The Florida anthropologist

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title:
Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description:
v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida Anthropological Society
Conference:
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
Publisher:
Florida Anthropological Society
Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication:
Gainesville

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
serial   ( sobekcm )
periodical   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
v. 1- May 1948-

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [Florida Anthropologist Society, Inc.] Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
ltqf - AAA9403
oclc - 01569447
issn - 00153893
oclc - 1569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893
sobekcm - UF00027829_00210
System ID:
UF00027829:00218

Full Text





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.


VOLUME 66, NUMBER 4 DECEMBER 2013







pscuc








































PER
E
78 .F6
F58





THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635. Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United States of America. Membership may be initiated at any time during the year, and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall be payable on the anniversary of the initial dues payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributed by the Society during the 12 months of their membership year. Annual dues are as follows: student $15, individual $30, family $35, institutional $30, sustaining $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: Jeffrey T. Moates, 4202 E Fowler Ave, NEC 116, Tampa FL 33620 (imoates@usf.edu) First Vice President: Theresa Schober, 1902 Florrie Ct, N Fort Myers FL 3.3917 (tmschober@earthlink.net) Second Vice President: Jason Wenzel, Gulf Coast State College, Social Sciences Division, 5230 W Hwy 98,
Panama City FL 32401 (iwenzel@ufl.edu)
Recording Secretary: Jon Simon Suarez, 1710 NW 7th St, #304, Gainesville FL 32609 (contact@issuarez.com) Membership Secretary: Pat Balanzategui, PO Box 1434, Fort Walton Beach FL 32549 (wnpbal@cox.net) Treasurer and Registered Agent: Joanne Talley, PO Box 788, Hobe Sound FL 33475 (io@whiticar.com) Directors at Large: Tommy Abood, 4975 San Jose Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32207 (lost.horizon@earthlink.net);
Linda Geary, 510 South Carolina Dr, Stuart Fl 34994 (gearylinda@vahoo.com); Emily Jane Murray, 54197 Lisa Dr,
Callahan FL 32011 (emurray@alumni.flagler.edu)
Immediate Past President: Patty Flynn, PO Box 11052, Ft. Lauderdale FL 33339 (pflynn52@gmail.com) Newsletter Editor: Sarah Bennett, 2615 Crestwood Ave, New Smyrna Beach FL 32168 (smb87@students.uwf.edu)


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 (kashley@unf.edu). Vicki L. Rolland, Department ofAnthropology, Building 51,
University of North Florida, sl UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659 (vrolland@comcast.net)
Editorial Assistant: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239-5019 (geoluer(gmail.com) 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 (goodyear@sc.edu)
Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (jeffmitchem@juno.com) Nancy Marie White, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100 (nwhite@chumal I.cas.usf.edu)
Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (bob@searchinc.com)

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


VISIT FAS ON THE WEB: www.fasweb.org







THE FLORIDA



ANTHROPOLOGIST


*, *


Volume 66 Number 4
December 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FROM THE EDITOR 137 ARTICLES

OSTEOLOGY OF THE YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND (8SO4), SARASOTA FLORIDA 139 ALISON A. ELGART AND STEPHANIE PAULE SEARCHING FOR FORT CAROLINE: NEW PERSPECTIVES 157 REBECCA DOUBERLY-GORMAN CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTON CULTURE NEED NOT BE CONFUSING 175 GREGORY A. MIKELL

ERRATA TABBED CIRCLE ARTIFACTS IN FLORIDA: AN INTRIGING TYPE OF GORGET AND PENDANT George M. Luer 196 2013 FIELD SCHOOL REPORTS 197 ABOUT THE AUTHORS 211 Cover Figures represented in the articles:Elgart and Paule (top), Douberly-Gorman, and Mikell






















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























An Endowment to Support production of The Florida Anthropologist,

the scholarly journal published quarterly by the

Florida Anthropological Society since 1947



Donations are being accepted from individuals, corporations, and foundations.
Inquiries and gifts can be directed to:

Keith H. Ashley, Editor The Florida Anthropologist Archaeology Laboratory, Building 51 Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of North Florida,
1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659


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 is final issue of 2013, and it includes 3 articles and a addresses this question by reviewing old data and ushering in series of field school summaries. Geographical areas covered new archaeological information; his work builds upon Norma in these articles include southwestern, northeastern, and Harris's recent research on the subject. For Mikell there far northwestern Florida. Also don't forget to check out the should be no confusion for the co-occurrence of Fort Walton announcement for the 2014 Annual FAS Meetings hosted by and Pensacola ceramics, because he sees the Mississippian the Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological manifestation in Choctawhatchee Bay as a locally grown Society in Punta Gorda, from May 9-11, 2014. Fort Walton culture (which developed out of Weeden Island),
In the first article, Alison Elgart and Stephanie Paule influenced by new ideas and technologies emanating from report on their analysis of skeletal remains from Yellow Mississippian centers such as Bottle Creek (Pensacola culture) Bluffs Mound in Sarasota County. First dug by C.B. Moore in and Moundville to the north and west. 1900, this Manasota-period mound was later excavated by the We conclude this issue with our annual and very University ofFlorida, Sarasota County Historical Commission, popular field school summaries. This year the University and New College in the 1960s prior to its destruction at the of South Florida contributes overviews of two field schools hands of condominium development in 1969. Elgart and (Apalachicola River and Crystal River), while the Florida Paule's study focuses on the osteological remains recovered Museum of Natural History (Garden Patch), University during excavations in the 1960s, demonstrating the importance of North Florida (Theodore Roosevelt Preserve), and the of curated materials, even if they are in fragmented condition. University of West Florida (Campus Field School) each Their limited bioarchaeological analysis indicates that the present one. As you will see, a lot of great archaeological work individuals in the study sample were in good overall health; is currently going on in Florida. We hope you enjoy this issue few pathologies were noted. It appears that the Manasota population lived off the bounty of the estuary, which is of no surprise for a group living on the banks of Sarosota Bay. Keith H. Ashley
In our second article, Rebecca Douberly-Gorman tackles Vicki L. Rolland. one of the biggest mysteries in northeastern Florida history: Where is Fort Caroline? In this paper, she briefly reviews the story behind the ill-fated French colony of 1564-1565 and discusses previous documentary and archaeological endeavors to locate the fort on the modern landscape of northeastern Florida. Relying on maps and Army Corps of Engineers data, she examines alterations to the lower St. Johns River as a result of dredging and river channel modifications. While still uncertain of its location, Douberly-Gorman looks to the Fulton area, west of the existing Fort Caroline Memorial, as a likely area for where the French fort was constructed. It is in this general location that the only known sixteenth-century French artifact (a Beauvais stoneware sherd) from the Jacksonville was recovered from dredge spoil in the 1960s by William Jones. Only time will tell (hopefully) if she is correct.
The final article is by Greg Mikell, a frequent contributor to The Florida Anthropologist. The geographical focus of his study is Choctawhatchee Bay, a region he has been researching for more than 20 years. His topic of interest this time is the relationship between Fort Walton and Pensacola cultures in far northwestern Florida during the Mississippi period. He





VOL. 66(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 2013






138 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)










OSTEOLOGY OF THE YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND (8SO4) SITE, SARASOTA FLORIDA



ALISON A. ELGART' AND STEPHANIE PAULE2


' Anthropology Program, Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers, FL 33965. Email: aelgart@fgcu.edu (for both authors)
2. Department of Justice Studies, Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers, FL 33965



Analysis of precolumbian burials from the Florida Gulf (Luer 2011; Milanich 1972). The mound was 2.4 m (8 ft) high, Coast offers unique insights into a population with a marine 29 by 37 m (95 by 120 ft) at its base when it was destroyed, and estuary-based subsistence strategy. The Yellow Bluffs and was composed primarily of sand (Luer 2011). Mound (8SO4), also known as the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker TheYellow Bluffs Mound was disturbed priorto destruction Mound, is a burial mound located on Sarasota Bay in southern by an early archaeologist and by historic development. In Florida. Recent radiocarbon dating by Luer and Hughes 1900, Clarence B. Moore dug a 3 by 15ft trench that was 5ft (2011) places the burial site in the early middle Manasota deep into the top of the mound, followed by a pergola built in Period (185-60 cal B.C.). Here, we present the most complete this location ten years later (Luer 2011; Milanich 1972). Steps osteological analysis of this population to date, assessing the were also built into the side. The mound with steps and pergola health and demographics of the people who were buried in persisted into the 1960s. Salvage archaeology excavations the mound. Manasota people subsisted on an economy of by the Sarasota County Historical Commission (SCHC), the fishing, hunting and gathering, moving between the shore and University of Florida Department of Anthropology (UF), inland sites (Luer and Almy 1982). They fished in the Gulf of and New College (NC) preceded destruction of the mound in Mexico and the estuaries, collected shellfish in the estuaries, 1969 to make way for a condominium (Luer 2011; Milanich and hunted and gathered in pine flatwoods. 1972). A developer was able to demolish the mound in order
We compared demographics and incidence of pathology to anticipate a second phase of a condominium development of the Yellow Bluffs people to other coastal and inland Florida (that never came to fruition) because there were no laws to populations from the Archaic (8,000-500 B.C.), Manasota/ protect it at the time. Early Woodland/Middle Woodland (500 B.C.-A.D. 800), When salvage excavations began, the SCHC used a Mississippian/Late Woodland (A.D. 800-1500) and Contact- backhoe to dig trenches first up the southeast side of the mound, Postcontact (A.D. 1500-1700) periods in order to discern which may have served as a ramp in the precolumbian era, and any differences. It is postulated that the subsistence strategy second across the north side of the mound. Volunteers handof the Yellow Bluffs people, with their relatively abundant dug two trenches on the western edge of the mound (Trenches and reliable food sources from the sea and estuaries, will #1 and #2), consisting of two 10 x 10 ft units (Figure 2). A afford them a healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, it is postulated number of burials were removed from both the backhoe cuts that the non-agricultural basis of subsistence will result in and these units (Luer 2011). Later, the developer granted more few individuals presenting with caries, abscesses and dental time for excavation to the SCHC, and they in turn engaged crowding. It is unknown whether there will be greater Jerald Milanich, who was a UF graduate student at the time, incidence of porotic hyperostosis and high juvenile mortality to direct excavations by a group of UF and NC students and in the Yellow Bluffs population due to exposure to fish citizen volunteers (Milanich 1972). He created a site grid on parasites and/or contaminated water, as was observed in a the mound, establishing an east-west (E-W) trench that was late prehistoric Carolina population (Hutchinson 2002a) and a aligned with Trench #1 and extended into the center of the California coastal population (Walker 1986). mound, and a north-south trench perpendicular to it down the south half of the mound (Figure 2). There was also a third
The Yellow Bluffs Mound Site trench running down the southwest flank of the mound.
Seventeen stratigraphic layers were identified in the sand
The Yellow Bluffs Mound, located 50m east of Sarasota burial mound. Artifacts and faunal bone were screened mostly Bay and 400m south of Whitaker Bayou in Sarasota County, through /2-inch mesh. The fill of the upper mound consisted Florida (Figure 1), has been known since William H. Whitaker predominantly of sand and marine shells. It was in these settled the area in 1842-43 (Grismer 1946; Milanich 1972). In uppermost layers that ten numbered burials were located, as the past, the identity of this site has been confused, and also well as most of the other scattered human remains (Luer 2011; has been referred to as the "Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound" Milanich 1972).

VOL. 66(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 2013






140 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)


Age and sex were ascertained through a combination
of methods. In subadults, dental development and degree of r,,ta epiphyseal closure were used to estimate age (Baker et al.
,. 2005; Bass 1995; Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). Age estimates
a96 of adults were hampered due to lack of pubic symphyses and
Maia
U auricular surfaces. Cranial suture closure and dental attrition/
Land
aabrasion (wear) were used to assign broad ranges of age for ol adults. Sex determination of adults was solely based on cranial mainland morphology due to the absence of preserved innominates.
Results were compared to 11 Archaic sites, 11 EarlyMiddle Woodland sites, 17 Mississippian/Late Woodland sites, and 7 Contact-Postcontact period sites, all of which are M.anicoiny ng'.r_ located in Florida. These sites were further distinguished as
"S;U,~ .. being located on the coast or inland.

"Sun .,,a Results Sflay
Gu Kc804
downtown A count of all sided temporal bones suggests an MNI of fLa24 individuals. When we input additional archaeological Kcy information and cross-comparisons, they indicate that the probable count may be closer to 47 individuals. The original 10 numbered burials contained 13 individuals, buried in Sakm various-modes, five of which were flexed, two extended and Ky one possibly bundled (secondary burial) (Luer 2011; Milanich 1972). This is similar to other Manasota period sites where Figure 1. Location of the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4), flexed burials are the most common (Luer and Almy 1982). north of downtown Sarasota. From Luer Figure 1 The remainder of human remains was found in Trenches #1 (2011:6). and #2 and backhoe pits (Figure 2). A number of elements were in bags and boxes only identified through FS numbers, Materials and Methods with unclear provenience.
The preservation of elements was very poor. Teeth were
Milanich (1972) directed the UF-NC excavation of the the most numerous element, followed by cranial fragments Yellow Bluffs Mound and conducted preliminary analysis on and fragments of dense long bones, such as femora, tibiae, 10 numbered burials, all of which are highly fragmented. Four and humeri (Table 1). No complete crania or long bones were of these burials, numbered 4, 8, 9 and 10 contain five or fewer found. All other elements were rarely represented or absent. skeletal elements, and three, numbered 1, 2, and 6 contain commingled remains. Almy (2013) measured a couple ofcrania Demographics from these burials and compared them to other prehistoric Florida populations. All other scattered, fragmentary remains Our analysis indicates that the demographic profile of the that were excavated in 1969 by the SCHC, before and after the burial population of Yellow Bluffs Mound is 32 (68 percent) work by UF-NC, were not analyzed before this study. adults and 15 (28 percent) juveniles. This can be broken down
The combined Yellow Bluffs osteological collection, further into 2 percent (n=1) infants (defined as under one year consisting of the UF-NC and SCHC materials, was analyzed of age), 26 percent (14) subadults/children, 62 percent (29) between June 2012 and March 2013. Field specimen (FS) adults, and 6 percent (3) senile (based on dental wear and numbers were applied to the collection by archaeologists cranial suture closure). Only 28 percent of individuals could George Luer and Michele Loger in July 2011 before its delivery be sexed due to the fragmentary nature of the remains and/ to co-author Elgart. Standard osteological analysis included or juvenile status. Seven were determined to be males and six inventory, age and sex assessment, and presence of trauma were female. A summary of all individuals is listed in Table 2; and pathology (Baker et al. 2005; Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; details of each are below. Ortner 2003; White 2005). Analysis was aided by Osteoware It is difficult to conclude much about the placement Software ( 2011 Smithsonian Institution) to ascertain the of the burials and any grave goods due to the nature of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) represented by the excavation. The majority of the UF-NC human remains were commingled remains. Elements were sided and measured located at the top of the mound in sandy substrate (Luer whenever possible. A complete inventory of all identified 2011; Milanich 1972:26, Figure 4). The fill of the mound was elements is found in Table 1. The collection is permanently replete with food bones and shells throughout the mound, curated at the Sarasota County History Center. and relatively few pottery sherds. There was one definite






ELGART AND PAULE Yellow Bluffs Mound Osteology 141























SLongbone fragnets
Feature 1






From Luer (2011: Figure 9) and Milanich (1972: Figure 5).

2, Milanich 1972: Figu an scattered" with Burialmsts the humerus has a cloaca, indicative of osteomyelitis (Ortneradjact e FeatreS




are a postcontact period intrusion of(Luer amond featHughes, excavated trencpres, rented by and left temporal fragment, and one juvenile.ls.
Another "cahe (sic) of shell...was found on the north side of Milanich (1972:34) reports the interment as a "tightly flexed5).
fea[Bure identified: a full description of 14all argetifacts from thells (Figure anchild bumetacarpal, 6-7 years old, anburied in a sittinghe proximal shaft position in a 2,can be found in Milanich (1972)5), which was "in line" with Burials the humerus h tibias, fibula, ndicative of osteomyelund articulated ander



Six of the UF-NC burials were radiocarbon dated as well upright. One side of a deer jaw (Fig. 9n) cupped between two as lower Layer 9 (Luer and Hughes 2011). All calibrated clam shells was placed beside the burial in the burial pit." 2-sigma dates based on burials ranged between 410 B.C. and A lower left molar crown suggests the age of the subadult A.D. 60. Burials 1, 3 4, 5, 6, 8, and Layer 9 overlap in time as 4 years + 1 year. Small fragments of the cranium were (Luer and Hughes 2011:37, Figure 3). recovered, as well as humeral, vertebral, rib, femur and tibial fragments.
Burials Burial 3. This burial consists of only one individual, an adult of indeterminate sex. Milanich (1972:34) states that it
Burial 1. Two individuals are present in this burial: one is a male "loosely flexed on the left side with feet crossed." is an adult, possibly male, and the other, a juvenile aged 4 to The burial is highly fragmentary, with only 4 carpals, one 6 years, is represented solely by a second right molar crown. metacarpal, two phalanges, and fibular fragments present. The This tooth crown may belong to the child in Burial 2, but there fibula was previously removed for radiocarbon dating. There is no way of definitively assessing this without DNA analysis, is nothing to ascertain sex here, unless elements have been lost Milanich (1972:34) reports that it was a "scattered flexed or moved post-excavation. burial with no grave pit evident, probably part of a mass burial Burial 4. Very little remains of this adult burial: only two of at least four individuals." A cache of shell was found to the cranial fragments, three small fibular fragments, and three north of the burial, and shell separated this burial from Burials femoral fragments. Milanich (1972) states that it may be a 5, 6, and 7, located to the west (Figure 2). bunde burial, probably of a male. We could not confirm this
The bones present from the adult include a fragmented assessment of sex from the remains.
cranium, portions of the right and left humerus and ulna, a Burial 5. One mature adult individual, possibly a female, fragment of a right fibula, 8 vertebral fragments, 3 phalanges is represented. The body was flexed, lying on the left side.






142 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)



Table 1. Inventory of all elements found at the Yellow Bluffs Mound site, sided where possible.
Skeletal Region Element Total Right Left Indeterminate

Cranial Frontal 13
Parietal 28 13 15 Occipital 17 Temporal 44 24 20 Sphenoid 5 Zygomatic 14 7 7 Maxilla 18 9 9 Palatine 0 Mandible 17 Teeth 294 Axial skeleton Hyoid 0
Clavicle 8 5 3 Scapula 8 6 2 Sternum 0 Pelvis Sacrum 2 Coccyx 0 Illium 2 1 1 Pubis 0 Ischium 0 Vertebrae Cl Atlas 2 C2 Axis 4 C3-C7 Cervical vertebrae 32 Thoracic vertebrae 6 Lumbar vertebrae 6 Ribs Rib fragments 52
Arm Humerus 28 9 16 3 Radius 13 10 3 Ulna 17 8 7 2 Leg Femur 36 10 19 7 Patella 2 1 1 Tibia 25 8 10 7 Fibula 12 1 5 6 Hand Scaphoid 1 1 Lunate 1 1 Triquetral 2 1 1 Pisiform 2 1 1 Trapezium 1 1 Trapezoid 2 1 1 Capitate 2 2 Hamate 1 1 Metacarpal 1 0 Metacarpal 2 3 3 Metacarpal 3 2 2 Metacarpal 4 4 2 2 Metacarpal 5 1 1






ELGART AND PAULE Yellow Bluffs Mound Osteology 143



Table 1-continued

Skeletal Region Element Total Right Left Indeterminate

Hand Metacarpal shafts 16
Proximal Hand Phalanges 13 1 12 Intermediate Hand Phalanges 7 7 Distal Hand Phalanges 9 1 8 Foot Calcaneus 3 1 2 Talus 3 2 1 Cuboid 0
Navicular 4 3 1 Medial (lst) Cuneiform 0
Intermed. (2nd) Cuneiform 1 1 Lateral (3rd) Cuneiform 0
Metatarsal 1 1 1 Metatarsal 2 1 1 Metatarsal 3 2 1 1 Metatarsal 4 0
Metatarsal 5 2 2 Proximal Foot Phalanges 4 4 Intermed. Foot Phalanges 4 4 Distal Foot Phalanges 4 4 Appendicular Long bone fragments 319


About one-third of the cranium was present, along with atlas display LEH. The distal lower left fourth premolar and upper
(C1) fragments, a right metacarpal IV, femoral fragments, and right second molar present with interproximal grooving. The other very fragmentary long bones. Nineteen teeth, some still teeth have substantial amounts of wear. Measurements of the in occlusion with considerable attrition and two presenting femur are in Table 3. with linear enamel hypoplasias (LEH), were also found. Burial 8. One individual, an adult male, is represented by
Burial 6. Two individuals were present, one a mature four elements. Cranial fragments and shaft fragments of a left female, and the other a subadult. The adult is represented by ulna and right femur are present. We identified the burial as approximately half of a calvaria, fragments of 3 metacarpals, 9 male from the presence of a large mastoid, although Milanich finger phalanges, a hamate, hyoid, vertebrae and rib fragments, (1972:37) concluded that it was "probably a female," and a patella fragment, and right and left femoral head and shaft reported teeth being present, which are missing. fragments, right and left tibial shaft fragments, and a fibula and Burial 9. One individual, an adult, possibly female is humerus fragment. Twelve teeth were also recovered; the right represented by very scattered remains. Only fragments of a central maxillary incisor has multiple hypoplasias. Teeth with skull, including parietal, temporal, and occipital elements, heavy attrition and cranial suture closure suggest advanced were recovered. age. The juvenile is represented by small right and left petrous Burial 10. One individual, an adult of indeterminate portions of the temporal. Milanich (1972:35) refers to Burial sex was recovered from a circular grave pit. Portions of the 6 as an "extended burial, adolescent 14-18 years old" that parietal, frontal, right humerus, an ulnar fragment and one was buried prone, face down. The size of the temporal bones tooth were found. Milanich (1972:37) reports it as a "mature suggests an individual younger than 14 years. adult flexed burial."
Burial 7. This burial was located almost directly beneath
Burial 6. One mature adult individual is represented here, of Analysis of Burials from the SCHC Work indeterminate sex. Milanich (1972:35) concludes that it is "probably a female...probably buried at same time as Burial 6 The following human remains were excavated before and and in same manner, face down during mound construction." after the crew from UF-NC was on-site, when salvage work Bones include fragments of the vault and face, a left femoral was conducted by Sarasota County Historian Doris "Dottie" shaft, fragments of a right ulna, humeral fragments, 2 finger Davis and volunteers (Luer 2011). They dug in Trench #1 of phalanges, 3 metacarpal shafts, and 12 teeth, 5 of which the E-W trench ("SCHC Trench #1") and Trench #2 (Figure






144 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)


Table 2. Summary of sex and ages of individuals found at Yellow Bluffs Mound.


Provenience Individual Sex Age Method of Age Determination Juveniles Adults Estimate
A M? 21+ yrs Cranial sutures, dental attrition 1 B ? 4-6 yrs Dental stage 1 A ? 21+ yrs Epiphyseal union stage 1 B ? 4 lyr Dental stage I Burial 3 A ? 21+ yrs Epiphyseal union stage 1 Burial 4 A ? 25+yrs Very worn crown fragment 1 Burial 5 A F? 30+ Heavy dental attrition 1 A F? 35+ yrs Cranial sutures, heavy dental I Burial 6 attrition
B ? 6-12 yrs Size of temporal 1 Burial 7 A ? 35+ yrs Cranial sutures, heavy dental attrition
Burial 8 A M 21+yrs Epiphyseal union stage 1 Burial 9 A F? 21+yrs Epiphyseal union stage 1 Burial 10 A ? 21+yrs Epiphyseal union stage 1
Trench #1, Pit A ? 93 mos Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1 #2, Disturbed B ? 2 yrs 8mos Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1 burial, NW C ? 4 yrs 12 mos Dental & epiphyseal union stage I
corner D-G ? 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage 4
Trench #2, Pits A ? 6-12 yrs Size of temporal 1
#1 and #2 B-C ? 21+yrs Epiphyseal union stage 2 Backhoe Pit #1 A M 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1 Burial NE B F 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1 corner C ? 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1
Base of Pit Cranial sutures, heavy dental
Burial 32 in. attrition
FS 8SO4.640FS S A ? 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1
643
FS 8SO4.645 2-6 yrs 12
A ? Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1 mos
B ? 15-20 yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1 FS 8SO4.646 3 yrs 12
A ? Dental stage 1 mos
B ? 5 yrs 16 Dental stage 1 mos
C ? 2 yrs 8 mos Dental stage 1 18 mosD ? s Dental stage 1
4 yrs
E ? 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1 FS 8SO4.648 A ? 21 +yrs Epiphyseal union stage FS 8SO4.649 A F 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage B ? 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1 6518S04.650, A ? 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage 1

FS 8SO4.652 A M 35+ yrs Cranial sutures, heavy dental attrition
B ? 21+yrs Dental & epiphyseal union stage FS 8SO4.653 A ? 6-12 yrs Size of temporal 1
FS 8SO4.654 A ? 30+ Heavy dental attrition 1
FS 8SO4.656, A ? ? Size of elements 1
657 Cranial sutures, heavy dental
B F 35+ yrs attrition 1?
attrition
FS 8SO4.658 A F 21 +yrs Epiphyseal union stage 1 FS 8SO4.659 A M 21+yrs Epiphyseal union stage 1
Totals 15 32






ELGART AND PAULE Yellow Bluffs Mound Osteology 145


2), and apparently salvaged remains from the backhoe pits. Table 3. Measurements taken on the Little is known about the locations in the mound of all of the Yellow Bluffs individuals. burials because field notes from the 1969 excavations cannot be found (Luer 2011). These remains have not been analyzed Individual Measurement Value prior to this study. (mm)
Trench #1. Pit #2, Disturbed burial, NW corner (FS Base of pit Max. Cranial Length 190 SO4.610, 613 and 616). This is a commingled burial with burial 32" Max. Cranial Breadth 170 an MNI of seven individuals, as evidenced by right petrous FS 8SO4.639 Biauricular Breadth 143 portions of temporal bones. One individual is an infant, aged Min. Frontal Breadth 105.1 9 months (3 mos) based upon deciduous crowns, long bone Upper Facial Breadth 111.2 Biorbital Breadth 103.1
fragments, rib and vertebral fragments. Two individuals area Parietal Chord 185
juveniles, one 2 years ( 8 mos) and the other 4 years ( 12 mos) old, based upon dentition and postcranial remains such as Mastoid Length 25.5 Chin Height 36.6
clavicles, ribs, vertebrae, scapular fragments, tibial, fibula and femoral fragments, humeral, ulnar, and metacarpal fragments. Height of the Mandibular 39.0 There are four adults present, as demonstrated by the petrous Body Breadth of the Mandibular 15.0
portions, teeth from two people, cranial fragments, an incus, Body femoral fragments, scapular fragments, and a distal phalange. Min. Ramus Breadth 43.3
Trench #2, Pits #1 and #2 (FS 8SO4.626). There are three Max. Ramus Breadth 51.5 individuals commingled: one juvenile, represented by a right Max. Ramus Height 79.2 petrous portion of the temporal, and two adults, evidenced by Burial 7 Femur: A-P Midshaft 31.9 cranial fragments, 2 teeth, scapular fragments, humeral, radial, Diameter tibia, and femur shaft fragments, ilium, sacrum and patella Femur: M-L Midshaft 26.4 fragments, and a talus. Diameter
Backhoe Pit #1 Burial NE comer (FS 8SO4.633,637, "Box Femur: Midshaft 96 159"). At least three adults are represented by fragmentary Circumference remains in this pit. One individual is presumed a male due FS 8SO4.652 Mastoid Length 27.7 to the morphology of the chin, and one is presumed a female Chin Height 35.8 due to the size of the mastoid process. Fragments of three Height of the Mandibular 36.3 mandibles are present, two of which have teeth in occlusion. Body (R) Other remains include cranial fragments, a clavicle fragment, Breadth of the Mandibular 15.0
2 vertebral fragments, and a few long bone fragments (fibula, Body (R) femur, tibia). FS 8SO4.657 Max. Cranial Breadth 155
Base of Pit Burial 32 in. (FS SO4.639). One adult Biauricular Breadth 131.9 male is present in this burial. Sex was ascertained through Min. Frontal Breadth 95.1 mandibular morphology and mastoid processes. The skull is Upper Facial Breadth 101.6 the most complete one found, with only the midface and the Parietal Chord 92.6 base missing. A complete set of dentition is present, with all Mastoid Length 22.3 32 teeth in occlusion. This individual has many interesting 8SO4.658 Mastoid Length 28 pathological conditions, such as large endocranial pits and periodontal disease. These will be detailed below. The only long bone fragments. The subadult's remains include cranial postcranial remains are an axis (C2) and a third of a rib. fragments, a mandibular fragment, 5 teeth, rib fragments, a Cranial measurements are in Table 3. humeral shaft, a femoral shaft, tibial fragments, a fibula shaft,
For these remains, the provenience is unknown: and a left fifth metacarpal.
FS 8SO4.640-643 ("Bae 6"). The remains of one adult FS 8SO4.646 ("Box 9-Bag 7"). There are remains of four of indeterminate sex are represented. Elements include cranial juveniles and one adult in this FS. One juvenile is 3 years bones, 2 teeth, an axis (C2), cervical vertebrae, thoracic (+12 mos.) old based on a maxilla and mandible with 7 teeth. vertebrae, 2 metacarpals, 2 hand phalanges, and fragments of A second juvenile is 5 years (16 mos.) old, based on 16 a fibula, tibia, and ribs. deciduous teeth and 8 permanent teeth. Duplicate deciduous
FS 8SO4.645 (Box 222. Bag 8). There are two individuals incisors indicate that there are at least two other juveniles, one present in this FS: one a juvenile, aged 2 to 6 years (12 aged 2 years (8 mos.) and the other a young child. Juvenile mos) and one subadult, aged 15 to 20 years. The juvenile is elements include cranial bones, ribs, vertebrae, phalanges, 4 represented by 3 deciduous teeth, cranial fragments, Cl, C2, metacarpals, and long bone fragments. An adult is represented other vertebral fragments, rib fragments, humeral fragments, by 2 teeth, mandibular fragments, a thoracic vertebral fragment sacral fragments, incomplete right and left clavicles and other and long bone fragments.






146 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)

























Figure 3. The endocranial lesion surrounding the middle meningeal artery in FS 639 burial (partially enclosed by circle). Anterior is to the left.

FS 8S04.648 ("Box 14, Bag 4"). One adult individual is cervical vertebral fragments (#3-7), thoracic vertebrae represented solely by long bone fragments. fragments, right and left scapular fragments, humeral, ulnar,
FS 8SO4.649 ("Box D, Bag 1"). There are two adults femoral, and tibial fragments, 2 tarsal bones, a carpal, 3 present, one of which is a female, as indicated by cranial metacarpal shaft fragments and 2 hand phalange shafts. morphology. Elements include cranial fragments, two teeth, FS 8SO4.656 and 657 ("Box 47"). There are two and humeral, ulnar, radial, femoral, and tibial fragments. individuals interred in this area: one a juvenile of unknown
FS 8SO04.650. 651 ("Box 19, bags 2-3"). Sparse fragments age represented by foot bones, femoral fragments and radial of an adult of indeterminate sex are present. Cranial fragments, fragments. The other is an adult female, whose remains include one tooth, and long bone fragments are all that remain. quite a complete cranium except for the midface, long bone
FS 8SO4.652 ("Box 21-4 & 5"). Two adults are fragments of a femur, two tibia and an ulna, 4 metatarsals, and represented, one of which is a presumed male due to the size a proximal foot phalange. Seventeen teeth are also present, of the mastoid process and raised nuchal area. This male is some of which have heavy wear, while others are unworn. mature in age, as shown by heavy dental wear and cranial Attritional differences suggest that there may be two adults suture closure. Nineteen teeth are present, all of which are present here. Cranial measurements of an adult are in Table 3. in occlusion save one. An abscess is present in the position FS 8SO4.658 ("Box 63"). One adult female is indicated of the lower right third molar, and calculus is present on 6 by cranial morphology. Postcranial remains include scapular teeth. Approximately half of the calvaria is present. A second and rib fragments, humeral, radial, ulnar, fibular and ilium individual is represented by 6 maxillary teeth in occlusion. fragments. These teeth are almost completely unworn and are very white FS 8SO4.659 ("Box #63. bags I and 2"). There is an in comparison to all other remains. Postcranial remains that MNI of one adult male. Sex was determined through pelvic could belong to either individual include a right clavicle, right morphology. Preservation of this assemblage was odd, being and left scapular fragments, shaft fragments of humeri, ulna, the opposite of other burials. There is no cranium except 4 radii, femora, and tibias, an atlas, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae fragments, 13 teeth, and mandibular fragments, but the fragments, 5 right carpals, 3 fragments of metacarpals, 8 hand postcranial remains are remarkably preserved. There are an phalanges, and 5 toe phalanges. Cranial measurements are in almost complete vertebral column, right and left ribs, sacral Table 3. fragments, right and left os coxa, scapular fragments, right and
FS 8SO4.653 ("Box 32, Bag 6"). These remains are in left radii, ulnae, and humeri, 10 carpals from both hands, 4 very poor condition. One individual, a juvenile is present, as metacarpals, 18 hand phalanges, right and left femoral, tibia demonstrated by a small left petrous portion of the temporal. and fibula fragments, a patella, 8 tarsals from both feet, 10
FS 8SO4.654 ("Box #40?"). One mature adult is right and left metatarsals, and 8 foot phalanges. The long represented by one very worn canine, cranial fragments, bones were not complete enough to measure.






ELGART AND PAULE Yellow Bluffs Mound Osteology 147
























Figure 4. The arrow indicates the general area of the antemortem fracture of the nasal and frontal bones in FS 639 burial.



Pathology hemorrhagic response (Figure 4). Third, lesions of the vault that are predominantly lytic and osteoporotic resulting in
Ideally, the bioarchaeological analysis of a population reduction of the diplod and thinning of the inner and outer can inform us of the causes of death in that population, or, as layers of compact bone are consistent with early onset Paget's often inferred, the general health of the populace. There are disease (osteitis deformans, Paget 1877) (Ortner 2003). several inherent problems with this approach, although it is Paget's disease of bone is characterized by abnormal bone an essential step to report any pathological conditions that are growth, typically in the skull, spine, pelvis and upper limb observed in an osteological collection. First is the problem bones. The etiology is unknown; it may be caused by a slow of selective mortality. The burial population represents virus or there may be hereditary factors. There is no evidence individuals who died, so they cannot have been "healthy," of thickening of the calvarium or ball-shaped masses of nor do we have an estimate of all of those individuals in a sclerotic bone in the diplo characteristic of full development population who were chronically ill but did not die at a certain of the disease (Ortner 2003), nor is there hyperplasia of the age (Saunders et al. 1995; Wood et al. 1992). Second, very few cementum in the dentition (Figure 5) (Bender 2003). In the diseases actually leave their mark on the skeleton, so it is often mandible, there is destructive remodeling of the alveolar difficult to discern cause of death. Third, due to constant biotic process with teeth present and significant root exposure, which and abiotic forces acting on any death assemblage, what we is indicative of periodontal disease (Figure 5). A cytokine, ILhave left is a small, biased sample of what originally existed 6, which is found in the serum of patients with Paget's disease, (Nawrocki 1995). plays a role in the pathogenesis of periodontal disease, so
One of the Yellow Bluffs individuals exhibits an unusual there may be a connection (Irwin and Myrillas 1998). Without set of conditions and trauma. The adult male in the "Base of histological analysis, a diagnosis of Paget's disease can be pit burial 32 in." (F.S. 639) has a large endocranial lesion, neither confirmed nor denied. with lytic activity manifested as hematopoietic inflammatory/ Pathological conditions that are commonly observed in hemorrhagic response of the meninges in both parietals and bioarchaeological contexts include the infectious diseases the frontal (Figure 3). Thus, bone growth and bone destruction osteomyelitis and periostitis, and the metabolic disturbances were occurring in the cranial bone prior to death. Differential porotic hyperostosis and linear enamel hypoplasia. diagnoses were considered. First, osteomyelitis of the cranial Osteomyelitis refers to an inflammatory response in bone vault secondary to an ear infection is one possible etiology due to any viral, bacterial, fungal or rickettsia infection, and (Ortner 2003; Figure 9-27). Second, the individual may have periostitis is a similar reaction, but to the outer surface of bone had a secondary infection from a prior injury to the face. The (Hutchinson 2004; Ortner 2003). Osteomyelitis first affects facial injury is a well-healed antemortem fracture of the nasals the marrow, and can be introduced directly through surgery and frontal manifesting the hematopoietic inflammatory/ or trauma, or indirectly through vascular tissue. It can cause






148 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)





















Figure 5. X-ray of mandible of FS 639 burial exhibiting periodontal disease. The disease is manifested as horizontal bone loss that has exposed the roots of the teeth.

periostitis, but periosteal bone formation need not be caused A by infection. Periostitis of the tibia is fairly common because the bone is so close to the skin, and trauma to the skin can create a secondary response (Ortner 2003). In addition, poor circulation and little padding causes bruising, which can promote bacteria proliferation (Fleming 2006).
Porotic hyperostosis is a condition that refers to porous enlargement of bone, due to increased red blood cell production, but it is commonly associated with anemia I I (Ortner 2003). Anemia may be caused by many conditions, 2 3 4 including genetics, deficiency of iron in the environment, or iron sequestering, which is a response to an infection. Several researchers have speculated that either intestinal parasites found in fish or contaminated water cause iron-deficiency B anemia in populations such as those of coastal North Carolina or the Northern Channel Islands in California (Hutchinson 2004; Walker 1986).
Linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH) results from cessation of enamel growth during dental development and does not have a specific etiology. Defects have been correlated with various traumatic events such as changes in subsistence strategy (Goodman et al. 1980; Goodman and Rose 1990; Hutchinson and Larsen 1988), weaning, and disease (Malville 1997; Santos and Coimbra 1999; Simpson 2001). Any disturbance in homeostasis may cause ameliogenesis to cease during dental growth. Because all dentition is formed during the juvenile period, LEH is a record of metabolic stress or trauma during I II I Ithis period that persists into adulthood.
The individual in Burial 1 presents a humeral lesion, which is most likely due to a localized infection resulting in osteomyelitis (Figure 6, A and B). There is periosteal bone deposition around the cortical defect with a small sequestrum, which can be seen in cross section (Ortner 2003). One of the Figure 6. Osteomyelitis of the humerus of the individual individuals in the "Backhoe Pit #1 Burial NE corner" (F.S. in Burial 1 showing: A. the small sequestrum, and B. 637) manifests a tibial lesion most likely due to a localized cross-section view. inflammatory response of the outer surface resulting in periostitis. The tibia has the typical "woven bone" appearance






ELGART AND PAULE Yellow Bluffs Mound Osteology 149


characteristic of the active stage of the infection (Ortner 2003). It is unlikely that the periostitis of the tibia was fatal, but the fragmentary nature of the remains prevents determination of whether or not the infection was widespread, which could result in death.
No incidences of porotic hyperostosis were observed at Yellow Bluffs. Hypoplastic lines were observed macroscopically on 11 of the 317 (3.5 percent) teeth examined and correspond to 13 percent of the individuals examined.
An alveolar abscess was observed in one of the mature adults in F.S. 652, at the site of the right third mandibular molar (Figure 7). It was antemortem, therefore we cannot determine whether it was the cause of death.
The adult male in F.S. 659 manifested three thoracic vertebrae, one lumbar vertebrae and the sacrum with low to moderate expression of Schmorl's nodes. One thoracic vertebra also has moderate lipping on both superior and inferior surfaces indicating osteoarthritis and life in or beyond the fourth decade of life (Stewart 1958). Both of these conditions are indicative of degenerative changes resulting from lifestyle stresses and advanced age. 6 7

Discussion Figure 7. Superior view of the mandible with an arrow

The results from the analysis of the Yellow Bluffs Mound pointing to the abscess at RM, FS 652.
osteological collection were compared to demographics from was not greater at the Yellow Bluffs Mound, or at coastal sites 34 sites from four time periods within Florida (Table 4). in general, compared to inland sites. Where separated in the literature, the percent of infants and The maximum number of 47 individuals recovered from subadults were lumped together as "juveniles" and compared the mound is indicative that this was not the sole cemetery for to the percentage of adults (young and senile) for each time the Yellow Bluffs Mound people. The burials range in time period (Table 5). The distribution seen at Yellow Bluffs (28 over 400 years, and therefore many other individuals would percent juveniles and 68 percent adults) is close to the mean have died during this length of time. It is unclear from this for each time period, and does not differ significantly from the analysis whether the individuals buried in the mound were Early/Middle Woodland mean. A "benchmark" of 30 percent elite members of the group, as there are no artifacts or burial juveniles in an archaeological sample has been set from studies practices to indicate this. It can be deduced definitively that of demographics of developing countries (Lewis 2007), where all ages and both sexes are represented, so it was not a burial a percentage below 30 percent would indicate under-sampling. place restricted by age or sex. Author Elgart is currently This would mean that juveniles at Yellow Bluffs are slightly examining dental nonmetrics in this population and other under-sampled, which is not surprising considering the contemporaneous populations to try to determine whether disturbance of the site and manner of excavation. In addition, these individuals were derived from one lineage. it is a fact that the pH of soil affects juvenile remains more There was only one incidence of trauma present in the negatively than it does adult remains (Gordon and Buikstra Yellow Bluffs population, that of an adult male with a healed 1981), and the substrate generally found in southern Florida nasal fracture. It is not possible to determine the cause of this, is quite acidic. It is interesting to note that the demographic but the fact that this was the only apparent injury suggests that profile of Windover Pond, with its excellent preservation in the population was relatively peaceful. anaerobic conditions, had 51 percent juveniles. This suggests that many more juveniles should be found at all of these Florida Comparison ofPathological conditions to other Florida sites sites but substrate conditions, disturbance from development, and other causes bias the retrieval of juvenile remains. We examined whether the marine and estuary-based
When sites were separated by geography, an unpaired, subsistence strategy of the Manasota period Yellow Bluffs two-tailed t-test examined whether there were significant Mound population resulted in a pathological profile that differences between coastal and inland demographic values. differed from southern Florida populations that were located Neither the percentage of juveniles nor the percentage of inland. Several indicators of systemic health were used to adults significantly varied by location (p values> 0.6). It draw this comparison: caries, linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH), appears that juvenile mortality (or our best estimate thereof) periostitis and porotic hyperostosis, following the work of






150 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)


Table 4. Sites used for comparison, by date and geographic location in Florida.


Region Site Site Type n Individuals References Studied
Archaic (8,000-500 B.C.)
Northern Coast Bird Island (8DI52) Midden 36 Hutchinson 2004; Klingle 2006 Tick Island (8VO24) Mound/Midden 184 Klingle 2006 Gauthier (8BR 193) Cemetery 105 Klingle 2006 Central Inland Republic Groves (8HR4) Wet Pond 37 Hutchinson 2004; Klingle 2006
Central Coast Bay Cadillac (8HI2398) Cemetery 62 Klingle 2006
Windover Pond (8BR246) Wet Pond 169 Hutchinson 2004 Southern Coast Santa Maria (8DA2132) Cemetery 6 Carr et al. 1984
Southern Inland Pine Island (8BDI 113) Cemetery 3 Elgart-Berry 2003
Long Lakes (8BD3283) Cemetery/midden 33 Elgart-Berry 2003; Elgart 2010 Bay West (8CR200) Wet Pond 35 Hutchinson 2004 Cheetum (8DA1058) Cemetery/midden 29 Elgart-Berry 2003; Newman 1986 Early Woodland/Middle Woodland (500 B.C.-A.D. 800) *the burials at these sites date to Late Archaic-Glades 1
Northern Coast Turtle Shores (8SJ3262) Mound/Midden 8 Klingle 2006
Gauthier (8BR193) Cemetery 26 Hutchinson 2004 Mayport Mound (8DU96) Mound 46 Klingle 2006 Benton Mound (8FL 16) Mound 9 Klingle 2006 Central Coast Perico Island (8MA6) Mound /cemetery 228 Hutchinson 2004 Crystal River (8CI 1) Mound 66 Katzmarzyk 1998 Palmer Mound (8SO2) Mound 429 Hutchinson 2004 Manasota Key (8SO 1292) Cemetery 120 Dickel 1991 Dunwody (8CH61) Shell Midden 21 Gold 2006 Central Inland Fort Center (8GL13) Wet Pond 121 Miller-Shaivitz & I.can 1991
Southern Coast Brickell Bluff/Atlantis Midden 4 Elgart-Berry 2003; Itcan et al.1993 (8DA1082)*
Flagami South (8DA36)* Mound 16 Elgart-Berry 2003; iqcan et al. 1995 Mississippian/Late Woodland (A.D. 800-1500)
Northern Coast Snow Beach (8WA52) Mound 7 Klingle 2006 Pierce Mound (8FR14) Mound 106 Klingle 2006 Sowell Mound (8BY3) Mound 169 Klingle 2006 Northern Inland Browne Mound (8DU62) Mound 41 Simpson 2001 Lake Jackson (8LE1) Mound 25 Klingle 2006 Central Coast Agui Esta (8CH68) Mound 22 Hutchinson 2002b Safety Harbor (8PI2) Mound 52 Hutchinson 2004 Sarasota Bay (8SO44) Mound 15 Freas & Warren 2005 Tierra Verde (8PI51) Mound 48 Hutchinson 1993 Thomas Mound (8HI 1) Mound 137 Klingle 2006 Weeden Island (8PI1) Mound 35 Klingle 2006 Central Inland Mackenzie (8MR64) Mound 24 Klingle 2006
Parrish Mound 2 Mound 41 Hutchinson 2004 (8MA1-5)
Tatham Mound (8CI203) Mound 19 Hutchinson 2004 Jones Mound (8HI4) Mound 188 Klingle 2006 Southern Inland Goodman (8DU66) Mound 13 Klingle 2006
Contact-Postcontact (A.D. 1500-1700)
Northern Coast SCDG-Amelia Is. Mission Cemetery 122 Hutchinson 2004
Northern Inland Patale Mission (8LE152) Cemetery 58 Klingle 2006 Woodward (8AL47) Mound 28 Klingle 2006 San Martin (8C01) Cemetery 23 Hutchinson 2004 Central Coast Weeki Wachee (8HE12) Mound 84 Hutchinson 2004 Quad Block (8HI998) Cemetery 38 Klingle 2006 Central Inland Tatham Mound (8CI203) Mound 314 Hutchinson 2004






ELGART AND PAULE Yellow Bluffs Mound Osteology 151



Table 5. Comparison of the age distribution of the Yellow Bluffs Mound to other Florida sites.

Overall Coastal Inland ite % % % % %
Juveniles Adults- Juveniles Adults Juveniles Aduli
Yellow Bluffs (Early Woodland) 28 68
ArchaicPeriodeiean 30 67 30 66 31 70 Early/Middle Woodland mean 28 71 36 63 28 72 LW-Mississippian Period mean 22 71 20 80 29 66 Contact-Post-contact Period mean 27 57 31 41 25 67


others (Freas and Warren 2005; Hutchinson 2004; Larsen Early/Middle Woodland periods, so incidence of caries was 2001). Box plots were generated in Statview to visually relatively low during this time. Agriculture was introduced to present the data for each time period, separated by location northern Florida populations during the Mississippian period of site (coastal versus inland) (Figures 8 and 9) (following and persisted into the Contact period, so a drastic increase Hutchinson, 2004). Each box displays the middle 50 percent in carious insults due to the carbohydrate-rich diet in these of cases with the lower limit of the box at the 25th percentile, populations can be seen in all Florida sites with data during a line at the median (50th percentile), and the upper limit at the this time (Figure 8). This data set seems to indicate that people 75h' percentile. Outliers are presented as points. located at coastal sites had greater amounts of caries than at
The lack of carious lesions on teeth from Yellow Bluffs inland sites during the Mississippian/Late Woodland through Mound is comparable to other contemporaneous, coastal the Postcontact period, although this is could be misleading, sites in Florida (Table 6; Figure 8). The emphasis on marine as there is only one data point for inland sites during the resources at Yellow Bluffs may have protected individuals Mississippian period (Table 6). from acids produced in the mouth by cariogenic bacteria, and Good health status also may be inferred by the low the lack of carbohydrates from dietary grains apparently kept incidence of LEH at Yellow Bluffs (13 percent of individuals levels low as well. There was also a lack of dental trauma or 3.5 percent of teeth). This amount is similar to "healthy" such as chipping that could have led to caries (Hutchinson modern populations such as New Zealand children, who 2004). Furthermore, high protein diets reduce the acidity in demonstrate a frequency of 10 percent (Suckling and Pearce the mouth, and marine animals tend to be high in fluoride, 1984) and British people, who have below 15 percent LEH which inhibits tooth decay (Mays 1997; Walker and Erlandson (Downer et al. 1994; cf. Wood 1996). There is not a pattern 1986). Subsistence at all other Florida sites was also based with LEH as with caries either temporally or geographically on fishing, hunting, and gathering during the Archaic and (Table 7, Figure 9). Sites from the Archaic period ranged

100
90
80
70
60
50
q-

40
30
20 - Coastal 10 D Inland

Archaic L\V. lississippial
Nlanasota E-M Contact-Postcontact
Woodland
Figure 8. Box plot of the percentage of caries measured in Florida sites, per time period, contrasting coastal versus inland locations. E-M Woodland refers to Early to Middle Woodland and LW refers to Late Woodland.
See text and Table 4 for dates of each time period. Each box encloses 50% of the variation with the line displaying
the median. After Hutchinson (2004).






152 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)



Table 6. Percentages of individuals with caries compared to 8SO04, as reported in other studies. See Table 4 for references.

Coastal or
Period/Site Inland % individuals n Archaic
Bay West Inland 4* 35 Bird Island Coastal 1 36 Republic Groves Inland 3 37 Windover Pond Coastal 5 169 Early-Middle Woodland
Fort Center Inland 3* 121 Long Lakes Inland 2 33 Manasota Key Coastal 9 120 Palmer Mound Coastal 3 429 Perico Island Coastal 5 228 Yellow Bluffs Mound Coastal 0 24+ Mississippian- Late Woodland
Agui Esta Mound Coastal 6 22 Snow Beach Coastal 80 7 Tatham Mound Inland 14 19 Tierra Verde Coastal I 48 Contact-Post-Contact
Patale Mission Inland 24 58 Quad Block Coastal 3 38 San Martin (Fig Springs) Inland 25 23 SCDG-Amelia Island Coastal 82 122 Tatham Mound Inland 19 314 Weeki Wachee Coastal 1.3 84 Woodward Mound Inland 8 28
*% teeth



100


80


o 60


40

m
20 Coastal D Inland
0
Archaic LW/Mississippian Manasota/E-M Contact-Postcontact Woodland


Figure 9. Box plot of the percentage of individuals with linear enamel hypoplasia measured, by time period and location of site (coastal versus inland). See text and Table 4 for dates of each time period. Each box encloses 50% of the variation with the line displaying the median and whiskers displaying the 10th and 90th percentile. Outliers above or below these percentiles are presented as points. After Hutchinson (2004).






ELGART AND PAULE Yellow Bluffs Mound Osteology 153


Table 7. Incidence of linear enamel hypoplasias compared to 8SO4, as reported in other studies. See Table 4 for references.

Period/Site Coastal or Inland individuals n Archaic
Brickell Bluff Coastal 100 4-7 Cheetum Inland 12 29 Pine Island (E. Midden) Inland 100 3 Long Lakes Inland 15 33 Santa Maria Coastal 0 6 Early-Middle Woodland
Crystal River mound G Coastal 19 35 Flagami South Inland 44 16 Dunwody Coastal 25 21 Fort Center Inland 6* 121 Manasota Key Coastal 8 102 Palmer Site Coastal 77 429 Perico Island Coastal 52 228 Yellow Bluffs Coastal 13 24+ Mississippian- Late Woodland
Aqui Esta Coastal 23 22 Lake Jackson Mound Inland 100 25 Safety Harbor Mound Coastal 35 52 Sarasota Bay Mound Coastal 88 17 Snow Beach Coastal 33 8 Tatham Mound Inland 33 28 Tierra Verde Coastal 2 48 Contact-Post-Contact
Fig Spring Inland 75 88 Patale Mission Inland 2 67 SCDG-Amelia Is. Coastal 67 122 Weeki Wachee Coastal 75 84 Tatham Mound (post) Inland 57 339
% teeth

from 0-100 percent of LEH, but this is due, at least in part, to from Florida sites to make a comparison between coastal and biases from small sample sizes where all individuals had one inland sites, although Hutchinson (2004) reports that inland or more hypoplasias (Table 7, Figure 9). Coastal sites during people were less affected by the condition. Incidence during the Contact-Postcontact period did have the highest mean the Early to Late Woodland period in Florida ranges from 7 frequency of LEH (71 percent). This high incidence is similar percent (n=121) at inland Fort Center (Miller-Shaivitz and to the 98 percent of LEH that was found in the Tupi-Mond6 ican 1991) to 53 percent (n=8) at coastal Dunwody (Gold Amerindians from the Amazon during their first contact years 2006) with a mean of 25 percent. Gold (2006) notes that the with Europeans (Santos and Coimbra 1999). frequency at Dunwody far exceeds five nearby coastal sites,
The lack of porotic hyperostosis and cribra orbitalia in this but it is common at others in proximity to Yellow Bluffs, such Yellow Bluffs sample is notable, considering its high frequency as Sarasota Bay Mound (45 percent; n=5) (Freas and Warren in some marine- and estuary-based populations (Gold 2006; 2005), Perico Island (44 percent; n=178), Safety Harbor (30 Hutchinson 2004; Lambert and Walker 1991; Walker 1986). percent; n=l113) and Palmer (29 percent; n=429) (Hutchinson There are not enough values of porotic hyperostosis reported 2004).






154 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)


One individual (2 percent) presented with osteomyelitis of Acknowledgments the humerus and one individual was affected by periostitis of the tibia in the Yellow Bluffs population. There are not enough We would like to thank George Luer for asking us to frequencies reported of osteomyelitis and periostitis from analyze this collection and for being instrumental in its Florida sites to contrast coastal and inland sites, but incidence preparation and loan to us. Thanks also to Dan Hughes, Jodi of osteomyelitis was generally low during the Woodland Pracht and Lorrie Muldowney of the Sarasota County History Period of Florida: we calculated a mean of 13 percent in the Center for allowing us to borrow this collection. Manasota-Early Woodland and 8 percent in the Late Woodland from published sources (Gold 2006; Hutchinson 2002b, 2004, 1993; Klingle 2006). Yellow Bluffs had the lowest frequencies References Cited of each infection compared to nearby contemporaneous sites, except for the low incidence of osteomyelitis found Almy, Maranda M. at the Palmer Site (0.5 percent) (Hutchinson 2004). Nearby 2013 Human Biological Variation and Biological Distance Sarasota Bay Mound had an unusually high incidence of in Precontact Florida: A Morphometric Examination periostitis (69 percent, n=9), which Freas and Warren (2005) of Biological and Cultural Continuity and Change. cannot fully explain. It is difficult to diagnose the exact cause Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, of these diseases in archaeological populations, as they are University of Florida, Gainesville. often secondary to either infection or trauma. They may be attributed to treponemal infections, such as yaws or endemic Baker, Brenda J., Tosha L. Dupras, and Matthew W. Tocheri syphilis (Freas and Warren 2005; Gold 2005; Hutchinson 2005 The Osteology oflnfants and Children. Texas A & 2004; Schaffer and Carr 2013). Hutchinson (2004) reports M University Press, College Station. that these inflammatory responses rise dramatically in interior southeastern populations during the Mississippian period, Bass, William M. which is possibly linked to the rise of agriculture (Cohen and 1995 Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual, Armelagos 1984). 4'h ed. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.

Conclusions Bender, I. B.
2003 Paget's Disease. Journal ofEndodontics 29:720The fragmentary nature of these remains precludes 723. drawing extensive conclusions about the Yellow Bluffs Mound population, but the low incidence of pathology and Buikstra, Jane E., and Doug H. Ubelaker trauma indicate that it was a generally healthy and successful 1994 Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal population. The results of our limited bioarchaeological Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research analysis is consistent with our hypothesis that these Manasota Series No. 44. period people had relatively abundant and reliable food sources from the sea and estuaries that they were able to Carr, Robert S., M. Yasar i1can, and Richard A. Johnson exploit. If this small sample is an indication of the society, the 1984 A Late Archaic Cemetery in South Florida. The people appear to have equal access to these resources. They Florida Anthropologist 37(4):172-188. also apparently had access to clean water, because they exhibit few signs of stress in the skeleton. No individuals displayed Cohen, Mark N., and George J. Armelagos (editors) porotic hyperostosis, caries, or dental crowding, and very few 1984 Paleopathology at the Origins ofAgriculture. had LEH. Juvenile mortality levels were akin to levels seen in Academic Press, Orlando. contemporary sites in Florida. Only one individual presented with any trauma, and it was a non-fatal injury. This suggests Dickel, David N. that the incidence of warfare was low at Yellow Bluffs. This 1991 Descriptive Analysis of the Skeletal Collection from pattern is similar to results from other osteological analyses of the Prehistoric Manasota Key Cemetery, Sarasota contemporary Early Woodland sites in southern Florida. These County, Florida (8SO 1292). Florida Archaeological populations subsisted on foraging, and their health profile Reports No. 22. Division of Historical Resources, differs from those populations who had an agriculturally based Florida Department of State. Tallahassee. subsistence, or those disrupted by European populations. Details on the dentition of the Yellow Bluffs people will be Elgart, Alison A. presented in another study. 2010 Life and Death on the Pine Island Ridge during the Late Archaic Period. The Florida Anthropologist
63:11-23.






ELGART AND PAULE Yellow Bluffs Mound Osteology 155


Elgart-Berry, Alison Hutchinson, Dale L., and Clark Spencer Larsen 2003 Hypoplastic Insults in Prehistoric Teeth from Eight 1988 Determination of Stress Episode Duration from
South Florida Sites. The Florida Anthropologist Linear Enamel Hypoplasia: A Case Study from St.
56:253-266. Catherines Island, Georgia. Human Biology 60:93110.
Fleming, Robin Irwin, C. R., and T. T. Myrillas 2006 Bones for Historians: Putting the Body Back into 1998 The Role of IL-6 in the Pathogenesis of Periodontal
Biography. Writing Medieval Biography: Essays in Disease. Oral Diseases 4:43-47.
Honour of Professor Frank Barlow.
igcan, Mehmet Yagar, Morton H. Kessel, and Robert S. Carr Frease, Laurel, and Michael W. Warren 1993 Human Remains from the Archaic Brickell Bluff 2005 Osteological Analysis of Sarasota Bay Mound: Site. The Florida Anthropologist 46:277-281.
A Safety Harbor Period Site. The Florida 1995 Human Skeletal Analysis of the Prehistoric Flagami
Anthropologist 58:57-74. South Site. The Florida Anthropologist 48:54-59.

Gold, Melissa L. Katzmarzyk, C. 2006 Osteological Analysis of the Manasota Period 1998 Evidence of Stress in a Precolumbian Population
Dunwody Site. The Florida Anthropologist 59:35- from Mound G at the Crystal River Site, Florida. M.
54. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Goodman, A. H., and J. C. Rose
1990 Assessment of Systemic Physiological Perterbations Klingle, David Adam
from Dental Enamel Hypoplasias and Associated 2006 Burial in Florida: Culture, Ritual, Health, and
Histological Structures. Yearbook of Physical Status: The Archaic to Seminole Periods. M. A.
Anthropology 33:59-110. thesis. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University. Tallahassee.
Goodman, A. H., G. Armelagos, and J. C. Rose
1980 Enamel Hypoplasias as Indicators of Stress in Lambert, Patricia M, and Phillip L Walker
Three Prehistoric Populations from Illinois. Human 1991 The Evolution of Social Complexity in Coastal
Biology 3:515-528. Southern California. American Antiquity 65:963-73.

Gordon, Claire C., and Jane E. Buikstra Larsen, Clark Spencer 1981 Soil pH, Bone Preservation and Sampling Bias at 2001 Bioarchaeology ofSpanish Florida. University
Mortuary Sites. American Antiquity 46:566-571. Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Grismer, Karl H. Lewis, Mary E. 1946 The Story of Sarasota: The History of the City and 2007 The Bioarchaeology of Children. Cambridge
County ofSarasota, Florida. Florida Grower Press, University Press, Cambridge.
Tampa.
Luer, George M.
Hutchinson, Dale L. 2011 The Yellow Bluffs Mound Revisited: A Manasota 1993 Analysis of Skeletal Remains from the Tierra Verde Period Burial Mound in Sarasota. The Florida
Site, Pinellas County, West-Central Florida. The Anthropologist 64:5-32.
Florida Anthropologist 46:263-276.
2002a Foraging, Farming, and Coastal Biocultural Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
Adaptation in Late Prehistoric North Carolina. 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida
University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Anthropologist 35:34-58. 2002b Osteological Analysis of the Aqui Esta Mound
Population. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte
Harbor Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 111- Luer, George M., and Daniel Hughes
181. Florida Anthropological Society Publication 2011 Radiocarbon Dating the Yellow Bluffs
No. 15, Tallahassee. Mound (8S04), Sarasota, Florida. The Florida 2004 Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Anthropologist 64:33-45.
Adaptation, Conflict, and Change. University Press
of Florida, Gainesville.






156 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)


Malville, Nancy J. Simpson, Scott W. 1997 Enamel Hypoplasia in Ancestral Puebloan 2001 Patterns of Growth Disruption in La Florida:
Populations from Southwestern Colorado: I. Evidence from Enamel Microstructure. In
Permanent Dentition. American Journal ofPhysical Bioarchaeology ofFlorida, edited by Clark Spencer
Anthropology 102:351-367. Larsen, pp. 146-180. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Mays, S. A.
1997 Carbon Stable Isotope Ratios in Mediaeval and Stewart, T. Dale
Later Human Skeletons from Northern England. 1958 The Rate of Development of Vertebral Osteoarthritis
Journal ofArchaeological Science 24:561-567. in American Whites and its Significance in Skeletal Age Identification. Leech 28:144-51.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1972 Excavations at the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound, Suckling, Grace W., and Euan I.F. Pearce
Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25:21- 1984 Developmental Defects of Enamel in a Group
41. of New Zealand Children: Their Prevalence and Some Associated Etiological Factors. Community Miller-Shaivitz, Patricia, and Mehmet Yagar ilcan Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 12:177-184. 1991 The Prehistoric People of Fort Center: Physical and
Health Characteristics. In What Mean These Bones? Walker, Philip L.
edited by Mary Lucas Powell, Patricia S. Bridges, 1986 Porotic Hyperostosis in a Marine-Dependent
and Ann Marie Mires, pp. 131-147. University of California Indian population. American Journal of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Physical Anthropology 69:345-354.

Nawrocki, Stephen P. Walker, Philip L., and Jon M. Erlandson 1995 Taphonomic Processes in Historic Cemeters. In 1986 Dental Evidence for Prehistoric Dietary Change in
Bodies of Evidence, edited by Anne L. Grauer, pp. the North Channel Islands, California. American
49-68. Wiley-Liss, New York. Antiquity 51:375-383.

Newman, Christine White, Tim D. 1986 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Investigations 2005 The Human Bone Manual. Elsevier Academic Press,
Conducted at the Cheetum Site, Dade County, Amsterdam.
Florida. AHC Technical Report #3, Miami.
Wood, James W., George R. Milner, Henry C. Harpending, Ortner, Donald J. and Kenneth M. Weiss 2003 Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human 1992 The Osteological Paradox. Current Anthropology
Skeletal Remains. Academic Press, Amersterdam. 33:343-370.

Santos, Ricardo V., and Carlos E. Coimbra, Jr. Wood, Lynda 1999 Hardships of Contact: Enamel Hypoplasias in Tupi- 1996 Frequency and Chronological Distribution of Linear
Mondd Amerindians from the Brazilian Amazonia. Enamel Hypoplasia in a North American Colonial
American Journal ofPhysical Anthropology Skeletal Sample. American Journal of Physical
109:111-127. Anthropology. 100:247-259.

Saunders, Shelley R., D. Ann Herring, and Gerald Boyce 1995 Can Skeletal Samples Accurately Represent the
Living Populations They Come From? The St.
Thomas' Cemetery Site, Belleville, Ontario. In Bodies ofEvidence, edited by Anne L. Grauer,
pp.69-90. Wiley-Liss, New York.

Schaffer, W. C., and R. S. Carr
2013 Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Treponemal
Infection in South Florida: An Epidemiological
Approach. International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology. DOI: 10.1002/oa.2343.









SEARCHING FOR FORT CAROLINE: NEW PERSPECTIVES


REBECCA DOUBERLY-GORMAN

Department ofAnthropology, University ofFlorida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 E-Mail: rgormanl@ufl.edu



The physical locations of historic period sites which location. This study relies on little used information derived were pivotal in the development of American history are from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter ACE) river commonly lost from collective memory. Forts, missions, modification projects, combined with known documentary and other settlements can fall victim to destruction, disuse, and archaeological evidence, to provide a new direction for or neglect, ultimately resulting in their locations fading from answering the decades-old question: "Where is the fort?" recollection. While the stories of these places may be found
in history books, the physical sites remain unknown. Many Historical Overview and Context are thought to be irretrievably destroyed, making them lost to
potential archaeological inquiry as well. The good news is that According to McGrath (2000, 2002), historians of the some of these places are being found. It has taken decades early modem period have mistakenly referred to the French in some cases to debunk the myths of permanent loss and expeditions and the founding of the La Caroline colony as rediscover the location of certain historic sites, such as James a Huguenot enterprise and not as explorations of discovery, Fort on Jamestown Island, Virginia (Kelso 2000), Charlesfort which was the original intent. This idea has most likely been on Parris Island, South Carolina (DePratter et al. 1996), and accepted due to a combination of factors. At the time of Jean Fort Mose in St. Augustine, Florida (Deagan and MacMahon Ribault's first voyage in 1562, France was embroiled in what 1995). In these cases, the lost sites were resurrected and their has been called the First French War of Religion (1562-1563) story is being told anew, sometimes altering what once was in which Gaspard de Coligny served as Lieutenant General believed true based on interpretations of the historical record. under the Protestant Prince de Cond6 in the battle against the
Fort Caroline, established on the south bank of the St. Catholic Frangois de Guise (McGrath 2000:49). Both Jean Johns River in modem-day Duval County, Florida, is one of Ribault and Coligny were publicly recognized as Protestant these lost historic places. Its actual location is perhaps the most by 1561 (McGrath 2002:71). Because of their religion and the sought after and elusive archaeological site in Florida. With last fact that these expeditions were paid for by the French crown, year's (2012) commemoration of the 450th anniversary of the it may have been assumed by later historians that Coligny French arrival in Florida and the upcoming 450" anniversary took advantage of the situation and envisioned Florida as a of the founding of The La Caroline Colony (Fort Caroline) refuge for the Protestant movement. The idea that Coligny in 2014, the search has experienced a renewed interest both purposely sought to instigate the Spanish and to unite the publicly and academically. In a historical perspective, this conflicting Catholic and Huguenot French peoples against restored interest in French presence in northeastern Florida a common Spanish enemy is also a much later proposal is a testament to the impact that the short-lived French purported by modern historians (see McGrath 2000:197 for a colony had on the trajectory of American colonial history. In comprehensive list of examples). Jacksonville, Fort Caroline has never been forgotten owing The reason for these misconceptions-as well as to the establishment of a National Memorial that honors interpretations involving the founding of Fort Caroline, the its existence. Outside the local area, public interest in Fort Spanish defeat of the fort, and the "massacre" of the French Caroline has paled in comparison to the national attention that troops at Matanzas-involves the sixteenth-century historical other early colonial sites receive, even though Fort Caroline narrative and the effects it had on later historical interpretations predates most of these by decades. Yet, many of these places of the period. French accounts were more numerous and have something Fort Caroline does not; they have been found. widely available to later historians, while Spanish accounts
The location of the French fort has been a much speculated were scarce, though McGrath argues, more reliable (McGrath topic, although the discussion has been primarily based in 2000:6). In fact, a Spanish version of the Fort Caroline story historical conjecture resulting in tired circular arguments. based on sixteenth-century Spanish accounts was not released Historical overviews concerning the fort have focused until 1723 (Bushnell 2003:649). Because of the European primarily on its French occupation and have all but ignored its political propaganda connected to sixteenth-century religious Spanish history as Fort San Mateo. At times, its entire history conflicts and a decidedly anti-Spanish tone, sixteenth-century has been abridged and misunderstood. Though proposals French narratives were misleading (McGrath 2000). The idea abound, there is very little hard evidence for Fort Caroline's of the "Black Legend," essentially born from this sixteenthVOL. 66(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 2013







158 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)






















Figure 1. Fort Caroline area.

century propaganda, helped fuel later historical narratives. he appealed to England's Queen Elizabeth to fund a return The anti-Spanish tale that depicted Menindez as blood-thirsty expedition. Although his petition was given as an opportunity and brutal became firmly accepted as fact; the French at Fort for Elizabeth to advance English influence through exploration, Caroline were Huguenots escaping religious persecution the queen eventually decided that Ribault remained too loyal and were "massacred" at the hands of the Spanish (Bushnell to France for such an undertaking. He was imprisoned in 2003:648; McGrath 2000). England delaying his return to Charlesfort and contributing
The impetus for French exploration in Florida, as well to the abandonment of the small garrison. With Ribault in as the later founding of the settlement of the Fort Caroline prison and desperate to escape famine and native hostilities, colony, was religious, political, diplomatic, and opportunistic the remnants of the small Charlesfort garrison constructed a (McGrath 2000, 2002:74). Spain, having explored but failing rough handmade vessel and attempted to sail back to France. to establish a permanent settlement in the Southeastern United The attempt was fraught with calamities, including a lack of States, had laid claim to the extensive lands of La Florida food and water and possible cannibalism. On the brink of since 1493. France, challenging the idea that Spain controlled starvation, the survivors were fortunate enough to be picked such a vast holding, chose Florida as the object of discovery in up by a British ship (Bennett 1968). an exploration attempt masterminded by Admiral Gaspard de Aided by a lull in the religious conflict, in 1564 Coligny Coligny and Jean Ribault (McGrath 2000, 2002:74). refocused French efforts on establishing a settlement near
Following both de Coligny's and Ribault's initial plan, present-day Jacksonville, Florida; the area encountered during the first French expedition that departed France for the New the first French voyage of exploration led by Ribault in 1562 World in February of 1562 was primarily an exploratory one. in which Rend de Goulaine de Laudonniare was second in Ribault's arrival along the Florida coast was followed by a command (Bennett 2001:17; McGrath 1995, 2000). While seven-week long "coastal reconnaissance" in which Ribault settlement was not the primary objective of the 1562 voyage, and his crew spent a considerable amount of time mapping this second expedition had a decidedly different aim. In late harbors, rivers, and other geographical features along a 200- April of 1564 three ships with three hundred people aboard mile stretch of coastline (McGrath 2002:73). During this first departed France for Florida. The expedition was outfitted voyage Ribault discovered the River May (St. Johns River) with the tools needed to establish a fort and settlement: and made contact with the native Mocama Indians living in the cannon, arquebuses, ammunition, foodstuffs, and agricultural vicinity of its mouth (Bennett 1976). The French then sailed supplies (Bennett 1976:17). While many of these colonists north eventually landing on present-day Parris Island, South were indeed Protestant, the desire to escape persecution more Carolina. While not part of Coligny's original plan, Ribault likely explains their inclusion in the expedition rather than quickly established Charlesfort in an effort to lay claim to actual recruitment (McGrath 2000:101). On June 30, 1564, on this explored portion of coastline for France. Leaving 30 men land claimed by both France and Spain, soldiers and colonists to hold this position, Ribault sailed back to France with the under the command of Laudonnibre selected a site on the south intention to return with additional colonists and supplies, bank of the river and began construction of Fort Caroline
Finding his country in the middle of a civil and religious (Bennett 1976:17). The selection of the St. Johns River for the war upon his return, Ribault was unable to gain support for establishment of the French colonial settlement was strategic. a second voyage (Bennett 2001). Seeking help elsewhere, Both the French and the Spaniards believed that the waterway







DOUBERLY-GORMAN SEARCH FOR FORT CAROLINE 159


now known as the St. Johns River was a riverine highway into poor administration, the recently freed Ribault was placed in interior Florida and that control of this river was essential in command ofa reliefexpedition and tasked by Coligny to replace winning ownership of the region (Lyon 1982). Laudonnibre. Ribault's 1565 expedition of seven ships loaded
Though accounts vary greatly, citing a distance between with supplies and more than 600 soldiers, sailors, and colonists one and five French leagues' inland from the mouth of the to relieve Fort Caroline, which was suffering and long overdue river, a site was selected near a great valley of grasslands for supplies, took several weeks to arrive after landing on the and in the neighborhood of a "mountain" (Laudonnire coast of Florida. Ribault's knowledge that Menendez's armed 2001:69). In all descriptions of the fort's location, topography, fleet was headed to Florida did not deter him from taking two and general environment, the most probable area for its weeks to explore the 100 miles of coastline between modernconstruction is in the vicinity of St. Johns Bluff, a linear day Cape Canaveral and Jacksonville (McGrath 2002:73). His L-shaped sand bluff located on the southern side of the St. belief that the Spanish fleet would most likely resupply in the Johns River, approximately 11 km (7 mi) from the ocean Caribbean and not arrive in the area until the following spring (Figure 1). The triangular fort was constructed in the European was a catastrophic miscalculation that cost hundreds of French form, which utilized earth and bundles of wood (Laudonnidre lives including his own (McGrath 2002:73). 2001). Outbuildings, such as storehouses, were built of pole Informed by Spanish spies that a large French fleet was and palmetto thatch in the fashion of local native architecture, in the process of equipping for an expedition to a French which is not surprising since local Mocama Indians helped fort located on the east coast of Florida, the Spanish Crown, construct them. In Laudonnibre's (2001:69-72) words: believing that the purpose of the fort was to attack Spanish silver fleets in route back to Spain, took counteractive
measures (McGrath 2000:6). Pedro Mendndez de Avil6s,
We determined to return to the location that we had Spain's most skilled captain, led an armada of over twenty first discovered when we were navigating the river ships to capture Fort Caroline before the French fleet arrived [during the first voyage in 1562]. This place, next to with reinforcements (McGrath 2000:8). It was hoped that the mountain, seemed better and more convenient by arriving first, Menindez could take the fort and thereby for the building of a fortress ...We walked through claim the establishment for Spain's first permanent colonial
the forests...and found a hillside on the edge of a settlement.
great green valley...surrounded by little fresh-water On August 28, 1565 Ribault's flotilla finally arrived at streams and by a tall forest which made the valley the mouth of the St. Johns River as Laudonniere and his men very beautiful to see. After consideration I agreed to were in the process of dismantling Fort Caroline and preparing name it, on the request of my soldiers, the Vale de to sail back to France. The four largest ships were anchored Laudonnibre. We pushed forward...and arrived at outside the mouth of the river, while three smaller ships sailed the place we had decided upon as our home. Then, over the bar and were anchored at the fort (Bennett 1976:33).
having measured a piece of ground in the form of a Menindez, having been delayed off the coast by a storm, triangle, we went to work, some to dig on all sides, reached the soon-to-be-established site of St. Augustine on the others to cut fagots, and others to raise and give form same day. Ribault's miscalculations left him unprepared for to the rampart. Our fort having been completed, I the events that followed. On September 4'h the Spanish sighted began to build a barn for the storage of supplies...I the French ships anchored on the coast. After being hailed to asked the chief to tell his subjects to make a roof of surrender, Ribault, knowing that his unprepared force would palmetto leaves-because this is the only cover they not survive an altercation, cut his anchors and fled (Bennett put over buildings there...The Indians worked hard, 1976:35). The Spanish fleet, unable to effectively give chase some bringing palmetto leaves and others weaving and finding it impossible to cross the shallow river's bar,
them together. returned to St. Augustine.
Upon Ribault's return and against the objections of
Laudonnibre, it was decided that the best plan of action
Many historians believe that the Fort Caroline project would be to combine forces and attack Menendez before (and presumably the Charlesfort garrison) was simply an the Spanish had time to regroup. The surprise attack almost effort to establish a foothold in the area against Spain. This worked (Bennett 1976:36). While waiting for the high tide is another misconception of historiography. Laudonnibre needed to cross the sand bar at the mouth of St. Augustine consistently sent exploratory expeditions to the interior to map harbor, a hurricane struck that drove Ribault's ships south, geographical features, though these efforts were abandoned shipwrecking all four. Knowing that Fort Caroline had been after a few short months due to native hostilities (McGrath left defenseless, Menindez took the time to regroup and plan 2002:73). That the French continued to emphasize exploration, a surprise land based attack on the fort. Guided by a "French while simultaneously attempting permanent settlement is traitor named Francis Jean" (Bennett 1976:37), Menendez led primarily to blame for the loss of Fort Caroline. a force of some 500 men over land to Fort Caroline. Those
After occupying the fort for a short but unproductive 15 few inexperienced and ill soldiers who had been left at the fort months, a time characterized by famine and mutiny caused by were no match for the large Spanish force and the garrison






160 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)


was quickly overrun. Laudonniere and several of his men fled Spanish soldiers were captured or killed. McGrath (2000:9) through the marshes and were eventually picked up by one of states that more than 200 Spanish soldiers were hung and their the three ships that had been anchored in front of the fort. This bodies left exposed to the elements. Regardless of the human ship, which had managed to escape, was commanded by Jean toll, the monetary repercussions of the damage caused to the Ribault's son Jacques. With only fifty or sixty of the original already expensive La Florida project were high; the fort and combined French force aboard, the ship quickly sailed back both blockhouses were burned to the ground, and all supplies, to France (Bennett 1976). The other two ships were captured including a great deal of livestock, were stolen or destroyed and scuttled. (McGrath 2000:9). After the de Gourgues attack, San Mateo
Days later Men6ndez received reports from local natives was rebuilt and used as a defensive post for at least one more that a portion of the shipwrecked men had been spotted year (Lyon 1976, 1982). Following the abandonment of San making their way north to St. Augustine. Men6ndez allegedly Mateo, with the exception of a few later references to the negotiated the surrender of some 150 men, capturing those general area on later historic maps, the exact location of the among them who were "Catholic, artisans, and musicians" and fort faded from local memory. killing the rest (Bennett 1976:41). The shipwrecked Ribault,
along with another 350 men, were reported stranded on the Previous Research south shore of Matanzas Inlet a few days later. It appears
that some 150 men walked away before the Spanish arrived, Considerable and highly comprehensive research has escaping south along the beach. It is possible that these men been conducted on the French presence in Florida, which has represent the group of Frenchmen later captured and given safe enriched the dialogue pertaining to this era of colonial history passage home by Menindez near present-day Cape Canaveral (Bennett 1968, 1976, 2001; Bushnell 1982; Lyon 1976, 1982; (Brewer and Horvath 2004). The remaining approximately Manucy 1954, 1960, 1965; McGrath 1995, 2000 specifically). 200 men, including Jean Ribault, were put to death in the same Perhaps the most significant project involving Fort Caroline manner as the group days before (Bennett 1976:42). was conducted by the late Congressman Charles E. Bennett. In
The destruction of Fort Caroline and the killing or capture addition to translating into English several important French of the majority of its military personnel and colonists effectively accounts, Bennett was responsible for an Act of Congress ended French colonization on the southeastern coast. After the (1950) that resulted in "the acquisition, investigation, and French defeat, the Spanish rebuilt Fort Caroline renaming it preservation of lands to commemorate the historic Fort Fort San Mateo. As the Spanish became entrenched in the area Caroline settlement, St. Johns Bluff, Florida" (National Park following the removal of the French, tensions between the Service 1971:36). While the establishment of Fort Caroline garrison at San Mateo and the local natives began to escalate. National Memorial (hereafter FCNM) has been instrumental in Feelings of opposition were exacerbated by a November 1566 keeping this era of the area's history alive, it has also resulted offensive against local Mocama and Tacatacuru Mocama on in the preservation of a National Memorial that centers on a Cumberland Island in retaliation for the killing of a traveling fort that to this date has never been located. Spanish garrison captain2 (Lyons 1982:53). Hostilities Over the years, historians and archaeologists, both culminated in a native attack on San Mateo on March 30, professional and avocational, have advocated different sites as 1568. Several hundred natives were able to gain access to the to the location of the lost Fort Caroline. The majority of the fort but were forced to retreat. San Mateo was relatively easy proposed locations have focused on the area contained within to enter due to water damage on the river side of the fort that and adjacent to the boundaries of FCNM, and within the larger left the fortification wall somewhat open (Hann 1990; Lyons National Park Service's Timucuan Ecological and Historic 1982:54). Preserve (hereafter Timucuan Preserve), of which FCNM is a
Dominique de Gourgues, a Catholic Gascon nobleman part (Figure 2). The Timucuan Preserve consists of more than working under the auspices of a French-Caribbean corsair 46,000 acres of land on the north and south sides of the St. expedition, outfitted a fleet to sail to Florida with one aim Johns River and contains several areas that will be discussed in mind; retribution. With native loyalties to the Spanish as potential locations for Fort Caroline. further impeded by the memory of the French massacre at While most research regarding the location of the fort has Fort Caroline, de Gourgues was easily able to reestablish being based on Laudonnibre's accounts, an inability to locate it former alliances and gain the assistance of the local Mocama. has prompted a widespread and accepted truth that the fort was In April of 1568 De Gourgues and his 200 men, along with located north of the modem reconstruction at FCNM and has an unknown number of native fighters, carried out a surprise wholly eroded into the St. Johns River. Until recently, sporadic attack (Bennett2001:48-49; Lyons 1982:54-55, McGrath and limited archaeological study had done little to dispel the 2000:9). public's belief that this is the case (Brewer 2000:25-28). This
Sources differ in descriptions regarding how many has contributed to, rather than deterred, massive development Spanish soldiers were captured or killed. Although San Mateo and destruction of cultural resources, thus limiting access to had been deserted prior to the attack, blockhouses located on areas for archaeological study. each side of the river's mouth, in or very near the Mocama Unfortunately, development over the past 25 years villages of Saturiwa and Alimacan,i were successfully captured has severely endangered what areas can be investigated (Lyons 1982:56). Bennett (2001:48) indicates that hundreds of archaeologically outside the boundaries of the Timucuan







DOUBERLY-GORMAN SEARCH FOR FORT CAROLINE 161




























Legend
Timucau Eccloical and Histrical Res-e
ForCrolineArea

Figure 2. The holdings of the National Park Service's Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve


Preserve. A large portion of the eastern side of St. Johns Bluff claimed that erosion, resulting from an ACE project in 1880 is now residential. The Fulton area to the west of the FCNM, that installed jetties at the river's mouth resulting in the another possible location for native and colonial occupation, removal of the river's bar, caused the river to flow at a higher was developed into residential neighborhoods during the past speed and forcefully diminished the marsh area in front of the twenty five years. The partial destruction of archaeologically- bluff (Davis 1925; Gissendaner 1996) (Figure 3). In Davis's rich areas in the vicinity of the Timucuan Preserve makes the (1925:9) words: task of evaluating the historical significance of the south side
of the St. Johns River in the vicinity of St. Johns Bluff difficult.
When first known to the white man St. Johns Bluff
Previously Proposed Fort Locations sloped down westerly into a little plain that occupied the cove between the present point of the bluff and
Potential locations of Fort Caroline differ as greatly as the Fulton. This plain was called by the French the "Vale people who first proposed them. These different interpretations of Laudonniare," and there at the water's edge, Fort of the historical narrative are the result of the inconsistencies Caroline was built in order to get water for the moat. and variability inherent in the documents pertaining to Fort The plain has been washed away by the river, mainly Caroline and Fort San Mateo. In 1858, Major George R. since the jetties were built, and ships now pass over Fairbanks, founder of the Florida Historical Society and long- the precise site of Fort Caroline. time Jacksonville resident, proposed that "the fort was located
northwest of the bluff on the plain which almost completely
washed into the river during the first quarter of the nineteenth It is arguable as to what actual changes took place in the river's century" (Fairbanks 1858:51). This hypothesis has been topography due to the jetties project, but Davis felt that it had adopted and further proposed by later historians (Davis 1925; effectively stripped away the land where the fort had once Manucy 1960; Smith 1859). stood. Albert Manucy (1960), a historian and writer for the
T. Frederick Davis similarly concluded that the current National Park Service, also took the position that the fort was location of the fort is in the St. Johns River. Davis based his beneath the bluff and had been taken by the river. ideas on the writings of a well-known St. Augustine resident, Others historians, such as Francis Parkman (1865) and Buckingham Smith, who thought that the fort was located at Woodbury Lowery (1905) suggested that the fort was located the base of St. Johns Bluff (Davis 1925; Smith 1859). Davis elsewhere. Parkman claims, though giving little explanation






162 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)


as to why, that the fort was "built on the knoll above St. Johns of areas west of the current park boundaries, which skewed his Bluff where the river curves in a semi-circle...the formation of results. While he carefully outlines many possibilities for the the ground, joined to the indications furnished by Laudonnibre fort's location, he argues that the fort was not located in the and Lemoyne, leave little doubt that the fort was built on the general vicinity of St. Johns Bluff as traditionally proposed, knoll" (Parkman 1865:55). On a riverboat expedition down the but southeast of it on the north bank of Mt. Pleasant Creek, St. Johns River, Parkman noted that river erosion appeared to on a high plateau in an area called Spanish Point. This area is have affected the 'knoll' that he proposed as the fort's location, partly contained within the Timucuan Preserve and has been Woodbury Lowery (1905), another sixteenth-century scholar, subjected to several archaeological surveys (discussed below) who never visited the areas in question believed, based on his (Ashley et al. 2013). own interpretation of French and Spanish documents, that the
exact location was open to question due to undoubted changes Previous Archaeological Investigations in river topography over time; but believed the fort was located
somewhere in the vicinity of St. Johns Bluff. A variety of archaeological projects have taken place
Relatively recent speculations have arisen to the location of since the mid-twentieth century in areas in and adjacent to the the fort. Paul H. Gissendaner (1996), an avocational historian, Timucuan Preserve by researchers pursuing the discovery of was motivated by his participation in an archaeological survey the lost fort. Many other projects, though not conducted with of the south side of the St. Johns River conducted by Robert the goal of locating Fort Caroline, were carried out in areas that Johnson (1988). Gissendaner (1996) conducted his own were, or have recently become, areas of interest (see Figure extensive research into the historical documents concerning 1). These inquiries have ranged from amateur explorations to Fort Caroline. His analysis involved reading the documents, more contemporary research-oriented academic archaeology. comparing historic and contemporary maps, and conducting Avocational archaeologist William Jones (1993) tested terrestrial surface investigations of the area's topography. St. Johns Bluff between 1946 and 1955 as part of his broader He compared the various geographic areas that have been examination of St. Johns Town, which was located on the St. proposed as the fort's location and ranked them based on Johns Bluff during the British occupation of Florida (1763certain locational variables documented in historic accounts. 1783). His limited survey, consisting of metal detecting and
Though all of Gissendaner's (1996) hypotheses are surface collection, focused on several loci: the main ridge intriguing, they are problematic for many reasons. First, of St. Johns Bluff, the Willie Browne Tract (now located in Gissendaner bases his arguments solely on descriptions Theodore Roosevelt Preserve), the Spanish Point area (now of the fort from historical documents, which are fraught part of the Timucuan Preserve), the beach at the foot of St. with discrepancies. The inclusion of Le Moyne's maps and Johns Bluff, and several dredge spoil repositories resulting descriptions are considered debatable due to their revisions by from recent ACE dredging of the St. Johns River. His report de Bry (Milanich 2004). A further problem in Gissendaner's (1993:20) states that "all of the occupations of the bluff have hypotheses is the exclusion of archaeological data. been accounted for by the artifacts found in this area, with Unfortunately, he did not have access to archaeological data at the exception of the French Huguenots..." Unbeknownst to the time of his study. He also did not consider the topography Jones he was responsible for the recovering the only definitive





N( IeR MAY)



. ............

,.". --, 'C .









Figure 3. Drawing by T. Frederick Davis depicting the presumed location of Fort Caroline, the shoreline in 1565, the shoreline in 1925, and the events surrounding the Spanish attack on Fort Caroline in September 1565 (Davis 1925; Brewer 2000:27).h
Brewer 2000:27).






DOUBERLY-GORMAN SEARCH FOR FORT CAROLINE 163


sixteenth-century French artifact ever recovered in the 8Du5622) (Ashley et al. 2013). None of these sites produced Fort Caroline area, which only recently has been identified sixteenth-century artifacts. During this survey he also revisited (discussed below). the Spanish Point site earlier identified by Sears (8DU61).
In 1952, University of Florida archaeologist Charles Accorded to the Florida Master Site Files, Johnson sampled Fairbanks surveyed the most 'probable' location of Fort the site via shovel testing, and collected 166 cord-marked Caroline. The goal of Fairbanks's (1952) testing was to sherds, but no mention is made of the number or location of ascertain whether any evidence of Fort Caroline remained shovel tests. He describes the site as an "extensive midden" in the area along the banks of the St. Johns River within indicating that it might contain "intact cultural features," and the boundaries of FCNM and to determine once and for all assessed it as "a potentially significant archaeological deposit" whether the site of Fort Caroline had indeed eroded into the (Johnson 1988:133). Based on our current understanding of river as T. Frederick Davis had claimed. The survey failed to the occupational history of the region the cord-marked wares find any materials related to the fort or native occupations of may actually represent St. Marys (A.D. 1250-1450). However, the locality. this is speculation since the materials were unavailable for
William Sears (1957) of the University of Florida tested reexamination. Around the same time, Johnson also conducted several sites in the Fort Caroline area during the 1950s, shovel testing and test excavations in the Fulton area, west of including the Browne I site (8DU58), the Browne II site the National Park boundary and recovered native and Spanish (8Du59), the Pirate Point Site (8DU60), and the Browne artifacts (Holland 1987). The Riverwoods Site (8DU11831) Mound (8DU62). The Spanish Point site (8DU61) was first (discussed in detail below) produced both native and Spanish tested and documented by William Sears in 1955. Sears wares potentially dating to the sixteenth century. Unfortunately, (1957:14) stated that "[t]he end of Spanish Point, and its the results of this investigation have yet to be published. northwestern shore line, contain extensive and deep shell David Brewer, of SEAC, along with Dr. Robert Thunen and deposits, which have been very little disturbed...Shell midden students from the University of North Florida, tested specific ridges and small mounds are especially abundant on the bluffs sections of the National Park property in 1996 and 1997. One at the (north) end of the point." Sears (1957:14) excavated two area was selected for testing based on information gathered by 5-x-10 foot units placed within 50 yards of each other within Jerald Milanich of the University of Florida, who had identified a shell ridge and a small shell mound. Artifacts recovered a "moat like feature" from aerial photography and relayed from both tests indicate occupation of Spanish Point during the information to Brewer (2000). Ground reconnaissance local Deptford (ca. 300 B.C. A.D. 300), Late Swift Creek defined a trench that ran approximately 80 m south from the (A.D. 500- 850), and St. Johns II (A.D. 900-1250) periods. In St. Johns River, and then turned west at a right angle ending in none of his surveys were sixteenth-century European or native Shipyard Creek. The 'moat' and interior area were tested using ceramics recovered. shovel tests and 1-x-2-m units, and produced no early French,
Building on Charles Fairbank's earlier work, Steven Spanish, or native materials (Brewer 2000). Brewer and his Ruple (1973), then a student of Fairbanks at the University of team also investigated an artesian springhead and spring run Florida, conducted a limited survey of another possible location that empties into the marshes of Shipyard Creek. Testing was for Fort Caroline. Ruple's research focused on Calypso Island conducted within the springhead using shovels, buckets, and (8DUI 11), northwest and adjacent to the reconstructed scale screens until slumpage required testing be abandoned. No model of Fort Caroline at FCNM. This island, which lies at artifacts were recovered, though Brewer postulates that the the mouth of Shipyard Creek, was found to contain St. Johns- spring run appeared to have been modified to encourage its period pottery, but no sixteenth-century European or native flow into Shipyard Creek marsh. materials. More recently several archaeological explorations have
In 1984, Richard E. Johnson and colleagues (1984:34) been conducted in order to ascertain the presence or absence of the National Park's Southeastern Archeological Center of Fort Caroline. One phase of survey work was completed in (SEAC) tested portions of a sand "mound-like feature" located 2004 by Robert Thunen and students from a University of North south and adjacent to the Ribault Monument on St. Johns Bluff. Florida field school (Ashley et al. 2013). An archaeological A 6-x-l-m trench (203-cm deep) was excavated on the eastern survey was conducted in an area within the boundaries of slope of the feature (near the eroding bluff line) in an area the FCNM that bordered David Brewer's 1998 survey. This where artifacts had been recovered during prior shovel testing. area had not previously been examined. One hundred and two Johnson concluded that the mound-like feature most likely shovel tests were placed along the bluff line bordering the related to the dismantling of temporary gun batteries that were river. The limitations of a nineteenth-century cemetery were located on the bluff during the Spanish-American War. While surveyed in an attempt to ascertain its borders. A plantationa variety of native ceramics and British period artifacts were period tabby foundation was also located. This feature had recovered, nothing indicative of a sixteenth-century native or been backfilled by NPS in the 1950s and lost to park memory. European occupation were found (Johnson et al. 1984). No trace of a sixteenth-century occupation was found.
CRM archaeologist Robert Johnson (1988:132-133), as Included within this survey were preliminary test part of a reconnaissance survey of portions of the St. Johns excavations of approximately one third of Spanish Point Bluff area, sampled and recorded three new sites located in that produced a variety of aboriginal ceramics ranging from the Theodore Roosevelt Preserve (8Du5617, 8DU5618, and Woodland to early Mississippi periods (Ashley et al. 2013:33).






164 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)


Again, no sixteenth-century European ceramics or contact Related Archaeological Sites and Collections period native ceramics were recovered. A second phase of
survey work took place in 2004 on the property surrounding The National Park holdings have preserved large tracts of the Spanish American War fortification built in 1898 for land that represent multiple historical occupations, including the defense of Jacksonville. This site is located south of the the British colonial, Second Spanish, and American Plantation Ribault Monument facing St. Johns Creek on the southern periods, as well as fortifications dating to the Civil War and ridge of St. Johns Bluff. Historic maps place the location of the Spanish American War. The richness of the historical the British period San Vincente Ferrer Battery in the general occupation in and around FCNM has potentially made it more vicinity of the Spanish American War fort. Civil War trenches difficult to pinpoint the French period activities of the area. are also present at this site. It was thought that if the excavated Indeed, until the discovery of the location of Charlesfort on contexts of forts similar to Fort Caroline proved to be correct, Parris Island, South Carolina (DePratter et al. 1996), very this multi-component military occupation of different colonial little was known about what an artifact assemblage from a and national powers could contain it as a foundation. Thirty sixteenth-century French fort would look like. six of the 37 shovel tests were negative, and no sixteenth- The site of Charlesfort is remarkably similar to the century artifacts were recovered (Ashley et al. 2013:33). The multi-layered levels of occupation present in the vicinity of site appears to be highly disturbed from the construction of the Fort Caroline National Memorial. Portions of Parris Island, 1898 fortification. especially where Charlesfort was eventually found, represent The most comprehensive work surrounding the search for several periods including sixteenth-century Spanish colonial Forts Caroline and San Mateo was performed by the University and military occupations, American Plantation period of North Florida Archaeology Lab between August 2012 and habitations and agricultural practices, and nineteenth-century May 2013 (Ashley et al. 2013). The La Caroline Project was military activity (DePratter et al. 1996). Excavations at the conducted as part of the University's Mocama Archaeological Spanish town of Santa Elena had already been in process for Project, which involved searching for and documenting some time when work began at the adjacent garrison of the "Mocama Indian Villages and European colonial communities Spanish Fort San Felipe. Ceramics recovered from within the in order to reconstruct the sixteenth century social landscape interior of Fort San Felipe were misidentified as plantation of northeastern Florida" (Ashley et al. 2013:5). Working period ceramics and remained cataloged as such for many under a State of Florida Historical Resources Matching years. After many unsuccessful attempts to locate Charlesfort, Grant, a systematic archaeological search including surface James Legg, a technician familiar with French ceramics, reconnaissance, shovel testing, and limited unit excavation revealed that these materials were of sixteenth-century French was conducted on NPS property and private lands west and origin. This was later confirmed by Ivor Noel Hume, former southeast of FCNM. director of Archaeology at Colonial Williamsburg (DePratter
Seven sampling loci were investigated including: et al. 1996). Charlesfort was under Fort San Felipe. While Mariner's Point, a residential subdivision west of FCNM; French ceramics were confined to the Charlesfort portion of the St. Johns Bluff Area; Spanish Pond, a large wetland the excavation, this model is the most applicable for locating area located south of FCNM; Theodore Roosevelt Preserve; Fort Caroline, which is most definitely under Fort San Mateo Spanish Point, located in the southeastern corner of Theodore (Lyon 1982). Roosevelt Preserve; Mud Flat Creek, a tract of NPS land Based on the Charlesfort artifacts, excavations within the located south of Spanish Point bordered by a fork of Mud past decade have resulted in the identification of similar French Flat Creek; and the Spanish Point Community, a residential ceramics at the Armstrong site near Cape Canaveral, Florida neighborhood located south of Spanish Point (Ashley et al. (also referred to as the Oyster Bay site) (Brewer and Horvath 2013:4) (see Figure 1). Within these seven loci, three new 2004). This site, long presumed to be a French shipwreck camp archaeological sites and seven previously recorded sites were associated with the destruction of Fort Caroline, was subject located or relocated, sampled, and bounded via shovel testing. to professional debate from its initial discovery by locals. The seven previously recorded sites were reevaluated in an Initially, some archaeologists believed that this site was not effort to obtain more detailed information on site size and French since the metal artifacts recovered could be indicative cultural affiliation. Although these sites had been recorded of efforts by many colonial powers (Jerald Milanich, personal in the past, none had been subjected to intensive subsurface communication, 2004). However, more recent comparison of testing. these materials to those in the Charlesfort collection, confirm
Unfortunately, nothing of sixteenth-century French or that certain ceramics from the Armstrong site are the same Spanish origin was recovered from this project. A small amount as the sixteenth-century Normandy stoneware recovered at of contact-period San Pedro pottery was recovered during this Charlesfort (Brewer and Horvath 2004). survey, but no evidence of a contact-period Mocama village With the possession of a renewed understanding of was uncovered. Regardless of this, the La Caroline Project sixteenth-century French ceramics3, reexamination of the is a major contribution to our understanding of the area's Fort Caroline area collections located at the Florida Museum archaeological significance. of Natural History in Gainesville, Florida has generated one example of Beauvais, a sixteenth-century French stoneware,






DOUBERLY-GORMAN SEARCH FOR FORT CAROLINE 165


identical to those found at Charlesfort4. There are also several Audiencia de Santo Domingo (AGI SD) 50; emphasis added). examples of sixteenth-century Spanish ceramics including Rojomonte also testified that the fort was located "Two leagues orange micaceous (1550-1650), San Luis blue on white from the mouth of the said river at a high hill, which is above majolica (1550-1650), and middle style olive jar fragments one arm of the said river on the southwest bank" (Rojomonte (1560-1800). Ironically, the collection from which these deposition from Bennett 2001:97; emphasis added). There is ceramics were identified was recovered from dredge spoil further evidence for Fort Caroline being situated at a distance deposits collected by Jones (1993) in the 1950s. Unfortunately, away from the high ground near St. Johns Bluff. Eugene Lyon the presence of these ceramics in association with British translated a passage from Spanish documents that states "at period ceramics helps to do little more than solidify that the mouth of the same river, in a marsh, made of paling and the investigation is being carried out in the correct general wood..." stood Fort Caroline (Rodriguez declaration, Lyon location. 1982:20 from AGI SD 50; emphasis added).
Apart from the problems of pinpointing the original
Documentary Evidence Relating to Fort Caroline position of Fort Caroline, the documents are clear that the fort was situated on the south side of the river. However,
From the various descriptions available in the historical descriptions of the distance from the mouth of the river to the documents concerning Fort Caroline and Fort San Mateo, it is fort vary. It appears from the documents that the position of nearly impossible to derive an accurate orientation for either the fort was dictated by the depth of the river, locating it at a relative to the river and St. Johns Bluff. It is equally difficult point where it became impossible to bring larger ships farther to reconstruct the dimensions of the fort, because no reliable upriver. The following accounts offer variable descriptions to dimensions exist (Manucy 1960:24). There have been previous the location of Fort Caroline. attempts to do just this, but unfortunately these reconstructions One deposed Spaniard stated that "Next to this river, are speculative. The majority of the information used to recreate two leagues from the sea, they made a fortress and a fort of the scale reproduction at FCNM is based on the Theodor de earth and wood and branches on the south side..." (Grand Bry engravings of Jacques Le Moyne de Morgue's original Pr6 deposition from Lyon 1982:20, quoting from AGI SD 50, drawings and descriptions (Manucy 1960:11). However, it is emphasis added). likely that the descriptions accompanying the engravings were The deposition of Captain Bias de Merlo provides a more paraphrased from Laudonnibre's account of Fort Caroline by detailed description (Captain Bias de Merlo deposition, Lyon de Bry, the Flemish publisher who purportedly bought Le 1982:20 quoting from AGI Justicia (JU) 212; emphasis added): Moyne's Florida paintings upon his death (Milanich 2004).
According to Rend de Laudonnidre's (2001:72) account
describing the location of Fort Caroline, the fort was situated They made and established their habitation and living with dry land to the west and river access to the east: spacefour leagues within the River of May, up from the mouth or bar and anchorage of large ships, and it
is set and founded on the south side or bank of the
Our Fort was built in forme of a triangle. The side river, which is there fresh water, and of seven arms6 toward the West, which was toward the lande, was in depth, and more than 200 arms wide. [The fort inclosed with a little trench and raised with turves was] so spacious and wide within that there are more made in forme of a Battlement of nine foote high: the than sixty houses made within it, without counting other side which was toward the River, was inclosed another twenty or more which they have outside, next with a Pallisade of plankes of timber after the manner to the same fort towards its gate...all the lands and
that Gabions are made. On the South side there was a circuit of the fort are some low lands.
kind of bastion...

The testimony of Martin Joben states that the depth of the
It has been noted that Laudonnibre's descriptions of river only allowed ship access for four or five leagues (Martin the fort adjoining the land on the western side of the river Joben testimony, Lyon 1982:21 quoting from AGI JU 882, is confounding due to the known course of the river today No.6; emphasis added): (Manucy 1960:14). In addition to Laudonnibre's account,
other documentary evidence points to the fort being situated
on the west side of the river. [The French] went upriver to the port and the mouth
St6phane de Rojomonte5, a French mutineer who had of the river. They went upriver to determine the height previously been stationed at Fort Caroline and was subsequently and depth and in order to see how far ship (could) go captured by the Spanish, was instrumental in providing the up. Having sounded, they learned that one could go Spaniards with information regarding the fort. His testimony upriver in a ship of sixty tons, four orfive leagues. places the "fort of earth and wood next to the river on the west Thus they went up and disembarked on land the 200 side" (Lyon 1982:20, quoting from Archivo General de Indias, soldiers with artillery, arms, munitions, and supplies.






166 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)


























Figure 4. USGS Topographic map, Eastport Quadrangle, circa 1950. The Fulton peninsula is depicted in the lower right hand corner prior to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Dame Point-Fulton dredging project.

Spanish documents concerning a 1569 court case Discussion pertaining to the Spanish loss of San Mateo at the hands of
the French differ from the above depositions. Several of these River Channel and Topographical Modifications accounts place Fort San Mateo at one league from the bar at
the mouth of the St. Johns River, at one league away from the The most significant hurdle in establishing the Saturiwa and Alimacani blockhouses, and at two leagues away archaeological location of Forts Caroline and San Mateo are from the beaches of the Atlantic Ocean (John Worth, personal the river channel and topographical modifications which the communication, 2009). area has experienced within the past 125 years. Virtually all
As shown in the above examples, the stories of individual potential areas that have been considered probable locations narrators vary. Issues of translation, transcription, or simply for Fort Caroline and Fort San Mateo, as well as new areas of human error in recalling details after, in some cases, several interest, have been modified. While development has notably years have passed have most likely all contributed to these altered the area's topography, perhaps the most detrimental, differing accounts. Most scholars of the sixteenth century have as well as the least acknowledged, changes to the area are the assumed that the reporter's of official documents are referring result ofArmy Corps of Engineers river improvement projects. to the legua legal (Chardon 1980:294). However, it remains In an effort by city commissioners to transform unclear if this was actually the case. This problem is further Jacksonville, Florida into a port city, river modification began exacerbated when considering the Spanish documents which on the St. Johns River in 1852. Alteration to the natural course have been utilized in the search for Fort Caroline. In some cases of the river began with survey and experimental dredging at the witness is French and the reporter is Spanish. Variances that the river's mouth. Initial dredging of the river was conducted have been reported regarding the number of leagues from the in phases. Between December 1880 and June 1904 the bar mouth of the St. Johns River to Fort Caroline may be a result at the mouth of the river was dredged and the existing jetties of translation and transcription. The form of league that was were installed. Over the years dredging continued in the recorded may reflect the preferences of the individual Spanish form of various maritime improvement projects along the reporters who transcribed depositions from spoken French river from its mouth south to outside the city limits. These to written Spanish. Although the legua legal was declared projects included modification of the depth and channel of the illegal in Spain in 1587, most Fort Caroline related Spanish St. Johns and the creation of new channels, construction of documents predate this change (Chardon 1980:294). Due to training walls and revetments7, the creation of an intracoastal these inconsistencies, especially those concerning distance, waterway, and the construction of the Mayport carrier basin. methodologies which include a combination of sources, These projects greatly altered the river's natural topography, documentary, archaeological, and those concerning historic banks, and beaches near the port and contributed to river bank topography need to be utilized in order to locate the forts. and beach erosion (Buker 1992).






DOUBERLY-GORMAN SEARCH FOR FORT CAROLINE 167









4167















Figure 5. USGS Topographic map, Eastport Quadrangle, circa 1964. Fulton is depicted in the lower right hand corner, with Blount Island located to the north, after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Dame Point-Fulton dredging project.

Recent research has revealed that a "bias" exists in the. project resulted in the displacement of the existing training discussion of how riverbank erosion has affected the St. Johns walls in the Fulton area, which triggered erosion along the Bluff area (Ashley et al. 2013; Brewer 2000:25; Gissendaner south bank of the river downstream from the entrance of the 1996; Johnson et al. 1984). The bluff area, portions of which new channel. The dredging project also caused further erosion are contained within the National Park boundaries, has indeed to affect the Fulton area. Extreme bank erosion of the south experienced substantial levels of erosion, the majority of bank at Fulton was reported by the ACE in 1954 and 1955 which has taken place since 1949 (Brewer 2000). This is (Report of the Chief of Engineers 1954, 1955). The White primarily due to its position on the river, the lack of marsh Shells retaining wall, which serves to prevent erosion along surrounding it, and the dredging of the sand bar at St. Johns the St. Johns Bluff, was documented as in need of repair in Creek. However, the riverbank to the west of St. Johns Bluff 1955. directly in front of FCNM has not been as greatly affected The Dames Point-Fulton cutoff channel project resulted as previously thought. The positions of ACE survey markers in deposition of 250,279 cubic meters of spoil along the new placed at the river's edge in 1949 coupled with comparisons of Fulton shoreline, the south dike, and the northern portion of historic and contemporary maps of the St. Johns River, point to the Fulton marsh (Report of the Chief of Engineers 1952). nominal changes to that riverbank since the initiation of river The spoil facilitated the creation of a landform now known modifications (Brewer 2000:25-28; Johnson et al. 1984). This as Blount Island (Figure 6). After the dredge spoil was all but negates the hypothesis as to the fate of Fort Caroline; deposited, the areas were searched by William Jones, a local that is, the entire plane of land on which it once stood in front avocational archaeologist. Jones hoped that since erosion of FCNM has been eroded into the river, was believed to have taken a toll on the bluff area in the past,
Perhaps the most significant ACE project in the area of there was a great possibility that artifacts may have eroded FCNM was the Dames Point-Fulton cutoff channel, begun out of archaeological sites on and near St. Johns Bluff. Jones July 10, 1950 and completed August 3, 1951. This river collected various historic period-ceramics from the surface of dredging project consisted of a 10-m deep by 150-m wide the spoil in the Fulton spoil area (see Figure 6). While many of channel cut through the marshes of Fulton, directly west of these can be dated to the British period occupation of St. Johns the FCNM property. This cut diverted river traffic from the Bluff, as previously discussed, one sixteenth-century French, original river channel that still flows along the northern side and several First Spanish Period (1565-1763) ceramics were of what is now Blount Island to the new Dames Point-Fulton collected. Nothing was found in the spoil area east of the Bluff. channel. It is apparent when viewing United States Geological The original locations and contexts of these artifacts are Survey (USGS) topographic maps from 1950 (Figure 4) and impossible to pinpoint. The French Beauvais could arguably 1964 (Figure 5) that immense changes took place within little belong to the occupation of Fort Caroline or could have come more than a decade. The Dames Point-Fulton cutoff channel from the two French ships anchored in front of the fort, which






168 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)


were scuttled and sunk during the 1565 Spanish assault. The on the presence of dry land. Though these maps are early and First Spanish Period artifacts could have originated at Fort are not as accurate as later ACE maps, they do indicate the San Mateo, the San Mateo visita that was located nearby, or mouths of creeks and the presence of marshy areas, both of any of the contact-period Native American sites involved in which can be correlated with later maps. From these maps it trade with the Spanish. In hindsight, due to the idea that Fort appears that portions of the Fulton peninsula were relatively Caroline had eroded into the river, Jones's theory that these dry in the early twentieth century. artifacts were the result of erosion is probably incorrect. An Modem topography can be misleading when trying to alternative hypothesis is that these artifacts came from the create direct analogs between historical documents and current ACE cut through Fulton Marsh since the majority of the spoil environmental conditions. As indicated by the extensive river came from within this area. If true, this would be a significant and topographical modifications that the St. Johns Bluff possible location for Fort Caroline. area has experienced in the past 150 years, human activity can greatly alter the natural landscape. It is impossible that
New Proposals environmental conditions and area topography were the same in 1564 as in 1943. That marsh encroachment affects coastal
The bisection of the Fulton marshes by the Dames Point- and riverine archaeological sites is well established. Marsh Fulton cutoff channel project has not been previously discussed areas tend to reestablish themselves in terrestrial areas to in relation to locating Fort Caroline. Lack of research into this compensate for terrestrial deforestation and marsh loss (Myers possibility is probably the result of two factors: the prevailing and Ewel 1990:57). For example, at the archaeological site of hypothesis that Fort Caroline had eroded into the river and the San Felipe and Charlesfort on Parris Island, South Carolina topographical conditions of the Fulton area in the early 1950s marsh encroachment has resulted in the loss of more than onewhen the largest body of Fort Caroline-focused archaeology half of the eastern portion of the site (DePratter et al. 1996). was taking place. This area may be significant for a variety of Before its discovery, the inability to identify the Charlesfort reasons. site led researchers to conclude that it had fully eroded into the
One argument for considering the Fulton area to be a river (DePratter et al. 1996). Research directed toward Fort prime location for the Fort is based on ACE records and plan Caroline has followed a similar trajectory. maps. Maps from 1910 and 1917 clearly show the Fulton In the case of the Fulton marsh area, an analysis of area in its pre-dredge project state (Figure 7). At that time 1940s era aerial photographs and ACE maps points to dry the Fulton and St. Johns Bluff retaining walls were already areas within the Fulton Marsh area prior to the Dames Pointin place. The presence of these markers on the maps makes it Fulton cutoff channel project (Figure 8). The entire Fulton relatively simple to reconstruct the area's topography based peninsula to the north and south of the Dames Point-Fulton













-A N "" -"" i- '"




'-"o ------I /.








Figure 6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers map of St. Johns River dredge project spoil depositories. CSA-13A, the dredge spoil that creates the modern Fulton shoreline (outlined in bold), is the area where William Jones collected the artifacts from which the Beauvais sherd was discovered. Copy of map courtesy of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.






DOUBERLY-GORMAN SEARCH FOR FORT CAROLINE 169



















.-




Figure 7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers map of the St. Johns River, 1910. Copy of map courtesy of U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.


dredge cut was covered over with dredge spoil, which makes significance of a property that was in the process of an archaeological survey in these areas difficult (see Figure development. The property, located in the Fulton area west of 6). The northern portion of the Fulton peninsula, now wholly FCNM, is now the Riverwoods subdivision (see Figure 1). contained within the Blount Island Port Facility, is somewhat Johnson was given permission to survey the remainder composed of dredge fill and is potentially inaccessible (see of the property where he discovered "15 shell trash heaps", Figure 1). some "Timucuan" pottery, and the remains of a dwelling floor
Given the orientation of the Fulton peninsula in (Holland 1987:A1). He identified the house floor as Timucuan. relationship to the original river channel in its pre-dredge primarily due to the "corncob" impressed "clay-tempered" state, the descriptions that place Fort Caroline next to the river pottery found associated with it, and conjectured that the on the west or southwest side make more sense. The Fulton intact "C-shaped" floor outline was probably associated with peninsula allows for a western frontage of land as well as the the mission-period visita of San Mateo (Holland 1987:Al). river being situated toward the east. It is also likely that if the He also reportedly recovered "some Spanish-style pottery" fort was located within the Fulton area, the channel of the in a wooded area nearby. Unfortunately, what materials were river may have been visible, but the mouth of the river and the found within the area is not clear. Information available from ocean beyond were not. The French-era fort was described as archaeologists who visited the Riverwoods site (8Du11831) being built in an effort to defend the colonists against Indian during the survey suggests that Spanish majolica and missionland-based intrusions and not from an attack by sea (John period San Marcos ceramics were recovered. Johnson's survey Worth, personal communication, 2009). An inability to see is potentially important. While it could lead to the location of the mouth of the St. Johns River from Fort San Mateo would the San Mateo visita or Fort San Mateo. the lack of a survey explain why the Spanish constructed two blockhouses, one on report has stymied further analysis. either side of the river's mouth (Lyon 1982). It was impossible The location of the San Mateo visita has never been to see the blockhouses from the fort, but they were visible physically identified, though it was most likely established at from a point one-quarter league to the east at a spot called an existing Mocama village located within one-quarter to oneAtalaya; a Spanish term for watchtower (John Worth, personal half league of Fort San Mateo (Ashley et al. 2013:26: Lyon communication, 2009). 1982:10). By 1602 San Mateo was a visita under the authority
Perhaps the most important reason for considering the of the doctrina of San Juan del Puerto, which was established Fulton area as an area of interest is Johnson's 1987 discovery in 1587 on what is now Fort George Island in northern Duval of Spanish period ceramics in undisturbed soil near the Fulton County (Pareja 1602). Mission-related documents indicate spoil area (see Figure 6). As previously mentioned, Johnson that the San Mateo mission visita was situated within two was hired by a local developer to assess the archaeological leagues of San Juan del Puerto. likely somewhere in the






170 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)




























Figure 8. 1943 Aerial photo of the Fulton and Fort Caroline areas prior to the Dame Point-Fulton dredging project.


vicinity of where the fort at San Mateo had been located (Hann within the marsh could be indicative of marsh encroachment 1990; Pareja 1602). If the Riverwoods site is associated with due to deforestation as well as higher water levels resulting the visita, this places it within approximately 2.4 km from from over 150 years ofriverine modifications. the tip of the Fulton peninsula and original river channel. The negligible distance from the mouth of the St. Johns This distance fits well within the range of a sixteenth-century River to Chicopit Bay (approximately 9 km from the westernFrench or Spanish half league. most island) fits well with the 1569 Spanish court case
If the forts were located within the Dames Point-Fulton depositions that place Fort San Mateo at one league from the dredge cut, the actual location of Fort Caroline and Fort San bar at the mouth of the St. Johns River (see Ashley et al. 2013). Mateo is irretrievably lost. In this scenario it is possible that Any of the three islands allow for a western frontage of land. the outlying settlement structures associated with the fort This area's proximity to the multi-component pre-contact or a portion of the San Mateo visita still may be recovered through mission-period Native American sites at Greenfield on the present river channel's south side. Only an intensive Plantation also deems Chicopit Bay of some interest (Johnson archaeological survey of the southern part of the Fulton and Ste. Claire 1988). However, due to the discrepancies peninsula, which is now part of the Riverwoods subdivision, involving distance that have been noted in the documents, will answer these questions and shed additional light on the coupled with the gap between Chicopit Bay and the Fulton archaeological significance of the area. area where the sixteenth-century ceramics were recovered (at
Although this discussion has focused on the Fulton least 6 km upriver), it is unlikely any of these islands contain Peninsula as the most probable location for Fort Caroline the fort's location. Nevertheless, this area should be subjected and Fort San Mateo, there is one other area that warrants to an intensive survey before being wholly eliminated. To date discussion. Based on documentary evidence and ACE river these small pine islands have never been archaeologically modifications, another possibility for the fort's location is a
marshy area northeast of Greenfield Plantation (present-day Conclusion Queen's Harbour Yacht and Country Club) near Chicopit
Bay. Located between Mt. Pleasant Creek and the Intracoastal Based on the previous discussion, it is my opinion that the Waterway, Chicopit Bay is similar in topography to the Fulton Fulton area, dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in peninsula before it was dredged. While extremely marshy the 1950s, is the most probable location for Fort Caroline and today, this area may have once been comprised of more dry Fort San Mateo. The Dames Point-Fulton dredge cut may have land than is currently present. Three pine islands located irretrievably destroyed all, or a portion of each occupation. It






DOUBERLY-GORMAN SEARCH FOR FORT CAROLINE 171


is possible that outlying settlement structures associated with within temporally and politically associated colonial sites are the forts or the San Mateo mission visita may still be recovered indicators of connectivity to the greater European decision on the present river channel's south side. making center of power (in this case Spain). Artifact variability
The identification and excavation of Fort Caroline and the also speaks to a site's involvement in the world trade network subsequent Spanish Fort San Mateo would be a long awaited among other European powers (South et al. 1988). and wonderful addition to the local history and archaeology of Spanish and native colonial interaction has been well Jacksonville and greater Northeast Florida. But this would not documented for other colonial sites within the Southeastern be its only contribution. The fact that Fort Caroline was French United States and the circum-Caribbean. Though there has makes it a unique aspect ofthe colonial landscape ofLa Florida. been a gap in our knowledge of the villages located within the Perhaps the most simplistic and valuable contribution to the Saturiwa province where the French, Spanish, and MocamaAmerican colonial database, if even a small portion (as in the speaking Timucua interacted, this is being slowly remedied case of Charlesfort) of the initial occupation of Fort Caroline with renewed interest (see Ashley et al. 2013). Further analysis is found, surrounds material culture studies of sixteenth- within this colonial context potentially offers additional century France. When compared to our understanding of the comparisons into the agency of local natives and the colonial material culture of other colonial powers there is a distinct practices of both the French and Spanish (Deagan 1985, 1996; void. Sixteenth-century sites in the Old World are commonly Hann 1996). considered too recent for archaeological inquiry (Smith and Historical treatments regarding the events of this Good 1982). tumultuous period of European colonial history have been
Early French sites outside of France must be engaged told and revaluated. Nonetheless, the narrative has been in order to better understand the material culture of this constructed primarily on information gathered from written period. The settlement of Fort Caroline by the French was accounts. Archaeology will no doubt contribute to the story in not the first attempt at establishing a colonial outpost, being ways yet unavailable. Locating Forts Caroline and San Mateo preceded by attempts in Brazil in 1555 and the failed attempt will open up further avenues of research which will contribute at Charlesfort in 1562 (Bushnell 1982). Early French fishery to a global perspective and lead to a better understanding of sites in Newfoundland also offer a sixteenth and early this period of contact, interaction, and colonialism in the New seventeenth century French component in which a typology World. for early modern French ceramics is actively being pursued
(Peter Pope, personal communication, 2005). In Qu6bec, Acknowledgements excavations from the Cartier-Roberval colonial site (15411543) and Charlesbourg-Royal and France-Roy colonial site I would like to thank Robert Thunen for encouraging my (1541-1543), will undoubtedly offer similar insights (Moss initial interest in this project. Thanks to Jerald Milanich for his 2009). enthusiastic guidance and assistance throughout the research
Until the discovery of the location of Charlesfort very and writing of this paper. Many archaeologists including little was known about what the artifact assemblage from a James Davidson, Kathleen Deagan, Keith Ashley, and John sixteenth-century French fort would look like. While very Worth provided their guidance and comments. I would also similar to Charlesfort in that the site is multi-occupational, the like to thank Grady Caulk, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, French occupation at Fort Caroline was much more intensive Jacksonville District, for initiating my access to the ACE in comparison. This offers hope that a significant collection dredging archives as well as his interest and support. Cleve of French materials could be recovered. The identification of Powell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, retired, was also very French ceramics at Fort Caroline would undoubtedly add to the helpful in providing photographs and advice. Thank you to scant database available for archaeologists. It would also lend Anne Lewellen, National Park Service Timucuan Ecological to a better understanding of French commercial and colonial and Historic Preserve Research Coordinator and all the endeavors; thereby contributing to a better understanding of folks at Fort Caroline National Memorial. Thanks to Chester the early modern period of French history. DePratter of the University of South Carolina for allowing me
The Spanish period of the fort's occupation would also to see and photograph the artifacts recovered from Charlesfort, prove informative when compared to other early Spanish and Richard Vernon of the Southeast Archeological Center colonial sites in the Southeast. After the founding of St. for allowing me access to their collections. Greg Gorman Augustine and the taking of Fort Caroline (San Mateo), graciously provided help with graphics. Spain proceeded to establish five additional settlements in the
Southeast within a relatively short time span (Manucy 1965). References Cited These colonial outposts were in addition to Spain's colonial
endeavors in Cuba and the Caribbean. Through the study of Ashley, Keith, Vicki Rolland, and Robert Thunen artifact variability within Fort San Mateo and the associated 2013 A French Colony Lost: The Search for La Caroline colonial settlements that surrounded it, insights could be Project. Preliminary report on file, Archaeology gained into the position the fort held within the greater Laboratory, University of North Florida, Spanish colonial project. Variability among artifact types Jacksonville.






172 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)


Bennett, Charles E. DePratter, Chester B., Stanley South, and James Legg 1968 Settlement of Florida. University Press of Florida, 1996 The Discovery of Charlesfort (1562-1563). The Gainesville. Transactions of the Huguenot Society of South 1976 Fort Caroline and Its Leader. University Press of Carolina 101:39-48.
Florida, Gainesville.
2001 Laudonnidre and Fort Caroline: History and Fairbanks, Charles H.
Documents. University of Alabama Press, 1952 Archeological Explorations at Fort Caroline
Tuscaloosa. National Historical Park Project, Florida. Ms. on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, University Brewer, David M. of Florida, Gainesville. 2000 Fort Caroline National Memorial: Archeological
Survey and Testing, 1996 and 1997 Field Seasons. Fairbanks, George R.
Report on file, Timucuan Ecological and Historic 1858 Founding of St. Augustine; Massacre of the
Preserve, Jacksonville. Huguenots in America. A.D. 1565. Ms. on file,
Special Collections Florida History, University of
Brewer, David, and Elizabeth A. Horvath Florida, Gainesville. 2004 In Search of Lost Frenchmen. Report on the 1990
and 1995 Archeological Investigations at the Gissendaner, Paul H.
Oyster Bay Site (CANA-73, 8VO3128). Canaveral 1996 Proposed Location of the 1565 French Huguenot
National Seashore, VolusiaCounty, Florida. Fort le Caroline. The Florida Anthropologist 49:131-148.
Buker, George E.
1992 Jacksonville, Riverport-Seaport. University of South Hann, John H.
Carolina Press, Columbia. 1990 Summary Guide to Florida Missions and Visitas with Churches in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Bushnell, Amy Centuries. The Americas 46:417-513. 1982 The French Connection to Indian Trade and Wars in Holland, Nanette
Florida from 1565 to 1609. Ms. on file, Special 1987 Developer Finds He's Building on Past. The Florida
Collections Florida History, University of Florida, Times-Union, March 17 (AI, A8).
Gainesville.
2003 Borderland or Border-Sea? Placing Early Florida. Johnson, Richard E., Travis P. Gray, and Gregory M.
The William and May Quarterly 60:643-653. Falstrom
1984 Archeological Testing of the Ribault Monument Chardon, Roland Area on St. Johns Bluff, Fort Caroline National 1980 The Elusive Spanish League: A Problem of Memorial, Florida. Report on file, Timucuan
Measurement in Sixteenth-Century New Spain. The Ecological and Historic Preserve, Jacksonville.
Hispanic American Historical Review 60:294-302.
Johnson, Robert E.
Davis, T. Frederick 1988 An Archeological Reconnaissance Survey of the St. 1925 Histor, of Jacksonville, Florida and Vicinity 1513 to Johns Bluff Area of Duval County, Florida. Report
1924. H. & W.B. Drew Co., Jacksonville. on file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Deagan, Kathleen A.
1985 Spanish-Indian Interaction in Sixteenth-Century Johnson, Robert E. and Dana M. Ste. Claire
Florida and Hispaniola. In Cultures in Contact, 1988 An Archeological and Historical Survey of the
ed. By W.W. Fitzhugh, pp. 281-318. Smithsonian Greenfield Plantation Tract, Duval County, Florida.
Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Report on file, Florida Division of Historical 1996 Colonial Transformation: Euro-American Cultural Resources, Tallahassee.
Genesis in the Early Spanish-American Colonies.
Journal ofAnthropological Research 52:135-160. Jones, William
1993 A Report on St. Johns Bluff, Duval County Florida. Deagan, Kathleen A. and Darcie MacMahon Ms. on file, Special Collections, University of 1995 Fort Mose: Colonial America Back Fortress of North Florida, Jacksonville.
Freedom. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.






DOUBERLY-GORMAN SEARCH FOR FORT CAROLINE 173


Kelso, William M. and Beverly A. Straube Myers, Ronald L. and John J. Ewel 2000 Jamestown Rediscovery VI. Association for the 1990 Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida
Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, Jamestown, Press, Orlando.
Virginia. National Park Service
1971 Master Plan, Fort Caroline National Memorial. Laudonniere, Rend Goulaine de Southeast Regional Office, National Park 2001 Three Voyages, translated by Charles E. Bennett. Service, Atlanta.
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama. Pareja, Fray Francisco de
1602 Letter to Fray Bias de Montes, September 14, 1602, Lowery, Woodbury St. Augustine. Archivo General de Indias, Santo 1905 The Spanish Settlements within the Present Line Domingo 235, reel 2.
of the United States: Florida, 1562-1574, Vol. II.
Putnam's, New York. Parkman, Francis
1865 Pioneers of France in the New World, Vol. 1. Little, Lyon, Eugene Brown and Co., Boston. 1976 The Enterprise of Florida: Pedro Menindez
de Avilds and Spanish Conquest of 1565-1568. Report of the Chief of Engineers
University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1952 Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army 1952, 1982 Forts Caroline and San Mateo, Vulnerable Rivers and Harbors. Jacksonville, Fla., District.
Outposts. Report Submitted to Fort Caroline 1954 Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army 1954,
National Memorial (PX532090219), Jacksonville, Rivers and Harbors. Jacksonville, Fla., District.
Florida. 1955 Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army 1955, Rivers and Harbors. Jacksonville, Fla., District. Manucy, Albert
1954 Museum Prospectus for Fort Caroline National Ruple, Steven D.
Memorial. Ms. on file, Special Collections Florida 1973 Archeology at Shipyard Island, Fort Caroline History, University of Florida, Gainesville. National Memorial. Contract #CX500031725.
1960 How did Fort Caroline Look? Typescript, National Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Park service. On file, Fort Caroline National Gainesville. Ms. on file, Florida Museum of Natural
Memorial Library, Jacksonville, Florida. History, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1965 Florida 's Menindez: Captain General of the Open
Sea. St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine, Sears, William H.
Florida. 1957 Excavations on Lower St. Johns River,
Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum McGrath, John T. 2, Gainesville. 1995 France in America, 1555-1565: A Reevaluation of
the Evidence. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Smith, Buckingham
History, Boston University, Boston. 1859 Coleccion de vaarios documentos para la historia 2000 The French in Early Florida: In the Eye of the de la Florida y tierras adyacentes. Trubner and Co,
Hurricane. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. London. 2002 Admiral Coligny, Jean Ribault, and the East Coast
of North America. French Colonial History, Volume
1:63-76. Smith, Marvin T. and Mary Elizabeth Good
1982 Early Sixteenth Century Glass Beads in the Spanish Milanich, Jerald T. Colonial Trade. Cottonlandia Museum Publications, 2004 Florida's Lost Tribes, Theodore Morris. University Greenwood, Mississippi.
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
South, Stanley, Russell K. Skowronek, and Richard E. Moss, William (editor) Johnson 2009 The Recent Archaeology of the Early Modern Period 1988 Spanish Artifacts from Santa Elena. Institute of
in Qudbec City. A Special Issue of Post-Medieval Archeology and Anthropology, University of South
Archaeology 43. Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.






174 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)








CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTON CULTURE NEED NOT BE CONFUSING'


GREGORY A. MIKELL

Panamerican Consultants, Inc., 4430 Yarmouth Place, Pensacola, Florida 32514 Email: gmikelll @earthlink. net



As early as the 1880s, the archaeological treasure of Etowah and Chattahoochee Valley-influenced Fort trove in northwest Florida known as Choctawhatchee Bay Walton culture from the Apalachicola Valley and Tallahassee (Choctawhatchee) (Figure 1) was recognized by Holmes Hills (Brown 2003; Jones 1982; Marrinan and White 2007; (1883) and Moore (1901, 1902, 1918). Fort Walton culture Milanich 1994; Scarry 1990; Weinstein and Dumas 2008) sites make up a large part of what Holmes and Moore saw and, clearly developed during the Mississippi period. in the manner of their time, documented. It is quite certain that The first infusion of outside influence was associated the Fort Walton culture on Choctawhatchee developed as a with the spread of Mississippian cultural traits to northwest "Mississippian frontier" culture, evolving from local Weeden Florida between A.D. 800 and 1000. With no other significant Island with influences and possibly minor movement of people or even discernible changes in cultural characteristics, a from interior Mississippian cultures such as Moundville and second infusion occurred; this time associated with the rise the Lower Chattahoochee-Apalachicola Valley between A.D. of Bottle Creek and Bear Point Pensacola around A.D. 1300800 and A.D. 1200 (Blitz and Lorenz 2002, 2006; Marrinan 1400. There is some evidence suggesting that these periods of and White 2007; Mikell 1993, 2001; White et al. 2012). On influence were associated with the temporal ebb and flow of the Choctawhatchee and its source drainages, Fort Walton Mississippian influences, particularly the emergence, rise in culture was well established by A.D. 1200 and continued power and influence, and decline of chiefdoms (Ashley and into the period of Spanish exploration and exploitation of White 2012; Harris 2012; Marrinan 2012; Marrinan and White the Gulf coast during the sixteenth century. Although it was 2007; Mikell 1992, 1995). Archaeologically, the two periods of not a "classic" Mississippian culture and, to some extent, cultural change on the Choctawhatchee are seen in ceramics; was lacking the grandiose mound sites of the Pensacola first, the transition from Weeden Island to Fort Walton and, culture (e.g., Bottle Creek) and Fort Walton culture to the east later, the increasing presence of Pensacola ceramics in the (e.g., Lake Jackson, Pierce), there is no reason to doubt that indigenous Fort Walton culture. Other aspects of these cultures Choctawhatchee Fort Walton was a chiefdom-level society seem to remain essentially static. My intent here is to examine that developed through the exploitation of coastal resources previous interpretations, summarize the current archaeological in a region where cleared-field agriculture may not have been data for the late prehistoric Choctawhatchee, follow the productive. Choctawhatchee Fort Walton appears to represent evidence, and present statements on a topic that remains far a limited number of "simple" or small-scale chiefdoms that from exhausted. included numerous large and small habitation sites, a number
of elaborate burial cemeteries, and a few ceremonial mounds The Late Prehistoric Choctawhatchee as Problematic such as the Fort Walton Temple Mound (80K6), which is the
Fort Walton type site as defined by Willey (1949). While an understanding of the transition from Weeden
An outstanding characteristic of Choctawhatchee during Island to Fort Walton on the Choctawhatchee is somewhat the late prehistoric period is that twice the area was apparently problematic due to the need for more extensive documentation, on the margins of more influential culture areas and absorbed the Fort Walton-Pensacola relationship has been a thorny issue their influence. The absorption of diffusing ideology is seen in in the literature. As is commonly the case, it was a lack of wellthe incorporation of new ceramic design influences in "local" excavated data from a variety of sites that was the real problem ceramic assemblages. The iconography of ceramic design in the early literature on the Choctawhatchee. I sometimes is the primary evidence for the evolution of late prehistoric wonder if Willey (1949) could imagine the "confusion" he Choctawhatchee culture, as virtually no changes in general would cause (as expressed by Milanich 1994:358, 381) by settlement patterns or subsistence practices occurred in the area naming the Pensacola ceramic series and identifying it as part between ca. A.D 800 and the decline of Fort Walton culture in of the Fort Walton culture, or if Lazarus (1971) could have the sixteen century. From an indigenous Late Weeden Island any idea of what impact his simple observation that shellculture, Moundville-derived Pensacola culture influences tempered Mississippian pottery on Fort Walton sites increases mainly from the Pensacola and Mobile Bay areas and aspects in frequency west of St. Andrew Bay would have.



VOL. 66(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 2013






176 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)

80K184






8 6K W Cre 8WL68 8W
8WWL4



80K35 88WL335 ,
86 8L8K877.










Figure 1. Adaptation of T.S. Walker's map (1885) showing the locations of aboriginal sites around Choctawhatchee Bay with sites referenced in text numbered (State Site No.). Note: 80K126 is not depicted; it is located west of 80K6 (Fort Walton Mound).


Beginning in the 1980s, there was movement to why of Pensacola-derived influences should be the focus of distinguish the Tallahassee Hills and Apalachicola Valley Fort future research on this topic. In 1985, Scarry (1985) offered Walton cultures from coastal Fort Walton populations and a type-variety revision of Fort Walton ceramic typology that distinguish Pensacola from Fort Walton altogether (e.g., Brose was both dependent on Apalachicola and Tallahassee Red 1984; Knight 1984; Milanich 1994; Scarry 1984, 1990; Scarry Hills data and widely criticized for a number of weaknesses. and Payne 1986; White 1981). By the mid-1990s, these ideas Scarry's type-variety system typology, despite its weakness, is had morphed into factoids, and the general trend was to take still used today and employed herein, as a reference to certain Fort Walton culture out of the northern Gulf Coast west of vessel form and design because no better typology has been St. Andrew Bay and label it Pensacola. Attaching cleared field developed. agriculture as a defining attribute of Fort Walton culture in the
Apalachicola Valley and Tallahassee Hills regions and placing Early Data: Fort Walton Temple Mound and great importance on highly visible mound complex "capitals" Choctawhatchee Mortuary Sites tended to push everything west of the Apalachicola and St.
Andrew Bay into the realm of the Pensacola culture. The A review of the archaeological research related to the general trend to place the Choctawhatchee with the Pensacola Choctawhatchee Fort Walton-Pensacola issue is pertinent to culture was justified by some, because much of the body of my interpretation of the cumulative state of knowledge on the evidence for the Choctawhatchee area was associated with old topic at this time. Most readers interested in this topic will and outdated methods, cultural resource management (CRM) be familiar with the investigations of Moore (1901, 1918), projects, or work not associated with or funded by prestigious Gordon Willey (1949), and to some extent William and Yulee institutions. However, this is no reason to ignore the data that Lazarus (1961, 1964, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1976) so I will not allows for a distinction between the initial Fort Walton and summarize these early works but simply make references to later Pensacola influenced or affiliated Fort Walton cultures them. I begin with the Fort Walton type site because I believe on the Choctawhatchee. By the 1990s, the "Choctawhatchee = it is a fundamental flaw to take a previously defined and Pensacola" equation became entrenched in the literature (e.g., widely accepted culture archaeological culture in the literature Milanich 1994:358, 381). I argue here that the Choctawhatchee and redefine it in such a way as to remove it from the culture Fort Walton culture should be acknowledged as the base that carries its name. Mississippian culture that persisted through the late prehistoric/ In 1960, Charles Fairbanks (1965) conducted limited protohistoric period and that determining the when, how, and excavations on the Fort Walton Mound (80K6) and believed it






MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 177


was built between A.D. 1500 and 1650 based on pottery sherds believed that the mound was built by A.D. 800 and abandoned he recovered and analyzed. Fairbanks reported Pensacola well before A.D. 1500 (Lazarus and Hawkins 1976; White series ceramics in some of the disturbed, shallow burials, 2012). I suggest that perhaps the mound was abandoned which appeared to be late and intrusive within the mantle during the early stages of the spread of Pensacola influence of the mound. Although some researchers have come to use into the Choctawhatchee, around A.D. 1300, and there could this information to interpret the mound as a Pensacola culture be a correlation between the mound's abandonment and the construction (Milanich 1994:381), Fairbanks never made this rise of Bottle Creek. claim or questioned the affiliation of the mound as anything An examination of other Choctawhatchee mortuary sites but Fort Walton. Fairbanks (1965:258) even explained the shows similar ceramic assemblages. As Lazarus and Hawkins larger number of shell-tempered sherds as being related to (1976) documented, the following late prehistoric and/or their fragility and previous disturbance. To my knowledge, protohistoric cemeteries contain a majority of Fort Walton and no one other than Willey (1949:214) conducted an analysis Point Washington Incised and Lake Jackson Plain and Incised of the 22 vessels from the mound that Moore (1901:435-454) wares relative to Pensacola Incised and plain shell-tempered illustrated. Willey identified Fort Walton Incised (n=12), types: 80K35 (Chambliss) (89 percent Fort Walton types; Point Washington Incised (n=l), Moundville Engraved (n=l), n=27), 8WL30 (Johnson) (78 percent Fort Walton types; Pensacola Incised (n=7), and Pensacola Plain (n=l). Although n=100), 8WL33 (Moore's cemetery near Pt. Washington) ceramic typologies have been refined since the 1940s, Willey's (87 percent Fort Walton types; n=86), and 8WL9/8WL50 classification of Moore's collection as stood the test of time (Moore's cemetery on Hogtown Bayou) (58 percent Fort and indicates that a slight majority (60 percent) were Fort Walton types; n=66). European artifacts are known for three of Walton types. these sites: 8WL30, 8WL33, and 8WL9/8WL50. Of the sites
I conducted an examination of these ceramics, housed at examined, only one appears to be conclusively and extensively the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian associated with the Pensacola culture; Moore's "Mound near (NMAI), and obtained similar results (with updated types). Jolly Bay" (8WL15) yielded primarily Pensacola vessels (78 Fort Walton Incised (n=9), Point Washington Incised (n=3), percent Pensacola, n=7). While the data collected on the Fort Cool Branch Incised (n=l), Lake Jackson Plain (n=l) and Walton Temple Mound and the cemeteries discussed here are Incised (n=l), Columbia Incised (n=l), a sand-grit-tempered not ideal, they are indicative of the vitality of Fort Walton frog effigy (n=l), and unidentified sand-/grit-tempered culture on the Choctawhatchee, provide evidence of Pensacola incised (n=5) make up the majority of 36 vessels and large influences, and should not be overlooked. Unfortunately, in sherds (58 percent), while Pensacola Incised (n=7, one is var the post-NAGPRA world of archaeology, these sites will not Gasque), Mound Place Incised (n=2), D'Olive Incised (n=2), be investigated any further except for efforts to re-analyze Moundville Incised (n=l), and unidentified shell-tempered materials already collected. incised (n=3) make up the Pensacola ceramics (42 percent).
Subsequent investigations of the mound yielded similarly More Recent Data inconclusive results for placement as a Pensacola mound and
produced similar ceramics data, including additional references Central to the confusion over Choctawhatchee Fort to Lamar or Lamar-like ceramics (Lazarus and Fornaro 1975). Walton has been a lack of excavations at habitation sites and Lazarus and Hawkins (1976:Table 1) indicated that in sample reliance on information from ceremonial and mortuary sites of vessels and vessel fragments (n=17) recovered by Thanz around the Choctawhatchee Bay. Lazarus (1961, 1964, 1971) (1976), 70 percent (n=12) were sand-/grit-tempered Fort published the first information on habitation sites, but virtually Walton types. Thanz (1976) conducted excavations in advance no habitation site work was getting into publications through of the reconstruction of a temple structure on the top of the the 1980s and early 1990s, and the work being published mound and encountered several post holes from different that included sites on the Choctawhatchee was not based structures and evidence for a charnel house. on new excavations (e.g., Davis 1984; Knight 1984; Scarry
If we are using ceramics as a primary tool for 1981a, 1996; Scarry and Payne 1986; Stowe 1985). In 1993, distinguishing between the closely related Fort Walton and with the formulation of the State Comprehensive Plan, which Pensacola cultures, how can the Fort Walton Temple Mound currently remains unchanged on the Florida Department of be considered a Pensacola site? It is an inconvenient fact that State, Division of Historical Resources web site (DHR 2013), while Pensacola ceramics are a major characteristic of the the Choctawhatchee officially was assigned to the Pensacola site, Fort Walton ceramics are the primary constituent of the culture and the Fort Walton type site was removed from the ceramic assemblage intentionally deposited in the mound culture it named. and their presence appears throughout the prehistoric use In Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida, Milanich of the mound. Crucial to dating the mound, in the absence (1994) used the terms "confused" and "confusing" several of radiocarbon dates, is the fact that there are absolutely no times in reference to this subject. I came to feel "... that European materials from the mound, and it is now generally silence would have made me feel guilty of complicity"






178 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)


(Einstein 1994:38) and by presenting the available data, I significant that Harris brings the terminology initially used attempted to provide a framework to resolve the "confusion" by Tesar (1980) that describes the late prehistoric northwest (Mikell 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1997, 2001). Other Florida cultures as Pensacola-Fort Walton, and summarizes work on Choctawhatchee Fort Walton sites includes Campbell how Pensacola was wrestled free of Fort Walton and how the et al. (2007), Meyer et al. (2000a, 2000b, 2001), Thomas Choctawhatchee remains an area of some contention (Harris (1990), Thomas and Campbell (1993), Thomas et al. (1994, 2012:277-279). 1998, 2001), but little of this data was widely circulated or Harris (2012:280), in speaking of the Choctawhatchee, incorporated into synthesis except in the Eglin Air Force Base states that "debate over which culture, Fort Walton or Historic Preservation Plan (Thomas and Campbell 1993). Pensacola, dominates the area continues, and although there In the Eglin plan, Thomas and Campbell (1993: Table 69) has been a large amount of data gathered in some areas, described 16 sites "with 10 or more Fort Walton/Pensacola answers to these questions remain elusive." Harris (2012:294) sherds" and classified them as Indian Bayou phase, Four Mile further states that "Confusion over nomenclature continues: Point phase, late Fort Walton, or Pensacola variant sites, but is it Pensacola, or is it Fort Walton?" She moves toward few of the assemblages were radiocarbon dated. resolving the confusion, however, by stating that "Many
Recently a limited number of excellent publications researchers hesitate to sever the connection between the two have emerged that refer to but tend to skirt around the in the Florida coastal panhandle, and for good reason. The Choctawhatchee problem. Marrinan and White (2007) and consistently mixed nature of the ceramic assemblages may Marrinan (2012) and White et al. (2012) recently forwarded a be a reflection of vast differences between the communities model that incorporates a broad range of data and synthesizes in the core areas and those on the coastal periphery of the the Tallahassee Hills and Apalachicola Valley Fort Walton western panhandle. Nonetheless, Fort Walton and Pensacola culture independently from the historic Apalachee. While their connections to the broader Mississippian world are clear in area of concern did not include the Choctawhatchee, the only iconography and many ritual practices, if not in other cultural mention of it is in a description of the Fort Walton culture area patterns" (Harris 2012:294). My view is that it need not be a that at least includes the Choctawhatchee in a Fort Walton- question of domination between these cousins because it is Pensacola transition zone (Marrinan and White 2007:294). Yet both; it is a question of when and where one or the other is Marrinan and White (2007:294) indicate that the Fort Walton more prominent or recognizable. Once the "when and where" Temple Mound is a Pensacola site, citing only Milanich's aspects of the debate are addressed adequately, we can begin (1994:381) general statement that the Fort Walton mound is to get at the why of it. To that end, I move to the pertinent data "associated mainly with the Pensacola culture, as it is defined that have emerged over the past 15 years. today." Marrinan and White 2007:294 further state that "By
now it is clear that this type site is not an appropriate one as Summary of Late Prehistoric Chronological Data it is actually affiliated with the Pensacola 'culture' (Milanich on the Choctawhatchee 1994:381), a more typical Mississippian manifestation with
shell-tempered pottery." It is important to note in the context of the following
In an overview of the spread of shell-tempered pottery discussion any preliminary or early stage chronological along the northern GulfCoast, Weinstein and Dumas (2008) get markers, phases, or variants are always subject to revision and at the Choctawhatchee problem, but do not specifically address refinement. The first attempt at classifying temporal trends for the extant data for the late prehistoric Choctawhatchee Bay. the Choctawhatchee region was in 1992 and 1993 and again in Salient points by Weinstein and Dumas include discussion of 1995 (Mikell 1992, 1995b; Thomas and Campbell 1993). These the relationship of early Pensacola culture to Moundville and efforts synthesized previously collected data and proposed its development of distinctive regional (Mobile Bay) ceramic to classify them within the Mississippian variant-phase and settlement patterns (2008:204) and the spread of shell- constructs of the day. As Marrinan and White (2007:296) have tempered pottery east to the Choctawhatchee "After about pointed out, there are problems with identifying phases with A.D. 1250 ... but in that part of the coastal area it overlapped marginally sufficient data, and as with any topic in archaeology, with the indigenous Fort Walton culture." They go on to state new data frameworks invite critical review, refinement, and "Obviously, the nature of the introduction of shell tempering refined view points; the situation for the Choctawhatchee is and/or the environment in which it took place differed between no different. I would like to be able to state that a great deal of the Pensacola and Fort Walton regions such that the former data has been gathered in recent years on the Choctawhatchee, evolved and spread rapidly to north, east, and west, while the but this is simply not the case. There has been, however, some latter remained a localized development" (2008:209). data that can be used in minor refinements of late prehistoric
Most recently, Harris (2012) has published a descriptive (A.D. 800-1500) Choctawhatchee chronology. It appears that account of the Pensacola and Fort Walton cultures in northwest the three phases for the Choctawhatchee Fort Walton period, Florida, incorporating some of the data that I am addressing Littles Bayou (A.D. 900-1200), Indian Bayou (A.D. 1200herein. Harris examines the relationships and differences 1400), and Fourmile Point (A.D. 1400-A.D. 1600) (Mikell between Pensacola and Fort Walton, which are many. It is 1992, 1993, 1995b) are holding up pretty well, as long as it is






MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 179


understood that there are no black and white, straight dividing particularly Wakulla Check Stamped, occur with Fort Walton lines among them. It is simply impossible today, and likely ceramics up to about A.D. 1300. will remain so, to set a percentage or numbers of specific The Little's Bayou West site (8WL543) was subjected design types to demarcate a specific threshold in time between to limited excavations, which yielded a mix of late Weeden Weeden Island and Fort Walton (Little's Bayou phase) and the Island and Fort Walton ceramic types from two discrete Indian Bayou to Four Mile Point phase. Rather, these phases midden deposits radiocarbon dated to A.D. 892-970 and are indicative of a process with no sharp breaks in a way of A.D. 965-1058 at 1-sigma calibration (Mikell 1993). The life characterized by continuity. Appendix 1 presents known recalibrated 2-sigma dates are A.D 870-1050 and A.D. 1010radiocarbon dates for Choctawhatchee Fort Walton sites by the 1220 (Mikell 2001). The former (Appendix 1) was associated phases outlined above, and lists associated ceramic types and with an oyster shell midden that contained fragments of a other data for each date. Wakulla Check Stamped vessel along with a Weeden Island Plain sherd, a sand-tempered plain sherd, and a grit-tempered
Late Weeden Island to Fort Walton on the Choctawhatchee plain sherd. The latter date was associated with a charcoal(the Little 's Bayou phase) filled feature with oyster and scallop shells that contained four Lake Jackson Plain, one Pensacola Plain, two sand-tempered
The transition from late Weeden Island culture to Fort plain, and seven grit-tempered sherds. Subsequent visits to Walton on the Choctawhatchee is poorly understood. There the site have resulted in the recovery of a partial Cool Branch is evidence of a transition that appears to occur in the form Incised vessel from the shoreline, and during a formal Phase of sites where there is an association of Late Weeden Island I survey of the site that included intensive shovel testing ceramics, primarily sand-tempered plain and sand-tempered Wakulla Check Stamped (n=4), micaceous sand-tempered check stamped with more limited amounts and types of plain (n=6) (Weeden Island Plain?), Weeden Island Incised sand-/grit-tempered Fort Walton ceramics from the same or (n=1l), Fort Walton Incised (n=l), Lake Jackson Plain (n=4), associated contexts (Mikell 1993, 1995b, 2001). There is also Lake Jackson Incised (n=l), sand-/grit-tempered plain (n=19) evidence to the contrary, or at least to suggest the production ceramics were recovered (Hendryx et al. 2002). No additional of Late Weeden Island pottery types persisted to as late as radiocarbon dates were obtained as a result of this Phase I A.D. 1200. Examination of the Florida Master Site Files for survey, however. Choctawhatchee Bay sites, various CRM reports, and records On the Choctawhatchee, there is only one instance that I and collections at the Fort Walton Temple Mound Museum am aware of where Weeden Island and Fort Walton ceramics indicates many sites where late Weeden Island ceramics such occur together in a single feature. At site 8WL61 (Eden Park I), a as Weeden Island Plain and Incised, Wakulla Check Stamped, large refuse-filled pit (Feature 4) was excavated that contained Carrabelle Punctated and Incised, and other minor types occur Weeden Island and Fort Walton ceramics and produced a in midden contexts along with Fort Walton types such as Fort calibrated date of A.D. 1040-1285 (Appendix 1) (Mikell Walton Incised, Lake Jackson Plain and Incised, and the grit- 2001). This unique feature (i.e., a large pit feature apparently or sand-tempered equivalent of Moundville Incised, Cool excavated to extract white sand and was filled with refuse) Branch Incised (Blitz and Lorenz 2002, 2006). Unfortunately, contained a mixture of ceramics and radiocarbon-dateable few of these sites have been subjected to controlled excavation materials, along with other domestic debris. Ceramics from and fewer have associated radiocarbon dates. the pit fill (n=385) included mostly Weeden Island types (53
Because there is no clear evidence in the form of percent, n=205) and unidentified sherds (31 percent, n=l 18), distinct settlement patterns, palisaded habitation sites, or as well as Fort Walton types (16 percent, n=62). Among these warfare to indicate that the Choctawhatchee was the scene ceramics were Weeden Island Punctated and Weeden Island/ of a "Mississippian invasion" it is apparent that some type of Carrabelle Incised sherds decorated in a manner resembling "relatively easy" transition took place. Aside from what has Fort Walton Incised and Cool Branch Incised (transitional been observed in a few radiocarbon dated ceramic assemblages, design motifs; Figure 2 a-b) and three sand-tempered (with the nature of the late Weeden Island-Fort Walton transition and minor grit inclusions) Lake Jackson Plain rim sherds with the pace with which it took place remains to be defined. The fluted and pinched rim treatments (Figure 2 c-e). early Mississippian culture on the Choctawhatchee (A.D. 900- A few other sites provide chronological data for the 1200) has been named the Little's Bayou phase (Mikell 1993, transitional Little's Bayou phase. Meyer et al. (1995) tested 1995b, 2001). The Little's Bayou phase is contemporaneous 80K71, a site on Eglin Air Force Base with a Fort Walton with the Pensacola Andrews Place phase (A.D. 1100-1250) component that Lazarus (1964) investigated in the 1960s. (Brown 2003a) and could be regarded as analogous to the Although excavation was limited to two 1-m2 test units, the site transitional Wakulla-Chattahoochee Landing phases (early was systematically shovel tested (n=48) on a 20-m grid with Fort Walton) in the Apalachicola Valley (Scarry 1984). While 10-m interval shovel tests in midden deposit areas. Ceramics Marrinan and White (2007:296-297) discount the validity ofthe recovered included Weeden Island Plain (n=l 1), Weeden Island Wakulla-Chattahoochee Landing phases, they acknowledge a Incised (n=3), Lake Jackson Plain (n=8), Pensacola Plain similar transition and indicate that Weeden Island ceramics, (n=l), sand-tempered plain (n=54), sand- and grit-tempered






180 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)





























Figure 2. Uncommon decorative techniques and rim forms from 8WL61. a: fine sand-tempered sherd with Fort Walton Incised, scroll-like motif and Weeden Island rim form; b: Carrabelle Incised rim sherd with Cool Branch/Moundville Incised-like design; c-d: Lake Jackson Plain tooled rim strip form; e: Lake Jackson Plain vessel fragment with pinched rim strip form.
plain (n=8), and sand-tempered incised and check stamped and apparent transitional ceramics were recovered along with (n=2). A sample of shell "from the midden associated with more typical late Weeden Island ceramics from an oyster shell Fort Walton remains" was submitted for radiocarbon analysis midden deposit that reached a depth of 30 cm, and was situated that yielded a 2-sigma calibrated range of A.D. 915 to 1170 above a deeper mixed oyster and Rangia midden containing Appendix 1) (Meyer et al. 1995:44). only Weeden Island ceramics. A calibrated radiocarbon date
Site 8WL 101 (Mack Bayou Midden) is an extensive Fort ofA.D. 660-950 Appendix 1 was obtained from charred wood Walton site that encompasses a group of 8 sites containing from the base (30 cm) of the upper midden deposit (Mikell and various Woodland-period components, and the Fort Walton Shoemaker 2005:45-47). The later range of this date is within component appears to span the entire length of the Fort the Little's Bayou phase. Earlier Woodland contexts on the site Walton period. The site is located on Fourmile Point in the were dated between A.D. 80 and 760 (Mikell and Shoemaker south-central portion of the bay (see Figure 1). During 2005 2005). excavations on a portion of the site, an interesting set of Another multicomponent site on the Choctawhatchee, distinct midden deposits was excavated that inform on the 80K877 (PTA 1), also produced an early Fort Walton period development of the Fort Walton culture. In an apparent Little's date from a context with both Fort Walton and Weeden Island Bayou phase midden, the ceramics types recovered included a ceramics (Thomas et al. 1994). A shell midden that produced notched Fort Walton-style rim sherd with Carrabelle Incised- Wakulla Check Stamped, Weeden Island Plain and Incised, like, drag and punch incising; a crenellated rim sherd with Carrabelle Punctated, shell-tempered plain, Lake Jackson Point Washington-like incised lines and Weeden Island-style Plain and Incised, Pensacola Incised, and Moundville Incised triangular punctations (Figure 3 a-b) and Lake Jackson Plain from a 2 x 2 meter unit yielded a calibrated radiocarbon date fluted, horizontally pinched, and uncommon punctated rim ofA.D. 990-1070 (Appendix 1). This deposit was viewed as sherds (Figure 3 c-g). Other identified ceramics from this being associated with the Little's Bayou phase (Thomas et al. midden (71 percent Weeden Island, 23 percent Fort Walton, 1994).
6 percent shell-tempered) included Fort Walton Incised, Other well-documented sites do not fit the Little's Bayou Lake Jackson Plain, Mississippi Plain, Weeden Island Plain, phase. Site 80K74 (NWR 45), which is located on the Santa Wakulla Check Stamped, Weeden Island Incised, Carrabelle Rosa Sound side of Okaloosa Island and west of Fourmile Punctated, and Carrabelle Incised, as well as large number Point, and site 8WL338 (Oak Forest) on Fourmile Point (Meyer of unidentified sand-tempered incised, punctated, finger nail et al. 2000), are dated examples of this pattern. Sites 80K74 punctated, and plain body sherds (n=299). The Fort Walton and 8WL338 both produced Late Weeden Island ceramic






MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 181























f


Figure 3. Uncommon decorative techniques and rim forms from 8WL101. a: notched Fort Walton-style rim sherd with Carrabelle Incised, drag and punch incising; b: crenellated rim sherd with Point Washington-like incised lines and Weeden Island style triangular punctations; c: Lake Jackson Plain rim (grit-tempered) with reed or bone punctated line below rim, d-e: pinched/tooled rim strip mode just below rim lip (e is grit-tempered); f: pinched/tooled rim on lip; g: folded Weeden Island style rim with triangular notches or punctations at base of fold on sand- and grit-tempered Lake Jackson-like vessel.

assemblages that included Wakulla Check Stamped, Weeden (numerous, large oysters) that characterizes Choctawhatchee Island Incised, Ruskin Dentate Stamped, and Weeden shellfishing throughout the remainder of the Fort Walton Island Plain and dated to A.D. 1055 to 1315 and A.D. 1025 periods. to 1295, respectively. While no Fort Walton ceramics were Shell-tempered wares generally appear to be Moundvillerecovered in association with Weeden Island ceramics at derived ceramics and the Moundville Incised derivation. Cool these sites, Fort Walton types were recovered from other Branch Incised appears to be a common Fort Walton type on contexts at both sites, and Meyer et al. (2000:58-60) suggest the Choctawhatchee during Little's Bayou phase, along with this pattern potentially supports a Little's Bayou phase Fort Walton Incised (with punctated fields), Lake Jackson component. Pensacola ceramics were also recovered at Plain and Incised, and occasionally Point Washington Incised. 8WL338 along with significantly later radiocarbon dates Early shell-tempered ceramics on the Choctawhatchee include (discussed below). Carthage Incised, Mound Place Incised, Moundville Incised,
To summarize, as described above and in previous work, Bell Plain var. Hale, Mississippi Plain, and occasional Little's Bayou phase characteristics include a relatively Moundville Engraved. It is not clear if the early Fort Walton, narrower range of Fort Walton type designs and generally Little's Bayou phase includes cemeteries or if there are early more frequent "less well executed" designs compared to components to cemeteries with clearly later Fort Walton subsequent phases but a wider range of rim modes on Lake components. It is also not clear if any mounds exist, or if there Jackson Plain and Incised (Mikell 1992, 1995b, 2001; Mikell is an identifiable early Fort Walton component to the Fort and Shoemaker 2005). Occasional sand-tempered incised Walton Temple Mound. ceramics that show apparent "crossover" Fort Walton or Cool Curiously, in a little-known report on the Waddell's Branch Incised design motifs on typical Weeden Island paste Mill Pond site (8JA65), Tesar and Jones (2009:245, Figure vessels may be present at some sites. Site types include shell 134) depict a partial ceramic vessel that Jones considered a middens, some of which are certainly villages, where oyster "transitional" form between Weeden Island Incised and Fort is mixed with smaller amounts of other shellfish species, Walton Incised. The authors provide several photographic including Rangia, but are distinct from many of the "pure" examples of virtually the full range of Lake Jackson Plain Weeden Island Rangia shell middens, often at the same site. vessel rim styles that include less common Lake Jackson Plain The "reappearance" of oyster as a staple shellfish appears to rim treatments (2009:270-364). The excavations at 8JA65 also be indicative of the development of a healthy oyster fishery recovered a notable amount of shell-tempered Pensacola and






182 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)


Moundville ceramic types, presenting a ceramic assemblage Meyer et al. (2001) conducted excavations at the similar to what would be expected in a Fort Walton site on Honeymoon Cove site (8WL91), on Fourmile Point, which Choctawhatchee Bay. The occurrence of the shell-tempered is situated on the southern shoreline of Choctawhatchee Bay. pottery at 8JA65 also exhibits the early "reach" of Moundville, Site 8WL91 is a multicomponent site with occupations ranging likely via the early Rood phase culture (Blitz and Lorenz from the Late Archaic through Fort Walton periods. The 2002, 2006) in the Apalachicola Valley, and may actually primary components are Woodland (Deptford, Santa Rosapoint to one of the corridors of transmission of Moundville Swift Creek, and Weeden Island) with a smaller and spatially influences to the Choctawhatchee. It is only a short distance discrete Fort Walton shell midden. The Fort Walton midden from 8JA65 to the headwaters of Holmes Creek, a major produced Fort Walton ceramics (n=109) and a smaller number tributary to the middle reaches of the Choctawhatchee River. of shell-tempered Pensacola types (n=21). A radiocarbon date Fort Walton sites are documented from Holmes Creek down obtained from the Fort Walton midden (A.D. 1029-1230; river to Choctawhatchee Bay, including what appears to be Appendix 1) places the Fort Walton component in the latter a significant, potential mound site near the confluence of portion of the Little's Bayou phase and the beginning of the Holmes Creek and the Choctawhatchee (Curren et al. 1998; Indian Bayou phase, but Meyer et al. (2001:69) place it in the Mikell and Shoemaker 2002). Indian Bayou phase based on recovered ceramics. Meyer et al.
(2001:52) report the majority of the Fort Walton assemblage is
"Classic Fort Walton on the Choctawhatchee grit-tempered Lake Jackson Plain (n=59), but Fort Walton (Indian Bayou Phase) Incised (n=26), Point Washington Incised (n=24), Columbia Incised (n=8), and Yon Engraved (n=6) sherds were recovered.
While there are exceptions, by about A.D. 1200, typical Included were sherds from a sand-tempered Fort Walton Incised Weeden Island ceramic types no longer occur in contexts restricted bowl, characterized by a well-executed negative scroll containing Fort Walton materials. This trend tends to be design with a background of small circular punctations and dated to about A.D. 1200 (Mikell 1992; 1995b), and there sherds from a Pensacola Incised restricted bowl identified as appears to be widespread and reliable evidence around the var Bear Point. The Yon Engraved sherds were from a Choctawhatchee to support this postulation (e.g., Harris 2012; single, jar-like vessel with the characteristic fine engraved Thomas and Campbell 1993; Weinstein and Dumas 2008:209- complex motif with excised panels. 210). "Mature" Fort Walton culture on the Choctawhatchee At site 8WL101 on Fourmile Point, not only are there is the Indian Bayou phase (A.D. 1200-1400). This ceramic midden deposits with hints of an in situ transition from Late complex consists ofa wide range of types including Fort Walton Weeden Island to Fort Walton, but also middens where a distinct Incised, Point Washington Incised, Lake Jackson Incised, break between Weeden Island and Fort Walton depositions is Lake Jackson Plain, Marsh Island Incised, and Cool Branch discernible(Mikell and Shoemaker2005).NearerMackBayou, Incised ceramics types, with occasional Andrews decorated, and in a manner similar to potential transitional-period Little's Yon Engraved, and other minor sand- or grit-tempered types, Bayou phase middens discussed above, distinct shell midden as well as shell tempered Pensacola ceramics. Fort Walton deposits containing Fort Walton and Pensacola ceramics also Incised var. Choctawhatchee (Scarry 1985) is a temporal occur over midden materials consisting of a mix of shellfish marker of a fully developed Fort Walton ceramic complex, as remains that include smaller oysters and clams (Rangia) and well as the Indian Bayou phase on the Choctawhatchee (occurs Fort Walton and Weeden Island ceramics. Inland from Mack in the later Four Mile Point phase as well), because there are Bayou, where the quantity of Weeden Island materials tends no recorded occurrences of this pottery type in securely dated to decline somewhat, spatially-segregated, shallow, but large contexts that pre-date A.D. 1200. oyster midden deposits with large oysters and Fort Walton and
Kelly (2012:306 suggests that Fort Walton Incised var Pensacola ceramics dominate the landscape. While there are Choctawhatchee is a horizon marker, as serving vessels no radiocarbon dates from our (Mikell and Shoemaker 2005) associated with feasting that also "serve to identify the excavations in Fort Walton middens, it is clear that some distinctiveness of these societies." Other distinct Fort of these midden deposits are temporally distinct from any Walton Incised varieties occur with enough frequency that a Weeden Island activity and located in areas of the site where fine-grained redefinition of var Fort Walton could identify middens contain shell-tempered ceramics in proportions less other temporal markers. The Indian Bayou phase is roughly than 40-50 percent. The oyster shell deposits appear to have contemporaneous with the middle Fort Walton period (A.D. been initially deposited during the Indian Bayou phase, but are 1200-1500) (Marrinan and White 2007) and the Bottle Creek I part of a longer term Fort Walton occupation of the sites dated phase (A.D. 1250-1400) (Brown 2004; Fuller 1998). I proposed between ca. A.D. 900-1500. the Indian Bayou phase as an organizing chronological Another site on Fourmile Point, 8WL335 (Jolee) was construct for the Choctawhatchee (Mikell 1992), subsequently partially excavated by Meyer et al. (2000a). The shell refined it with new data (Mikell 1995b), and here provide middens on this site appears to represent somewhat spatially some additional pertinent data. distinct occupation debris dominated by Weeden Island and






MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 183


Fort Walton ceramics, where Weeden Island types are most To date, several sites or occupation components on the numerous and Fort Walton and Pensacola types are confined to Choctawhatchee date to A.D. 1200-1400 (Appendix 1); the upper midden deposits. Ceramics recovered from the site included are 80K19 (Harris 2012:284; Mikell 1995a, 1995b), include the following Weeden Island and Fort Walton types: 8WL38 (Mikell 1994, 1997), and 8WL99 (Thomas 1990). The Weeden Island Plain (n=l), Wakulla Check Stamped (n=27), general trend at these sites is the presence of a Fort Walton Carrabelle Punctated (n=12), Fort Walton Incised (n=l), Lake ceramic assemblage with a full range of diagnostic types and Jackson Plain (n=6), Pensacola Plain (n=8), and Moundville the presence of Pensacola ceramics derived from the emerging Incised (n=l), as well as 175 unidentified plain (n=140), Bottle Creek culture rather than being associated with check stamped (n=7), decorated (n=9), brushed (n=4), incised Moundville. Other general Indian Bayou phase characteristics (n=l), and punctated (n=2) sherds. Two Carrabelle Punctated include a broader range of Fort Walton types and more and several unidentified plain sherds (n=66) have the same "well executed" designs, including the initial appearance temper as the Fort Walton types, sand and grit. On the basis of the six-pointed plate form known as Fort Walton Incised of the ceramic assemblage, 8WL335 appears to be a Little's var. Choctawhatchee (Scarry 1985) and Point Washington Bayou phase site. However, a radiocarbon date from shell Incised (Figure 4). These trends in Fort Walton pottery appear directly associated with a Wakulla Check Stamped sherd, to coincide with a decline in Moundville-derived ceramics where the distinction between Weeden Island and Fort Walton and/or design motifs such as Carthage Incised, Moundville midden deposits was "fairly clear" (Meyer et al. 2000a:33, Incised, and Moundville Engraved, and after about A.D. 1300, 70), produced a calibrated date of A.D. 1405-1465 and two an increase of Pensacola ceramics of the Bottle Creek ceramic additional dates from other excavation units were A.D. 1335- complex defined by Fuller and Stowe (1982) and refined by 1440 and A.D. 1380-1485 (Appendix 1). The association of Fuller (1998). Geometrically designed incised shell tempered the later Fort Walton Period dates with Weeden Island pottery pottery in the form of types such as Pensacola Incised va: was considered the result of Fort Walton Period disturbance of Pensacola, var Perdido Bay, var Jessamine; effigy design an earlier and distinct Weeden Island midden during the late incised Pensacola Incised var Gasque; and D'Olive Incised occupation (Meyers et al. 2000a:70). The 8WL335 dates fall make their appearance on the Choctawhatchee during the within the arbitrary dividing lines of the Indian Bayou (A.D. Indian Bayou phase and have not been documented in earlier 1200-1400) and Fourmile Point (A.D. 1400-1600) (Appendix contexts (Mikell 1992, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, Thomas and 1) and are consistent with dates from two other Fourmile Point Campbell 1993). Numerous shell middens with oyster shell sites, 8WL38 (Fourmile Point 1) (Mikell 1994, 1997) and indicative of a very healthy oyster fishery (numerous, large 8WL99 (Monday Midden) (Thomas 1990), where a continuum oysters) are a significant characteristic of the Indian Bayou of Indian Bayou and Four Mile Point phase components has phase. Although currently not well documented, there is a been documented. fluorescence of Indian Bayou phase habitation sites on the










a b









c d


Figure 4. Selected representative examples of Fort Walton Incised var. Choctawhatchee (a-b) and Point Washington Incised var. Point Washington (c-d). Selected items collected by C.B. Moore from 8WL9 in 1917 (Moore 1918). Photographs Courtesy of the National Museum of the American Indian and the Smithsonian Institution (adapted for visual reference to types).






184 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 66(4)


Choctawhatchee, and there is no reason to doubt that many of the deposit he excavated may represent ceremonial breaking the cemeteries around the bay were initially used during this of pottery or a "sherd cap" (Harris 2012:292; Lazarus et al. period. 1967; Thomas and Campbell 1993:615).
Another site on Fourmile Point, 8WL99 (Monday Midden)
Late Fort Walton/Pensacola-Fort Walton on the (Thomas 1990) also produced an overall assemblage dominated Choctawhatchee (Four Mile Point phase) by Fort Walton ceramics associated with dates between A.D.
1200 and 1600, but notably, the latest date obtained (A.D.
The late Fort Walton on the Choctawhatchee (A.D. 1400- 1425-1655) was associated with a midden deposit dominated 1600) is when, at many sites, Pensacola ceramics become as by Pensacola types (93 percent, see Appendix 1). Site 80K184 numerous as or more numerous than Fort Walton types. This (X-194A), which is ashell midden located on the interior of ceramic trend marks the Four Mile Point phase. This is a Eglin Air Force Base a shell on Rocky Creek produced a Four pattern is in opposition to what is seen in the Apalachicola Mile phase radiocarbon date (A.D. 1430-1610) associated with Valley and Tallahassee Red Hills area, where shell-tempered Pensacola (30 percent) and Fort Walton (70 percent) ceramic ceramics are present in early Fort Walton assemblages but types (Thomas and Campbell 1993:376-379) (Appendix 1). are significantly reduced or completely disappear by A.D. As for recent data on the late period, there is some. As 1200-1400 (Marrinan 2012; Marrinan and White 2007; White alluded to earlier, Meyer et al. (2000b) obtained somewhat et al. 2012). It may be deduced that the development of and late Fort Walton radiocarbon dates (A.D. 1305-1500 and A.D. influence of Bottle Creek has contributed to the increase of 1345-1560) from midden deposits at site 8WL338 where no Pensacola ceramics on the Choctawhatchee and created the Fort Walton or Pensacola ceramics were recovered in direct complex problem left for archaeologists to solve. association with the radiocarbon samples. Additionally, only a
The Four Mile Point phase is contemporaneous with the small number of shell-tempered incised (n=l) and plain (n=8) height of Bottle Creek (Bottle Creek II phase, A.D. 1400- sherds were recovered during the excavation of 47 m2. Meyer 1550) and the subsequent Bear Point phase (A.D. 1550-1700) et al. (2000b:58) posit two explanations for these dates: (Brown 2003, 2004; Fuller 1998), and there seems little
reason to doubt the influence these cultures had in increasing
the presence of Pensacola ceramics on the Choctawhatchee. Although the Mississippian folks could have still However, the degree to which interaction, trade, or diffusion disturbed the existing remains without depositing any occurred appears somewhat variable. The significant presence of their own, we can also offer an interpretation based of shell-tempered ceramics appears widespread around the on a Weeden Island association with the radiocarbon bay area but is not characteristic of all sites. An examination date. It is possible that there was a terminal of sites with documented and sizeable ceramic assemblages, Weeden Island occupation at this site. such as McBee's Mound (8WL4), Piney Point (8WL5), and
Jolly Bay (8WL 15) (Moore 1901:459-465; Willey 1949:217224), Bell (80K19) (Harris 2012; Mikell 1995a; Woodward A substantial amount of work has been conducted at 2012), Brooks (80K60) (Mikell 1995a), and 8WLl19 8WL68 (Grassy Cove II) on the north shore of the bay as well (Campbell 2008) clearly indicates that Pensacola ceramics as at 8WL119 (Steve's Folly) on the lower end ofAlaqua Bayou occur in significant amounts on sites. near its confluence with the Choctawhatchee. These sites are
On the other hand, there are notable exceptions. For multicomponent with Woodland (primarily Late Weeden example, 8WL38 (Fourmile Point 1) is both an Indian Bayou Island), Fort Walton (Indian Bayou to Four Mile Point phase), phase and Four Mile Point phase site (Mikell 1994, 1997,2012). and later post-A.D.1600 occupations (Campbell et al. 2007; A suite of radiocarbon dates indicate 8WL38 was occupied Thomas et al. 2007). At 8WL 119, Fort Walton period ceramics from about A.D. 1200 until contact with the Spanish around include a substantial portion of shell-tempered types, but sandA.D. 1550, but the frequency of shell-tempered ceramics never and grit-tempered Fort Walton types are in the majority (64 exceeds 30 percent of any contextual subset except one, where percent). There are no radiocarbon dates available to date, shell-tempered ceramics make up 44 percent ofthe pottery from however Campbell et al. (2007:124-125) indicated that the a 3-x-2-m block in a ritual deposition context (Mikell 1994, 8WL119 ceramic assemblage was comparable to that from 1995b, 1997). A similar pattern is evident at the nearby Mack 8WL68, where five radiocarbon dates from the Fort Walton Bayou Midden (8WL8/8WL101) (Jones 1991; Mikell 1992; component were obtained (Thomas et al. 2007). The 8WL68 Mikell and Shoemaker 2005; Thomas 1989), yet in the midst dates range between A.D. 1040 and 1450 (Appendix 1). The of this large site, adjacent to Moore's cemetery at Hogtown Fort Walton ceramic assemblage from 8WL 119, as summarized Bayou (8WL9/8WL50), a dramatically higher proportion of by Campbell et al. (2007: Table 13), is 63 percent Fort Walton Pensacola ceramics in a specific assemblage was identified types that include Fort Walton Incised, Lake Jackson Plain and Lazarus (1959). Lazarus (1959) estimated that a sample of over Incised, and Point Washington Incised, whereas shell-tempered 1000 sherds, which included several partial vessel fragments, ceramics (37 percent) included Pensacola Incised, Moundville consisted of 80 percent shell-tempered sherds (by weight), but Incised, Mound Place Incised, Bell Plain, and Pensacola Plain.






MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 185


The late prehistoric ceramic assemblage from 8WL68 is large frequently on sites in the eastern portion of the Choctawhatchee. (n=1826) and consists of 54 percent shell-tempered wares. Concomitant with the spread of these ceramics is an apparent Shell-tempered ceramics include Pensacola Plain, Bell Plain, decline, by A.D. 1400, in the frequency of varieties of Cool Pensacola Incised, Moundville Incised, Pensacola Brushed, Branch Incised such as var Cool Branch and var Fort Gaines D'Olive Incised, and Mound Place Incised. Fort Walton types (Scarry 1985); significant numbers are not present in dated include Lake Jackson Plain and Incised, Fort Walton Incised, post-A.D. 1400 contexts (Appendix 1). The primary design Cool Branch Incised, Columbus Negative Painted, and motif of Point Washington var Hogtown Bayou is the Trilobed Columbia Incised (Morehead et al. 2010: Table 10; Thomas Motif, which, as Sommerkamp (2008) indicated, may have et al. 2007: Tables 21-24, Appendix I). At site 8WL68, while been associated with serpent and turtle markings (Knight et there may be apparently minor Little's Bayou and Indian al. 2001) and "that this symbol indicates a creature's ability to Bayou phase components, the radiocarbon dates and overall travel between the Above and Beneath Worlds at will (Reilly ceramic assemblage indicate a more substantial Four Mile 2004). Trilobes often appear in association with ogee symbols, Point phase occupation. The bulk of the data was recovered like the var. Bear Point vessels associated with Burial I [at from shell midden contexts with no discernible separation of Hickory Ridge (8ES1280)]. The trilobe is most often seen Fort Walton components or the historic deposits that included adorning supernatural creatures that combine both celestial Lamar Complicated Stamped and Bold Incised, Ocmulgee and Underworld design elements" (Sommerkamp 2008:101). Fields Incised, and Chattahoochee Brushed (Morehead et al. The circle that often adorns the central portion of the 2010; Thomas et al. 2007). trilobed motif on var Hogtown Bayou may be an ogee Two pottery types appear to be markers of the Four Mile symbol. Ogee symbols are interpreted as portals or as a cosmic Point phase: Marsh Island Incised with a geometric design umbilicus (Reilly 2004). Fuller and Stowe (1982:72-73) resembling concentric diamond shapes and Point Washington defined the Pensacola Incised var. Bear Point type as a fairly Incised with the Trilobed Motif (previously described as late type (Fuller 1998). Phillips (1995:94) documented several Y-pattern and var Hogtown Bayou described by Lazarus vessels at the Hickory Ridge cemetery with the trilobed motif (1959) and Scarry (1985), respectively). Examples of these dated to A.D. 1390-1510. The relationship between Pensacola types from the cemetery at Hogtown Bayou (Moore 1918) are Incised var Bear Point and Point Washington Incised with the illustrated in Figure 5. While Marsh Island Incised "diamond Trilobed motif (var Hogtown) is readily apparent, and they motif" and Point Washington Trilobed Motif (var Hogtown should be considered post-A.D.1300-1400 temporal markers Bayou) may appear in Indian Bayou phase contexts, they are of Bottle Creek II and the Four Mile Point phase, as well most numerous in later contexts, and with a few exceptions as indicators of the relationship between them. The Point such as the Fort Walton Temple Mound, appear to occur most Washington Incised series, particularly var Hogtown, va:























Figure 5. Selected representative examples of Marsh Island Incised var. unspecified with concentric diamond design (a-b) and Point Washington Incised var. Hogtown Bayou (c-d). Selected items collected by C.B. Moore from 8WL9 in 1917 (Moore 1918 Photographs Courtesy of the National Museum of the American Indian and the Smithsonian Institution (adapted for visual reference to types).






186 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)


Point Washington, and var Chambliss certainly appear to be 2007:297) and was recognized by Willey (1949:438, 457) "Pensacola-like" and related to Pensacola Incised var Bear for the whole of northwest Florida. On the Choctawhatchee, Point and var Pensacola in design attributes, but we do not distinctive Fort Walton culture is in place as the Indian Bayou know when and where these deigns first appear. phase.
It is clear that some mechanism resulted in the A potential key to increased understanding of the movement of more and more Pensacola ceramics into the development of Fort Walton on the Choctawhatchee and its bay area. The pattern of increasing Pensacola ceramics on relationship to other Mississippian cultures in Alabama may the Choctawhatchee appears to be associated with the rise of lie in more detailed investigation of the Choctawhatchee River Bottle Creek as it was established as the major mound center Valley. Harris (2012:279) states that few sites appear on the of the Pensacola culture (Brown 2003, 2004; Fuller 1998). only river that enters Choctawhatchee Bay and cites a UWF Whether the increase in Pensacola ceramics was by accretion survey of a Sandhills area adjacent to the Choctawhatchee or increasing local manufacture, trade items, or movement of Valley as evidence for this. However, surveys of Northwest people is not clear. If they came with people, it appears to be Florida Water Management District land and limited private an amicable melding, as apparently was the transition from properties along the Choctawhatchee River indicate that Weeden Island to Fort Walton about 400 years earlier; there is there are numerous Fort Walton sites in the Choctawhatchee no evidence indicating conflict or prolonged tensions. Knight River Valley (Curren et al. 1998; Mikell and Shoemaker (1980) viewed Pensacola ceramics as a "carried complex" 2002). The impression that there are few Fort Walton sites brought eastward to the Choctawhatchee. On the other in the Choctawhatchee River Valley stems from a lack of hand, as Marrinan and White point out (2007:294, Figure investigation beyond the survey-level, but Fort Walton sites are 3), similarities in stylistic and manufacture methods between there. While many of the Fort Walton component sites recorded ceramic complexes is "not necessarily evidence of migration by Curren et al. (1998) and Mikell and Shoemaker (2002) or even any relationship at all." I see it in terms of the people along the Choctawhatchee River were assessed with limited of the Pensacola/Bottle Creek culture and the Choctawhatchee survey investigations, their potential importance should not be as coastal cousins sharing ideas and technologies, and overlooked, particularly since the Choctawhatchee River was exchanging everything from pots to genetic material-a simple undoubtedly a corridor of cultural interaction between coast view that has validity, as Brown (1988:39-40) pointed out for and inland populations. The Florida Master Site Files readily the Mobile Bay and Lower Mississippi Valley. Weinstein and reflects the fact that 28 Fort Walton component sites have been Dumas (2008:213-214) suggest that travel by water would recorded between the mouth of the river and Caryville, two have made movement from Choctawhatchee Bay to the Lower miles north of Interstate Highway 10. Site 8WS775 (Spring Valley via Lake Pontchartrain relatively easy with only a few Hill), for example, is an apparent Fort Walton village on an short portages and without having to venture out into the open elevated terrace at the confluence of Spring Hill Run and Gulf. Such a scenario would have certainly facilitated contact Holmes Creek, just upstream from where the creek flows into and communication between "coastal cousins." the Choctawhatchee River. Site 8WS775 may be associated with Moore's "Spring Hill Landing Mound" (8WS2), a
Summary and Discussion Weeden Island mound site (Moore 1918:522-524), and both Weeden Island ceramics (Wakulla Check Stamped and
The late prehistoric Choctawhatchee was a cultural Carrabelle Incised) and Fort Walton ceramics (Lake Jackson melting pot, at least in terms of ceramic traditions. There Plain, Fort Walton Incised, Pensacola Incised, Moundville are two episodes visible in the archaeological record to Incised, and shell-tempered plain) have been recovered posit: the development of an indigenous Fort Walton culture from the site (Mikell and Shoemaker 2002:144-146). Other from Late Weeden Island culture based on externally- potentially significant Fort Walton sites include 8BY35 (Otter derived Mississippian influences and the melding of that Creek), 8WL1924 (Howell's Bluff), and 8WS6 (Anderson's). indigenous Fort Walton culture with Bottle Creek-derived With no other significant or even discernible changes Pensacola influences. People of the early Fort Walton culture in cultural characteristics, as Fort Walton fluoresced and the (A.D. 900-1200) primarily made sand- and grit-tempered Fort Walton Temple Mound was established during the Indian pottery that exhibits relationships with the sand-tempered Bayou phase between A.D. 1200 and A.D. 1400, there was ceramics of the Weeden Island tradition and influence from an increase in the presence of shell-tempered Pensacola Mississippian chiefdoms such as Moundville, as well as the pottery in the ceramic repertoire of Fort Walton sites, which Etowah and Chattahoochee Valley-derived Fort Walton of the is discernibly significant by about A.D. 1400. The significant Apalachicola Valley and Tallahassee Hills. This is the Little's presence of Pensacola ceramics on Choctawhatchee sites Bayou phase, where the development of a Fort Walton ceramic marks the Four Mile Point phase, which extends to the period complex, with vessel forms and decorative motifs similar to of European contact in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth other Mississippian ceramic complexes continued into the centuries and the apparent collapse of Fort Walton culture thirteenth century. This widespread process is seen in Fort (Mikell 2013). The increased presence of Pensacola ceramics, Walton components elsewhere as well (Marrinan and White whatever it actually represents, was not accompanied by any





MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 187


form of evidence to suggest Pensacola culture supplanted the not been found. A non-agrarian model of political/social indigenous Fort Walton culture. In this regard, Weinstein and organization and complexity that parallels the Safety Harbor Dumas (2008:209) state that "... later Fort Walton people culture of the Tampa Bay region (Mitchem 2012) and along (A.D. 1000-1500) continued to temper their pottery with the lines of the Calusa (Marquardt and Walker 2012) appears [sand and] grit. While sharing similar settlement patterns, most applicable to the Choctawhatchee Fort Walton. means of subsistence, and other aspects of Mississippian ThecumulativeevidencesuggeststhattheChoctawhatchee culture (Knight 1984), suggesting a high probability of direct was a fairly stable environment that hosted fairly stable interaction, Pensacola and Fort Walton people maintained cultures beginning in the Late Archaic and Gulf Formational different ideas about how to temper their pottery." I consider periods and this remained relatively unchanged during late this statement applicable to the Choctawhatchee. prehistoric times and into the protohistoric period. Culture As notable and important as the appearance of shell- evolved in response to new ideas and technologies as it tempered ceramics in Choctawhatchee ceramic assemblages is still does today, but the reliable resources of the bay were the rigorous retention of sand and/or grit tempering agents in surely a primary factor for enabling the various inhabitants pottery manufacture. Sand and/or grit tempering of ceramics to persist in their cultural customs without being subdued is a characteristic that distinguishes Fort Walton from most by outside influence and rapid or dramatic cultural change. other Mississippian cultures (Marrinan and White 2007:293), The data indicate the late continuation of a basic fisherincluding Pensacola culture. Several researchers (e.g., Alt forager/hunter-gatherer population focused on estuarine 2006:292; Fortier 2001:186-187; Pauketat 2001a:81-83) subsistence and ceremonial activity, perhaps with limited regard ceramic tempering agents as much an identity marker horticultural production, in a social system where chiefdoms as technological necessity. From this perspective, pottery operated with limited authority and scope. As seemingly production, daily use, and discard are part of a cultural process always the case, the data are not complete, but given the linked to tradition and social identity (Pauketat 2001a:82). available data, how can the Choctawhatchee Fort Walton The practice among Choctawhatchee Fort Walton potters culture be considered confusing and why would anyone call it to continuously select sand and grit (as opposed to shell) strictly Pensacola? as tempering agents, while concurrently adopting other
Mississippian characteristics, may be an example of the effort Note to maintain a sense of identity in the face of the emergence of
Bottle Creek and Pensacola culture. This pattern is strongly 1. I think it is important for the reader to understand why represented at site 8WL38. I am revisiting this topic. It is simple. In my view the
The Choctawhatchee Bay region was peripheral to the Choctawhatchee was a prehistoric prodigy, so many grandiose dynamics of Mississippian settlement in other people came and went over thousands of years and left parts of the interior and coastal Alabama and Georgia. behind some of the most impressive archaeology found Although there may be some increasing utilization of small- in Florida and on the northern Gulf Coast, and yet these scale agriculture, or more likely garden patch horticulture, remains and their meaning are still largely mired in the there is no evidence of large agrarian villages. Instead, literary backwaters. I began working on Choctawhatchee large, dispersed villages supported by estuarine resources that Bay sites in the mid-1980s when the Choctawhatchee may have been part of a network of small-scale chiefdoms was a very different place than it is today. Before so appear to have been the extent of Mississippianization of the much of the shoreline was covered by seawalls or ripChoctawhatchee. Nowhere in the archaeological record of rap and before so many sites were lost to development, the Choctawhatchee is there any indication of political the Choctawhatchee retained a hint of its pre-modern tumult, warfare, or any other evidence of long-term character. The Choctawhatchee was both a classroom tensions related to invasive population movement or forced and a playground to me, and I hardily dove into the Fort "Mississippianization" of the local population. There are Walton "problem" of trying to untangle the "confused" no palisaded villages or settlements that appear to have (Milanich 1994) co-occurrence of both Weeden Island been established as defensive habitations. Iconographic motifs and Fort Walton and Fort Walton and Pensacola ceramics in pottery design suggests participation in the Southeastern on various sites. I am troubled that this "confusion" has Ceremonial Complex or something like it (Kelly 2012; King appeared in recent literature; it need not be considered as 2007; Knight 2006), which may be related to influences from such. Moundville and the Apalachicola Valley and later, Bottle Often I have dreamed on the Choctawhatchee of long Creek and Bear Point. However, there is no evidence that ago; even in my sleep I have done so. the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex was a significant
cultural feature as found in other portions of the
Southeast and exemplified in Fort Walton at Lake Jackson
(Jones 1982; Marrinan 2012). There is equally apparent
evidence of participation in a form of a Busk-like ceremony
(Harris 2012:292, Mikell 1994:256, 1997; Thomas 1993:615),
although direct evidence for agriculture production has






188 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)


Brown, Ian W.
Acknowledgements 2003a Introduction to the Bottle Creek Site. In Bottle Creek: A Pensacola Culture Site in South Alabama, edited
There are many to thank for their help over the years. by Ian W. Brown, pp. 1-26. University of Alabama You know who you are, and I thank you. I also want to thank Press, Tuscaloosa. the many landowners who allowed me and my merry band 2003b Concluding Thoughts on Bottle Creek and Its of volunteers to conduct excavations on their properties. Position in the Mississippian World. In Bottle Creek: I want to acknowledge the "pioneers" in Choctawhatchee A Pensacola Culture Site in South Alabama, edited by Fort Walton research: Gordon Willey, Charles Fairbanks, Ian W. Brown, pp. 205-226. University of Alabama William and Yulee Lazarus; all of whom, with the exception Press, Tuscaloosa. of William Lazarus, I only met with too briefly. I also want to 2004 Prehistory of the Gulf Coastal Plain After 500 B.C. acknowledge the City Of Fort Walton Beach and the various In Southeast, edited by Raymond D. Fogelson, pp. staff members of the Fort Walton Temple Mound Museum 574-585. Handbook of North American Indians, for always putting up the good fight to keep the mound and vol. 14, William C. Sturtevant, gen. ed. Smithsonian museum open and maintained, even in the hard times, and Institution Press, Washington, D.C. for both providing me with a spark by way of their displayed collections and for allowing me to research their collections. Campbell, L. Janice, Phillip Bourgeois, James H. Mathews, I also thank the National Museum of the American Indian James R. Morehead, and Lee C. Thomas for their photographs of and access to C.B Moore's artifacts 2008 Delineation of 8WL119, Eglin Air Force Base, and their assistance. I want also to thank the reviewers of this Walton County. Prentice Thomas and Associates, manuscript and helped to improve it. Last, but not least, I want Inc. Report ofInvestigations No. 979. Report on file, to acknowledge the Florida Division of Historical Resources, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Florida Master Sites File for making multitudes of CRM reports available to anyone willing to seek them out and use Davis, Dave D. them. 1984 Protohistoric Cultural Interaction along the Northern Gulf Coast. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory,
edited by Dave D. Davis, pp. 216-231. Ripley P.
References Cited Bullen Monographs in Anthropology and History No. 5. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Alt, Susan M.
2006 The Power of Diversity: Settlement in the Cahokian Division of Historical Resources (DHR), Florida Department
Uplands. In Leadership and Polity in Mississippian of State
Society, edited by B. M. Butler and P. D. Welch, 2013 State Comprehensive Plan, Prehistoric Contexts, Center for Archaeological Investigations Southern Part I: Introduction (Chapters 13 and 14), edited by Illinois University Carbondale Occasional Paper No. Jerald T. Milanich and Claudine Payne), pp. 99-110.
33. Electronic document, (http://www.flheritage.com/ facts/reports/contexts/index.cfm). Accessed June
Ashley, Keith and Nancy M. White 2013. 2012 Late Prehistoric Florida: An Introduction. In Late
Prehistoric Florida. Archaeology at the Edge of Einstein, Albert
the Mississippian World, edited by Keith Ashley 1994 From an address to the Chicago Decalogue Society and Nancy M. White, pp. 1-28. University Press of (20 February 1954). In Ideas and Opinions. Random Florida, Gainesville. House, Inc., New York. Originally published in 1954

Blitz, John H. and Karl G. Lorenz by Crown Publishers. 2002 The Early Mississippian Frontier in the Lower Fairbanks, Charles H.
Chattahoochee-Apalachicola River Valley. 1965 Excavations at the Fort Walton Temple Mound, 1960.
Southeastern Archaeology 21:117-135. The Florida Anthropologist, 18:243. 2006 The Chattahoochee Chiefdoms. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Fortier, Andrew C.
2001 The Tradition of Discontinuity: American Bottom Brose, David S. Early and Middle Woodland Culture History 1984 Mississippian Period Cultures in Northwestern Reexamined. In The Archaeology of Traditions:
Florida. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, Agency and History Before and After Columbus, edited by Dave D. Davis, pp. 216-231. Ripley P. edited by Timothy Pauketat, pp.174-194. University
Bullen Monographs in Anthropology and History Press of Florida, Gainesville.
No. 5. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.






MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 189

Fuller, Richard S. Knight, Vernon J., Jr. 1985 The Persistence of Woodland Culture in Southwest 1980 Comments on Brose and Percy's Fort Walton Alabama during the Early Mississippi Period. Paper Settlement Patterns. Florida Journal ofAnthropology
presented at the 6th Mid-South Archaeological 5:20-25.
Conference, Starkville, MS. 1984 Late Prehistoric Adaptation in the Mobile Bay 1996 Mississippian Through Early Historic Period Shell Region. In Perspectives on Gulf Coast Prehistory, Tempered Pottery in the Pensacola Culture Area: edited by Dave D. Davis, pp. 198-215. University
How to Classify Types, Varieties, and Modes. Gulf Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Coast Survey, Alabama Museum of Natural History, 2006 Farewell to the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex.
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Southeastern Archaeology 25:1-5. 1998 Indian Pottery and Cultural Chronology of the Mobile-Tensaw Basin and Alabama Coast. Journal Knight Vernon J., Jr., James A. Brown, and George E. Lankford ofA labama Archaeology 44:1-51. 2001 On the Subject Matter of Southeastern Ceremonial 2003 Out of the Moundville Shadow: The Origin and Complex Art. Southeastern Archaeology 20:129-141.
Evolution of Pensacola Culture. In Bottle Creek: A
Pensacola Culture Site in South Alabama, edited by Lazarus, William C.
Ian W. Brown, pp. 27-62. University of Alabama 1959 Informal report on excavations at 8WL50 (8WL9), Press, Tuscaloosa. C.B. Moore's "Cemetery at Hogtown Bayou."
Florida Master Site File for 8WL9. Report on file,
Fuller, Richard S., and Noel R. Stowe Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. 1982 A Proposed Typology for Late Shell Tempered 1961 Ten Middens on the Naval Live Oaks Reservation.
Ceramics in the Mobile Bay/Mobile-Tensaw Delta The Florida Anthropologist 14:49-64.
Region. In Archaeology of Southwest Alabama, 1964 The Postl's Lake II Site, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida
edited by Cailup B. Curren, Jr., pp. 45-93. Alabama (OK71). The Florida Anthropologist 17:1-16.
Tombigbee Regional Commission, Camden. 1971 The Fort Walton Culture West of the Apalachicola River. Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Harris, Norma J. Newsletter 10(2):40-48. 2012 Defining Pensacola and Fort Walton Cultures in the
Western Panhandle. In Late Prehistoric Florida. Lazarus, Yulee
Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World, 1970 Salvage Archaeology at Fort Walton Beach. The
edited by Keith Ashley and Nancy M. White, pp. Florida Anthropologist 23:29-48.
275-295. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Lazarus, Yulee, and Carolyn B. Hawkins
Jones, B. Calvin 1976 Pottery of the Fort Walton Period. Temple Mound 1982 Southern Cult Manifestations at the Lake Jackson Museum, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Publication of
Site, Leon County, Florida: Salvage Excavations of the City of Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
Mound 3. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7
(1). Lazarus, Yulee, William C. Lazarus, and Donald W. Sharon 1991 Archaeological Survey of Fischer's Landing 1967 The Navy Live Oaks Reservation Cemetery Site,
Subdivision on Mack Bayou near Destin, Florida. 8SA36. The Florida Anthropologist 20:103-117.
Bureau of Archaeological Research, Florida Division
of Historical Resources. Report on file, Florida Lazarus, Yulee and Robert J. Fornaro
Master Site File, Tallahassee. 1975 Fort Walton Temple Mound (80K6M): Further Test Excavations, DePauw. The Florida Anthropologist,
Kelly, John E. 28:159-177. 2012 The Mississippian Period in Florida; A View from the
Mississippian World of Cahokia. In Late Prehistoric Marks, Brian S, Brent M. Handley, and Michael A. Arbuthnot Florida. Archaeology at the Edge ofthe Mississippian 2009 An Intensive Cultural Resource Assessment Survey World, edited by Keith Ashley and Nancy M. White, of the Black Creek RV Park and Site Evaluation of pp. 296-309. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 8WL06, Walton County, Florida. Environmental Sciences, Inc. Report of Investigations No. 1 309Report
King, Adam (editor) on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. 2007 Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Chronology,
Content, Contest. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.






190 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)

Marquardt, William H. and Karen J. Walker 1995b Choctawhatchee Bay Fort Walton, The West Side 2012 Southwest Florida during the Mississippian Period. Story. The Florida Anthropologist 48:120-132.
In Late Prehistoric Florida. Archaeology at the Edge 1997 Additional Spanish Artifacts, Evidence of Ritual of the Mississippian World, edited by Keith Ashley Feasting, and Rectangular Structures at 8WL38, a and Nancy M. White, pp. 29-61. University Press of Fort Walton Village in Walton County, The Florida
Florida, Gainesville. Anthropologist 50:3-9.
2001 The Face of Change: Late Weeden Island-Early Fort Marrinan, Rochelle A. Walton Transitional Ceramics from Choctawhatchee 2012 Fort Walton Culture in the Tallahassee Hills. In Late Bay Area in Northwest Florida. The Florida
Prehistoric Florida. Archaeology at the Edge of the Anthropologist 54:151-170.
Mississippian World, edited by Keith Ashley and 2013 What Spaniard was Here? Spanish Artifacts Nancy M. White, pp. 186-230. University Press of as Markers of the Prominence and Decline of a Florida, Gainesville. paramount Fort Walton Settlement on Fourmile Point. The Florida Anthropologist 66:31-50.
Marrinan, Rochelle A., and Nancy Marie White
2007 Modeling Fort Walton Culture in Northwest Florida. Mikell, Gregory A. and Brian O. Shoemaker
Southeastern Archaeology 26:292-318. 2002 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Northwest Florida Water Management District
Meyer, Joseph, Keith Hemphill, and L. Janice Campbell Choctawhatchee River Water Management Area, 1995 Cultural Resources Survey of 100 Ares and Testing Holmes, Walton, and Washington Counties, Florida.
of Four Sites Okaloosa and Walton Counties, Eglin Report prepared for the Northwest Florida Water Air Force Base, Florida. Prentice Thomas and Management District by Panamerican Consultants, Associates, Inc. Report of Investigations No. 264. Inc. Report on file, Florida Master Site File,
Report on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Tallahassee.
2005 Phase II and Extended Phase II Testing and Evaluation Meyer, Joseph, Prentice M. Thomas, Jr., and L. Janice of Site 8WL101 within the Mack Bayou Homes Campbell Tract, Walton County, Florida. Report prepared 2000a Data Recovery at 8WL335, the Jolee Site, Walton for C.D. Jones and Company by Panamerican
County, Florida. Prentice Thomas and Associates,Inc. Consultants, Inc. Report on file, Florida Master Site
Report of Investigations No. 615. Report on file, File, Tallahassee.
Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
2000b Data Recovery at 8WL338, The Oak Forest Site, Milanich, Jerald T.
Walton County, Florida. Prentice 1994 Archaeology of Pre-Columbian Florida. University
Thomas and Associates, Inc. Report of Investigations Press of Florida, Gainesville.
No. 538. Report on file, Florida Master Site File,
Tallahassee. Mitchem, Jeffery M.
2012 Safety Harbor: Mississippian Influence in the CircumMeyer, Joseph, Prentice M. Thomas, Jr., L. Janice Campbell, Tampa Bay Region. In Late Prehistoric Florida. and James H. Matthews Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World, 2001 Data Recovery at 8WL91, The Honeymoon Cove edited by Keith Ashley and Nancy M. White, pp.
site, Walton County, Florida. Prentice Thomas and 172-185. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Associates, Inc. Report of Investigations No. 537.
Report on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Moore, Clarence B.
1901 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida Mikell, Gregory A. Coast, Part I. Journal of the Academy of Natural 1992 The Fort Walton Mississippian Variant in Northwest Sciences ofPhiladelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 11:51-65. 1902 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida 1993 8WL543: A Coastal Late Weeden Island-Fort Walton Coast, Part II. Journal of the Academy of Natural
Transition site in Northwest Florida. The Florida Sciences ofPhiladelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Anthropologist 46:12-19. 1918 The Northwestern Florida coast revisited. Journal of 1994 8WL38, A Late Fort Walton-Protohistoric Village the Academy ofNatural Sciences of Philadelphia 16.
Site on Choctawhatchee Bay in Northwest Florida. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The Florida Anthropologist 47:233-268.
1995a Bell and Brooks Street: Two Fort Walton Villages on Morehead, James R., Phillip Bourgeois, and L. Janice
Choctawhatchee Bay. The Florida Anthropologist Campbell
48:97-111. 2010 Delineation West of the Fence at 8WL68-East.






MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 191

Cultural resources Management Support, Eglin Air (8ES 1280) in Pensacola, Florida. Master's thesis, Force Base, Walton County, Florida. Prentice Thomas Department of Anthropology, University of West
and Associates, Inc. Report of Investigations 1202. Florida.
Report on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
Tesar, Louis D., and Calvin B. Jones
Pauketat, Timothy R. 2009 The Waddell's Mill Pond Site (8Ja65): 1973-1974 2001 Practice and History in Archaeology: An emerging Test Excavation Results. Florida Department of
Paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1:73-98. State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research electronic publication
Phillips, John C. accessed via the Florida Master Site Files, Tallahassee. 1995 Hickory Ridge: A Mississippian Period Cemetery
in Northwest Florida. The Florida An The Florida Thanz, Nina
Anthropologist 48: 72-95. 1976 Excavations at 80K6M: Fort Walton Temple Mound.
Unpublished report on file, Fort Walton Temple
Reilly, F. Kent, III. Mound Museum, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. 2004 People of Earth, People of Sky: Visualizing the Sacred
in Native American Art of the Mississippian period. Thomas, Prentice M. Jr.
In Hero, Hawk, and Open Hand: American Indian 1989 Summary of Investigations at 8WL90 and a Portion Art of the Ancient Midwest and South, edited by of 8WL101, and Delineation of an Archaeological Richard F. Townsend, pp. 125-138. Yale University Preserve, Sandestin Beach Resort, Sandestin, Walton Press, New Haven, Connecticut. County, Florida. New World Research, Inc., Report oflnvestigations 181. Report on file, Florida Master
Scarry, John F. Site File, Tallahassee. 1984 Fort Walton Development: Mississippian Chiefdoms 1990 Summary of Investigations at the Monday Midden
in the Lower Southeast. Ph.D. dissertation, Site (8WL99), Sandestin Beach Resort, Sandestin, Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve Walton County, Florida. New World Research, Inc., University, Cleveland. University Microfilms Report of Investigations 185. Report on file, Florida
International, Ann Arbor. Master Site File, Tallahassee. 1985 A Proposed Revision of the Fort Walton Ceramic
Typology: A Type-Variety System. The Florida Thomas, Prentice M. Jr., and L. Janice Campbell (editors)
Anthropologist 38:199-233. 1993 Eglin Air Force Base historic preservation 1990 Mississippian Emergence in the Fort Walton Area: plan, technical synthesis of cultural resources
The Evolution of the Cayson and Lake Jackson investigations at Eglin, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Phases. In The Mississippian Emergence, edited by Walton Counties, Florida. New World Research, Inc.,
Bruce D. Smith, pp. 227-250. Smithsonian Insitution Report oflnvestigations 192.
Press, Washington, D.C.
Thomas, Prentice M., L. Janice Campbell, James H. Mathews, Scarry, John F. (editor) James R. Morehead 1996 Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric 1994 Data Recovery at 80K877 at the Kelly Trust
Southeastern United States. University Press of Property Phase I Development. Prentice Thomas and Florida, Gainesville. Associates, Inc. Report of Ilnvestigations 251. Report on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
Scarry, John F., and Claudine Payne
1986 Mississippian Polities in the Fort Walton Area: A Thomas, Prentice M. Jr., L. Janice Campbell, and
Model Generated from the Renfrew-Level XTENT harlotte Cannon
Algorithm. Southeastern Archaeology 5:79-90. 2001 Mitigative Date Recovery at the Horseshoe Bayou Site, 8WL36, Sandestin Beach Resort, Sandestin,
Steponaitis, Vincas P. Walton County, Florida. Prentice Thomas and 2009 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Patterns: Associates, Inc., Report of Investigations 360. Report
An Archaeological Study at Moundville. University on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Thomas, Prentice M., Jr., M. L. Schleidt Penalva, L.
Sommerkamp, Cindy Loretto Campbell, and M. Cox (editors) 2008 Along the Pathway of Souls: An Iconographic 1996 Completing the Compliance Process at Eglin Air
Analysis of the Hickory Ridge Cemetery S Site Force Base, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, and Walton






192 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)

Counties; Volumes 26-30: Controlled Excavation at 8WL58, the Old Homestead Site. Prentice Thomas and Associates, Inc., Report of Investigations 284.
Report on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.

Thomas, Prentice M., Jr., L. Janice Campbell, and Erica Meyer (editors)
2007 Delineation and Sampling, East Halfof8WL68, Eglin
Air Force Base, Walton County. Prentice Thomas and Associates, Inc., Report of Investigations 734. Report
on file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee.

Weinstein, Richard, A. and Ashley A. Dumas 2008 The Spread of Shell-Tempered Ceramics Along the
Northern Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Southeastern
Archaeology 27:202-22 1.

White, Nancy M.
1982 The Curlee Site (8JA7) and Fort Walton Development
in the Upper Apalachicola-Lower Chattahoochee Valley, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Ph. D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Case
Western Reserve University, Clevelnad.

2012 Trail of Florida's Indian Heritage: Indian Temple
Mound Museum, Fort Walton. Electronic document,
http://www.trailoffloridasindianheritage.org/oindian Temple_Mound_Museum.html. Accessed
August 2012.

White, Nancy M., Jeffrey P. Du Vernay, and Amber J. 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 Keith Ashley and Nancy M. White, pp.
1-28. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

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

Woodward, Deena
2012 Paleo-Indian to Spanish Occupation around
Choctawhatchee Bay, Northwest Florida, as Documented in a Private Artifact Collection. M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
South Florida.









MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 193











00 0 00 0 Cl C 0 0
"t Cl C l o
00 0N 00 n
+la +1 N O+1 N C+1 + +1 +1
ra C C) ) W ~~~+- --IO ON 0 ON O 0










00 N
'IN3 CC C
-$N' Clti ON C~O N C ll





N- 00 CA 00 0

COD
CO -oI o
o m n



\C O id c )\ Ov

Cd m





it u "0 C'

w~~~ u -. C C
cO C d u CO c c

U 44 CO, CCd C COV cn.)
~~~~~~C .. O 0N O;~O C
0 c o 2 o
U "COOC LCOt

fQ C O* Fl U~C t -nO OO

0 CD r
"a c) UOmOC m00
cn JI o C,4 -. En.
-u t C3 o co S









w CO~
\... O>0 COC 0aC CO .~ t ~
COS PO~ p CO., Ctl *O- C




C Cd u rC 0 CO


ZZ im.C a 0 Ec




CO CO E EE 2.
cn j cv d aa d cd V w >~oo








c n
E C C C








a- 44 N uN 00V o

0d -0 cts~e
al m




















04 ci ~ ~ -0 CO
00 4 C's 00 00 0
Q 3iu "t v 7a L n co
C', E cr ct O u
w E~m~ n L. OrnC c

C) cn \ o
"~ a~n~~j~~00 m cn
o) a Ep
00 0 0 0 0 0 0







194 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)











C) 0 0 0n D ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D(n
~0 0 ~ 0O r 0/ 0~ 0 \O
'I" "," p ' ,
+ +I- +I +1+1 '1 "o n -I n r- W)I :
++T + I + + ++ I + I +V +.
oIr 00 00 It CCD"t Dr- co
t M cn C-4 o C,4 \c c o crq C rq I'D m c n "o to rq









0n 00 r-'(kn n
CD CDON CD ON m CD r- CD m


< It
m Mo









COC = tP
o- -o

C0 CO -- w. O
w~- bbSQ wO s. Q C

(A ci co" w O 0 0cN CO
Ip -1 4 g m G)
m -W -0 O CO *" *E z -0 o d 't A c C









M tn
.a o o
u a a EN
se o w oc









S 0 U O u-C 0 w W
CO 0E ~ 0 ~CG 0 0
o 0 Z) E CQ Co j0. 0 R
CIS M 0 w = w "pC







M -;i 'l CO g r ( CO 00 a

0 C o






0 0 m O ,.(-- E: C tCC
CO ,; o >
0 0 0 a. 0 0 C
U u C: Ut r U- P .14~








cl~C C) o









00 0 ON 00 ON 000 00 000
r o OJ Q,

















'.0 ON C, ON >. ONd 0
rq m vm > r. -6 o 0









W 0d 3 C3 dI= U 0 r







00 0 d 0 00 0 00 0 0 00
O\C I aW 5 o 6 :
1.0 o 24 88as o o m 363c i F
cl r- v W

to 0 140 -at:CLo
E 0 M 0. CCN3
CL -6 2 0 "a
E o~-"~ '
a'a l oa
,Ycn 0 r om b)~ N o
00 00 00 00 00 00 00D"
cs csen n c
a 3Ld O ;, m OE:c n n M
00 00 0 c* 0 00 0 00 0 00 0







MIKELL CHOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTONS 195










0l I 0 00
c CD C, -0v,
,, r-- 0 ca 'n 0O 0l0 cc o It) 0o W) WI ) 0 00 00 +1 0 + +I + ++ +I1T +1
CD0 OCD~O 00 C>0 c'C 00C A +
00 N C> CN all vr eno 0 N N a o o N o n rA en en 't C) M 't CIm r ai m -,tq a ma"

4 .N





00 \0 00 tn o r- C
'. V- 00 C>
C -. r c, Ic I r- .0 \
It 10 ) m cc cc cc
a) I e )a) a) a) a) a) a)a
M o 8z ccm





1 co >
Fl: a0 as 0
cc~. >. 0c 1cn
Vi 0Ij C
En) ccoo L -) a a)Q
a)& "'
cs U Ua) cc -4: En -En W (7, L) 0 "
-n ( -u C3 El c~ ) ~ c
I- 0 o 8 im.
> I n 0\u 0W \ o
1-. as E u I' cu o o
00
a) U - = 00


[) -14 =
03 w p ;- a I U) a
sz 4 ON Z Nc

0 -~ -( o 0 q. _c3
0 0
-I -o~ ccc -a I ~ I'
n C* U) cc c -0'cJ-.c. 0 r 4
0c cc cc E ~o) 0 ccO C0a
o r, c",s 1'Cd Q CISe

o- cc 80 o
r-I 1 C%4)L
o c c

0 c
Q0 aj cz _d C1 co ~-ac 0
.d~ 0,l I IIQ ~I _u 0N q8 9 0U 3
0 CO0~ 00 cc0 *;0 't2~
C U "0 CO Cd CN th 0 ~:. C 0




c o. ccO-. ul .,,,~1~ ~1 oU1 ~: o
6 Cj
cc rc cc - o 0


0 ':-:z =0-'
..0c 1 ,Cio -. r. m 00c~
a 0 00 cc 0 c 0 C
a4 I- 0 !.- a )



00 ar En cc U~ M
(, ~ ~ c 91 a) ,o pPo m r a*0 a~3
r I'- 2 ;; 1- - S '~~- ~ *

~~8cc 0-~ P, a oo
a 0 0 m 0
o 0 0F 0 \ .- u ;P. 6~ > r r '
0 0 r- 0 ', r
It oc Ei c cc
m q M 0 U 'n (nU L ~ r~C
t: 0 0 0 Cd o q-t 03 0
as r- rl
g z I u 0~ l 7 B E
as n En &n c, C) cq
cq 0 -0 cl, o~
> 0 -; U, ~ ; E ~ : =m .
ol Wc rol I d r. u EIIa Ee
o~~ E E r g
o -5 Ei "a "o coY
9.~EIEEl ~s"Ei0 E 0 0g
cz -0 E cl m a~
0 = (71 = <= cqs C > = -a Q:
'n 5Iv~ ~vm vla: a. cd a
0\oo\ 00 kn ) 0 ON 00
en en MI \ 00

0 0 00 00 00 "o o
0000 --o 00 00 .0 0 0










Errata

TABBED CIRCLE ARTIFACTS IN FLORIDA: AN INTRIGING TYPE OF GORGET AND PENDANT
George M. Luer

Volume 66(3), September 2013 page 127

References Cited Willey, Gordon R.
1949a Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Wheeler, Ryan J. Miscellaneous Collection 113, Washington, D.C. 1997 Metal Crested Woodpeckers: Artifacts of 1949b Crystal River, Florida: A 1949 Visit. The Florida
the Terminal Glades Complex. The Florida Anthropologist 2:40-46.
Anthropologist 50:67-81. 1949c Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University 2000 Treasure of the Calusa: The Johnson/Willcox Publications in Anthropology 42. New Haven.
Collection from Mound Key, Florida. Monographs
in Florida Archaeology 1, Tallahassee. Zenkovitch, V. P.
2001 Williams Island Shell Gorgets from Florida. The 1959 On the Genesis of Cuspate Spits Along Lagoon
Florida Anthropologist 54:67-74. Shores. Journal of Geology 67:269-277. 2003 Bone and Shell Work in Southern Florida. In First
Arrivals: The Archaeology ofSouthern Florida,
pp. 26-29. Interpretive catalog to accompany
exhibition, Historical Museum of Southern Florida,
Miami.
2004a Bone Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell
Point (8DA12). The Florida Anthropologist 57:133158.
2004b Shell Artifacts from the Miami Circle at Brickell
Point (8DAl 2). The Florida Anthropologist 57:159186.
2004c Southern Florida Sites Associated with the Tequesta
and their Ancestors. National Register of Historic
Places, Multiple Property Documentation Form,
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Washington, D.C.
2011 On the Trail of the Panther in Ancient Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 64:139-162.

Wheeler, Ryan J., W. Jerald Kennedy, and James P. Pepe 2002 The Archaeology of Coastal Palm Beach County.
The Florida Anthropologist 55:119-156.

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










2013 Field School Summaries




University of South Florida Archaeological Field School in shell piles of this midden area in 2011, when we observed Northwest Florida, 2013 Lamar ceramics, characteristic of some unknown Indian group dating to about A.D. 1700. Seeking to learn more about the Nancy Marie White (Professor of Anthropology, Registered mysterious Lamar adaptation, we obtained a state permit to Professional Archaeologist, USF) test the site, but found all of the Lamar deposits apparently plowed away. However one intact shell pile remained; a The University of South Florida's summer 2013 2-x-2-m test unit into it removed an estimated 75 percent of archaeological field school in northwest Florida, directed this deposit. The shallow pile of camp debris consisted of large by Nancy White, investigated three sites in three different shells (about 20 percent horse conch, 80 percent lightning counties. The multi-component McKinnie site (8JA1869) lies whelk) with only a very few shells of other species (a couple on a small creek bank 500 m west of the Apalachicola River oysters, crown conch, scallops) and ceramics diagnostic of a in Jackson County. A collector who had attended one of USF's Fort Walton occupation but no Lamar. Field school student public archaeology day programs had been digging it on his Evan Novell is analyzing data from the Wildfire site for his own with his grandson-for 7 years! He graciously helped honors thesis. He has obtained a USF Undergraduate Research us gain permission and access to test the site, and invited us grant to cover the cost of radiocarbon dating. He will try to to document his artifacts. His huge collection was displayed figure out if this shell pile represents a late prehistoric weekend in frames (often on animal-print background) all over his family camp or something else. house (even the bathroom), with the less exciting materials (plain and check-stamped sherds, lithic debitage) contained in buckets and even an old "deer freezer." The artifacts included everything from Archaic points to Late Archaic fiber-tempered ceramics, with the majority of the items being Woodland and Fort Walton ceramics.
Unfortunately he had tunneled through most of the intact deposits. But a couple test units were able to be placed on undisturbed ground to recover stratigraphic data showing this was a higher area amid the river backswamp, with heavy clayey-sand deposits from still water. The site was probably a special-purpose camp that attracted people for its hunting, gathering (acorns, hickory nuts), or creek-fishing (fish, turtles) potential. But it had one unusual aspect: small features the collector described as hand-scooped pits containing clusters of mostly mundane items: chert flakes, smooth pebbles, pieces of ochre, iron-rich sandstone, crushed quartzite, and charcoal. Luckily he kept materials from some 20 of these features in .. separate bags, and we were lucky enough to find one more ; such feature in-situ below the midden stratum. As graduate 'i student field supervisor Eric Prendergast works on the data for his M.A. thesis, he will explore ethnographic and other sources to see if these unusual features can be tied to specific ritual practices.
The Wildfire Site (8GU229) was discovered on the shores of St. Joseph Bay when a backyard barbecue fire got out of control and spread to state land on the St. Joseph Bay State Buffer Preserve in Gulf County. This region is famous for its shell middens consisting of large gastropods and other shellfish and fish remains typical of the salty bay. Emergency firebreaks Figure 1. USF grad student Eric Prendergast photographs plowed to curb the wildfire cut through one of the individual a frame of artifacts in a private collection from the McKinnie site, 8JA1869 (photo by E.Novell).


VoL. 66(4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST DECEMBER 2013







198 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)






























Figure 2. USF 2013 field school students cleaning 2-x-2-m unit floor at the Wildfire site, 8GU229; unit was placed within a midden pile of large gastropod shells left by Fort Walton-period campers (note shells in right background that were already measured and removed). Clockwise from lower left: Jason Manucci, Evan Novell, Denise Rea, Samantha McCan, Rudy Westerman, Kaitlyn Keffer (photo by N. White)


In 1902, C.B. Moore documented Jackson Mound 2013 CREVAP Field Season Summary (8FR15), west of the town of Apalachicola in Franklin
County. He recovered elaborate pipes, pots, points, even a C. Trevor Duke and Lori O'Neal stone plummet and galena pendant, as well as other Middle
Woodland (Swift Creek-early Weeden Island) artifacts from During the summer of 2013, students from the University the burials he dug there. The site was then mostly forgotten of South Florida returned to Crystal River to complete the except by local looters. Now it is owned by the same person final season of archaeological field research under the NSFwho owns the famous Pierce mound complex, which is 1.5 funded Crystal River Early Village Archaeological Project km southwest of Jackson Mound. He allowed reconnaissance (CREVAP). Directed by Drs. Thomas Pluckhahn, Victor and testing at Jackson to see what is left of the mound, and Thompson, and Brent Weisman, CREVAP investigates also brought his collection for us to document. Other local cooperation and competition in Woodland Period (1000 B.C. residents also permitted photography of their collections. to A.D. 1000) early village societies. Under the direction of Fieldwork results indicated that the shell midden (oyster and Dr. Pluckhahn and assisted by graduate students C. Trevor clam) adjacent to the mound was bulldozed away by a would- Duke and Lori O'Neal, ten undergraduate students excavated be developer, but significant portions of the mound still exist. two trenches at the Crystal River mound complex (8CI1). Field school student Denise Rea is analyzing the data and Additionally, students made forays to the Roberts Island materials recovered for her honors thesis and has also obtained Shell Mound Complex, revisiting several previously recorded a USF Undergraduate Research grant for radiocarbon dating. sites and recording a few sites on nearby islands that were
This USF field school was one of the few in the country previously unsurveyed. They conducted shovel tests on these certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists, islands, mapping four existing and three new sites. so students were assured of learning about diverse areas of Students spent the first week in the USF Southeastern archaeology from field and lab techniques to ethics to public Archaeology Laboratory learning about the archaeology of and community education and interaction. Lab work was Crystal River and Robert's Island, archaeological research done back on the Tampa campus, and the same students who design, and field methods. They received practical experience excavated the materials learned to process them in the lab and in laying out test units, mapping, excavation techniques, and help write site reports, which should be available next year. identifying and sorting artifacts. For the remaining five weeks, students implemented and reinforced these techniques onsite.






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 199


Previous field school seasons saw the completion of geophysical surveys, geoprobe coring, and test unit excavations. This final season focused on excavating four additional 1-x-l-m test units in two trenches at the Crystal River site. Trench 3 (Test Units 7 and 8) was located on the western part of the midden, just north of Mound A. This excavation revealed a dense concentration of oyster, as well as some of the highest quantities of Busycon so far observed in the midden. Features, including probable post molds or small pits, were also observed. The lower levels became inundated with water at high tide and the excavation was terminated at 140 cm below datum. Trench 4 (Test Units 8 and 9), was placed about 150 meters east of Mound A, on a preserved area of midden near an existing park service home. The composition of this trench was different from that of Trench 3. While the upper levels presented similar oyster shell concentrations, these diminished with depth until the lowermost levels, where we encountered a deeply buried shell midden. As with Trench 3, high tide curtailed our excavation, leaving several centimeters of water in the floor.
The location of the test units within the state park offered the public a view of the excavations and the opportunity to interact with students and archaeologists. The crew rotated from the field to our field lab inside the Crystal River Museum, where students rough sorted materials recovered from the 1/8 inch screening and shared their excitement with interested visitors. During the last week of field school, the Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) hosted a Summer Kid's Archaeology Camp. The kids were able to take turns excavating in Trench 4 and screening the artifacts. It was an enjoyable experience for all involved, with the promise of Figure 3. The CREVAP 2013 field crew on the steps of future archaeologists in the making. Mound A at Crystal River. From back to front and left
Fieldwork at Robert's Island proved to be filled with to right: Undergraduate students Travis McMullen, Debra adventure. Initially, we used a boat to move people and Sparr, Stephanie Charles, Melissa Norris, Kyle Dalton, excavation equipment to and from Robert's Island. However, Alexander Delgado, Shawnna Callaghan, India Anderton, after a series of malfunctions plagued our trusty old water Tatiana Bourey, Catherine Keckler. Graduate Students vessel, we had to turn to other means of transportation, which C. Trevor Duke, Lori O'Neal. Project director Dr. Thomas turned out to be a blessing in disguise. While somewhat slower Pluckhahn (but not much), kayaking proved to be an invaluable resource when exploring the island. The maneuverability and light the presence of a prominent elevation, on which we excavated weight of these kayaks afforded us the opportunity to navigate a 50-x-50-cm shovel test. This test revealed an enormity of waterways that were often extremely shallow and narrow; a faunal remains, including massive amounts of oyster and task we surely couldn't have accomplished with our old boat. copious quantities of gastropod, marsh clam, hooked mussel, Of course, the kayaks also provided challenges for moving and slipper shell. However, there were few ceramics or other people and equipment. Due to some often unpleasantly strong artifacts. Based on the topography and stratigraphy, we now current and wide tidal variation, kayak expeditions had to be believe that this site represents a small platform mound. The well-timed and well-planned each day. presumed mound is located in a complementary position to
In fact, some of the sites in the Roberts Island complex the two previously documented platform mounds at Roberts that we visited in the summer of 2013, particularly site 8CI37, Island, with the three forming an isosceles triangle. were nearly entirely underwater at high-tide. Site 8CI37 A brief exploration of site 8C139, a site also visited by was previously recorded by Ripley Bullen, but had not been Bullen, didn't yield impressive results. The combination extensively surveyed. Surface collection and the excavation of of sea-level rise and unusually high tides created a highly a 50-by-50-cm shovel test revealed an abundance of ceramics, unstable soil matrix, rendering excavation and survey of this diverse in size, surface treatment and temper, area nearly impossible.
Revisiting site 8CI36, located on a small island just north Three previously unreported sites were discovered of the aforementioned area, proved to be one of the most immediately north of the Roberts Island Complex, and another intriguing aspects of the field school. LiDAR data alerted us to known site in the area was revisited. Field Site 1 yielded a






200 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)



























Figure 4. Trench 3 photo:USF students excavating near Mound A at the Crystal River Archaeological Site.


wide array of artifacts, including prehistoric ceramics, bone, 2013 Florida Museum of Natural History Suwannee Valley shell, a ceramic pipe fragment, and modern glass and iron Field School: Garden Patch fragments. Field Site 2 yielded similar results, as well as the
remnants of a mid-twentieth century fish camp. The discovery Paulette S. McFadden and Rachel J. Iannelli and investigation of Field Site 3 was, to say the least, exciting.
A small, but treacherous body of water impeded access to The 2013 Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) this area at times. In fact, one of the only ways of crossing Summer Field School conducted test excavations at Garden the slough was to walk swiftly in a pattern similar to that of Patch (8DI4), a Deptford through Weeden Island site on the the known "Jesus lizard" (common basilisk). Similar to the northern Gulf Coast of Florida consisting of six mounds and newly discovered "mound" on 8C136, Field Site 3 consisted several areas of dense midden. The field school was directed of a raised elevation that was composed mostly of invertebrate by Neill Wallis along with teaching assistants Paulette shell remains. Finally, previously recorded site 8C1576 was McFadden and Rachel lannelli. Previously characterized as revisited. Surface collections and shovel testing revealed a "minor Weeden Island ceremonial center" (Kohler 1975), dense lithic deposits, ceramics, shell, and historic artifacts. systematic survey and shovel testing in 2012 revealed that
After three years of field school research, Crystal River Garden Patch is in fact one of the most significant prebids farewell CREVAP. Yet the hard work is far from complete. Columbian Woodland period village-mound complexes in the Students continue to work diligently in the laboratory northern Gulf Coast region of Florida (Wallis and McFadden sorting and documenting artifacts. Research is ongoing for 2013). Results of the 2012 survey revealed intrasite variation undergraduate and graduate theses based on recovered data in artifact assemblages, suggesting temporal shifts in site and will become part of the larger work examining the role use as well as spatial variation of practices. During the 2013 of cooperation and competition. The meticulous and strategic field school, four areas of the site were targeted for further nature of archaeological fieldwork performed throughout testing. In addition, a previously unreported excavation trench its many field seasons, CREVAP should provide a template in the largest mound (Mound V) was re-excavated to retrieve to satiate research questions for years to come. Once poorly stratigraphic data. Following is a summary of the field school understood, this famous complex of archaeological sites can excavations. now move beyond its previously speculative background and The previous excavation on Mound V was believed into the forefront of archaeological research in the Southeast. to be an unreported trench excavation by UF grad student Timothy Thompson in 1969. The trench was re-excavated
and the discovery of several soda cans (ca. 1969-1970) and
a broken trowel confirmed that this was indeed Thompson's







THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 201



























Figure 5. Field school director, Neill Wallis cleans the south profile of the trench excavation in Mound V


unreported trench. The profiles revealed a burial of unknown and await analysis. Additional close interval sediment samples date surrounded by postholes, suggesting some type of were collected from Mound V and Area IV, the analysis of structure around the burial. Later, a large pit was dug through which will help to reconstruct paleoenvironmental conditions the floor of the structure and filled with charcoal and food experienced by the residents of Garden Patch. remains. A radiocarbon age obtained from the base of the pit Directly west of Mound IV, two 1-x-2-m test units were returned a date range of cal. A.D. 240-400. A layer of midden excavated on the northeastern slope of Mound II, a 2-mn-high containing Deptford pottery was encountered in the west wall platform mound. The upslope test unit revealed more than of the trench and appears to be stratigraphically above the pit 2 mi of dense shell deposits, while the second, placed 2 m in the east wall. The artifact content and position of the layer downslope, contained markedly less shell but higher densities suggest it is Deptford midden that was collected elsewhere and of artifacts. Observations of artifact distributions in the field intentionally redeposited on the mound, after which the entire indicate that the mound was built primarily during Early Swift mound was capped by sand. Creek times.
Two 1-x-2-m excavation units were placed in Area IV, A 2-x-2-m block was excavated in Area I on the western a large midden/mound located to the west of Mound V near edge of the site. Dense deposits of early Weeden Island series a small pond. Deptford simple stamped and check stamped pottery, faunal remains and lithics, were recovered from sherds, along with early Swift Creek complicated stamped midden deposits that extended down 50 cm below surface. sherds, recoverecovered from both units suggest this area was area was Below these deposits, 14 features were identified, including occupied only during the Deptford and Early Swift Creek pits, postholes, and a square-shaped feature. The square periods. Shell midden in one of the units, along with potholes, feature, which contained only three potsherds, was about I indicate domestic occupation. Exotic lithic materials, including meter in one dimension and extended into the west wall in the a quartzite pebble, fragments of mica, and crystal quartz are other. Te post holes, all devoid of artifacts, were arranged in indicative of participation in extralocal trade networks by at a circle around this feature, with pits that contained potsherds, least the Late Deptford Period. vertebrate fauna, and lithics, on the outside of the circle of
Further investigation of the pond revealed that it is a postholes. The arrangement of the features and artifact content shallow depression filled with fresh water. Mentioned in a site suggest that this was an early Weeden Island period domestic description by Moore (1902), it is unlikely that the pond is dwelling that was roughly contemporaneous with activities on a result of modern landscape alteration. It is unknown if the the upper portions of Mound V, Mound II, and Area X. pond is a natural feature or possibly a borrow pit from which One test unit was excavated in the centrally located Area the Deptford deposits on Mound V were collected. A large X, revealing deeply stratified midden deposits. The presence bulk sample and sediment core were collected from the pond of dense fauna and potsherds suggest that this area was used







202 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)



























Figure 6. The FLMNH 2013 summer field school crew and director Neill Wallis on Mound V.

intensively during the Early Swift Creek period. Its proximity Wallis, Neill J., and Paulette S. McFadden to extensive salt marsh and tidal creek systems would have 2013 Archaeological Investigations at the Garden Patch made it a convenient fish procurement processing location. Site, Dixie County Florida. Miscellaneous Report Notably represented in several strata were non-local lithic No. 63. Division of Anthropology, Florida Museum artifacts, including a ground stone plummet, mica, crystal of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville quartz, and red ochre, which may have some relation to preparations of materials for nearby burial mounds.
These initial excavations indicate that the site was
occupied from Deptford through early Weeden Island times. 2013 University of North Florida Field School Deptford occupation is restricted to Area IV, while the majority of mound construction and midden deposition across the site Robert Sapitan seems to have been Early Swift Creek. Early Weeden Island occupation was mainly restricted to Area 1. The 2013 FLMNH In the summer of 2013, the University of North Florida Summer Field School was the beginning of a long-term (UNF) conducted its annual field school. The focus of this research project that seeks to understand how the different year's project was the T.R. Preserve site (8DU58), a St. components of the site relate to each other, to the surrounding Johns II (A.D. 900-1250) site located within the Timucuan region, and to environmental shifts that affected this area of Ecological and Historic Preserve (National Park Service). The the coast. site is situated in a maritime hammock on a high sand ridge, or finger-like projection, 15-m above tidal marshes along the References Cited southern side of the St. Johns River. The site is distinguished by three distinct features-a linear shell ridge, an "r"-shaped Kohler, Timothy shell arc, and a sand mound-that occupy a 20-x-15-m area at 1975 The Garden Patch Site: A Minor Weeden Island the eastern end of the sand ridge
Ceremonial Center on the North Peninsular Florida The T.R. Preserve site was first identified in 1955 by GulfCoast. Unpublished Master's thesis. University William Sears, who excavated three 5-x-10-ft test pits. The of Florida,Department of Anthropology, Gainesville. site would not see any archaeological investigation for another forty-eight years. In 2003 John Whitehurst of the National Park Service (NPS) and Robert Thunen of UNF dug three Moore, Clarence B. shovel tests within the core area of the site. Three years later 1902 Certain Aboriginal Remains of the Northwest Florida NPS archaeologists Mike Russo and Robert Hellman mapped
Coast, Part II. Journal of the Academy of Natural the site, and six additional shovel tests were excavated by Sciences of Philadelphia 12:127-355. UNF. Artifacts from these shovel tests suggested that 8DU58 was a pure St. Johns II site.






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 203




























Figure 7. 2013 UNF Field School at 8DU58., Theordore Roosevelt Preserve

During the first week of the 2013 field school, 23 -shovel A 50-x-50 cm unit was dug into the floor of the unit, bringing tests were dug at 20-m intervals to determine the boundaries of the maximum depth to 240 cm. Again no cultural modification occupation along the top of the ridge. Shovel testing produced was identified. Three previous shovel tests into different areas a number of prehistoric potsherds, several pieces of chert, of the mound produced similar results, suggesting the mound variable amounts of shell, and a wide variety of fish, bird, represents part of a relic dune. reptile, and mammal bones. Shell density was greatest in the A single 1-x-2-m unit was excavated in the area between eastern (core) part of the site. Testing revealed a strong St. the "r"-shaped shell-arc and the sand mound. The unit produced Johns II component, although some earlier Woodland-period very little shell, but St. Johns II artifacts were present. Also (Deptford and Swift Creek) and later St. Marys wares were uncovered at a depth of approximately 50 cm below surface recovered along the upper shoulder of the ridgetop and along was a small cache that included an inverted sea otter skull, a the site's western periphery. gar jaw, and both valves of a riverine mussel. Immediately to
Over the next five weeks, eleven l-x-2-m units and three the south we encountered a human skull. The National Park 1-x-l-m squares were excavated to sample the linear shell Service was immediately notified, the skull and associated ridge, shell arc, sand mound, and other areas on top of the materials were reburied, and all NAGPRA protocols were ridge. From these units we recovered mostly St. Johns II observed. pottery types such as Plain, Check Stamped, Little Manatee, West of the linear shell ridge we excavated a 5-m2 block and related Ocmulgee Cordmarked wares as well as sand in an area that had produced abundant potsherds during shovel and grog tempered sherds. In addition, we recovered several testing. The amount of shell dropped off markedly in this area, lithic artifacts, including sandstone abraders and a Pinellas and we recovered artifacts suggestive of household activities projectile point. Testing of the shell arc and linear shell ridge not seen in other parts of the site. The sandstone abraders and produced large amounts of vertebrate faunal remains. A Pinellas projectile point mentioned earlier were from this preliminary inspection of the animal bone suggests that the excavation block, as were ceramic potsherds with mending/ site's inhabitants subsisted on a diet that consisted mainly of suspension holes and whelk shell tools. Future testing of shellfish (primarily oyster) and estuarine fish. Bird and land this part of the site should help develop a clearer picture of mammals were apparently exploited to a lesser extent household and other domestic activities.
One of the goals of this project was to investigate the The 2013 UNF field school provided students with a origin and composition of the sand mound. To this end, we unique opportunity to learn about the lifeways of native excavated a l-x-3-m unit into the top of the mound to a depth peoples who once called northeastern Florida their home. It of 140 cm below surface. Surprisingly no artifacts, colored also allowed us to play an active part in adding to the growing sands, or strata indicative of a burial mound were observed. body of knowledge on St. Johns II culture. Over the course






204 TIlE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)
































Figure 8. UNF students collecting faunal material.


of the six week field school, UNF students learned how to Field School is specifically designed to accommodate the properly shovel test and conduct unit excavations, recover split training schedule of the participating students. For and preserve artifacts, record their findings, and draw unit each 5-week half, students taking their terrestrial training profiles. Many of the students who participated in the summer participate in both an archaeological survey (Phase I) and an field school are currently enrolled in an archaeological lab intensive testing (Phase II) project. At the end of 5 weeks, the methods course. This course focuses on artifact analysis, first crew begins their maritime training while those who were and a number of' students are currently analyzing the very on the water begin their Phase I and Phase II projects. One artifacts they helped to recover at the T.R. Preserve site. goal of the 10-week field school is to give the students handsRegardless of their anthropological sub-field, UNF students on training in archaeological field methods. As per all of have found archaeological field work to be an enjoyable UWF's archaeological field schools, students learn about and and rewarding experience. Check out photographs from our directly experience a variety of relevant archaeological field summer excavations on the UNF Archaeology Lab Facebook techniques and principles, from shovel testing and test unit page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/UNF-Archaeology- excavation, to mapping, proper documentation of the work, Lab/189192697784752) and research development.
The 2013 UWF Campus Field School again included an
exploration of an area of campus currently being considered
University of West Florida 2013 Campus Field School for future development. Fieldwork consisted of Phase I surveys Summary as typically performed by cultural resource management (CRM) companies throughout the United States. The Principal
Ramie A. Gougeon, Ph.D., Lauren Walls, and Patricia Investigator of this project is Dr. Ramie Gougeon. The survey McMahon consisted of an examination of approximately 65 acres west of the main campus that has been slated for potential
Summer semester 2013 marked the third University of development as a retirement living/learning community. Some West Florida (UWF) Campus Field School. This program 215 shovel tests were excavated at 25- to 50-meter intervals constitutes the terrestrial portion of UWF's unique Combined along transects spaced 25- to 50-meters apart. Several isolated Terrestrial/Maritime archaeological field school. The Campus finds were identified, although extensive additional testing






THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 205































Figure 9. UWF-Field school crew learning field methods at 8SR2183


failed to recover enough materials to adequately constitute an outside of a few pockets of Rangia clam and oyster shell actual archaeological site. deposits were encountered in the sandy soils. Ceramics dating
The testing portion (Phase II) of the Campus Field School to Woodland, Mississippian, and Historic periods were found took place on a privately owned lot on the eastern side of across the site. The running joke became that we could easily Gargon Point, located on East Bay in Santa Rosa County. Prior re-illustrate Willey's Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast to the 2013 UWF Campus Field School, this particular piece of with the many pictures of the frustratingly single occurrences property had never been formally examined by archaeologists, of the diverse pottery types we posted daily on our Facebook but for several years local inhabitants had reported abundant page (https://www.facebook.com/UWFCampusFieldSchool). Native American ceramics eroding from the bank and below Laboratory analysis is currently being conducted by the shallow waters of East Bay. The students cleared multiple many of our field school students, who will be interpreting truckloads of underbrush from the site before conducting a soil materials and units they had a hand in excavating. Ultimately, resistivity survey and excavating shovel tests placed on a grid excavations at the Wernicke site (SR2183) tie into a long-term of 10 meter intervals, research program developed to explore the late prehistory of
The second phase of investigation involved excavation of the region immediately prior to European contact. Preliminary units and trenches to explore remote sensing anomalies and results may be available in time for the spring meeting of the cultural materials identified by the initial shovel testing phase. Florida Anthropological Society. Summer 2014 will find the Six half-meter-wide exploratory trenches of varying lengths PI and our students either revisiting this site or moving on to (1-4 m) and 22 1-x-1 m units were excavated in 10-cm levels the next piece of the archaeology puzzle that is the Pensacola within natural strata across the site. While many artifacts were area. Stay tuned! recovered from the investigation, very few cultural features






206 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)














2014 FAS Annual Meeting
Hosted by WMS/LSSAS in Punta Gorda, Florida

S.1-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.com/) 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.laishlevcrabhouse.com/), 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 104h 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

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 1

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 13251, Pensacola, FL 32591 13 11. St. Augustine Archaeological Association P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine, FL 32085

12. Southeast Florida Archaeological Society v.g.
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 Sprint/Little 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






208 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2013 VOL. 66(4)






S) Florida Anthropological Society







You are Invited to Join Us:
If you want to join with professional and avocational archaeologists 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 members.






209







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.

Name:
Address:
Apt:
City:
State:
ZIP:
Telephone:
E-mail:
FAS Chapter:

I agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society as presented on the previous page.

MAIL TO:
Florida Anthropological Society c/o Pat Balanzategui PO Box 1434
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434

Membership forms also available at www.fasweb.org





210 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



debrawells@aol.com or 1129 NW 143RD ST., JONESVILLE, FL 32669 $10.00 FOR A REGULAR ISSUE $12.50 FOR A SPECIAL OR DOUBLE ISSUE








Notes











About the Authors

Alison A. Elgart is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at Florida Gulf Coast University. She received a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of Binghamton and a Ph.D. from Cornell University. Her interests focus on the health and disease of precolumbian Florida populations and dental anthropology of humans and non-human primates

Rebecca Douberly-Gorman graduated summa cum laude and interdisciplinary honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from the University of North Florida in 2003. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Florida, and an adjunct online anthropology instructor at the University of North Florida. Her interests include European ceramic and material culture, protohistoric and historic aboriginal pottery, social interaction and exchange, and early contact and mission periods of the Southeastern United States.

Greg Mikell is an RPA and Senior Archaeologist with Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Having lived and worked in northwest Florida and the Southeast since the 1980s, Greg has an extensive background in northwest Florida prehistoric and historic archaeology and regards his work at 8WL38 and other Choctawhatchee Bay area Fort Walton/Pensacola sites to be among the most rewarding, interesting, and influential in his career.

Stephanie Paule is a recent graduate of Florida Gulf Coast University's Master of Science in Forensic Studies. Her interests focus on osteological analysis pertaining to modem forensic cases as well as Florida archaeological collections.












UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. IUIVII ITYIIII iiiii Keith H. Ashley, Dept of Anthropology, UNF 3 1262 08574 7227 Bldg 51, 1 UNF Drive -Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659 TALLAHASSEE, FL PERMIT NO. 801


Volume 66 Number 4 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED December 2013






ARTICLES

OSTEOLOGY OF THE YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND (8SO4), SARASOTA FLORIDA 139 ALISON A. ELGART AND STEPHANIE PAULE

SEARCHING FOR FORT CAROLINE: NEW PERSPECTIVES 157 REmBECCA DOUBERLY-GORMAN

CIIOCTAWHATCHEE FORT WALTON CULTURE NEED NOT BE CONFUSING 175 GRliGORY A. MIKELL

ERRATA: TABBED CIRCLE ARTIFACTS IN FLORIDA: AN INTRIGING TYPE OF GORGET AND PENDANT George M. Luer 196

2013 FIELD SCHOOL REPORTS 197




























Copyright 2013 by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893