminole are divided into two federally recognized
back to a mound thirty feet high, and about a hundred tribes, the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe, and twenty-five feet in diameter at the base; covered as well as a small number of people who are not associated
with a dense growth of saw palmetto. To the west is a with a particular tribe (Weisman 1999:9 1).
slight depression for a hundred yards, and then higher In general, little written information exists about Seminole ground extending two hundred yards further. groups living or utilizing Fisheating Creek during the Seminole
Wars, although a Seminole presence around Fort Center and
Lake Okeechobee is indicated in various historical accounts.
The topographic features that Ives described correspond Future research in this area should include oral histories to certain prehistoric components of the Fort Center site. The from the nearby Brighton Seminole Indian reservation. ,'mound thirty feet high and about a hundred and twenty-five The Seminole would have inhabited or utilized the fertile feet in diameter" is most likely Mound B while the depression hammocks and prairie along Fisheating Creek for villages, Ives describes is the location of Great Circle ditch. Figure gardens, or temporary camps. Indeed, sour orange trees and 3 shows the approximate location of historic Fort Center in other citrus trees can be seen today around Fort Center, a sign relation to the prehistoric landscape. The historic drawings of past Seminole presence. Seminole often planted citrus trees indicate that the historic Fort Center was located on the near their garden, frequently in the center of hammocks. Other northeastern edge of the Great Circle along Fisheating Creek. common plants included corn, Indian potato, legumes, and several different types of squash (Weisman 1999:107-108).
Seminole along Fisheating Creek Preble's diary indicates the sparse Seminole presence
that the canoe expedition encountered on Fisheating Creek.
The historical trajectory that led to the formation of After arriving at Fort Center in the beginning of March, Preble the Seminole is a complicated topic that stems from the (1883:39) states that the coxswain found evidence of "several merging and divergence of various Native American groups old houses, some pumpkins, and parts of half a dozen saddles, in the Southeast and only briefly discussed here (see Weisman but no sign of recent habitation" on the island. However, Preble 1999:6-29 for more information on this topic). The origins of does not specify what island. A few days later, the expedition the Seminole can be traced to the Muscogulges, commonly stopped at a hammock that was "formerly Ul of Indians... referred to as the Creek; however, the term Creek was applied found it deserted, with no recent signs of habitation." The by the English during the eighteenth century to various next two days the group passed several old encampments. On groups with whom they traded (Knetsch 2003:9-10; Weisman March 16, they camped in what was once an Indian village 1999:6). During the 1700s, Lower Creek Indians from and after leaving at midnight found "old encampments
Georgia and Alabama began moving into Florida (Mahon abundant." The group investigated four mo*re hammocks but and Weisman 1996:187-188). Weisman (1999:14) formally found no recent signs of Seminole habitation. By March 18, places the formation of the Seminole on November 18, 1765 the canoe expedition entered the Kissimmee without finding when Cowkeeper of the Alachua band formally separated any Seminole (Preble 1883:42). himself from the Lower Creek chiefs during a meeting with During the Third Seminole War, Canova (1906:12), part the British governor, but the process most likely began earlier of Jacob Mickler's boat company, details capturing Seminole during the 1740s. It was after this that groups of Indians in women and children on a small creek in the Lake Okeechobee North and Central Florida began to be referred to as Seminole area near Fisheating Creek. These captives would later camp
ROBERTS THOMPSON Fort Center during the Second and Third Seminole Wars 11
at Fort Center before they were escorted to Fort Meyers by mentions the presence of the historic-period Fort Center, the boat captain, Mickler (Covington 1993:139). According stating that the earthworks are named after the fort. He further to Covington (1993:130), there was also a village along suggests that the fort was near the "big mound, Mound B," Fisheating Creek that was home to Oscen Tustenuggee and his but since he found no trace of the fort during his research brothers, leaders during the Third Seminole War, he believed that the fort "was washed away by Fisheating
Creek" (Sears 1982:ix). Although some historic material
Site Background and Previous Research was recovered during Sears' excavations, there has not been
any detailed analysis done on these artifacts. Looking at the
In the 1870s, Charles Kenworthy (1875:307) visited "Old original artifact cards from Sears work it is apparent that there Fort Centre" and describes the size of the nearby mound as is a general scattering of nineteenth and twentieth century being "four hundred feet long, one hundred and fifty wide material throughout the Fort Center site. Sears recorded and about forty high." Writing a few years later, Kenworthy historic material (e.g., metal, nails, musketballs, gunflint, (1883 :633) later adjusted this size to fifty feet high. J. Francis ceramics, beads, knife) from Midden A, Midden B, Mound Le Baron (1884:780) also makes mention of mounds near Fort 3, Mound 13, Mound A, Mound B, and A-B Pond. Future Center. While important, these documents do not provide any research should reanalyze this material as the cards do not details on the historic occupation of the site. In more recent provide much detail. As of now, it is not possible to discern if years, Fort Center has been surveyed and observed by several these artifacts were from the occupation of the military or from archaeologists including John Goggin, Charles Fairbanks, Seminole populations. Robert Carr in his 1975 archaeological John Longyear, William Sears and Robert Carr. William H. survey of the Lake Okeechobee area, sketched Fort Center, Sears (1982) conducted the most extensive work at the site placing the location of the bastioned fort on the northeastern during the 1 960s. The most recent investigations by Thompson edge of the Great Circle, see Figure 4 (Carr 1975 :Figure 6). et al. (2012) took place in 2010. In general, the past research Robert Carr (1975) used two pieces of evidence to do this. has focused on prehistoric rather than the historic components First, he used aerial photographs to identify anomalies that of the site and archaeological information on the historic appeared to be an historic structure. Second, the area was occupation of Fort Center is scarce. ground truthed, uncovering mid-nineteenth-century bottle
John Goggin (195 1:50) surveyed Fort Center in the 1950s glass along the creek bank (Carr, personal communication, andmentions historic FortCenteras being established atthe site. 2012). Robert Carr updated the site information for 8GL23 Old Florida site forms and Goggin's 1951 work on Fisheating after his 1975 survey of Lake Okeechobee. Carr places the Creek give several indications towards the fort's location, fort in the same location as Goggin, about fifty yards south of Goggin states that the sand mound (Mound B) is the same Fisheating Creek and that it was not completely eroded into mound in Ives (1856) account, which I discussed previously, the creek as previously thought by Sears (1982:ix). In 2012, He also importantly states that "centering around the site of old a cultural resource management (CRM) survey documented Fort Center are a number of distinct archaeological remains" the military road that connected Fort Center to other military and that these remains cover "an area less than a mile square" forts in the Lake Okeechobee area was documented (Carr et al. (Goggin 1952:5 1). This implies that the fort's location is near 2012:32). Fort Deynaud Road can be seen in Figure 3. While the majority of prehistoric features. Further Goggin (1952:5 1) the survey was not on the Fort Center site, future research mentions that the "possible" location of historic Fort Center should not neglect the presence of the military road as it could had a concentration of "early 1 91h century chinaware." Other offer important information relevant to events at historic Fort information can be gained from Florida's Master Site File. Center. The site number that Goggin uses for Fort Center (8GL23) is In 2010, Thompson and colleagues (2012) conducted new located adjacent to the northeastern edge of the Great Circle. fieldwork focusing on questions related to the construction of Goggin reports on the site form that he collected in 1952 and circular earthen enclosures and consumption and/or cultivation 1953 the several historic artifacts including three blue feather of maize by Native Americans. The 2010 fieldwork was edged whiteware rims, three plain whiteware body sherds and geared toward answering questions related to the prehistoric one green glass bottle fragment. He notes the location the component of the site, which is why typical archaeological fort as being the on the eastern edge, east of the canal (Great approaches for working on historic sites, specifically military Circle) but that the location was eroded. It should be noted sites, were not employed (i.e., metal detecting). A resistance that individual site numbers were assigned to the various survey was conducted over various areas on the site. In total, components of the Fort Center site; however, currently only 54 grids, generally measuring 20-x-20 mn were conducted over one site number (8GL 13) is used for the site. the Great Circle complex and adjacent areas (Thompson et al.
Charles H. Fairbanks (University of Florida) directed 2012:29). Four units (Units 1-4) (Figure 5) were excavated students at the site in the spring of 1966-1967 and John during the 2010 field season. Unit I was placed on the Longyear (Colgate University) supervised students during the northwestern edge of the Great Circle along Fisheating Creek. winter from 1966-1968. William H. Sears (Florida Atlantic Units 2-4 were placed on the opposite side of the Great Circle University) did extensive excavations at the site with seven along Fisheating Creek. Sixteen core samples (measuring field seasons starting in 1967 (Sears 1982:ix). Sears (1982:ix) 8 cm long and 3.2 cm in diameter) were taken along the
12 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
creek and other off mound areas, with three in the suspected recovered was small and difficult to date (e.g., glass and historic Fort Center area. Column samples for microbotanical metal fragments). Unit I (N81591.98 E83439.95) was a 2-xand macrobotanical analysis were also taken from three of 2 m test unit located on the northwestern edge of the Great the units (see Thompson et a]. 2013 and Morris 2012 for a Circle directly in the ditch. This unit was highly disturbed, and discussion of this analysis). Historic artifacts were recovered while historic artifacts were recovered from Unit 1, they were during excavations and linear anomalies that appear to outline primarily modem in nature (e.g., paper) and are thus excluded a historic structure were found during the resistance survey. In from this interpretation. the section below, I will discuss only the direct evidence from Unit 2 (N81602.44 E83656.84) was a I-x-2 m test unit the 20 10 fieldwork for the historic period of Fort Center. placed on the outside berm of the Great Circle along its eastern edge (Figure 5). Historic artifacts, mostly modem in nature, Discussion of 2010 Fieldwork were recovered in this unit. There was one piece of olive green
bottle glass with patina found in Level 2 (20-30cm below Of the sixteen cores excavated during the 2010 field datum), and it most likely dates to the nineteenth century season, three (cores 7, 8, and 9) were placed near the suspected (Appendix 1). location of the historic Fort Center. The only materials Unit 3 (N81567.38 E83684.91) was a I-x-2 In test unit
recovered within these contexts were botanical and faunal placed in the northeastern section of the Great Circle ditch remains. As of now, these materials remain unidentified, and (Figure 5). Historic artifacts were recovered from Levels 1-4 at this point it cannot be determined if these date to the historic (0-40 cm below datum), and primarily included glass fragments period. Despite the lack of any historic-period artifacts within (Appendix 2). Metal fragments and a marble (probably these cores, a future, systematic coring program over a broader modem) were also recovered. A 0.62 caliber musketball was area could delineate the exact distributions of cultural deposits also recovered. An 1853 United States coin (dating to the time and boundaries associated with the historic occupation of Fort of the Third Seminole War or later) was found on the surface, Center. directly adjacent to this unit.
The excavations (specifically Unit 4) at Fort Center in 20 10 Unit 4 (N81588.46 E83631.19) was a I-x-2 In test unit did uncover what appears to be a short-term, discontinuous placed on the inside berm of the northeastern edge of the historic occupation, although the majority of historic artifacts Great Circle (Figure 5). Unit 4 produced the highest density
F.,t C...' 0
0 a goo F
FORT CENTER EARTHWORKS
0 SAND MOUND P POND
am MIDDEN HAMMOCK
0, 300, 1000 0 too
I L I .
Figure 4. Sketch map of Fort Center by Carr (1975:Figure 6) showing historic Fort
Center on the northeastern edge of the Great Circle.
ROBERTS THOMPSON Fort Center during the Second and Third Seminole Wars 13
of historic artifacts among the units excavated (Appendix 2010 fieldwork date to the historic occupation of Fort Center. 3). Numerous glass and metal fragments, musketballs and Instead of prehistoric maize agriculture, Thompson et al. lead shot, worked mortar fragments, unidentified historic (2013:11) suggest the Seminole or other non-Native groups, ceramic, and a kaolin pipe fragment were found in levels 1-4 such as the American military in the nineteenth century, (0-50 cm below datum). It is important to remember that the grew maize near the Great Circle. Historic documentation placement of these units was done to answer specific questions provides a few direct lines of evidence for corn being grown related to the construction of circular earthen enclosures and during the historic period at Fort Center and along Fisheating consumption! and or cultivation of maize by Native Americans Creek. As mentioned previously, Alexander Webb (1909:418) (see Thompson et al. 2012). While the excavations did indeed during his time at Fort Center had a garden and recorded in help to answer those questions, they also revealed a nineteenth his diary that the height of his corn was nine or ten feet high. and early twentieth century occupation. While the supplies for the military occupants of Fort Center
Columns samples (25-x-25 cm) were taken from Units would have been brought with them, the men also utilized the 2-4 and analyzed for pollen, phytolith, and macrobotanical surrounding land and creek to provide supplemental food such remains. In the microbotanical analysis, three samples from as corn. Preble (1883:44), on his canoe expedition, also wrote Unit 3 yielded deposits dating to ca. A.D. 1660 to 1960. In of finding Seminole cornfields during their investigations in the macrobotanical. analysis, several identifiable carbonized the nearby hammocks. Until more excavation is done at Fort maize specimens (one cupule and two kernels) were recovered Center and along Fisheating Creek, it will remain unclear from Unit 4. AMS dates also place these within the historic whether the maize found during the 20 10 field season was the period (Thompson et al. 2013: 10). It appears that the maize result of activity at the historic Fort Center or the Seminole recovered during both Sears's investigations and the recent occupation of Fisheating Creek.
BOW.. 20 meters
Figue 5Mapshoinglocaionof nit 12 nerhs ori otnter an1eitnesrvyoe1itrc otCnen
its reationhip t FishatingCreek Adaped frm Thopson t l (212:i1) .)
14 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
Figure 6. Drawing of chicken structure by Alexander Webb (Webb 1909:397).
The resistance survey and excavation results from the not a goal of the resistance survey, it was a nice surprise to see 2010 fieldwork indicate a nineteenth and twentieth century linear anomalies roughly outline what appear to be the bastion presence at the Fort Center site, but because no excavations of the historic Fort Center, as well as possibly three of its walls were specifically placed in relation to the fort, basic questions (Figure 5) (Thompson et al. 2012:33-37) remain about the size, structure, and fortification of the fort.
For example, there may have been additional defensive Conclusion
military fortifications within or near Fort Center. Webb
(1909:420) in April of 1856 described building a portion Some of the 2010 excavations at Fort Center did have
of a banquette (elevated platform) out of palmetto logs. We historic material in them; however, the amount and density do know a few things. First, both historic drawings of Fort was minimal indicating that the area was not heavily Center show a bastioned fort (Figure 2 and 3), and one of the utilized throughout the Second and Third Seminole wars, drawings shows a military road (Fort Deynaud Road). Second, nor was it intensively occupied by dense populations. The Preble (1883:39) mentions that the fort was a "cabbage tree historic documents support the archaeological evidence. The stockade" and Webb's drawing (Figure 2) also shows what documents indicate that there were continual influxes of small may be logs used for the fort. His drawing also shows three military units that inhabited the fort for short amounts of time. structures within the fort. Two of the structures appear to be Moreover, Seminole occupation of the site before and after tents, while the other structure looks to have a thatched roof the Second and Third Seminole Wars may also have been that may be the same chicken seen in Figure 6, also drawn by short-term, although the degree to which this occurred is Webb around the same time as his drawing of Fort Center. At unknown. The small archaeological footprint is common for this point, there is still much to learn about the construction a site such as this. Carr (2012:181) corroborates the limited of the fort and the various types of structures that may have archaeological presence during this time period by stating that been built within the fort or surrounding areas, and beyond the "two decades of Seminole Wars represent a barely 2-inch that, the extent to which the American military modified the stratum of sediment and artifacts in Florida sites." Further, surrounding landscape. Carr (2012:182) notes that interior military sites are difficult
Goggin's, Carr's, and Sears' interpretation of the location to identify due to the few supplies carried by American troops. of historic Fort Center near the northeastern edge of the Great Another possibility for the small presence of historic materials Circle appears to be correct and are supported by historic maps, from the 2010 investigations could be that the excavations drawings, and documentation as well as the 2010 resistance were not placed in the fort. Perhaps future excavations can survey results. It was in the resistance survey in the area of the be placed near and/or intersecting the suspected fort walls or northeastern portion of the Great Circle that linear anomalies bastion so that the historic occupation of the site can be placed were discovered. While locating the historic Fort Center was within a better context.
ROBERTS THOMPSON Fort Center during the Second and Third Seminole Wars 15
In general, more archaeology (excavation and remote References Cited
sensing) combined with oral histories and ethnohistorical research is needed at the site to understand fully the Belko, William S. construction episodes that may have taken place at the fort 2011 Epilogue to the War of 1812; The Monroe during its repeated abandonment and reoccupation, in addition Administration, American Anglophobia, and the First to exploring the Seminole occupation of the area. Seminole Seminole War. In America Hundred Years' War;
presence along Fisheating Creek and Lake Okeechobee U.S. Expansion to the Gulf Coast and the Fate of the
does appear to have been common throughout the Seminole Seminole, 1763-1858, edited by William S. Belko,
wars, but archaeological evidence is sparse. The high land pp. 54-102, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
formed by midden deposits, mounds, and earthworks of Fort Center's previous inhabitants would have been utilized to Buker, George E. some degree by the Seminole. Further archaeological testing 1997 Swamp Sailors in the Second Seminole War. along Fisheating Creek would help determine the extent of University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Seminole occupation. Despite the need for more research, this preliminary investigation of the historic-period Fort Center Canova, Andrew P. will add to the lesser-known part that the fort played in the 1906 Life and Adventures in South Florida. Tribune Second and Third Seminole wars. Its location was strategically Printing Co., Tampa. important to the American military throughout these two wars and represents the importance of different warfare tactics, Carr, Robert S. both on land and water, adopted by American military (Mahon 1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Lake 1985:325). Okeechobee. Report prepared for the Florida
Department of State Division of Archives, History Acknowledgements and Records Management Bureau of Historic Sites
and Properties, Tallahassee.
Numerous individuals gave indispensable assistance with 2012 Digging Miami. University Press of Florida, this project. First, I would like to thank Victor D. Thompson, Gainesville. University of Georgia, for his help throughout this project and the members of The Ohio State University 2010 field Carr, Robert S., John Beriault, Timothy Harrington and crew. Secondly, I would like to thank Paul Backhouse, Tribal Matthew Fenno Historic Preservation Officer and Museum Director for the 2012 A Phase I Cultural Resource Assessment of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, for his helpful comments and Cowbone Marsh Project, Glades County, Florida.
insights on this research. Gabby McDonnell from the Florida Report prepared for Florida Fish and Wildlife
Master Site File provided much assistance with the site forms Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. for Fort Center. Karen Walker and William Marquardt with the Florida Museum ofNatural History were generous in providing Covington, James W. information about Fort Center. I would also like to express my 1964 The Florida Seminole in 1847. Tequesta 24:49-5 8. gratitude to Robert Carr for providing information regarding 1993 The Seminole of Florida. University Press of Florida, his earlier survey work around Fort Center. I would also like Gainesville. to thank Mark Williams and the Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Georgia. The author is solely responsible for any Eck, Christopher errors or omissions. 2002 South Florida's Prelude to War: Army Correspondence
Concerning Miami, Fort Dallas, and the Everglades Prior to the Outbreak of the Third Seminole War, 1850-1855. Tequesta 62:68-115.
Elder, John L.
2004 Everlasting Fire; Cowocki Legacy in the Seminole Struggle Against Western Expansion. Medicine Wheel Press, Edmond.
Goggin, John M.
1951 Archeological Notes on Lower Fisheating Creek.
Florida Anthropologist 4:50-66.
16 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(1)
Heidler, David S. and Jeanne T. Heidler Missall, John and Mary Lou Missall
1996 Old Hickory's War; Andrew Jacks and the Quest 2004 The Seminole Wars; America's Longest Indian
for Empire. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Conflict. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Ives, Joseph C. 2012 Paleoethnobotanic Investigations at Fort Center
1856 Memoir to accompany a military map ofthepeninsula (8GL13), Florida. Unpublished Master's Thesis,
of Florida south of Tampa Bay. United States War Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State
Department. M.B. Wynkoop Printer, New York. University, Columbus.
Jennings, Jay Preble, George Henry
2001 Fort Denaud: Logistics Hub of the Third Seminole 1883 A Canoe Expedition into the Everglades in 1842.
War. The Florida Historical Quarterly 80:24-42. Reprinted by United Service, A Quarterly Review of
Military and Naval Affairs, pp. 358-376.
Kenworthy, Charles J.
1875 Indian Mounds and Canals. In Camp Life in Florida, Sears, William
edited by Charles Hallock, pp. 313-321, New York. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake 1883 Ancient Canals in Florida. In Annual Report of Okeechobee Basin. University of Florida Press,
the Smithsonian Institution for 1881, pp. 631-635, Gainesville.
Seley, Ray B. Jr.
Knetsch, Joe 1963 Lieutenant Hartstuff and the Banana Plants. Tequesta
1996 "All His Wants Should Be Promptly Supplied": 23:3-14..
Persifor F. Smith and the Caloosahatchee River
Campaign of 1837-1838. The Sunland Tribune Sturtevant, William C.
22:19-26. 1956 R.H Pratt's report on the Seminole in 1879. Florida
2003 Florida's Seminole Wars, 1817-1858. Arcadia Anthropologist, 9:1-29.
2011 Strategy, Operations, and Tactics in the Second Sunderman, James F.
Seminole War, 1835-1842 In America's Hundred 1950 Army Surgeon Reports on Lower East Coast, 1838.
Years'War; U.S. Expansion to the Gulf Coast and the Tequesta, 10:25-33.
Fate of the Seminole, 1763-1858, edited by William
S. Belko, pp. 128-154, University Press of Florida, Tebeau, Charlton W.
Gainesville. 1971 A History of Florida. University of Miami Press,
Le Baron, J. Francis
1884 Prehistoric Remains in Florida. In Annual Report of Thompson, Victor D., Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Amanda D.
the Smithsonian Institution for 1882, pp. 771-790, Roberts Thompson, Kristen J. Gremillion, Hannah R. Morris, Washington. S. Margaret Spivey, Kimberly Swisher, Benjamin Keller and
Ellen Burlingame Turck
MacCauley, Clay 2012 Archaeological Investigations at Fort Center
1887 The Seminole Indians of Florida. Bureau of (8GL13) (2010 Field Season), Glades County,
American Ethnology Fifth Annual Report 1883- Florida. Report prepared for the Bureau of Natural
1884, Washington D.C. and Cultural Resources, Division of Recreation and
Parks, Department of Environmental Protection, Mahon, John K. Tallahassee, Florida.
1985 History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Thompson, Victor D., Kristen Gremillion, and Thomas J.
Mahon, John K., and Brent R. Weisman 2013 Challenging the Evidence for Prehistoric Wetland
1996 Florida's Seminole and Miccosukee Peoples. In Maize Agriculture at Fort Center, Florida. American
The New History of Florida, edited by M. Gannon. Antiquity 78:181-193.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
ROBERTS THOMPSON Fort Center during the Second and Third Seminole Wars 17
Thompson, Victor D. and Thomas J. Pluckhahn 2012 Monumentalization and ritual landscapes at Fort
Center in the Lake Okeechobee basin of South Florida. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
2011 Seminole Strategy, 1812-1858; A Prospectus for
Further Research. In America Hundred Years' War, U.S. Expansion to the Gulf Coast and the Fate of the Seminole, 1763-1858, edited by William S. Belko, pp. 155-180, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Webb, Alexander S.
1909 Campaigning in Florida in 1855. The Journal of
Military Service Institution 45:397-489.
Weisman, Brent R.
1999 Unconquered People; Florida Seminole and
Miccosukee Indians. University Press of Florida,
18 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(1)
C) 'a I
60 CD I I
> CD I I I
04 I I I
6 CD I I
I I I I
I I I I
Q g, Q
ROBERTS THOMPSON Fort Center during the Second and Third Seminole Wars 19
00~ ~ -O 00c 1 0a
n en -I
00 U 000
0 2 c;
I~* -IVi 6 ,
an r r 2 0 v
20 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
Vh -0 00 nr 00 ~- ~
o~~~~c 00 00N0 N* ( N
0 0~0 C1 I B B B B B B
op . . . >O O
.0 B B B B B BBz
B . 00 B o Bm N .
0 (N Br( -6
100q CD B0 0B B ~ ~ B B B B B
w ,~( J 0 -- B
19~o & B~ B B
!j !: 0 B B B B B B B B B B
F! u -0 Z 0
UU U 0 ,
~ ~ W w'2 r :3 w.~ ~ ( ~ ~ B O O
No w w Bi 2
ROBERTS THOMPSON Fort Center during the Second and Third Seminole Wars 21
en 0 ( 100 0 e .
< 0q Cl- q
I j I I I I I I I I Ic ~ c l I,
.. .0 .
0 0 C
Ca= -, IL I- I I I I I
0~ 0o 00
22 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
NEW AMS RADIOCARBON DATES ON THE ORANGE PERIOD IN COASTAL VOLUSIA COUNTY
Dorothy L. Moore' and Roger T. Grange, Jr2.
'New Smyrna Museum of History, P.O. Box 968, New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
2New Smryna Museum of History, P.O. Box 968, New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 iE-mail: grange 7@cfi. rr com
This article' grew out of our current project focused on sections of tabby floor revealed a 5-cm-thick sub-base layer analysis of the wealth of data from the eighteenth-century of loose coquina (Donax variabilis) shells. The floor had been Turnbull Colonist's House site (8V0705 1). In addition to laid over this stabilizing shell layer. The builders probably the colonial-period occupation, the site contained prehistoric gathered the coquina shells from Orange-period middens materials dating to the Orange and St. Johns periods. In they exposed during construction activities. Also, this source this discussion Orange-period materials from 8V0705 1 are provided shell aggregate for mortar mixtures. Several sherds considered along with Orange-period remains recovered from from both prehistoric occupations were found embedded into the Gotten site (8V083) by Grange during a CRM monitoring eighteenth-century construction mortar. project. Locations of these two coastal Volusia County sites are Day-to-day colonial activities on the site also disturbed shown in Figure 1. New AMS dates are reported and discussed earlier deposits. S herds from both prehistoric occupations for each site. Most of these dates confirm recent research must have been on the surface during the eighteenth century (Sassaman 2011), collapsing five sub-periods proposed by and were fragmented by foot traffic. The re-deposition of Ripley Bullen (1972:11-18) for the Orange period (Table 1) these earlier artifacts did not appear to have significantly into a single time period. One date, however, is much later disturbed eighteenth-century strata. Use of metal detectors by than anticipated. artifact collectors did disturb the eighteenth-century levels, as
evidenced by the many holes left in the tabby mortared floor
The Turnbull Colonist's House Site, 8V07051 of Structure 2 and in other areas of the site.
Structure 2 was originally destroyed by fire and its
This site was excavated because it was occupied as part collapsed walls required careful excavation to reveal standing of Dr. Andrew Turnbull's Smymnea Settlement during the wall remnants and other features. The majority of the site British Period, 1763-1783 (Grange 1999:73-84; Grange and excavation was conducted with hand trowels and brushes. Moore 2003 :221-235). Within the first week of testing in 1996 During the 1996 salvage excavation, very careful attention evidence of two separate underlying prehistoric occupations, was paid to the stratigraphy. Natural or cultural strata were Late Archaic Orange and St. Johns, was found. Testing of these used as the vertical control for excavation "levels" at the site. prehistoric deposits was minimal, although efforts were made The deposits were shallow and thin. The general sequence of to find and record such evidence. A site map of the residential stratigraphic layers is shown in Table 2. complex where salvage excavations were concentrated is A total of 262 fiber-tempered ceramic sherds was
shown in Figure 2. recovered (four were found in Selective Test B, discussed
below). Of these, 258 fiber-tempered sherds had been re1996-199 7 Excavation and Prehistoric Context deposited in later colonial-period layers with British materials.
Eighteen sherds, including three rims, were incised. Slightly
The sequence of occupation at 8V07051I began during more fiber-tempered sherds were recovered from excavations the Late Archaic Orange period, as evidenced by the presence west and southwest of the structure. The majority of St. Johnsof fiber-tempered ceramics, followed by the St. Johns period period sherds were recovered in eastern sections of the site, with both chalky plain and check-stamped ceramics, followed although sherds from both occupations were present in most by the eighteenth-century British Smyrnea occupants. Ground excavation units. Table 3 lists Orange and St. Johns sherd disturbances caused varying degrees of disruption resulting counts and indicates where they were recovered. These two in re-deposition of earlier materials into later contexts. This prehistoric occupations may have been separated by hundreds was evident in mixture of Orange and St. Johns ceramics in of years but evidence of this was not proven. Tumnbull-era stratigraphic layers. Structure 2, a British-period- A St. Johns-period occupation was obvious when potsherds dwelling, used vertical posts in the ground, which penetrated were found re-deposited in eighteenth- century contexts. Ted underlying prehistoric deposits. Excavation below intact Payne (personal communication, 1997) conducted a series of
VOL. 67(1) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2014
24 THE FLOIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 67(l)
GULF OF MEXICO 2106
1: 8V07051 ~DE
TURNBULL COLONIST 00
95- STRCnmE a 13
STRUCTURE 3 OVEN
Figure 1. Locations of two sites discussed in this paper.
shovel tests at 10-rn intervals across the site but failed to find ____________________any intact midden deposits from either prehistoric time period. 985 99M9 1000
Two judgmental shovel tests (50-x-50-cm, using 10-cm
levels) were excavated by Dana Ste. Claire during the Museum SCAE IN METERS
of Arts & Sciences (Daytona Beach) 1997 field school at the Figure 2. Site map of 8V07051 housing complex. site. His goal was to locate undisturbed contexts associated with both prehistoric occupations. Selective Test A resulted between 18 and 30 cm below surface. Four fiber-tempered in the identification of an eighteenth-century historic midden sherds (including the rim sherd shown in Figure 4) and several west of Structure 2 (see Figure 2). The midden profile indicated bone fragments were recovered from stratigraphic layer 2. The a large hole had been excavated into which eighteenth-century fiber-tempered sherds and fish bones were directly associated trash, fish and mammal bone fragments, and marine shells had with the coquina shell midden, as shown in Figure 3. Selective been deposited. Test B, therefore, appeared to intersect an uncontaminated
AMS Dating Coquina shells were not collected from Selective Test B,
but animal bone fragments from the midden were retained. Selective Test B, placed outside the locus of intensive Following excavation of Selective Test B, a column sample eighteenth-century house activities, revealed an Orange-period (10O-x- 10 cm) was taken from the south wall of this test. coquina shell midden. Field notes and a profile drawing of the Marine bone fragments from the coquina. deposit, layer 2 of west wall showed undisturbed stratigraphic layers (Figure 3). the colun sample (see Figure 3), were submitted to Beta The midden began 8 cm below surface and continued to a depth Analytic, Inc. (Beta-3 09711, 2011) for AMS dating. These of approximately 36 cm, with the densest shell encountered dated materials included four broken dental plates of the
Table 1. Bullen's Orange-period sequence.
Orange 1 Orange Plain pottery
Orange 2 Orange Plain pottery, Orange Incised pottery, Tick Island pottery and
concentric diamond design elements Orange 3 Orange Plain and Orange Incised with rounded decorated rim tops
Orange 4 Reduced complexity of designs
Orange 5 Orange 5 or extended Transitional
MOORE~ AND GRANGE NEW AMS RADIOCARBON DATES ORANGE PERIOD 25
cownose ray (Rhinoptera bonasus), one unidentified fish SLCIETS
vertebrae, and one pneumatized fish spine from an unidentified Perciformes species such as jack or red drum (Arlene Fradkin, ////,,,
personal communication, 2011 and 2013). As this site was ~destroyed by development in 1997, the bone represented the only opportunity to obtain a radiometric date from this Late-1 Orange-period occupation. The conventional radiocarbon .ICQIAHDE
age was 2940+/-30 B.P., adjusted to 2680+/-30 B.P. for local .5 reservoir correction. Results of the 11C data analysis are shown in Table 4. 0
Based on Milanich's (1994:94) Orange-period ceramic 25
chronology, the presence of plain and incised fiber-tempered
ceraicsindcatd anOrage ocupaton t 80701. 30
However, research by Kenneth Sassaman and his graduate -35
students at the Southeastern Archaeological Laboratory (University of Florida) are refining the Orange-period chronology. Their work indicates that the previous division-4 of the Orange period into five sub-periods based on assumed changes in ceramic design motifs is not valid. Instead, Orange 5 l0 .1 20 25 30 36 40 45
periods 1-4 have been collapsed into a single 500-year time span that ranges from 2000 to 1500 B.C. (Sassaman 2003:9), SCALE IN CENTIMETERS
which differs from the earlier chronological date range of 2000 to 1000 B.C. (Milanich 1994:94). According to Milanich Figure 3. Profile drawing of west wall of Selective Test B. (1994-94) the Orange 5 transitional period dates between 1000-5 00 B.C. value of any radiometric date might be outside the standard
The date for the Orange-period component in Selective deviation range. While possible in this case, it is unlikely. Test B is cal 2940+/-30 B.P. The 2-sigma date ranges are Another possibility is contamination during storage. Several cal 700 to 220 B.C. and cal 2650 to 2160 B.P. Sassaman years elapsed between the time of excavation and sample (2003:8,Table 1) has reported a series of AMS dates for dating because the work at the site was self-funded and it was Orange ceramics from Middle St. Johns River valley sites. The several years before institutional facilities and limited financial latest date in that series is 3900 B.P. Sassaman (2003: 10) lists support became available. However, we do not believe that the a series of corrected B.P. radiocarbon dates for Atlantic coastal samples were contaminated during the long storage period. Orange-period sites, all located north of Volusia County. The A third possibility for the discrepancy is the validity of latest date in that series is 3600 B.P. The 8V07051 date is 960 the association of the dated animal bones and the Orange years later than the Middle St. Johns River valley series and fiber-tempered ceramics. Excavations relied upon cultural 660 years later than the Atlantic coastal series north of Volusia and natural stratification for the vertical control of artifact County. recovery. The excavation of Selective Test B in 10-cm levels
The 8V0705 1 radiometric date was far later than could have resulted in mixing contents from adjacent layers
anticipated and warrants further consideration. First, it should (see Figure 3). This issue was discussed in the field when the be noted that there is a statistical possibility that the "true" Orange sherds were encountered, and special care was taken in
Table 2. Sequence of layers at 8V07051.
SEQUENCE LAYER DESCRIPTON
1 Humic Topsoil
2 Structural debris, tabby wall mortar, coquina stones, etc.
3 Features (such as standing wall elements, coquina fireplace base)
4 Tabby mortar floor layers
5 Deeper penetrating features (such as post holes, posts, rubbish pits, pot hunter pits)
6 Evidence of rebuilding portions of structure 2
7 Presence of St. Johns ceramics inferred occupation zone but no features found
8 Orange Period occupation evidence in Selective Test B
9 Natural subsoil
10 Coquina bedrock (in some units on site)
26 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 67(l)
Table 3. Areas at 8V07051 where prehistoric sherds were recovered.
ORANGE FIBER- ST. JOHNS
Provenience TEMPERED SHERDS PERIOD SHERDS
Plain Incised <2cm Plain Stamped Marked <2cm
Structurel1 1 6 23 18 0 0 5
Structure 2 1 2 34 0 2 1 17
Structure 3 0 0 29 8 0 0 4
E995N/N993.5 0 58
(possible structure 4) 58
E1OOO/N987 0 0 0 0 0 o
(possible structure 5) 0 0
Historic Middens 4 5 61 2* 0 0 3
Shovel Test Pits (6) 0 0 0 5 0 0 9
Selective Test A 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Selective Test B 1 0 3 0 0 0 0
Sherd Totals 7 18 237 34 3 1 42
Grand Totals 262 80
*Includes one Dunn's Creek Red sherd
the recovery of artifacts to avoid this problem. The excavator's test unit were Orange fiber-tempered wares. No later St. Johns stratigraphic field drawing recorded the association of the or eighteenth-century objects were found in this test, which Orange potsherds with the coquina midden deposit. The contrasts to the re-deposition of materials in other areas of the
dated fish bones were recovered from a column sample that site. utilized visible strata for vertical control, and the sample was We expect many questions will arise about the AMS specifically taken from the coquina layer. Moreover, the strata results obtained from one small test conducted at 8V0705 1; in the test were subjected to careful observation, and no visible however, the results obtained from this test may help better evidence of cultural or natural distortion or mixing of the understand the end of Orange-period occupations in this layers was observed. The only ceramics recovered from this coastal area.
The Cotten Site, 8V083
The Gotten site (8V083) is a Late Archaic midden consisting almost entirely of coquina shell (Goggin 1952; Griffin and Smith 1954). Once known as the Hemnandez site (Spanish Land Grants, 1817), the Gotten site (or sometimes Cotton) was a large shell midden on the banks of the Halifax River; the site had been noted in several publications from 1882 to 2003. It once was a substantial midden with a depth of as much as 3.5 mn (Griffin 1948:50). Two prehistoric components were identified by past researchers: Orange and St. Johns II. Bullen (1958, 1961:104) obtained a radiocarbon date of 1065 B.C. for the Orange-period component. Subsequent home and swimming pool construction on the site in the late 1940s destroyed most of the mound on this property. The Gotten site has been included in discussions of the Orange period and fiber-tempered pottery in Florida (Bullen 1972; Griffin 1948; Figure 4. Orange Plain rim sherd from Selective Test B. Griffin and Smith 1954; Sassaman 2003; Ste. Claire 1990) Exterior surface shown, plain flattened lip with slightly and was considered in early discussions on the introduction of rounded projection on exterior edge with thin smoothed fiber-tempered pottery to North America from South America' lip on interior surface (scale in cm). (Ford 1966:789; Reichel-Dolmatoff 1972:1-8).
MOORlE AND GRANGE NEW AMS RADIOCARBON DATES ORANGE PERIOD 27
The 1998 Monitoring Project Stratigraphy
Excavations of the site, located on North Beach Street in Early excavation of the site in 1899 by Blatchley (1902) Ormond Beach, were carried out in 1947, and a year later new revealed a series of twelve layers and a midden depth of 116 houses covered the location (Griffin and Smith 1954:27). One inches or nearly 3 m (Griffin and Smith 1954:30), but the house, situated on part of the Gotten site, was demolished in shell mound once had a depth of as much as 3.5 m (Griffin 1998 and a new home and pooi complex were erected over 1948:50). Blatchley (1902:165) noted that the upper portion the old structural footprint. The required archaeological of the mound had been utilized as a source of shell for local monitoring project focused on the house site and the plumbing, sidewalks and bicycle paths for fifteen years. irrigation, and electrical trenches around the new building Clearing the debris of the former pooi exposed a and the grounds between the house and the river on the east standing E-W profile of the midden, which was cleaned and (Grange 1998a, 1998b). Test excavations (and the shallow photographed. The complex stratigraphic profile consisted of depth of the utility trenches) demonstrated that construction layers of shell, mainly coquina. Some of the strata consisted impact on the undisturbed prehistoric occupations in these of relatively clean shell, while others were darker stained and areas was negligible. The major impact of the 1998 project on included some obvious occupation deposits and pit features. the prehistoric midden site was a 6.4-x-1I5.2-m area associated All of the layers were sloping at different relative angles, so with the new swimming pool (Grange 1998c). The depth that the dip and strike of the deposits was complicated (Figure
of the pooi excavation ranged from 1.2 to 2.1 In. The pool 5). excavators planned their work to allow recovery of materials Examination of the standing profile resulted in defining from small sections of the upper, middle, and lower midden three major stratigraphic elements: upper midden, middle deposits (discussed below). midden, and lower midden. The stratigraphic sequence
Remnants of the prehistoric occupation were absent observed along the south side of the pool excavation was where the earlier pool was removed. The northern part of the variable and a generalized sequence is summarized in Table former pooi was backfilled, while its southern half became 5. All layers of the midden were primarily coquina shells but the northern half of the new pool. Excavation for the southern included a few clam, oyster, whelk, and snail shells as well as portion of the new pool had a direct impact on undisturbed vertebrate materials. shell midden. The exposed midden had a depth of 1.28 m, The upper midden contained one sherd of under-glaze blue
but this must have been near the eastern margin of the mound hand-painted pearlware (ca. 1780-1820), a small fragment of because the exposed stratigraphic sequence included the intact tabby mortar, and one St. Johns Check Stamped sherd. The St. Johns-period upper and middle midden strata as well as the middle midden was darker gray to black in color and included underlying Orange-period layers. coquina shells but was less dense than the upper midden
deposit. Excavation of part of this midden stratum produced
Fiue .Cotn ie rfieshwngcmpe srtirpy.Pofl dain igtze ro hoorahshwn
stratgraphCONTUTO lysiDEtIe during thFAEmoioigpoetadtePt3ftu.Hihtfpoilca128
28 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 67(l)
Table 4. Cotten Site and Turnbull Colonist House site dates.
COTTEN SITE AND TURNBULL COLONIST HOUSE DATES Lab # Site Prov Material 13C/12C Conventional Intercept Intercept I sigma 1 Sigma 2 Sigma 2 Sigma
Ratio 14C Age BP Cal BC Cal BP Cal BC Cal BP Cal BC Cal BP
Beta-30971 1 8V07051i Bone -14.8 2940+/-30 390 2340 510 -340 2460-2300 700- 220 2650-2160
Adjusted Local Reservoir BP 2680+/-80
Beta-328334 8V083 Bone -11.4 3570+/-30 1920 3870 1950-1890 3900-3840 2010-2000 3960-3950
Layer 2 1980- 1880 3930-3830
1840 -1830 3790- 3780
Beta-324950 8V083 Charcoal -25.7 3300+/-30 1600 3560 1620- 1520 3570-3470 1660- 1650 3610 -3600
Occupation 1570 3520 1640- 1500 3590 -3450
Beta-324949 8V083 Charcoal -25.3 3520+/-30 1880 3830 1890-1870 3840- 3820 1930- 1750 3880- 3700
Pit 2 1840-1810 3790 -3760
1800- 1780 3750- 3720
Bullen BETA 8V083 Shell 0 3020+/-200 820 2780 1080- 650 3040- 2610 1360 -360 3320- 2320
Bullen BETA 8V083 Shell -25 3020+/-200 1370 3330 1590-1100 2550- 3060 1850- 820 3810- 2780
Recalculated Bullen assumed
a single St. Johns Plain potsherd. The underlying coquina effort to keep track of the numbered stratigraphic layers. That shell midden deposit was designated the "lower midden." field sketch was used to create a reconstruction of the probable
These shell deposits were very loose, and the matrix could stratigraphic profile of the generalized excavation of the pool collapse at a touch. The initial profile of the lower midden (Figure 6). was visually subdivided into seven sequential layers (Figure 5), which were later seen to include charcoal concentrations, Arti~facts, Dating, and Relative Chronology small pit features, and some traces of occupation layers. Some of these were 3 to 5 cm thick and separated from other similar The only non-ceramic artifact recovered was a bone layers by 5 to 7 cm of clean shell; the underlying sand subsoil needle or pin with incised decoration (Figure 7). One hundred was labeled layer 8. Orange-period fiber-tempered ceramics forty-seven fiber-tempered pottery fragments were recovered: were associated with the layers of the lower midden. 90 percent were Orange Plain and 10 percent were Orange
A second "mid-pool" profile-like diagram of the midden Incised. One example of Orange Incised fiber-tempered deposits was developed, as the layers or features were pottery is illustrated in Figure 8. Griffin and Smith (1954:34observed in the fill during machine excavation. A running 37) devised a list of numbered decorative motifs for Orange sketch of this generalized profile was maintained and layers Incised body sherds and lip motifs for the decorated vessels and features were added, as they were identified in a continual from their excavations at the Gotten site. Appendix 1 includes
Table 5. Generalized Stratigraphic Sequence at Cotten site.
SEQUENCE LAYER DESCRIPTION
1 Layered 1998 construction fill: 0 to 35 cm thick
2 Humic layer 1998 sod surface: 2 to 6 cm thick
3 Orange/yellow 1948 house construction: 6 to 16 cm thick
4 Upper midden: Light gray with coquina shell: 6 to 32 cm. thick
5 Middle midden: Black, compact coquina shell: 5 to 16 cm thick
6 Lower midden: Light gray loose coquina shell: varying
thickness up to 1.2 mn with numerous sub-layers
7 Intrusive figures
8 Yellow sand subsoil: thickness undetermined
MOORE AND GRANGE NEW AMS RADIOCARBON DATES ORANGE PERIOD 29
LOWER > HIDDEN 2< C UAINDEOI I
IN LOWER HIDDEN
LAYER 7 LOERC MDENA
LWRMIDEXCAVATIONAPR OFIL DIAGRAM
SCAL INWE CENTIMETERS
C W4 SAMPLE LOCATION
Figure 6. Mid-excavation stratigraphic profile diagram (digitized from field note drawing).
the motif numbers for the ceramics recovered in the 1998 Orange Plain as well (Griffin and Smith 1954:42-43) and also monitoring operation. state that at the Gotten site they possibly "missed earlier levels
Appendix 1 also summarizes the distribution of Orange Blatchley's observation of a plain fiber-tempered horizon at Plain and Incised sherds from the eight strata identified during the site would so indicate but in a site of this size this is to monitoring. The lower midden layers 5, 6, 7 and 8 have only be expected" (Griffin and Smith 1954:49). As a result, Griffin Orange Plain. In contrast, layers 1, 2, 3, and 4 have both and Smith (1954:43) "tentatively" divided the Orange Period Orange Plain and Orange Incised ceramics. Griffin and Smith into three subdivisions: "(1) a period of plain fiber-tempered (1954:42-43) found Orange Incised throughout the levels pottery, (2) a period with the addition of Orange Incised, and at they excavated, but they also noted that Blatchley (1902:179) least in some sites Tick Island Incised, and the absence of the reported an early deposit with only Orange Plain sherds. In fact, wide lips and lip incision, and (3) the Orange Incised complex two of Griffin and Smith's bottom excavation unit levels show with wide lips and lip incision as found at the Gotten site and only Orange Plain sherds, and one of these was below a sterile South Indian Field." They go on to conclude that their Cotten level (Griffin and Smith 1954: Figure 4, 59). They report that site sample was near the end of the Orange period (Griffin early midden levels at the Bluffton site (8V022) produced only and Smith 1954:49). Bullen (1972:14-16) placed the Gotten
Figure 7. Incised bone net needle or pin. Length is 15.7 cm, maximum width is 2.2 cm,
and maximum thickness is 5.08mm.
30 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 67(l)
Figure 8. Orange Incised rim sherds from layer 4, Lower Midden. Rim incised with alternating panels of horizontal and vertical parallel lines. Body incised with a series of parallel and horizontal lines in nested squares. Possible Motif Number 8 (Griffin et al. 1954:35, and Plate 1:No.14). Remaining rim length is 24.5 cm, body thickness is 14.8 mm, rim thickness is 17.9 mm and vessel diameter is 26.3 cm on exterior.
site in his Orange 3 sub-period along with the Summer Haven is earlier than the pit 2 date, just the reverse of their relative (8SJ46) and South Indian Field (8BR23) sites. Bullen (1955, stratigraphic positions (see Table 4). 1961) reported a layer with only Orange Plain ceramics in the There are several ways to explain this anomaly. It is sequence at the Bluffton site and the Palmer site (8S0 1902). statistically possible that one or both of the "true" dates are outside the 2-sigma range, but this appears highly unlikely. The
Radiocarbon Dating early date from the small area of occupation in layer 6 could
be due to the "old wood" problem, especially considering that
Bullen (1958, 1961:104) reported a 14C date for the Gotten the site must have been close to a beach where driftwood could site: 1065 B.C. (3020 +/- 200 B.P.). The material dated was a have been collected, but there is no way to test this. The most horse conch (Fasciolaria gigantean) shell from Level 16 of Sq. likely cause of the discrepancy is the misidentification of the 1SRI (Bullen 1958: 101). We have obtained a calibration ofthat context of pit 2. date courtesy of Beta Analytic, Inc. That calibration is 1360 to Griffin and Smith (1954:30) noted that it was not possible 360 B.C. (cal 3320 to 2320 B.P.) (see Table 4). Unfortunately, to identify' equivalent time horizons over the site. Pit 2 is there is no reliable way to correlate the stratigraphic position below layer 6 and intrusive into layer 7 but this appears to of Bullen's date with the location positions of the three dates be only the bottom of a pit. It is possible that this pit was a obtained on material from the 1998 monitoring project. much larger feature that may have originated in an unknown
During the monitoring project, several small charcoal but relatively later layer and intruded into layer 7 (Figure 6); a samples were collected for potential radiometric dating in the speculation that would make its date appear to correspond with future. Fish and mammal bone were present in layers 1-7 of the stratigraphic order. The collapse of the very loose shell into the lower midden and were collected as well. The charcoal such a feature could make it invisible, or perhaps the outline samples were immediately wrapped in aluminum foil, labeled, of the pit was so faint that the archaeologist failed to observe and stored unopened until it was decided to submit them for it. This was a monitoring project, not an excavation, and it is dating. They were handled only one at a time in the Museum also possible that the stratigraphic evidence had been damaged laboratory. during the machine excavation of the area. A similar feature
One sample was a small carbon-stained remnant of an (pit 3), in another part of the lower midden, was photographed occupation zone within layer 6 of the lower midden. Two before destruction (Figure 5). It penetrated through layer 7 and Orange Plain fiber-tempered potsherds were present in this into the sandy subsoil of layer 8 and lends some credence to deposit. The second sample was taken from the bottom of the above explanation of pit 2. These pits, all with evidence of pit 2, a small pit intrusive into layer 7, close to the bottom of charcoal at the bottom, may have been used in cooking and/or the shell midden deposit (Figure 6). Six large Orange Plain as a source of some warmth during a cold night. potsherds were found in layer 7 of the lower midden although There is no way to re-examine or test any of these possible there were no sherds in pit 2. The AMS date for the occupation explanations, and the AMS dates in Table 4 must therefore be zone within layer 6 is cal 1880 B.C. (3520+/-30 B.P.) and the used only as dates applicable to estimating the date span of AMS date for pit 2, intrusive into layer 7, is cal 1600 B.C. the lower half of the lower midden. The dated layers are in the (3300+/-30 B.P.). It is disappointing that the date for layer 6 part of the midden where the only ceramics found during the
IMOORE~ AND GRANGE NEW AMS RADIOCARBON DATES ORANGE PERIOD 31
8V083 LAYER 2 INTERCEPT #2 I
8VO83 OCCUPATION8V083 PIT 2 INTERCEPT #2
SVO83: 302001-200 BULLEN 1968
12C113C.O calibrated- U
TRANSITIONAL TO ST. JOHNS
ORANGE I ____-4,000 -3,800 43,600 4,400 43200 -3,000 -2,800 -2,600 -2,400 -2,200
CALIBRATED YEARS BEFORE PRESENT
Figure 9. Comparison of date ranges.
monitoring project were Orange Plain fiber-tempered pottery. Orange 3 sub-period. The new dates support Sassaman's These intercept dates are: cal 3830 B.P. [occupation layer] and conclusion that the traditional Orange sequential development cal 3490 B.P. [Pit 2]. periods are no longer applicable as temporal markers based
A third sample was submitted for radiocarbon dating to on chronometric results of AMS dating of soot on Orange assess the dating of layer 2 located in the upper part of the fiber-tempered ceramics (Sassaman 2003:11). However, lower midden (Figure 6). This context included both Orange Bullen's original 1958 date and its calibration suggest a later Plain and Orange Incised pottery. Marine bone was used termination of the Orange Period in the coastal Volusia County for dating, because there was no associated charcoal. The area. conventional B.P. date for layer 2 (cal 3570+/-30) is older than Conclusions
the conventional date (cal 3520+/-30 B.P.) for the underlying
occupation zone (the respective intercept dates are 3870 The Turnbull Colonist House Site, 8 V07051 B.P. and 3830 B.P.) (see Table 4). However, these dates are
statistically identical, which allows potential conformity with It was unfortunate that excavation of prehistoric deposits relative stratigraphic position. Figure 9 is a graphic comparison at 8V0705 1 was so limited. Time constraints placed on the of the 2-sigma date ranges discussed in this paper. crew by the property owner did not allow a focus on identifying
The 2-sigma date ranges for layer 2, the occupation layer, in situ deposits from the prehistoric occupations, although and pit 2 are all earlier than Bullen's 1958 recalibrated date one small shovel test (Selective Test B) into an undisturbed range (Figure 9 and Table 4). Based on the reconstruction of Orange-period coquina shell midden was excavated. This the lower midden deposit the top of layer 2 varied from about sacrifice of information about the prehistoric occupations 2 feet to about 3 feet (90 cm) above the cultural base of the was deemed necessary to allow as much documentation as lower midden (Figure 6). That position could be very slightly possible of the British presence at the site. Evidence of the below the source of Bullen's dated sample, which was a little two prehistoric occupations was derived from potsherds remore than a meter above the midden base (Bullen 1958). deposited in eighteenth-century strata. Stratigraphic evidence However, this comparison is probably irrelevant because it of the Orange-period occupation was found, but similar was from a different part of the mound, and there is no way to confirmation of an in situ St. Johns-period occupation was not. correlate these sample sources. Sherds of the latter type were simply found re-deposited into
It is obvious that the experimental effort to recover eighteenth-century strata. Many oyster and clam shells were materials in stratigraphic association during the monitoring scattered around the site, but these may have represented both project was not fully successful, but, despite these contextual prehistoric and historic meals. A resolution of the time frames anomalies, the AMS dates are useful data on the Gotten site. of transitional occupation by the prehistoric peoples was not The dates indicate that the eastern peripheral area of the possible. mound was occupied between 3870 B.P. and 3490 B.P. The The Orange-period component at 8V07051 produced an
occupation period of the entire mound could have been as late AMS date of cal 2940+/-30 B.P. (2340 B.P. intercept) with as the 2780 B.P. intercept date based on calibration of Bullen's a 2-sigma calibrated range of 2650 to 2160 B.P. (700 to 220 date (see Table 4). B.C.). Sassaman and others (2011:315, 320), based on recent
The original excavation placed the Cotten site in the research at Silver Glen Run (8LA I), place the introduction
32 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 67(1)
of Orange pottery at ca. 4600 B.P. and its end at 3700 B.P. design motifs that distinguished the three sites. These cases (the beginning of St. Johns I period). The date from 8V0705 1 suggest the potential to distinguish significant site-level is considerably later than anticipated. There is an overlap cultural variations reflected in ceramic decorations. Data from between the 2-sigma date range for 8V0705 1 and the date the Gotten site monitoring project are insufficient for such an range of the calibration of Bullen's date for the Cotten site (see undertaking, but future design motif studies of Orange Incised Figure 9), which, if accepted, may indicate a significantly later pottery will surely be enhanced by the precise time control termination of the Orange-period than previously thought. provided by dating decoration motifs via AMS soot assays on The Orange-period occupation of the site was represented individual ceramic vessels, as Sassaman has demonstrated so by widespread distribution of mostly tiny fragments of fiber- effectively. tempered pottery over most of the site, although with slightly
more concentration in the western and Southwestern areas. The Notes
only undisturbed remnant of the Orange-period occupation
was found in Selective Test B, where an intact series of strata 1. In this joint article, Moore took primary responsibility for were exposed and the dated material was recovered. 8V0705 1 and Grange for 8V083.
This date is far later than the 500-year gap Sassaman 2. A recent article by Altes (2011) outlines the role of (2003:11) pointed out and reveals a potential gap within the seacurrents in possible cultural transmissions between Orange period in the Atlantic coastal area. Its full significance Florida, Caribbean Islands, and South America. relative to the end of the Orange period remains to be
determined; additional Orange-period sites in the vicinity need Acknowledgemnents
to be located, excavated, and dated radiometrically.
Thanks are extended to the many interested volunteers
The Gotten Site, 8 V083 who assisted in this year-long excavation, especially to Holly
Henderson, Rosey Ankney and Michael Tanksley, to the City
Early interpretations of the existence of Orange I and 2 of New Srnyrna Beach, to the private property owner for sub-periods were partly based on stratigraphic evidence of cooperation extended over several months, to Dana Ste. Claire, occupation layers containing only plain sherds at the Bluffton staff and field school students with the Museum of Arts & (Bullen 1955; Griffin and Smith 1954:42-43), Palmer (Bullen Sciences in Daytona Beach, to Ted Payne and Patricia Griffin 1961) and Gotten (Blatchley 1902:179) sites. However, from St. Augustine, to the many professional archaeologists
incised vessels have plain areas and breakage can produce and historians who visited the site and offered advice, to the both plain and incised 'sherds creating potential sampling Southeast Volusia Historical Society, Inc., New Smyrna Beach, issues. The original excavation placed the Gotten site in the to the television and newspaper reporters who covered "our Orange 3 sub-period. The three AMS dates from the site were story," and to Volusia County for curatorial funding. Thanks derived from stratified deposits exposed and sampled during to Dr. Kenneth Sassaman and Zachary Gilmore, Laboratory construction monitoring in 1998. The dates indicate that the of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, eastern peripheral area of the mound was occupied between University of Florida, Gainesville, for advice. Also thanks the intercept dates of cal. 3870 B.P. and cal 3490 B.P. (Table to Robert Austin for confirming identification of the St. 4 and Figure 9). This date range is earlier than Bullen's Johns sherds. Many thanks to Beta Analytic, Inc., for their Orange 3 sub-period, and thus supports Sassaman's (2003:11) professional advice and for generously donating calibration elimination of the traditional Orange sequential development data for an update of earlier carbon-14 data submitted for periods based on chronometric results of AMS dating of soot the Gotten Site. We appreciate very much the comments and on Orange fiber-tempered ceramics. He further concluded suggestions of the editor and the anonymous reviewers that that "we are forced to explain technofunctional and stylistic contributed to the final form of this paper. Any omissions or variation in Orange pottery in terms other than chronological" errors in data included in this report are the sole responsibility (Sassaman 2003:9). of the authors.
Recently, Margaret Wrenn (2012) has done a study of
Orange Incised designs at the Rollins (8DU75 10) and Guana References Cited
Shell Ring (8SJ2554) sites, focusing on incision techniques
and potter's skills. Ceramic decoration has long been used Altes, Christopher F. to identify cultural aspects of social and spatial organization. 2011 A Brief Note on Currents, Current Archaeologists, Griffin and Smith (1954:38, Table II) compared design and Ancient Fiber-Tempered Pots. The Florida
elements from the Gotten site with the South Indian Field site Anthropologist 64:115-120. and reported striking percentage variations in design motifs
which they attributed to "local preference." In similar fashion, Beta Analytic, Inc., Miami, FL Bullen and Bullen (1961:8-9) compared ceramic decoration 2011 Results of Radiocarbon Dating Analyses of Six on Orange Incised wares at the Summer Haven site with Marine Bone Fragments excavated from Selective
South Indian Field and the Gotten site and noted that there Test B at Turnbull Colonist's House site, 8V0705 1.
were striking variations in the relative frequencies of various Report No. 309711.
MOORE~ AND GRANGE NEW AMS RADIOCARBON DATES ORANGE PERIOD 33
2012 Results of Three Radio Carbon Dates for Charcoal Settlement: A Preliminary Description of Structure
and Bone Fragments from the Ormond Mound, Types. The Florida Anthropologist 56:221-235.
8V083, (Cotton site) Ormond Beach, FL; Beta
Reports: 324949 charcoal; 324950 charcoal; 328334 Griffin, John W.
bone fragments. 1948 Towards Chronology in Coastal Volusia County. The
2012 Result of calibration of Bullen's earlier date on the Florida Anthropologist 1:49-56.
Cotten site, Beta-C 13 Assumed 0.
Griffin, John W., and Hale G. Smith.
Blatchley, w.s. 1954 The Cotten Site: An Archaeological Site of Early
1902 A Nature Wooing at Ormond by the Sea. Indianapolis, Ceramic Times in Volusia County, Florida. In:
IN; republished by Hard Press Publishing, Miami. Florida State University Studies, Number Sixteen,
Anthropology, 27-60. Florida State University, Bullen, Ripley P. Tallahassee.
1955 Stratigraphic Tests at Bluffton, Volusia County,
Florida, The Florida Anthropologist 8: 1-16. Milanich, Jerald T.
1958 More Florida Radiocarbon Dates and Their 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida, University
Significance, The Florida Anthropologist 11: 97-113. Press of Florida.
1961 Radiocarbon Dates for South-Eastern FiberTempered Pottery. American Antiquity 27:104-6. Reichel-Dolmatoff, G.
1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. In Fiber- 1972 The Cultural Context of Early Fiber-tempered Pottery
Tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States in Northern Columbia. The Florida Anthropologist
and Northern Columbia: Its Origins, Context 25 (Number 2, Part 2): 1-6. Florida Anthropological
and Significance, edited by R. P. Bullen and J. B. Society Publications, Number 6.
Stoltman, pp 9-3 3. Florida Anthropological Society
Publications, Number 6. Sassaman, Kenneth E.
2003 New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Bullen, Adelaide K., and Ripley P. Bullen Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their
1961 The Summer Haven Site, St. Johns County, Florida, Implications for Culture History in Northeast Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 14:1-15. The Florida Anthropologist 56:5-13.
Ford, James A. Sassaman, Kenneth E., Zackary 1. Gilmore, and Asa R. Randall
1966 Early Formative Cultures in Georgia and Florida. 2011 St. Johns Archaeological Field School, 2007-20 10:
American Antiquity 31:781-799. Silver Glen Run (8LAI), Technical Report 12,
Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department Goggin, John M. of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns
Archeology, Florida, Yale University, Spanish Land Grants
Publications in Anthropology, Number 47. Yale 1817 Floridamemory.com, Spanish Land Grants in Florida
University Press, London. website, Martin Hernandez, Box 17, Folder 2 1, Page
Grange, Roger T. Jr.
1998a Report on Archaeological Monitoring at 8V083, Ste. Claire, Dana
The Cotten Site. Report on file, Florida Division of 1990 The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological
Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Evidence for Early Coastal Adaptations, The
1 998b Monitoring the Excavation of Utility Service Lines Florida Anthropologist 43:189-197.
at 8V083: The Cotten Site. Report on file, Florida
Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Talma, A.S. and J.C. Vogel
1 998c Monitoring the Swimming Pool Excavation at 1993 Radiocarbon 35(2):3 17-322.
8VO83, The Cotten Site. Report on file, Florida
Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Wrenn, Margaret
1999 The Turnbull Colonists' House at New Smyrna 2012 Designing Pots: DetermininglIncised Design Variation
Beach: A Preliminary Report on 8V0705 1. The and Distribution at the Rollins Shell Ring Site and
Florida Anthropologist 52:73-84. the Guana Shell Ring Site in Florida. Unpublished
Master's of Art thesis, Department of Geography Grange, Roger T. Jr., and Dorothy Moore and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton
2003 Search and Rescue Archaeology at the Smyrnea Rouge.
34 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 67(1)
Appendix 1. Tabulation of ceramics found at Cotten site.
LEVEL/ RIM/LIP LIP BODY
STRATUM FEATURE TYPE PART FORM DECORATION DECORATION #
and Lip Motif and Motif Number
Old Pool Red
Dirt Recent Backfill Earthenware Body Flowerpot fragment 1
Midden Upper Midden St. John's Body Check stamped 1
Midden Upper Midden Pearlware Rim Rounded Blue hand decorated 1
Midden Test east end St. John's Body Plain 1
Midden Layer 1 Orange Plain Rim Rolled Plain Plain 1
Lower Orange Opposed parallel
Midden Layer I Incised Body incised 4c 1
Midden Layer I Orange Plain Body Plain 0
Midden Layer 2 Orange Plain Rim Rolled Plain Plain I
Midden Layer 2 Orange Plain Body Plain I
Lower Orange Parallel incised
Midden Layer 2 In ised Body III Parallel incised 4 1
Lower Orange Flat, Parallel incised Parallel incised
Midden Layer 4 Incised Rim Thick, III rectangles 8 1
Midden Layer 4 Incised Body Parallel incised 4 1
Lower Orange Flat, Parallel incised
Midden Layer 4 Incised Rim thick III N/A I
Midden Layer 4 Orange Plain Rim Rounded Plain Plain I
Midden Layer 4 Orange Plain Body Plain 9
Midden Layer 5 Orange Plain Body Plain 4
Midden Layer 6 Orange Plain Body Plain 4
Midden Layer 6 Occ. Orange Plain Body Plain 2
Midden Layer 7 Orange Plain Rim Rounded Plain Plain 1
Midden Layer 7 Orange Plain Body Plain -7
Midden Layer 8 Sand Orange Plain Rim Rolled Plain Plain 1
Midden Middle area Orange Plain Rim thick Plain Plain 1
Lower Orange Parallel incised
Midden Middle area Incised Rim Flat III N/A 1
Midden Middle area Orange Plain Body Plain 2
Midden Concentration Orange Plain Body Plain 7
Midden Exposed area Orange Plain Body Plain I
Midden Exposed area Orange Plain Rim Beveled Plain Plain I
Midden Exposed area Incised Body Parallel incised 4 1
Midden Exposed area Orange Plain Rim thick Plain Plain I
MOORE AND GRANGE NEW AMS RADIOCARBON DATES ORANGE PERIOD 35
Appendix 1. continued
LEVEL/ RIM/LIP LIP BODY
STRATUM FEATURE TYPE PART FORM DECORATION DECORATION #
and Lip Motif and Motif Number
Lower Orange Parallel incised
Midden Lower Layers Incised Body rectangle 9 l
Midden Lower Layers Orange Plain Body Plain 2
Lower Orange Inward Parallel incised
Midden Lower Layers Incised Rim beveled III N/A
Lower Orange Inward
Midden Lower Layers Incised Rim beveled Plain Parallel incised 4
Lower Orange Opposed parallel
Midden Lower Layers Incised Body incised 4c
Midden Lower Midden Orange Plain Rim thick Plain Plain
Lower Orange Inward Parallel incised
Midden Lower Midden Incised Rim beveled III Parallel incised 4
Midden Lower Midden Orange Plain Rim thin Plain Plain
Midden Back-dirt pile Orange Plain Rim beveled Plain Plain
Midden Back-dirt pile Orange Plain Rim Flat Plain Plain
Midden Back-dirt pile Orange Plain Rim Beveled eroded Plain
Midden Back-dirt pile Orange Plain Body Plain 7
Midden Back-dirt pile Orange Plain Rim Flat, thick Plain Plain I
Midden Back-dirt pile Orange Plain Rim Flat Plain Plain 2
Midden Back-dirt pile Incised Rim Thickened Incised Incised body Z I
Midden Back-dirt pile Incised Body Parallel incised 4 1
Lower Orange Parallel and
Midden Back-dirt pile Incised Body rectangle 9 1
36 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 67(l)
VON MOUND AND VILLAGE: A FORT WALTON CENTER IN THE MIDDLE
APALACHICOLA RIVER VALLEY OF NORTHWEST FLORIDA
Jeffrey P. Du Vemay
Alliance for Integrated Spatial Technologies, School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa 33620
Fort Walton is the Mississippian (A.D. 1000-1600) edge is a single earthen sub-rectangular mound with a height cultural variant that encompasses northwestern Florida, of nearly 7.3 mn and a basal diameter of approximately 48 mn southeastern Alabama, and Southwestern Georgia (Figure (Figure 2). The mound's flattop measures, at its maximum 1). In a recent appraisal of Fort Walton, Marrinan and White length, nearly 21 m across. Twenty meters west-southwest of (2007) argue that our understanding of this Mississippian the mound is a large pond or water-filled depression, which variant has been hindered by a lack of good documentation is a dammed-up intermittent creek that probably also was of the occupational sequences and developmental histories of the borrow pit for mound construction. Figure 2 is a site map Fort Walton mound sites. This article addresses this problem made by merging mound topographic data collected by a by identifying the particular developmental history of Yon professional surveyor using a Topcon Total Station in 1995 Mound and Village (8L12), located in the Middle Apalachicola with a National Elevation Dataset (NED) distributed by the River valley of northwest Florida. Over the past 70 years, Yon United States Geological Survey (USGS). This latter dataset, has seen the most investigation of any Fort Walton mound downloaded from the USGS website, was derived from aerial center in this valley; these investigations have ranged in LiDAR; contours were computed from these datasets in intensity from numerous surface-collection reconnaissance ArcGIS. surveys to multi-year excavations. The majority of these data, A discussion of Yon's environmental setting must however, have been greatly underreported or not reported at begin with the Apalachicola River and its floodplain, part all. In this article, I synthesize data derived from "early Yon of the larger Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin investigations" spanning the period 1903 to 1973 with data that extends from northern Georgia to the Gulf of Mexico. collected by the University of South Florida (USF) over the The Apalachicola River is formed by the confluence of the past few decades, including during my own fieldwork in 2007, Chattahoochee and Flint rivers at Lake Seminole, an artificial to identify Yon's development, lake (reservoir) formed by the Jim Woodruff Dam at the
With this effort, analyses of stratigraphic, artifact, and Florida-Georgia state line. It flows from there about 1 10 river radiocarbon data from both mound and village contexts miles to its mouth at Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. are the primary means by which the site's occupational Yon lies within the northern reaches of the Gulf Coastal
history is identified. The study proceeds by finding and Lowlands physiographic province, a flat sandy lowland zone comparing patterns of variation in the Yon archaeological shaped by waves and currents during inundation by Pleistocene record to identify its occupational events and then attempts seas (Couch et al. 1996:7; Hubbell et al. 1956:23). The to contextualize these data within aspects of the wider Fort native ecological community is thick hardwood bottomland! Walton and Mississippian milieu. To this end, attention is floodplain forest, although the site has been impacted by given to the Fort Walton manifestation of the Apalachicola- logging activities. Yon has been the subject of both natural lower Chattahoochee River valley and the Rood and to a and human-induced disturbances. Annual flooding of the river lesser extent later Lamar Mississippian regional variants (Blitz has deposited alluvium over a large portion of the site, deeply and Lorenz 2002, 2006) of the upper reaches of the lower burying many of the cultural deposits. Additionally, the Army Chattahoochee River valley. These variants are important Corps of Engineers dumped river-dredging spoils at a locale here because of their demonstrated interaction with Fort approximately 1 km upstream of the mound in the 1 960s or Walton populations (Blitz and Lorenz 2002, 2006; Du Vemnay early 1970s and then again in 1995. Other human-caused et al. 2007; Marrmnan and White 2007; White et al. 2012). The disturbances are evident in historic aerial photographs dating data and positions forwarded here derive from my doctoral from the 1 940s to 1 960s that show the land at Yon was cleardissertation, where they received a lengthier treatment (Du cut with the exception of the area directly surrounding the Vernay 2011). mound. According to Phillip McMillan, manager for the Neal Land and Timber Company (NLTC), the current owner of the
Site Description and Environmental Setting site, the land at Yon during this time was used as pasture for
hogs and cattle, and the extant (and now severely dilapidated)
The Yon site (8L12) is located on the east bank of the barn located directly northeast of the mound was built then middle Apalachicola River valley in central Liberty County, (Phillip McMillan, personal communication, 2007). In the Florida (Figure 1). Located less than 100 m from riverbank mid-1970s, the existing pastureland was converted to pine
VOL. 67(l) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2014
38 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
Rood aind lamar-Regioivd I Lower Caftihoochce e River___Kc le
~ Fort Wal on Region
Gul ofMeicoaL Kioetr
Rood ad Lama regio alongLowerChttahoohe RieadalMudln ilg ie(adpe rmMrna
dense, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ esecalysulondnhteaoud(Fguee)
Othe moe reentactins mpacingYon nclde te Frt Wlto Overiw
establishment~~~~~~~~~~ ofdrAodsc steoeta ietyct
apparent.Lyowatially lfocte Waout 1eio km northwofste tloa sohelier mostma othe Msssppiaeptery) andoother mppondmbtel was mediu oehre srouthdo the mound whs ere distinguishing. elements thrafter have beentl deribeod ins the er r untilt actios (PipaigYo Mc icl p hersal rt Falo WOnsynesew Mra01;Mran Mciln esnlcommunication, 2007). MuhoThshodcae beinduse Whtae 2007;il Whtemeet aith 2012) The Apaaicoas ivr-ower
Du VERNAY YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 39
A site datum contour interval 30 cm
-- dirt road r barn
0 20 40 ~iMlrs
Figure 2. Site map of Yon Mound and Village (8LI2).
Figure 3. You Mound with dirt road in foreground; facing northeast (September 2005).
40 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
Omusee Creek4 _Alabama
AWaddells Mill Pond Old Rambo
Luke See,(oolewaler India" Mound era
re wo ChnttahooheLidi---Florida
t. Cayson Vo
I ChIpola Cut-Off
0 5 10 20 30 40 AFr atnStswt
Figure 4. Distribution of Fort Walton sites with earthen mounds that are located along the
Chattahoochee River valley and the Tallahassee Red Hills real or perceived threat" of Rood Mississippian pioneers to region are recognized as the major loci of Fort Walton activity the north along the Chattahoochee around A.D. 1 100. Recent (see Figure 1). and previously underreported fieldwork and collection studies
To date, 201 Fort Walton sites have been recorded in the completed by USF, however, have produced artifact and valley, including mound centers, small probable farmsteads, chronological data useful for characterizing Fort Walton's cemeteries, and dense coastal shell middens (Schieffer 2012). Mississippian beginnings (Du Vemay and White 2012). These Fort Walton development within the valley has been a subject of data show that Fort Walton development in the valley involved great interest. Researchers now recognize an in situ emergence local Late Woodland groups negotiating the retention of their of Fort Walton out of local Late Woodland populations (e.g., traditions in the face of outside Mississippian practices. This Blitz and Lorenz 2002; Brose and Percy 1978; Du Vernay and process resulted in the emergence of a distinctive Mississippian White 2012; Marrinan and White 2007; Scarry 1984, 1990; culture that included both the adoption of external practices and White 1982, White et al. 2012), most clearly supported by the the continuation of old ones, the reoccupation of Woodlandcontinued production of late Weeden Island, Wakulla Check period mound sites, platform mound building, and variability Stamped pottery into early Fort Walton times (White 1982). in subsistence practices (Du Vernay and White 2012). More than 30 years ago, in situ, eco-fuinctionalist models In addition to Yon, three platform mound sites are known for Fort Walton emergence were proposed (Brose and Percy from the Apalachicola valley proper (Moore 1902, 1903): 1978; Scarry 1984, 1990; White 1982). More recently, Blitz Pierce (White 2012) on the west bank at the river mouth, and Lorenz (2002:131) hypothesize that Fort Walton was Cayson in the middle valley across the river from Yon, and the result of local Late Woodland groups responding to "the Chattahoochee Landing (White 2011 a) on the east side of
DU VE1RNAY VON MOUND AND VILLAGE 41
the river, just below the confluence of the Chattahoochee
and Flint Rivers (Figure 4). Additionally, north up the lower Early Investigations of Von: 1903-1973 Chattahoochee River are two Fort Walton mound sites: Old
Rambo (9SE 15) and Omussee Creek (1H027) (Belovich et Yon initially was recorded by Clarence Bloomfield Moore
at. 1982; Blitz and Lorenz 2006; Moore 1907; Neuman 1961; (1903:393) at the turn of the twentieth century, when he visited White 198 1 a), located on the east and west banks, respectively the site while traveling the Apalachicola River in his steamboat (Marrinan and White 2007:293). A possible Fort Walton Gopher. Unfortunately, Moore's description of Yon is very
mound, the Underwater Indian Mound (9SE27) that also brief compared to his descriptions of other mound sites in the
has an earlier, Middle Woodland component, is present near Southeast. The extent of his investigation included measuring Lake Seminole (White 1981). At one time, a conical burial the mound as well as digging "many trenches" on the mound's mound with a Fort Walton and an earlier Middle Woodland "plateau." Moore's trenches apparently revealed a few pieces component, Chipola Cutoff (8GU5), was situated near the of charred human bone, but he noted no other materials in his confluence of the Chipola and Apalachicola rivers but has short summary (Moore 1903:393). been washed away (White 2011 b). Far upstream from Chipola The next reported Yon visit was a brief reconnaissance
Cutoff is the mound at the Waddells Mill pond site (8JA65) survey by archaeologist Matthew W. Stirling in 1936. (Gardner 1966; Tesar 2006; Tesar and Jones 2009). Stirling did not publish his results, but Gordon Willey (1949)
Fort Walton chronology is imprecise (Marrinan and White summarized them. According to Willey (1949:262), Stirling 2007). Ceramic phases have been proposed (Scarry 1984), but photographed the mound and surface collected ceramic sherds they do not really fit the available data, so here the general from the site's village area that included Fort Walton types. chronology of early, middle, and late Fort Walton is used, Some 20 years later, William H. Sears (1959) visited Yon (and based upon general shifts in ceramic trends (Marrinan and Cayson) as part of his investigation of previously recorded White 2007; White 1982) (Table 1). A particularly significant sites located on the Gulf Coast. Sears (1959:30) did not test matter in Fort Walton chronology involves the temporal place or surface collect during his visit but instead simply suggested of Lamar ceramics (Marrinan and White 2007), introduced to (with reference to both the Yon and Cayson sites) that "any the Fort Walton region from central Georgia (Hally 1 994a; future research on Fort Walton culture might consider major Wauchope 1966; Williams 2008; Williams and Shapiro excavations here."
1 990a). Late in the Mississippian period or perhaps after Nearly 60 years after Moore dug at Yon, test
European contact, the Lamar ceramic complex entered the excavations resumed in December 1960 by then Florida State Fort Walton region (Ewan and Hanm 1998; Hann and McEwan University (FSU) graduate students Bennie Keel and L. Ross 1998:9; Shapiro and McEwan 1992:49-50; White 2005; White Morrell. No formal report or map was ever generated from et al. 2002). White (1982:25 1) initially placed Lamar in her their research. Sparsely detailed excavation notes recorded by Late Fort Walton period but did so only tentatively. She now Keel housed at the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research proposes that its chronological position is later (White 2011 b), (BAR) in Tallahassee, as well as personal communications likely a post-contact phenomenon (White et al. 2012; also between Keel and Nancy White, indicate that Keel and see Du Vemay 2008, 2011). Evidence from Yon suggests that Morrell made surface collections and dug a 10-ft square test Lamar here likely was a protohistoric phenomenon that carried unit somewhere approximately 200 m north-northeast of the into early historic times as discussed below, mound. John Scarry later identified their ceramic data on basic
catalog forms and submitted them to the BAR. Following
Table 1. Fort Walton periods and their ceramic trends (as defined by Marrinan and White 2007:293).
Period, Ceramic Trends
large proportion of check-stamped sherds
earl Fot Waton the presence of some late Weeden Island types eArly Fort0Walton small proportion of shell-tempered sherds (A.D.1000-200) cob-marked sherds
_________________all Fort Walton types
middle Fort Walton small proportion of check-stamped sherds (A.D.1200-400) small proportion of shell-tempered sherds
(A.D.1200-400) all Fort Walton types
late Fort Walton small proportion or absence of check-stamped sherds
(A.D. 1400-1600) all Fort Walton types
________________I appearance of Lamar types (or they could also be post Fort Walton)
42 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(1)
FgCase Western Resee Uvnvirsiie Excavation Unit nd- ir Ra Contour interval 30 com
,- i High: 73\
,'. : Low : 3.0
t" [/ .' O 0 25 50 100 150 200 ': 0 : --Meters
Figure 5. Location (general vicinity) of Case Western Reserve University excavation units at Yon on
Digital Elevation Model (DEM).
the investigation conducted by Keel and Morrell, a surface The excavations were supervised by then CWRU graduate collection at Yon was completed by David S. Phelps of FSU in student John Scarry, who with a field crew of six other students, 1968. Four years later, two additional surface collections were dug ten 5-x-5-ft units and one 5-x-10-ft unit over a six-week made by Daniel Penton and James Miller, then of the Florida period. Unfortunately, a comprehensive site map detailing the Division of Archives, History, and Records Management (now precise location of the units was not produced, and a report the Florida Division of Historical Resources, FDHR) and summarizing the results was never written, although a partial George Percy of FSU. discussion of the investigation was provided by Brose (1976)
In the summer 1973, excavations at Yon were coordinated and Brose et al. (1976) in unpublished manuscripts. In addition, by David Brose of Case Western Reserve University (CWRU). Scarry (1978) very briefly summarized some of their findings
Lmr Comp St
Lmr Bold Inc
U m Number
PW Inc mWeight
Tckr Ridge Pinc
SC Comp St
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 6. Relative frequencies of diagnostic ceramic types by number and weight among the diagnostic ceramic types in all early Yon investigations. (For ceramic type abbreviation explanation, see Table 2).
Du VERNAY YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 43
Table 2. Summary table of diagnostic ceramic types recovered from Von during early investigations.
FBAR surface IFSU surface JKeel and Totals
CW RU collection Jcollections Morrell Stirling
n n n n n n
wt wt wt wt wt wt
Brushed 10.3 10.3
Lamar Complicated 263 1 12 105 381
Stamped 1992.8 23.2 121.8 2795 4932.8
Lamar Plain 21 3 24
150.2 22.3 ____ 172.5
Lamar Bold Incised 18 3 7 28
150 47.5 146.3 343.8
Fort Walton Incised 107 2 13 132 21 275
799.6 26.8 139.5 2321.6 727.6 4015.1
Marsh Island Incised 33 1 69 19 122
269.2 _______ 39 2072 913.2 3293.4
Cool Branch Incised 4 1 11 4 20
29.3 22.9 330.1 68.9 451.2
Lake Jackson 57 4 5 84 16 166
360.0 105.7 163.5 1478.3 339.6 2447.1
Point Washington 12 7 30 1 50
Incised 89.0 89.5 728.9 7.8 915.2
Pensacola Incised 10 10
Keith Incised 5 1 13 19
71.1 16.7 64 151.8
Tucker Ridge 1 I
Pinched 20.6 20.6
and provided a site sketch map in his Yon National Register of curated Yon artifacts were lent to me for tabulation and Historic Places nomination. In fall of 2009, 5 carry sat down analysis at the USF Archaeology Lab, and in that same year, with me to discuss Yon at the Southeastern Archaeological I visited the Smithsonian to reexamine the Stirling materials. Conference in Mobile, Alabama. I overlaid his sketch map I decided it would be worthwhile to reexamine these artifacts on a 2005 aerial photograph of Yon, and he confirmed the with a refined and consistently applied ceramic typology and (extremely) general placement of his excavation units on this sorting criteria (White 2009), so that these data would be map. I subsequently re-plotted their locations on a DEM map comparable with ceramic assemblages from other sites in the of the site (Figure 5). The ceramic material recovered during region. Additionally, I tabulated the other materials in these the CWRU investigation initially was tabulated by Scarry, collections, including non-vessel ceramic, lithic, and faunal although the data were never published. During our fall 2009 remains, all of which had apparently never been reported. meeting, Scarry provided me with an electronic version of his Yon ceramic database that included catalog numbers and Early Yon Investigations Data Examination Summary provenience information for each sherd, but the absence of detailed notes or data indicating unit level depths and Individual summaries and analyses of each of the
stratigraphies presented challenges to using this information. datasets derived from the early Yon investigations have
The Yon artifacts recovered during these early been previously presented (Du Vemnay 2011). Despite the investigations are curated at the BAR in Tallahassee, with the various shortcomings in documentation (i.e., stratigraphic exception of those collected by Stirling, which are housed associations, precise unit locations, etc.), these data provide at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History an intriguing glimpse into the structure, composition, and
Support Center in Suitland, Maryland. In 2009, the BAR- occupational history of the site. Here, a more comprehensive
44 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(1)
wwu 12 3 4 5
Figure 7. Sample of materials from early Yon investigations. Top, left to right: Fort Walton Incised sherds (Stirling); ceramic discoidals (Keel and Morrell); Beaker fragment (CWRU) Bottom, left to right: New River Complicated Stamped (CWRU); Lamar Complicated Stamped and Lamar Bold Incised (CWRU); shark teeth (Tiger Shark, left; UNID shark, right) (CWRU).
USF excavation units
A site datum contour interval 30 cm
-= barn N
0 20 40
Figure 8. Site map of Yon mound and village showing location of USF excavation units. Units not to scale.
Du VERNAY YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 45
Table 3. Recalibrated CWRU Yon radiocarbon dates.
lab # unit/provenience radiocarbon calibrated calibrated date range
age intercept(s) (2jsgma),
DIC-655 not reported 640 70 B.P. A.D. 1300 A.D. 1251-1426
DIC-95 2/lower level of Fort Walton 900 120 B.P. A.D. 1040 A.D 888-1378
midden zonea A.D. 1100
DIC-114 10/burned occupation floor 980 105 B.P. A.D. 1020 A.D 784-1264
within Fort Walton middena DIC-656 not reported 1030 105 B.P. A.D. 1000 A.D. 730-1221
DIC-658 not reported 1110 70 B.P. A.D. 900 A.D. 712-1037
DIC-92 7/Swift Creek midden zone 1680 + 130 B.P. A.D. 350 A.D. 74-617
Note: aProvenience description provided by Scarry (1978).
IILmr/FW L 3
mold IVa lines possible L 9
refuse pit levigation
line / n n L
Ia. 10YR 4/2 dark grayish brown topsoil II. 10YR 6/4 light yellowish brown loamy sand IIILmr/FW.10YR 5/6 yellowish brown loamy fine sand
IIIcFW. 10YR 5/3 brown loamy fine sand 0 10 cm N
IVa. 10YR 8/3 very pale brown loamy fine sand IVb IVb. 10YR 7/3 very pale brown loamy fine sand mottled with 10YR 6/4 yellowish brown loamy fine sand
Possible refuse pit (Feature 07-7) and post mold (Feature 07-8): 10YR 3/2 silty sand
Levigation lines 7.5YR 4/3 dark reddish brown
Figure 9. Representative example of Yon village stratigraphic sequence, east wall of Unit I.
46 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 67(l)
I.m IV 4/Lro ntosi
bauOY /4yllois brwLilysn
La 5Y 6/ brwihylowslysn 111.1~~~~~ 6Y / rwnsnyca
L a W aY 4 / d ar y e l w s7r w a d l y L
V.~~~~~~~~~~~ 8OR33dr rw ad lymtldwt L O Y 4 /7r w l y O R 5 6 / e l w s L 1 8
Va 8OR54yloihbrw ad lyVI
sandy claya L 20X 32
VII 10YR /3 brown sanyila motle with -L 5_________________
IYR /4lh yellowish brown sandyca(rdoabnatotiedfmthstau)
Vill. lYR / brown sandy clay :
I. 10YR 6/8a browns nd elwlamyfiesn
X. 1YR 5/4 d yellowish brown om sand ly L1 L
V.10R/3drkbrFnsad gurymoed 0wUit A (Mud not wlroie
ealyinesiain asY a/ whloeawith pwandyiclar atetoVo1,inl1(eligr ) rdce h otpttr n te
theVI corpu of 4 dianoti ceram is Fron thed Stilnaufcyutrlmtras(u eny21:411.Ti eea
collctio through theR CW r eavaios, 8,614 eamic ariatdsrbtonadfeunypter lowsrvae
shrdwr0cllctd 6,43 (75h elwsrcen ofnwhica (deiedbo durin otheFinvemthsstiations
*frmthy CR investigation Of awoendith atotlcsslagteto 1,158adIe Figure ) resents the reaiv mrquns pofedianoticr
(13 percent) were diagnostic types (Table 2). Notably, the ceramic types. Fifty-six percent (n=633) of the combined
Du VERN"Y YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 47
diagnostic assemblage are Fort Walton types, with Fort limited to unit number and vague descriptions (e.g., Fort Walton Incised, Marsh Island Incised, and Lake Jackson wares Walton midden, Swift Creek midden; see Scarry 1978). In my well represented. Significantly, the non-Fort Walton Lamar 2009 personal communication with Scarry, he indicated that Complicated Stamped composes approximately 33 percent all samples derived from midden contexts. (n=381) of the assemblage by count, and combined with It is well known that the CWRU dates fall comfortably
Lamar Plain (n=4) and Lamar Bold Incised (n=28), the Lamar within Fort Walton times, with the exception of the single ceramic complex makes up 37 percent (n=433) of the total early Middle Woodland date (DIC-92) obtained from a Unit diagnostic assemblage. Other non-Fort Walton Mississippian 7 sample and associated with the early Middle Woodland types are the shell-tempered Pensacola Incised (1 percent or materials. The calibrated range (2-sigma) for the Fort Walton n=l0), and the Rood type Cool Branch Incised (2 percent or period dates falls within the early (A.D. 1000-1200) and n=20). The remaining six percent include wares belonging middle (A.D. 1200-1400) periods. As part of the USF research, to preceding cultural periods, especially the early Middle additional radiocarbon dates were acquired from village Woodland (i.e., Swift Creek, A.D. 150-350). Swift Creek and mound contexts, which indicate that initial Fort Walton Complicated Stamped and New River Complicated Stamped settlement and mound building at Yon commenced around were all recovered from CWRU Unit 7 and accompanied by a A.D. 1200-1250 (discussed below). The 2-sigma ranges for Baker's Creek projectile point. Notably low in frequency are all the CWRU Fort Walton period radiocarbon dates, with the diagnostic late WeedenlIsland-period (A.D. 750-1000) ceramics exception of one (DIC-658) from an unknown provenience, (i.e., Keith Incised and Tucker Ridge Pinched), accounting are within this timeframe. for only 2 percent (n=20) of the total diagnostic assemblage.
Additionally, although not diagnostic of any particular time USF Investigations of Yon: 1995, 2000,
period, multiple ceramic discoidals (possible gaming pieces) and 2007 Field Seasons
were recovered by Keel and Morrell. Other notable materials
include a single bottle sherd and two shark teeth recovered USF research at Yon was initiated in 1995 by Nancy during the CWRU investigations. Representative photographs White, who organized a summer field school there with of these materials and diagnostic ceramics recovered during funding provided by the FDHR and then again in 2000. A the early Yon Investigations are presented in Figure 7. third USF Yon field school was completed in 2007, which
Taken together, these early ceramic data suggest that I supervised and co-organized with White as part of my Yon was a location of both Fort Walton and Lamar activity dissertation research. and settlement and that prior to Fort Walton times, the site
was only minimally occupied; the extant pre-Fort Walton Background and Field Methods occupation was greatest during the early Middle Woodland
period, although it apparently was minor and localized. The The USF field seasons were designed to refine our presence of a relatively small number of Keith Incised and understanding of Yon and Fort Walton culture within the Tucker Ridge Pinched sherds hints at a minor late Weeden valley. Specific research objectives included gathering data Island presence, but it is not uncommon to have these types about the mound's construction history, better defining the mixed with Fort Walton sherds. Notably, all but four of the total composition of the village areas, determining the relationship 20 late Weeden Island sherds came from unknown or surface between the Fort Walton and Lamar components, and obtaining proveniences (see Du Vemnay 2011:78, 85); it is difficult to radiocarbon dates from both village and mound contexts to determine with these data alone the degree (if any at all) to determine the site's chronological place in the valley. The which Yon was occupied during late Weeden Island times. It field methods included surface collecting, mapping, manual is worth pointing out, however, that only 150 check stamped coring to investigate site limits and occupational areas, and sherds were recovered during these early investigations, excavating units into various village locales and the mound. accounting for less than 1 percent of the total assemblage (Du During these field seasons, nine Il-x-2 m units (A through H) Vernay 2011:70, 78, 85). It seems quite probable that if Yon and a single Il-x-lI m extension unit (Unit AA) were excavated had a significant late Weeden Island component, this number (Figure 8), and 108 four-inch (10.16 cm) diameter bucketwould have been greater, given the high frequency of check auger cores were completed. Two additional cores were dug in stamping typical of this time period. 2009. Units A-E and Unit AA were excavated during the 1995
As part of my research effort, the six radiocarbon dates field season, Units F and G in 2000, and Units H and I in 2007. obtained during the CWRU Yon investigations (Scarry 1978, Field methods were consistent throughout the three 1980, 1984, 1990) were recalibrated (Table 3) using a refined seasons. All excavation units were judgmentally placed in radiocarbon calibration dataset (Reimer et al. 2009) available areas thought to have the potential to provide data relevant to through Oxcal, an online radiocarbon calibration program the research objectives. Excavations were done in arbitrary 10operated by the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (20 10). cm levels within cultural zones, but particularly dense midden Unfortunately, three of samples (DJC-655, DIC-656, and DIC strata typically were removed in 5-cm levels. Unit soils were 658) derived from unreported proveniences. The provenience water-screened through a Vs8-in (3.175 mm) mesh, with the data for the other samples (DIC-95, DIC-l 114, DIC-92) are exception of feature soils, one-liter soil samples and nine-liter
48 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(1)
Lmr Comp Stm
Lmr Bold Inc
CB Inc m Weight
Pens Inc a Number
Tckr Ridge Pinc ___ ______ _____0 0 0 30 40 50
Figure 11. Relative frequencies of diagnostic ceramic types by number and weight among all diagnostic ceramic types present in the USF assemblage.
flotation samples taken from the southwest section of each Village and Mound Stratigraphic Description unit at the beginning of every level, which were processed by flotation. Coring was used to obtain an understanding The extensive USF coring and test excavations gave a
of the location, extent, composition, and intensity of the broad-scale picture of the location, composition, intensity, village midden and to document how it varied across the site. extent, and variability of Yon's village midden. A thorough Distance between cores along transects ranged from 3 0 to 100 summary and map presentations of the USF coring results mn; they were not always at uniform intervals because of the and test unit stratifications have been provided previously (Du need to resolve ambiguities in the results of certain cores or Vemay 2011), so results are only summarized here. to avoid tree roots. Cores reached depths up to 3-in below the Testing clearly indicated that the stratigraphic sequence surface; depth and soil color and texture for each stratum were at Yon had been impacted by multiple occupations, river flood recorded. All soils from cores were dry-screened through /-in deposits, water table fluctuations, and modem alterations of the (6.35 mm) mesh. landscape. A representative example of the village stratification
Figure 12. Representative diagnostic sherds from primary Figure 13. Representative diagnostic sherds from LamarFort Walton village midden (top: Marsh Island Incised; dominated village midden layer (top: Lamar Complicated bottom: Fort Walton Incised-left, Lake Jackson-right). Stamped; bottom: Lamar Bold Incised).
Du VERNAY YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 49
is presented in Figure 9. Beneath the topsoil and layer(s) of recently deposited alluvium are multiple midden zones. The greatest occupational intensity appears to be indicated by a pure Fort Walton midden layer (Substratum IIIcFW), located directly above a culturally-sterile zone (Stratum IV). This midden was encountered across the site including west, east, and northeast of the mound as well as directly adjacent to the mound. East and northeast of the mound is a later Lamar occupation (Substratum 11ILmr/FW). Lamar and minimal amounts of Fort Walton ceramics are present in this layer, directly above the pure Fort Walton occupation. Additional 0 1 2 3 4 S
and very thin Fort Walton substrata (IIlaFW and IIIbFW) are present near the mound, evident in Units B and C and likely 1 % e % im
represent near-mound activities (see Du Vernay 2011:142- CM
The wall profiles of Units A and H provided a preliminary understanding of the mound stratigraphic sequence. The north wall profile for Unit A is presented in Figure 10. Both profiles show one later and possibly erosional stratum (1) overlying two very thin zones (Strata 11 and III). Beneath these strata are two comparatively thick basket-loaded zones (Strata IV and V). Notably, Lamar ceramics were not found beneath Stratum IV in either mound unit, suggesting that this layer and the two above it (Strata II and III) likely were added by peoples Figure 14. Bottle/beaker neck sherd recovered from Unit using Lamar ceramics. Stratum V represents the first pure A, Level 6a. Fort Walton mound layer and appears to be the thickest of the
Table 4. Diagnostic ceramic types recovered during USF investigations tabulated by general provenience.
A AA I B C I 'D E F G H I cores surface Total
n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt
Lamar Comp. 28 4 2 11 9 4 17 8 7 90
Stamped 213.6 15.9 8.3 140.5 47.6 58.4 97.7 46.5 55.9 684.4
Lamar 1 2 1 1 2 7
Plain 7.0 4.9 19.7 11.0 15.4 58.0
Lamar Bold 3 2 3
Incised 32.9 20.1 34.6
Ft. Walton 19 14 6 16 13 1 5 12 7 19 112
Incised 149.8 135.7 35.9 115.3 26.4 2.7 35.1 39.9 49.2 159.7 749.7
Marsh Island 18 5 3 5 3 13 5 52
Incised 491.5 94.1 16.9 86.9 10.5 788.3 31.1 1519.3
Cool Branch 3 2 1 1 4 11
Incised 46.4 12.9 17.9 7.5 41.3 126
Pensacola 1 1 5 7
Incised 3.2 2.8 41.5 47.5
Lake 21 9 7 8 7 2 3 8 3 68
Jackson 173.7 35.4 135.3 54.6 17.6 17.3 12.3 59.7 23.5 529.4
Pt. Washington 5 1 1 1 3 2 15
Incised 44.1 10.0 8.3 5.8 13.9 23.1 129.9
Keith 1 2 1 4
Incised 7.8 18 3.9 29.7
Tucker Ridge I I
Pinched 2.4 2.4
Total # 96 33 20 37 29.F18 0 19 5 54 23 36 370
1 g I 1130.1g 291.1g 212.1g 312.4g .4g 0 99.9g 78.1g 1034.6g 157.4g 299.7g I 3910.9g
50 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
various mound strata. Underlying these strata in Unit A were During the three USF Yon field seasons, a total of 9,739 three steep mound strata (Strata VI through VIII) with basket ceramic sherds weighing nearly 30.2 kg was recovered. The loading and mottling evident. The lowest two layers (Strata majority of the assemblage is non-diagnostic, composing IX and X) were horizontal and composed of loamy fine sand. 96 percent by count (n=9,369) and 87 percent by -weight Stratum IX likely was the original ground surface upon which (wt--26,257.3 kg) of the total ceramic assemblage. The the mound was built. diagnostic ceramics recovered during USF investigations are
At a depth of approximately 160 cm, within Level 13 tabulated by gross provenience in Table 4. Figure I I graphs in Unit A, an intrusive burial pit with the partial and poorly their relative type frequencies. Fort Walton Incised, Lamar preserved remains of an extended adult skeleton accompanied Complicated Stamped, Lake Jackson, and Marsh Island Incised by a greenstone celt was encountered during White's 1995 are well represented, but a few larger Marsh Island Incised investigation (White 1996); the pit clearly cut into the basket- sherds recovered from a 2007 Feature in Unit I are responsible loaded strata. Initially, only the legs were exposed in the for the higher weight percentage of this type (see Du Vernay western half of the unit; Unit AA then was opened at the south 2011, Kimble 2008). Only two diagnostic late Weeden Island wall of the Unit A's western half to reveal the remainder of the types, Keith Incised (4 sherds) and Tucker Ridge Pinched (I burial. Specific details of the burial are discussed by White sherd), are present, representing a negligible amount of the (1996) and Du Vernay (2011). The FDHR was immediately total ceramic assemblage. Together, these general patterns contacted and the burial was left unexcavated. Excavations mirror those seen in the data derived from the early Yon continued in the eastern 80 cm of Unit A, behind the burial, investigations, indicating that that the site, in addition to down to the pre-mound sediments (White 1996). having a Fort Walton component, had a comparatively strong
Lamar ceramic presence, but only a very minimal amount of
Summary ofDatafirom USF Yon Investigations late Weeden Island types.
Table 5 presents the counts and relative frequencies of
A partial data presentation and summary of the 1995 the diagnostic types from the excavation units in each of the USF Yon investigation were generated by White (1996), and I midden zones. In all village midden layers, only 3 percent of synthesized, described, and analyzed all subsequent research the total sherds recovered are assignable to diagnostic types. (Du Vernay 2011). The investigations recovered ceramics Of those, Fort Walton Incised, Lamar Complicated Stamped, and non-vessel ceramic remains (i.e., daub), lithics, faunal Lake Jackson, and Marsh Island Incised are the most common; remains, and historic artifacts and exposed multiple features. the other diagnostic types each compose less than 5 percent in As with the early Yon investigations, particular attention here both number and weight of the total diagnostic types present is paid to the diagnostic ceramic data. in the assemblage. Stratum IIIcFW represents the earliest,
Table 5. Summary of diagnostic ceramics by cultural stratum from village excavation units.
Diagnostic Type n wt. n wt. I n wt. n wt. n wt.
Lamar Complicated 1 5.1 35 274.5 36 279.6
Lamar Plain 1 11,0 3 11.9 4 22.9
Lamar Bold 5 59.3 5 59.3
Ft. Walton 5 24,0 5 30.3 34 152.4 7 45.2 51 251.9
Marsh Island 2 50.2 1 4.8 20 828.0 23 883.0
CB Incised 1 5.1 1 17.9 2 23.0
Lake Jackson 4 10.6 3 37.1 19 176.1 6 44.1 32 267.9 1
Point Washington 2 14.1 3 13.9 5 28.0
Pens Incised 1 6.1 4 35.4 1 2.8 6 44.3
Keith Incised 2 18.0 18.0
Tucker Ridge Pinched 1 2.4 L
Du VERNAY YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 51
thickest, and most widespread Yon midden level, encountered episodes. However, as discussed above, Lamar types were in Units B, C, D, G, and 1; it thus is not surprising that it confined to the upper strata (11, 111, and IV) of both units. As contains not only the most ceramics of the four distinct village with some of the village units, these Lamar types were mixed midden strata but also the greatest diversity of diagnostic with Fort Walton sherds. Interestingly, Lamar Complicated ceramic types. The large quantities of ceramics and daub and Stamped was the most common diagnostic type present in the the presence of multiple post molds and refuse pits in this mound, composing 27 percent of the total diagnostic ceramic zone show that Yon had an extensive village component. This assemblage; Fort Walton types (i.e., Fort Walton Incised, stratum appears solidly Fort Walton, as reflected by not only Marsh Island Incised, Lake Jackson, and Point Washington the diagnostic Fort Walton types but also the ubiquity of grit- Incised), however, together were the most common diagnostic tempered plain sherds. Representative sherds from this layer types, comprising 68 percent of the total diagnostic wares are presented in Figure 12. from the mound.
A shift in the composition of the ceramic assemblage is A particularly noteworthy find in the mound was a sandevident in Stratum IIILmr/FW, encountered in Units E, G, and tempered rim sherd of a bottle or beaker, identifiable by its 1, all located east of the mound. This layer is clearly dominated small (5 cm diameter) orifice (White 1996). The sherd was by Lamar wares, which account for 77 percent by number of recovered from Level 6a (Stratum V) in Unit A and has 4 the diagnostic sherds (Figure 13). Only two diagnostic Fort horizontal lines incised in bands directly below the rim (Figure Walton types are present in this stratum: Fort Walton Incised 14). Based upon this surface decoration, it is probably either and Lake Jackson. Combined these two types compose only the beaker type Andrews Decorated orthe bottle typeNunnally 23 percent by number of the total diagnostics present in the Incised (Schnell et al. 1981); because of its small size, it is zone. This relative frequency dramatically contrasts with those simply classified as a bottle/beaker sherd. of the other strata, where Fort Walton types make up between
94 and 100 percent by number of all the diagnostic types. USF Radiometric Dating Results
The composition of the ceramic assemblage from the
mound units generally parallels what was found in the village Seven radiocarbon dates were acquired during USF units (Table 6). Unit A was excavated by White in 1995 in investigations (Table 7). Three charcoal samples were horizontal levels (opposed to levels following the slope of submitted from mound contexts collected from Unit A and the mound), likely causing some materials from different AA (White 1996). Two of these samples (Beta-91164 and mound strata to be mixed. The bulk of the diagnostic sherds Beta-91165) were taken from the very thin line of charcoal from the mound derived from Unit A. As such, there are some associated with the burial, and the third sample (Beta-91844) challenges to linking ceramic types to various construction came from the earliest recognizable basket-loaded mound
Table 6. Summary of diagnostic ceramics from mound units.
_F"' Unit A and AA T_ Unit H Total
Diagnostic n % wt. % n % wt, % n % wt. %
Lamar Comp. 32 25 229.5 16 4 80 58.4 75 36 27 287.9 19
Lamar Plain 1 20 19.7 25 1 1 19.7 1
Ft.Walton 33 26 285.5 20 33 25 285.5 19
March Island 23 18 585.6 41 23 17 585.6 39
Cool Branch 3 2 46.4 3 3 2 46.4 3
Lake Jackson 30 1 209.1 0 30 22 209.1 14Pt. Washington 6 23 54.1 15 6 4 54.1 4
Pensacola 1 5 3.2 4 1 1 3.2 0
Incised I 1 7.8 1 1 1 7.8 1
52 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(1)
~-. in r~'d'0 n 0W)
(N 00- (N ~ Cl0C
--- o w-
e IWkn W I It I
E~~in onin is isN C) c)' =C
0u E~ 0i r- N0 I 00 N
00CD C 00 0 ~ 0 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -N 7a .N .~ (
0 s 0 0 0 0d m 00 0 0 0 0 0
e d Cl c.l 0* Cd I
42~ 00 bD w 0 00 0
0 0 0 000A
0 O r- 00 0 0
> E l C~~
o Enl ai
o t a' CO CIO CO O
00 -~o 4Z enC I-.O ~ - en ~ 4) = ON IT )
CP a's en h e
M I" eq-O
DU VERNAY YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 53
stratum (VIII). The sample from Stratum VIII was collected from both piles), but no Fort Walton types, and produced the in situ at Floor 18 (White 1996). The charcoal produced same date on charcoal samples: calibrated intercepts of 1690 a calibrated AMS date of 820 50 B.P. The intercept point and 1730 (White 2005). If the Lamar context radiocarbon of this date with the calibration curve is A.D. 1235, fitting dates from Yon and Lighthouse Bayou are correct, the two comfortably within the early part of the middle Fort Walton demonstrate that Lamar in the Fort Walton region is a postperiod. The two charcoal samples from the burial (Beta-9 1164 contact phenomenon. and Beta-91 165) returned calibrated AMS dates of 990 50
B.P. and 930 60 B.P., respectively. The first date (Beta- Discussion
91164) intercepts the calibration curve at three points-A.D.
1055, 1090, and 1150. The intercept of the second date (Beta- The data from Yon summarized and presented above 91165) with the calibration curve is A.D. 1025. Although have provided important information regarding the site's both dates place the burial very earl y within the Fort Walton occupational history. This section is aimed at discussing sequence (and possibly some 150 to 200 years earlier than the and contextualizing these data by exploring some of the date for initial mound construction), it should be noted that possible antecedent events and social processes that may the 2-sigma ranges for all three mound dates are comparable. have influenced Yon's development. It is likely that Yon's
The four samples submitted for radiocarbon dating from occupational events were influenced by both local and external the village units also were charcoal; three were collected in events and processes, aspects understood as part and parcel of situ from features assignable to the IIIcFW layer in Units the histories of Mississippian societies (Blitz 2010:13). It is D, G, and I, and one was collected in situ from the IIILmr/ clear from the data that Yon had both significant Fort Walton FW midden zone at Level 7 in Unit E. The charcoal samples and later Lamar components. Here, the discussion largely will obtained from IIIcFW produced nearly identical results. The focus on the Fort Walton activity, but with some coverage of small piece of charcoal from a post mold feature in Unit D the pre- and post-Fort Walton occupational events to frame the (Beta-110362) returned a calibrated AMS date of 800 60 narrative. It is important to emphasize, however, the limitations B.P. The intercept point of this date with the calibration curve of my description, since much of the Yon site has yet to be is A.D. 1250. The two other dates from this zone are from investigated. As such, this discussion should be considered Unit G and I refuse pits; these dates are practically identical, as a preliminary interpretation of the available evidence and The Unit G and I charcoal (Beta-154364 and Beta-235137) springboard for more research at Yon and other Fort Walton respectively produced calibrated AMS dates of 800 40 B.P. sites in the region. and 860 40 B.P. The intercept of both the Unit G and I dates Presently, the data suggest that pre-Fort Walton activity on the calibration curve is A.D. 1200. Together these three at Yon is minimal. The recovery of Swift Creek ceramics (and village dates indicate that the primary and earliest Fort Walton an associated CWRU-obtained radiometric date) suggests occupation of Yon occurred during the early part of the middle that Yon initially was occupied during the Middle Woodland Fort Walton period, between A.D. 1200 and 1250. These period (A.D. 300-700) (Milanich 1994:141-150; Williams and radiocarbon results compare fairly well with those obtained Elliot 1998). Contemporaneous Swift Creek settlements in the from the CWRU investigation. Although the calibrated valley were sometimes accompanied by conical burial mounds intercepts of the CWRU Yon radiocarbon dates lean slightly often replete with ritual caches (Milanich 1994:148-149; earlier than those of USF, the two-sigma ranges of most of the White 1986:204). The USF mound excavations at Yon did CWRU Fort Walton period dates fall comfortably within this not produce any Swift Creek materials nor any stratigraphic A.D. 1200-1250 window. evidence suggesting that its Fort Walton construction episodes
The results of the fourth village date collected from were built over a preexisting burial mound. Additionally, Substratum IIILmr/FW in Unit E are not as definitive as those broad-scale subsurface testing in the village area did not from the other village units. The Unit E charcoal sample produce any additional Swift Creek materials. These data submitted returned a calibrated AMS date of 130 40 B.P. suggest that this presence was short-term and concentrated to The date intercepts the calibration curve at five points, which a small portion of the site. are A.D. 1690, A.D. 1730, A.D. 1810, A.D. 1920, and A.D. This brief Swift Creek occupation was followed by what
1950. These results are disappointing in their ambiguity, as the appears to have been a relatively long period of little or no sample was collected from a secure and undisturbed midden activity at the site. Evidence of a subsequent early Weeden zone replete with Lamar ceramics. Given these facts, the only Island cultural presence is limited to single Weeden Island two intercept dates possibly compatible with a Lamar context Incised sherd, recovered from an unknown provenience by Keel areA.D. 1690OandA.D. 1730. Notably, this date range compares and Morrell. Minimal activity continued during the following favorably with the only other Lamar context date in the region, late Weeden Island (Late Woodland) period (A.D. 700-1000). from the Lighthouse Bayou site (8GU 114), approximately 80 Late Weeden Island ceramic assemblages in the region include river miles downstream from Yon and around the west side a few diagnostic types but are overwhelmingly characterized of the delta on St. Joseph Bay. Lighthouse Bayou, consists by a mix of undecorated and Wakulla Check Stamped sherds of prehistoric and protohistoric shell piles. Two of these (Percy and Brose 1974:6; Milanich 1974:29; 1994:202; Percy Piles, contained Lamar ceramic types (some cross-mending and Jones 1975:104; 1976:114; White 1986:208), the latter
54 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(1)
of which typically accounts for upwards of 50 percent of a the current datasets. The Cayson site, however, located on the given site's assemblage (Du Vemnay 2011:238). This higher opposite side of the river from Yon, deserves consideration. frequency of Wakulla Check Stamped pottery does not occur Cayson was investigated in the early 1970s by FSU and at Yon. Notably, out of the total 18,323 sherds recovered CWRU, but only a small fraction of the data has been reported during the Yon investigations combined, a mere 191 of them (Brose 1975; Brose et al. 1976; Scarry 1980:41), providing were check stamped. Similarly, the total number of diagnostic few clues about its occupational history. As reported by Brose Late Weeden Island types recovered from the combined (1975), a total of 2,648 sherds were collected from Cayson, 599
investigations is small (n=25) and limited to the types Keith (23 percent of the total assemblage) of which were identified as Incised and Tucker Ridge Pinched. In sum, the data from the check stamped. This frequency is largely comparable to that of combined Yon investigations indicate that cultural activity at other sites with early Fort Walton components in the valley (Du Yon was minimal prior to Fort Walton times. Vemnay 2011:242; White 1982, 1994). The extant radiocarbon
The in-situ emergence of Fort Walton from local late evidence from Cayson appears to corroborate these data. Five Weeden Island groups in the valley occurred around A.D. radiocarbon dates were obtained-three from the village and 1000- 1100 (Blitz and Lorenz 2002, 2006; Brose and Percy two from mound contexts, although the provenience for these 1978; Du Vernay and White 2012; Scarry 198-4, 1990; is not clearly documented. These five dates were published and
Marrinan and White 2007; White 1982). As mentioned above, corrected by Scarry (1990:236, Table 26), but I recalibrated the link between late Weeden Island and early Fort Walton them and the results are featured in Table 8. With the exception has been demonstrated with ceramic continuities, especially of one sample (DIC-46), the calibrated intercepts fall within with Wakulla Check Stamped pottery, which continued in the early Fort Walton period (A.D. 1000-1200), although the high frequency with the appearance of Fort Walton types preferred calibrated range (2-sigma) clearly spans from late (White 1982). The minimal amount of check-stamped sherds Weeden Island to middle Fort Walton times. Place these dates at Yon suggest that the site was unoccupied or minimally within the context of the apparent frequency of check stamped occupied during early Fort Walton times (A.D. 1000-1200). sherds there, however, and an early Fort Walton occupation This is corroborated by radiocarbon and stratigraphic data becomes more probable. recovered during USF excavations that place the initial Fort Given Cayson's probable temporal position and Walton occupation and mound building at ca. A.D. 1200-1250, geographical proximity, it likely was an important local indicating Yon first developed as a Fort Walton mound center antecedent to Yon. Notably, Yon and Cayson form a pairedat the onset of the middle Fort Walton period. center settlement pattern indicative of what Williams and
Given these data, it appears that Fort Walton practices Shapiro (1 990b) have dubbed "paired towns," or Mississippian and traditions were already underway in the valley prior to mound centers that are no more than 16 kmn apart. "Paired the florescence of activity at Yon during the early thirteenth towns" are prevalent in many of the river valleys of the century. Thus, Yon's development probably involved, at least Mississippian Southeast, and it has been suggested that they in part, a community that underwent the late Weeden Island- are the outcome of sequential population movement between early Fort Walton transition elsewhere. As such, the arrival of two sites (Williams and Shapiro 1 990b: 164). Characterizing an existing Fort Walton group(s) at Yon likely was a factor Cayson and Yon as paired centers has been suggested by in its middle Fort Walton-period development. If a local Blitz and Lorenz (2006:87, 89-91), who also proposed that population movement was involved, where did the group(s) other clustered mound centers exist in the valley and among originate? A definitive answer to this question is difficult with the Rood and post-Rood mound centers along the lower
Table 8. Cayson site recalibrated radiocarbon dates.
lab# 1uni/poveienea radiocarbon [calibrated calibrated date range
I age [jcpt(s (2~ sigma)
DIC-46 unnw ,ilg 770 60 B.P. AD120A.D. 1054-1386
DIC-45 "edge of mound" 840 65 B.P. A.D. 1180 A.D. 1040-1276
DIC-94 "low mound" 900 100 B.P. A.D. 1100 A.D. 903-1284
___________ A.D. 1160
DIC-44 village unit, 940 145 B.P. A.D. 1050 A.D. 775-1380
"Feature 3"' ______DIC-93 village unit, "wall 1000 70 B.P. A.D. 1010 A.D. 893-1206
__________ trench" ________ _________________Note: a Provenience information described by Scarry 1990, or in summaries of radiocarbon sample submittal forms
Du VERNAY YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 55
Chattahoochee River. Admittedly, there is no direct proof that that this type of non-local artifact did not have a restricted Yon's middle Fort Walton period development was the result circulation, a pattern noted at other Mississippian sites as well of a Cayson site abandonment and subsequent population (e.g., Wilson 2001). Currently, the best evidence for restricted movement across river. However, evidence from other regions access and/or circulation of goods of any type at Yon are bottle of the Southeast suggests that mound center abandonment or beaker sherds, which were limited to the mound or a nearaccompanied by population movements to form new centers mound context. This limited distribution pattern has been nearby was a central component of regional Mississippian noted for other Fort Walton mound sites but also Rood mound political formations (Blitz 1999; Blitz and Lorenz 2006; centers along the lower Chattahoochee River (Blitz and Williams and Shapiro 1990b, 1996; Hally 1996). Therefore, Lorenz 2006:114-118; Schnell et al. 1981). Blitz and Lorenz using the current evidence, it is reasonable to hypothesize (2006:114-118) argue that the mound context of these wares that antecedent, early Fort Walton events at Cayson could indicates a link among community elites and suggest the largely have contributed to the subsequent middle Fort Walton Yon contemporaneous presence of bottles or beakers at both Fort development. Walton and Rood mound centers demonstrates interregional
The near-simultaneous florescence of village activity and elite alliances. The sparse evidence for status differences at initial mound building at Yon around AD. 1200 suggests that Yon could be more the result of the limited mound testing than site development happened quickly and in a manner that had an actual absence of major distinctions of status within the not occurred there previously. Given the close connection community. Alternatively, however, it could indicate that any between initial mound construction and village activity, it is status differences that came with being a community leader instructive to consider the role mound building likely played in at Yon were more symbolic or ideological than economic. Yon's middle Fort Walton emergence. Mississippian platform That is, leaders exerted influence, but this influence did not mounds were group construction projects. While long-standing provide them with any clear economic advantage within the archaeological interpretations of such mounds have stressed community (see Hammerstedt 2005). their roles as territorial or political markers or manifestations Greenstone celts and bottles/beakers are important of political or ritual authority, such perspectives have often evidence of participation in interregional Mississippian precluded an understanding of the social processes that may exchange, gifting, and communication networks, as is the have been involved in the act of mound construction itself presence of non-local utilitarian ceramics. The recovery of a (Pauketat and Alt 2003:151-152). As discussed by Cobb and few Pensacola Incised sherds during the USF investigations Nassaney (2002:53 1), with mounds (and other earthworks) "an from the primary Fort Walton midden zone suggests a minimal imprint on the landscape is established by human agency... degree of interaction with (or at least knowledge of) the and [their] construction ... regiments the location and timing of Pensacola Mississippian cultural tradition to the west. Grit (as a ritual process, which in turn promotes the discipline of the opposed to shell) tempering of ceramics is a characteristic that social and natural worlds." The ritual context of Mississippian distinguishes Fort Walton from most Mississippian cultures mound building has long been recognized (Knight 1986:678). (Marrinan and White 2007:293). As I have suggested elsewhere Recently, this perspective has been broadened to consider how (Du Vernay 2011:250-251), the significance of maintaining ritual mound building, as group construction projects, served grit tempering as other Mississippian groups turned to shell to integrate those who participated (Pauketat 2000; 2007:41- tempering should not be ignored. I agree with others (e.g., 42; Pauketat and Alt 2003:152). From this perspective, as. Alt 2006:292; Fortier 2001:186-187; Pauketat 2001:81-83) stated by Blitz (2010:15), mound construction "helped to who assert that ceramic temper can serve simultaneously as create and essentialize ... new identities and social relationships an identity marker and technological necessity (Du Vemay required to expand political and social integration." As such, 2011:25 1 ). From this standpoint, the daily practices associated mounds should be understood as more than just political or with pottery production, use, and discard would have assumed territorial markers and instead should be recognized as "an a vital role in building and maintaining cultural tradition and indispensable part of the process of cultural construction" social identity (Pauketat 2001:82). The practice among Fort (Wallis 2008:240) and history-making in prehistoric societies. Walton communities, including Yon, of selecting grit and not At Yon, the coincidence of initial mound construction and shell to temper their pottery, while coincidentally adopting first significant village occupation hints that mound building other broader Mississippian practices such as vessel shapes was an important social process for tradition building, social and forms and platform mound building, can be understood integration, and the establishment of a community identity on as a conscious effort to maintain a sense of traditional identity the local and regional landscape. within the context of the wider Mississippian world (Du
While it is probable that the individuals using the mound Vemay 2011:25 1; Marrinan and White 2007:293).
(and perhaps overseeing its construction) enjoyed some level While the presence of a few Pensacola Incised (and shellof status within the Yon community, current evidence suggests tempered plain) sherds at Yon might evince extra-regional that this distinction did not significantly translate into preferred Mississippian connections, perhaps more definitive evidence access to goods. The finely-crafted greenstone celt recovered exists with the utilitarian ware Cool Branch Incised (Blitz from the mound burial might appear to be an exception to this and Lorenz 2006:232-233). This ceramic is the predominant pattern, but the recovery of a greenstone celt and greenstone type among Rood 11 (A.D. 1200-1300) sites located along the flakes from the adjacent village area (Du Vernay 2011) suggests lower Chattahoochee (Blitz and Lorenz 2006:109). The type
56 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
is present in low frequencies at Fort Walton sites in the valley, population decimation and fragmentation from exposure to including Yon, generally amounting to about 2-3 percent European-introduced maladies (Milner 2004:192). among diagnostic types. Its presence suggests communication Unfortunately, material suitable for radiocarbon dating at the level of daily domestic practice between Yon and Rood was not encountered in the upper, post-Fort Walton Lamargroups but also may represent the creation of a new cultural dominated mound strata during the USF excavations. While form, resulting from the intersection of Rood and Fort Walton those data supporting Lamar mound building or use at Yon ceramic traditions. Notably, Cool Branch Incised is the grit- might suggest that the single radiocarbon date from the Lamar tempered equivalent of shell-tempered Moundville Incised, midden is inaccurate, I am not convinced that this is the case, the latter being the major diagnostic type in the Rood region because the sample came from a secure context. Alternatively, from the initial arrival of Rood populations around A.D. I 100 it is more likely that this later Lamar component began earlier until about 100 years later (Blitz and Lorenz 2002; 2006:106, than the radiocarbon date suggests and continued into the late Table 1). By about A.D. 1200 or shortly before, Rood potters seventeenth and possibly early eighteenth centuries. Elsewhere, began tempering their Moundville Incised pots with crushed 1 (2011) have argued that the Lamar presence at Yon initially grit (i.e., Cool Branch Incised), and the frequency of shell- occurred ca. A.D. 1600 and was the result of a downriver tempered ceramics in the region dramatically decreased (Blitz movement of Lamar groups into the region from the upper and Lorenz 2006:106-109). The reason for this transition is reaches of lower Chattahoochee River valley following the unknown, but the impact of contact with or knowledge of apparent disruption and instability that occurred in the region grit tempering in Fort Walton communities, and in particular after de Soto's passage up the Flint River (Braley 1998:9; Worth the community at Yon whose initial florescence roughly 2000:269). Evidence of such a population movement includes corresponds with this transition, deserves some consideration. a 90 percent reduction in sites and the near disappearance of
While the combined stratigraphic, ceramic, and Lamar along the upper part of the lower Chattahoochee by radiocarbon evidence indicates that Yon's Fort Walton A.D. 1600 (Knight and Mistovich 1984:225, 231-232; also occupational florescence began rather rapidly around A.D. see Knight 1994:383). As noted by Braley (1998:9-11), this 1200, the timing of its decline as a middle Fort Walton pattern parallels the first appearance of Lamar in other areas mound site is less precise, although it likely ended some time to the south, including the Tallahassee Hills. A similar pattern during the early to mid-fourteenth century. Rapid community was noted to the east by Weisman (1992:167) at Fig Springs, development and short duration of mound building and use, where Lamar pottery made its initial appearance in the first followed by site abandonment, was common to Mississippian decades of the 17" century. mound sites across the Southeast, and presently there is While this foray into Lamar at Yon might seem slightly little reason to believe that Yon was an exception to this tangential, it is worth noting that Yon is the only Fort broader Mississippian pattern. Notably, on a wider scale, Walton mound site in the valley known to have experienced archaeological data from multiple regions in the Southeast significant Lamar activity. One might wonder why Yon suggest that mound building in many (but not all) areas experienced a significant Lamar presence, while other Fort diminished beginning around A.D. 1350-1400, and many Walton mound sites in the region, especially Cayson right mound sites were abandoned during this time (Anderson across the river, apparently did not. Presently, an answer to 1994:75; King 2003:129; Knight and Steponaitis 1998:19). It this question remains elusive, but the decision to reoccupy seems possible that the middle Fort Walton community at Yon may have derived from the historical or ritual significance that may have been a part of this wider Mississippian mound site the location gained during its middle Fort Walton emergence abandonment pattern. and heyday. As argued by Pauketat and Alt (2003:171) with
While a short duration of mound center occupation specific reference to Mississippian mounds, "mounds were followed by site abandonment was a common Mississippian features of the living landscape, observed by all, recollected practice, so too were subsequent preoccupation at these differently by many, liable to be co-opted and intruded as centers, sometimes centuries later that included additional statements of inclusion or hegemony." The selection of Yon mound building or use (e.g., Blitz 1999; Blitz and Lorenz as a locale for a new occupation by Lamar group(s) would not 2006; Clay 2006; Hally 1996). The stratigraphic, ceramic, have been a random or arbitrary decision. A social memory and radiometric data indicate that Yon did not witness a (or memories) of Yon's past held by the migrating group(s) Fort Walton reoccupation after middle Fort Walton times, may have influenced their decision to occupy this location, but did experience subsequent Lamar occupational activity and their additional mound building and use can be viewed as that included additional mound building or use. The single an attempt to co-opt this past. radiocarbon date obtained for this occupation suggests it
occurred between A.D. 1690-1730. Arguably, this date range
is incongruous with the evidence for the additional mound
building or use. Platforrn mound building across the Southeast
had largely ceased by this time, mostly due to aboriginal
Du VERNAY YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 57
A long-standing problem in Fort Walton archaeology has been an absence of good documentation of the developmental histories ofFort Walton mound sites (Marrinan and White 2007), a shortcoming that has hindered our ability to understand Fort Walton and its place in the Mississippian milieu. To address this problem, archaeological data collected over the last 70 years from the Yon Mound and Village site were synthesized to sketch the site's unique occupational history. It would not be an overstatement to state that Yon Mound and Village is critical to the study of aboriginal groups in northwest Florida and adjacent regions, but also of the Southeast in general. Its diverse history that included a small Middle Woodland component, a sizeable middle Fort Walton mound and village, and a probable protohistoric-early historic Lamar occupation indicate that the site was significant not only to the aboriginal peoples of the Apalachicola-lower Chattahoochee River valley, but also to those with origins outside of this region. In this study, I have presented a specific history of Yon framed within the broader context of Fort Walton and aspects of the wider Mississippian world. While additional work is needed to refine this history, I hope that this research will serve as a baseline study for future avenues of inquiry at Yon and in the Fort Walton region.
Many thanks are extended to Nancy White for her support and guidance through my Fort Walton and Yon dissertation research. I would like to extend a thank you to Marie Prentice of the Collections and Conservation lab at the Bureau of Archaeological Research in Tallahassee and David Rosenthal of the Smithsonian Institution's Collections Annex in Suitland, Maryland, for making available for examination the previously collected materials from Yon that are stored at these facilities. Both were incredibly patient with me and so helpful with my research. Also, a special thank you is owed to Phil McMillan, Manager at the Neal Land and Timber Company in Blountstown, Florida, for allowing access to the Yon site on repeated occasions, and for permitting me to hold a field school there in 2007. 1 also would like to acknowledge the advice and data given to me by John F. Scarry, who as a graduate student at Case Western Reserve University in the 1970s, helped to conduct excavations at Yon. I really appreciate the time he spent corresponding with me about Yon and other things Mississippian. Thanks also to the Florida Archaeological Council and Sigma Xi for grants in support of my dissertation research. Improvements to the manuscript were made after receiving comments and suggestions from several individuals: an anonymous reviewer, Rochelle Marrinan (reviewer), Greg Mikell (reviewer), Keith Ashley, and Nancy White. Any errors in the manuscript, however, are my own.
58 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(1)
References Cited Brose, David, and George Percy
1978 Fort Walton Settlement Patterns. In Mississippian Alt, Susan M. Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp.
2006 The Power of Diversity: The Roles of Migration and 81-114. Academic Press, New York.
Hybridity in Culture Change. In Leadership andPolity
in Mississippian Society edited by Brian Butler and Clay, R. Berle
Paul Welch, pp. 289-308. Occasional Paper No. 33, 2006 Interpreting the Mississippian hinterlands.
Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Southeastern Archaeology 25: 48-64.
Illinois University, Carbondale
Cobb, Charles and Michael Nassaney
Anderson, David G. 2002 Domesticating Self and Society in the Woodland
1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms. University of Southeast. In The Woodland Southeast, edited by
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. David G. Anderson and Robert C. Mainfort, pp. 525539. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Belovich, Stephanie J., David S. Brose, Russell M. Weisman, and Nancy Marie White Couch, Carol A., Evelyn H. Hopkins, and P. Suzanne Hardy
1982 Archaeological Survey at George W Andrews Lake 1996 Influences of Environmental Settings on Aquatic
and Chattahoochee River Cleveland Museum of Ecosystems in the Apalachicola-ChattahoocheeNatural History Archaeological Report No. 37. Flint River Basin. United States Geological Survey
National Water-Quality Assessment Program Report
Blitz, John H. 95-4278. U.S. Department of the Interior, Atlanta,
1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-Fusion Georgia.
Process. American Antiquity 64:577-592.
2010 New Perspectives in Mississippian Archaeology. Du Vernay, Jeffr~ey P.
Journal ofArchaeological Research 2008 Recent Investigations at the Yon Mound and Village
18:1-39. site. Paper presented at 60b Florida Anthropological
Society Meeting, Tampa.
Blitz, John H. and Karl G. Lorenz 2011 The Archaeology of Yon Mound and Vi'llage, Middle
2002 The Early Mississippian Frontier in the Lower Apalachicola River Valley, Florida. Unpublished
Chattahoochee-Apalachicola River Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Southeastern Archaeology 21:117-135. University of South Florida.
2006 The Chattahoochee Chiefdoms. The University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Du Vernay, Jeffrey P. and Nancy Marie White
2012 Fort Walton Beginnings in Northwest FloridaBraley, Chad 0. Southwest Georgia-Southeast Alabama. Paper
1998 Yuchi Town (JRu63) Revisited: Analysis of the 1958- presented at annual meeting of the Southeastern
1962 Excavations. Southeastern Archaeological Archaeological Conference, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
Services, Athens. Submitted to Environmental November 8.
Management Division, Directorate of Public Works,
U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Georgia. Du Vernay, Jeffrey P., Nancy Marie White, and Amber Yuellig Contract No. 1 43CX50909600 1. 2007 Fort Walton in the Apalachicola River Valley.
Paper presented at the 64h annual Southeastern
Brose, David Archaeological Conference, Knoxville.
1975 Case Western Reserve University Contributions
to the Archaeological Investigation of Two Early Ewan, Charles R. and John H. Hann
Fort Walton Sites in the Apalachicola River Valley, 1998 Hernando de Soto Among the Apalachee: The Northwest Florida: 1973. Manuscript on file, Archaeology of the First Winter Encampment.
Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Fortier, Andrew C.
Brose, David, Patricia Essenpreis, John Scarry, Helga 2001 The Tradition of Discontinuity: American Bottom
Bluestone, and Anna Forsythe Early and Middle Woodland Culture History
1976 Contributions to the Archaeology of Northwestern Reexamined. In The Archaeology of Traditions:
Florida: Investigation of Early Fort Walton Sites in Agency and History Before and After Columbus,
the Middle Apalachicola River Valley. Manuscript edited by Timothy Pauketat, pp.1 74-194. University
on file, Department of Anthropology, Case Western Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Reserve University, Cleveland.
Du VERNAY YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 59
Gardner, William M. and Vincas P. Steponaitis, pp. 1-25. University of
1966 The Waddells Mill Pond Site. The Florida Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Marrinan, Rochelle A.
Hally, David J. 2012 Fort Walton Culture in the Tallahassee Hills. In Late
1994 An Overview of Lamar Culture. In Ocmulgee Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of
Archaeology: 1936-1986, edited by David the Mississippian World, edited by K. Ashley and
Hally, pp. 144-174. University of Georgia Press, N. White, pp. 186-230. University Press of Florida,
1996 Platform Mound Construction and the Instability of
Mississippian Chiefdoms. In Political Structure and Marrinan, Rochelle A., and Nancy Marie White
Change in the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, 2007 Modeling Fort Walton Culture in Northwest Florida.
edited by John F. Scarry, pp. 92-127. University Press Southeastern Archaeology 26:292-318.
of Florida, Gainesville.
Milanich, Jerald T.
Hammerstedt, Scott W. 1974 Life in a 9th Century Indian Household, A Weeden
2005 Mississippian Status in Western Kentucky: Evidence Island Fall-Winter Site on the Upper Apalachicola
from the Annis Mound. Southeastern Archaeology River, Florida. Bureau of Historic Sites and
24:11-27. Properties Bulletin 4:1-44.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Hann, John H., and Bonnie G. McEwan Press of Florida, Gainesville.
1998 The Apalachee Indians and Mission San Luis. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milner, George R.
2004 The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern Hubbell, T. H., A. M. Laessle, and J. C. Dickinson North America. Thames and Hudson, London.
1956 The Flint-Chattahoochee-Apalachicola Region and
Their Environments. Bulletin of the Florida State Moore, Clarence B.
Museum, Biological Sciences 1(1). Gainesville 1902 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Coast, Part II. Journal of the Academy of Natural Kimble, Elicia Sciences 12:126-355. Philadelphia.
2008 Rummaging through Rubbish: The Analysis of 1903 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Apalachicola
Feature 4 at the Yon Mound and Village Site. Unpublished River. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences
senior honor's thesis, Department of Anthropology, 12:444-490. Philadelphia.
University of South Florida. 1907 Mounds of the Lower Chattahoochee and Lower Flint
Rivers. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences
King, Adam of Philadelphia 13:426-456.
2003 Etowah: The Political History of a Chiefdom Capital. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Neuman, Robert W.
1961 Domesticated Corn from a Fort Walton Site in Knight, Vernon J. Houston County, Alabama. Florida Anthropologist
1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian 14:75-80.
Religion. American Antiquity 51:675-687.
1994 The Formation of the Creeks. In The Forgotten Pauketat, Timothy R.
Centuries: Indians and Europeans in the American 2000 The Tragedy of the Commoners. In Agency in South 1521-1704, edited by Charles Hudson and Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and
Carmen Chaves Tesser, pp. 373-392. University of John Robb, pp. 113-129. Routledge Press, London.
Georgia Press, Athens. 2001 Practice and History in Archaeology: An emerging
Knight, Vernon J., Jr., and Tim S. Mistovich Paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1:73-98.
1984 Walter F George Lake: Archaeological Survey of 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delusions.
Fee-Owned Lands, Alabama and Georgia. Office of Altamira Press, New York.
Archaeological Research, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa. Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt
2003 Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian Knight, Vernon J., and Vincas P. Steponaitis History. In Archaeologies of Memory, edited by Ruth
1998 A New History of Moundville. In Archaeology of the M. Van Dyke and Susan E. Alcock, pp. 151-179.
Moundville Chiefdom, edited by J. Vernon Knight Blackwell Publishing, Maiden.
60 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(1)
Percy, George W., and David Brose Sears, William H.
1974 Weeden Island Ecology, Subsistence, and Village 1959 An Investigation of Prehistoric Processes on the Gulf
Life in Northwest Florida. Paper presented at the Coastal Plain. Report submitted to the National
39h, annual meeting of the Society for American Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
Archaeology, Washington D.C.
Shapiro, Gary, and Bonnie G. McEwan
Percy, George W., and M. Katherine Jones 1992 Archaeology at San Luis, Part I.- The Apalachee
1975 An Archaeological Survey of Upland Locales in Council House. Florida Archaeology No. 6. Bureau
Gadsden and Liberty Counties, Florida. Florida State of Archaeological Research, Division of Historical
University. Report submitted to the Florida Division Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.
of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
1976 An Archaeological Survey of Upland Locales in Tesar, Louis D.
Gadsden and Liberty Counties, Florida. Florida 2006 The Waddells Mill Pond Site (8Ja65) Revisited: The
Anthropologist 29:105-125. Results of B. Calvin Jones' 1973-74 Investigation.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. Anthropological Society, Stuart. W., Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P. M., Guilderson, Tesar, Louis D., and B. Calvin Jones T. P., Hajdas, I., Heaton, T. J., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., 2009 The Waddells Mills Pond Site: 1973-1974 Test Kaiser, K. F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S. W., Excavation Results. Florida Bureau ofArchaeological
Reimer, R. W., Richards, D. A., Southon, J. R., Talamo, S., Research. Report submitted to the Florida Division of
Turney, C. S. M., van der Plicht, J., & Weyhenmeyer, C. E. Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
2009 IntCalO9 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration,
curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51:1111- Wallis, Neill J.
1150. 2008 Networks of History and Memory. Journal of Social
Archaeology 8(2):236-27 1.
Scarry, John F.
1978 Yon National Register of Historic Places Nomination Wauchope, Robert
Summary. 1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia, with a
1980 The Chronology of Fort Walton Development in the Test of Some Cultural Hypotheses. Memoirs of the
Upper Apalachicola Valley, Florida. Southeastern Society for American Archaeology. No. 2 1.
Archaeology Conference Bulletin 22:38-45.
1984 Fort Walton Development: Mississippian Chiefdoms Weisman, Brent R.
in the Lower Southeast. Ph.D. dissertation, Case 1992 Excavations on the Franciscan Frontier: Archaeology Western Reserve University, Cleveland. University at the Fig Springs Mission. University Press of
Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Florida, Gainesville.
1990 Mississippian Emergence in the Fort Walton Area:
The Evolution of the Cayson and Lake Jackson White, Nancy Marie
Phases. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by 1981 Archaeology at Lake Seminole. Final Report of the Bruce Smith, pp. 227-250. Smithsonian Institution Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation of Lake
Press, Washington D.C. Seminole, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Cleveland
Museum of Natural History Archaeological Research
Schieffer, Adam Report, No. 29.
2012 Archaeological Site Distribution in the Apalachicola/ 1982 The Curlee Site (8Ja7) and Fort Walton Development
Lower Chattahoochee River Valley of Northwest in the Upper Apalachicola-Lower Chattahoochee
Florida, Southwest Georgia, and Southeast Alabama. River Valley, Florida Georgia, Alabama. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of South Florida. Available online through Case Western Reserve University.
USF library 1986 Prehistoric Cultural Chronology in the Apalachicola
Valley: The Evolution of Native Chiefdoms in
Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, and Gail S. Schnell Northwest Florida. In Thread of Tradition and Culture
1981 Cemochecho bee: Archaeology of a Mississippian Along the Gulf Coast, edited by Ronald Evans,
Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee River. pp. 194-215. Gulf Coast Humanities Conference,
University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Pensacola, Florida.
Du VERN" YON MOUND AND VILLAGE 61
1994 Archaeological Investigations at Six Sites in the
Apalachicola River Valley, Northwest Florida. 1990b Paired Towns. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chiefdoms of the Deep South, edited by Mark
Technical Memorandum NOS SRD 26. Marine and Williams, and Gary Shapiro, pp. 3-9. University of
Estuarine Management Division, Washington, DC. Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1996 Test Excavations at the Yon Mound and Fillage 1996 Mississippian Political Dynamics in the Oconee
Site (8Li2) Middle Apalachicola Valley, Northwest Valley. In Political Structure and Change in the
Florida. University of South Florida. Report to the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, edited by
Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department John F. Scarry, pp. 128-149. University Press of
of State, Tallahassee. Florida, Gainesville.
2005 Archaeological Survey of the St. Joseph Bay State
Buffer Preserve, Gulf County, Florida. University of William, Mark, and Daniel T. Elliot
South Florida. Report to the Apalachicola National 1998 Swift Creek Research: History and Observations. In Estuarine Research Reserve, East Point, and the A World Engrave& Archaeology of the Swift Creek
Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel T. Elliot,
2009 Northwest Florida Artifact Typology and Sorting pp. I -11. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Criteria. Manuscript on file, Department of
Anthropology, University of South Florida. Revised Wilson, Gregory
version of 1982 guide from University of West 2001 Crafting Control and the Control ofCrafts: Rethinking
Florida. the Moundville Greenstone Industry. Southeastern
2011a Archaeology at Chattahoochee Landing, Gadsden Archaeology 118-128.
County, Northwest Florida. Ms. on File,
Florida Division of Historic Resources, Tallahassee. Worth, John E.
2011b Middle Woodland and Protohistoric Fort Walton at 2000 The Lower Creeks: Origins and Early History.
the Lost Chipola Cutoff Mound, Northwest Florida. In Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical
The Florida Anthropologist 64:241-274. Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Bonnie G.
2012 Pierce Mounds, An Ancient Capital in Northwest McEwan, pp. 265-298. University Press of Florida,
Florida: Preliminary Report. Ms on File, Gainesville.
Florida Division of Historic Resources, Tallahassee.
White, Nancy Marie, Nelson Rodriguez, Christopher Smith, and Mary Beth Fitts
2002 St. Joseph Bay Shell Middens Test Excavations, Gu f
County, Florida, 2000-2002. University of South Florida. Report submitted to the Florida Division of
Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
White, Nancy Marie, Jeffrey Du Vemay, and Amber Yuellig 2012 Fort Walton Culture in the Apalachicola Valley,
Northwest Florida. In Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World,
edited by K. Ashley and N. White, pp. 231-274.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections 115. Washington, D.C.
Reprinted by University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2008 The Lamar Tradition. Early Georgia 36(2):119-128.
Williams, Mark, and Gary Shapiro 1990a Introduction. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian
Chiefdoms of the Deep South, edited by Mark Williams, and Gary Shapiro, pp. 3-9. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
62 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL. 67(l)
Tribute to Bette Northrop Black Mountain Gatherings. She had spiritual and healing
knowledge which led Indians to her door. Chief Joseph of
Bette Northrop, known as Grandmother and Little Bird, the Maori tribe from New Zealand gifted her with an antique passed away January 2, 2014. She and her husband, Creighton, feather cloak. She led a memorable ceremony at the Blueberry who passed away in 2000, were co-founders of the Kissimmee site, an unforgettable occasion where a large buck with an Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy in 1991. impressive set of antlers ran in front of the car as we crossed Bette and I met in a pottery class she was teaching at the the field. Bette said it was a sign. Those who attended were Highland Art League. We soon realized we shared a passion invited to participate in the prayers and were smudged. She for Native Americans. Along with her husband, Creighton, was the first to say Blueberry was a very significant site before and Jim Fitch, we co-founded the Kissimmee Valley any excavation began.
Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, a chapter of FAS. Using her talent and craftsmanship as a potter, her original We established By-laws, policies, and a repository to meet clay artwork and replicas reflected her love of the spiritual and FAS requirements. We were not only accepted, our chapter cultural life of Native Americans. Her ceramic replica masks received the first prestigious FAS Chapter Award, mainly due from Key Marco excavated by Frank Cushing in the 1890s to our diligence in setting up Ordinances in Highlands County were donated to the Museum of Florida Art and Culture on to protect Native American sites and our educational outreach the South Florida State College campus in Avon Park. Bette to the public. A county-wide archaeological survey followed. was unique and one of the most interesting people I've ever KVAHC, with the Northop's guidance hosted a successful met. Her daughter, Shannon Garity, wrote, "AHO MITAKYE FAS Annual Meeting in Sebring in 1995. We also sponsored OYVASIN, meaning all my relations," which is how Bette the event in 2007. thought of everyone. Little Bird will be physically missed, but
Bob Austin, a friend of the Northops, became our first her twinkling blue eyes, laughter, and joy of life will live on professional mentor and gave us field training. James Billie, in each of us. Shannon also wrote, "My mom completed her Chairman of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, was also present journey into Dad's arms. They are both together again dancing for our initial lesson. KVAHC's first excavation under Bob to their favorite song, Sentimental Journey." was the Royce Mound. Bette visited the site and offered up Bette is survived by Creighton Edward Northrop, Jr., prayers to the Spiritual Father and Spirit Realm, on our behalf, Ludyne Northrop Gerber, Shannon Northrop Garity, and before and after we closed the site to assure the excavation Kerry Northrop Robinson. A Celebration of Life is to be held was not a desecration of the site. This is significant because at Morris Funeral Home, Sebring, on January 25, 2014 at 1:00. Bette, who was Irish with cinnamon hair and blue eyes, was
adopted by a number of Indian tribes in North America as their Submitted by Anne Reynolds. grandmother. The Northrops went to POW WOWS and to the
VOL. 67 (1) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2014
64 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2014 VOL 67(l)
2014 FAS Annual Meeting Hosted by WMS/LSSAS in Punta Gorda, Florida
By S.H. Koski
The Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society will host the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society in Punta Gorda, Florida from May 9 11, 2014. "Punta where?" you might ask. Punta Gorda (http://www. ci.punta-gorda.fl.us/about/history. html) is a quaint historic city rich in local and regional history located just south of, and at the mouth of, the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor near the heartland of the Calusa. It has a nice historic district revitalized after the devastating effects of Hurricane Charlie in 2004.
The meeting will be held at the Charlotte Harbor Event and Conference Center (http://charlotteharborecc.coml) located on the Peace River. The Four Points Sheraton, also right on the river and just one block away from the Conference Center, will serve as the Conference Hotel. We were able to secure the reasonable room rate of $89.00. Please call Hotel Reservations at 866-716-8133 or 941-637-6770 and say you are attending the Florida Anthropological Society meeting. The venue selected for the banquet is Laishley Crab House, which is another block from the hotel (http://www.laishleycrabhouse.conv/), and you guessed it, also right on the river. So, it will be a river-walk kind of meeting. The historic downtown district is only a block from the hotel and within casual walking distance.
Registration will begin Friday morning. Mid-afternoon the second annual FAS Education Committee meeting will be held and open to all who register, where controversial issues in teaching anthropology will be discussed. In the early evening, we will hold the reception and FAC Stewards of Heritage Awards (location still to be determined). The FAS, FAC, and FPAN meeting schedule will be announced in the January FAS Newsletter.
Papers will be presented in three concurring sessions on Saturday, and posters and vendors will share the main concourse. A Saturday "Historic Downtown Walk" and tour will be held during a portion of the lunch break, leaving from the Convention Center with guides from the Charlotte County History Center and Mural Society. The walk will include viewing the murals in the downtown Punta Gorda Historic, to the historic court house to view an exhibit on the rehabilitation of historic downtown Punta Gorda after Hurricane Charley, then past more murals through the historic district end at the historic Blanchard House Museum and Maroon Learning Center. Sunday tours are still in the planning stage and we have a boat tour of a portion of Charlotte Harbor with an interpretive guide scheduled leaving from Fishermen's Wharf.
The call for papers is out so please start thinking about your papers. Registration forms will on line on the FAS web site at www. fasweb.org and in the January FAS Newsletter. We hope once again to cover a broad range of Florida archaeology, anthropology, and history topics as well as current research. We'd like to see the entire state represented: from Paleoindian (FAM 2014 theme) through the Archaic and post-Archaic regional cultures and into the historic period. We hope to have both a prehistoric and nautical underwater session as well as feature sites in both Charlotte and Sarasota counties.
Chapters of the Florida Anthropological Society
10 5 9
1. Ancient Ones Archaeological Society of North Central Florida 2902 NW 10e Court, Unit A, Gainesville, Fl, 32606
2. Archaeological Society of Southern Florida 15
2495 N.W. 35th Ave., Miami, FL 33142
3. Central Florida Anthropological Society P.O. Box 948083, Maitland FL 32794
4. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society 1902 Florrie Court, N. Fort Myers, FL 33917 7
5. Emerald Coast Archaeological Society c/o Indian Temple Mound Museum 4
139 Miracle Strip Pkwy SE, Fort Walton Beach, 32548
6. Gold Coast Anthropological Society 6720 E. Tropical Way, Plantation, FL 33317 8
7. Indian River Anthropological Society 14 12
3705 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, FL 32952
8. Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy 17
195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid, FL 33852 16
9. Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee P.O. Box 20026, Tallahassee, FL 32316
10. Pensacola Archaeological Society P.O. Box 1325 1, Pensacola, Fl, 32591 13
11. St. Augustine Archaeological Association P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine, Fl, 32085
12. Southeast Florida Archaeological Society P.O Box 2875, Stuart, FL 34995
13. Southwest Florida Archaeological Society P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101
14. Time Sifters Archaeology Society 16. Warm Mineral SprintfLittle Salt Spring Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 25642, Sarasota, FL 34277 P.O, Box 7797, North Port, FL 34287
15. Volusia Anthropological Society 17. Palm Beach County Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32175 6421 Old Medinah Circle, Lake Worth, FL 33463
66 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)
Mmida Anffiropological Smiety
You are Invited to Join Us:
If you want to join with professional and avocational arch ecologists and others in efforts to preserve and protect our (pre)historic heritage, then join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS) to achieve that goal.
If you are interested in archaeology, ethnology, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology and associated topics with a focus on Florida and surrounding areas in the Southeastern U.S. and Caribbean, then The Florida Anthropologist, the journal of the Florida Anthropological Society, and the papers presented at our annual meetings will be of interest to you.
If you are looking for that special gift, then a gift subscription to The Florida Anthropologist is your answer.
You do not have to be a resident of Florida to belong to the Florida Anthropological Society. Your membership fee includes your subscription to the Society's journal and newsletter. We are a non-profit organization founded in 1947.
Objectives of the Florida Anthropological Society
to provide a formal means by which individuals interested in anthropological and archaeological studies in the State of
Florida and related areas may come together for mutual benefits;
to promote the continuing study of the peoples of Florida from ancient times to the present;
to establish and promulgate to its members and to the general public, rules of conduct, a code of ethics, and standards of
quality to govern anthropological work;
to effect harmony and cooperation between the amateur and professional anthropologist and archaeologist so that the
work of all will permanently enrich our knowledge of human history;
to bring to the attention of the general public and of appropriate governmental agencies the need for preservation of
archaeological and historical sites within the State of Florida as well as for the recording of the ways of live of
extant groups in Florida and related areas;
to disseminate information on anthropology and archaeology and in particular on the work of the Society members
through periodic, regularly scheduled meetings of the Society, through a program of publications by the Society, and through such special events and other activities as the Society may consider proper to further its objectives;
to assist in establishing archaeological museums through contributions or gifts of materials or money;to encourage the
scientific collections, preservation, classification, study and publication of ethnological materials and archaeological
remains; and to initiate and maintain appropriate By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations in the best interests of all its
Join the Florida Anthropological Society
Florida Anthropological Society memberships: Student $15 (with a copy of a current student ID) Student membership is open to graduate, undergraduate and high school students. A photocopy of your student ID should accompany payment
Regular and Institutional $30 Family $35
Sustaining $ 100 Patron $1000
Benefactor $2500 or more
Add $25.00 for foreign addresses
The Society publishes journals (The Florida Anthropologist) and newsletters, normally quarterly, and sponsors an annual meeting hosted by a local chapter.
I agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society as presented on the previous page.
Florida Anthropological Society c/o Pat Balanzategui P 0 Box 1434 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434
Membership forms also available at www.fasweb.org
68 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)
BACK ISSUES OF THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST ARE AVAILABLE FROM
DEBRA J. WELLS, M.A. ROPA BACK ISSUE COORDINATOR debrawe11sd~ao1.com or 1129 NW 143RD ST., JONES VILLE, FL 32669 $ 10. 00 FOR A REGULAR ISSUE $ 12.50 FOR A SPECIAL OR DOUBLE ISSUE
About the Authors
Jeffrey R Du Vernay is a Faculty Research Associate and archaeologist at the Alliance for Integrated Spatial Technologies (AIST) in the School of Geosciences at the University of South Florida. He earned his Ph.D. in Applied Anthropology from the University of South Florida and his M.S. in Anthropology from Florida State University. Jeff's research focuses on the Mississippian period societies of the Southeast United States, especially those of Florida. At AIST, he specializes in the application of 3D scanning and other spatial technologies for archaeological research and heritage preservation.
Roger T Grange, Jr. (MA University of Chicago, PhD University of Arizona)Professor emeritus, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida. Volunteer archaeologist at the New Smyrna Museum of History. Formerly Anthropology Assistant Field Museum, Chicago, Director Nebraska State Historical Society Museum, Lincoln.
Archaeological excavation and research in South Dakota, Nebraska, South Carolina, Michigan, Florida, Quebec and
Dorothy L. (Dot) Moore is a non-professional archaeologist focused on archaeology and research of the eighteenth century British Period in Florida. She has worked with many professional archaeologists at sites in Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. She and Dr. Roger Grange have focused on salvage archaeological field work for the past sixteen years in
Southeast Volusia County.
Amanda D. Roberts Thompson received her M.A from the University of West Florida in 2009, where she focused on historical archaeology and ethnohistory. She has been involved in projects in Fiji, the Caribbean, Mexico, Florida, Georgia,
and Michigan. Currently, she is the Laboratory Manager at the University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology.
U TY OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. 3 1262 08574 1105
Jeffrey P. Du Vemay, Co-Editor U.S. POS'IAUhj
School of Geosciences TALLAHASSEE, FL
University of South Florida PERMIT NO. 801
Tampa, FL 33620
Volume 67 Number 1 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF FORT CENTER DURING THE SECOND AND THIRD SEMINOLE WARS 5
AMANDA D. ROBERTS THOMPSON NEW AMS RADIOCARBON DATES ON THE ORANGE PERIOD IN COASTAL VOLUSIA COUNTY 23
DOROTHY L. MOORE AND ROGER T. GRANGE, JR. YON MOUND AND VILLAGE: A FORT WALTON CENTER IN THE MIDDLEAPALACHICOLA RIVER VALLEY 37
OF NORTHWEST FLORIDA JEFFREY P. Du VERNAY
Copyright 2014 by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.