- : I I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I 1
' a I : I 1 I I I I I I I I li 11 I I I I : t I I I I 11 I I I ,." .1 : -,, 11 ,,, 1 I I I
1: I I I I I I I l I I 1 I I -: '. tl 1, ..- I i l I I .
i '- I I I 'S I I ,- I -, I I .., I .- -,
.1 -l I I .- .- I I ,- I ,* i,:" ,'- -A I'- I'll : -1 ,,- ,, ; ,,
,l I I I I I '. I I '. I I 1 i -,, ,-, .- r : -- I I I : .:, ,- I I ". J, I
I I ;;; r ,: 1 I I : ,
-1 -, , , i I ,V , c I ,, I 1: 1, -,
, I I I I ,%b :" i I -, "', : I
. I I ,: -, I I I : 11 I I l I I ', ., 1, I I I I
- '-. I r I I I 1. I I ,.- .
I I I I 11 .11 I I f t i "',," r,-,, ,-, .- 1, I -, j ""
. .. ", I , , ,-' ' :..'
. I : : , I I I ,- I I I I -- 'il I : -, -,
: ; :, I I I I I ,
, t I I I '. I 1, 1- 1
- ) l , I I 5 ... .. I ; 1 ,- , t I '. ': ,,,
., ", t I I , .. -, .. .17,, :- : I ,
I I I '- ,- 11 I -1 I ,
11 I I I I I z I I - ,
l , ----, : I I -- -; ",j, -, 11
, I I , ". I
I I -, I : 1, I t 1 1,
, , I I I , 1, -. I ,. I I I I ,
-1 I I 1, , I 11 I- I , .... ... :, I 1, --: _,"', -- '-' I -. -- I I -'t ; 4 i 11 .1 ,
, I I I I I I I
, I I I -, 1 7, ;'' -, -, , ,
, -, .., ". ,
, I I" ,. I -- --e, - ,,- , I i -- ,,,- v ,, ,,'- 1- -7, I ,, 11
t, F. ', , - I I I I ,-- ,.-: :, ,:, , , 1 --- q- -- 1, ,: -; ":" -t,,,-, 1 :, -, , I I ,
, 1, - :, "', ,,, ,'-, ,.
.- I I , I "! i
:;', I I I I I :, : 1 ,, -, I I 1 , ,,
, '1 1 , I , - I 1-1 : :, 1 1 ,, ', 11 , I '- ,t t
I I I .
.1 I I I I I I I ,, ; :, "", "', , ; -" "- ,'- -1 ',- I I I I '. 1, I I 1, W ": I -, I .;,, ,, ', Z ,, . ,
'. ', -- - 1" , , I I I v , -, I I i
, ": ; ,", I 't I I .
I- I I , ..... ---, "I .- ., I I , -;, -, '' 1 I I - ,', %- '' ,- ^ - ', i I , , I I I I ',--"'
., t r -, , ,, , r I , :.' I.: -', ,: -.4 I , I , .
I ", I I -',t i I I I ;; t, ; ,,,T I I "' , I I11 --,-,- '- i, -, , 'f '.,' "; ,--; ,','. ,,, ,,, -1 , I I I i, :., i; .-" :- , .
.. I ,-. 11 I I I I I .", tl 1, , ,, , .
I-, I., ; ,, -, t ,- ;, I ' '4- I -t -, ,- - ' -,- ., p 4 I T , I I 11" I ,,, '- 1 , I I I 11 I ,, t -- t t , -, :, .,
", 7 ," --,, % I -11'- , 1,1 ""'. -, ,14 1 1 1;1- 1, ti,, """" ", ,. 7 I .
I Zt -- I I 1, i-1, ,
: I I ,% ,, I I "N 1, I , i'- -, ': I I , -, -, ) -, , , ,;-,', A I I , I " - I
, I : , . , I I 1, ,-.., ,7 ; ,
, ', t ,; : p 1, : I. -1 , . ,,, .' ; -,, ,
.1 il ,- -, r ". % I ,,- : I I-- I : 4
, 4 I I" - ll ,, I ; ,, ,, ,, t, 2 1, -,', -, - ,- ", ., ";
t.i -, 1, ,., l ,--- 't i :e, : ; f , -, - : ,-
1, ,l 11 ,-" ', ] 1, ; ." T - k ,-,, , ', -1 I- I , , , 1, l 1
1. I I I 4 ""i-1. -,- -,, I : , , I ,- i , t , ,
-, ,; "O -, -- : , I,
-, -. 7.i ,", f, 'i, I -I-, 1. I , ,-- .v'-'. , ', I ,,;., ,t -,-. ,-, N .- : l , , I ; ,- I, "', : t ,
, , r j . I I .- W4 1 11 11 ; ,
- ; ,% -,' -, -- -, '. -, -,, ,,, ] .- I ;, il -1 I , :,'i ,- ,- --i '-, ,, z ,,,c: ,,- ,-,.- ., 4 1 -- t 11: I ;l
, I 11 ': I -- , "" -A -, , , I , -, -,t 1 , , 1 I ", -,_""; ,
1 ', ,' ,- -, 1, -. I ,- ' -'. -, ,'L , I .- t - -, ; 7 -- I
-4 ", I.4 -,' -- ,,,, , .' I ? ;" .: , , ,,,-, t ,,, T -, -' ,- i :, ,
, ,- I I , , :. L ;-,.. I I i "I., I I I 17, 411, ; ,' 4 i -,- ,-, I I 1 I , ,- ,- --, ,
-- -, I: ", -, _, ", -,,- t, t,- ., : I I t' I ', I --% ", ,, ',-:,,' I- I I z -,,, ,, ,,, , -- -- -
-1 11 ; 11 I I -1 11 ,- .1 I _,, ,:.11111 11 , ;- .
-1, , ,. 1. I -le j, ,
11 -- I I" t lIl'. "'t;1" 1, , 2' ,- ,',', ,,- .71 -t 'i- .,' ,,, '- I ', 1 I I I t ,
, ,;, I - , l 1 1 -',' ", : I l . . . , I., I I I ," I 1 1,,I ,
,, : ': ,_ ,- -1 .'1-!,P
, t 4 li ,, " , .. -:,,, .
- --: I .-, ,.t ': ;,'
. , .; i ,; 1, I i 'I, ,1 , ., ,;- i :,,,, I ., I -. ,- , I , --, i ,, -, -, ". 11, ,- "', ,. : "
11 I il -" - , o, 1, .', tt q, I l
I , 1, T , '. I V fl- A ll , ... -, l ;- t" ---- ,- , : ? ,, I I I I ; '.
, ': -) ', i j, -, ", ,4,
, - I I -, , ,, , ,:, 1 , 'o I t ': , ,- -, t, ,,, -- ". '
,- o, 1, I" ", ."j ,, ,.jso , qt ,-;- -V",-, -- ,t -"% "" ; ": 1, -,, I
-- l I'll I ." ',' i t, -L4
i- -- ,; .. , 11 1, -, i ,, --l -11 -, j ":2, ", : ,7 ,- I : ', ,' ti
, 'i't: I % ; '16 ,, 1 1, I I , t % i., & ,, I- I I .,- :,' -,',",.- ': 3 : -, C I 1 -i
, ",: N7 --A I "i I -1, 4 I L_ -, 1
- t ,,, ,, ,- .- '. ",
- , : ,' N 11 ,.' -: -, ., "-q, r ,, .:. 'i ,',, ,77-,,%-. I
I -1 : ",- ,--:: ,T I I- A I , v '!g 19 1k, 'I", , I'- -, -, ,t --- ,,. ,-- ,,, ,,
- , ", i ,,,, ": "., ,
, :-, :: ;: 1, XA ,Y il, -111, I "- ;, I
. 7< l I ) I t l I r ,,,
, I d, ii- W7 I ,' "- ,,
t, ,- '. - ,--, -". ,T '-,-,rl ,7 ;, i .- , -,, ", 1, :, ", ,
,L , 11.1 v -1, ., r ,
i: t, 7 ,, ,
-': :! ", ,- -" ,' I l : -- 11;
I -" -,. 1-1-e--, I I I 1-1- .1 11 ,!t., I .. .. . ; 4" 1 'i
. I I 11- 11 t, ,;,- I
- -'11--, 4;
:, I ', W I , ",
"I I 1, I -- .;A rI -,-, ,,, t l ll- ,,- ,, -, ,
, .il'- I ,,I,,,,,',: .-- 1,
, -, IT, 1 ,,,, I 11 ,-," '-- i, ,,, .- ', 7 --, -, t, ,: ,;, %,
I 1, , 1111,7 ". .l I j l, I I 11 1. J.'i"', ,o , ., - I
''.. I I- i I'! , t .- ;.Aj -. ,-I:,,- !", I I
, li ;', , 1, ". ;- .-J, .- 'V 4 :, '4 ,,, %, 1,;-, ,, --,-, ,', 1, ..'- ,-, q ,', -,
,-"-,. ,-iT----- -, ,,- I , ", ll -,, ,
-- ", ,- '- & ,,, : I ir, I j 1, ; I I rtt ," ; ,
- :i'. ,- ;-tr -- ,,
, I I ., -; t I, I ,; :,'
1 7 l I 11 f *, I -, t 11
- , -1 I : A 0 I ,,,,, I
-, ,,t ,, ,- ,4 , -, f "
, i", I 1, 'te, ,
i -. - , ,ji- "," I -11
- , -- r'- 1, -, 11 Y-t , -_ -! ,-- ,-, ., I 1 I ,7 , _,._,, ", I -- l
- j ,] i I I - 1 - 'i 11 I" t 11 1, ,.
, , ,
" a ;, I -L ,
li ", i :, ,,, I --t , : "' -1 ,111
11 "", ,-t:', .", ., I I '. 1-4 t "o ", ,,, :
, '' ,m. l i Ic ,Tlll ,'
-1 -' ,- I I I : ,, ', -, --I ", ,',, i, ,-,:-, ., ''i 1, I -,- li 11 I -i,
- I 11 I I t: , .- I 17, ,
- , - ,,,
- ,11 11 ,-/ -l 4
., -'-. ; I --" -t -t:,----- !, A : "'. --,, -,-I,-";,.-, -- i- *,' ,""'; ,-",;- .-' -' -,,- ,-- I .,-. ',-, 11 1, I I l ,
, 11. 'I, I ,: ,'- ,,,
, , : j I ,,, I I I I ;;
, 1, I 1; ,. I, 1 I -,- .' I I I I "' l I ,., ',, % I I
- ,- -. a "I
- ',-,:; '. ,, ,, I I I I < 1" o I I 11
11 ---- --
,', :. -,: ,-, ,, ,_ I" 'Y 1, -;,; ,,,,,, 1. 1
- ffj A -, -.- ,,, , 11 42 F P'A4- J
.. I I i, ,- ,, ,
': I ,:;, N.f f4 -"-, -1, -l "t t% .;" l'- I , , "'7'? , -; -, I I
-, '1 I I ., ', ,, ', -,', I I ,-, --- -', ." -'. -' ,, -1, I I I ,1 I- 1, I I" : , ,,; 11 F
l 1. 1, -i ,' ,,- , t
- -'--,,- - I ,N 1
-, ,, , I.-, -'- ", ,., ., ,-'' ,, ,', ,-, : ,,, -,5-"i'- ,,,, j"-: --' ;-- .,: I ,Z 11 ',,- I -, '- ", &, ',, ,-, ,-, "" 'lir 1 i- ., , -, tt I -, ,, to -.
f : 1 ,,, -,;, 5'' t, F- ,-,Tl, -, -. -', i, ", 1. I :I I'll 17 :, ,
. , "; ,,, ", ,- ,itl ,,,, -- ,, ,- .-- ,, ,, tt -,, ,.,v Ii
, ,1 1 I' I ,;- -; ,- -_ ,:-, ,,, ., -Z,
; I -1, I- ,,-- -, -,-Z : ', ,, I ,, ,- I I -11 I , 11'.l ",
,t : _; %,- --,- ,', 4 ""-':,, -, ", - ---- -'-, "i, ,., ,,,. ,,, '," "' ,, t I I I I 1 '-l -,,-' I,_- -..-* '- -,- F N
, --, -- - I .11 ....... t-,S,
11 "' 2 I ...
,, ,f, , t -, ,,. ,- C, ,
iv ,-!%' J 7_'- 4 -,-;
.. -- ,-',-- L-;-, i. 1' , , : ,' .
,, -V, , -, ,.; %i -',',? Ji -; t. , -! 11 I I I
;,,, I ,-, I "', ,. I, 11", , 'I -- "
' k ", -,i: I I I I ; ,
,,11 ., I I -- -, I-- l I 4 ""', i,- ':
, ', : ,,,, : I ill,
11 I , ','- I I ,
- I ,." :1 r:l -, 1I- 'l T I ',I- , ,,- 1, '. j
, ,.,- : I -: i 111 11'1,lj -, ,, "', ,, ,il -.
_, ,, I ,. -,,- ., ; ,. I ,- -- ", 'F, I t: I- -- I ,-- -, ""', ,, ', ,l , I ,:,""
'V' ,- , : I' 'I; , ,% :.- :, -,, '- I ,-,,, -, -1 '. e. --,i "I 11 , t1t I
I I : -N, I I - i ", I -, ', i-, ''-,: I ,- -, ,,, ,t "4 -1 ,
- 1, 11 "? ,,, ] "Y- "' "" I I
f I : -, , ; 'T -- : 1, 1 j
I ,, I 1 -.
, I I I ,
-, .1 i,3 t- ;i,, I I -- : ;- ., -- .,- ,,:: ,; ,, ,,, , ; t", : -- ;l ,."
, I t, 1 I -1 1
til- , I I
,, t ,, V,, '. ---,,- , , 1, I I ,,- ---- -, .- -.1 1- l -. i,
11- 11 I 11 I "' T ,'- ,', .1 I I I -, ;, 'l _, ;
- , I :!. a I l 1. ,, I I
' it, 1'e I I i ; -, ,l ,-, I I ,. "' 4 1 ,, t -t 1-l- -- I -- y I "', I
- ,f , , -,, Z I -I- I --",-",-wt-:--- ,i -,,,, ,- ,-,, ,,--, ; ll- 11 ,,, . . . -' ,.--p 1
", - 1' , ,.n- - I I ,11 I .,
". ; : 7, ,- -, '.,' I ,_,
, -,.-, ,-,-"- ,, -,,, , , : l I I I
, -, , -- ,, -,-, I l Ji 11 , 3 "
;; , -,', I -t- 11 -t j,
, -,, ,- t, ., I ,- ,- ,:Z_ ,: I -, 11, ,tl-,i,;, I 11 ., It; ..... ".. I I 1, -, It j
,. ,,,, 1, I lz t -';, -- - I z I ---, Z' ,, ,,. .-, i ,,- 4t - 11 I I I ,,--',', ,--l" I I I I 'I ,
%, m ." A I I", I-, 1: : 'I,- 1. ''Ill, 1, I
1 -,"., -- It, ",_ I 1 ,.; ", -, ,-,_, : "I". n 4 i ., I'll, I ,
I, --,, ,-, t'i' ll' I k 1.
-_, -, - --: :! t i ,'
,,, : 1: z i-- ".1 ..... 7., ., -, L- -, 1
I -, ',- I I 11 '..
- ', ,- %,- ;
I ; -t, ,, %
"" I I e .1 ,,l ;: _- ." I 1- "% I ; : .", I -, -1 'amw ., -, ,' ',
,- ,-, -- *,,, .11 .::: ,i ,,
1, I -- 1. -- 1: .- I ,z 1, 11 -, - ,,;I:z 1- ,
" ,,, -"- ,, ,;-'.- '. .1 ," --,_ , ", '! ,,,,, 1; I I '' -. ", 1 1 ,,tl- i tl,, 1, '.
0 I .
ii '- "I _-,'
I -dr 1, -11
' ...... I ., ., ,I l l t 1 7 7, 4 ;
'T : I -' "', -? I 1 71j, , I 11. I -1-1 I 11 .1 I,, , : 1- 1 I I 'I, _, I ,
,', ,, I" ",
- : ,,- '! ." 4 I ---l :r ., l '- -,>' 11
l ,- -, .... ;." :j7 I :'r : I I ", r -1
,, r 1 i m px ,, ,, ,-.
lyl, , '' : ll" ,, ,, .-,., ".."', "_ 'r I , -. ". 1 "' ,'i ,- r _ [
- ;; , ,, I lw I I 1,,tl -, 1 ,,- ,
- I r I , l I -1; _: l ": .,,',: ;, A
" : '," ,; -_-_ _-, ' -_ r :1 I I ., I 11 I , 1
11 I I , .1 .., , j 1
, ', '-' I'm
71 1 , t ,4,,; I I I ,l-,
'' 11 -1 I 1 ":
I I "I 1. 1 :- ll 1?1 '. W
- , ,-- ,- I -1 , ', ',
, t -, - ...... I 'r,
1-1 I -,, ,;i , ill I -,
- t3 ,,-,; ', Z, 1; ,, I I -, , , , ,, ,,-,, r
, r I 7 Is
: I 1 ,-- ,-, ,,11,, -11 - , l
1-111-111111 I -:, ,t : ., ;1,r ," I, 1:t l 1' ---l ; 1, I , T ., , -, 1* --* N .
1 1, 1 7 .; -1, I l "I -* , -,-'-,-,',"-,7 td, -, ,,,
I I I I I'll -- I ": r
: , -- , - ,"; - , !_ ... ... ,;,,'t
,-- "I -- -"- ,: ,
. -, .'- "i "I ;,, I t I il 7 ,,7 ,, , ,
- I -, ': : .....
,,",:,, i _-,, -11 IN, ,Q-;,, ,
ii- ., I - , l ." % 1, I _,:Isv ,7'7- ,:- ;'-' --i t-; -" -- -"
', ;, , -, I ., K - _,], ',- # "I ,
, -- -- I I I 1-1 ,-, I I , .,: i '"
, I I '.1 Z ,,,I k,
," ,. I 1 ; ,,, Vp
r, :, il, t I m .", N- ,
- 1; , % --.-I'- -, %, - -% .,- ,:,,
- I a -1, I I I ;;!" Q %
-- ; ,,-, ,- -,_, ", 11 11 -1 li-I 0 l -,-
., , 11, -M Z I I -1 N" A' z N ,
",- I, " ,,,, r, ,< I.-- ,t -'N:IkX w Z --$
_ ", -1 -',;'- N,
-, r, -- r ,- I ltl i ;.! -1 N
. -L N I -,t r I
__ 4 r'z I i - % 7 ;
, 1, ,:,,, I -"', ,-- , 'i "t ,, -,', -It L , S : I
- N ., "e
, ,r .-
' 1. l -, I , , 1, ---t' I l I I I
- -- 11 I I ', ,- -, Ii %,, r - ,,-, ,, . -1 I '. ;Z r, 14
:, t -, , ,, -,- f 't I '1%
--- -i I -, 7 t,- - ,'- f, "I 'k i, ,,,%
,- I '' '. I ,, ? ,, -, go I .
- , I 11 , :,,, l7
,- I A I ,-",_1
,, -. -1 I 11 - 4 ", 1 1, ", --",I I ;,., &
, ,. Y -- ; , ': --; t. IT I S, & N , 7
1. I I 'S -- -' ; 5' ,- ,;"',!, -";"-,,; , N , I
l l ", r O 31 11 lxlzz 1, I -, ;. ',_ I 1-1 N ,
" -, .14
, r !i! -,; ,
V I -, I l A ,
-11 1, 1-1 I 'll I N
"', ::, I 1 ,- N7 ; 'n v
- 4 "I
,- 11 :, 1- ." -,
ll ,. I -, ,, -- h I I,,, ,- z NX II ,
' I A kll--i I l ,, ',' i I N \N I 1 "-I I
r. I ,,
-1 I W ,
"I I I :- ," I ,- 11 N7 *,.,, , , V ,
'-'- : 1 1 .
p ,, -, _- *o W ." V :
", I I ': "- : 11 I'll. I I : ,,- ,.
I 1-1 I 1 ', %. ,
- Ir. I; 1 -.4-'.
.1 I I -- ,4 11 .A N V, ,-Nl \ \N t
I I'. v 10 ,.1 11 N ,% ,i:%, "
) I I j I 1A "I I ,
; I it 'lr, -" ,- "-I' r N ,,7, l
; ,,--, -,f "", , ,',' %.14\S ; IN
-, i I I , g 0, : ,,- I -, ,O X ILI' 1% I 1, ".1" :." ,:'l --, -rN.
:,,, i 1 1 11 % ,\N I -N , l
t, I I m ,- I - -4--- -:Jt',,, I" i
: ;, , ,- ,:, -, , N % z .-. ^li 1, I- N 711,1 1- -1 I .- I ,
,;', ,- ,,- -,, f '1 1 ,- -N ,; "', ,, ,
1 ,,, tl r- '.
,7 l ", ", -, -,-. Ir 1 It t, ,q I, I 101 N N I 11
, I , -- t :11 !L I I- I -"- 0 7z t N,
., ,, ,, I lil I I I -, "- A "' I'I'. --' ,' r ,., '1 6\4 ,
, -- 11 Ii I rf, I -t, N. % ) x ,
- ". ,- k\ .' o -', :7,."
1., , ,, - ,. \ 1 -' -%:'4 1-1 ..
I I :- -- I -Z fl
11 ,- i 7 1 -"17
-.1 I 1. J, -,. ; \ l l _' -$l
, -- ", I N I _,
: 11, 1, '_ -- r. ,ill I ,- ,, , "'! I , I -W ,
, I -, \ ,
, ," :
11 I r : ', : , ,,,, N s v -. I S", I 1
--, , - -- ,S' \
, '. I ,, ',',' r v f 4,
I., , ,% I -1 'I -% -!
1 -. ", I --. ,
, w m ,., --; e- - I l%-'lll % N: 11,
i, .. I I I : , ,I -, ,,, -, - 11, -, r I
, : 1- , ,4 Iii- \ -, I 1
f: l ", ..# 7 .7 MON "I'll ; '
I ; I I _, 1% 1 ," 4;.
-, N .,\%O -" -.'-"t "'&
-' Ir"" -, ,t -,;', I \1 \ ,
- I I 4;, 11,
-7 \ '% 7!\N .% ,- X, -,
, , ", , \ % v,',\:r \, ,,- -k 1 2 1 ,, ,,;., -- ; , I ;
, ., ;, - N -,-,V \
- I \ %-,., 0 ; 16 '111 1 -11, :' '-!
r -, " -, x \N tj" W -,v, -".
11 ,., ". 4 I % -, -'r I ,;."%A ;4 -zlxbal .-I ,7,1 I." I I.- l-"t, lll' ", 4 ,'
, It 'e,
XN 7S 't r. .. O'. f/r, .-.i ,
, "44 4 I I ,..I- t- "4-, ", 1!
", i' v \A -lX% -- ,, 1 -114 V \q' I- I - ,
-11--ll -& -'., ,-, 4W IC'\ I V--\ 7% N : 4 "
T "LO R T ibJj4$br"'. d"
A, 0-"o d' n
ut)JSL n "t 's
RJ qU fa ra
P 771, T 7
'on a n :. ,vr,,.O.Ott,
% j. r
n 9 $:sJ '0 i t
_777 o' x-4
Ff., IT t"I" TV, ei
'' 6 re
d t ::t,
$3 e0") dd 0 d
re ,,".Aa R
.i,,c:- e, ii, d 14 di, e -6
re e % 'Y
-3 2-3, P:
.3 i J
0 YPk YX
A ,ams 4 1 2
f ,, A'r, 1"t ro P
Viii v er )f ,So
.3 % 7 -_7
'S 3 5j6'.,
9 4' L
B 3 _P"141er F
Rd b6 t S b t
h I u Al, It,
U f I p
FL ', 3 4 12 M,
.7 _7 s
VOLUME 35 NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 1982
Editor's Page .. ... ....,. 92
Underwater Sites in South Florida:
A Preliminary Predictive Model
by Stephen J. Gluckman .. .. 93
The Archeology of Indian Key: An Overview
by Henry Baker ........ . . 100
An Interview with Irving Eyster ...... 105
A Stone "Pendant" from Key Largo
by Robert S. Carr................... 115
Archaeological Excavations at the Rolling
Oaks II Site, Broward County
by Wilma B. Williams and
Bert Mowers.................... 118
By the time you read this, all of you have seen and enjoyed the beautiful cover illustration by Hermann Trappman. In my opinion, his work is the best rendering of the Florida Indian and his environment since the work of Le Moyne, and we hope to feature more of Mr. Trappman's work in future issues of The Florida Anthropologist.
This issue focuses on the archeology of southeastern Florida and includes articles that reflect but a small sample of the research that has been recently conducted there. Stephen Gluckman's article constructs a classification system for underwater sites. A history of the archeology of Indian Key is provided by Henry Baker. A fascinating account of Irving Eyster's observations on the archeology of the Florida Keys is included in his interview with The Florida Anthropologist. Robert Carr reports on a unique stone "pendant" from Key Largo, and finally, this issue includes an excavation report on an Everglades black-dirt midden by Wilma Williams and the late Bert Mowers.
During the past twenty years, Bert Mowers was an active student of South Florida prehistory, conducting field work at at least twenty different sites, most of them in Broward County. I first met Bert in 1972, and although he was forty years my senior, one could never think of him as "old". In 1974, when he guided me to the Coral Springs sites, I was literally running to keep up with him as he marched through the woods. His physical energy was only matched by his mental stamina, allowing him to produce an enormous quantity of detailed notes whenever he analyzed artifacts from a site. While there were many who disagreed with his determination to identify every South Florida site with a particular village pottery type, no one doubted his sincerity or his genuine interest in prehistory. He will be missed by his friends and colleagues.
Advertising is now being accepted for The Florida Anthropologist, and any one interested in information on display advertising and rates should contact the editor. The back cover of this issue advertises the services of Alpha Analytic Inc. and Beta Analytic Inc. Their services, which includes the dating of pottery, should be of particular interest to our readers.
UNDERWATER SITES IN SOUTH FLORIDA: A PRELIMINARY PREDICTIVE MODEL
Stephen J. Gluckman
This is a revised version of a paper presented at a conference titled, "Maritime Cultural Heritage of the Florida Keys: How Can it be Preserved for Future Generations." The conference was held February 20-March 2, 1980 at the Newfound Harbor Marine Institute, in Big Pine Key, Florida. Joint sponsorship of the conference was provided by the Institute, the Florida Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Division of Archives, History and Records Management of Florida's Department of State.
Originally, this paper was one of two in a session on the submerged
Indian sites of south Florida. This paper was to discuss types of underwater sites which might occur in south Florida and their potential value or significance. The parts of the paper that cover these topics have been retained and I have changed the focus of this paper from the description of a potential data base to the use of an underwater site classification system as a predictive model. The geographic focus of this paper is south Florida. However, with slight modifications, the data could be applied to any part of the state.
The first section of this paper presents a classification of underwater
sites. The classification is based on the factors of site formation. Because the classification scheme is based on the site formation process, it can be used as a predictive model. A second part of the paper discusses the prediction of underwater site locations. The third part of the paper examines the relationship between site type, location and site values. In short, this paper provides a preliminary model from which any knowledgeable archaeologist can predict the presence, location and condition of underwater sites in a given area.
More underwater archaeological sites are presently known in Florida than in any other part of the country. For this reason, Florida archaeologists have had more exposure to underwater archaeology than the majority of their colleagues. Still, Florida archaeologists, like their colleagues elsewhere, tend to see underwater archaeology as an endeavor of the specialist. Work at underwater sites does require special skills. However, the information contained in underwater sites is part of the archaeological data base and can not be ignored simply because it is underwater. Underwater sites contain data that are not available at land sites. Also, underwater sites reflect aspects of prehistoric subsistence and settlement patterns that must be known and understood if any complete picture of prehistoric lifeways and processes is ever to be obtained.
Information from underwater sites in south Florida is important to an understanding of the prehistoric archaeology of that area and this can be demonstrated by a brief review of the literature. Two of the best known
VOL. 35 NO. 3 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 1982
94 UNDERWATER SITES
underwater sites in south Florida are Warm Mineral Springs (8Sol9) and Little Salt Spring (8So18). The sites are about one mile apart and are located east of Venice, Florida. The two sites have produced exceptional information on the Paleo-Indian and Archaic periods of south Florida. Both sites were dry during their occupation and both contained human skeletal remains (Cockrell and Murphy 1978; Clausen et al.1979; Cockrell 1980).
Another underwater site in the same area is the Venice Beach site (8So26). This is a shell midden which has been partially drowned. The site dates at about 2000 B.P. and contains extensive subsistence and past environmental information (Rupp6 1980).
There are only a few other known underwater sites in south Florida. There is a drowned midden on Marco Island (Cockrell 1980) and a Paleo-Indian period site under one of the Spanish treasure wrecks off the east coast (Cockrell and Murphy 1978). These few examples should suffice to show the value of underwater sites to the study of south Florida's prehistoric archaeology.
Types of Underwater Sites
The literature. on prehistoric underwater archaeological sites is sparse, but there have been a number of articles published that have defined types of underwater sites. In 1960, Dr..John Goggin, of the University of Florida, defined three types of underwater sites other than shipwrecks. In 1967, I added a fourth type of nonshipwreck site, and in 1980, a fifth type was
defined (Gluckman 1980). These five categories, or types, of nonshipwreck underwater archaeological sites are: 1) refuse sites, 2) redepositional sites, 3) drowned sites, 4) ceremonial sites, and 5) sites constructed in water. These site types are discussed below.
Goggin (1960:351) defined the refuse site as an underwater site which resulted from the deliberate deposition of cultural refuse into a body of water or from loss of cultural material at a landing, anchorage or watering place. Goggin recognized three varieties of refuse sites: 1) those formed by throwing material into a body of water in the immediate vicinity of a habitation site, 2) those resulting from losses at a watering place, and 3) those formed by carrying refuse some distance from a habitation site before throwing it into the water. A fourth variety, alluded to by Goggin, but never defined, are those formed in an anchorage or habor area by the
material thrown overboard or lost from ships (Gluckman and Peebles 1974:22).
The term redepositional site was first suggested by Dr. Charles Fairbanks
(personal communication, 1967). He used the term to distinguish between refus sites and those sites which were formed primarily from water-carried and water deposited materials.
The redepositional site is a secondary deposit of archaeological material that results from currents, waves, tides, floods, etc., moving the material
from one place to another. Only small distances need be involved and it would not be uncommon for a refuse site to be extended downstream by redeposition or for a refuse site to become a redepositional site through water movement
Drowned sites, which Goggin (1960:351-352) called "surmerged sites of
former human habitation," are any archaeological sites which have gone underwater due to natural causes, such as sea level fluctuations, or human causes such as the construction of a reservoir. Thus, there are two varieties of drowned sites. These are naturally and artificially drowned sites.
In the broadest terms, sites are naturally drowned from tectonic movement, eustatic change and isostatic recovery. Artificially drowned sites, often referred to as inundated sites (Lenihan et al 1977), result from human actions and activities related to the impoundment of water. The construction of almost any water impoundment area such as dams, reservoirs, lakes or ponds can inundate archaeological sites.
Goggin (1960:352) referred to this kind of site as "shrines or places of
offering and interments." Others (Holmquist and Wheeler 1964:2) haye referred to this kind of site as "a shrine or sacred locality." The term ceremonial site would seem to be as descriptive and inclusive as the above and is less cumbersome to use (Gluckman 1967:43). The term refers to sites formed underwater through an act or series of actions which in the broadest sense can be termed ceremonial or religious.
Sites Constructed in Water
The sites which fall into this category have usually been lumped with
the drowned sites. However, there are the numerous structures that are normally built in the water. These are such things as piers, wharfs, docks, and other harbor installations. Also included would be weirs, fishtraps and perhaps fishponds and turtle crawls.
While portions of sites such as these would have been above water, no
rising of the water level is needed to make them underwater sites. Thus, they are distinct from drowned sites. These sites are constructed partly or entirely underwater and so represent the only type of underwater site deliberately built to function underwater.
In a sense, the five types of sites represent a model of underwater site formation. Because this classification scheme, or model, is based on the factors which govern underwater site formation, it can be used to predict site locations. It is also useful in obtaining a preliminary idea of a site's potential for returning information.
It can be predicted that refuse sites will be found in south Florida in the same number as those land sites that occur near a suitable body of water. Suitable body of water is one that can be used for refuse disposal or one in which lost materials would not normally be recovered. Shallow coastal and tidal areas would be less suitable situations that deeper streams, rivers or lakes. Present-day or historic harbor areas would also be likely locations for refuse sites.
96 UNDERWATER SITES
Given the number of sites and harbor areas in south Florida, it seems
that refuse sites should be found in relatively large numbers. However, because the number of suitable water bodies is restricted, the actual number of
refuse sites is probably below that expected for central and north Florida.
Another factor which must be considered is the "survivability" of these sites
Unless the sites were formed in waters that are not dived and have not been
developed, it is unlikely that they will have survived.
Redepositional sites are only formed where there are already underwater
sites or where land sites are eroding into a body of water. Therefore, we car
assume that such sites may be formed wherever site erosion is taking place.
Consequently, this type of site will occur in numbers directly relative to thE number of eroding land sites, plus those underwater sites that are having thei
materials moved and redeposited by water.
:zy In common with the refuse site, redepositional sites will not survive
unless they form in water that is not dived or developed. But, as redepositional sites are constantly being replenished, occasional collecting should
not lead to their complete destruction.
Most of these sites will have formed due to sea level fluctuations and
coastal subsidence. This means that naturally drowned sites can be expected
wherever water bodies have fluctuated sufficiently in size or depth over a
long enough period of time. In south Florida some drowned sites are known in the near shore areas of both the Gulf and the Atlantic coasts, within inland springs, and could be expected on the Outer Continental Shelf. Artificially
drowned sites, those formed by water impoundments, are not going to be overly
abundant in south Florida as it is not an area conducive to dam or reservoir
So little is known about the religious and ceremonial aspects of prehisto
lifeways in south Florida that prediction of either the presence or location o
ceremonial sites is at best difficult. Because we know so little, it is possible that such sites exist but have not been recognized (editor: see Florida
~~Anthropologist vol. 34 :2) .
: Sites Built in Water
:These kinds of sites should be abundant insotFlrd.Wisadfh
iiiiiil traps must have been extensively used in the area during prehistoric times.
Both the resources and the environment are almost ideal for this kind of subsistence strategy. Alignments of posts in shallow tidal or estaurine waters
! ii! I would be the most common expected form of this kind of site. Stone or coral
iii~ii! alignments are also a possibility but would be rare.
!! Historic period port and harbor installations are another manifestation
K :i of this type of site. Given the marine orientation of the Historic period in
!!i i- south Florida, such sites should occur in large numbers.
Knowing how the various types of underwater sites are formed makes it
possible to predict in general terms their potential for returning important archaeological data. This, in turn, allows statements to be made about their archaeological value.
Refuse sites are almost always associated with a land site. This means
that the material in the water should also be present at the parent land site. Due to the factors of refuse site formation, association and context data may be'present but cannot be assumed underwater. Because of this, more and better archaeological information will usually be returned from the land site.
The value of the refuse site comes when the parent land site has been destroyed and because specimens from underwater sites are often superior in quality and quantity over land sites. Because material thrown into the water does not get broken up as is the case on land, it is common to find more complete and better preserved artifacts underwater. Other classes of data, like pollen
associations, also tend to be preserved in an anaerobic underwater environment.
When a land site has been destroyed, the refuse site may be the only
available evidence for use in site distributional studies. As the refuse site is best worked using controlled surface collecting techniques; it could be worked by nonprofessionals under proper supervision, and thus reduce diver pressure on other types of underwater sites. The refuse site may also be able to produce exceptional artifacts. These can be used for display and interpretation and purposes which might remove the need to collect such specimens from sites with potentially more significant behaviorial data.
The refuse site should not be expected to produce archaeological data
that are not available from land sites. And, land sites should almost always be chosen over the refuse site if excavation is planned. The value of the refuse site to the study of the archaeology of south Florida will increase as land sites continue to be impacted and destroyed.
The archaeological value of the redepositional site is limited. Archaeologically valid associations are not likely to exist due to water transport and sorting. Consequently, the redepositional site could, like the refuse
site, be worked by nonprofessionals. This would reduce damage to other underwater sites and would result in the recovery of specimens for study and display.
Submergence due to human activity is likely to damage sites (Lenihan et al 1977). Thus, the archaeological value of artifically drowned sites will be most dependent on the presence or absence of equivalent surface sites. Given
the choice between the excavation of an artifically drowned site or an equivalent surface site, the latter is the logical choice.
Naturally drowned sites, particularly those which are underwater as the result of sea level fluctuations, should be quite valuable. Such sites may
98 UNDERWATER SITES
represent the earliest habitation of the area and the first examples of maritime adaptation patterns. This means that even badly damaged sites of this type may produce highly significant data. The fact that data from these sites may not exist at land sites is an additional indication of their value.
Ceremonial sites can be expected to contain extremely important and significant data. It is unlikely that this kind of site will exist on land. This could allow for the recovery of data about completely unknown cultural patterns to what is known about a prehistoric group. Consequently, the ceremonial site, though quite rare as a type of underwater site, is among the more valuable underwater sites.
Sites Built in Water
Sites built in water will not be duplicated on land. This makes them very valuable archaeologically. Prehistoric sites of this kind will probably be related to subsistence activities. Those in south Florida will tend to have a maritime orientation and are likely to be the only primary evidence remaining of these activities.
This type of site will be difficult to find, difficult to date and can be expected to return mainly structural data. This means that their primary value will be in providing information about subsistence systems and patterns. Such data are very important to studies of the maritime heritage of south Florida.
Several conclusions can be drawn about the presence and significance of prehistoric underwater sites in south Florida. First, though few underwater prehistoric sites are known, the presence of numerous others can be predicted. These predictions can be made with a reasonable degree of assurance concerning their accuracy. Second, certain types of underwater sites, because they have few or no land equivalents, must be considered as containing important scientific data of value in the study of the prehistory of the area. Third, it must be assumed that damage to, and the destruction of these underwater sites is as great, or greater, than for land sites as waterfront is such an important and valuable commodity in south Florida. Lastly, underwater sites are more difficult to manage than surface sites. They often require special training and equipment to discover and are usually not considered by land archaeologists.
It is hoped that the model presented in this paper will be useful to those doing archaeology in south Florida. At a minimum it should alert these workers to the presence and potential value of underwater sites. The next step is to test the model during land survey and assessment work by defining probable underwater site locations that can be checked by underwater archaeologists.
Cockrell, W. A.
1980 Drowned Sites in North America. In Archaeology Under Water:
An Atlas of the World's Submerged Sites, edited by K. Muckelroy.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cockrell, W. A. and L. Murphy
1978 Pliestocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North
Clausen, C. J., A. D. Cohen, C. Emiliani, J. A. Holman and J. J. Stipp
1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site.
Goggin, John M.
1960 Underwater Archaeology: Its Nature and Limitations. American
Gluckman, Stephen J.
1967 Underwater Archaeology: Theory and Method. Unpublished MA
thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.
1980 Florida's Underwater Archaeological Resources. In Florida
Maritime Heritage, edited by B. Purdy. Florida State Museum,
Gluckman, S. J. and C. S. Peebles
1974 Oven Hill (Ki-15), a Refuse Site in the Suwannee River.
The Florida Anthropologist, 27(1):21-30.
Holmquist, J. D. and A. H. Wheeler (eds.)
1964 Diving Into the Past: Theories, Techniques and Applications
of Underwater Archaeology. The Minnesota Historical Society
and the Council of Underwater Archaeology, St. Paul.
1980 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeast Coastal
Plain During the Late Prehistoric Period. Gainesville:
University Presses of Florida.
Lenihan, D. J., T. Carrell, T. Hopkins, A. W. Prokopetz, S. Rayl, and
1977 The Preliminary Report of the National Reservoir Inundation
Study. National Park Service, Santa Fe.
1980 The Archaeology of Drowned Terrestrial Sites: A Preliminary
Report. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Bulletin
No. 6, 35-45.
Dr. Stephen J. Gluckman Department of Anthropology University of South Florida Tampa, Florida 33620
THE ARCHEOLOGY OF INDIAN KEY: AN OVERVIEW
The history of Indian Key has been recounted elsewhere (e.g. Brookfield and Griswold 1949, Eyster and Brown 1976, Schene 1973) and, although it is tempting to do so, I will avoid relating it here. Suffice it to say, that it is a fascinating story that incorporates all the elements of great drama. This paper will focus on the recent past of Indian Key, its material culture, and some of the factors involved in the management and interpretation of the island as a valuable cultural resource.
Russell Niedhauk, the former caretaker of Lignum Vitae Key, first took me to Indian Key in 1972. I remember quite clearly sweating to keep up with
Russ as he picked away at the undergrowth with his machete leading me from one ruin to the next. When we left I had no clear picture of where I had been or how one ruin related to another. The island somehow seemed larger than its twelve acre size.
A number of changes have occurred on Indian Key since that visit 10 years ago. Now there is a dock, an observation tower, and some semblance of order is beginning to emerge in the trails that cut through the jungle of vegetation.
Over the past several decades the material culture of this island has
been severely altered by hurricanes and human activity. Most of the alteration has been either poorly documented or totally unrecorded.
One story regarding organized "pot hunting" is that some time after the turn of the century, a local Upper Matecumbe entrepreneur rented boats and shovels to visiting treasure hunters and sent them off to dig on Indian Key (Russell Niedhauk, personal communication 1972).
Recent assessments indicate that the archeological resources have been attacked over the years with tools ranging from shovels to dynamite. Hopefully, now that the island is in public ownership, the days of wanton vandalism are over and a meaningful interpretation of this truly unique historic site has begun to evolve.
One of the few successful efforts at salvaging archeological remains
from the site, prior to its acquisition by the State of Florida, is described by Charles Brookfield and Oliver Griswold in They All Called It Tropiual.
In 1952 Brookfield and Griswold removed the badly damaged tombstone of Jacob Housman from Indian Key and placed it in the custody of the Historical Museum
of Southern Florida. Through their efforts, the gravemarker survived and is now on exhibit at Lignum Vitae Key. This action by Brookfield and Griswold is noteworthy because, unlike scores of others, they recognized the significance of the island's material culture and published what they had done.
The first allusion to Indian Key in archeological literature is found in
the classic work, Excavations of ...Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida by John M.
VOL. 35 NO. 3 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 1982
SHELI. KMY UPF
LkSWUMVITAE KEY 100 TMATAMLE I
IMD" KEY LOWER MATeCUMbO KEY A*
MAP OP THE MAT U M 9!Pe POO I OW CPHCW W 4% LOCA PREHIGTORIC ColT.6
6 mm.,&-ow- C*4 -I w Amp eo&*A m .9 10401
102 INDIAN KEY
Goggin and Frank H. Sommer, III (1949). The focus of this work is the prehistoric refuse midden in Upper Matecumbe Key, but in addition to describing the excavations, the authors defined and discussed the Matecumbe Region, established a ceramic typology and chronology, and laid the groundwork for later archeological studies in South Florida. In their report, Goggin and Sommer present a brief history of Indian Key and hypothesize that an aboriginal site may have been located on the island. This hypothesis has since been confirmed (Fig. 1).
In 1960 and 1965, Irving Eyster excavated a cistern on Indian Key and in December of 1970, members of the Miami-West India Archaeological Society dug on the site, but these projects did not result in any published reports.
The first professional systematic archeological excavations on Indian Key were conducted by the Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management in 1972-73, through funds provided by the Florida Bicentennial Commission. This research was directed by the author with Glen Hanson, Brent Smith, and Jerome Nataro acting as field supervisors during various phases of the project. The results of the field work were published .in December of 1973 as Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Miscellaneous Project Report Series Number 7, "Archaeological Investigations at Indian Key, Florida."
This preliminary work resulted in the drawing of an accurate contour map
of the island and the location, mapping and tentative identification of twentytwo archeological/architectural features. These features included the ruins of Jacob Housman's residence and warehouse, the Tropical Hotel, eight cisterns, and several less well defined ruins and artifact concentrations. The artifacts recovered during the course of this project were catalogued and are maintained in the collections of the Division of Archives, History and Records Management.
One of the sites excavated in 1973 was Territorial Senator English's
kitchen. Materials from this have recently been analyzed by Frederick P. Gaske using Stanley South's artifacts classification system in a comparison with artifacts from the Ximenez-Fatio House in St. Augustine. This comparison formed the basis of Mr. Gaske's M.A. thesis from Florida State University. Hopefully, the Indian Key collection will be employed in additional problem oriented research in the near future.
Over the last 10 years the focus of archeological work on Indian Key has been on the interpretation of the 1830s era town site. As a part of this interpretation, the Division of Archives, History and Records Management conducted test excavations in August of 1979 at the site of an observation tower proposed by the Department of Natural Resources.
The primary purpose of this excavation was to determine the impact of
the observation tower on any archaeological remains at the site, Ion addition, an effort was made to determine the location of the tower site relative to the known historic structures on the island. An unpublished summary report
of this work was submitted to the Department of Natural Resources in October 1979. The site which was finally selected for the tower is near the ixnter'section of Fourth and North West Streets (Fig. 2).
The following year, limited test excavations were conducted at the
Sturdy-Smith Cottage site in order to verify the cottage and street locations and to rectify discrepancies noted in the scale of Charles Howe's historic 1840 map. These tests were successful and as a result it became possible to accurately reestablish the historic 1840 street grid.
. ... M d f .. ..
Figure 2. Map of Indian Key, 1840.
1 Howe home 2 Perrine home
4 Housman grave
5 Warehouses I .dian Key
6 Indians landIn a
Figure 3.. A view
of Indian Key in 1982, from
104 INDIAN KEY
In the fall of 1981, selected portions of the 1840 street grid were resurveyed and cleared on the island to form the basis for interpretive trails which will correspond with the historic streets.
As a result of this research over the last two years, two previously unrecorded historic structures have been identified and it is likely that three additional cottage sites will be defined.
An additional aspect of the site which has been largely overlooked in
the past is a prehistoric aboriginal midden found in the northern portion of the island during the 1972-73 archeological project. Testing was very limited in this portion of the island and it is impossible to accurately define the boundaries or to date the site on currently available data. A single sherd of Key Largo Incised pottery suggests that the earliest horizon on Indian Key was coeval with that of Goggin's Upper Matecumbe midden. This is not surprising given the proximity of Indian Key to the other three habitation sites on Teatable, and Upper and Lower Matecumbe.
A few fragments of Spanish Colonial ware suggest an early Spanish presence on the island but thus far there is no documentary or archeological evidence of a sustained Spanish settlement on the island.
It is appropriate that Indian Key can only be reached by boat. The significance of the island as an archeological site rests on its relationship with the sea and with the way humans have viewed the relationship. As a meaningful interpretation of this unique site begins to evolve, visitors to the island can expect to see the material remains of a thousand years of dreams.
Baker, Henry A.
1973 Archaeological Investigations at Indian Key, Florida.
Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management,
Miscellaneous Project Report No. 7, Tallahassee.
Brookfield, Charles M. and Oliver Griswold
1949 They All Called It Tropical: True Tales of the Romantic
Everglades, Cape Sable, and the Florida Keys. Banyan Books,
Eyster, Irving R. and Darlene Brown
1976 Indian KeY. Jeanie's Magic Printing, Loivg Key.
Gaske, Frederick P.
1982 The Archaeology of a Florida Antebellum Period Boarding
House; The Ximenez-Fatio House (SA 34-2)., St. Augustine,
Florida. M.A. Thesis. Florida State University.
Goggin, John M. and Frank H. Sommer III
1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology_ 41. New Haven.
Schene, Michael G.
1973 History of Indian Key. Florida Division of Archives, History
and Records Management, Miscellaneous Project Report No. 8,
Tallahassee. Henry Baker
Florida Division of Archives
History, *aad Records Managemen Tallahassee, Florida
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE FLORIDA KEYS: AN INTERVIEW WITH IRVING EYSTER
The following represents an edited version of several interviews conducted with Irving Eyster in Islamorada, Florida between 1981-1982. The 1981 interview was conducted by Joan Fonte, and the 1982 interview was done by George Luer and David Allerton.
Irving Eyster has been an active member of Florida's archaeological community during the past ten years. He is the recent past president of the Florida Anthropological Society, and currently serves as a member of the Historic Key West Preservation Board.
Figure 1. Irving Eyster, excavations at Mo25.
FA: When did your interest in the archaeology of the Keys begin?
IE: In the late 1940s when I first arrived in the Florida Keys. Actually,
my interest in archaeology goes back to my boyhood in Indiana. When
other kids were playing ball on Saturday, I was doing research on a site. I first moved to Key West in 1948, and I was one of the first people in the Keys to purchase a scuba tank. I explored many wreck
sites long before they were ever devastated by modern-day treasure
FA: Why is an understanding of the archaeology of the Florida Keys important?
IE: I have never been satisfied that the first people in Florida came from
the north as it has always been said. We still have people drifting in to the Keys on the Gulf stream. I think that the Indians may have
come from the South. Little has been written about the archaeology of
the Keys. John Goggin has Written a little about two or three sites.
His work at the Upper Matecumbe site is about the only one that has
FA: What recollections do you have of John Goggin?
VOL. 35 NO. 3 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 1982
IE: I remember him working on a number of sites, particularly the Upper
Matecumbe site. Goggin got credit for a lot more than what he actually
did because he was there first. He didn't even visit a lot of the
sites he recorded. Goggin was a writer. Somebody could bring him a
handful of artifacts and he could write a whole paper on that.
FA: Do you think he used informants?
IE: Yes, he did. For example, I believe it was Sue Fowler that told him
about the site on Upper Matecumbe.
FA: Are you familiar with any other of Goggin's excavation work in the Keys?
IE: He did some test excavations at the Key Largo site (Mo25) in the 1950s.
However, I always doubted how familar he really was with the site because
in 1956, I believe, he said that that site was completely destroyed and
there wasn't anything left of it.
FA: What do you recall about his work at the Upper Matecumbe site?
IE: The way he did his sifting was very interesting. He would have his
crew back in a trailer to the test pit, dig up a level of dirt and take
it to a back room in the Halfway House and screen it.
FA: How did John Goggin describe the Key Largo rock mound?
IE: He said that it was an effigy mound. He told me that he thought it was
a turtle, but I've never agreed with him on that. I think that it was
a crab because the ramps leading up to it would have made perfect arms.
FA: You mean there were two ramps, one on either side?
IE: Yes, one is almost destroyed because people were removing the rocks.
When I first saw that ramp, there was just a little remaining of it,
but the other ramp was almost intact. They both curved and there was
a kind of opening in the main mound that was curved like the mouth of
FA: Are there any other examples of rock mounds in the Keys?
IE: Yes, there were a number of them. There were two on Plantation Key
and Goggin was sure that one of those was an effigy mournd. Also there
was one that was destroyed when the Ocean Reef Club was built on Key Largo, at least one on an offshore island not far from Sugarloaf Key,
and the Big Rock Circle on Boca Chica.
FA: What were the rock mounds on Plantation Key like?
IE: They were not as big as the one on Key Largo. One was more like a
rock ridge than anything else. It was about 5 feet wide and 30 feet
long. It has been destroyed since I saw it in the early 1950s.
FA: Where do you think they got the rocks for these mounds?
IE: They gathered them fromriaround the hammocks. Most of them were the
size of your head or a basketball.
FA: Why is the Key Largo site, Mo25, so important?
IE: I think it was a major site and it is the deepest midden I know of in
the Keys. I excavated a test pit there in the late 1950s or early 1960s.
I was quite surprised to discover that we dug down to a depth of 170 cm.
I observed that the pottery I found there was similar to what Goggin
found at the Upper Matecumbe site.
Subsequent to my first work there, I dug additional pits there in 1975
to 1980 with the Archaeological Society of the Museum of Science, the
Dade County Chapter of the Florida Anthropological Society. Due to continual vandalism to our pits, we only finished two of the original ten
pits we started. Actually, I am indebted to the late Bert Mowers for
the work he did to excavate one of these pits to bedrock before it could
FA: What did your excavations uncover?
IE: Of primary importance was the evidence of a sequence of structures that
had occupied the highest part of the midden.
FA: Any idea what those structures looked like?
IE: Not really, because none of our excavations were extensive enough to
reveal a complete structure.
FA: What type of artifactual material did you recover?
IE: We recovered artifacts of shell and, of course, a large number of
pottery sherds. For example, in the one-by-two meter pit that Mowers
had excavated in 17 arbitrary levels of 10 cm each, we recovered a total of 1265 sherds. Pottery types ranged from Ft. Drum types in
level 16, near the bottom, to a large number of Surfside Incised recovered in the uppermost six levels. We recovered no Glades Tooled rim sherds nor any St. Johns Check Stamped pottery. These are types
often associated with a late prehistoric or historic period of occupation.
FA: What do you think the total period of occupancy is for this site?
IE: I believe the pottery types and corrected radiocarbon dates indicate a
period of habitation of 1600 BC to 1200 AD. The early date came from
fiber-tempered pottery that I recovered from the mangrove muck about
10 meters from the elevated midden.
FA: What is the status of completing a report on this site?
IE: We still have a tremendous amount of analysis to do on previously
excavated artifacts, but nonetheless, I've been working on preparing a final report on the results of our excavations that I hope to have
FA: Are there any sites in Key West that have attracted your attention?
4 P. 0 r 0 or 0 0 -,w OV: 0 0.
Vt' Of 0' V 1, 4. 0, r! t P". r .. 4f'o.
OV, ,P p -1, 41 v 0, 0' r PC vofr f .4
11 40 v -0 -1:7040 0 V Or F p pop, P.
0, lp Of go 0,
e e O " I ol oo ;reoloofe: re I ; Po
:.r.er 0 P, P. 1. 0 Pp 1 '00 00 P
"6"", r 10 0 o", 0, P
OW 40 P'l
off r P, P, of 0, r ever re e r
ep 0 f e 1 0 f fro O'er, r I 1 000, 7, t
of Pel 01 00' eo e r P. P 'o er
opp V 1 .1
1, Of 1 1. PP OP OP 0, 0, 'r.."
fee P Or Per'r rl P 0, 0, f 0 Per, 0.
ol 0, 0 0 p
or r er 0 p. or, rep0.0 PP Or
" 1. V, ;,-', 0 C er,
e- fr P
.0 op r PI, r 'j;r if ol
or f .4 of f Of 00 ol e I IV s ip". I
0, P, I ol
e 'A Of 0, of re r "'o, Of '000"
ol f 0 0 41 Of r 0. P
to Or 0.
of .0 )P.,.p of fo"O",
" e , ,
,I V. e11 ow or 00 0', 'Or e ry If I
f I eo 0. 0r f1p 0' I Ole it I jvpfv C J.",
f e t P I or, 0 % ..p
Per P 1 0' V Pp"
Pr 01 r r;f 0 -. I '.. '.
Of I, of 0: 1 p W" 0 If
r. ('er-eIr -o"Of-0, I I P for p 0, 1 N 0
r",* Or POP 1. 1.0,00 p 0 0,
er or ;00 00. P.* PP :b
PP 0, f or P, f, ol fr 'o 0, 0' 0 o a. 0.
r P, Of I p op P Po. f
0' Of fr 0, r 4' 00, PP 0 1 0. r w- P ;, "',
P r S, re. re
fr 40 p r,
A' OF fct :4 e er-r., I P Pro .0 0 Poo r Or
*Ole rr N 0 1 1, 1 P
0, ;-, 0, PIC e 0, fw -or p P "e A of do' r 0 or 1 0' ere P Of PP
P f. 0' W o r .1 1, -0, V of
0, 0, 'r r re, ol
op-, e r. or 0' Ooee
.0,10 1 r e l or" 0 to 0
e p oo, -4 fr r -1 1 I e, P .
10. el, A P 0. 9. 01 P f, vop 0' p
pr P, 0, 1- 1, 0. po. r
ov- 00 PP of OF .0. 0. P '00'.0 VI 0
#low% ll "P. le 1. V1. X of P, ief Oroo 0 0 0 IF &
.0 f 0' 0 W 0 J, # 0 PP ", f I, r P IF 'o'er.
0. 0.- JV 9
P 0, of of 0- 1 a e op or P r
0 P. Or
p* 1/0 vo fr F;,, P, 1,10
00.1 _pwe opol ol ro Per P
6. of ere 0.40 pe P, P r
riv o;P,, P, r r I o I _0 #.,
ivf 0 1 # P.0
I, or I or, A P, 0
eel le or or I *V .0
, .0 of of A
6. 1.0 "P. ::p o Per
e.." f of I ;.e. of P, e
.1 of ov.
0' 00 Of 0 f
pr f re
of 0 r 04 v V
it P. oll. P r.'P, V, ,,, 0
Fj- e# 4" POO
Jw I of W. for of r .0 # ,
P r low 0
v, Wt r v C If. rro, 0
pC I ",!n r
0 Or p e
C4 F-4 l LQ X 1 41 .4 ol 0,111,
err 0 f P fr ow r 'fe 0 0. r so r Of 0.
e I ere oo l
(D LQ "fe' fr r;r lr*- r r rep I P 111""P" r elf
P 0, r ere
4r Of, f ;p r p 0 1 _r er
r r I of -or Orr I #we I OP .0 1
r r 4F fee 1, P 10 ov I 4p V. er?
::r En 0 o6lorr
ep f- op I e p -1 0 e., e- ,.e
p of k*** fr fr .01.,ep -e
c or o d f p of I
p, or or 0 r _. pie
0 *00e fp re.
ox r 4p If or 0 0 0' ;OON P. .0 0' r
0, Ofr or 4p
0, 1 or p p P P
, , V,
40' fir 16' 1, pop pp
*OF Of Vo
0, 0, ir I r of r
. %$4 11 .0 Of r oet 'Pop of
m m o 0, f op
0- rr'. r r f f Of
CPO' o, P. a'En r fir P 'I" Vr f r"'. t- I
.0 P.orpe or 0-'.v
if P, I f Of 4p
-0, 0' of 11 ell If flF OD
.,.7r 'r If 1,0 pl** 0, Pr, 0.
. r I of I 'o '0"
rr Pp P OP 0. 0 C f,
e I epee fr
fVr, 0 1 Of pp
F-j ef r o r Orr 0- or of OP'f 00 p, 0- 0
fl-0 0- r e If I dp p' 11 1 Or A r -#I r p I
I OP 0' ow , $ Or
(D ol "et, o, f r r or I
P, r pw f I ev c e r 1, op
00 r ,e Or I0 'r 0, epo 0V,.w I d,
ct e ow r- I,
ol .11; 'r Op 00 1 of
;fir I .I eor e, A, "f: 0. -~ 1
%-W En 0 J-h P, OW 0 ror P, I 4, 0. 0. 0' 4p Ip
,p eo r I C 'o
e I o- 'r I. r I f I ol P 0' or
r r l lle or,
0- 1 _,lp Of r e I
ul 0) p 000", or I I f e olf I I Or r Ir.
e I I fe
Or re" 0- 1 P ,- I ee
f. 0, ..r PI r
40 o 'te cro"r P. lo.
(D 10 1 1 1
ft W 0
IE: The one that I can remember best was a shell midden that I first saw
in the late 1940s. It was on Simonton Street where the Florida Keys First State Bank is now located. At that time, Key West was a cigar
town. There were lots of these little shacks where the Cuban cigar
makers lived, and most of them sat on pilings about 2 feet high. Underneath was a shell midden, and once when a fire had destroyed all of
those structures, I rooted around on top of the midden and found celts
and all sorts of things.
FA: Is there anything left of this site?
IE: It's all covered by the bank and with asphalt, although I'm sure underneath there would be plenty of remaining material.
FA: What other prehistoric archaeological sites in the Lower Keys are you
IE: The Mo2 site was on a little island between Key West and Stock Island.
The site was being destroyed by development in 1972, while I was working for Henry Baker on the Indian Key project. We both went to the Mo2 site
to try to conduct salvage excavations there. I worked with volunteers
and tried to assist local amateurs; we finished an excavation or as much
as we could of one. We made the mistake of finding one mutilated worthless Spanish coin and somebody said that we had found a treasure chest and when we came back the next day you could hardly recognize the site.
FA: Describe the site.
IE: It was on a mangrove island and the island's interior was the Indian
site. Our excavations indicated that the site was a black dirt midden
intermixed with shells. However, the outer edge of the site beneath
the waterline seemed to be a solid wall of conch shells.
FA: Do you think that there are any archaeological sites in Key West that
have not been impacted by the extensive development there?
IE: Possibly there are some in the Nav Yard in what is known as the Truman
Annex. It is close to the Little White House and for a while I was
afraid that it was going to be sold for private development. But now,
they say they are going to reactivate the naval base because of the
situation in Cuba and Central America, so the area might be preserved.
I wanted to do an excavation in there because a human burial was exposed
there when some of the Navy buildings were being constructed. It isn't
known whether the burials were aboriginal or historic. I'm sure there are both types in there, actually. When a sewer line was dug about a
year ago, someone brought in some bones to the Historic Key West Preservation Board Meeting. I'm sure that they were from aboriginal burials.
FA: Haven't you done some excavations on Indian Key?
IE: Yes, I worked there in 1960, 1965, and on the State Archives excavations
there in 1972 and 1973.
I was prompted to work there in 1965 because some people landed on the
island at that time with a big gasoline pump and fire hoses. They used
that equipment to wash the soil off the bedrock so they could recover
artifacts. I was scared there wouldn't be anything left so my family and I, and a man named Mike Larkin, dug some pits. Larkin was theso
of the State Comptroller and he had been working on some nearby ship
wrecks. We excavated on the inside of the cistern foundations of onc o
the houses, and the reason we did was because of the way it was being
I wrote a report of that work but I don't know what happened to it.
There were only a few copies made. Archives doesn't have one. I
recently located a man that was over there with us and he said he ha
one of the reports, so I am hoping I can get a copy of it from him.
FA: What is the archaeological significance of Indian Key?
IE: It was a nineteenth century wrecking village. The wreckers salvaged
distressed ships, and in return for the salvaging they would get a
percentage of the cargo or what the ship was worth. Jacob Housman developed Indian Key into South Florida's first resort. He put in streets and homes, and even constructed a hotel with bowling alleys and a dance hall. On August 7, 1840, the town was destroyed by an
The Florida Division of Archives and History conducted extensive exca
vations there in 1972 and uncovered many of the town's buildings. A that time, the State had the idea that maybe those buildings could b
rebuilt like a little Williamsburg.
F-A: Aside from archaeology, haven't you had some other interesting connections with Indian Key?
IE: Yes, I almost bought Indian Key. In the early 1950s, I learned that
the Key was on the market for $28,000. The realtor told me that the
owners would probably take $20,000 for it. I said, "Offer them $25,00 ten thousand in cash and we will work out some terms." The realtorsad
o- ome to my office on Monday morning and we'll get the papers signed.
vvnen I went to his office I knew that there was something wrong. He said, "Would you believe that one of the heirs sold it. I'm not sure whether it was sold before or after you talked to me but there isn't
anything I can do about it." The island was sold two or three times
after that. The State finally acquired it in 1971.
FA: Is there any fresh water in the Keys?
IE: Not today, but historically there was. Bernard Romans in the eighteenth
century gave instruction on how to get water from "Old Matecumbe", and
according to some of the old ship's logs that I have seen, almost everyone stopped at "Old Matecumbe" to get water because that was the best watering hole in the Keys. I first saw these wells just before they
were destroyed, and at that time, they appeared as holes in the ground with little palms around them. It looked like a little oasis you'd see
in the desert some place,
There are a number of other wells on the Keys where water was easily accessible. For example, there was a place in Key Largo where at low
tide the water would spurt out about 3 feet high.
FA: Were there any sites near that Key Largo spring?
IE: I'm sure there's one, but I wish I knew where it was. I've looked for
sites in that area and I was always sure that I was going to stumble onto an Indian mound there because the area had the right look. The
area has rough terrain, and there were two or three times that I slipped
and fell down, and when I got home I had a piece of aboriginal pottery in my pants cuff. I've gone back time and again looking for the place
that I slipped but I've never found it.
FA: How many prehistoric sites do you think there are in the Keys?
IE: There are over 100 to be sure.
FA: How many of those are major sites?
IE: Well, Key Largo had two or three, Plantation had at least that many,
both Upper Matecumbe and Lower Matecumbe have at least one each. Probably there was almost one per large island.
FA: Do you think that the Indians who lived in the Keys were the same people
or related to those living on the mainland?
IE: I think so. In fact, I once wrote a paper about that subject, although
I don't think it was published and I am not sure I have it anymore. I listed all the traits that had to be Tequesta, and then I compared it
to traits on the Lower Keys.
FA: Are you implying that there is a cultural break between the Upper and
Lower Keys ?
IE: I don't believe so, but Goggin made that statement a couple of times.
FA: From your experience would you say then that the Key West sites are
not that much different from the Key Largo sites?
IE: No, I think that they are very much the same.
FA: What are the comparisons and differences between the sites in the Keys
and southeast Florida mainland?
IE: The sites in the Keys are quite similar to the Granada site on the
mouth of the Miami River.
FA: What are the earliest prehistoric settlements in the Keys?
IE: Aside from the fiber-tempered pottery I found in the mangrove muck at
the Key Largo site, Mo25, I've located no other evidence of Archaic or Paleo-Indian sites in the Keys. However, I do believe they exist, but
most certainly they are now underwater at locations that have been
affected by the rising sea level. For example, I remember after Hurricane Donna in 1960 that a lot of the sediment on the bottom of the ocean
had washed away in a location near a reef, and a big pile of shell was
uncovered. Some of the shell looked very much like rough celts and that
sort of thing.
FA: Have any sites been found with Mesoamerican artifacts?
IE: It's not unusual to find them in the Keys, but it has always been in
association with sites that had an historic period occupation.
FA: Do you think that the Indians were salvaging the Mesoamerican material
IE: Yes, although I've always hoped that some day I could find Mesoamerican
artifacts in a site that is definitely prehistoric, and then I could
prove that there is a connection between the two areas.
FA: What is the record of preservation of archaeological sites on privately
owned lands in the Keys?
IE: Many of them have been destroyed. Unfortunately, middens in the Keys
were dug for garden dirt because they contained rich, black dirt that
was used for gardening in pioneer times.
FA: Have any sites been preserved by developers?
IE: They haven't had much tendency to do that. Most developers destroy
them quickly before anybody has a chance to know about it. In the past
several years I have talked to developers and land owners that had
sites on their properties to alert them about the presence of a site.
Sometimes if you show them the site and tell them that it is important,
they will try to preserve it as a green area. For example, John Edwards,
the developer of the Key Largo Sheraton, had me conduct an archaeological survey for him. I had already done a survey there several years
previously and I told him it really wasn't necessary to do it again. He
said that a site might have been missed. When I went there I found spoil
piles that had been made, probably in the 1920s. In the piles I found
a couple of conch shells and a piece of pottery. Now Lord only knows
where this dirt came from but Edwards said, "We have to save this." So
he took out four rooms from his hotel design and made an alcove around
the dirt piles. Now that is going all out, but you don't find many
developers with his attitude.
FA: What sites are preserved in the Keys and accessible to the public?
IE: Indian Key is a State Historic Park, and Watson's Hammock is in the
Big Pine Key National Wildlife Refuge.
Figure 3. Excavations at the Mo25 site in 1976. Irving Eyster in foreground
at left and Bert Mowers inside of test pit. (Photograph courtesy
of C. M. Frederich.)
Suggested Further Reading
Baker, Henry A.
1973 Archaeological Investigations at Indian Key, Florida.
Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management,
Miscellaneous Project Report No. 7, Tallahassee.
Eyster, Irving R. and Darlene Brown
1976 Indian Key. Jeanie's Magic Printing, Long Key.
Goggin, John M.
1944 Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Florida Keys".
Teguesta 4(4) :13-35.
1950 The Indians and History of the Matecumbe Region.
Goggin, John M and Frank H. Sommer, III
1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe -Key, Florida. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology, No. 41, New Haven.
Griffin, John W., Mildred L. Fryman and James J. Miller
1979 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the National Key Deer
Wildlife Refuge. Cultural Resource Management, Inc.,
Schene, Michael G.
1973 History of Indian Key. Florida Division of Archives, History
and Records Management, Miscellaneous Project Report No. 8,
A STONE "PENDANT" FROM KEY LARGO
Robert S. Carr
In 1981, the author discovered the accompanying photograph (Fig. 1) in
the photographic files of the Library of the South Florida Historical Society. The photograph was unlabeled, but because it had been filed in a folder attributed to a local amateur archeologist, Dan D. Laxson, I called him. Laxson said that the photograph was not his, but that he believed it had been shot by Ron Card from a collection made by a local artifact collector and dealer, Dick Kotil. In a phone conversation with the author in August, 1982, Kotil acknowledged that he had found the artifact in the late 1950s or early 1960s at the Key Largo site, Mo26, but in subsequent years had disposed of it through his artifact business to an unknown party. He lamented its loss, saying that it was an artifact that he should have kept.
Kotil described the "pendant" as being composed of a "greenstone" rock.
He had found the artifact on the surface where it had eroded from the slope of the midden adjacent to the mangrove swamp. No dimensions are available for the artifact, but the photographs and comments by Kotil indicate a length of several inches, comparable to other examples found in Florida.
This artifact is similar to others that have been recovered throughout Florida, although most often from Southern Florida. Griffin describes seven of these in his paper (1946:295-301), and in a more recent study, McGoun (1981) inventories a total of twenty-four.
This artifact type is one that has been of considerable interest to
southeastern archeologists. It is probably familiar to most readers because it is part of the logo of The Florida Anthropologist. Debate among archeologists regarding the artifact's function and the significance of its use and design spans the last hundred years and is still ongoing. I will not review their debate in detail, except to outline its major facets. Although I have referred to the artifact as a "pendant", there is no evidence to demonstrate that function except for the object's general appearance. Other archeologists have used terms such as tablets, plaques, or amulets to describe these objects.
Even more indeterminable than the object's function is the significance and correct interpretation of its design. Griffin has identified the des_'gn
motif as that of a spider (1946), and others believe that is represents an Olmec jaguar (Sears 1974), or an alligator or crocodile (Cushing 1896; Goggin 1949). The controversy even includes which half of the artifact represents the top or the bottom. While Griffin sees the object representing a South
Florida expression of the Southern Cult (1946), another student expresses his opinion of its similarity to certain Arawak or Taino artifacts (David Allerton, personal communication, September 1982) .
The artifacts have been manufactured in a variety of materials, including gold, silver, base metals, wood, and stone. The only stone example previously
reported is composed of native limestone and was found at Key Marco (Cushing
VOL. 35 NO. 3 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 1982
1897). Interestingly, this Key Largo specimen bears the closest stylistic resemblance to the Key Marco example (Griffin 1946:Fig. 8).
The specimen reported here is the first to have been found in the Florida Keys, or anywhere in the Southeast Florida vicinity. The Key Largo #2 Site,
Mo26, was first described by Goggin (1944). Ceramic collections from the site indicate a Glades II occupation associated with this black-dirt midden. The site is noteworthy because the only remaining rock platform mound (Mo27) in the Keys is located nearby.
Unfortunately, the location of this Key Largo "pendant" is presently unknown, since Dick Kotil does not remember to whom he sold the artifact. Possibly, some reader will recognize it in a collection, and, eventually, it will find its way to a museum.
Figure 1. Stone "pendant" collected from Mo26. (Courtesy of Historical Museum of Southern Florida,)
Cushing, Frank H.
1897 Exploration of Ancient Key Dwellers' Remains on the Gulf
Coast of Florida. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Goggin, John M.
1944 Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Florida Keys.
Teguesta 4(4) :13-35.
1949 The Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida.
Manuscript on file at Southeastern Archeological Center,
Griffin, John W.
1946 Historical Artifacts and the Buzzard Cult in Florida.
Florida Historical Quarterly 24(4):295-301.
McGoun, William E.
1981 Medals of Conquest in Calusa Florida. Master's Thesis,
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
Sears, William H.
1974 Seaborne Contacts Between Early Cultures in Lower Southeastern United States and Middle Through South America.
Reprinted from the Dumbarton Oaks Conference On the Sea
in the Pre-Columbian World. Washington: Trustees for
Robert S. Carr
Geoarcheology Research Center Department of Geology University of Miami Coral Gables, Florida
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS AT THE
ROLLING OAKS II SITE, BROWARD COUNTY
Wilma B. Williams and Bert Mowers
Small, black dirt middens in the Everglades represent sites that are
part of the annual cycle of a hunting and gathering people. Griffin recognizes that "These areas are the primary sources of information about the aboriginal Indian of Southeast Florida, the ancestors of the Tequestas" (1974).
The Rolling Oaks II site, Bd73, is located in the Rolling Oaks subdivision in Section 6, Township 51 South, Range 40 East, Broward County, Florida. The site consists of ten acres, and the midden is on the eastern edge of the tract. A Florida Power and Light Company access road cuts across the south part of the midden and across part of the burial area. Archaeological excavations were conducted here on weekends from May 23, 1974 to December 23, 1974.
Each hammock in the Everglades has something distinctive that sets it
apart from the others. In the case of Rolling Oaks II, the hammock rises out of a bog-like area to the west, up to high ground on the east. The very ground water that helped create the concretion cap (Mowers 1972) is part of the site.
The midden is approximately 1 meters above the surrounding land. A
subsurface mantel of concretion (Mowers 1972) occupies the site at a depth of about 45-54 cm below the surface. The dimensions of the concretion cap are 43 meters north and south by 39.5 meters east and west. The midden extends
a few meters beyond the concretion at each compass point. A low swampy area is situated on the western boundary of the site.
Two meter-square pits were excavated within a grid pattern that had its datum a the center point between the M and N rows east and west, and the 22 and 23 rows north and south (Fig. 1). Additional random unplotted pits were
excavated on the edges of the midden. These were dug on days when large numbers of students from an anthropology class of the Broward Community College
were present, rather than have them work on the concretion where few artifacts could be found.
The first pit, 0-22, was excavated as a control pit, and from this pit it was determined that there was no visible difference noted in the upper levels of stratigraphic deposit. Level 1 was 9-20 cm, level 2 was 20-40 cm,
level 3 was not taken to the full 60 cm depth because of the concretion that began at a depth of 45-54 cm. The concretion was labeled level 4. A layer
of hard but nonconcreted soil (level 5) was found below the concretion. It was of variable thickness. A coarse sandy deposit characterized level 6, and at between the 50-60 cm level the top of the typical irregular, rounded Miami Oolite bedrock was encountered.
After the concretion was encountered, a probing survey was made using a thin iron rod. These readings helped to delineate the boundaries of the
VOL. 35 NO. 3 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 1982
N j I
K. k k *
* 22 25 1 1
L* 22 25 .
N w 22 23
o hh' L L'NH o2
0-I Q 25
.trj o U '
* ** 0X
0 *4 S
14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 ,22. 23 24 2 5 26 21 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
120 ROLLING OAKS II
The mass of potsherds found in the 34-45 cm of midden above the concretion represents 2,000 years of prehistoric pottery manufacture in southeast Florida. This includes pottery sherds from the Glades I, II, and III periods.
A few of the Glades I period sherds were found in the concretion. Below the concretion a few sand-tempered sherds and two semi-fiber-tempered sherds
(Phelps 1966), that date back to the ceramic Archaic and the Florida Transitional Period (Bullen 1959), were found. The pottery types recovered from this excavation are described below.
This is a sand-tempered ware and is an excellent time marker for the
Glades III period. This was produced only a few centuries before and during
European contact. It is hard fired and well made pottery constructed with an expanded rim. Some of the older sherds are found with the expanded rim showing the tooled effect of a small round stick. The typical Glades Tooled is a hard fired, brownish colored, shallow bowl with rim crimps looking much like the fork crimping on a piecrust. This type is often found in the late period, upper levels in fair quantities (Table I).
St. Johns Check Stamped
This is usually considered to be a temperless ware. It may be an import from the St. Johns river valley in northeast Florida although it is a common component of the Glades III sites in southeast Florida. The paste is a chalky gray with the design stamped on the wet paste with a carved wooden paddle.
Peace Camp Plain
This very fine sand-tempered pottery was named by Ripley Bullen for the Peace Camp site (Mowers and Williams 1972). Its particular characteristic was the very thin, black leathery look of the pottery.
This is another decorated variation of the Glades gritty ware. It has small bosses or nodes in a single row around the pot just below the rim. It was first found in the Markham Park site (Williams and Mowers 1977). Only one sherd of this type was found at the Rolling Oaks II site. Laxson has reported similar sherds (Laxson 1970). If other sherds of this type are found and become better known, a formal definition may be warranted.
Only five rims of this common Glades III type ware were found. This
was among the first group of decorated sherds defined by Goggin (Goggin and Sommer 1949). The pattern consists of one or more incised lines below the pot rim on the outer surface. This is an excellent time marker for the Glades III period.
Of the Glades II time markers, those represented in minimum quantities were Key Largo Incised, Dade Incised, Opa Locka Incised, Miami Incised,
Matecumbe Incised, and Ft. Drum type. Three typical west coast types, Sanibel Incised, Gordon's Pass Incised, and Carrabelle Incised were represented by
one each (Table I) .
WILLIAMS AND MOWERS
is. v, Ij
122 ROLLING OAKS Ii
Belle Glade Plain
This distinctive ware from the northern fringe of the Glades area, was not heavily represented at this site (Table I). It does suggest continuing contact between the Glades area and the Lake Okeechobee area during the Glades II and III periods.
The plain sand-tempered sherds are by far the most abundant type. It includes undecorated rims as well as undecorated body sherds and presumably the body sherds that would have been associated with the decorated types that generally confine their decorations to the rim area.
This unusual Glades variant has a red slip painted on it. A small number were found (Table I).
One sherd was classified as Markham, its bluish color and the paste are similar to that of the sherds found at Markham Park Mound II where the type was named.
St. Johns Plain
This temperless ware with no decoration has a number of variants. It dates from just prior to the Glades periods and continues in use until the time of European contact. It varies from having a small amount of sand to having an overload of sand in the clay. It is found frequently in the Glades sites (Table I). Other kinds of St. Johns ware appeared in small quantities, such as St. Johns Incised and a punctate variety.
Semi-fiber tempered Pottery
Two semi-fiber-tempered sherds were excavated from the 50-60 cm level
in pit M-14. These were of variable red colored paste with dark gray interior, had fiber holes on the surface as well as in the interior, and had fine to medium sized sand tempering. The interior surface of the sherds had been cove.,ed with red slip. This pottery dates from the ceramic Archaic (Phelps 1966) and the Florida Transitional periods (Bullen 1959).
It is well to remember that these southeastern aboriginal Indians utilized bone and shell in the way that other tribes utilized stone. These artifacts are described below and enumerated in Table II.
Both perforated and unperforated are fairly common in the Glades area,
and were probably used for pendants or ear plugs (Table II).
Bone Bi-points and Points
These include finely ground and polished split deer bone points, some
with tapered or beveled butt ends. Others had very little work done on them and may have been used for net making.
Socketed Bone Points
A few of this type were found, the presumption is that the point could be hafted on the end of a shaft.
WILLIAMS AND MOWERS 123
Table I. Pottery Distribution By Levels, All Squares
Pottery Types L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5. Total
Glades Tooled 116 6 0 0 122
St. Johns Check Stamped 61 11l 0 0 72
Peace Camp Plain 32 0 1 0 33
Surfside Incised 4 1 0 0 5
Key Largo Incised 26 3 0 0 29
Dade Incised 5 4 0 0 9
Opa Locka Incised 9 11 0 0 20
Miami Incised 13 8 2 0 23
Matecumbe Incised 3 0 0 0 3
Ft. Drum Ticked Rim 12 0 0 0 12
Ft. Drum Punctate 1 6 0 0 7
Sanibel Incised 1 0 0 0 1
Gordon Pass Incised 1 0 0 0 1
Unclassified Incised 93 23 0 0 116
Unclassified Wares 1307 569 50 6 6 1938
Belle Glade Plain 122 28 0 0 150
Satid-tempered Plain 6792 1746 99 31 7 8675
St. Johns Plain 56 61 10 1 128
Ft. Drum Crimped Rim 1 0 0 0 1
Carabelle Incised 1 0 0 0 1
Unclassified Red 11 0 0 0 11
Glades Noded 1 0 0 0 1
Glades Red 13 2 0 0 15
Unclassified Ceramic Objects 5 0 0 0 5
St. Johns Ware 4 2 1 1 8
20th Century Ceramics 23 1 0 1 25
Totals 8713 2482 163 40 13 11,411
Table II. Non-ceramic Artifacts By Levels, All Squares Artifacts L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 Total
Shark Vertebrae 16 16 1 33
Shark Teeth. 47 41 8 96
Drilled Shark Teeth 4 6 1 11
Bone Bipoints 49 31 4 1 2 87
Bone Socketed Points 3 7 1 11
Bone Gouges 1 0 0 1
Unclassified Worked Bone 14 10 2 1 27
Antler 5 10 1 10 26
Human Teeth 4 14 1 19
Human Bone 7 324 1 332
Crab Claw 2 0 0 2
Strombus Celts 24 49 12 22 8 115
Busycon Tools 60 141 50 46 18 315
Busycon Vessels 0 1 1 1 3
Columella Tools -16 13 5 2 1 37
Colwmella Tips 8 5 4 1 1 19
Worked Shell 0 14 0 4 18
Macrocallista Shells 21 34 10 15 80
Unclassified Shell Tool 0 5 0 5
Olive Bead 0 1 0 1
Seeds 5 8 0
Metal Obj ect 1 0 0
Worked Stone 0 1 01
Totals 296 731 102 103 30 l,
124 ROLLING OAKS II
Miscellaneous Bone Artifacts
These include bone gouges, chisels, knives and a deer ulna dagger. Numerous pieces of worked bone were excavated, some were drilled as beads, others included a flat bone pendant, a hollowed out antler tip, pin shafts, deer pulley bones drilled for pendants and a turtle shell fragment drilled
for suspension (Table II).
These were numerous at this site. Thirteen of the total were drilled
for hafting. The most likely use for these teeth was for cutting bone for pins and points, or for carving (Willey 1949).
Many shell artifacts were found, particularly the Strombus celt and
fragments of celts. Most of these have ground edges and were sharpened for use either as adzes or axes. A few thinner ones could have been used for scrapers (Table II). An analysis was made of these tools following the method used by Laxson (Laxson 1964).
Busycon tools or vessels comprise a large part of the non-ceramic artifacts. The Busycon dipper was made by removing the interior whorls of the
Busycon perversa shell, thus forming a receptacle with a handle (Goggin 1964).
The Busycon was also modified for use as an adze by making a notch in the outer whorl and a pecked hole on the opposite side (Goggin 1952; Reiger 1981). This allowed a handle to rest in the notch and then be inserted through the hole. The handle used was slightly curved where it came close to the body of the shell. There it could be given a quick twist to make it firm. It was then lashed into place, the beak sharpened for a cutting edge.
A wide variety of shell artifacts was recovered. Fasciolaria gigantea
adzes and hammers were found as well as numerous columella tools and broken tips, some with well-worn chisel-like tips. Bits of worked shell, probably crude ornaments, and four needle type tools with evidence of grinding were also found. Macrocallista shells, some modified and some broken, were also
found (these are rarely found on east coast sites). This may indicate travel or trade between Florida Bay or the west coast with the eastern EvergladAs.
An access road built by the Florida Power and Light Co. for the construction of a new power line, crossed the southern part of the midden from east to west. This destroyed a small cemetery at the south end of the midden.
On the south side of the road enough of the burial site remained to test. Two pits were excavated under the rubble and parts of five bundle burials were removed (Fig. 3). The remaining undisturbed portion of the cemetery was
not subjected to any further excavations. Grave goods were not found and, indeed, are not typically found in these Everglades hammock cemeteries.
Summary and Conclusions
Like most of the Everglades hammock sites, this was probably a seasonal home for the prehistoric Indian. The authors believe that during times of high water in the Glades they would move out to the coast. The rest of the
WILLIAMS AND MOWERS 125
year they lived well on the many wild animals that populated the interior. Their diet consisted of deer, turtle, fish and reptiles. Wild fruits and berries also were available. Truly,they had the bounty of the sea and the bounty of the land.
Most of the work done in southeast Florida by John Goggin was on the coastal sites that dotted the Atlantic Ridge. He visited a few of the Glades hammocks reported to him by Poppenhager or other sites that were reported in the early 1900s by M. R. Harrington. However, the primary source of information concerning the prehistoric Indian comes from the small Glades hammock sites like this one.
The authors extend their grateful thanks to the other participants in this dig: Dorothy Mowers, Joan Lynn, Sandra Schaps, Wickie Whalen, Fred Battson, Barbara Gortych and her classes from Broward Community College, Mark Fearer, and Carolyn Hall, who typed this report and prepared the tables.
Figure 3. The excavation of a human burial at Bd73.
126 ROLLING OAKS II
Bullen, Ripley P.
1959 The Transitional Period in Florida. Southeastern Archaeological
Goggin, John M.
1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archaeology
Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 4.
The Yale University Press, New Haven.
1964 Indian and Spanish Selected Writings. University of Miami
Press, Coral Gables, Florida.
Goggin, John M. and Frank H. Sommer
1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology, No. 41. The Yale University
Press, New Haven.
Griffin, John W.
1974 Archaeology and Environment in South Florida. In Environments
of South Florida: Past and Present. Edited by Patrick J.
Gleason, Miami Geological Society, Memoir #2, Miami, pp. 342-346.
Laxson, Dan D.
1957 The Arch Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist 10(3-4) :1-10.
1964 Strombus Lip Shell Tools of the Tequesta Sub-Area. The Florida
1970 Seven Sawgrass Middens in Date and Broward Counties, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 23(4):151-158.
1972 Concretions Associated with Glades Prehistoric Sites. The
Florida Anthropologist 25(3):129.
Mowers, Bert and Wilma B. Williams
1972 The Peace Camp Site. The Florida Anthropologist 25(1):1-20.
Phelps, David S.
1966 Early and Late Components of the Tucker Site. The Florida
Anthropologist 19(1) :11-38.
Reiger, John F.
1981 An Analysis of Four Types of Shell Artifacts from South
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34(1) :.4-20.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University Publications
in Anthropology, No. 42. The Yale University Press, New Haven.
Williams, Wilma B. and Bert Mowers
1977 The Markham Park Mound No. 2, Broward County, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 30(2) :56-78.
Wilma B. Williams
Everglades Archeological Society Hollywood, Florida
,t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. 1 1 I I
1, i I I I I I I I .1 I 'I I- I I I I I : I I .- I 11 1.1
41 I I ,. I I 1, I I I I I ,
11, I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I 1, I I I I I I : ,, I I
.. ., I I '
, ,- I I :, .. l I I I I I I 1 ,: I 1. I I I I I , I -, , .. I , I
- I v I I I I I I I I ,t I I I , 11 ,, I I
1, l", 1 - ; .. 1, I ,:- ', : . I I I I ,:1 I 1. .
.- I i I 't I I 1- 1 I I I
t, I I I I I I I I I I I : I t ,It v I I
, I I I I I 1, I t I I I I I I '. t I I I - '' I
I I I I I I I ;
" 1, ,,,, I 1. .1 : t : I v I I I I I I i I : I ,, I I I ,
- ", ; ,, !- t -, ". I I I t I I.. I I I
11 I I I I I Iz I I I I I I , I I I I , I I : I I t" -- I , I -, - ,
, I I I I I ,- I
-, I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I t i I I I I -, ,, ; 1, I I I ,
1, I I I I", "" I I , I I I I I I I : t ,. ,
I I I- I 1-1 , I 11 I I : I I I I , : I t.- I I
1. I ., L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,
- z I I I a I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,
- I I I I I I I I I
, 1. ,2, 1, I 1, -1 I I I I I 1, I '. I ,; t ,: I :, I
I I I I I I :
, I I I I I I I 1-1, I I I I I- I : I I I I I I I -, I I
I- 11 I I ', c -, I I I I I I I I I I I I : I I I 11 I I I t- , - , I : ., ll 1, '. I 11 I I
- I I I I I I- ,- -_t"- :
,. 1. I I 11 I I I I '. I I I I
. I -, .:, I I I I 11 I I ,, , , 11 .1, ,
I ., I 11 I ,, I :. I I . I I : : , , ";" 11 1 11 I I ,
, ,- t" , I : I I .1 I , , I "I I 1 1, I I- *, 1. ,
-, -, I ,
, --- ; ,N 1, : I I I I '. "I t% I I I ,:, I 11 , ,- I I I , t t ,
- -1 I I I I -, I I ,- ; I I 11 11 I I- 7 1 I rt ,' ,, : q
,, 1: 1, I'll, I I , I I I T I I t ., "', j, I", 1, ", I
, I I I t'l- -1 ,- -V 1 "I : ,- ,-t, t , : -. ,, ,;;,- I -,
1 , I : , ." ,.- ,L -, -" ,;" I t ,., ,:, ," ,. i : - -, ''_,- ,
, : '. I .. , I ,% ", ,
11 ,,: I 1- 7 "
-, m -.: ,' -, , I I -, ,- ", ,- I I I , 'i ----" ""' - l-",- : I ". -1. I "
, 't I I I I t d, - z : -, ; 1
- -, , , ,; 11 I ,t I 1 I , t, I I ,
; '. -- , -,. I ", ; '.
, I , , I -- ,,,,- - ,-.,, ,: - ', I .1-1 I -1 ,
, 1 ". I I -, ,,,t , I , , ; ,,, ,:-, ,
--l t I - , :1 , I 'i I I I t , , .."', I ,". I
lr 17 ,,, I t ,l I 12 I I I I I I
,' t ,- tt, I T , j -,
- I I I '. I t : 1, "I I , I ,-,- I I ,
- t, ; "', mt,, t, ",'
., , -, ', I
.I t -: I m t ', I i
- :;, -1 I I I I tt, i -, ,- I -, I I I- -, , 7 1,
t, - -r, : , J I ,- t -,, I- ,
1, I .'- I I I I ' : -, I I I _. ; --,,,, -, : Tt% ,:- -S.- I -p 1, I t 4 ,
, I I ,
', I I 1 11;I i I -, I" I
t'' t I 11 , : ; "
1 I : ,, 'l I I 7 1 I I .1-1
" I ,
1, -, ; I I I ; ': ,
, I I
,: I I I I :, 1, -t : 4,
,, I I I tt
,- t, I t I ,; --,:
, : r ,, ;
I , I I I 11 0 1 0
, I I ,
I 1:", I I ,. , "
". , '! -- 71 I -2 , , I , ""
,, :: ". "I, -, , I -, I ", - ,., I lt - , ,
,'- ,,- ;- -1 ; -', : - ,
.1 l,", ,' ,, 7 I "'I I .. I % ', , T;,, ", ,, ' I, ttj ,, , "
, "', ', -'t ,
. I I I -, I , -,,- I I "
, 1, 4 T I t, 1 j : f ,
, - , t. ,- ,t Y --' ; .-_ --4 '. , , ?" -,,, _; .-, I 11 -, "' ; """', , ; z, , ." ,
ol ,- , -., , ,- -: ': ", ,t, , '. I", , I t 7, ,
, ,-, .1 jz ,,' ; "'. , I I -. ; -, ;,
11 -, e "" ;' --, "!- ",, -- -, ., zt, ,, ,, 4 I I
--. ,, I , t, ,
"; "; I " j -. :, - , ,,,
- , , --. , - , , , I 1
-. -", ", I ., :, ,, ', " -,' I "
I I I I -1 I. I :- I 11 1. , t - ) I t, ,
'I , - > ,' 3" , i ,- I - I :
- , ,a ,, t, I- -, ;,, , ,,- t, -,'. -l 1, T "'.. , "'It'' Z ,
, I I I t, 'r, ,V, ','-, , 1 ".
I I --, : 1"', '. "; ,_'I. ,,. ,
- 11 I ", ,,7', t, 7 - -, ,;, ,, .. -1, ,
.1 ' I 'I, 'jl ,' 7 ,-',',. ,, ,-, ;',- rt ,I' -, ,, lll" ,'
" "' L', -, ,- -, I ,
, "" 1 1 ; t ; : ,
,.. t" "
, ': I I i ?., ,- ,'4 ", '?: ,' 11 I ,, ,,. , -, I ;" t,,-,,,- ,,,,-, tt ;, ;,-,,, ,, ., ,,-- -",', z ,,
- -, ., -, '.' k,-: -" ,- "', "', -,', ,- 't, I I- I , I
', 1 ,
tt: 't', , I "- ,", .:
, '! 1% ""t"'I ,-, I -:: t :,, ,,t ,,,t' -, 11 -:mo t ,--- , ", .1
. "- i '',- ,- .' -, -",
I ', I I : ', ',-,,',,, ',, .- .
, - ", -- ,, -, ", ,,, --"' ,
, -- 7 -,, ,- -" ; -t- -- ,- -- ., :; I" I -,,, w
, ,,, %, 14- 1- 4 I I
.- , "t ,
, :,.',' k ',., ,) e ,',,,!;-, -, ,,,, !'t ; ,, '
, ; : ,:- ,,, 1, !-- , I I I ,,, ; : ,,' :"-,! I ,, ,
t,' ,- -, I 1-- I -I- -, p I ,-, ,,, I -',.,, I ', I -,',' "- ;' ", I -', I,', ": -" ,
- ,i ,tU -1 I
, ,- 11 I l< ;' 1 , ,; Q ,,' ,,, 21 ,,, "!, I I
:. ,- 11 I , -,, -"- I ,,, -- I X, ,
. I ,,, I ," , -, g .- ,,, :" - ,;': "I, .-t-11 : I ..... . ',,", '
- "' -, f ,4: ; -,- ,,, , ,, ". ,- I : ,- --, ,, e: , , ,71, -, !-- z I t --, ",
I I ,
, .. I I I I- t '- ,, , -, "'.tI: 1. - I I I I
I, I : I lm -- i ,,,,, 1
I I , I , ., ' - ,
- I" I I I I I 11 I r .11 7 I I I ...-.1 t ,, ,, ,,, : 11" 1
- I 1,
, ,-,- r, L 1 I 1,
,, I -- --: 4 : !" tj t r
' I 1. I I,- ,_-,,,, t ,, ',--, I ,,, , ,1, 1, ., 11 I I "I 1. 'i I I
1: 1 I I -- ,-4"-z .'- ',', : I "
, I ., v -,
, ,, -. ", I'll ,- : I I
-, I ,
-- "',-tc , ";:"4, e ,
I ': -,- , w I
k ,' '- I i 11, I I I I ". ',," f t I
11 ,,, I I ,;" ,, I -.-., --m ,- -,, .", ; 11, I
. I , "I i I ,
t, ,,!," -%, _;.- ,,,, -1,
, ; ,-? ,t 2, ll-, I I
- -, .- , ,,-, , , J ,-,'-lt- ,; ".1",- -1 "', "', il
t i ., , ''
," , I I I ,, , I
, 11 I ,-, ta ,, ,rl- .. ,J I -1, 11
"- -' ,,- -, 1-1 .11
i'-; , I ', z t , t" t, L"- ,", ,', ",;-- ,
'. I I ,-, - 4 , ""-. "I 1. I
- ,,, ..,t.' I I ,I ,--
t ,, I I I I
, ; i ,
- ', -, , ', !M i
-.' '.-- ", ," ', ," I .
I I I f 1,
, I I ,11, -"_ , - lt.,,, , ,', .- 4
-I, I I , i -!lj4A1L4
I I It t,_,, -' ,- ,,, : 11
, ,, ', -,-' -1 '., I I '- *; I lfl.
" .'- 't ;f,,: 7,i "
,,,',,- t "--r ., r, 'A ,t ,
, io,, V"
,, - ', -- ,'ol ',, "., -4 -' , --,",,,, "
,, t ." ,- ,, -,; ",a JIt ,., "', ,.',
.'' ,- '.,- ,, ,"i,
, -1 ,,,--,,'- F- ,, -,,, ,-- ,
- I V -, ,Z' I ", ,. 1. -, ) "
, ', .,
ik',, -,,-, a 1, -,.-, -N ,' ",", ,, ,; : -,,, ,,
, 11 1 :' ,. I ,; ". 11 I I ,
- - I % ","- 7t'. 11 r I
.'I - , t,, ,, 11 ------ I t, ;t t ,; ,, ,I", 4 ,
- I I :,,-, ,, ,,1, L, -- ,
t I -- .,-,-.' -,,, -- ', t l, :,, ,, ,: "
'. ", "t", ;, ", -, ,- t,-,, ,, i, ,,, e t: ,; ,
- t- ,- ,,,
: I ,,", --,- 1
,-,, ,- , ,-, , w.", t, I "
- ,-, I , !', ,, -tt 1
j '-%, , 1 1 1
,:, ., , -, 1'1 ,,, : ",.-" .., t, I, ,' -, :,- ,';':' , 't", I
, j V f- -5 .--,
-t I I ",- $ ,- "
V, ., -, ",-, %t- : ,.,. e tt'; ,I,', ,", ;,--, ; I I
-1 tk, Qt. ,,F",- ': :--, t" ",'I "!- ,,- I I- I
- -tt", tn ,,y 14
1,-: ;: t t ,,- '. -,
, ", -1 ,,,,
1, .- I , ,,t', ,',-, ', ,-* -., I
, : ,, , ", t ,- I,- ; 5 "- -- t, ,4, -,-, t ': -,
" -- ",- , ,-- 1, r ,," ,,, :r, I ,-,-' ."'17 I ,,, "., I ., ",- 1 -I '
,:, .,-, I, -I' ".v", -- ,. 11, I ', ', ", 2t, L t;', : ,,- ,, ;, ,*, I -"
, : '12,t, ,,-',., ,, '
,., I I !; ; ,' -, ,', .,. ,"-, - I t- ", I
- I I r, t, ,,, ,',, :, ll
.I 'I" ., ,; "'.1 I , ., --, I I
, :. "',., 4, ,
'i I ', I-"- -, t, ";,",- ":, ., 11 I
V 11 I'll I t', , ,- 4 ,, " I I ,
I I I I .., I I"-,, ".1 ", I ". ,,V 'it, I ""I'll ., 11 t, :.", r ,, 11-1, t
-,'- titt .". ;.,, ,-"" T -'r ., I ., I ,t', I I
, -- '; 1 7 ,,, ,, " -, ', ", 11 ,,
,It, ,- -_, -.- '*,-'- ;, "', -,-,,,-, -1-1 -. ; ', ,
, -,, ,',, ",.''7 ,, ,, ,.- , ., i,' I I-, I 'L ,
1- ; , '' I.: 1,11' ","
I I I" ,, T I . I ..,
I I '. I I., .- ,
, I I 1% li- ". ,-- 1, ; I '' rit
't : ;. ,
,' 1, ," _;_ r I I I 1:
, : .: ', , '. 1, :,,--
It l.i-l- I .1 .- -, "., ", :', .- ". -,-.-, , I ". -t .1 ' I I '' "I., l I ,
, '' I JLL -,, ,,': ,, I, ,: I -1 I I I I ,
-, I .1 I -, ", ,, 1, I I
- I I I I
tt. ", ."
- -ttl .11 ,';, I 11,
I- -, , It I I 1, I I li z I .
', , 4 tZ -11, I ,-I. ,.' , I I .1 -1 ,; 1. 1 7 wt- ,
, ,, ,c, ', I -,, I I ,*I .. I
-, T ,- -,, "'N 11 I 1
, -", 4 I 11 .- -,, ,,, , ,,,-,, '- -1
- ,- "! 't-"", I -:, 11 .. -;; A "", I I . - -, ,a' !- ,.-, '. 4, ,-, ,,- ', li ., ,, u
i ", -; "I, I t ", I
-, 1, , ', ,, ;
.I , t t -': .. ," 1- ", I I I -, I I ; ,,- ,
" 1. t -,.., t , ,,,,, -, -;-,, ", -,, It ", ,; :" I ", ,,
" I I cl ;.";, ", --- 11 ,-,- -,,,-, ,- -2I, e, , I, ,.
1 I " I I
" ,- ,,, 1, C , 1, I I ;
- I I I I 1 "
"It , I I -, I ,, , , ; I- ,---" -,, 'I, ,- -,, ,, I t , ,-'.,, ,, ,
"I., 11 -", ,-.- -, :,", : ',
, 11 -, I - t "' "-,- ,,,,,, : I I ," -7, 1, -, , 11
, ,i I -, I I I I ,., I I '. ,. I -,, ", -, 1,;?- "I I
,,, "; .4 I -. I I 11 I I I .. ,- I .
,,,,, ;, I ," ,,
, -1 I I I-. I ,
,e -11"', ti ---,'. t. ,. ,' ,- ..' 1, w ,,,,
, I ll I
, I ,
,, I I , I i .
7, L :" -, lt t ,-, ,:", ,,,,,, .
,: ,- I :1t,','-,, ., , -- y I t
- I -, , : "I" , , "I ,; 1 -. 1 p '" ,_ -, 1,
't :lt- I -- ; ,,., I 'A".- I I .
I -, ,,, I ,
, -. : I, :, ,; :,; "", '
I I I 11- I 11 7 1 I" ',- '
t .1 ',- -", ,,;,, ,t, "-,;,
,,,, -- s
I '-,- 1, ,,I ,' ..,, """, ,'
- ,,.,' -,-,,- ,,- -'-,, ,- ";-,-;- -, ,', "
t :-" - ,
, -, ",- ,, ,,,,,, ,; "P .'',
- t- :- l , ,,,-,,,, ,
I 11 11 1, .-- 2 t,,! -',
' X, I,- ,," --,
, 11 I 11
tll ;.,: -r ,; -,. ,-,,,
"I -, I I" ,
tl- I , ." , I" ,- v -- I -.. -- 11 I ,- I " I
7 ,,, ll t,
I 1, ..,
': I 1,
: 1, 1, I I .
I : "", :,- ,
I I t- 11 I W.. I- ', I -.' ; .- I
, I ', .
I : ..
,, z : : I ,. ,, 11 I ,4 11
'I 7, , ", -, ,,,,
, I I . m : K ;
; I I -" -': I I" I I I I .
, t, :, ,I d I t I, I I -_:, I ", I 0 .P I I
I, ', ,, 0 11 11
, I , -tll
t, I I , I ,-, i -' ,, -,
1. I I ,, ,,- : ,- I I 11, ,- l I, ; ,, ,,; :i-l I
'. , ", %. Z
, I Tr - ', - '- I
, -3-- ,- -- ,- I I I I .
z I 11 ,
, I -1 ,,,
, '! ," ; "I
t ,, I , ,% :, ? !
1 1 '.
-,, t , t, ",
I T T
; I : !, -l't"', -tl '-.,1- -, ,--,, -1 I ,- tt,,, I I I I" ,
, I I ,
, ,, - ': I I , .; , 1, ,, : I I "I I ". ,
I I I "
. , I
I ., ; ,,'
I "' "' I
, f, " I ,; ;
-t ", "",-,," ,. ,--,: --, ,i"" , I
., , , ,, ,, :: I
t -': q -. ,,,-, - I" ,
. I .
I ',',,- "-, 1, I i .
I ,,- ---,, .
- , "I I I '. ,,, I I I t I I
" I 11 I -, :,,
, , : , , I
-, : ,-, ,, -,; I., "", ,", , I ', t
, -. t "- "' I I I ,: I ;, 't; I
, I , , -",' 1, ,
, : -, ., ', ," ,