<%BANNER%>

Onset of Pottery in the Subsistence Economy of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the St. Johns River Valley


PAGE 1

ONSET OF POTTERY IN THE SUBSIS TENCE ECONOMY OF PREHISTORIC HUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER VALLEY By SEAN P. CONNAUGHTON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Sean P. Connaughton

PAGE 3

For John James Connaughton

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am eternally grateful to Ken Sassaman for the opportunities that he has bestowed upon me since I was a neophyte sophomore at th e University of Florida. Without his insight, comments, encouragement, and the gene rous use of his figures and tables from the 2003 Blue Spring report (see References), this thesis would have never come to fruition. Copious appreciation goes to Michae l Heckenberger for challenging me to ask better questions in the anthropol ogical arena. I tip my ball cap to Irv Quitmyer for his instructiveness and assistance in observing my data set, and for offering the resources and tools to quantify said data at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Many, many thanks go to Meggan Blessing for her major contributio n of vertebrate faunal analysis to this thesis. Thanks must also go to the 2000 and 2001 St. Johns Archaeological Field School, without whose effort in the dirt, none of this analysis would have been possible. I’d like to recognize all my friends in the Labor atory of Southeastern Archaeology at the University of Florida, for their support, discussions, comments, and companionship during my time at UF. A most gracious “tha nk you” is warranted to Vijay Villavan for his sincere help in formatting this thesis. I’d also like to acknowledge my close friends through the years, who have always tended to me when I was down or frustrated, and never stopped supporting me, and always took the time to listen. I thank them all. Finally, I’d like to acknowl edge my loving parents and two younger sisters, who have always encouraged me in my endeavor of becoming an archaeologist.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Early Years...................................................................................................................2 Subsistence...................................................................................................................3 The Site and Environment............................................................................................8 Summary.......................................................................................................................9 2 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................10 Interpretive Sketch of Archaic Prehistory..................................................................10 Early Archaic.......................................................................................................10 Middle Archaic....................................................................................................12 Mt. Taylor Period................................................................................................16 Late Archaic and Orange Period.........................................................................17 Early Pottery...............................................................................................................19 3 BLUE SPRING MIDDEN B (8VO43).......................................................................23 4 METHODS AND MATERIALS...............................................................................37 Vertebrate Fauna.........................................................................................................37 Invertebrate Fauna......................................................................................................40 5 RESULTS...................................................................................................................42 Variation in Fish Size.................................................................................................46 Standard Length..........................................................................................................48

PAGE 6

vi 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................51 Alternative Explanations............................................................................................53 Future Study................................................................................................................56 APPENDIX A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA...........................................................................57 B STANDARD LENGTH DATA.................................................................................66 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................81 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................90

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Volume of Matrix from A ll Four Subsistence Columns..........................................38 5-1 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Vertebrate Fauna by General Taxa and Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43)..........................................................43 5-2 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Fi sh by General Taxa and Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43)........................................................................................45 5-3 Descriptive Statistics of Lateral A tlas Width (mm) of Fishes from Cultural Components, 8VO43................................................................................................47 5-4 Student t -Test Values on Lateral Atlas Widths of Fish fr om Cultural Components, 8VO43......................................................................................................................48 5-5 Descriptive Statistics for Standard Length (mm) of Fishes from Cultural Components..............................................................................................................49 A-1 The List of Taxonomic and Common Names..........................................................57 A-2 MNI Count of Taxon as One Whole Assemblage....................................................59 A-3 MNI and NISP..........................................................................................................61 B-1 Modern Reference Measurements and Weights Taken from FLMNH Comparative Collection.................................................................................................................66 B-2 Atlas Width Measurements a nd Standard Length Calculations...............................68

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Site map, Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43)..............................................................24 3-2 Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of north wall of Test Unit 1, 8VO43..........26 3-3 Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of south wall of Test Unit 2, 8VO43..........29 3-4 Stratigraphic drawing of north wa ll of Test Units 3 and 4, 8VO43.........................32 3-5 Stratigraphic drawings of all walls of Test Unit 5, 8VO43......................................34

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts ONSET OF POTTERY IN THE SUBSIS TENCE ECONOMY OF PREHISTORIC HUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER VALLEY By Sean P. Connaughton May 2004 Chair: Kenneth E. Sassaman Major Department: Anthropology I investigated changes in the subsisten ce economy of hunter-gatherers in Florida accompanying the introduction of pottery. Data on vertebrate fauna from four subsistence columns excavated from Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) in Volusia County, Florida provide an opportunity to examine th e economic consequences of the onset of Orange fiber-tempered pottery. Since Orange fiber-tempered pottery is arguably some of the oldest pottery in North America, dating to at leas t 4000 radiocarbon years before present (rcybp), its presence in the archaeologi cal record allows one to observe if any change is evident in the subsistence record from preceramic cultures to ceramic cultures. Questions to consider with the inception of po ttery are (1) Were any species added to the diet? (2) Were any species dropped from th e diet? (3) Did the pr oportions of species change? (4) Did the size of any species change? Focus is placed on technological change and its implications for economic stress gi ven the growing archaeo logical evidence for

PAGE 10

x increasingly intensive human o ccupation of sites in riverine and coastal zones throughout the Southeastern United Stat es as early as 5500 years ago (Brown 1985; Russo 1996). Permanent settlements of these Middle Ar chaic populations appear to have been predicated on the efficient use of aquatic resources (notably shellfish and fish) with pottery historically being viewed as a subs istence technology that marks the innovation of improved boiling techniques over nonceram ic containers (Sassaman 1993:15). Nevertheless, if no change is evident in the faunal assemblage through time at Blue Spring Midden B, then alternative explanati ons must be proffered for the development and adoption of a ceramic tec hnology. Data presented here show no significant change in the subsistence record with the inception of pottery. Alternative explanations for the adoption of pottery, such as social intensification and ritual, need to be entertained.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In this thesis I evaluate wh at changes in subsistence, if any, attended the onset of pottery making and using in the middle St. Johns River Valley. It is important to discuss the relationship between subsistence and tec hnology in terms of scale and time. Do technological advancements truly affect s ubsistence lifeways? Emphasis is placed on resource selection, the frequency of resour ce use by human populations, and changes in species size (if any) before and after the advent of pottery. Shell middens are found along many of Flor ida’s major river systems and coastal areas. Once thought to have been naturally occurring, shell middens are the subject of ongoing debate regarding their cultural signi ficance. Florida’s prehistoric human occupation dates from about 11,000 years a go. Some 5,500 years ago, certain populations began to establish relatively permanent settl ement along the coast, and on the St. Johns River. Intensive habitation of sites along the river and associated wetlands display histories of repeated occupation on the same sites, leaving behi nd evidence in the archaeological record: discarde d remains of shellfish, fish and other food resources, along with bone, shell and/or stone artifacts. Archai c peoples also began to inter their dead in sites that would later be covered by massive piles of shellfish remains and earth. Monumental in size, perhaps they marked the resting place of the dead and/or functioned in a capacity to facilitate ritual and ceremony. By about 4000 B.P., some river-dwelling groups began to make and use pottery. Huma n populations were also increasing in size around this time, potentially dividing into several distinct ethn ic groups, yet sharing

PAGE 12

2 similar traditions of fishing, shell fish ing, and mound building (Sassaman 2003b:7). The accumulation of refuse and continual land use through time, along with mound construction, was easily visible on the landsca pe at the time of c ontact, and intrigued many early naturalists and anti quarians interested in the deep past of early Florida inhabitants (Trigger 1987). Early Years John Bartram and his son William first ascended the St. Johns River in 1765. John Bartram published an account of the jour ney, and made frequent mention of the shell mounds or bluffs on which they campe d. He wrote of the abundance of pottery scattered around and within these mounds, yet he offered no explanation of their origin (Wyman 1875). Bartram supposed the mounds to be of natural formation, perhaps caused by wind. This view was typical to the profession in which John Bartram practiced, for he was a naturalis t. It was not until 100 years later that an archaeologist from the Peabody Museum noticed the significance of these shell mounds. Jeffries Wyman, having heard about thes e shell mounds, traveled down south and stayed in L.P. Thursby’s home along the Blue Spring River in DeLand, Florida, to investigate the shell midden on which the Thursby house was built. Wyman found the bones of deer, opossum, turtle, and alligator. He also found chisels made of shell, with the beak ground down and a hole in the back; al ong with bifaces and fragments of pottery scattered throughout the mound (Wyman 1875). Wyman conducted limited excavations in the area, and noted the stra tigraphy, along with the vast amo unt of freshwater shellfish. Wyman also described two species of sn ail, which today are known as the Banded Mystery Snail ( Viviparus georgianus) and the Applesnail ( Pomacea paludosa) Jeffries

PAGE 13

3 Wyman believed these mounds were the conseq uence of human consumption; a bold new view, considering that he lived in the age of the Moundbuilder Myth. Wyman’s work was influential to Claren ce B. Moore, who did extensive shell midden studies along the St. Johns River. Moor e was particularly atte ntive to the stratum of these shell middens, but concluded that stra tification in the shell heaps to be a matter of “accident.” Moore states, The Aborigines doubtlessly made use of sp ecies of shellfish for the time being the most abundant, and such layers are of necessity local and not traceable throughout the entire heap. The condition of these sh ells often varies greatly in different portions of the same mound. At tim es, large quantities are found unbroken, without admixture of sand or loam and so l oosely thrown together that they can be literally scooped from the hole. Again other portions of th e mound are met with where fragments of shell and sandy loam ar e found in such close connection that a pickaxe is necessary. It is apparent, therefore that so me parts of the shell heaps grew under the aborigines dwelling upon them, and were beaten down and made solid by the pressure of many feet for long periods of time, during which periods of refuse of organic matter mingled with shells Other parts owe their existence to the dumping of masses of shell by natives not dwelling immediately upon them (Moore 1892:914). Moore’s observation conveys images of s ubsistence practices, and alludes to the possibility that all these middens housed popul ations. The issue of permanent settlement is still an enigma today, for the evidence is not overwhelming (or rather, it is inconspicuous). Nonetheless, Moore attempte d to explain the existe nce of shell middens as trash heaps, where the river inhab itants disposed of their refuse. Subsistence Cumbaa (1976) appears to be the first to quantify shellfish from the Archaic period in the St. Johns River Va lley. Cumbaa discussed shellfis h as an energy base in his report on Kimball Island in Lake County, Florid a. He stated that shellfish collecting would not be conducive to long-term sustainabi lity; and that the prope r caloric intake of snails for one day to feed 13.4 individuals would require the colle ction of nearly 24,000

PAGE 14

4 snails and an expenditure of 10-20 people hours (Cumbaa 1976:53). Comparatively, one 140 lb. white-tail deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) is equitable in calories to 24,000 snails (this estimation was based on a 3,000 calorie di et) (Cumbaa 1976:53). It can be inferred that human populations who harvested snails this intensely would surely have to relocate, for the snail populations could not replenish themselves quickly enough to sustain the human population. Clearly, human populations were not exclusively consuming snails, but rather supplementing snails into their daily diet. Russo et al. (1992:104) at Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601) used allometric calc ulations on shell weight to ascertain meat weight for shellfish; revealing it as a major contributor to the fauna l aspect of the diet, representing 98% of the dietary meat weight with fish making up a small contribution. Wheeler and McGee (1994), conducting furthe r research at 8VO 2601, and using larger samples than Russo et al. (1992), demonstrated that shellfish still dominated, but larger proportions of fish and ot her aquatic vertebrates we re also represented. A recent study at Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) evaluated freshwater snail exploitation, concluding that resource depression potential ly occurred at the site (Connaughton 2001). Resource depression is characterized by human populations experiencing diminishing return s on their selected resources, and must either relocate or intensify further (e.g., expand diet breadth, or improve subsistence technology). Data on shellfish exploitation from Bl ue Spring Midden B displayed a decrease in mean apex length of Viviparus georgianus from preceramic times to ceramic times (Connaughton 2001:18). This decrease in V georgianus at 8VO43 may be a response to human overexploitation, whereby human populations were depleting their resour ces (aquatic snails) before the snails could adequately re plenish their own populations (Connaughton

PAGE 15

5 2001:22). The result was diminished food poten tial for humans. If mobility was limited within the St. Johns River Valley, and human populations we re placing strain on their aquatic resources, then it seems plausible that a new technology would be needed to alleviate such stress. This leads to the possible origins of pottery. A potential hypothesis for the advent of pottery is that it developed out of subsistence stress. Pottery can be used to facilitate resource intensification, which is a process by which the total production per areal unit of land is increased at the expense of overall declines in return rates or foragi ng efficiency (Broughton 1999). This can be viewed as an investment in labor time a nd energy, for the time spent procuring these resources must be regained and exceeded in the consumption of resources. Otherwise, populations will experience dimini shing returns and must relocate or intensify further. Harvest pressure on shellfish populations cause s declines in mean size and age, which can be quantified. Empirical evidence fo r over-exploitation has been documented in many cultural settings (Cumbaa 1976; Broughton 1999). “Since age is also correlated with size among species that continue to grow throughout life, such as fishes and molluscs, increasing harvest rates can be indicated by decreases in mean size” (Broughton 1999:16). Was pottery the technology needed to ex tract more from the existing resource base? It appears that with the onset of po ttery came the decrease in shell size of Viviparus through time. Initially pottery was a new technology for the addition of new resources to the diet breadth. Pottery also appears to serve double duty in that as the snails get smaller, pottery can facilitate res ource intensification fo r the consumption of these smaller snails and still get the nutrients from the snails.

PAGE 16

6 If freshwater snails are getting smalle r through time, will this subsistence trend also be reflected in the vertebra te fauna with the onset of potte ry? It is plausible that at Blue Spring Midden B, no distinguishable ch ange will be evident in the vertebrate subsistence record, suggesting that pottery may not be as efficient (cooking wise) as it is believed to be compared with nonceramic cont ainers. Evidence that marine shells, such as Busycon were used as vessels for direct-h eat cooking may lend insight into the historical trajectory of pottery (Sassaman 2003b) Marine shells may have served as a precursor to pottery whereby human populat ions who did not have access to marine resources developed pottery as a response to the inability to acquire marine shell. Further data are needed into this inquiry. Florida sites with a significant accumulation of midden volume, such as the Old Enterprise (8VO55), Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601), La ke Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53) and Harris Creek at Tick Island (8 VO24), provide the opportunity to evaluate long-term subsistence practice in the St. J ohns River Valley (Quitmyer 2001). However, detailed systematic studies of animal res ource use and frequency in the archaeological record are lacking (Quitmyer 2001:3). Although past research has been skewed in favor of large mammals (e.g., white-tailed deer) a nd shellfish, recent data are conveying the importance of fish as essential to the subs istence economy of fishe r-hunter-gatherers in the St. Johns region (Cumbaa 1976; Russo 1992; Wheeler and McGee 1994). Cultural ecology weighs in heavily on subs istence practice given that cultures and environments are part of th e total web of life (Steward 1955). Resource utilization is purported by Steward to be more strongly rela ted to environmental c onditions rather than other cultural phenomena, so ch aracteristics associat ed with subsistence and economics,

PAGE 17

7 especially technological ones constitute the cu ltural core, that is, resources of specific habitats should be the focus in order to identify subsistence and demographic patterns that influence sociopolitical relationships (Reitz and Wing 1999:14). Steward assumed that significant regularities exist in cultu ral development and ecological adaptation was critical for determining the limits of vari ation in cultural syst ems (Trigger 1989:291). Furthermore, Steward claimed common features of cultures can be explained at similar levels of development rather than as unique, historical trajectories. Steward’s perspective was an explicitly materialistic view of huma n behavior that made aware the role played by ecological factors in shap ing prehistoric societies (T rigger 1989:279). However, historical trajectories do matter when deali ng with human populations, for explanations of why certain groups embody certain social elements and technological achievements when compared to others groups may not be in part to their mental capabilities but could possibly be a social or ideo logical reason, for example, resistance (Sassaman 2001a). In recent decades archaeologists focusing on subsistence, particularly in Florida, are evaluating the idea of monumentality, w ith implications for ritual feasting (Aten 1999; Russo 1994; Russo 1996b). The idea is that food processing and consumption patterns may possibly differ at domestic sites and mound sites and future subsistence data will help resolve such issues. Seasonal use, ecological circumstances, and sociopolitical alliances can potentially be inferred from better understanding how subsistence activities correlate with social action. Even more s o, if subsistence demonstrates no significant change over time in the St. Johns River Valley then more rigorous modes of inquiry must be employed, such as attention to microstr atigraphy and other fine-grained contexts,

PAGE 18

8 along with multiple scales of comparison, to expose this hidden variation (Sassaman 2003b:6). The Site and Environment Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) in Volusi a County, DeLand, Florida is situated between the eastern bank of the St. Johns river and the southern bank of Blue Spring Run just north of the site. A lagoon sits juxtapos ed to the southwest end of the site having developed from the St. Johns river. It is a state park equipped with picnic tables, a playground, restrooms and a boardwalk that runs the length of the run. Archaeological investigations at Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) were conducted by the St. Johns Archaeological Field School of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Florida. Two field seasons were conducted to map, core and perform subsurface testing under the Thursby House to co llect data on the size and extent of the midden itself and any nearby midden deposits. Since the Thursby House was scheduled to have its pier foundations repaired, thus damaging the underlying midden, the first field school in 2000 focused on midden underneath the house. Two 2 x 2-m test units (TU 1 & TU 2) on the south and north side of th e house respectively, rev ealed two distinct stratigraphic sequences only 16-m apart from one another. At the request of State Park officials, another test unit was opened at a site deemed to be the location of a Wastewater Treatment Area (WWTA) and revealed a sh ell midden, largely preceramic in age, beneath one meter of alluvial sand. WWTA, a 1 x 2-m unit, is located southwest of the Thursby House, towards the lagoon. The 2001 field season focused on better understanding the uncertain rela tionship between TU 1 and TU 2 as well as the extent of buried midden discovered in WWTA. Two 1 x 2-m test units (TU 3 & TU 4) were opened on the west side only of TU 2. A nother 1 x 2-m test unit (TU 5) was opened

PAGE 19

9 equidistant from the Thursby House a nd the Wastewater Treatment Area. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) was employed to he lp locate stratigraphic signatures containing data relevant to the above concerns. Exca vation was done with trowel and shovel in 10inch arbitrary levels and pr ocessed through -inch waterscreens. Column samples were removed in 10-cm intervals within defined natu ral stratigraphy from all test units except TU 3 and processed through 1/ 8-inch waterscreens. Bulk samples were taken from column levels and the remaining fill was passed through 1/8-inch waterscreens. Summary The relationship between po ttery and the subsistence economy at Blue Spring Midden B is uncertain; this goes for the greate r St. Johns River Valley as well. Pottery, being a subsistence technology, is expected to have an effect on the subsistence diet, but to what degree is unknown? For this reason, vertebrate fauna are empirically evaluated and quantified to observe if changes are ev ident with the onset of pottery. If no significant changes exist, then alternative explan ations, such as the use of pottery in ritual practice need to be explored.

PAGE 20

10 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND Interpretive Sketch of Archaic Prehistory Archaic prehistory in the Southeastern U. S. can be divided into three subperiods, (Early, Middle and Late) and is highlighted by a shift in mobility and settlement patterns, from foraging hunter-gatherers to semi-sed entary groups with emphasis placed on lithic and ceramic technology as well as cultural el aboration through modes such as shell middens and long-distance trade (Jefferi es 1996; Goggin 1998). Although a fishinghunting-gathering lifestyle was generally follo wed by all Archaic peoples, any changes in lifestyle from earlier Paleo-Indi an peoples to the Archaic pop ulations coincides, on some level, with the environmental shifts a nd developing changes in vegetation and the fluctuation of sea level having an effect on pr esent day shorelines and lake shores as well as the aquifers which control the flow of rivers and streams. Undoubtedly, the environment had an effect on human behavi or yet it was not the only factor that contributed to human cultural si gnatures left on the landscape. Early Archaic Early Archaic (10,000-7000 B.P.) (Sassaman 2003b) people began to be recognized as culturally different from their Paleoi ndian predecessors around 10,000 B.P., coinciding with the onset of generally less arid conditions than the preceding period (Milanich 1994; Watts et al. 1996). It is sp eculated that much of the Ea rly Archaic vegetation in the greater Southeastern U.S. consisted of oak forests and oak-dominated scrub with a low diversity in overall woody species with th e occasional openings dominated by herbs or

PAGE 21

11 prairie (Watts et al. 1996). Watering holes or access to freshwater sources were probably limited to substantially deep lakes since the water table was considerably lower and the rate of precipitation is believed to be less than today, whereby eva poration allowed for a slow recharge of the water ta ble (Watts et al. 1996). T hus, given the lack of surface water, humans would have been inclined to li ve close to cenotes, al ong the shores of what are today deep lakes or river banks, as well as along the major river systems (Watts et al. 1996). Consequently, with the warming and drying period that would soon follow during the Middle Archaic in the lower Southeast, it is quite possible that many of these Early Archaic sites are currently burie d under lake deposits (e.g., Cr escent Lake, FL) as well as shorelines (Sassaman 2003c). Nevertheless, material remains of these Early Archaic people are recovered and display a transiti on from lanceolate technology to stemmed projectile points across the Southeast, with emphasis on side-notching and cornernotching (Milanich 1994). Pottery is not associated with th ese early people, but worked bone, awls, pins and antler projectiles have been found (G oggin 1998). Subsistence is characterized by hunting, fishing and gatheri ng, with all big-game Pleistocene fauna gone by 10,000 B.P. A shift in subsistence practice is evident in the in itial accumulation of shellfish and diversification of species, yet this would not be further developed until more stable, riverine-environmental conditions prev ailed; thus the subs istence pattern is speculated to have undergone in itial changes from a nomadic Paleoindian strategy to the more semi-settled coastal and riverine site s associated regimes of the Middle Archaic (Milanich 1994; Goggin 1998). More data are needed however, for very little information is available concerning the range of plants and animals utilized by Early Archaic peoples (Smith 1986). Early Archaic sites are found with Pa leoindian sites and

PAGE 22

12 the distribution of Early Archai c land sites and artifacts is greater than that of PaleoIndian materials. Early Arch aic populations appear to be moving between the Atlantic Coast and the St. Johns and Central Highland, but the evidence is no t sufficient to support this claim. This is potentially a product of inundation and sampling survey. Therefore, questions concerning mobility a nd settlement patterns are in de sperate need of more data. Sites have been found to contain hearths, mi ddens, burials and proc essing areas but no signs of long-term investment or labor in the form of structures or monuments have been evident (Milanich 1994). Middle Archaic The Middle Archaic (7000-5000 B.P. ) (Sassaman 2003b) period in the Southeastern U.S. is demarcated by the post-glacial reduction in sea level provoking braided streams to become meandering rivers the onset of wetland expansion, pine and swamp vegetation replacing oak and herb vegetation, and a general trend toward warming and drying known as the Altithermal. This change in the environmental setting took about 3000 years to be fully complete d in the greater Southeast (Brown 1985; Schuldenrein 1996; Watts et al. 1996). Middl e Archaic sites are f ound in a variety of locations including riverine and lagoonal sites. Moreover, lithic technology associated with these new sites suggest changes in proj ectile point style and signal new traditions across space and time (Milanich 1994) Caves and rockshelters, in Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky for example, were being occupi ed more intensely than the previous period as habitation sites and adde d to the diversity of special -use sites and central-base settlements relative to seasona lity and human territoriality (Brown 1983; Milanich 1994). Within the Southeast, interior riverine and upland sites become more densely occupied as fluvial systems became more stable and produc tive for aquatic resources, particularly the

PAGE 23

13 intense exploitation of fres hwater shellfish and the in tentional mounding of shell (Cumbaa 1976; Claassen 1991; Claassen 1996; Russo 1996b; Sassaman 2003b). Shell middens marked the inception of the Shell Mound Archaic (SMA). The SMA is a cultural manifestation of mounded shell, some containing burials some not, prevalent across the Southeast along major rivers (e.g., Tennessee, Green, Savannah & St. Johns) and wetlands and lasting for about 6000 years (Claassen 1996). The copious amounts of shell middens located along the St. Johns River clearly attest to the use of shellfish by Middle Archaic hunter-gatherers (Sassaman 2003b:11). This intensification of shellfishing and potential ceremonialism breeds contentious debate among scholars as whether “mounding” was intentional or rather the simple discarding of shell onto a cumulative refuse garbage-mound (Russo 1994) Evidently, environmental conditions were primed for Middle Archaic populations to opportunistically exploit abundant shellfish adding to the diet breadth and broa dening their predation pa ttern in the face of shrinking human territories (Claassen 1996). With populations increasing and expanding, cultural boundaries were being cr eated and distinct ethnic gr oups appear to be leaving their mark on landscape (Cl aassen 1996; Jefferies 1996; Marquardt 1985; Russo 1994; Russo 1996b; Sassaman 1996). Shellfish proved to be a bountiful and reliable resource that it is considered to have been a st aple product providing a foundation base for sedentism and the development of social co mplexity (Russo 1994). Curiously, some of the most productive shell beds in the Southeas tern United States were not as intensively exploited as other sources, leading archaeologists to infer other conclusions about why shellfish was exploited and then mounded (Claassen 1991; Claassen 1996). Shell midden sites do display repeated occupation through tim e and some scholars infer that they could

PAGE 24

14 possibly be sedentary villages; however, it is more likely they were inhabited seasonally as part of a residential m obility strategy (Russo 1994; Claassen 1996). But why would shell middens be continually reoccupied? Is it purely s ubsistence economics? Or does social/cultural ideol ogy play a role? Human populations and the cult ure in which they exist are filled with substance. The essence of who they are is revealed in how they behave —in what they make, teach, cherish, build and use. These representations are perpetuated thr ough time and “can be objectively “regulated” and “regular”…coll ectively orchestrated without being the product of the orchestrating action of a conduc tor” (Bourdieu 1977:72). This is not to imply a lack of social sophi stication among Archaic people, but rather their beliefs are structured and practiced through what Bourdieu would call the “ habitus ”—ideas, thoughts and beliefs learned and reiterated ge neration to generation via human action. Social action may potentially be inculcated onto the landscape in differing modes of practice but with a common id eological template, that is mundane daily subsistence practice may differ from ritualize practice in form and function of technology and land use. Archaeological sites may hold the potenti al to distinguish such modes of action by observing domestic sites with utilitarian materi al objects from ritual or ceremonial sites with highly decorated material objects. Ther efore, shell midden sites of the Archaic may quite possibly be the result of ancient human populations’ acting out their ideological belief system, imbuing symbolic meaning onto the landscape via shell mounds. Hofman (1985:2) suggested that groups’ rituals and aggregations may have been important elements in the formation of shell midden sites in the Southeast and may account, in part, for their recurrent occupation. Hofman beli eved that aggregation can not only serve

PAGE 25

15 economic needs but also social and ideologica l functions. At the Ervin shell midden in Tennessee, Hofman uncovered burials, particular ly, cremated bodies w ith no evidence of in situ burning. Among the burials were “dia gnostic artifacts and overlapping interments attributable to a single cultural tradition i ndicating the cemetery or a single lineage or descent group may be represented” (Hofma n 1985:9). Over periods of time these populations would make seasonal trips to bur y cremated bodies, thus reiterating their ideologies as well as enculturating their you th into cultural practices and potentially reaffirming social ties to neighboring groups who take part in the ceremonies. Although evidence for intentional mounding in the Archaic is mounting, there is opposition which firmly believes that Archaic pe oples had neither the social organization nor power to carry out such elaborate constructions (Ham ilton 1999). Frankly, the fact people are mounding shell instead of earth creates tension for it is considered more labor intensive to mound earth th an shell (food byproduct)—requiring organization (Russo 1994; Hamilton 1999). Evolutionary concepts have been used to explain the inception of midden building. Hamilton (1999:344) asserted that the construction of mound building “will occur in temporally variable environments” whereby human populations will divert energy into activities that do not contribute directly to th e biological reproduction of offspring in order to maintain stable populat ions and increase surviv al rates during lean times of environmental and resource instab ility. Although the Middl e Archaic period did undergo environmental change, its trajecto ry was toward present-day conditions (Schuldenrein 1996). The implication that Middle Archaic populations engaged in mound building as “wasteful behavior” to pr eclude them from c opulating and placing pressure on the group size to alleviate ecol ogical stress seems unlikely given what we

PAGE 26

16 know about hunter-gatherer complexity (Hayden 1994; Lourandos 1995). Hamilton (1999) insinuates an inability for Archaic pe oples to organize themselves, lacking the social power to control or motivate people, wh ile ignoring historical processes at play. Evidently, large-scale public works can be built under the direction of related and socially allied groups, not just high levels of social complexity (Russo 1994). Sedentism is not necessary for monumental construction, a lthough archaeological observation conveys a trend towards sedentism during the Middle Archaic, it is nevertheless plausible that mobile human populations would use adaptive strategies for resource locations, thus, investing effort into freque nted locales, along with increa ses in length of occupation seasonally, facilitating that tras h be cleaned and possibly orga nized in the construction of symbolic/cultural markers across the landscape via shell mounds (Brown and Vierra 1983:188). Mt. Taylor Period The Mt. Taylor period is comprised of the late Middle and preceramic Late Archaic period defined as an ar chaeological construct derived from the Mt. Taylor site of Volusia County signaling the beginnings of shellfishing and mortuary mounding (Goggin 1952; Milanich 1994; Wheeler et al. 2000). The date for th e beginning of Mt. Taylor culture is uncertain but evidence for adequate resources suggests that the St. Johns River could have supported local populations by 6000 years ago and maybe longer (Milanich 1994; Wheeler et al. 2000:154). Mt. Taylor pe oples focused heavily on aquatic resources and sites are concentrated along the upper re aches of the St. Johns River and on the Atlantic Coast. Although se ttlement pattern information is lacking, most Mt. Taylor period sites are characterized by ovoid or e lliptical midden-mound and/ or ridges of shell midden (Wheeler et al. 2000). Multicomponent sites, such as The Old Enterprise Site

PAGE 27

17 (8VO55) and Harris Creek at Tick Island (8VO24) display large shell mounds with adjacent shell ridges and shell fields (Wh eeler et al. 2000:143). Material culture associated with these sites demonstrates the practice of long-di stance exchange as a mechanism for redistribution of raw mate rials, particularly marine shell (e.g. Strombus gigas and Busycon spp.) found in Mt. Taylor assemblage s. Marine shell tools were used for a variety of functions such as implements for wood working, in the form of shell celts and cutting-edge tools, as well as shell recept acles (i.e., bowls, cups, etc.) (Wheeler et al. 2000:148). It is interesting to point out that with the onset of pottery at Blue Spring Midden B, marine shell tools drop out of the archaeological record. Worked and decorated bone is also recovered from Mt. Taylor sites along with groundstone artifacts, shark tooth implements and baked clay objects. Mt. Taylor burials reveal the interment of the dead in prepared sand platforms on shell mounds (Aten 1999). Some burials have been located in shallow ponds dating to th e Early Archaic period, and seem to be a precursor to Mt. Taylor times. Overall, the artifact assemblage recovered from these sites of Mt. Taylor culture appear very similar between coastal sites and riverine sites, suggesting that populations of Mt Taylor culture could have potentially originated on the Atlantic coast and traveled seasonally to the St. J ohns Basin (Wheeler et al. 2000:155). Late Archaic and Orange Period The Late Archaic period (5000-2500 B. P.) (Sassaman 2003b) is the cultural manifestation of social repr oduction and continuity stemming from the preceding Middle Archaic period. Intentional shell mounding continued as did a fishing, hunting and gathering lifestyle. A new technology emer ged in the form of Orange fiber-tempered pottery (4200 B.P.) which is believed to ha ve increased cooking efficiency as well as serving needs, promoting variations in styl e that reflected growing cultural diversity

PAGE 28

18 (Bullen 1972) However, little change is evident in the lifeways of Late Archaic peoples with the onset of pottery (M ilanich 1994:86). Orange fibe r-tempered pottery is found throughout northeast Florida and is easily identified by its temp er of plant fiber, usually palmetto fiber or Spanish moss (Milanic h 1994:86). Bullen (1972) divided Orange pottery into five distinct subperiods based on form, paste and decoration. Orange 1 is characterized by hand modeled, flat-bottomed a nd rectangular shaped vessels with plain surface treatment. Orange 2 is similar in form to Orange 1 but with the appearance of incised designs akin to vessels found at Tick Island. Orange 3 is demarcated by rounded vessels with flat bottoms and rims that are thick and flanged. Incised designs are still common. Coiling is evident in Orange 4 as we ll as the appearance of sand-temper in the paste, incised motifs persist. Orange 5 di splays sandy and chalky pastes with bowl forms predominating. Although Bullen’s unilineal sequ ence has in the past been very useful, new AMS dates on Orange Incised demonstrate that plain vessels and decorated vessels in the Orange 1-3 sequences are virtually coeval (Sassaman 2003a). More data are needed to sufficiently explai n what is taking place but knowing that these sites and ceramic vessels are contemporaneous opens th e door for future inquiry on functional or ethnic difference. During the Late Archaic period, groundwater levels continued to increase and so too did wetland expansion, reaching present da y conditions. Interior riverine valleys increased in occupancy as did coastal sites, whereby shellfish e xploitation intensively continued, yet permanent habitation is still lacking. Site types were essentially the same in the Late Archaic period as they were in the Middle Archaic peri od except that they were probably occupied for longer periods of time in the Late Archaic. Artifact

PAGE 29

19 assemblages, with the exception of pottery, are very much the same as that of the previous period. However, one pattern is obser ved in the archaeologica l record of the St. Johns region with the inception of pottery. As pottery increases in frequency, marine shell decreases in frequency; interesting since marine shell tools were common to Mt. Taylor assemblages found through out the middle St. Johns (Wheeler et al. 2000). What is important to note is that the preceramic levels contain these marine shell tools and that marine shell does not show up in the Orange component. Why is this so? It a ppears that transhumance travel between the coast and river valley ceased with the onset of pottery and that popul ations could possibly have had no need to travel to the coasts for food or other resources. Semi-permanent settlement patterns potentially could have co mmenced during Mt. Taylor times with more emphasis being placed on interriverine mobility and decreases in the frequency of travel between the coast and middle St. Johns w ith the onset of the Orange period. Future research on settlement patterns are needed and will greatly aid in facilitating our understanding of this issue. Neverthe less, the Late Archaic, comprised of millenniums of cultural traditions and trajectories, is marked by larger populations, semisedentary villages and the development of re gionalization that con tinued through time. With the aid of more study and research being concentrated in the Late Archaic Southeast, it is feasible that levels of soci al complexity and divers ity will be ascertained, allowing for better questions to be asked of such a little known era of human history. Early Pottery The earliest ceramic technol ogy in the Southeastern Un ited Sates appeared during the Late Archaic (5000-2500 B.P.) and was initia lly situated in thr ee locales: the South Atlantic Slope, peninsular Florida (parti cularly the St. Johns River) and the Midsouth

PAGE 30

20 (Sassaman 1993). The invention of pottery is thought to have derived from variants of a preexisting container form or the transfer of clay linings to stand-alone form in the Midwest between 4500 and 2500 B.P. (Brown 1989:203). These early vessels were typically fiber-tempered although some were sand-tempered along the eastern seaboard. The earliest pottery trad ition in the Southeast is Stalli ngs, which dates from 4500 B.P. in the Savannah River. The early form of Sta llings pottery is “shallow, open bowls with slightly rounded or flattened bottoms” and st raight or incurvate rims (Sassaman 1993:19). Manufacturing techniques included pinchi ng, slab modeling and coiling; surface treatments are distinguishe d by punctated, incised, stamped and plain. Stone-boiling is associated with early Stallings wares and it was once thought soapstone vessels were the technological precursors of potte ry in the Savannah River Valle y. It is now evident that pottery did indeed precede soapstone vesse l technology and that soapstone vessel use may be a form of social resistance to fiber-tempered pottery (Sassaman 1993). In Florida, Orange fiber-tempered pottery appears in the archaeological record by 4000 B.P. and continues through until 3000 B.P. when it was replaced by sand and fibertempered, limestone-tempered and most not ably St. Johns sand-tempered (Milanich 1994; Goggin 1998; Sassaman 2003b). Orange potte ry is characterized by shallow, flatbased and straight sided circular bowls and re ctangular trays with thin walls. Although Bullen (1954) provided a cultural-historical sequence for Orange pottery from initial plain wares to highly decorated motif wares c overing a time span of 1000 years, new data is challenging this notion which would place the variation of pottery to be coeval manifestations rather than unilineal changes over time (Sassaman 2003a).

PAGE 31

21 Early pottery appears to have functioned as an alternative container to indirect heat cooking given the common element of flat-based bottoms suited ideally for stone boiling or roasting perhaps. Interesti ngly, the emergence of pottery in the Southeastern U.S. as a technological innovation added to the hunt er-gatherer economy conveys no evident change in subsistence organization (Sassaman 1995:223). That is, no apparent change in the subsistence diet of hunter-gatherers is no ted with the onset of pottery. Pottery in peninsular Florida has been associated with massive shellfish expl oitation (Wyman 1875; Moore 1892; Milanich 1994; Goggin 1998). This is true for most sites in the Southeast located near riverine environments; however in some areas shellfishing predates pottery (Sassaman 1995). Nevertheless, techno-functi onal variation among pottery form in the St. Johns Basin must be addressed to ascerta in functions relative to cooking, storing and/or serving but also the so cial relationship that pottery had with domestic sites and ritual/ceremonial sites (i.e., plain vessels versus decorated vessels). Evidence for feasting becomes apparent when emphasis is placed on the designs and shapes of serving vessels as well as where these types of vessels are situated archaeologically. If orifice diameters and or namentations are more prevalent regionally on large shell middens with burials as opposed to household floors, this could potentially indicate a different use and symbolic meaning of these vessels. Blitz (1993) observed that when comparing mound material elemen ts with village elements, the mound was a more focused site of specialized activities centered on rituals, feasts and storage. Moreover, the “generation of food surpluses ne ed not be a demographic or environmental imperative but rather a social strategy to extend alliances, reinforce obligations and promote prestige” (Blitz 1993:80). Although this is a Mississippian example, it can be

PAGE 32

22 agreed, on some level, that the cultural con tinuity and social reproduction observed in the Mississippian period is potent ially the product of earlier pottery tradit ions in the Southeast. Ultimately then, pottery devel opment and use may potentially be centered on serving practices and rituals as an al ternative to technof unctional efficiency.

PAGE 33

23 CHAPTER 3 BLUE SPRING MIDDEN B (8VO43) Blue Spring Midden B, or 8VO43, is a shel l midden site located at Blue Spring State Park in Volusia County, Flor ida. It is considered a shel l midden site due to the vast amount of inedible shellfish remains that have accumulated over time as the result of dumping episodes by human populations. A part of the site is situated beneath the 19thcentury Thursby House. Proposed repair s to the foundation of the Thursby House required State Park officials to assess potential impacts to the underlying shell deposits. This thesis is based on data derived from excavations of the 2000 and 2001 University of Florida St. Johns Field School This chap ter focuses on the stratigraphic sequences of the column samples observed in four of th e six test units excav ated at Blue Spring Midden B. Before the 2000 field excavation no info rmation on the depth of this site was recorded, nor was the site ever mapped. From the existing literature it was thought that 8VO43 was no more than 100 x 100m and cente red on the Thursby House. Figure 3-1 shows how extensive the site actually is due to subsurface testing with a 4-inch bucket auger. Shell-bearing deposits from the surface to depths as great as 1.5-m were recorded in all cores near the Thur sby House and along the wester n slope (Sassaman 2003:23). Orange period shell midden is prevalent undern eath and adjacent to the Thursby House. At the request of State Park officials, some site deemed to be the location of a new Wastewater Treatment Facility was test ed and revealed a shell midden, largely

PAGE 34

24 Figure 3-1. Site map, Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) (dashed line demarcates site boundary). Map courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman. preceramic in age, beneath one meter of alluvial sands (Sassaman 2003b). This discovery enhanced our knowledge of the range size of the site as 300-m long and 140-m wide, encompassing most of the landform between the southern lagoon and the Blue Spring run to the north. Six test units we re excavated from 8VO43, two 2 x 2-m units (TU 1 & TU 2) and four 1 x 2-m units (TU 3, TU 4, TU 5 & WWTA). To reiterate again, all ex cavation was done with trow el and shovel in 10-inch arbitrary levels and processed through inch waterscreens. A 50 x 50-cm column

PAGE 35

25 sample was removed in 10-cm intervals within defined natural stratig raphy from all test units except TU 3 and proce ssed through 1/8-inch waterscr eens. Bulk samples were taken from column levels and the remaining fill was passed through 1/8-inch waterscreens. Test Unit 1 (TU 1), situated along the sout h elevation of the Thursby House, was a 2 x 2-m unit. In the northwest corner of the test unit a 50 x 50-cm column was left standing until sterile sands were observed a nd then the column sample was removed. Overall, TU 1 displays a relatively uncomp licated profile of shell midden about 120 cm deep overlying sterile sands (F igure 3-2). Five major stra tigraphic units were observed, representative of at least three ethnostratigraphic units, including the historic era (Sassaman 2003b:26). Strata I and II of TU 1 in the north pr ofile are distinguished by discontinuous lenses of silty sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod and bivalve shells. Plain fiber-tempered pottery is in termixed with historic-era artifacts (Sassaman 2003b). However, no historic-era artifacts were observed below 40 cm below surface. Stratum III is comprised a 40-cm thick homogeneous midden of silty sand with moderate density of Viviparus shell and plain fiber-tempered pottery re presenting an intact ethnostratum of Orange cultural affiliation (Sassaman 2003b: 26). Stratum IV reflects a 45-cm thick preceramic component of the site marked by homogenous midden of fine sand with an increase in apple snail and charcoal compared to Stratum III with marine shell tools, bone pin fragments and traces of chert. A singl e plain fiber-tempered sherd was recovered

PAGE 36

26 Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic draw ing and photograph of north wa ll of Test Unit 1, 8VO43. Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.

PAGE 37

27 Table 3-1 Stratigraphic Units of Nort h Profile of Test Unit 1, 8VO43. Max. Depth Munsell Stratum (cm BS) Color Description I 25 10YR2/2-4/1 surface stratum of s ilty sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod and lenses of bivalve shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts II 40 10YR4/1 silty sand with lenses of charcoal and 10YR5/4 silty sand; plain fiber-tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts; delineated clearly on north profile only III 80 10YR4/3-5/2 homogeneous midden of silty sand with moderate density of gastropod shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery IV 125 10YR3/2-4/2 homogeneous midden of fine sand with increased apple snail and charcoal over Stratum III; includes marine shell tools, bone pin fragments, and traces of chert, but no pottery; C14 assay of 4360 120 rcybp V 165 10YR6/4-7/3 sterile fine sand with flecks of charcoal in upper 10-15 cm; terminated at 165 cm BS Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman. from Level J (90-100 cmbs) but that represen ted the only pottery recovered from Stratum IV. Charcoal from the base of Stratum IV was carbon-dated and re turned an assay of 4360 120 rcybp approaching the beginning of the Orange period as currently dated (Sassaman 2003b:30). Stratum V is marked by yellow-brown to pale-brown fine sterile sand with charcoal flecking in the upper 10-15 cm but otherwise represents the basal sand on which the midden accumulated. Excavation ceased at 165 cm below surface. Test Unit 2 (TU 2), situated along the north elevation of the Thursby House, was a 2 x 2-m unit. A 50 x 50-cm column samples wa s cut into the south wall profile since the initial column sample, which was left st anding in the southeast corner, collapsed. Stratigraphy in TU 2 is far more complex wh en compared to TU 1 and displays thirteen discrete stratigraphic units as well as three ethnostratigraphic units, including the historic era (Figure 3-3) (Sassaman 2003b). Plai n fiber-tempered pottery was recovered

PAGE 38

28 throughout TU 2, and although it was not abundant it was distributed much more deeply than TU 1 (Sassaman 2003b). Stratum I consists of fine sand midde n with whole and crushed gastropod and minor bivalve shell with plain fiber-tempered intermixed with historic-era artifacts. Historic-era artifacts are in terspersed throughout the 40-cm thick stratum with some penetrating to 65-cm below surface however, at 40-cm below the midden is relatively undisturbed and highly differen tiated (Sassaman 2003b:35). St ratum II reveals charcoalrich fine sand with whole gastropod. Stratum III too has whole gastropod shells in a fine sandy matrix with minor lenses of crushed shell, including Pomacea (Apple Snail). Stratum IV is fine sandy matrix with a lowe r frequency in whole gastropods. Stratum V is a discontinuous lens of charcoal-rich fi ne sand. A carbon-14 assay of 3510 70 rcybp was returned from this level. Stratum Va is fine sand with moderate gastropod shell. Stratum VI contains burned and crushed gastro pod shell and bivalve shell in an ashy sand matrix. Strata VIa and VIb revealed discontinuous lens of finely crushed and burned shell while strata VII and VIIa have finely crushed shell in a fine sand matrix. Stratum VIII and IX is fine sandy matrix, slightly ashy with moderate whole gastropods. Stratum X is comprised of fine sandy matrix with m oderate whole gastropods and charcoal. A C14 assay of 3730 40 rcybp was returned on charcoal from this level. Stratum XI has fine sandy matrix with diminished whole gastropod shell but increased Pomacea and marine shell fragments and t ools; there was no pottery reco vered. Stratum XII and XIII beginning at 140 cmbs is sterile fine sa nd and sterile basal clay, respectively.

PAGE 39

29 Figure 3-3. Stratigraphic draw ing and photograph of south wa ll of Test Unit 2, 8VO43. Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.

PAGE 40

30 Table 3-2. Stratigraphic Units of No rth Profile of Test Unit 2, 8VO43. Max. Depth Munsell Stratum (cm BS) Color Description I 40 5YR2/2 surface stratum of fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod and minor bivalve shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts II 45 2.5YR2/0 charcoal-rich fine sand with whole gastropod; plain fibertempered pottery III 54 10YR2/2 abundant whole gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix with minor lenses of crushed shell, including apple snail; plain fiber-tempered pottery IV 61 10YR3/2 fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery V 61 10YR2/1 discontinuous lens of charcoal-rich fine sand; plain fibertempered pottery; C14 assay of 3510 70 rcybp Va 58 7.5YR3/2 fine sand with mode rate whole gastropod shell; plain fibertempered pottery VI 70 10YR4/2 burned and crushed gastropod and bivalve shell in ashy sand matrix; plain fiber-tempered pottery VIa 65 10YR6/1 discontinuous lenses of finely crushed and burned shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery VIb 66 10YR4/1 discontinuous lens of finely crushed and burned shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery VII 72 10YR3/3 finely crushed shell in fine sand matrix; plain fiber-tempered pottery VIIa 74 7.5YR4/4 finely crushed shell and charcoal in fine sand matrix; plain fiber-tempered pottery VIII 84 10YR3/2 fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery IX 99 10YR4/2 fine sandy and ashy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery X 120 10YR3/4 fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell and charcoal; plain fiber-tempered pottery; C14 assay of 3730 40 rcybp XI 138 10YR3/2 fine sandy matrix with diminished whole gastropod shell but increased apple snail and marine shell fragments and tools; no pottery XII 140 10YR5/3 sterile fine sand Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.

PAGE 41

31 Test Unit 4 (TU 4) situated to the west of TU 2 was a 1 x 2-m unit. A 50 x 50-cm column sample was removed from the north wa ll of this unit (Figure 3-4). A large pit designated as Feature 7 and a smaller pit desi gnated as Feature 12 were both observed at the base of TU 4. Hickory nutshell was recovered from Feature 7 and carbon-dated returning an AMS assay of 3780 50 rcybp (S assaman 2003b:43). Plain fiber-tempered pottery was recovered throughout the en tire test unit (Table 3-3). Strata I, II & III consisted of fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod and minor bivalve shell with both prehistoric and historic-era artif acts interspersed throughout. The 36-cm thick Stratum IVa reve aled abundant whole gastropod shell with a high frequency of fish bone and charco al flecking, while Stratum IVb displayed abundant whole, crushed and burned gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix. Stratum V contained whole and crushed gastropod shell while Stratums VI and VIIa had a lower frequency of whole gastropod shell. Stratum VII marked the termination of TU 4 at 184 cmbs. Test Unit 5 (TU 5) located equidist ant between the Thursby House and the Wastewater Treatment Area (WWTA) was a 1 x 2-m test unit. A 50 x 50-cm column sample was removed from the north wall upon comp letion of the unit. Fine alluvial sands in dark bands of varying th ickness lay atop the buried she ll midden. Seven stratigraphic units were observed, including the alluvi al sands, and represent at least three ethnostratigraphic units, includ ing the historic era (Fi gure 3-5) (Sassaman 2003b:45).

PAGE 42

32 Figure 3-4. Stratigraphic drawi ng of north wall of Test Units 3 and 4, 8VO43. Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.

PAGE 43

33 Table 3-3. Stratigraphic Units of No rth Profile of Test Units 3-4, 8VO43. Max. Depth Munsell Stratum (cm BS) Color Description Ia 11 10YR3/1 surface humus of fine sa nd with minor gastropod; prehistoric and historic-era artifacts interspersed throughout Ib 21 10YR2/2 surface stratum of fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod and minor bivalve shell; prehistoric and historic-era artifacts interspersed throughou t; trench for copper gas line Ic 28 10YR4/3 fine sand midden with burned whole and crushed gastropod shell II 41 10YR3/2-4/2 fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod shell; occasional crushed bivalve lenses; occasional burned and crushed gastropod shell lenses; plain fiber-tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts III 59 10YR3/2-4/3 fine sand midden with whole gastropod shell; plain fibertempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts IVa 59 10YR3/2 abundant whole gastropod shell and high density of bone (mostly fish) in fine sandy matrix with charcoal flecks throughout; plain fiber-tempered pottery IVb 71 10YR3/2 abundant whole, crushed, and burned gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix; occasional concreted shell midden; plain fibertempered pottery V 95 10YR3/2-4/2 abundant whole and crushed gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix; plain fiber-tempered pottery VI 87 10YR3/2 low density whole and crushed gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix; plain fiber-tempered pottery VIIa 131 10YR3/2 low density whole gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix; plain fiber-tempered pottery VIIb 126 10YR4/2 low density whole gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix; intermixed with Stratum VIII below; plain fiber-tempered pottery VIII 84 10YR6/3 sterile fine sand Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman. Stratum I and II are comprised of alluvial sands with historic artif acts and St. Johns sherd with the occasional vertebrate faunal remain s. Stratum III represents the buried A horizon at 88 cmbs. Stratum IV has a bundant whole and crushed gastropod shell

PAGE 44

34 Figure 3-5 Stratigraphic draw ings of all walls of Test Unit 5, 8VO43. Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.

PAGE 45

35 Table 3-4. Stratigraphic Un its of Test Unit 5, 8VO43. Max. Depth Munsell Stratum (cm BS) Color Description I 30 10YR4/2 to construction fill; fine sands with thin surface humus, abundant 10YR6/2 roots, historicera artif acts, and features associated with park utilities II 85 10YR7/1 w/ fine alluvial sands in dark bands ranging of varied thickness; 10YR2/2 historic-era artifacts, St. Johns sherds and occasional vertebrate faunal remains III 88 10YR2/1 buried A horizon/surface IV 145 10YR4/1 abundant whole and crushed gastropod shell with faunal remains, infrequent pottery (upper 10-15 cm of stratum) and lithic artifacts, burned limestone, and marine shell fragments in fine sandy matrix V 159 10YR3/1 largely shell-free, or ganically enriched fine sand with abundant faunal remains, charcoal, and occasional lithic flakes; no pottery; C14 assay of 4210 50 rcybp VI 170 10YR5/1 shell-free fine sands with organic enrichment from Stratum V above; sparse faunal remains and lithic flakes VII 180 10YR4/2 relatively sterile fine sand Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman. with faunal remains, lithic artifacts, burned limestone, marine shell fragments and infrequent pottery in the uppe r 10-15 cm of the stratum, w ith no pottery occurring below this point. Stratum V is largely shell free with organically enri ched fine sand with abundant faunal remains and no pottery. A char coal sample from the subsistence column was carbon-dated and returned an AMS a ssay of 4210 50 rcybp (Sassaman 2003b:47). Stratum VI is shell free with sparse faunal re mains. Stratum VII marks the termination of TU 5 at 180 cmbs, below which sterile sands were encountered (Table 3-4). It is important to recognize that different strata from different test units across the site are radiometrically contemporaneous. Fo r example, Stratum V from TU 5 within a one-sigma range overlaps with Stratum IV of TU 1 by 70 years, while TU 1 Stratum IV possesses shell, Stratum V from TU 5 is shell free potentially signifying the onset of shell

PAGE 46

36 fish exploitation. Stratum VII of TU 4 is we ll within a one-sigma range of overlap with Stratum X of TU 2, contextually the stratigraphy of Stratum X is akin to Stratum VII. Understanding the depositional structure of the s ite lends itself to demarcating periods of occupation and history allowing one to evalua te the cultural components that lay within the midden. Furthermore, multiple profile sequences facilitates observing changes in technology where modified marine shell tools in the basal layers of TU’s 1, 2, and 4 can potentially signify a change in tool tec hnology with marine shell tools acting as a precursor to pottery technology. That is to say, stratigraphic subsistence columns spanning the preceramic to early ceramic allo w the observer to control for variation in place. Comparing two or more sequences in di fferent places aids in partially controlling for larger forcing variables such as regi onal climate and hydrology but more so enables one to search for broader patterns of change and control for taphonomic factors.

PAGE 47

37 CHAPTER 4 METHODS AND MATERIALS Vertebrate Fauna This study is based on the id entification and analysis of vertebrate faunal remains greater than 1/8-inch in size of waterscreen ed portions from four subsistence columns (TU 1,2,4, & 5) of 50 x 50-cm each excavated from Blue Spring Midden B (8V043). Vertebrate faunal analysis for TU 1, 2, and 5 was conducted by Meggan E. Blessing while TU 4 was conducted by the author, who rigorously followed the methods employed by Blessing for consistency. Each test unit va ries in maximum depth with TU 1 at 1.65m, TU 2 at 1.4-m, TU 4 at 2.0-m and TU 5 at 1.0-m with 87-m of fine alluvial sands sitting atop the buried midden. The 1.0-m deep co lumn from TU 5 is preceramic in age, as is the basal strata of TUs 1 and 2. The 2.0-m deep column from TU 4 is ceramic in age. The ceramic component is demarcated as follows for each test unit: TU 1 Stratum III; TU 2 Stratum III to X; TU 4 Stratum IVa to VIIb; TU 5 0 to 20 cm. The preceramic component is as follows: TU 1 Stratum IV to V; TU 2 Stratum XI to XII; TU 5 20 to 90 cm. Table (4-1) displays cultu ral component breakdown by test unit and strata as well as volume of soil per column sample. Guidelines for analysis of the faunal material followed accepted zooarchaeological procedures (Reitz and Wing 1999). Identifica tions of the animal remains were made by referencing the vertebrate comparative coll ection at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Every effort was made to identify all the skeletal elements into their respective

PAGE 48

38 Table 4-1 Volume of Matrix from All Four Subsistence Columns 8VO43 Pre-Pottery Period Orange Pottery Period TU 1 Strata IV to V Stratum III volume 0.1 m3 .1125 m3 TU 2 Strata XI to XII Strata III to X volume .005 m3 .165 m3 TU 4 Strata IVa to VIIb volume .1675 m3 TU 5 20 cm to 90 cm 0 cm to 20 cm volume .175 m3 .05 m3 Total volume .28 m3 .495 m3 major classes (i.e. Mammalia, Aves, Reptil ia, Amphibia and Osteic hthyes) including to the lowest taxonomic level of species, if po ssible. Data on diagnostic elements were recorded as: taxon, element, portion, side, m odification, burning, count and weight. For classes such as Mammalia and Aves, thos e non-diagnostic elements that could be discerned were noted, counted and weighed. However, this was not the case for the class Osteichthyes; whose elements, many being of a fragmentary nature, were only counted and weighed (Sassaman 2003b:129). Quantification of the identified remains was done to natural strata within each column sample and included a count (NISP) and weight of iden tified specimens and calculation of the minimum numb er of individuals (MNI). MNI is the smallest number of individuals that is necessary to account for all of the skeletal elem ents of a particular taxon found in the sample usually distinguished by diagnostic elements and size (Reitz and Wing 1999). Levels within natural strata (e.g. Level B or stratum III [Stratum IIIb]) were analyzed and enumerated separately a nd then collapsed into subtotals (Sassaman 2003b:129). In addition to th e relative frequencies for NISP and MNI that were

PAGE 49

39 calculated for strata and their subtotals, MN I was also calculated for the entire faunal assemblage disregarding space and time to observe every resource utilized at 8VO43. However, when calculating MNI of the entire assemblage as a whole, regardless of space and time, it assumes that the assemblage is s ynchronic and ignores cult ural and historical processes. Although descrip tive, it precludes investigation into the breadth and frequency of resources selected over time. Resource use and degree of specializa tion were observed via employing the Shannon Weaver Index and the Sh eldon Index to describe divers ity and equitability. The range of diversity for the Shannon Weaver I ndex is from 0 to 5 with five being the greatest faunal diversity. The range for the Sheldon Index is from 0 to 1; values closest to zero denote heavy reliance on a single reso urce, while one indicates an evenness of resource use. These indexes were used for comparative purposes of diversity and equitability between the preceramic and cer amic components of 8VO43 to observe any differences in resource selection a nd frequency use by humans. Size range of fishes in the archaeological record was evaluated by measuring their lateral atlas width. Such data provide an opportunity to char acterize and compare the size of different species of fish across strata and cultural components. For comparative purposes, the size class of fi sh atlases was measured and then the mean and 95% confidence interval for preceramic and ceram ic fishes were calculated. Pairwise comparisons of mean values for lateral atlas width were statistically evaluated with Student’s t -Test. Furthermore, the atlas widths of the archaeological fish assemblage were corroborated with modern fish referenc es relative to Family and/or Genus to ascertain standard length. Wi dths of atlases correlate well with standard length and can

PAGE 50

40 be used as a proxy for the sizes of individua l fish in the archaeological record. Size distributions of Amia calva Centrarchidae, Erimyzon sucetta and Notemigonus crysoluecas from preceramic and ceramic componen ts were compared. Every attempt was made to record a sample of 30 atlas wi dths from the comparative modern skeletal specimens housed in the Florida Museum of Natural History, although this was unattainable for Amia calva Erimyzon sucetta and Notemigonus crysoluecas due to the simple fact that there was not an adequate sample in the collection. Consequently, samples of at least eight modern atlas widt hs were recorded for the above-mentioned species. Measurements of modern reference sk eletons that correlate allometrically with standard length were taken to generate allometric constants (Reitz and Wing 1999). These constants were then applied to la teral atlas width measurements from the archaeological material to estimate standard length of the fishes represented in the faunal samples. Analysis proceeded by the comparison of all preceramic vertebrate fauna with ceramic vertebrate fauna relative to MNI, NI SP, atlas width and standard length. At no point were preceramic samples mixed with cer amic samples when measuring atlas width and Student’s t -Test. Invertebrate Fauna In addition to this thesis, prior study of observed changes in the shell size of snail populations due to human predation are corrobor ated with vertebrate data to better understand subsistence at Blue Spring Mi dden B (Connaughton 2001). Five strata from two of the column samples were chosen for analysis. These were Stratum III and Stratum XIa and XIb from TU 2 and Stratum III ( 20-30 cm) and Stratum III (70-76 cm) in WWTA. All column samples are do minated by shell from species of Viviparus, as well

PAGE 51

41 as fish remains. The focus here is on the snail species Viviparus georgianus. Preliminary fractionization was done with -inch screen a nd -inch screens. Each strata unit was broken down into four basic categories: whole snails >-inch, whole snails >-inch but <-inch, fragmented snails >-inch, and frag mented snails >-inch but < -inch. After being sorted, each category was weighed in grams and hand counted. These numbers were then examined for a preliminary size decr ease in weight per unit. After the hand and weight count, a minimum of one hundred snails were randomly selected as a sample size from each column sample to be measured. Five different measurements were taken for each snail: shell height, aperture width, aper ture height, apex length, and spire height (Claassen 1999:101). All measurements w ith “whole snails” >-inch were then quantified into mean, standard de viation, minimums and maximums.

PAGE 52

42 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Initial analysis of zooarchaeological da ta from Blue Spring began by observing the MNI count for the entire vert ebrate assemblage as a whole, lumping ceramic with preceramic levels, thus disregarding space and time (Appendix A-2). The results display a MNI count with fish, particularly sunfish, dominating the assemblage yet the resources taken are somewhat diverse and moderately equitable (H’ = 2.96; E = 0.71). However, compounding the column samples from all four test units ignores historical processes and cultural markers that have left their impri nt on the landscape. Observing the faunal assemblage in this light tells us nothing about subsistence use through time, rather it merely describes what was recorded. To ascer tain any patterns in the Blue Spring faunal material analytical divisions need to be made for interpretative purposes from a diachronic perspective. Table 5-1 lists the NISP and MNI by genera l taxa for each cultural component. The data conveys that the vert ebrate differences are virtually insignificant in their relative frequencies across general taxa. Fish cl early dominate both cultural components, followed by turtle, deer, other mammal, snake and bird. Other rept iles and amphibians account for a relatively smaller frequency. The result from the vertebrate material between the preceramic and ceramic demons trates a low level of diversity and equitability with a slight trend of decreasi ng diversity from the preceramic to the ceramic (preceramic: H’ = 0.93, E = 0.45; ceramic: H’ = 0.84, E = 0.40) suggesting a slight change in resource selection a nd frequency of use. Even with a slight decrease in

PAGE 53

43 Table 5-1 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Vertebrate Fauna by General Taxa and Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43). Number of Individual Minimum Number of Specimens (NISP) Individuals (MNI) n % n % ORANGE COMPONENT Deer 770.3 15 2.3 Mammal 6812.9 23 3.5 Bird 520.2 13 2.0 Turtle 10774.6 40 6.2 Snake 2130.9 21 3.2 Reptile 320.1 4 0.6 Amphibian 390.2 11 1.7 Fish 21,31090.8 523 80.5 Total 23,481100.0 650 100.0 PRECERAMIC COMPONENT Deer 240.17 1.4 Mammal 2271.222 4.5 Bird 790.412 2.5 Turtle 9084.637 7.6 Snake 1540.817 3.5 Reptile 130.14 0.8 Amphibian 210.112 2.5 Fish 18,28392.8377 77.3 Total 19,709100.0 488 100.0 diversity the data still refl ect an overall continuity in the subsistence economy through time encapsulating potentially five centuries (Sa ssaman 2003b). It is interesting to note that if one were to add the invertebrate fauna say, Viviparus for example, to this mix, which is an abundant shellfish recovered from Blue Spring Midden B, that resource selection was undoubtedly placed on aquatic fauna. This should come as no surprise given the literature on subsis tence in the middle St. Johns River Valley (Cumbaa 1976; Russo 1988; Russo et al. 1992; Wheeler and McGee 1994). Fish make up a great majority of the re sources procured at Blue Spring and the composition of the fish assemblages is likew ise very similar between components (Table

PAGE 54

44 5-2). Sunfish are responsible for approximate ly half of the MNI in both samples with suckers, catfish and shiners making up other we ll represented taxa. Gar, bowfin, pike and shad/herring occur in lesser frequencies but remain consistent throughout both samples. Diversity is characterized for both assemblages as relatively low while equitability is moderately high among fishes taken with a de creasing trend from the preceramic to the ceramic; again both fish assemblages displa y continuity in the subsistence economy through time (preceramic: H’ = 1.74, E = 0.70; ceramic: H’ = 1.61, E = 0.67). Sassaman (2003b:132-133) noted two subtle di fferences in composition of the fish assemblages. First, American eel ( Anguilla rostrata ), a minority species throughout the samples, is concentrated largely in strata of the preceramic component Out of a total of 28 NISP and 8 MNI for eel, only two elements fr om a likely single individual were found outside of preceramic context. TU 5 accounted for most of the eel elements, but some elements were also found in the basal, pr eceramic components of TU 1 and TU 2. The use of eel, albeit in low frequency, appear ed widespread spatially across preceramic contexts. The second noticeable difference is the increased proportion of suckers in the Orange component. Thirty-sev en (MNI) Lake Chubsuckers ( Erimyzon sucetta ) were recovered in one level of the column from TU 2. Generally, most suckers prefer flowing water, but Lake Chubsuckers prefer quiet, slowly moving water with soft bottoms, and abundant organic debris and a quatic vegetation. These differe nces in frequency of taxa from the preceramic to the ceramic period may suggest a change in ha bitat exploitation at Blue Spring.

PAGE 55

45 Table 5-2 Absolute and Relative Frequencie s of Fish by General Taxa and Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43). Number of Individual Minimum Number of Specimens (NISP) Individuals (MNI) n% n % ORANGE COMPONENT Shark 10.0 1 0.2 Skate/Ray 00.0 0 0.0 Eel 50.1 2 0.4 Gar 4277.3 19 3.7 Bowfin 1592.7 19 3.7 Shiner 3125.3 40 7.8 Shad/Herring 721.2 17 3.3 Sucker 4677.9 66 12.8 Catfish 3526.0 55 10.7 Pike 711.2 17 3.3 Sunfish 399968.0 270 52.5 Mullet 190.3 8 1.6 Total 5884100.0 514 100.0 PRECERAMIC COMPONENT Shark 30.1 3 0.8 Skate/Ray 20.1 2 0.5 Eel 230.5 6 1.6 Gar 95720.0 18 4.8 Bowfin 2314.9 17 4.5 Shiner 2485.2 30 8.0 Shad/Herring 681.4 11 2.9 Sucker 2495.2 37 9.9 Catfish 3236.8 39 10.4 Pike 440.9 16 4.3 Sunfish 259154.5 189 50.5 Mullet 140.3 6 1.6 Total 4753100.0 374 100.0 “Considering that the American eel inhabi ts streams with st rong flow, then the decrease in eels and increas e in suckers through time may signal less reliance on harvesting of the main river channel and Blue Spring Run and increased dependence on the nearby lagoon” (Sassaman 2003b:133). This s cenario is certainly plausible given that after 6000 rcybp sea level slowed its rate of rise, enabling development of a broader, lagoonal habitat resource patch, but subject to fluctuations in production due to changing

PAGE 56

46 water levels. Sassaman (2003b:133) observed that during the dry summer of 2000, the lagoon situated on the south margin of Bl ue Spring Midden B was subject to water fluctuation and, given the successive dry s easons it had endured, the water’s edge had receded several meters. Thus, lagoonal resour ces, such as the Lake Chubsucker, were probably related to levels of precipitation, river flow, and groundwater th at the lagoon received. These subtle variations mentioned above might reflect short-term responses to changes in the availability of resources pr esent, yet aside from this variation, the preceramic and ceramic components appear near ly the same (Sassaman 2003b). Shellfish fauna too appear similar in both components, with the only exception of marine shellfish found nearly exclusive in the preceramic levels as a raw resource for tool production and use rather than a subsistence item. Interes tingly, previous data on shellfish exploitation from Blue Spring Midden B display a decrease in mean apex length of Viviparus georgianus from preceramic times to ceramic times (Connaughton 2001:18). However, this mean decrease in size is not observed in lateral atlas width of fish at Blue Spring Midden B. Variation in Fish Size Lateral atlas widths were recorded for a total of 612 fish fr om all four column samples comprising both cultural components (preceramic & ceramic) at Blue Spring. Table 5-3 presents the descriptive statistics on the fish atlases recorded. Student’s t -Test was employed to statistically evaluate the mean values for lateral atlas width of fish from the preceramic and the ceramic and to see if human populations were acquiring fish from independent fish populations relative to taxa The results illustrate that there is no

PAGE 57

47 Table 5-3. Descriptive Statisti cs of Lateral Atlas Width (m m) of Fishes from Cultural Components, 8VO43. CERAMIC Group CountMeanMedianStdDevMin MaxRange Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 144.494.231.143.11 6.873.76 Amia calva 98.387.522.804.1 13.129.02 Centrarchidae 922.842.750.661.83 6.14.27 Clupeidae 64.053.930.663.35 5.151.8 Dorosoma sp. 13.83 3.830 Erimyzon sucetta 275.025.060.653.24 6.082.84 Esox sp. 13.34 3.340 L. auritus 292.642.550.481.89 4.042.15 L. gulosus 93.153.320.412.26 3.631.37 L. macrochirus 282.922.710.622.06 4.572.51 L. microlophus 43.633.480.802.84 4.711.87 L. punctatus 42.682.690.432.28 3.060.78 Lepomis spp. 992.732.660.441.95 4.442.49 Lepisosteus spp. 44.964.881.173.78 6.292.51 M. salmoides 144.143.611.642.67 7.745.07 N. crysoleucas 323.013.040.442.43 4.051.62 P. nigromaculatus 323.703.580.841.93 5.233.3 PRECERAMIC Group CountMeanMedianStdDevMin MaxRange Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 124.603.901.912.73 8.926.19 Amia calva 211.5811.584.898.12 15.046.92 Centrarchidae 592.842.770.601.75 4.72.95 Clupeidae 23.813.810.883.18 4.431.25 Dorosoma sp. 0 Erimyzon sucetta 225.225.240.753.95 7.023.07 Esox sp. 15.43 5.430 L. auritus 62.842.870.282.48 3.170.69 L. gulosus 0 L. macrochirus 0 L. microlophus 0 L. punctatus 62.632.640.312.15 3.040.89 Lepomis spp. 562.782.650.522.02 4.952.93 Lepisosteus spp. 24.484.480.524.11 4.850.74 M. salmoides 105.504.692.253.95 11.267.31 N. crysoleucas 173.333.360.472.19 3.951.76 P. nigromaculatus 123.483.560.752.05 4.762.71

PAGE 58

48 Table 5-4. Student t -Test Values on Lateral Atlas Wi dths of Fish from Cultural Components, 8VO43. PRECERAMIC CERAMIC Group meannmeanndf P(T<=t) onetail All Lepomis 2.77682.791731300.404 Centrarchidae 2.84592.84921320.480 M. salmoides 5.5104.1414160.062 P. nigromaculatus 3.48123.732220.205 N. crysoleucas 3.33173.0132310.013 E. sucetta 5.22225.0227420.161 Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 4.6124.4914170.429 A. calva 11.628.4910.268 significant difference between similar fish ta xa from the preceramic and ceramic periods with the exception of one, the Golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas ). Knowing that the fish atlases represented in both components comprise of at least five centuries of occupation, it is intriguing that subsistence, for the most part, remains unchanged. Table 5-4 demonstrates this nicely with t -Test’s one-tail values. Standard Length With lateral atlas width effectively conveying no significan t change between preceramic and ceramic occupation, standard length was allometrically calculated on Amia calva Erimyzon sucetta Notemigonus crysoleucas and Centrarchid ae to ascertain the size of these fishes taken from Blue Sp ring. Standard length is redundant data, having been derived from atlas width; nevertheless, it provide s the observer with a virtual metric scale for the size range of fish selected by humans. Table 5-5 reveals the descriptive results from the allometric calculation s. A slight decrease is evident in mean standard length of these fish but essentially the fish populat ions exhibit no significant difference. Although A. calva E. sucetta and N. crysoleucas have low counts which may augment or skew the data, Centrarc hidae which account for roughly over three-

PAGE 59

49 Table 5-5 Descriptive Statistics for Standard Length (mm) of Fishes from Cultural Components CERAMIC Group Count Mean Median StdDev. Min. Max. Range Amia calva 9 342.2 311.8 103 180.9 513.8 332.9 Centrarchidae 303 120.1 116.4 18.2 89.9 218.3 128.4 Erimyzon sucetta 27 224.1 225.9 24.7 155.6 263.5 107.9 Notemigonus crysoleucas 32 155.9 157.1 18.6 130.9 198.8 67.8 PRECERAMIC Group Count Mean Median StdDev. Min. Max. Range Amia calva 2 457.5 457.5 174.5 334.1 580.8 246.8 Centrarchidae 149 121.7 117.4 22.4 87.5 274.9 187.4 Erimyzon sucetta 22 231.6 232.5 27.9 183.7 297.2 113.5 Notemigonus crysoleucas 16 167.9 170.3 19.3 120.3 194.8 74.5 fourths of the fish atlases represented in the faunal assemblage encompass an acceptable count and clearly display no substantial cha nge in mean standard length between the preceramic and ceramic components. Furthermor e, the sizes of the above mentioned fish that were selected for consumption are a pparently of smaller size than normal size ranges of modern species today (Page and Bu rr 1991). Clearly, sta ndard length size did not change significantly through time a nd the evidence from vertebrate fauna demonstrates this at Blue Spring Midden B. It is speculated that mean fish atlases would decrease significantly in size over time, and they decrease very subtly in this assemblage, which may be due to overexploitation placing high strain on fish populations affecting their fecundity and rate of growth (Broughton 1999). Yet fish have hi gh fecundities, especially sunfish, which make up the dominant part of the fish assemblage. Centrarchids (sunfish) are found in a variet y of habitats such as vegetated lakes, rivers, ponds, swamps, and creeks. They prefer muddy or sandy bottoms, along with

PAGE 60

50 underwater structural debris, su ch as sunken logs. They gene rally tend to school together as a littoral species but some, like Pomoxis nigromaculatus and Lepomis macrochirus have also been observed in deep, open wate r. Since most sunfish are found schooling near shore, capturing such resources seem s feasible by humans. Spawning season for sunfish usually begins in February or March and can last until October. Nests are built near shore and typically guarded by the ma le. The sunfish diet can consist of zooplankton, algae, vascular plan ts, aquatic insects, larvae, sm all invertebrates, fish, frogs and small birds. Sunfish are observed as th riving in diverse habitats and adapting to changing conditions (Hoyer 1994). The vast amount of sunfish remains rec overed at Blue Spring demonstrates their importance in the subsistence economy as a viable and dependable population in which humans can exploit repeatedly. The size of Centrarchidae selected by humans at 8VO43 does not significantly change through time as illustrated by the lateral atlas mean and substantiated by Student’s t -Test. It seems prehistoric peoples were focusing on near shore species of a smaller si ze range than average sizes of sunfish given the evidence from standard length and what zooarchaeol ogists know about modern samples today, for when compared to the faunal assemblage fr om Blue Spring Midden B, modern samples are on average bigger today than in the past.

PAGE 61

51 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Data have been presented that demonstr ate an overall continuity in resource selection through time at Blue Spring Midden B. Fish and shellfish a ppear as the bulk of this subsistence strategy and even with th e advent of increasin g human populations and cultural elaboration, particularly the onset of pottery, there are no significant effects on the subsistence record itself. Lateral atlas widths of fish, from both the preceramic and ceramic components, have been evaluated and show no significant change through time. However, there are a couple of subtle di fferences observed in the vertebrate fauna. Changes in resource frequency are noted at Bl ue Spring with a lesse ning in frequency of American eel from the preceramic to the cera mic and an increase in frequency of Lake Chubsuckers from the preceramic to the cera mic, potentially signifying a minor response to the resources available in the local environment. A lthough habitat exploitation may have changed slightly with the advent of potte ry, the vertebrate faunal data still show no major change. It would seem, at least at th e domestic level, pottery had no substantial bearing on the subsistence regime. Shellfish data from Blue Spring Midden B display a decrease in apex mean through time (Connaughton 2001). Even though the vertebrate faunal data show no change through time, the invertebrate data demonstrate a reduction in size from preceramic levels to ceramic levels. Shellfish may potentially be more sensitive to strain caused by human consumption and/or ecological stress than fis h, nonetheless, this correlation poses another

PAGE 62

52 question: Was pottery a human response to re source depression, thus keeping the status quo? Or was pottery independently created within another context? Considering the data presented here, po ttery as a subsistence technology, may not have played a direct role in food procurement and proces sing techniques. Technological development may not always be the product of ecological stress, necessitating change; the social environment must too be considered contextually as cultures change or stay the same through time. Material assemblages as sociated with site subsistence provide a potential clue in how the site was us ed by human populations. The disappearance of marine shell tools in the Orange period from Mt. Taylor times possibly demonstrated a shift in mobility and settlement. Po tential sociopolitical relationships could have feas ibly placed strains on inte rriverine human populations whereby marine shell acted as a precursor to pottery given its inaccessibility. The fact that marine shell is recovered from the Mt Taylor component and not found associated with the Orange component is of interest and needs further study. New data have come to fruition on pottery making cultures in the middle St. Johns River, revealing that Bullen’s Orange po ttery sequence should be rethought given the AMS assays on incised fiber-tempered potter y, demonstrating a coeval existence with plain Orange fiber-tempered temper potter y, thus providing new implications for the cultural-history of the region (Sassaman 2003a). With highly decorated wares from Tick Island (8VO24) and Mouth of Silver Glen R un (8LA1) being coeval with plain wares from Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) a nd Groves’ Orange Midden (8VO2601) such distinct sites with different pottery may be attributed to differing uses between decorated wares and utilitarian wares. More data are n eeded to sufficiently explain what is taking

PAGE 63

53 place but knowing that these sites and ceramic vessels are contemporaneous opens the door for future inquiry on f unctional difference. It is important to consider that pottery, at the domestic level, shows no significant change in the subsistence economy of prehistoric hunter-g atherers. While pottery associated with large middens and mortuary practice reveal decorated forms being recovered, possibly from ritual feasting. If feasting is occurring with decorated (e.g., incised) Orange vessels at la rge midden sites and then plain, utilitarian vessels are being used at domestic sites, this reflects diverg ent spatial patterns of ideological practice between ritual and daily life. Although ideological struct ure may be similar in daily practice and ritual practice, it is performed or lived in differing ways given the social environment where human populations partic ipate in ritual behavior by using the appropriate pottery stipulated by cultural trad itions. Since pottery is argued to have no substantial effect on the subsistence econom y at Blue Spring, and the aforementioned data on vertebrate fauna appear to strengt hen such an assertion, what, then, is the significance of pottery appeari ng in the archaeological reco rd in the middle St. Johns River Valley if it is displaying no effect in subsistence practice? Alternative Explanations Pottery in the St. Johns River Valley may potentially have more to do with ritual/ceremonial feasting than with actual day to da y subsistence practic e. Thus, pottery may serve as a symbolic marker of distinct ethnic groups throughout peninsular Florida, signaling identities, reproducing social ti es or relaying information. The following examples can potentially provide avenues in which archaeologist can explore the role of pottery in prehistoric Florida. Althou gh both examples have to do with beer consumption, it is the role of pottery as a symbolic mark er that is on interest.

PAGE 64

54 Pottery itself can be a medium for in formation exchange, conveying symbolic meaning and thus highlighting heterarchical so cial complexity. Ceramic vessels within the domestic household have long been assumed to represent a form of ‘passive style’ with no inherent symbolic statement or pol itical affiliation (Bow ser 2000:219). Bowser (2000) has demonstrated that pottery can be used as political playing cards, whereby women assert their identity into the polit ical alliances, accentuating their political behavior into pottery style. In the sma ll-scale, segmental society in the Ecuadorian Amazon, women decorate their polychrome potte ry bowls (used primarily for drinking manioc beer) relative to their political aff iliation, not ethnicity, whereby, in some cases, some women are politically ambiguous (Bow ser 2000). How is this physically done? Chicha an alcoholic beverage, is fundamental to Ecuadorian-Amazonian social relations. Each woman is responsible for making their own bowls for drinking use, and decorates them according to their political affiliation ( Quichua or Achuar ). Women use these bowls in serving guests and their husbands’ chicha Bowser insinuates that these women make sociopolitical decisions when choosing which bowl to offer her guests. These bowls do not merely serve an economic-subsistence f unction, but rather ali gn and contest people through their decorative patterns and symbols. Furtherm ore, the designs and symbols on these bowls reinforce the Amazonian worldvi ew of male and female binary opposition and complementarities (Bowser 2000:228). The si mple act of women sitting together and drinking chicha from pottery beer bowls allows for shared information and opinions concerning daily events and current issues; whereas when a women serves male guests, she can signal her social distan ce, status or political disfavor with them while the family looks on (Bowser 2000:229). Through these sociopol itical strategies, so cial identity is

PAGE 65

55 constructed and negotiated while social bounda ries are maintained with the passing of people across them (Bowser 2000). Pottery can also be a means for social reproducing structures of meaning that conceal behavior, cosmology or ideology which has long passed and has been transformed and internalized into a ne w context. The hosting of a feast or ani shreati in the Conibo-Shipibo signifies the “puberty rite” of young girls into womanhood (DeBoer 2001). Historically, it used to mark a nd celebrate the marriageability age of young pubescent girls to older men. A clitoridec tomy is performed by specialized female surgeons in a special structure situated away from the main plaza, which has implications for male and female opposition in nature a nd settlement (DeBoer 2001). The preparation for such a feast is an arduous one, sometime s planned ahead 2 to 3 years and is usually hosted by the fathers of the girls going through th e ritual. Part of the preparation includes planting manioc, sweet potato and sugarcane so as to be harv ested and later fermented for a liquid drink. However, it is the process of fermenting and serving such libations that place emphasis on the ceramic manufacturing of new vessels, mainly large beer jars and beer-serving mugs (DeBoer 2001). The ma nufacturing of such vessels for purely ceremonial use strengthens so cial and biological reproductio n, prompting production of material goods which would otherwise not be produced (DeBoer 2001:232). Furthermore, those invited to the feast are no t obliged to bring gifts for exchange nor do the hosts have gifts; simply put the only thing required of the hosts is plenty of drink. This potentially opens doors for continued re lations and the possible emergence of future leaders, spouses and rivals (DeBoer 2001). E ssentially, the feast has an equilibrating role whereby meaning congealed in special moment s is elaborated among an aggregate group

PAGE 66

56 of humans who share similar et hos and lifestyles, thus preser ving their social and cultural identities despite encapsulation by the Western world. Future Study Future research is sorely needed to either support or reject the data provided. Sites like Grove’s Orange Midden and Hontoon Is land for example, could potentially be explored to evaluate the signi ficance of pottery in the subsis tence record. Distinguishing between domestic sites with utilitarian ware s and ceremonial sites with highly decorated wares may signal differences in subsistence pr actice reflecting spatial patterns separating ritual practice from daily life. Clearly, pots are more than tools; they represent the many identities of distinct cultures and ethnic ities (Gosselain 1992b; Bowser 2000). Through analysis of vessel type, function, and context within site(s) archaeolo gist can investigate questions related to site activities, the size, composition and social st anding of domestic groups, food habits of a community, and the sty listic nature and tec hnological va riability of a ceramic culture (Hal ly 1986:267). By understandi ng the cultural–historical development of early pottery in the Southeastern Unite d States, archaeologist can hopefully gain insight into the production and use of ancient pots as social barometers for behavior.

PAGE 67

57 APPENDIX A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA Table A-1 The List of Taxonomic and Common Names Taxonomic Name Common Name Sigmodon spp. Rat Sigmodontinae Rat Subfamily Muridae Rat Family Sylvilagus palustris Marsh Rabbit Sylvilagus spp. Rabbit Rodentia Rodents Sciurus carolinesis Eastern Gray Squirrel Didelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum Procyon lotor North American Raccoon Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray Fox Lutra canadensis North American Otter Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer Mammalia Mammals Nycticorax spp. Heron Podilymbus podiceps Pie-billed Grebe Anas americana American Wigeon Fulica americana American Coot Anatidae Ducks Aves Birds Chelydra serpentina Snapping Turtle Kinosternidae Mud/Musk Turtles Deirochelys reticularia Chicken Turtle Pseudemys floridana Florida Cooter Trachemys scripta Yellowbelly Slider Pseudemys/Trachemys spp. Cooters Terrapene carolina Box Turtle Apalone ferox Soft-shelled Turtle Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise Testudines Turtles Alligator mississippiensis Alligator

PAGE 68

58 Table A-1 Continued Taxonomic Name Common Name Nerodia spp. Water Snake Elaphe spp. Rat Snake Colubridae Non-Poisonous Snakes Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Crotalus spp. Rattlesnakes Agkistrodon piscivorus Cottonmouth Viperidae Pit Viper Family Serpentes Sankes Anolis spp. Iguanian Lizards Squamata Lizards and Snakes Reptilia Reptiles Amphiuma means Two-toed Amphiuma Siren lacertina Greater Siren Caudata Salamanders Anura Frogs and Toads Rana sp. True Frogs Amphibia Amphibians Odontaspis taurus Sand Tiger Shark Carcharhinidae Requiems Lamniformes Sharks Rajidae Skates and Rays Anguilla rostrata Freshwater Eel Lepisosteus spp. Gar Amia calva Bowfin Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Dorosoma spp. Shad Clupeidae Shad/Herring Family Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. Catfish Ameiurus catus White Catfish Ameriurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Catfish Ameiurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead Catfish Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Esox spp. Pike Lepomis spp. Sunfish Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish

PAGE 69

59 Table A-1 Continued Taxonomic Name Common Name Lepomis punctatus Spotted Sunfish Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Micropterus sp. Bass Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Centrarchidae Bass/Sunfish Family Mugil spp. Mullet Osteichthyes Bony Fish UID Vertebrata Vertebrates Table A-2 MNI Count of Taxon as One Whole Assemblage Taxon MNI Sigmodon spp. 1 Sigmodontinae 1 Muridae 1 Sylvilagus palustris 1 Sylvilagus spp. 1 Sciurius carolinesis 1 Rodentia 1 Didelphis virginiana 1 Procyon lotor 1 Urocyon cinereoargenteus 1 Lutra canadensis 1 Odocoileus virginianus 3 Nycticorax spp. 1 Podilymbus podiceps 1 Anas americana 1 Fulica americana 1 Anatidae 1 Chelydra serpentina 1 Kinosternidae 2 Deirochelys reticularia 1 Pseudemys floridana 1 Trachemys scripta 1 Pseudemys/Trachemys spp. 1 Terrapene carolina 1 Apalone ferox 1 Gopherus polyphemus 1

PAGE 70

60 Table A-2 Continued Taxon MNI Alligator mississippiensis 1 Nerodia spp. 1 Elaphe spp. 1 Colubridae 2 Crotalus adamanteus 1 Crotalus spp. 1 Agkistrodon piscivorous 1 Anolis spp. 1 Amphiuma means 1 Siren lacertina 1 Caudata 1 Anura 1 Rana sp. 1 Carcharhinidae 1 Lamniformes 1 Rajidae 1 Anguilla rostrata 6 Lepisosteus spp. 18 Amia calva 17 Notemigonus crysoleucas 49 Dorosoma spp. 1 Clupeidae 8 Erimyzon sucetta 62 Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 26 Ameiurus catus 5 Ameriurus natalis 9 Ameiurus nebulosus 2 Ictalurus punctatus 3 Esox spp. 7 Lepomis spp. 155 Lepomis auritus 35 Lepomis gulosus 9 Lepomis macrochirus 28 Lepomis microlophus 4 Lepomis punctatus 10 Micropterus salmoides 24 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 44 Centrarchidae 151 Mugil spp. 3 Total MNI 721 Total Taxa 65 H' = 2.96 E = .71

PAGE 71

61Table A-3 MNI and NISP PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. Ia Mammalia 6 1.4 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. Ia Kinosternidae Kinosternon sp. 1 0.2 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Testudines 52 12.2 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. Ia Ictaluridae Ameiur us natalis 1 0.2 1 0.1 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. Ia Catostomus Erimyzon sucetta 2 0.5 1 0.1 2 pieces fused TU 4 STR. Ia Esocidae Esox sp. 1 0.2 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 6 1.4 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae Lepom is gulosus 1 0.2 1 0.1 atlases TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus 3 0.7 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae Micropter us salmoides 1 0.2 1 0.1 dentary (L) TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae 9 2.2 1 0.1 TU 4 STR. Ia Osteichthyes 164 38.6 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. Ia Vertebrata 178 42.0 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. Ia Total 425 100.0 9 100.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Procyonidae Procyon lotor 1 0.0 1 1.4 tibia {L} TU 4 STR. IIb Mammalia 3 0.1 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Aves 1 0.0 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Serpentes 2 0.0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Trionychidae Apalone ferox 1 0.0 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Emydidae Pseudemys floridana 7 0.1 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Emydidae Trachemys scripta 1 0.0 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Testudines 197 4.1 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 1 0.0 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Amiidae Amia calva 7 0.1 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepom is auritus 6 0.1 4 5.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepom is gulosus 1 0.0 1 1.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 20 0.4 16 21.6 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepomis micrlophus 19 0.4 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Micropt erus salmoides 40 0.8 10 13.5 atlases

PAGE 72

62Table A-3 Continued PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 1 0.0 1 1.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae Lepom is spp. 14 0.3 4 5.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Centrarchidae 353 7.4 12 16.2 articular {L} TU 4 STR. IIb Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 40 0.8 1 1.4 TU 4 STR. IIb Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta 51 1.1 7 9.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Esocidae Esox sp. 3 0.1 1 1.4 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas 2 0.0 2 2.7 atlases TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae Ameiur us natalis 6 0.1 3 4.1 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae Ameiurus nebulosus 1 0.0 1 1.4 quadrate {R} TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 2 0.0 2 2.7 articular {L} TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus 1 0.0 1 1.4 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. IIb Ictaluridae 9 0.2 1 1.4 pect. spine {L} TU 4 STR. IIb Osteichthyes 3628 76.0 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Vertebrata 358 7.5 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. IIb Total 4776 100.0 74 100.0 TU 4 STR. III Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 4 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Mammalia 44 0.9 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. III Aves 3 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Kinosternidae Kinosternon spp. 1 0.0 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Emydidae Pseudemys floridana 1 0.0 1 1.1 femur {R} TU 4 STR. III Testudines 62 1.2 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. III Serpentes 5 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 7 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Amiidae Amia calv a 7 0.1 1 1.1 ectopterygoid {R} TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepom is auritus 7 0.1 7 7.5 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus 4 0.1 3 3.2 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 17 0.3 17 18.3 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus 15 0.3 2 2.2 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepomis punctatus 9 0.2 8 8.6 atlases

PAGE 73

63Table A-3 Continued PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Micropt erus salmoides 8 0.2 2 2.2 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 3 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae Lepom is spp. 15 0.3 7 7.5 atlases TU 4 STR. III Centrarchidae 431 8.7 15 16.1 atlases TU 4 STR. III Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 32 0.6 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. III Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta 30 0.6 2 2.2 atlases TU 4 STR. III Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas 16 0.3 11 11.8 atlases TU 4 STR. III Ictaluridae Ameiur us natalis 8 0.2 4 4.3 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. III Ictaluridae Ameiurus catus 1 0.0 1 1.1 pectoral spine {R} TU 4 STR. III Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus 1 0.0 1 1.1 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. III Ictaluridae 14 0.3 4 4.3 quadrate {R} TU 4 STR. III Osteichthyes 2109 42.3 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. III Vertebrata 2131 42.7 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. III Total 4985 100.0 93 100.0 TU 4 STR. V Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 6 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Procyonidae Procyon lotor 1 0.0 1 1.1 phalange {L} TU 4 STR. V Leporidae Sylvilagus palustris 1 0.0 1 1.1 mandible {L} TU 4 STR. V Mammalia 130 2.0 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. V Anatidae Anas amer icana 1 0.0 1 1.1 radius {L} TU 4 STR. V Rallidae Fulica americana 1 0.0 1 1.1 coracoid {L} TU 4 STR. V Aves 9 0.1 1 1.1 radius {R} TU 4 STR. V Trionychidae Apalone ferox 7 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Kinosternidae Kinosternon spp. 8 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Emydidae Trachemys scripta 4 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Testudines 157 2.4 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. V Viperidae Crotalus adamenteus 1 0.0 1 1.1 dentary {R} TU 4 STR. V Serpentes 21 0.3 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Ranidae Rana spp. 1 0.0 1 1.1 tibio-fibula TU 4 STR. V Sirenidae Siren lacertina 8 0.1 1 1.1

PAGE 74

64Table A-3 Continued PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. V Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 1 0.0 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Amiidae Amia calv a 8 0.1 1 1.1 ectopterygoid {L} TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus 16 0.2 15 15.9 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus 4 0.1 4 4.2 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 9 0.1 9 9.5 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus 7 0.1 1 1.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis punctatus 2 0.0 2 2.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Micropter us salmoides 11 0.2 4 4.2 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 5 0.1 2 2.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis spp. 35 0.5 2 2.1 vomers TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae 580 8.9 21 22.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 92 1.4 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta 26 0.4 3 3.2 atlases TU 4 STR. V Esocidae Esox sp. 5 0.1 1 1.1 TU 4 STR. V Clupeidae 1 0.0 1 1.1 atlases TU 4 STR. V Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas 16 0.2 9 9.5 atlases TU 4 STR. V Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 1 0.0 1 1.1 2nd dorsal spine TU 4 STR. V Ictaluridae 11 0.2 4 4.2 basioccipitals TU 4 STR. V Osteichthyes 2512 38.4 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. V Vertebrata 2851 43.5 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. V Total 6549 100.0 95 100.0 TU 4 STR. VIIa Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus 11 0.3 1 1.9 astragolis {L} TU 4 STR. VIIa Mustelidae Lutra canadensis 7 0.2 1 1.9 teeth TU 4 STR. VIIa Leporidae Sylvilagus palustris 4 0.1 1 1.9 dentary {L} TU 4 STR. VIIa Mammalia 170 5.3 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. VIIa Aves 7 0.2 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Trionychidae Apalone ferox 5 0.2 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Kinosternidae Kinosternon spp. 3 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Testudines 35 1.1 0 0.0

PAGE 75

65Table A-3 Continued PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES TU 4 STR. VIIa Serpentes 11 0.3 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Sirenidae Siren lacertina 3 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 2 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Amiidae Amia calva 10 0.3 1 1.9 basio TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepom is auritus 5 0.2 5 9.6 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepom is gulosus 2 0.1 2 3.8 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 9 0.3 9 17.3 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus 23 0.7 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Lepomis punctatus 2 0.1 2 3.8 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Micropt erus salmoides 10 0.3 2 3.8 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae Pomoxi s nigromaculatus 3 0.1 1 1.9 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Centrarchidae 222 7.0 5 9.6 vomers TU 4 STR. VIIa Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus spp. 56 1.8 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta 13 0.4 1 1.9 atlas TU 4 STR. VIIa Esocidae Esox sp. 20 0.6 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas 55 1.8 7 11.6 atlases TU 4 STR. VIIa Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 2 0.1 2 3.8 2nd dorsal spine TU 4 STR. VIIa Ictaluridae Ictaluru s catus 1 0.0 1 1.9 pectoral spine {L} TU 4 STR. VIIa Ictaluridae 2 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Clupeidae 2 0.1 1 1.9 atlas TU 4 STR. VIIa Mugilidae Mugil spp. 3 0.1 1 1.9 TU 4 STR. VIIa Osteichthyes 933 29.3 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. VIIa Vertebrata 1554 48.8 0 0.0 TU 4 STR. VIIa Total 3185 100.0 53 100.0

PAGE 76

66 APPENDIX B STANDARD LENGTH DATA Table B-1 Modern Reference Measurem ents and Weights Taken from FLMNH Comparative Collection # Taxa Freshwght(g)SL (mm)Atlas (mm) Z4498 Lepomis gulosus 124 151 5.98 1803a Lepomis gulosus 231.5 190 3.8 4223 Lepomis gulosus 110 141 5.88 Z4412 Lepomis gulosus 62.3 118 4.37 Z4460 Lepomis gulosus 48.6 120 4.22 Z4461 Lepomis gulosus 61 121 4.61 Z4464 Lepomis gulosus 57.7 113 4.71 Z4465 Lepomis gulosus 64.6 111 4.45 Z4502 Lepomis gulosus 38.9 109 3.96 Z4608 Lepomis gulosus 160.8 158 7.52 Z3843 Lepomis microlophus 32.5 101 3.3 1804a Lepomis punctatus 80.5 130 2.55 2634 Micropterus salmoides 2497 457 13.43 2554 Micropterus salmoides 710 318 9.19 2555 Micropterus salmoides 412.9 243 6.53 Z3485 Micropterus salmoides 346 242 5.45 Z4433 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 31.6 103 2.01 2519 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 185.7 185 4.57 2520 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 91.9 160 3.58 1804c Lepomis punctatus 36.8 100 2.09 1804d Lepomis punctatus 15.8 80 1.17 2518 lepomis macrochirus 38 108 2.06 3320 lepomis macrochirus 302.9 199 4.59 Z4406 lepomis macrochirus 8.9 68 1.21 2515 lepomis macrochirus 60.8 120 2.59 Z4499 Lepomis gulosus 42 112 2.12 Z4500 Lepomis gulosus 24.9 90 1.76 Z4501 Lepomis gulosus 14.8 75 1.41 Z4503 Lepomis gulosus 6.2 62 1.21 Z4504 Lepomis gulosus 23 92 1.72 Z4506 Lepomis gulosus 28.1 91 1.92 Z4416 Micropterus salmoides 36.7 111 2.25 1799c Notemigonus crysoleucas242.6 235 4.35 2522 Notemigonus crysoleucas38.9 125 2.21 2526 Notemigonus crysoleucas38.5 125 2.34

PAGE 77

67 Table B-1 Continued # Taxa Freshwght(g)SL (mm)Atlas (mm) 2528 Notemigonus crysoleucas28.8 113 1.99 2530 Notemigonus crysoleucas20.5 110 1.81 2531 Notemigonus crysoleucas22.1 109 1.87 2557 Notemigonus crysoleucas220 195 3.94 2558 Notemigonus crysoleucas170 150 3.27 2559 Notemigonus crysoleucas135 155 3.01 2562 Notemigonus crysoleucas48 115 2.41 2935 Amia calva 2292 545 11.92 1815 Amia calva 535 300 10.55 Z3376 Amia calva 2040 497 10.89 3377 Amia calva 1297 450 10 3646 Amia calva 1120 397 9.44 3647 Amia calva 1120 412 10.72 Z4417 Amia calva 179.2 220 5.7 Z4418 Amia calva 56.9 156 3.26 Z4614 Amia calva 85.2 184 4.14 Z7152 Amia calva 933 347 8.57 1801a Erimyzon sucetta 580 305 5.7 1801b Erimyzon sucetta 382 275 5.6 1801c Erimyzon sucetta 88.3 164 3.63 1801d Erimyzon sucetta 56.6 143 3.12 1801e Erimyzon sucetta 23.3 110 2.17 3331 Erimyzon sucetta 404.5 260 5.89 3379 Erimyzon sucetta 526.3 345 8.23 3380 Erimyzon sucetta 473.7 250 7.56 SL = standard length (mm) freshwght = fresh weight (g) atlas = atlas width (mm)

PAGE 78

68 Table B-2 Atlas Width Measurements and Standard Length Calculations Test Unit Depth Taxa ElementAW(mm)Cult. SL (mm) TU 1 STR. IVc N. crysoleucasatlas 3.7 pre 184.7 TU 5 20--30cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.72 pre 185.5 TU 5 30-40cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.95 pre 194.8 TU 5 30-40cm N. crysoleucasatlas 2.83 pre 148.3 TU 5 40-50cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.62 pre 181.4 TU 5 40-50cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.72 pre 185.5 TU 5 40-50cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.34 pre 169.8 TU 5 40-50cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.07 pre 158.5 TU 5 50-60cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.72 pre 185.5 TU 5 60-70cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.43 pre 173.6 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.28 pre 167.3 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucasatlas 2.8 pre 147.1 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.36 pre 170.7 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucasatlas 2.93 pre 152.6 TU 5 70-80cm N. crysoleucasatlas 2.19 pre 120.3 TU 2 STR. XIb N. crysoleucasatlas 3.14 pre 161.5 TU 4 E/V N. crysoleucasatlas 2.49 ceramic 133.6 TU 4 E/V N. crysoleucasatlas 2.57 ceramic 137.1 TU 4 F/V N. crysoleucasatlas 3.09 ceramic 159.4 TU 4 F/V N. crysoleucasatlas 3.08 ceramic 159.0 TU 4 F/V N. crysoleucasatlas 2.59 ceramic 138.0 TU 4 G/V N. crysoleucasatlas 2.53 ceramic 135.4 TU 4 H/V N. crysoleucasatlas 3.56 ceramic 178.9 TU 4 I/V N. crysoleucasatlas 2.78 ceramic 146.2 TU 4 K/V N. crysoleucasatlas 3.34 ceramic 169.8 TU 4 J/VIIa N. crysoleucasatlas 3.5 ceramic 176.5 TU 4 J/VIIa N. crysoleucasatlas 2.43 ceramic 131.0 TU 4 J/VIIa N. crysoleucasatlas 2.7 ceramic 142.8 TU 4 J/VIIa N. crysoleucasatlas 2.48 ceramic 133.2 TU 4 K/VIIa N. crysoleucasatlas 2.79 ceramic 146.6 TU 4 K/VIIa N. crysoleucasatlas 3.02 ceramic 156.4 TU 4 M/VIIa N. crysoleucasatlas 2.7 ceramic 142.8 TU 1 STR. IIIa N. crysoleu casatlas 2.48 ceramic 133.2 TU 1 STR. IIIc N. crysoleu casatlas 2.69 ceramic 142.3 TU 5 0-10cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.18 ceramic 163.2 TU 5 0-10cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.49 ceramic 176.1 TU 5 10-20cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.22 ceramic 164.8 TU 5 10-20cm N. crysoleucasatlas 3.4 ceramic 172.3 TU 2 STR. III N. crysoleucasatlas 2.52 ceramic 134.9 TU 2 STR. IV N. crysoleucasatlas 3.37 ceramic 171.1 TU 2 STR. IV N. crysoleucasatlas 3.8 ceramic 188.7 TU 2 STR. IV N. crysoleucasatlas 2.98 ceramic 154.7 TU 2 STR. V N. crysoleucasatlas 3.42 ceramic 173.2 TU 2 STR. VIIIa N. crysol eucasatlas 3.06 ceramic 158.1 TU 2 STR. VIIIa N. crysol eucasatlas 3.05 ceramic 157.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb N. crysol eucasatlas 3.52 ceramic 177.3 TU 2 STR. VIIIc N. crysol eucasatlas 2.51 ceramic 134.5

PAGE 79

69 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa ElementAW(mm)Cult. SL (mm) TU 2 STR. Xa N. crysoleucas atlas 4.05 ceramic 198.8 TU 5 30-40cm L. auritus atlas 2.81 pre 117.1 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 2.48 pre 108.5 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 2.92 pre 119.9 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 2.57 pre 110.9 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 3.1 pre 124.4 TU 5 70-80cm L. auritus atlas 3.17 pre 126.1 TU 5 30-40cm L. punctatus atlas 2.63 pre 112.5 TU 5 30-40cm L. punctatus atlas 3.04 pre 122.9 TU 5 30-40cm L. punctatus atlas 2.64 pre 112.7 TU 5 30-40cm L. punctatus atlas 2.84 pre 117.9 TU 5 70-80cm L. punctatus atlas 2.48 pre 108.5 TU 5 70-80cm L. punctatus atlas 2.15 pre 99.4 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.84 pre 117.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.31 pre 129.5 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.57 pre 110.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.4 pre 106.3 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.35 pre 104.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.1 pre 97.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.84 pre 117.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.6 pre 111.7 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.13 pre 98.8 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.43 pre 107.1 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.03 pre 95.9 TU 1 STR. IVa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.32 pre 104.1 TU 1 STR. IVc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.72 pre 114.8 TU 1 STR. IVc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.65 pre 113.0 TU 1 STR. IVc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.35 pre 104.9 TU 5 30-40cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.64 pre 112.7 TU 5 30-40cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.62 pre 112.2 TU 5 30-40cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.43 pre 107.1 TU 5 30-40cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.43 pre 107.1 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.52 pre 109.5 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.56 pre 110.6 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.4 pre 106.3 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.69 pre 114.0 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.89 pre 119.2 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.33 pre 104.4 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.34 pre 130.3 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.86 pre 118.4 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.41 pre 106.6 TU 5 40-50cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.54 pre 110.1 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.8 pre 141.0 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.38 pre 131.2 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.18 pre 126.4 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.69 pre 114.0 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.52 pre 134.5

PAGE 80

70 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa ElementAW(mm)Cult. SL (mm) TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.02 pre 122.4 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.08 pre 123.9 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.36 pre 105.2 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.65 pre 113.0 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.57 pre 110.9 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.49 pre 108.7 TU 5 50-60cm Lepomis spp. atlas 4.95 pre 165.9 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.94 pre 120.4 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.33 pre 130.0 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.11 pre 124.7 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.28 pre 128.8 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.39 pre 106.0 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.52 pre 109.5 TU 5 60-70cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.82 pre 117.4 TU 5 80-90cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.04 pre 122.9 TU 2 STR. Xia Lepomis spp. atlas 3.59 pre 136.2 TU 2 STR. Xia Lepomis spp. atlas 3.31 pre 129.5 TU 2 STR. Xia Lepomis spp. atlas 2.74 pre 115.3 TU 2 STR. Xia Lepomis spp. atlas 2.02 pre 95.6 TU 2 STR. Xib Lepomis spp. atlas 3.59 pre 136.2 TU 2 STR. Xib Lepomis spp. atlas 2.7 pre 114.3 TU 2 STR. Xib Lepomis spp. atlas 2.31 pre 103.8 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 1.78 pre 88.5 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 1.99 pre 94.7 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 2.02 pre 95.6 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 2.38 pre 105.8 TU 1 STR. Iva Centrarchidae atlas 2.5 pre 109.0 TU 1 STR. Ivb Centrarchidae atlas 1.75 pre 87.5 TU 1 STR. Ivc Centrarchidae atlas 3.69 pre 138.5 TU 1 STR. Ivc Centrarchidae atlas 2.97 pre 121.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.49 pre 108.7 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.2 pre 126.9 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 pre 116.1 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.89 pre 119.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.6 pre 111.7 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.73 pre 115.1 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.25 pre 102.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.42 pre 132.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.01 pre 95.3 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.85 pre 118.2 TU 5 20-30cm Centrarchidae atlas 1.91 pre 92.4 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.43 pre 107.1 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.85 pre 142.1 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.7 pre 114.3 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.18 pre 126.4 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.54 pre 110.1 TU 5 30-40cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.16 pre 99.6

PAGE 81

71 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.3 pre 129.3 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.59 pre 111.4 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.76 pre 115.8 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.96 pre 120.9 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.17 pre 126.1 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.02 pre 122.4 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.31 pre 103.8 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.63 pre 112.5 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.42 pre 106.9 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 4.7 pre 160.7 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.19 pre 126.6 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 3.38 pre 131.2 TU 5 40-50 Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 pre 116.1 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.48 pre 133.6 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.76 pre 115.8 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.91 pre 143.5 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.54 pre 135.0 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.82 pre 117.4 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.65 pre 113.0 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.92 pre 119.9 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.72 pre 114.8 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.54 pre 110.1 TU 5 50-60cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.96 pre 120.9 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.68 pre 138.3 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.5 pre 134.1 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.22 pre 127.4 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 3 pre 121.9 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.76 pre 115.8 TU 5 60-70cm Centrarchidae atlas 4.25 pre 151.0 TU 5 80-90cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.97 pre 121.2 TU 5 80-90cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.19 pre 126.6 TU 2 STR. XIa Centrarchidae atlas 1.87 pre 91.2 TU 2 STR. Xib Centrarchidae atlas 2.38 pre 105.8 TU 2 STR. Xib Centrarchidae atlas 2.45 pre 107.7 TU 5 20-30cm M. salmoides atlas 4.87 pre 164.2 TU 5 20-30cm M. salmoides atlas 4.78 pre 162.4 TU 5 30-40cm M. salmoides atlas 5.3 pre 173.0 TU 5 30-40cm M. salmoides atlas 4.59 pre 158.4 TU 5 40-50cm M. salmoides atlas 3.95 pre 144.4 TU 5 50-60cm M. salmoides atlas 7.42 pre 212.8 TU 5 50-60cm M. salmoides atlas 4.32 pre 152.6 TU 5 60-70cm M. salmoides atlas 4.25 pre 151.0 TU 5 60-70cm M. salmoides atlas 11.26 pre 274.9 TU 5 80-90cm M. salmoides atlas 4.21 pre 150.2 TU 1 STR. Ivb P.nigromaculatus atlas 3.76 pre 140.1 TU 5 20-30cm P.nigromaculatus atlas 4.76 pre 161.9

PAGE 82

72 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 5 30-40cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.58 pre 135.9 TU 5 40-50cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.31 pre 152.4 TU 5 40-50cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.92 pre 119.9 TU 5 50-60cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.54 pre 135.0 TU 5 60-70cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.67 pre 113.5 TU 5 70-80cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 4.05 pre 146.6 TU 5 80-90cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.9 pre 143.3 TU 5 80-90cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 2.05 pre 96.5 TU 5 80-90cm P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.02 pre 122.4 TU 2 STR. XIa P. nigromaculatus atlas 3.14 pre 125.4 TU 4 E/V L. auritus atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7 TU 4 E/V L. auritus atlas 2.96 ceramic 120.9 TU 4 F/V L. auritus atlas 3.3 ceramic 129.3 TU 4 F/V L. auritus atlas 1.95 ceramic 93.6 TU 4 G/V L. auritus atlas 4.04 ceramic 146.4 TU 4 G/V L. auritus atlas 2.55 ceramic 110.3 TU 4 G/V L. auritus atlas 2.38 ceramic 105.8 TU 4 H/V L. auritus atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 4 H/V L. auritus atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7 TU 4 H/V L. auritus atlas 3.26 ceramic 128.3 TU 4 H/V L. auritus atlas 1.89 ceramic 91.8 TU 4 I/V L. auritus atlas 2.81 ceramic 117.1 TU 4 I/V L. auritus atlas 2.21 ceramic 101.1 TU 4 I/V L. auritus atlas 2.42 ceramic 106.9 TU 4 J/V L. auritus atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 4 K/VIIa L. auritus atlas 3 ceramic 121.9 TU 4 K/VIIa L. auritus atlas 2.63 ceramic 112.5 TU 4 L/VIIa L. auritus atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 4 M/VIIa L. auritus atlas 1.97 ceramic 94.2 TU 4 M/VIIa L. auritus atlas 2.47 ceramic 108.2 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.13 ceramic 98.8 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 3.2 ceramic 126.9 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.42 ceramic 106.9 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.89 ceramic 119.2 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.21 ceramic 101.1 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.39 ceramic 106.0 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.7 ceramic 114.3 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.47 ceramic 108.2 TU 2 STR. III L. auritus atlas 2.29 ceramic 103.3

PAGE 83

73 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 4 E/V L. gulosus atlas 3.45 ceramic 132.9 TU 4 H/V L. gulosus atlas 3.63 ceramic 137.1 TU 4 H/V L. gulosus atlas 3.34 ceramic 130.3 TU 4 I/V L. gulosus atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 4 J/VIIa L. gulosus atlas 3.35 ceramic 130.5 TU 4 K/VIIa L. gulosus atlas 2.26 ceramic 102.5 TU 2 STR. III L. gulosus atlas 3.32 ceramic 129.8 TU 2 STR. III L. gulosus atlas 3.21 ceramic 127.1 TU 2 STR. III L. gulosus atlas 2.83 ceramic 117.6 TU 4 G/V L. macrochiru s atlas 3.54 ceramic 135.0 TU 4 G/V L. macrochiru s atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 4 G/V L. macrochiru s atlas 2.19 ceramic 100.5 TU 4 I/V L. macrochiru s atlas 3.17 ceramic 126.1 TU 4 I/V L. macrochiru s atlas 2.52 ceramic 109.5 TU 4 I/V L. macrochiru s atlas 2.73 ceramic 115.1 TU 4 J/V L. macrochiru s atlas 2.55 ceramic 110.3 TU 4 K/V L. macrochiru s atlas 3.02 ceramic 122.4 TU 4 K/V L. macrochiru s atlas 2.61 ceramic 111.9 TU 4 J/VIIa L. macrochi rus atlas 3.03 ceramic 122.7 TU 4 K/VIIa L. macrochi rus atlas 2.9 ceramic 119.4 TU 4 K/VIIa L. macrochi rus atlas 4.57 ceramic 157.9 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochi rus atlas 2.39 ceramic 106.0 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochi rus atlas 3.04 ceramic 122.9 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochi rus atlas 2.32 ceramic 104.1 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochi rus atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 4 L/VIIa L. macrochi rus atlas 2.06 ceramic 96.8 TU 4 M/VIIa L. macrochi rus atlas 3.12 ceramic 124.9 TU 2 STR. III L. macrochi rus atlas 3.08 ceramic 123.9 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochi rus atlas 3.66 ceramic 137.8 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochi rus atlas 2.91 ceramic 119.7 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochi rus atlas 3.7 ceramic 138.7 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochi rus atlas 4.55 ceramic 157.5 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochi rus atlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochi rus atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 2 STR. IV L. macrochi rus atlas 2.65 ceramic 113.0 TU 2 STR. V L. macrochi rus atlas 2.35 ceramic 104.9 TU 2 STR. V L. macrochi rus atlas 2.67 ceramic 113.5 TU 4 F/V L. microlophus atlas 3.68 ceramic 138.3 TU 1 STR. IIIa L. microlophus atlas 3.27 ceramic 128.6 TU 1 STR. IIIb L. microlophus atlas 4.71 ceramic 160.9 TU 2 STR. IV L. microlophus atlas 2.84 ceramic 117.9 TU 4 H/V L. punctatus atlas 3.06 ceramic 123.4 TU 4 I/V L. punctatus atlas 3.04 ceramic 122.9 TU 4 K/VIIa L. punctatus atlas 2.28 ceramic 103.0 TU 4 K/VIIa L. punctatus atlas 2.33 ceramic 104.4 TU 1 STR. IIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.73 ceramic 115.1

PAGE 84

74 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 1 STR. IIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.45 ceramic 107.7 TU 1 STR. IIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.24 ceramic 127.8 TU 1 STR. IIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 1 STR. IIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 1 STR. IIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.13 ceramic 98.8 TU 1 STR. IIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.25 ceramic 102.2 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 2.85 ceramic 118.2 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 3.22 ceramic 127.4 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 2.72 ceramic 114.8 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 2.43 ceramic 107.1 TU 1 STR. IIId Lepomis spp. atlas 2.23 ceramic 101.6 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.1 ceramic 124.4 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.57 ceramic 110.9 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 4.44 ceramic 155.2 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.14 ceramic 125.4 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.68 ceramic 113.8 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.99 ceramic 121.7 TU 5 0-10cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.52 ceramic 109.5 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 4.37 ceramic 153.7 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.92 ceramic 119.9 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.2 ceramic 100.8 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 3.04 ceramic 122.9 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.49 ceramic 108.7 TU 5 10-20cm Lepomis spp. atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 2 STR. IV Lepomis spp. atlas 2.47 ceramic 108.2 TU 2 STR. IV Lepomis spp. atlas 2.42 ceramic 106.9 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.98 ceramic 121.4 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.64 ceramic 112.7 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.46 ceramic 107.9 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.72 ceramic 114.8 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.17 ceramic 99.9 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.18 ceramic 100.2 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.72 ceramic 114.8 TU 2 STR. V Lepomis spp. atlas 2.21 ceramic 101.1 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.62 ceramic 112.2 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.2 ceramic 126.9 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.5 ceramic 134.1 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.03 ceramic 122.7 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.98 ceramic 121.4 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.11 ceramic 124.7

PAGE 85

75 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.3 ceramic 103.6 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.33 ceramic 104.4 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.74 ceramic 139.6 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 3.01 ceramic 122.2 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 1.95 ceramic 93.6 TU 2 STR. VI Lepomis spp. atlas 2.59 ceramic 111.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.22 ceramic 127.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.55 ceramic 110.3 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.32 ceramic 129.8 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.32 ceramic 129.8 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.59 ceramic 111.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.48 ceramic 108.5 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 3.17 ceramic 126.1 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.99 ceramic 121.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.74 ceramic 115.3 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.95 ceramic 120.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.99 ceramic 121.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.6 ceramic 111.7 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.9 ceramic 119.4 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.09 ceramic 97.6 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.85 ceramic 118.2 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.16 ceramic 99.6 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.71 ceramic 114.5 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 3.05 ceramic 123.2 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.3 ceramic 103.6 TU 2 STR. VIIIc Lepomis spp. atlas 2.26 ceramic 102.5 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.33 ceramic 104.4 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 3.31 ceramic 129.5 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.58 ceramic 111.1 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.02 ceramic 95.6 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.2 ceramic 100.8 TU 2 STR. IX Lepomis spp. atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.86 ceramic 118.4 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.81 ceramic 117.1 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 3.25 ceramic 128.1 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.67 ceramic 113.5 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.63 ceramic 112.5 TU 2 STR. Xa Lepomis spp. atlas 2.46 ceramic 107.9 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.55 ceramic 110.3 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 3.32 ceramic 129.8 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.3 ceramic 103.6

PAGE 86

76 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.49 ceramic 108.7 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.14 ceramic 99.1 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.19 ceramic 100.5 TU 2 STR. Xb Lepomis spp. atlas 2.49 ceramic 108.7 TU 4 E/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.72 ceramic 139.2 TU 4 E/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.73 ceramic 115.1 TU 4 F/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.45 ceramic 107.7 TU 4 F/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 4 F/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.4 ceramic 106.3 TU 4 F/V Centrarchidae atlas 2 ceramic 95.0 TU 4 G/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.82 ceramic 117.4 TU 4 G/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 4 G/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.64 ceramic 112.7 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.92 ceramic 143.7 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.79 ceramic 116.6 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.45 ceramic 132.9 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.34 ceramic 104.7 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.29 ceramic 103.3 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.35 ceramic 104.9 TU 4 H/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.68 ceramic 113.8 TU 4 I/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.67 ceramic 138.0 TU 4 I/V Centrarchidae atlas 3.49 ceramic 133.8 TU 4 I/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.41 ceramic 106.6 TU 4 I/V Centrarchidae atlas 2.27 ceramic 102.7 TU 1 STR. IIIc Centrarchidae atlas 2.24 ceramic 101.9 TU 1 STR. IIIc Centrarchidae atlas 2.84 ceramic 117.9 TU 1 STR. IIId Centrarchidae atlas 3.46 ceramic 133.1 TU 1 STR. IIId Centrarchidae atlas 2.18 ceramic 100.2 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.04 ceramic 122.9 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.78 ceramic 116.4 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 4.07 ceramic 147.1 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 4.81 ceramic 163.0 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.5 ceramic 109.0 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.08 ceramic 123.9 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.23 ceramic 127.6 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 1.91 ceramic 92.4 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 3.4 ceramic 131.7 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.76 ceramic 115.8 TU 5 0-10cm Centrarchidae atlas 2.66 ceramic 113.2 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.38 ceramic 131.2 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.67 ceramic 138.0 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 4.22 ceramic 150.4 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.24 ceramic 127.8 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.94 ceramic 120.4 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.53 ceramic 134.8 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.17 ceramic 126.1

PAGE 87

77 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.46 ceramic 133.1 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.65 ceramic 113.0 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.79 ceramic 116.6 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.52 ceramic 109.5 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.8 ceramic 116.9 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.78 ceramic 116.4 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchida e atlas 1.83 ceramic 90.0 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.93 ceramic 120.2 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchida e atlas 2.08 ceramic 97.4 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.64 ceramic 112.7 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchida e atlas 2.17 ceramic 99.9 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 2.32 ceramic 104.1 TU 2 STR. III Centrarchidae atlas 3.49 ceramic 133.8 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 2.39 ceramic 106.0 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 2.59 ceramic 111.4 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 2.24 ceramic 101.9 TU 2 STR. IV Centrarchidae atlas 1.92 ceramic 92.7 TU 2 STR. V Centrarchidae atlas 1.93 ceramic 93.0 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.81 ceramic 117.1 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 6.1 ceramic 188.6 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.8 ceramic 116.9 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.98 ceramic 121.4 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.77 ceramic 116.1 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.42 ceramic 106.9 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 1.83 ceramic 90.0 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.68 ceramic 113.8 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.31 ceramic 103.8 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 3.29 ceramic 129.1 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.98 ceramic 121.4 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.6 ceramic 111.7 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.71 ceramic 114.5 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.53 ceramic 109.8 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.74 ceramic 115.3 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.63 ceramic 112.5 TU 2 STR. VI Centrarchidae atlas 2.24 ceramic 101.9 TU 2 STR. VIIIb Centrarchidae atlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 2 STR. IX Centrarchidae atlas 2.39 ceramic 106.0 TU 2 STR. IX Centrarchidae atlas 2.67 ceramic 113.5 TU 2 STR. IX Centrarchidae atlas 1.85 ceramic 90.6 TU 4 H/V M. salmoides atlas 3.56 ceramic 135.5 TU 4 H/V M. salmoides atlas 3.8 ceramic 141.0 TU 4 I/V M. salmoides atlas 3.62 ceramic 136.9 TU 4 K/V M. salmoides atlas 3.6 ceramic 136.4 TU 4 J/VIIa M. salmoides atlas 7.74 ceramic 218.3 TU 4 J/VIIa M. salmoides atlas 3.25 ceramic 128.1

PAGE 88

78 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 1 STR. IIIa M. salmoides atlas 3.08 ceramic 123.9 TU 2 STR. III M. salmoides atlas 5.24 ceramic 171.8 TU 2 STR. III M. salmoides atlas 3.89 ceramic 143.0 TU 2 STR. V M. salmoides atlas 7.72 ceramic 218.0 TU 2 STR. VIIIa M. salmoides atlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 2 STR. VIIIb M. salmoides atlas 3.65 ceramic 137.6 TU 2 STR. IX M. salmoides atlas 3.41 ceramic 131.9 TU 2 STR. Xb M. salmoides atlas 2.67 ceramic 113.5 TU 4 H/V P. nigromaculatusatlas 4.26 ceramic 151.3 TU 4 I/V P. nigromaculatusatlas 4.03 ceramic 146.2 TU 4 L/VIIa P. nigromaculatusatlas 5.05 ceramic 167.9 TU 1 STR. IIIa P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.02 ceramic 122.4 TU 1 STR. IIId P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.41 ceramic 131.9 TU 5 0-10cm P. nigromaculatusatlas 4.1 ceramic 147.7 TU 5 0-10cm P. nigromaculatusatlas 5.06 ceramic 168.1 TU 5 0-10cm P. nigromaculatusatlas 4.49 ceramic 156.2 TU 5 0-10cm P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.49 ceramic 133.8 TU 5 10-20cm P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.12 ceramic 124.9 TU 5 10-20cm P. nigromaculatusatlas 2.64 ceramic 112.7 TU 5 10-20cm P. nigromaculatusatlas 2.69 ceramic 114.0 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatusatlas 4.79 ceramic 162.6 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatusatlas 5.13 ceramic 169.6 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.63 ceramic 137.1 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.59 ceramic 136.2 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatusatlas 4.17 ceramic 149.3 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.81 ceramic 141.2 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatusatlas 2.5 ceramic 109.0 TU 2 STR. III P. nigromaculatusatlas 2.71 ceramic 114.5 TU 2 STR. IV P. nigromaculatusatlas 4.11 ceramic 148.0 TU 2 STR. IV P. nigromaculatusatlas 1.93 ceramic 93.0 TU 2 STR. V P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.79 ceramic 140.8 TU 2 STR. V P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.36 ceramic 130.7 TU 2 STR. VI P. nigromaculatusatlas 5.23 ceramic 171.6 TU 2 STR. VI P. nigromaculatusatlas 4.49 ceramic 156.2 TU 2 STR. VI P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.26 ceramic 128.3 TU 2 STR. VI P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.19 ceramic 126.6 TU 2 STR. VIIIa P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.33 ceramic 130.0 TU 2 STR. VIIIb P. nigromaculatusatlas 2.81 ceramic 117.1 TU 2 STR. VIIIb P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.56 ceramic 135.5 TU 2 STR. VIIIc P. nigromaculatusatlas 3.52 ceramic 134.5 TU 5 60-70cm Amia calva atlas 8.12 pre 334.1 TU 5 60-70cm Amia calva atlas 15.04 pre 580.8 TU 1 STR. IIIa Amia calva atlas 6.18 ceramic 261.5 TU 5 0-10cm Amia calva atlas 7.52 ceramic 311.8 TU 5 0-10cm Amia calva atlas 6.71 ceramic 281.5 TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 13.12 ceramic 513.8 TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 9.86 ceramic 397.6

PAGE 89

79 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 10.32 ceramic 414.3 TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 10.7 ceramic 427.9 TU 2 STR. III Amia calva atlas 6.94 ceramic 290.2 TU 2 STR. VIIIc Amia calva atlas 4.1 ceramic 180.9 TU 5 20-30cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.23 pre 232.3 TU 5 20-30cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.65 pre 210.5 TU 5 20-30cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 3.95 pre 183.7 TU 5 40-50cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.69 pre 212.0 TU 5 40-50cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.46 pre 203.3 TU 5 50-60cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 6.37 pre 274.0 TU 5 50-60cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.44 pre 240.1 TU 5 50-60cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.14 pre 228.9 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.27 pre 233.8 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.76 pre 251.8 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 7.02 pre 297.2 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.45 pre 240.4 TU 5 60-70cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.2 pre 193.3 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.22 pre 231.9 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.86 pre 255.5 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.88 pre 256.2 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.24 pre 232.7 TU 5 70-80cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.63 pre 247.1 TU 5 80-90cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.81 pre 253.7 TU 5 80-90cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.57 pre 207.5 TU 5 80-90cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.13 pre 190.6 TU 2 STR. Xia Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.89 pre 219.6 TU 4 H/V Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.65 ceramic 247.8 TU 4 H/V Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.65 ceramic 210.5 TU 4 I/V Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.79 ceramic 252.9 TU 4 L/VIIa Erimyzon sucetta atlas 6.04 ceramic 262.0 TU 1 STR. IIIa Erimyzon sucetta atlas 3.81 ceramic 178.2 TU 5 0-10cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.12 ceramic 228.2 TU 5 0-10cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.95 ceramic 221.8 TU 5 0-10cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.89 ceramic 219.6 TU 5 0-10cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 6.08 ceramic 263.5 TU 5 10-20cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.37 ceramic 237.5 TU 5 10-20cm Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.06 ceramic 225.9 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.82 ceramic 254.0 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.46 ceramic 240.8 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.37 ceramic 237.5 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5 ceramic 223.7 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.94 ceramic 221.5 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.28 ceramic 234.1 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.89 ceramic 219.6 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.01 ceramic 186.0 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.58 ceramic 207.9 TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.58 ceramic 207.9

PAGE 90

80 Table B-2 Continued Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm) TU 2 STR. III Erimyzon sucetta atlas 3.24 ceramic 155.6 TU 2 STR. VI Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.5 ceramic 204.8 TU 2 STR. VI Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.08 ceramic 226.7 TU 2 STR. IX Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.28 ceramic 234.1 TU 2 STR. Xa Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.66 ceramic 210.9 TU 2 STR. Xb Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.35 ceramic 236.7 AW = Atlas Width (mm) Cult. = Cultural Component (e.g., preceramic vs. ceramic) SL = Standard Length (mm)

PAGE 91

81 LIST OF REFERENCES Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman 2003 Early and Middle Holocene. In Handbook of North American Indians, Southeast Volume Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Aten, Lawrence E. 1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island, Florida: Ripley P. Bullen’s 1961 Excavation at Harris Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist 52:131-200. Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow Smokes and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20. Blitz, John H. 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feas ting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58:80-95. Bourdiue, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bowser, Brenda J. 2000 From Pottery to politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political Factionalism, Ethnicity, and Domes tic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:219-248. Braun, David P. 1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories edited by J.A. Moore and A.S. Keene, pp.108-134. Academic Press, New York. Broughton, Jack M. 1999 Resource Depression and Intensifica tion During the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay: Evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. Anthropological Records Vol. 32 University of California Press, Berkeley.

PAGE 92

82 Brown, James A. 1985 Long-Term Trends to Sedentism and the Emergence of Complexity in the American Midwest. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity pp. 201-224. Academic Press, New York. 1989 The Beginnings of Pottery as an Economic Process. In What’s New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation edited by S.E. van der Leeuw, pp. 203-224. Unwin Hyman, London. Brown, James A., and Robert K. Vierra 1983 What Happened in the Middle Arch aic? Introduction to an Ecological Approach to Koster Site Archaeology. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers In the American Midwest edited by J.L. Phillips and J.A. Brown, pp.165195. Academic Press, New York. Bullen, Ripley P. 1954 Culture Changes during the Fi ber-Tempered Period of Florida. Southern Indian Studies 6:45-48. 1972 The Orange Period of Pe ninsular Florida. In Fiber-Tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern-Columbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance edited by Ripley P. Bullen and James P. Stoltman, pp. 9-33. Florida Anthr opological Society Publications 6. Gainesville. Cashdan, Elizabeth 1980 Egalitarianism among Hunter and Gatherers. American Anthropologist 82:116-129. Claassen, Cheryl 1991 Gender, Shellfishing, and th e Shell Mound Archaic. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory edited by Joan M. Gero and Margeret W. Conkey, pp. 276-301. Blackwell, Oxford. 1996 A Consideration of the Social Organi zation of the Shell Mound Archaic. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 235-258. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Clastres, Pierre 1998 Chronicle of the Guayaki Indians Zone Books, New York. Connaughton, Sean P. 2001 Resource Depression in the Subsisten ce Economy of Prehistoric HunterGatherers of the St. Johns River Valley, Florida Senior Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 93

83 Cumbaa, Stephen L. 1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater She llfish Exploitation in the Florida Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 29 (2): 50-59. DeBoer, Warren R. 2001 The Big Drink: Feast and Forum in the Upper Amazon. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Pe rspectives on Food, Politics, and Power edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 215-239. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Ellen, Roy 1995 Foraging, Starch Extraction and th e Sedentary Lifestyle in Lowland Rainforest of Central Seram. In Hunters and Gatherers Volume 1: History, Evolution and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches and James Woodbur n, pp. 117-134. Berg, Oxford. Goggin, John M. 1998 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida Reprinted. University Press of Florid a, Gainesville. Originally Published 1952, Volume 47 Publications in Anthropology. Yale University Press, New Haven. Gosselain, Oliver P. 1992a Bonfire of the Enquiries. Pottery Firing Temperatures in Archaeology: What For? Journal of Archaeological Science 19(3):243-259. 1992b Technology and Style: Potters and Po ttery Among the Bafia of Cameroon. Man 27:559-586. Hally, David J. 1983 Use Alteration of Pottery Surfaces: An Important Source of Evidence for the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 4:326. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51:267-295. Hamilton, Fran 1999 Southeastern Archaic Mounds: Exampl es of Elaboration in a Temporally Fluctuating Environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18: 344-355. Hawkes, K, K. Hill, and J. O’Connell 1982 Why Hunters Gather: Optimal Fo raging and the Ache of Eastern Paraguay. American Ethnologist 9:379-398.

PAGE 94

84 Hayden, Brian 1994 Competition, Labor and Complex Hunter-Gatherers. In Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research edited by E.S. Burch, Jr., and L. J. Ellanna, pp. 223-239. Berg, Oxford. 2002 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon To The Importance Of Feasting. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographi c Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 23-64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Hendon, Julia A. 2000 Having and Holding: Storage, Memor y, Knowledge and Social Relations. American Anthropologist 102:42-53. Hofman, Jack L. 1985 Middle Archaic Ritual and Shell Midden Archaeology: Considering The Significance of Cremations. In Exploring Tennessee Prehistory: A Dedication to Alfred K. Guthe edited by T. Whyte, C. Boyd, and B. Riggs, pp.1-21. Report of Investigati ons 42. Knoxville: Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee. Hoyer, Mark V. 1994 Handbook of Common Freshwater Fish in Florida University of Florida Co. Extensive Services, Institut e of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, Florida. Ingold, Tim 1999 On the Social Relations of the Hunter-Gatherer Band. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers edited by R.B. Lee and R. Daly, pp. 399-410. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jefferies, Richard W. 1996 The Emergence of Long-Distance Exchange Networks in the Southeastern United States. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 222-234. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Jochim, Michael A. 1981 Strategies for Survival: Cultural Behavior in an Ecological Context Academic Press, New York. Joyce, Rosemary A. 1998 Performing the Body in Pre-Hispanic Central America. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 33:147-165.

PAGE 95

85 Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways Smithsonian Institution press, Washington, D.C. Loney, Helen L. 2000 Society and Technological Control: A Critical Review of Models of Technological Change in Ceramic Studies. American Antiquity 65:646668. Lourandos, Harry 1995 Palaeopolitics: Resource Intensif ication in Aboriginal Australia and Papua New Guinea. In Hunters and Gatherers Volume 1: History, Evolution and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches and James Woodburn, pp. 148-160. Berg, Oxford. Marquardt, William H. 1985 Complexity and Scale in the Study of Fisher-Gatherer-Hunters: An Example from the Eastern United States. In Prehistoric HunterGatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity edited by T.D. Price and J.A. Brown, pp.59-98. Academic Press, Orlando. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Mills, Barbara J. 1999 Ceramics and Social Contexts of Food Consumption in the Northern Southwest. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction edited by James M. Skibo and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 99-114. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Moore, Clarence B. 1892 Certain Shell Heaps of the St. John’s Ri ver, Florida, Hitherto Unexplored. The American Naturalist (November) pp. 912-922. Page, Lawrence and Brooks M. Burr 1991 A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes Houghton Mifflin, New York. Quitmyer, Irv R. 2001 The Mount Taylor Peri od Zooarchaeological Record of the Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (8VO53): Middle Holo cene Subsistence in Central-East Florida. Report Prepared for Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Sarasota, And for the Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. Reitz, Elizabeth J., E.S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 96

86 Rice, Prudence M. 1986 Pottery Analysis: A Source Book University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1996 Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style and Origins. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:133-163. 1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal of Archaeolog ical Method and Theory 6:1-54. Russo, Michael 1988 A Comment on Temporal Patterns in marine Shel lfish Use in Florida and Georgia. Southeastern Archaeology 7(1):61-68. 1994 Why We Don’t Believe in Arch aic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We Should: The Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 13:93-108. 1996a Southeastern Mid-Holocene Coastal Settlements. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 177-199. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1996b Southeastern Archaic Mounds. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 259-287. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Russo, Michael, B. Purdy, L. Newsom, and R. McGee 1992 A Reinterpretation of Late Archaic Ad aptations in Central-East Florida: Groves’ Orange Midden (8Vo2601). Southeastern Archaeology 11(2): 95-108. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tr adition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. 1995 The Social Contradictions of Traditional and Innovative Cooking Technologies in the Prehistoric American Southeast. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, pp. 223-240. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1996 Technological Innovations in Econo mic and Social Contexts. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 57-74. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 97

87 2001a Hunter-Gatherers and Trad itions of Resistance. In The Archaeology Of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 218-236. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2001b Articulating Hidden Histories of th e Mid-Holocene Southeast. In Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands edited by L.P. Sullivan and S.C. Prezzano, pp.103-119. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 2003a New AMS Dates on Orange Fibe r-Tempered Pottery from the Middle St. Johns Valley and Their Implicatio ns for Culture History in Northeast Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1):5-14. 2003b St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2000-2001: Blue Spring and Hontoon Island State Parks Technical Report 4. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2003c Crescent Lake Archaeological Sur vey 2002: Putnam and Flagler Counties, Florida Technical Report 5. Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Sassaman, Kenneth E., and Wictoria Rudolphi 2001 Communities of Practice in the Early Ceramic Traditions of the American Southeast. Journal of Anthropological Research 57:407-425. Schiffer, Michael B. and James M. Skibo 1987 Theory and experiment in th e Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28:595-622. Schrire, Carmel 1984 Wild Surmises on Savage Thoughts. In Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies edited by Carmel Schrire, pp. 1-25. Academic Press, New York. Schuldenrein, Joseph 1996 Geoarchaeology and the Mid-Holoce ne Landscape History of the Greater Southeast. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 327. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Sewell, William H., Jr. 1992 A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology 98:1-29.

PAGE 98

88 Smith, Eric Alden 1995 Risk and Uncertainty in the ‘Ori ginal Affluent Society’: Evolutionary Ecology of Resource-Shari ng and Land Tenure. In Hunters and Gatherers Volume 1: History, Evolution and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches and James Woodburn, pp. 222-251. Berg, Oxford. Smith, Bruce D. 1986 The Archaeology of the Southeaste rn United States: From Dalton to deSoto. In Advances in World Archaeology (vol. 5) edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close, pp.1-92. Academic Press, Orlando. Stark, Miriam T., Ronald L. Bishop., and Elizabeth Miksa 2000 Ceramic Technology and Social Bounda ries: Cultural Practices in Kalinga Clay Selection and Use. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:295-331. Steward, Julian H. 1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Me thodology of Multilinear Evolution Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Trigger, Bruce 1987 Native Shell Mounds of Nort h America: Early Studies Garland Publishing Inc., New York. 1989 A History of Archaeological Thought Cambridge University Press. Watts, William A., Eric C. Grimm, and T.C. Hussey 1996 Mid-Holocene Forest History of Fl orida and the Coasta l Plain of Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 28-38. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Wheeler, Ryan J. & Ray M. McGee 1994 Report of Preliminary Zooarchaeolo gical Analysis: Groves’ Orange Midden. The Florida Anthropologist 47 (4): 393-403. Wheeler, Ryan J., Christine L. Newman, & Ray M. McGee 2000 A New Look at the Mount Taylor and Bluffton Site s, Volusia County with an Outline of the Mount Taylor Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 53 (2-3):132-157. Wiessner, Polly 1982 Risk, Reciprocity and Social Infl uences on !Kung San Economics. In Politics and History in Band Societies edited by Eleanor Leacock and Richard Lee, pp. 61-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 99

89 Winterhalder, Bruce 1993 Work, Resources, and Populati on in Foraging Societies. Man 28: 321-340. Winterhalder, Bruce and Eric A. Smith 1992 Evolutionary Ecology and the Social Sciences. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior edited by Eric A. Smith and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 3-24. Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY. Wright, Rita P. 1991 Women’s Labor and Pottery Production in Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory edited by J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey, pp. 194-223. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge. Wyman, Jeffries 1875 Freshwater Shell Mounds of th e St. John’s River, Florida Memoirs of the Peabody Academy of Science. Fourth Memoir Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.1-83. Harvard University, Cambridge.

PAGE 100

90 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sean P. Connaughton graduated from Eau Gallie High School, Melbourne, FL in 1997. He attended the University of Flor ida (UF) for his unde rgraduate education majoring in anthropology. Upon completing his senior thesis, he graduated from UF in 2001 and was admitted to the graduate program in the Department of Anthropology at UF. He will graduate in May 2004 with his Ma ster of Art degree in anthropology. In the fall of 2004 he will attend Simon Fraser Univer sity in Vancouver, Canada, to pursue his Ph.D. in Archaeology. His area of focus will be in the South Pacific, particularly Fiji and Tonga.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004864/00001

Material Information

Title: Onset of Pottery in the Subsistence Economy of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the St. Johns River Valley
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004864:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004864/00001

Material Information

Title: Onset of Pottery in the Subsistence Economy of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers of the St. Johns River Valley
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004864:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











ONSET OF POTTERY IN THE SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY OF PREHISTORIC
HIUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER VALLEY


















By

SEAN P. CONNAUGHTON


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Sean P. Connaughton




























For John James Connaughton
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am eternally grateful to Ken Sassaman for the opportunities that he has bestowed

upon me since I was a neophyte sophomore at the University of Florida. Without his

insight, comments, encouragement, and the generous use of his figures and tables from

the 2003 Blue Spring report (see References), this thesis would have never come to

fruition. Copious appreciation goes to Michael Heckenberger for challenging me to ask

better questions in the anthropological arena. I tip my ball cap to Iry Quitmyer for his

instructiveness and assistance in observing my data set, and for offering the resources and

tools to quantify said data at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Many, many thanks

go to Meggan Blessing for her maj or contribution of vertebrate faunal analysis to this

thesis. Thanks must also go to the 2000 and 2001 St. Johns Archaeological Field School,

without whose effort in the dirt, none of this analysis would have been possible. I'd like

to recognize all my friends in the Laboratory of Southeastern Archaeology at the

University of Florida, for their support, discussions, comments, and companionship

during my time at UF. A most gracious "thank you" is warranted to Vijay Villavan for

his sincere help in formatting this thesis. I'd also like to acknowledge my close friends

through the years, who have always tended to me when I was down or frustrated, and

never stopped supporting me, and always took the time to listen. I thank them all.

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge my loving parents and two younger sisters, who have

always encouraged me in my endeavor of becoming an archaeologist.





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S .........__.. ..... .___ .............._ vii..


LIST OF FIGURES ........._.__........_. ..............viii...


AB STRAC T ................ .............. ix


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Early Y ears .............. ...............2.....
Subsistence .............. ...............3....
The Site and Environment ................. ...............8.......... .....
Sum m ary ................. ...............9.......... ......


2 BACKGROUND ................. ...............10.......... .....


Interpretive Sketch of Archaic Prehistory ................ ............ ....................10
Early Archaic............... ...............10
Middle Archaic ................. ...............12.................
Mt. Taylor Period .............. .. ...............16..
Late Archaic and Orange Period .............. ...............17....
Early Pottery ................. ...............19.......... .....


3 BLUE SPRING MIDDEN B (8VO43)............... ...............23


4 METHODS AND MATERIALS .............. ...............37....


Vertebrate Fauna............... ...............37.
Invertebrate Fauna .............. ...............40....


5 RE SULT S .............. ...............42....


Variation in Fish Size .............. ...............46....

Standard Length ................. ...............48.................












6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .............. ...............51....


Alternative Explanations .............. ...............53....
Future Study ................. ...............56.................


APPENDIX


A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA ................. ...............57........... ....


B STANDARD LENGTH DATA .............. ...............66....


LI ST OF REFERENCE S ............ ..... ._ ............... 1....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............. ..............90.....


















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

4-1 Volume of Matrix from All Four Sub sistence Columns ................ .............. ....3 8

5-1 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Vertebrate Fauna by General Taxa and
Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43). ............. ...............43.....

5-2 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Fish by General Taxa and Component, Blue
Spring Midden B (8Vo43)............... ...............45

5-3 Descriptive Statistics of Lateral Atlas Width (mm) of Fishes from Cultural
Components, 8VO'43 ................ .............. .................. ...............47

5-4 Student t-Test Values on Lateral Atlas Widths of Fish from Cultural Components,
8VO'43 ......_. ...._... ............... ........_........._. ...._............48

5-5 Descriptive Statistics for Standard Length (mm) of Fishes from Cultural
Components ................. ...............49.................

A-1 The List of Taxonomic and Common Names .............. ...............57....

A-2 MNI Count of Taxon as One Whole Assemblage............... ...............5

A-3 MNI and NISP ................. ...............61................

B-1 Modern Reference Measurements and Weights Taken from FLMNH Comparative
Collection .............. ...............66....

B-2 Atlas Width Measurements and Standard Length Calculations .............. ..............68

















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pg

3-1 Site map, Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43) .............. ...............24....

3-2 Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of north wall of Test Unit 1, 8VO'43. .........26

3-3 Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of south wall of Test Unit 2, 8VO'43..........29

3-4 Stratigraphic drawing of north wall of Test Units 3 and 4, 8VO'43 ................... ......32

3-5 Stratigraphic drawings of all walls of Test Unit 5, 8VO'43 .............. .... ........._._. 34
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

ONSET OF POTTERY IN THE SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY OF PREHISTORIC
HIUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER VALLEY

By

Sean P. Connaughton

May 2004

Chair: Kenneth E. Sassaman
Major Department: Anthropology

I investigated changes in the subsistence economy of hunter-gatherers in Florida

accompanying the introduction of pottery. Data on vertebrate fauna from four

subsistence columns excavated from Blue Spring Midden B (8VO'43) in Volusia County,

Florida provide an opportunity to examine the economic consequences of the onset of

Orange fiber-tempered pottery. Since Orange fiber-tempered pottery is arguably some of

the oldest pottery in North America, dating to at least 4000 radiocarbon years before

present (rcybp), its presence in the archaeological record allows one to observe if any

change is evident in the subsistence record from preceramic cultures to ceramic cultures.

Questions to consider with the inception of pottery are (1) Were any species added to the

diet? (2) Were any species dropped from the diet? (3) Did the proportions of species

change? (4) Did the size of any species change? Focus is placed on technological change

and its implications for economic stress given the growing archaeological evidence for









increasingly intensive human occupation of sites in riverine and coastal zones throughout

the Southeastern United States as early as 5500 years ago (Brown 1985; Russo 1996).

Permanent settlements of these Middle Archaic populations appear to have been

predicated on the efficient use of aquatic resources (notably shellfish and fish) with

pottery historically being viewed as a subsistence technology that marks the innovation of

improved boiling techniques over nonceramic containers (Sassaman 1993:15).

Nevertheless, if no change is evident in the faunal assemblage through time at Blue

Spring Midden B, then alternative explanations must be proffered for the development

and adoption of a ceramic technology. Data presented here show no significant change in

the subsistence record with the inception of pottery. Alternative explanations for the

adoption of pottery, such as social intensification and ritual, need to be entertained.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

In this thesis I evaluate what changes in subsistence, if any, attended the onset of

pottery making and using in the middle St. Johns River Valley. It is important to discuss

the relationship between subsistence and technology in terms of scale and time. Do

technological advancements truly affect subsistence lifeways? Emphasis is placed on

resource selection, the frequency of resource use by human populations, and changes in

species size (if any) before and after the advent of pottery.

Shell middens are found along many of Florida' s maj or river systems and coastal

areas. Once thought to have been naturally occurring, shell middens are the subject of

ongoing debate regarding their cultural significance. Florida's prehistoric human

occupation dates from about 11,000 years ago. Some 5,500 years ago, certain populations

began to establish relatively permanent settlement along the coast, and on the St. Johns

River. Intensive habitation of sites along the river and associated wetlands display

histories of repeated occupation on the same sites, leaving behind evidence in the

archaeological record: discarded remains of shellfish, fish and other food resources, along

with bone, shell and/or stone artifacts. Archaic peoples also began to inter their dead in

sites that would later be covered by massive piles of shellfish remains and earth.

Monumental in size, perhaps they marked the resting place of the dead and/or functioned

in a capacity to facilitate ritual and ceremony. By about 4000 B.P., some river-dwelling

groups began to make and use pottery. Human populations were also increasing in size

around this time, potentially dividing into several distinct ethnic groups, yet sharing









similar traditions of fishing, shell fishing, and mound building (Sassaman 2003b:7). The

accumulation of refuse and continual land use through time, along with mound

construction, was easily visible on the landscape at the time of contact, and intrigued

many early naturalists and antiquarians interested in the deep past of early Florida

inhabitants (Trigger 1987).

Early Years

John Bartram and his son William first ascended the St. Johns River in 1765.

John Bartram published an account of the j ourney, and made frequent mention of the

shell mounds or bluffs on which they camped. He wrote of the abundance of pottery

scattered around and within these mounds, yet he offered no explanation of their origin

(Wyman 1875). Bartram supposed the mounds to be of natural formation, perhaps

caused by wind. This view was typical to the profession in which John Bartram

practiced, for he was a naturalist. It was not until 100 years later that an archaeologist

from the Peabody Museum noticed the significance of these shell mounds.

Jeffries Wyman, having heard about these shell mounds, traveled down south and

stayed in L.P. Thursby's home along the Blue Spring River in DeLand, Florida, to

investigate the shell midden on which the Thursby house was built. Wyman found the

bones of deer, opossum, turtle, and alligator. He also found chisels made of shell, with

the beak ground down and a hole in the back; along with bifaces and fragments of pottery

scattered throughout the mound (Wyman 1875). Wyman conducted limited excavations

in the area, and noted the stratigraphy, along with the vast amount of freshwater shellfish.

Wyman also described two species of snail, which today are known as the Banded

Mystery Snail (Viviparus georgianus) and the Applesnail (Pomacea paludosa). Jeffries










Wyman believed these mounds were the consequence of human consumption; a bold new

view, considering that he lived in the age of the Moundbuilder Myth.

Wyman's work was influential to Clarence B. Moore, who did extensive shell

midden studies along the St. Johns River. Moore was particularly attentive to the stratum

of these shell middens, but concluded that stratification in the shell heaps to be a matter

of "accident." Moore states,

The Aborigines doubtlessly made use of species of shellfish for the time being the
most abundant, and such layers are of necessity local and not traceable throughout
the entire heap. The condition of these shells often varies greatly in different
portions of the same mound. At times, large quantities are found unbroken,
without admixture of sand or loam and so loosely thrown together that they can be
literally scooped from the hole. Again other portions of the mound are met with
where fragments of shell and sandy loam are found in such close connection that a
pickaxe is necessary. It is apparent, therefore that some parts of the shell heaps
grew under the aborigines dwelling upon them, and were beaten down and made
solid by the pressure of many feet for long periods of time, during which periods of
refuse of organic matter mingled with shells. Other parts owe their existence to the
dumping of masses of shell by natives not dwelling immediately upon them (Moore
1892:914).

Moore's observation conveys images of subsistence practices, and alludes to the

possibility that all these middens housed populations. The issue of permanent settlement

is still an enigma today, for the evidence is not overwhelming (or rather, it is

inconspicuous). Nonetheless, Moore attempted to explain the existence of shell middens

as trash heaps, where the river inhabitants disposed of their refuse.

Subsistence

Cumbaa (1976) appears to be the first to quantify shellfish from the Archaic

period in the St. Johns River Valley. Cumbaa discussed shellfish as an energy base in his

report on Kimball Island in Lake County, Florida. He stated that shellfish collecting

would not be conducive to long-term sustainability; and that the proper caloric intake of

snails for one day to feed 13.4 individuals would require the collection of nearly 24,000









snails and an expenditure of 10-20 people hours (Cumbaa 1976:53). Comparatively, one

140 lb. white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) is equitable in calories to 24,000 snails

(this estimation was based on a 3,000 calorie diet) (Cumbaa 1976:53). It can be inferred

that human populations who harvested snails this intensely would surely have to relocate,

for the snail populations could not replenish themselves quickly enough to sustain the

human population. Clearly, human populations were not exclusively consuming snails,

but rather supplementing snails into their daily diet. Russo et al. (1992:104) at Groves'

Orange Midden (8VO'2601) used allometric calculations on shell weight to ascertain meat

weight for shellfish; revealing it as a maj or contributor to the faunal aspect of the diet,

representing 98% of the dietary meat weight, with Hish making up a small contribution.

Wheeler and McGee (1994), conducting further research at 8VO2601, and using larger

samples than Russo et al. (1992), demonstrated that shellfish still dominated, but larger

proportions of Esh and other aquatic vertebrates were also represented.

A recent study at Blue Spring Midden B (8VO'43) evaluated freshwater snail

exploitation, concluding that resource depression potentially occurred at the site

(Connaughton 2001). Resource depression is characterized by human populations

experiencing diminishing returns on their selected resources, and must either relocate or

intensify further (e.g., expand diet breadth, or improve subsistence technology). Data on

shellfish exploitation from Blue Spring Midden B displayed a decrease in mean apex

length of Viviparus georgianus from preceramic times to ceramic times (Connaughton

2001:18). This decrease in V. georgianus at 8VO'43 may be a response to human over-

exploitation, whereby human populations were depleting their resources (aquatic snails)

before the snails could adequately replenish their own populations (Connaughton









2001:22). The result was diminished food potential for humans. If mobility was limited

within the St. Johns River Valley, and human populations were placing strain on their

aquatic resources, then it seems plausible that a new technology would be needed to

alleviate such stress. This leads to the possible origins of pottery.

A potential hypothesis for the advent of pottery is that it developed out of

subsistence stress. Pottery can be used to facilitate resource intensification, which is a

process by which the total production per areal unit of land is increased at the expense of

overall declines in return rates or foraging efficiency (Broughton 1999). This can be

viewed as an investment in labor time and energy, for the time spent procuring these

resources must be regained and exceeded in the consumption of resources. Otherwi se,

populations will experience diminishing returns and must relocate or intensify further.

Harvest pressure on shellfish populations causes declines in mean size and age, which

can be quantified. Empirical evidence for over-exploitation has been documented in

many cultural settings (Cumbaa 1976; Broughton 1999). "Since age is also correlated

with size among species that continue to grow throughout life, such as fishes and

molluscs, increasing harvest rates can be indicated by decreases in mean size"

(Broughton 1999:16).

Was pottery the technology needed to extract more from the existing resource

base? It appears that with the onset of pottery came the decrease in shell size of

Viviparus through time. Initially pottery was a new technology for the addition of new

resources to the diet breadth. Pottery also appears to serve double duty in that as the

snails get smaller, pottery can facilitate resource intensification for the consumption of

these smaller snails and still get the nutrients from the snails.









If freshwater snails are getting smaller through time, will this subsistence trend

also be reflected in the vertebrate fauna with the onset of pottery? It is plausible that at

Blue Spring Midden B, no distinguishable change will be evident in the vertebrate

subsistence record, suggesting that pottery may not be as efficient (cooking wise) as it is

believed to be compared with nonceramic containers. Evidence that marine shells, such

as Busycon, were used as vessels for direct-heat cooking may lend insight into the

historical trajectory of pottery (Sassaman 2003b). Marine shells may have served as a

precursor to pottery whereby human populations who did not have access to marine

resources developed pottery as a response to the inability to acquire marine shell. Further

data are needed into this inquiry.

Florida sites with a significant accumulation of midden volume, such as the Old

Enterprise (8VO55), Groves' Orange Midden (8VO2601), Lake Monroe Outlet Midden

(8VO'53) and Harris Creek at Tick Island (8VO24), provide the opportunity to evaluate

long-term subsistence practice in the St. Johns River Valley (Quitmyer 2001). However,

detailed systematic studies of animal resource use and frequency in the archaeological

record are lacking (Quitmyer 2001:3). Although past research has been skewed in favor

of large mammals (e.g., white-tailed deer) and shellfish, recent data are conveying the

importance of fi sh as essential to the sub si stence economy of fi sher-hunter-gatherers in

the St. Johns region (Cumbaa 1976; Russo 1992; Wheeler and McGee 1994).

Cultural ecology weighs in heavily on subsistence practice given that cultures and

environments are part of the total web of life (Steward 1955). Resource utilization is

purported by Steward to be more strongly related to environmental conditions rather than

other cultural phenomena, so characteristics associated with subsistence and economics,










especially technological ones constitute the cultural core, that is, resources of specific

habitats should be the focus in order to identify subsistence and demographic patterns

that influence sociopolitical relationships (Reitz and Wing 1999:14). Steward assumed

that significant regularities exist in cultural development and ecological adaptation was

critical for determining the limits of variation in cultural systems (Trigger 1989:291).

Furthermore, Steward claimed common features of cultures can be explained at similar

levels of development rather than as unique, historical traj ectories. Steward's perspective

was an explicitly materialistic view of human behavior that made aware the role played

by ecological factors in shaping prehistoric societies (Trigger 1989:279). However,

historical trajectories do matter when dealing with human populations, for explanations

of why certain groups embody certain social elements and technological achievements

when compared to others groups may not be in part to their mental capabilities but could

possibly be a social or ideological reason, for example, resistance (Sassaman 2001a).

In recent decades archaeologists focusing on subsistence, particularly in Florida,

are evaluating the idea of monumentality, with implications for ritual feasting (Aten

1999; Russo 1994; Russo 1996b). The idea is that food processing and consumption

patterns may possibly differ at domestic sites and mound sites and future subsistence data

will help resolve such issues. Seasonal use, ecological circumstances, and sociopolitical

alliances can potentially be inferred from better understanding how subsistence activities

correlate with social action. Even more so, if subsistence demonstrates no significant

change over time in the St. Johns River Valley then more rigorous modes of inquiry must

be employed, such as attention to microstratigraphy and other fine-grained contexts,









along with multiple scales of comparison, to expose this hidden variation (Sassaman

2003b:6).

The Site and Environment

Blue Spring Midden B (8VO'43) in Volusia County, DeLand, Florida is situated

between the eastern bank of the St. Johns river and the southern bank of Blue Spring Run

just north of the site. A lagoon sits juxtaposed to the southwest end of the site having

developed from the St. Johns river. It is a state park equipped with picnic tables, a

playground, restrooms and a boardwalk that runs the length of the run.

Archaeological investigations at Blue Spring Midden B (8VO'43) were conducted

by the St. Johns Archaeological Field School of the Department of Anthropology at the

University of Florida. Two field seasons were conducted to map, core and perform

subsurface testing under the Thursby House to collect data on the size and extent of the

midden itself and any nearby midden deposits. Since the Thursby House was scheduled

to have its pier foundations repaired, thus damaging the underlying midden, the first field

school in 2000 focused on midden underneath the house. Two 2 x 2-m test units (TU 1 &

TU 2) on the south and north side of the house respectively, revealed two distinct

stratigraphic sequences only 16-m apart from one another. At the request of State Park

officials, another test unit was opened at a site deemed to be the location of a Wastewater

Treatment Area (WWTA) and revealed a shell midden, largely preceramic in age,

beneath one meter of alluvial sand. WWTA, a 1 x 2-m unit, is located southwest of the

Thursby House, towards the lagoon. The 2001 field season focused on better

understanding the uncertain relationship between TU 1 and TU 2 as well as the extent of

buried midden discovered in WWTA. Two 1 x 2-m test units (TU 3 & TU 4) were

opened on the west side only of TU 2. Another 1 x 2-m test unit (TU 5) was opened










equidistant from the Thursby House and the Wastewater Treatment Area. Ground

penetrating radar (GPR) was employed to help locate stratigraphic signatures containing

data relevant to the above concerns. Excavation was done with trowel and shovel in 10-

inch arbitrary levels and processed through '/-inch waterscreens. Column samples were

removed in 10-cm intervals within defined natural stratigraphy from all test units except

TU 3 and processed through 1/8-inch waterscreens. Bulk samples were taken from

column levels and the remaining fill was passed through 1/8-inch waterscreens.

Summary

The relationship between pottery and the subsistence economy at Blue Spring

Midden B is uncertain; this goes for the greater St. Johns River Valley as well. Pottery,

being a subsistence technology, is expected to have an effect on the subsistence diet, but

to what degree is unknown? For this reason, vertebrate fauna are empirically evaluated

and quantified to observe if changes are evident with the onset of pottery. If no

significant changes exist, then alternative explanations, such as the use of pottery in ritual

practice need to be explored.















CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND

Interpretive Sketch of Archaic Prehistory

Archaic prehistory in the Southeastern U.S. can be divided into three subperiods,

(Early, Middle and Late) and is highlighted by a shift in mobility and settlement patterns,

from foraging hunter-gatherers to semi-sedentary groups with emphasis placed on lithic

and ceramic technology as well as cultural elaboration through modes such as shell

middens and long-distance trade (Jefferies 1996; Goggin 1998). Although a fishing-

hunting-gathering lifestyle was generally followed by all Archaic peoples, any changes in

lifestyle from earlier Paleo-Indian peoples to the Archaic populations coincides, on some

level, with the environmental shifts and developing changes in vegetation and the

fluctuation of sea level having an effect on present day shorelines and lake shores as well

as the aquifers which control the flow of rivers and streams. Undoubtedly, the

environment had an effect on human behavior yet it was not the only factor that

contributed to human cultural signatures left on the landscape.

Early Archaic

Early Archaic (10,000-7000 B.P.) (Sassaman 2003b) people began to be recognized

as culturally different from their Paleoindian predecessors around 10,000 B.P., coinciding

with the onset of generally less arid conditions than the preceding period (Milanich 1994;

Watts et al. 1996). It is speculated that much of the Early Archaic vegetation in the

greater Southeastern U.S. consisted of oak forests and oak-dominated scrub with a low

diversity in overall woody species with the occasional openings dominated by herbs or










prairie (Watts et al. 1996). Watering holes or access to freshwater sources were probably

limited to substantially deep lakes since the water table was considerably lower and the

rate of precipitation is believed to be less than today, whereby evaporation allowed for a

slow recharge of the water table (Watts et al. 1996). Thus, given the lack of surface

water, humans would have been inclined to live close to cenotes, along the shores of what

are today deep lakes or river banks, as well as along the maj or river systems (Watts et al.

1996). Consequently, with the warming and drying period that would soon follow during

the Middle Archaic in the lower Southeast, it is quite possible that many of these Early

Archaic sites are currently buried under lake deposits (e.g., Crescent Lake, FL) as well as

shorelines (Sassaman 2003c). Nevertheless, material remains of these Early Archaic

people are recovered and display a transition from lanceolate technology to stemmed

proj ectile points across the Southeast, with emphasis on side-notching and corner-

notching (Milanich 1994). Pottery is not associated with these early people, but worked

bone, awls, pins and antler proj ectiles have been found (Goggin 1998). Subsistence is

characterized by hunting, Eishing and gathering, with all big-game Pleistocene fauna gone

by 10,000 B.P. A shift in subsistence practice is evident in the initial accumulation of

shellfish and diversification of species, yet this would not be further developed until more

stable, riverine-environmental conditions prevailed; thus the subsistence pattern is

speculated to have undergone initial changes from a nomadic Paleoindian strategy to the

more semi-settled coastal and riverine sites associated regimes of the Middle Archaic

(Milanich 1994; Goggin 1998). More data are needed however, for very little

information is available concerning the range of plants and animals utilized by Early

Archaic peoples (Smith 1986). Early Archaic sites are found with Paleoindian sites and









the distribution of Early Archaic land sites and artifacts is greater than that of Paleo-

Indian materials. Early Archaic populations appear to be moving between the Atlantic

Coast and the St. Johns and Central Highland, but the evidence is not sufficient to support

this claim. This is potentially a product of inundation and sampling survey. Therefore,

questions concerning mobility and settlement patterns are in desperate need of more data.

Sites have been found to contain hearths, middens, burials and processing areas but no

signs of long-term investment or labor in the form of structures or monuments have been

evident (Milanich 1994).

Middle Archaic

The Middle Archaic (7000-5000 B.P.) (Sassaman 2003b) period in the

Southeastern U.S. is demarcated by the post-glacial reduction in sea level provoking

braided streams to become meandering rivers, the onset of wetland expansion, pine and

swamp vegetation replacing oak and herb vegetation, and a general trend toward

warming and drying known as the Altithermal. This change in the environmental setting

took about 3000 years to be fully completed in the greater Southeast (Brown 1985;

Schuldenrein 1996; Watts et al. 1996). Middle Archaic sites are found in a variety of

locations including riverine and lagoonal sites. Moreover, lithic technology associated

with these new sites suggest changes in proj ectile point style and signal new traditions

across space and time (Milanich 1994) Caves and rockshelters, in Alabama, Tennessee

and Kentucky for example, were being occupied more intensely than the previous period

as habitation sites and added to the diversity of special-use sites and central-base

settlements relative to seasonality and human territoriality (Brown 1983; Milanich 1994).

Within the Southeast, interior riverine and upland sites become more densely occupied as

fluvial systems became more stable and productive for aquatic resources, particularly the









intense exploitation of freshwater shellfish and the intentional mounding of shell

(Cumbaa 1976; Claassen 1991; Claassen 1996; Russo 1996b; Sassaman 2003b).

Shell middens marked the inception of the Shell Mound Archaic (SMA). The

SMA is a cultural manifestation of mounded shell, some containing burials some not,

prevalent across the Southeast along maj or rivers (e.g., Tennessee, Green, Savannah &

St. Johns) and wetlands and lasting for about 6000 years (Claassen 1996). The copious

amounts of shell middens located along the St. Johns River clearly attest to the use of

shellfish by Middle Archaic hunter-gatherers (Sassaman 2003b:11). This intensification

of shellfishing and potential ceremonialism breeds contentious debate among scholars as

whether "mounding" was intentional or rather the simple discarding of shell onto a

cumulative refuse garbage-mound (Russo 1994). Evidently, environmental conditions

were primed for Middle Archaic populations to opportunistically exploit abundant

shellfish adding to the diet breadth and broadening their predation pattern in the face of

shrinking human territories (Claassen 1996). With populations increasing and expanding,

cultural boundaries were being created and distinct ethnic groups appear to be leaving

their mark on landscape (Claassen 1996; Jefferies 1996; Marquardt 1985; Russo 1994;

Russo 1996b; Sassaman 1996). Shellfish proved to be a bountiful and reliable resource

that it is considered to have been a staple product providing a foundation base for

sedentism and the development of social complexity (Russo 1994). Curiously, some of

the most productive shell beds in the Southeastern United States were not as intensively

exploited as other sources, leading archaeologists to infer other conclusions about why

shellfish was exploited and then mounded (Claassen 1991; Claassen 1996). Shell midden

sites do display repeated occupation through time and some scholars infer that they could









possibly be sedentary villages; however, it is more likely they were inhabited seasonally

as part of a residential mobility strategy (Russo 1994; Claassen 1996). But why would

shell middens be continually reoccupied? Is it purely subsistence economics? Or does

social/cultural ideology play a role?

Human populations and the culture in which they exist are filled with substance.

The essence of who they are is revealed in how they behave--in what they make, teach,

cherish, build and use. These representations are perpetuated through time and "can be

obj ectively "regulated" and "regular"... collectively orchestrated without being the

product of the orchestrating action of a conductor" (Bourdieu 1977:72). This is not to

imply a lack of social sophistication among Archaic people, but rather their beliefs are

structured and practiced through what Bourdieu would call the "habitus"--ideas,

thoughts and beliefs learned and reiterated generation to generation via human action.

Social action may potentially be inculcated onto the landscape in differing modes of

practice but with a common ideological template, that is, mundane daily subsistence

practice may differ from ritualize practice in form and function of technology and land

use. Archaeological sites may hold the potential to distinguish such modes of action by

observing domestic sites with utilitarian material obj ects from ritual or ceremonial sites

with highly decorated material objects. Therefore, shell midden sites of the Archaic may

quite possibly be the result of ancient human populations' acting out their ideological

belief system, imbuing symbolic meaning onto the landscape via shell mounds. Hofman

(1985:2) suggested that groups' rituals and aggregations may have been important

elements in the formation of shell midden sites in the Southeast and may account, in part,

for their recurrent occupation. Hofman believed that aggregation can not only serve









economic needs but also social and ideological functions. At the Ervin shell midden in

Tennessee, Hofman uncovered burials, particularly, cremated bodies with no evidence of

in situ burning. Among the burials were "diagnostic artifacts and overlapping interments

attributable to a single cultural tradition indicating the cemetery or a single lineage or

descent group may be represented" (Hofman 1985:9). Over periods of time these

populations would make seasonal trips to bury cremated bodies, thus reiterating their

ideologies as well as enculturating their youth into cultural practices and potentially

reaffirming social ties to neighboring groups who take part in the ceremonies.

Although evidence for intentional mounding in the Archaic is mounting, there is

opposition which firmly believes that Archaic peoples had neither the social organization

nor power to carry out such elaborate constructions (Hamilton 1999). Frankly, the fact

people are mounding shell instead of earth creates tension for it is considered more labor

intensive to mound earth than shell (food byproduct)-requiring organization (Russo

1994; Hamilton 1999). Evolutionary concepts have been used to explain the inception of

midden building. Hamilton (1999:344) asserted that the construction of mound building

"will occur in temporally variable environments" whereby human populations will divert

energy into activities that do not contribute directly to the biological reproduction of

offspring in order to maintain stable populations and increase survival rates during lean

times of environmental and resource instability. Although the Middle Archaic period did

undergo environmental change, its traj ectory was toward present-day conditions

(Schuldenrein 1996). The implication that Middle Archaic populations engaged in

mound building as "wasteful behavior" to preclude them from copulating and placing

pressure on the group size to alleviate ecological stress seems unlikely given what we









know about hunter-gatherer complexity (Hayden 1994; Lourandos 1995). Hamilton

(1999) insinuates an inability for Archaic peoples to organize themselves, lacking the

social power to control or motivate people, while ignoring historical processes at play.

Evidently, large-scale public works can be built under the direction of related and socially

allied groups, not just high levels of social complexity (Russo 1994). Sedentism is not

necessary for monumental construction, although archaeological observation conveys a

trend towards sedentism during the Middle Archaic, it is nevertheless plausible that

mobile human populations would use adaptive strategies for resource locations, thus,

investing effort into frequented locales, along with increases in length of occupation

seasonally, facilitating that trash be cleaned and possibly organized in the construction of

symbolic/cultural markers across the landscape via shell mounds (Brown and Vierra

1983:188).

Mt. Taylor Period

The Mt. Taylor period is comprised of the late Middle and preceramic Late

Archaic period defined as an archaeological construct derived from the Mt. Taylor site of

Volusia County signaling the beginnings of shellfishing and mortuary mounding (Goggin

1952; Milanich 1994; Wheeler et al. 2000). The date for the beginning of Mt. Taylor

culture is uncertain but evidence for adequate resources suggests that the St. Johns River

could have supported local populations by 6000 years ago and maybe longer (Milanich

1994; Wheeler et al. 2000:154). Mt. Taylor peoples focused heavily on aquatic resources

and sites are concentrated along the upper reaches of the St. Johns River and on the

Atlantic Coast. Although settlement pattern information is lacking, most Mt. Taylor

period sites are characterized by ovoid or elliptical midden-mound and/or ridges of shell

midden (Wheeler et al. 2000). Multicomponent sites, such as The Old Enterprise Site









(8VO'55) and Harris Creek at Tick Island (8VO'24) display large shell mounds with

adjacent shell ridges and shell fields (Wheeler et al. 2000:143). Material culture

associated with these sites demonstrates the practice of long-distance exchange as a

mechanism for redistribution of raw materials, particularly marine shell (e.g. Strombus

gigs and Busycon spp.) found in Mt. Taylor assemblages. Marine shell tools were used

for a variety of functions such as implements for wood working, in the form of shell celts

and cutting-edge tools, as well as shell receptacles (i.e., bowls, cups, etc.) (Wheeler et al.

2000: 148). It is interesting to point out that with the onset of pottery at Blue Spring

Midden B, marine shell tools drop out of the archaeological record. Worked and

decorated bone is also recovered from Mt. Taylor sites along with groundstone artifacts,

shark tooth implements and baked clay objects. Mt. Taylor burials reveal the interment

of the dead in prepared sand platforms on shell mounds (Aten 1999). Some burials have

been located in shallow ponds dating to the Early Archaic period, and seem to be a

precursor to Mt. Taylor times. Overall, the artifact assemblage recovered from these sites

of Mt. Taylor culture appear very similar between coastal sites and riverine sites,

suggesting that populations of Mt. Taylor culture could have potentially originated on the

Atlantic coast and traveled seasonally to the St. Johns Basin (Wheeler et al. 2000:155).

Late Archaic and Orange Period

The Late Archaic period (5000-2500 B.P.) (Sassaman 2003b) is the cultural

manifestation of social reproduction and continuity stemming from the preceding Middle

Archaic period. Intentional shell mounding continued as did a fishing, hunting and

gathering lifestyle. A new technology emerged in the form of Orange fiber-tempered

pottery (4200 B.P.) which is believed to have increased cooking efficiency as well as

serving needs, promoting variations in style that reflected growing cultural diversity










(Bullen 1972) However, little change is evident in the lifeways of Late Archaic peoples

with the onset of pottery (Milanich 1994:86). Orange fiber-tempered pottery is found

throughout northeast Florida and is easily identified by its temper of plant fiber, usually

palmetto fiber or Spanish moss (Milanich 1994:86). Bullen (1972) divided Orange

pottery into five distinct subperiods based on form, paste and decoration. Orange 1 is

characterized by hand modeled, flat-bottomed and rectangular shaped vessels with plain

surface treatment. Orange 2 is similar in form to Orange 1 but with the appearance of

incised designs akin to vessels found at Tick Island. Orange 3 is demarcated by rounded

vessels with flat bottoms and rims that are thick and flanged. Incised designs are still

common. Coiling is evident in Orange 4 as well as the appearance of sand-temper in the

paste, incised motifs persist. Orange 5 displays sandy and chalky pastes with bowl forms

predominating. Although Bullen's unilineal sequence has in the past been very useful,

new AMS dates on Orange Incised demonstrate that plain vessels and decorated vessels

in the Orange 1-3 sequences are virtually coeval (Sassaman 2003a). More data are

needed to sufficiently explain what is taking place but knowing that these sites and

ceramic vessels are contemporaneous opens the door for future inquiry on functional or

ethnic difference.

During the Late Archaic period, groundwater levels continued to increase and so

too did wetland expansion, reaching present day conditions. Interior riverine valleys

increased in occupancy as did coastal sites, whereby shellfish exploitation intensively

continued, yet permanent habitation is still lacking. Site types were essentially the same

in the Late Archaic period as they were in the Middle Archaic period except that they

were probably occupied for longer periods of time in the Late Archaic. Artifact









assemblages, with the exception of pottery, are very much the same as that of the

previous period. However, one pattern is observed in the archaeological record of the St.

Johns region with the inception of pottery.

As pottery increases in frequency, marine shell decreases in frequency; interesting

since marine shell tools were common to Mt. Taylor assemblages found through out the

middle St. Johns (Wheeler et al. 2000). What is important to note is that the preceramic

levels contain these marine shell tools and that marine shell does not show up in the

Orange component. Why is this so? It appears that transhumance travel between the

coast and river valley ceased with the onset of pottery and that populations could possibly

have had no need to travel to the coasts for food or other resources. Semi-permanent

settlement patterns potentially could have commenced during Mt. Taylor times with more

emphasis being placed on interriverine mobility and decreases in the frequency of travel

between the coast and middle St. Johns with the onset of the Orange period.

Future research on settlement patterns are needed and will greatly aid in facilitating

our understanding of this issue. Nevertheless, the Late Archaic, comprised of

millenniums of cultural traditions and traj ectories, is marked by larger populations, semi-

sedentary villages and the development of regionalization that continued through time.

With the aid of more study and research being concentrated in the Late Archaic

Southeast, it is feasible that levels of social complexity and diversity will be ascertained,

allowing for better questions to be asked of such a little known era of human history.

Early Pottery

The earliest ceramic technology in the Southeastern United Sates appeared during

the Late Archaic (5000-2500 B.P.) and was initially situated in three locales: the South

Atlantic Slope, peninsular Florida (particularly the St. Johns River) and the Midsouth









(Sassaman 1993). The invention of pottery is thought to have derived from variants of a

preexisting container form or the transfer of clay linings to stand-alone form in the

Midwest between 4500 and 2500 B.P. (Brown 1989:203). These early vessels were

typically fiber-tempered although some were sand-tempered along the eastern seaboard.

The earliest pottery tradition in the Southeast is Stallings, which dates from 4500 B.P. in

the Savannah River. The early form of Stallings pottery is "shallow, open bowls with

slightly rounded or flattened bottoms" and straight or incurvate rims (Sassaman 1993:19).

Manufacturing techniques included pinching, slab modeling and coiling; surface

treatments are distinguished by punctated, incised, stamped and plain. Stone-boiling is

associated with early Stallings wares and it was once thought soapstone vessels were the

technological precursors of pottery in the Savannah River Valley. It is now evident that

pottery did indeed precede soapstone vessel technology and that soapstone vessel use

may be a form of social resistance to fiber-tempered pottery (Sassaman 1993).

In Florida, Orange fiber-tempered pottery appears in the archaeological record by

4000 B.P. and continues through until 3000 B.P. when it was replaced by sand and fiber-

tempered, limestone-tempered and most notably St. Johns sand-tempered (Milanich

1994; Goggin 1998; Sassaman 2003b). Orange pottery is characterized by shallow, flat-

based and straight sided circular bowls and rectangular trays with thin walls. Although

Bullen (1954) provided a cultural-historical sequence for Orange pottery from initial

plain wares to highly decorated motif wares covering a time span of 1000 years, new data

is challenging this notion which would place the variation of pottery to be coeval

manifestations rather than unilineal changes over time (Sassaman 2003a).










Early pottery appears to have functioned as an alternative container to indirect heat

cooking given the common element of flat-based bottoms suited ideally for stone boiling

or roasting perhaps. Interestingly, the emergence of pottery in the Southeastern U. S. as a

technological innovation added to the hunter-gatherer economy conveys no evident

change in subsistence organization (Sassaman 1995:223). That is, no apparent change in

the subsistence diet of hunter-gatherers is noted with the onset of pottery. Pottery in

peninsular Florida has been associated with massive shellfish exploitation (Wyman 1875;

Moore 1892; Milanich 1994; Goggin 1998). This is true for most sites in the Southeast

located near riverine environments; however in some areas shellfishing predates pottery

(Sassaman 1995). Nevertheless, techno-functional variation among pottery form in the

St. Johns Basin must be addressed to ascertain functions relative to cooking, storing

and/or serving but also the social relationship that pottery had with domestic sites and

ritual/ceremonial sites (i.e., plain vessels versus decorated vessels).

Evidence for feasting becomes apparent when emphasis is placed on the designs

and shapes of serving vessels as well as where these types of vessels are situated

archaeologically. If orifice diameters and ornamentations are more prevalent regionally

on large shell middens with burials as opposed to household floors, this could potentially

indicate a different use and symbolic meaning of these vessels. Blitz (1993) observed

that when comparing mound material elements with village elements, the mound was a

more focused site of specialized activities centered on rituals, feasts and storage.

Moreover, the "generation of food surpluses need not be a demographic or environmental

imperative but rather a social strategy to extend alliances, reinforce obligations and

promote prestige" (Blitz 1993:80). Although this is a Mississippian example, it can be










agreed, on some level, that the cultural continuity and social reproduction observed in the

Mississippian period is potentially the product of earlier pottery traditions in the

Southeast. Ultimately then, pottery development and use may potentially be centered on

serving practices and rituals as an alternative to technofunctional efficiency.















CHAPTER 3
BLUE SPRING MIDDEN B (8VO'43)

Blue Spring Midden B, or 8VO43, is a shell midden site located at Blue Spring

State Park in Volusia County, Florida. It is considered a shell midden site due to the vast

amount of inedible shellfish remains that have accumulated over time as the result of

dumping episodes by human populations. A part of the site is situated beneath the 19th-

century Thursby House. Proposed repairs to the foundation of the Thursby House

required State Park officials to assess potential impacts to the underlying shell deposits.

This thesis is based on data derived from excavations of the 2000 and 2001 University of

Florida St. Johns Field School This chapter focuses on the stratigraphic sequences of

the column samples observed in four of the six test units excavated at Blue Spring

Midden B.

Before the 2000 field excavation no information on the depth of this site was

recorded, nor was the site ever mapped. From the existing literature it was thought that

8VO'43 was no more than 100 x 100m and centered on the Thursby House. Figure 3-1

shows how extensive the site actually is due to subsurface testing with a 4-inch bucket

auger. Shell-bearing deposits from the surface to depths as great as 1.5-m were recorded

in all cores near the Thursby House and along the western slope (Sassaman 2003:23).

Orange period shell midden is prevalent underneath and adj acent to the Thursby House.

At the request of State Park officials, some site deemed to be the location of a new

Wastewater Treatment Facility was tested and revealed a shell midden, largely












































Figure 3-1. Site map, Blue Spring Midden B (8VO'43) (dashed line demarcates site
boundary). Map courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.

preceramic in age, beneath one meter of alluvial sands (Sassaman 2003b). This

discovery enhanced our knowledge of the range size of the site as 300-m long and 140-m

wide, encompassing most of the landform between the southern lagoon and the Blue

Spring run to the north. Six test units were excavated from 8VO43, two 2 x 2-m units

(TU 1 & TU 2) and four 1 x 2-m units (TU 3, TU 4, TU 5 & WWTA).

To reiterate again, all excavation was done with trowel and shovel in 10-inch

arbitrary levels and processed through '/-inch waterscreens. A 50 x 50-cm column










sample was removed in 10-cm intervals within defined natural stratigraphy from all test

units except TU 3 and processed through 1/8-inch waterscreens. Bulk samples were

taken from column levels and the remaining fill was passed through 1/8-inch

waterscreens.

Test Unit 1 (TU 1), situated along the south elevation of the Thursby House, was a

2 x 2-m unit. In the northwest corner of the test unit a 50 x 50-cm column was left

standing until sterile sands were observed and then the column sample was removed.

Overall, TU 1 displays a relatively uncomplicated profile of shell midden about 120 cm

deep overlying sterile sands (Figure 3-2). Five major stratigraphic units were observed,

representative of at least three ethnostratigraphic units, including the historic era

(Sassaman 2003b:26).

Strata I and II of TU 1 in the north profile are distinguished by discontinuous

lenses of silty sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod and bivalve shells. Plain

fiber-tempered pottery is intermixed with historic-era artifacts (Sassaman 2003b).

However, no historic-era artifacts were observed below 40 cm below surface. Stratum III

is comprised a 40-cm thick homogeneous midden of silty sand with moderate density of

Viviparus shell and plain fiber-tempered pottery representing an intact ethnostratum of

Orange cultural affiliation (Sassaman 2003b:26). Stratum IV reflects a 45-cm thick

preceramic component of the site marked by homogenous midden of fine sand with an

increase in apple snail and charcoal compared to Stratum III with marine shell tools, bone

pin fragments and traces of chert. A single plain fiber-tempered sherd was recovered
















mo1,,_, 8VO043 TU1I North Profile
E206.52





Feature 1al

III, 2

III
s, I


(II





VV




O 20 cn


Figure 3-2. Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of north wall of Test Unit 1, 8VO'43.
Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.











Table 3-1 Stratigraphic Units of North Profie of Test Unit 1, 8VO'43.
Max. Depth Munsell
Stratum (cm BS) Color Description
I 25 10YR2/2-4/1 surface stratum of silty sand midden with whole and crushed
gastropod and lenses of bivalve shell; plain fiber-tempered
pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts

II 40 10YR4/1 silty sand with lenses of charcoal and 10YR5/4 silty sand;
plain fiber-tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era
artifacts; delineated clearly on north profile only

III 80 10YR4/3 -5/2 homogeneous midden of silty sand with moderate density of
gastropod shell; plain fiber-tempered pottery

IV 125 10YR3/2-4/2 homogeneous midden of fine sand with increased apple snail
and charcoal over Stratum III; includes marine shell tools,
bone pin fragments, and traces of chert, but no pottery; C14
assay of 4360 + 120 rcybp

V 165 10YR6/4-7/3 sterile fine sand with flecks of charcoal in upper 10-15 cm;
terminated at 165 cmBS
Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.

from Level J (90-100 cmbs) but that represented the only pottery recovered from Stratum

IV. Charcoal from the base of Stratum IV was carbon-dated and returned an assay of

4360 + 120 rcybp approaching the beginning of the Orange period as currently dated

(Sassaman 2003b:30). Stratum V is marked by yellow-brown to pale-brown Eine sterile

sand with charcoal flecking in the upper 10-15 cm but otherwise represents the basal sand

on which the midden accumulated. Excavation ceased at 165 cm below surface.

Test Unit 2 (TU 2), situated along the north elevation of the Thursby House, was a

2 x 2-m unit. A 50 x 50-cm column samples was cut into the south wall profie since the

initial column sample, which was left standing in the southeast corner, collapsed.

Stratigraphy in TU 2 is far more complex when compared to TU 1 and displays thirteen

discrete stratigraphic units as well as three ethnostratigraphic units, including the historic

era (Figure 3-3) (Sassaman 2003b). Plain fiber-tempered pottery was recovered









throughout TU 2, and although it was not abundant, it was distributed much more deeply

than TU 1 (Sassaman 2003b).

Stratum I consists of fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod and

minor bivalve shell with plain fiber-tempered intermixed with historic-era artifacts.

Historic-era artifacts are interspersed throughout the 40-cm thick stratum with some

penetrating to 65-cm below surface however, at 40-cm below the midden is relatively

undisturbed and highly differentiated (Sassaman 2003b:35). Stratum II reveals charcoal-

rich fine sand with whole gastropod. Stratum III too has whole gastropod shells in a fine

sandy matrix with minor lenses of crushed shell, including Pomacea (Apple Snail).

Stratum IV is fine sandy matrix with a lower frequency in whole gastropods. Stratum V

is a discontinuous lens of charcoal-rich fine sand. A carbon-14 assay of 3510 & 70 rcybp

was returned from this level. Stratum Va is fine sand with moderate gastropod shell.

Stratum VI contains burned and crushed gastropod shell and bivalve shell in an ashy sand

matrix. Strata VIa and VIb revealed discontinuous lens of finely crushed and burned

shell while strata VII and VIIa have finely crushed shell in a fine sand matrix. Stratum

VIII and IX is fine sandy matrix, slightly ashy with moderate whole gastropods. Stratum

X is comprised of fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropods and charcoal. A C-

14 assay of 3730 & 40 rcybp was returned on charcoal from this level. Stratum XI has

fine sandy matrix with diminished whole gastropod shell but increased Pomacea and

marine shell fragments and tools; there was no pottery recovered. Stratum XII and XIII

beginning at 140 cmbs is sterile fine sand and sterile basal clay, respectively.
































































Figure 3-3. Stratigraphic drawing and photograph of south wall of Test Unit 2, 8VO'43.
Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.


8VO043 TU2 South Profile


N214.30
E202,64


O ZOan


'~ru
kr~~ '~;4~1CiEOU\
1.:11 ~1







30


Table 3-2. Stratigraphic Units of North Profile of Test Unit 2, 8VO'43.


Max. Depth Munsell
Stratum (cm BS) Color
I 40 5YR2/2


Description
surface stratum of fine sand midden with whole and crushed
gastropod and minor bivalve shell: plain fiber-tempered
pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts

charcoal-rich fine sand with whole gastropod: plain fiber-
tempered pottery

abundant whole gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix with
minor lenses of crushed shell, including apple snail: plain
fiber-tempered pottery

fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell: plain
fiber-tempered pottery

discontinuous lens of charcoal-rich fine sand; plain fiber-
tempered pottery: C14 assay of 3510 & 70 rcybp

fine sand with moderate whole gastropod shell: plain fiber-
tempered pottery

burned and crushed gastropod and bivalve shell in ashy sand
matrix: plain fiber-tempered pottery

discontinuous lenses of finely crushed and burned shell: plain
fiber-tempered pottery

discontinuous lens of finely crushed and burned shell: plain
fiber-tempered pottery

finely crushed shell in fine sand matrix: plain fiber-tempered
pottery

finely crushed shell and charcoal in fine sand matrix: plain
fiber-tempered pottery

fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell: plain
fiber-tempered pottery

fine sandy and ashy matrix with moderate whole gastropod
shell: plain fiber-tempered pottery

fine sandy matrix with moderate whole gastropod shell and
charcoal; plain fiber-tempered pottery: C14 assay of 3730 & 40
rcybp

fine sandy matrix with diminished whole gastropod shell but
increased apple snail and marine shell fragments and tools: no
pottery


2.5YR2/0


10YR2/2



10YR3/2


10YR2/1


7.5YR3/2


10YR4/2


10YR6/1


10YR4/1


10YR3/3


7.5YR4/4


10YR3/2


10YR4/2


10YR3/4



10YR3/2


IV


V


Va


VI


VIa


VIb


VII


VIIa


VIII


IX


X


XI 138


XII 140


10YR5/3


sterile fine sand


Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.









Test Unit 4 (TU 4) situated to the west of TU 2 was a 1 x 2-m unit. A 50 x 50-cm

column sample was removed from the north wall of this unit (Figure 3-4). A large pit

designated as Feature 7 and a smaller pit designated as Feature 12 were both observed at

the base of TU 4. Hickory nutshell was recovered from Feature 7 and carbon-dated

returning an AMS assay of 3780 + 50 rcybp (Sassaman 2003b:43). Plain fiber-tempered

pottery was recovered throughout the entire test unit (Table 3-3).

Strata I, II & III consisted of fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod

and minor bivalve shell with both prehistoric and historic-era artifacts interspersed

throughout. The 36-cm thick Stratum IVa revealed abundant whole gastropod shell with

a high frequency of fish bone and charcoal flecking, while Stratum IVb, displayed

abundant whole, crushed and burned gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix. Stratum V

contained whole and crushed gastropod shell while Stratums VI and VIIa had a lower

frequency of whole gastropod shell. Stratum VII marked the termination of TU 4 at 184

cmbs.

Test Unit 5 (TU 5) located equidistant between the Thursby House and the

Wastewater Treatment Area (WWTA) was a 1 x 2-m test unit. A 50 x 50-cm column

sample was removed from the north wall upon completion of the unit. Fine alluvial sands

in dark bands of varying thickness lay atop the buried shell midden. Seven stratigraphic

units were observed, including the alluvial sands, and represent at least three

ethnostratigraphic units, including the historic era (Figure 3-5) (Sassaman 2003b:45).





Figure 3-4. Stratigraphic drawing of north wall of Test Units 3 and 4, 8VO'43. Courtesy
of Kenneth E. Sassaman.










Table 3-3. Stratigraphic Units of North Profile of Test Units 3 -4, 8VO43.


Max. Depth Munsell
Stratum (cm BS) Color
la 11 10YR3/1


Ib 21 10YR2/2



Ic 28 10YR4/3


II 41 10YR3/2-4/2




III 59 10YR3/2-4/3


IVa 59 10YR3/2



IVb 71 10YR3/2



V 95 10YR3/2-4/2


VI 87 10YR3/2


VIIa 131 10YR3/2


Description
surface humus of fine sand with minor gastropod: prehistoric
and historic-era artifacts interspersed throughout

surface stratum of fine sand midden with whole and crushed
gastropod and minor bivalve shell: prehistoric and historic-era
artifacts interspersed throughout: trench for copper gas line

fine sand midden with burned whole and crushed gastropod
shell

fine sand midden with whole and crushed gastropod shell:
occasional crushed bivalve lenses: occasional burned and
crushed gastropod shell lenses; plain fiber-tempered pottery
intermixed with historic-era artifacts

fine sand midden with whole gastropod shell: plain fiber-
tempered pottery intermixed with historic-era artifacts

abundant whole gastropod shell and high density of bone
(mostly fish) in fine sandy matrix with charcoal flecks
throughout: plain fiber-tempered pottery

abundant whole, crushed, and burned gastropod shell in fine
sandy matrix: occasional concreted shell midden: plain fiber-
tempered pottery

abundant whole and crushed gastropod shell in fine sandy
matrix: plain fiber-tempered pottery

low density whole and crushed gastropod shell in fine sandy
matrix: plain fiber-tempered pottery

low density whole gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix: plain
fiber-tempered pottery

low density whole gastropod shell in fine sandy matrix:
intermixed with Stratum VIII below; plain fiber-tempered
pottery

sterile fine sand


VIIb



VIII


10YR4/2


84 10YR6/3


Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.

Stratum I and II are comprised of alluvial sands with historic artifacts and St. Johns sherd

with the occasional vertebrate faunal remains. Stratum III represents the buried A

horizon at 88 cmbs. Stratum IV has abundant whole and crushed gastropod shell












8VO043 Test Unit 5


West and North Profiles


N150.06
E110.10


a mecm N150.06
E110.10


East and South Profiles


Figure 3-5 Stratigraphic drawings of all walls of Test Unit 5, 8VO'43. Courtesy of
Kenneth E. Sassaman.










Table 3-4. Stratigraphic Units of Test Unit 5, 8VO'43.
Max. Depth Munsell
Stratum (cm BS) Color Description
I 30 10YR4/2 to construction fill; fine sands with thin surface humus, abundant
10YR6/2 roots, historic- era artifacts, and features associated with
park utilities

II 85 10YR7/1 w/ fine alluvial sands in dark bands ranging of varied thickness;
10YR2/2 historic-era artifacts, St. Johns sherds and occasional
vertebrate faunal remains

III 88 10YR2/1 buried A horizon/surface

IV 145 10YR4/1 abundant whole and crushed gastropod shell with faunal
remains, infrequent pottery (upper 10-15 cm of stratum) and
lithic artifacts, burned limestone, and marine shell fragments
in fine sandy matrix

V 159 10YR3/1 largely shell-free, organically enriched fine sand with
abundant faunal remains, charcoal, and occasional lithic
flakes; no pottery; C14 assay of 4210 + 50 rcybp

VI 170 10YR5/1 shell-free fine sands with organic enrichment from Stratum V
above; sparse faunal remains and lithic flakes

VII 180 10YR4/2 relatively sterile fine sand
Courtesy of Kenneth E. Sassaman.

with faunal remains, lithic artifacts, burned limestone, marine shell fragments and

infrequent pottery in the upper 10-15 cm of the stratum, with no pottery occurring below

this point. Stratum V is largely shell free with organically enriched fine sand with

abundant faunal remains and no pottery. A charcoal sample from the subsistence column

was carbon-dated and returned an AMS assay of 4210 + 50 rcybp (Sassaman 2003b:47).

Stratum VI is shell free with sparse faunal remains. Stratum VII marks the termination of

TU 5 at 180 cmbs, below which sterile sands were encountered (Table 3-4).

It is important to recognize that different strata from different test units across the

site are radiometrically contemporaneous. For example, Stratum V from TU 5 within a

one-sigma range overlaps with Stratum IV of TU 1 by 70 years, while TU 1 Stratum IV

possesses shell, Stratum V from TU 5 is shell free potentially signifying the onset of shell









fish exploitation. Stratum VII of TU 4 is well within a one-sigma range of overlap with

Stratum X of TU 2, contextually the stratigraphy of Stratum X is akin to Stratum VII.

Understanding the depositional structure of the site lends itself to demarcating periods of

occupation and history allowing one to evaluate the cultural components that lay within

the midden. Furthermore, multiple profile sequences facilitates observing changes in

technology where modified marine shell tools in the basal layers of TU' s 1, 2, and 4 can

potentially signify a change in tool technology with marine shell tools acting as a

precursor to pottery technology. That is to say, stratigraphic subsistence columns

spanning the preceramic to early ceramic allow the observer to control for variation in

place. Comparing two or more sequences in different places aids in partially controlling

for larger forcing variables such as regional climate and hydrology but more so enables

one to search for broader patterns of change and control for taphonomic factors.















CHAPTER 4
METHODS AND MATERIALS

Vertebrate Fauna

This study is based on the identification and analysis of vertebrate faunal remains

greater than 1/8-inch in size of waterscreened portions from four subsistence columns

(TU 1,2,4, & 5) of 50 x 50-cm each excavated from Blue Spring Midden B (8VO43).

Vertebrate faunal analysis for TU 1, 2, and 5 was conducted by Meggan E. Blessing

while TU 4 was conducted by the author, who rigorously followed the methods employed

by Blessing for consistency. Each test unit varies in maximum depth with TU 1 at 1.65-

m, TU 2 at 1.4-m, TU 4 at 2.0-m and TU 5 at 1.0-m with 87-m of fine alluvial sands

sitting atop the buried midden. The 1.0-m deep column from TU 5 is preceramic in age,

as is the basal strata of TUs 1 and 2. The 2.0-m deep column from TU 4 is ceramic in

age. The ceramic component is demarcated as follows for each test unit: TU 1 Stratum

III; TU 2 Stratum III to X; TU 4 Stratum IVa to VIIb; TU 5 0 to 20 cm. The preceramic

component is as follows: TU 1 Stratum IV to V; TU 2 Stratum XI to XII; TU 5 20 to 90

cm. Table (4-1) displays cultural component breakdown by test unit and strata as well as

volume of soil per column sample.

Guidelines for analysis of the faunal material followed accepted zooarchaeological

procedures (Reitz and Wing 1999). Identifications of the animal remains were made by

referencing the vertebrate comparative collection at the Florida Museum of Natural

History. Every effort was made to identify all the skeletal elements into their respective










Table 4-1 Volume of Matrix from All Four Subsistence Columns

8VO'43 Pre-Potter Period Orane Potter Period
TU 1 Strata IV to V Stratum III
volume 0.1 m3 .1125 m3

TU 2 Strata XI to XII Strata III to X
volume .005 m3 .165 m3

TU 4 Strata IVa to VIIb
volume .1675 m3

TU 5 20 cm to 90 cm 0 cm to 20 cm
volume .175 m3 .05 m3

Total volume .28 m3 .495 m3

maj or classes (i.e. Mammalia, Aves, Reptilia, Amphibia and Osteichthyes) including to

the lowest taxonomic level of species, if possible. Data on diagnostic elements were

recorded as: taxon, element, portion, side, modification, burning, count and weight. For

classes such as Mammalia and Aves, those non-diagnostic elements that could be

discerned were noted, counted and weighed. However, this was not the case for the class

Osteichthyes; whose elements, many being of a fragmentary nature, were only counted

and weighed (Sassaman 2003b:129).

Quantification of the identified remains was done to natural strata within each

column sample and included a count (NISP) and weight of identified specimens and

calculation of the minimum number of individuals (MNI). MNI is the smallest number

of individuals that is necessary to account for all of the skeletal elements of a particular

taxon found in the sample usually distinguished by diagnostic elements and size (Reitz

and Wing 1999). Levels within natural strata (e.g. Level B or stratum III [Stratum IIIb])

were analyzed and enumerated separately and then collapsed into subtotals (Sassaman

2003b:129). In addition to the relative frequencies for NISP and MNI that were









calculated for strata and their subtotals, MNI was also calculated for the entire faunal

assemblage disregarding space and time to observe every resource utilized at 8VO43.

However, when calculating MNI of the entire assemblage as a whole, regardless of space

and time, it assumes that the assemblage is synchronic and ignores cultural and historical

processes. Although descriptive, it precludes investigation into the breadth and

frequency of resources selected over time.

Resource use and degree of specialization were observed via employing the

Shannon Weaver Index and the Sheldon Index to describe diversity and equitability. The

range of diversity for the Shannon Weaver Index is from 0 to 5 with five being the

greatest faunal diversity. The range for the Sheldon Index is from 0 to 1; values closest

to zero denote heavy reliance on a single resource, while one indicates an evenness of

resource use. These indexes were used for comparative purposes of diversity and

equitability between the preceramic and ceramic components of 8VO'43 to observe any

differences in resource selection and frequency use by humans.

Size range of Eishes in the archaeological record was evaluated by measuring their

lateral atlas width. Such data provide an opportunity to characterize and compare the size

of different species of Eish across strata and cultural components. For comparative

purposes, the size class of Esh atlases was measured and then the mean and 95%

confidence interval for preceramic and ceramic fishes were calculated. Pairwise

comparisons of mean values for lateral atlas width were statistically evaluated with

Student' s t-Test. Furthermore, the atlas widths of the archaeological fish assemblage

were corroborated with modern fish references relative to Family and/or Genus to

ascertain standard length. Widths of atlases correlate well with standard length and can










be used as a proxy for the sizes of individual fish in the archaeological record. Size

distributions of Amia calva, Centrarchidae, Erimyzon sucetta and Notemigonus

crysolueca~s from preceramic and ceramic components were compared. Every attempt

was made to record a sample of 30 atlas widths from the comparative modern skeletal

specimens housed in the Florida Museum of Natural History, although this was

unattainable for Amia calva, Erimyzon sucetta and Notemigonus crysolueca~s due to the

simple fact that there was not an adequate sample in the collection. Consequently,

samples of at least eight modern atlas widths were recorded for the above-mentioned

species. Measurements of modern reference skeletons that correlate allometrically with

standard length were taken to generate allometric constants (Reitz and Wing 1999).

These constants were then applied to lateral atlas width measurements from the

archaeological material to estimate standard length of the fishes represented in the faunal

samples.

Analysis proceeded by the comparison of all preceramic vertebrate fauna with

ceramic vertebrate fauna relative to MNI, NISP, atlas width and standard length. At no

point were preceramic samples mixed with ceramic samples when measuring atlas width

and Student's t-Test.

Invertebrate Fauna

In addition to this thesis, prior study of observed changes in the shell size of snail

populations due to human predation are corroborated with vertebrate data to better

understand subsistence at Blue Spring Midden B (Connaughton 2001). Five strata from

two of the column samples were chosen for analysis. These were Stratum III and Stratum

XIa and Xnb from TU 2 and Stratum III (20-30 cm) and Stratum III (70-76 cm) in

WWTA. All column samples are dominated by shell from species of Viviparus, as well










as fish remains. The focus here is on the snail species Viviparus georgianus. Preliminary

fractionization was done with M-inch screen and '/-inch screens. Each strata unit was

broken down into four basic categories: whole snails >M-inch, whole snails >%/-inch but

M-inch, and fragmented snails >%/-inch but < M-inch. Mfter

being sorted, each category was weighed in grams and hand counted. These numbers

were then examined for a preliminary size decrease in weight per unit. After the hand and

weight count, a minimum of one hundred snails were randomly selected as a sample size

from each column sample to be measured. Five different measurements were taken for

each snail: shell height, aperture width, aperture height, apex length, and spire height

(Claassen 1999:101). All measurements with "whole snails" >M-inch were then

quantified into mean, standard deviation, minimums and maximums.















CHAPTER 5
RESULTS

Initial analysis of zooarchaeological data from Blue Spring began by observing the

MNI count for the entire vertebrate assemblage as a whole, lumping ceramic with

preceramic levels, thus disregarding space and time (Appendix A-2). The results display

a MNI count with fish, particularly sunfish, dominating the assemblage yet the resources

taken are somewhat diverse and moderately equitable (H' = 2.96; E = 0.71). However,

compounding the column samples from all four test units ignores historical processes and

cultural markers that have left their imprint on the landscape. Observing the faunal

assemblage in this light tells us nothing about subsistence use through time, rather it

merely describes what was recorded. To ascertain any patterns in the Blue Spring faunal

material analytical divisions need to be made for interpretative purposes from a

diachronic perspective.

Table 5-1 lists the NISP and MNI by general taxa for each cultural component.

The data conveys that the vertebrate differences are virtually insignificant in their relative

frequencies across general taxa. Fish clearly dominate both cultural components,

followed by turtle, deer, other mammal, snake and bird. Other reptiles and amphibians

account for a relatively smaller frequency. The result from the vertebrate material

between the preceramic and ceramic demonstrates a low level of diversity and

equitability with a slight trend of decreasing diversity from the preceramic to the ceramic

(preceramic: H' = 0.93, E = 0.45; ceramic: H' = 0.84, E = 0.40) suggesting a slight

change in resource selection and frequency of use. Even with a slight decrease in










Table 5-1 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Vertebrate Fauna by General Taxa and
Component, Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43).
Number of Minimum Number
Individual of
Specimens (NISP) Individuals (MNI)
n % n %
ORANGE COMPONENT
Deer 77 0.3 15 2.3
Mammal 681 2.9 23 3.5
Bird 52 0.2 13 2.0
Turtle 1077 4.6 40 6.2
Snake 213 0.9 21 3.2
Reptile 32 0.1 4 0.6
Amphibian 39 0.2 11 1.7
Fish 21,310 90.8 523 80.5
Total 23,481 100.0 650 100.0


PRECERAMIC
COMPONENT
Deer 24 0.1 7 1.4
Mammal 227 1.2 22 4.5
Bird 79 0.4 12 2.5
Turtle 908 4.6 37 7.6
Snake 154 0.8 17 3.5
Reptile 13 0.1 4 0.8
Amphibian 21 0.1 12 2.5
Fish 18,283 92.8 377 77.3
Total 19,709 100.0 488 100.0



diversity the data still reflect an overall continuity in the subsistence economy through

time encapsulating potentially five centuries (Sassaman 2003b). It is interesting to note

that if one were to add the invertebrate fauna say, Viviparus, for example, to this mix,

which is an abundant shellfish recovered from Blue Spring Midden B, that resource

selection was undoubtedly placed on aquatic fauna. This should come as no surprise

given the literature on subsistence in the middle St. Johns River Valley (Cumbaa 1976;

Russo 1988; Russo et al. 1992; Wheeler and McGee 1994).

Fish make up a great maj ority of the resources procured at Blue Spring and the

composition of the fish assemblages is likewise very similar between components (Table










5-2). Sunfish are responsible for approximately half of the MNI in both samples with

suckers, catfish and shiners making up other well represented taxa. Gar, bowfin, pike and

shad/herring occur in lesser frequencies but remain consistent throughout both samples.

Diversity is characterized for both assemblages as relatively low while equitability is

moderately high among fishes taken with a decreasing trend from the preceramic to the

ceramic; again both fish assemblages display continuity in the subsistence economy

through time (preceramic: H' = 1.74, E = 0.70; ceramic: H' = 1.61, E = 0.67).

Sassaman (2003b:132-133) noted two subtle differences in composition of the fish

assemblages. First, American eel (Anguilla rostrate), a minority species throughout the

samples, is concentrated largely in strata of the preceramic component. Out of a total of

28 NISP and 8 MNI for eel, only two elements from a likely single individual were found

outside of preceramic context. TU 5 accounted for most of the eel elements, but some

elements were also found in the basal, preceramic components of TU 1 and TU 2. The

use of eel, albeit in low frequency, appeared widespread spatially across preceramic

contexts .

The second noticeable difference is the increased proportion of suckers in the

Orange component. Thirty-seven (MNI) Lake Chubsuckers (Erimyzon sucetta) were

recovered in one level of the column from TU 2. Generally, most suckers prefer flowing

water, but Lake Chubsuckers prefer quiet, slowly moving water with soft bottoms, and

abundant organic debris and aquatic vegetation. These differences in frequency of taxa

from the preceramic to the ceramic period may suggest a change in habitat exploitation at

Blue Spring.










Table 5-2 Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Fish by General Taxa and Component,
Blue Spring Midden B (8Vo43).
Number of Minimum Number
Individual of
Specimens (NISP) Individuals (MNI)
n % n %
ORANGE COMPONENT
Shark 1 0.0 1 0.2
Skate/Ray 0 0.0 0 0.0
Eel 5 0.1 2 0.4
Gar 427 7.3 19 3.7
Bowfi n 159 2.7 19 3.7
Shiner 312 5.3 40 7.8
Shad/Herring 72 1.2 17 3.3
Sucker 467 7.9 66 12.8
Catfish 352 6.0 55 10.7
Pike 71 1.2 17 3.3
Sunfish 3999 68.0 270 52.5
Mullet 19 0.3 8 1.6
Total 5884 100.0 514 100.0


PRECERAMIC
COMPONENT
Shark 3 0.1 3 0.8
Skate/Ray 2 0.1 2 0.5
Eel 23 0.5 6 1.6
Gar 957 20.0 18 4.8
Bowfi n 231 4.9 17 4.5
Shiner 248 5.2 30 8.0
Shad/Herring 68 1.4 11 2.9
Sucker 249 5.2 37 9.9
Catfish 323 6.8 39 10.4
Pike 44 0.9 16 4.3
Sunfish 2591 54.5 189 50.5
Mullet 14 0.3 6 1.6
Total 4753 100.0 374 100.0


"Considering that the American eel inhabits streams with strong flow, then the

decrease in eels and increase in suckers through time may signal less reliance on

harvesting of the main river channel and Blue Spring Run and increased dependence on

the nearby lagoon" (Sassaman 2003b:133). This scenario is certainly plausible given that

after 6000 rcybp sea level slowed its rate of rise, enabling development of a broader,

lagoonal habitat resource patch, but subj ect to fluctuations in production due to changing










water levels. Sassaman (2003b:133) observed that during the dry summer of 2000, the

lagoon situated on the south margin of Blue Spring Midden B was subj ect to water

fluctuation and, given the successive dry seasons it had endured, the water' s edge had

receded several meters. Thus, lagoonal resources, such as the Lake Chubsucker, were

probably related to levels of precipitation, river flow, and groundwater that the lagoon

received.

These subtle variations mentioned above might reflect short-term responses to

changes in the availability of resources present, yet aside from this variation, the

preceramic and ceramic components appear nearly the same (Sassaman 2003b). Shellfish

fauna too appear similar in both components, with the only exception of marine shellfish

found nearly exclusive in the preceramic levels as a raw resource for tool production and

use rather than a subsistence item. Interestingly, previous data on shellfish exploitation

from Blue Spring Midden B display a decrease in mean apex length of Viviparus

georgianus from preceramic times to ceramic times (Connaughton 2001:18). However,

this mean decrease in size is not observed in lateral atlas width of fish at Blue Spring

Midden B.

Variation in Fish Size

Lateral atlas widths were recorded for a total of 612 fish from all four column

samples comprising both cultural components (preceramic & ceramic) at Blue Spring.

Table 5-3 presents the descriptive statistics on the fish atlases recorded. Student's t-Test

was employed to statistically evaluate the mean values for lateral atlas width of fish from

the preceramic and the ceramic and to see if human populations were acquiring fish from

independent fish populations relative to taxa. The results illustrate that there is no
















Table 5-3. Descriptive Statistics of Lateral Atlas Width (mm) of Fishes from Cultural
Components, 8VO43.
CERAMIC
Group Count Mean Median StdDev Min Max Range
Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 14 4.49 4.23 1.14 3.11 6.87 3.76
Amia calva 9 8.38 7.52 2.80 4.1 13.12 9.02
Centrarchidae 92 2.84 2.75 0.66 1.83 6.1 4.27
Clupeidae 6 4.05 3.93 0.66 3.35 5.15 1.8
Dorosoma sp. 1 3.83 3.83 0
Erimyzon sucetta 27 5.02 5.06 0.65 3.24 6.08 2.84
Esox sp. 1 3.34 3.34 0
L. auritus 29 2.64 2.55 0.48 1.89 4.04 2.15
L. gulosus 9 3.15 3.32 0.41 2.26 3.63 1.37
L. macrochirus 28 2.92 2.71 0.62 2.06 4.57 2.51
L. microlophus 4 3.63 3.48 0.80 2.84 4.71 1.87
L. punctatus 4 2.68 2.69 0.43 2.28 3.06 0.78
Lepomis spp. 99 2.73 2.66 0.44 1.95 4.44 2.49
Lepisosteus spp. 4 4.96 4.88 1.17 3.78 6.29 2.51
M. salmoides 14 4.14 3.61 1.64 2.67 7.74 5.07
NV. crysoleucas 32 3.01 3.04 0.44 2.43 4.05 1.62
P. nigromaculatus 32 3.70 3.58 0.84 1.93 5.23 3.3

PRECERAMIC
Group Count Mean Median StdDev Min Max Range
Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 12 4.60 3.90 1.91 2.73 8.92 6.19
Amia calva 2 11.58 11.58 4.89 8.12 15.04 6.92
Centrarchidae 59 2.84 2.77 0.60 1.75 4.7 2.95
Clupeidae 2 3.81 3.81 0.88 3.18 4.43 1.25
Dorosoma sp. O
Erimyzon sucetta 22 5.22 5.24 0.75 3.95 7.02 3.07
Esox sp. 1 5.43 5.43 0
L. auritus 6 2.84 2.87 0.28 2.48 3.17 0.69
L. gulosus 0
L. macrochirus 0
L. microlophus 0
L. punctatus 6 2.63 2.64 0.31 2.15 3.04 0.89
Lepomis spp. 56 2.78 2.65 0.52 2.02 4.95 2.93
Lepisosteus spp. 2 4.48 4.48 0.52 4.11 4.85 0.74
M. salmoides 10 5.50 4.69 2.25 3.95 11.26 7.31
NV. crysoleucas 17 3.33 3.36 0.47 2.19 3.95 1.76
P. nigromaculatus 12 3.48 3.56 0.75 2.05 4.76 2.71











Table 5-4. Student t-Test Values on Lateral Atlas Widths of Fish from Cultural
Components, 8VO'43.
PRECERAMIC CERAMIC
P(T<=t) one-
Group mean n mean n df tail
All Lepomis 2.77 68 2.79 173 130 0.404
Centrarchidae 2.84 59 2.84 92 132 0.480
M. salmoides 5.5 10 4.14 14 16 0.062
P. nigromaculatus 3.48 12 3.7 32 22 0.205
NV. crysoleucas 3.33 17 3.01 32 31 0.013
E. sucetta 5.22 22 5.02 27 42 0.161
Ameiurus/Ictalurus
spp. 4.6 12 4.49 14 17 0.429
A. calva 11.6 2 8.4 9 1 0.268



significant difference between similar fish taxa from the preceramic and ceramic periods

with the exception of one, the Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleuca~s). Knowing that

the fish atlases represented in both components comprise of at least five centuries of

occupation, it is intriguing that subsistence, for the most part, remains unchanged. Table

5-4 demonstrates this nicely with t-Test's one-tail values.

Standard Length

With lateral atlas width effectively conveying no significant change between

preceramic and ceramic occupation, standard length was allometrically calculated on

Amia calva, Erimyzon sucetta, Notemigonus crysoleuca~s and Centrarchidae to ascertain

the size of these fishes taken from Blue Spring. Standard length is redundant data,

having been derived from atlas width; nevertheless, it provides the observer with a virtual

metric scale for the size range of fish selected by humans. Table 5-5 reveals the

descriptive results from the allometric calculations. A slight decrease is evident in mean

standard length of these fish but essentially the fish populations exhibit no significant

difference. Although A. calva, E. sucetta, and N. crysoleuca~s have low counts which

may augment or skew the data, Centrarchidae which account for roughly over three-












Table 5-5 Descriptive Statistics for Standard Length (mm) of Fishes from Cultural
Components
CERAMIC
Group Count Mean Median StdDev. Min. Max. Range
Amia calva 9 342.2 311.8 103 180.9 513.8 332.9
Centrarchidae 303 120.1 116.4 18.2 89.9 218.3 128.4
Erimyzon sucetta 27 224.1 225.9 24.7 155.6 263.5 107.9
N~otemigonus
crysoleucas 32 155.9 157.1 18.6 130.9 198.8 67.8

PRECERAMIC
Group Count Mean Median StdDev. Min. Max. Range
Amia calva 2 457.5 457.5 174.5 334.1 580.8 246.8
Centrarchidae 149 121.7 117.4 22.4 87.5 274.9 187.4
Erimyzon sucetta 22 231.6 232.5 27.9 183.7 297.2 113.5
N~otemigonus
crysoleucas 16 167.9 170.3 19.3 120.3 194.8 74.5


fourths of the fish atlases represented in the faunal assemblage encompass an acceptable

count and clearly display no substantial change in mean standard length between the

preceramic and ceramic components. Furthermore, the sizes of the above mentioned fish

that were selected for consumption are apparently of smaller size than normal size

ranges of modern species today (Page and Burr 1991). Clearly, standard length size did

not change significantly through time and the evidence from vertebrate fauna

demonstrates this at Blue Spring Midden B.

It is speculated that mean fish atlases would decrease significantly in size over

time, and they decrease very subtly in this assemblage, which may be due to over-

exploitation placing high strain on fish populations affecting their fecundity and rate of

growth (Broughton 1999). Yet fish have high fecundities, especially sunfish, which

make up the dominant part of the fish assemblage.

Centrarchids (sunfish) are found in a variety of habitats such as vegetated lakes,

rivers, ponds, swamps, and creeks. They prefer muddy or sandy bottoms, along with









underwater structural debris, such as sunken logs. They generally tend to school together

as a littoral species but some, like Pontoxis nigrontaculatus and Leponsis nzacrochirus,

have also been observed in deep, open water. Since most sunfish are found schooling

near shore, capturing such resources seems feasible by humans. Spawning season for

sunfish usually begins in February or March and can last until October. Nests are built

near shore and typically guarded by the male. The sunfish diet can consist of

zooplankton, algae, vascular plants, aquatic insects, larvae, small invertebrates, Eish, frogs

and small birds. Sunfish are observed as thriving in diverse habitats and adapting to

changing conditions (Hoyer 1994).

The vast amount of sunfish remains recovered at Blue Spring demonstrates their

importance in the subsistence economy as a viable and dependable population in which

humans can exploit repeatedly. The size of Centrarchidae selected by humans at 8VO'43

does not significantly change through time as illustrated by the lateral atlas mean and

substantiated by Student's t-Test. It seems prehistoric peoples were focusing on near

shore species of a smaller size range than average sizes of sunfish given the evidence

from standard length and what zooarchaeologists know about modern samples today, for

when compared to the faunal assemblage from Blue Spring Midden B, modern samples

are on average bigger today than in the past.















CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Data have been presented that demonstrate an overall continuity in resource

selection through time at Blue Spring Midden B. Fish and shellfish appear as the bulk of

this subsistence strategy and even with the advent of increasing human populations and

cultural elaboration, particularly the onset of pottery, there are no significant effects on

the subsistence record itself. Lateral atlas widths of fish, from both the preceramic and

ceramic components, have been evaluated and show no significant change through time.

However, there are a couple of subtle differences observed in the vertebrate fauna.

Changes in resource frequency are noted at Blue Spring with a lessening in frequency of

American eel from the preceramic to the ceramic and an increase in frequency of Lake

Chubsuckers from the preceramic to the ceramic, potentially signifying a minor response

to the resources available in the local environment. Although habitat exploitation may

have changed slightly with the advent of pottery, the vertebrate faunal data still show no

major change. It would seem, at least at the domestic level, pottery had no substantial

bearing on the subsistence regime.

Shellfish data from Blue Spring Midden B display a decrease in apex mean through

time (Connaughton 2001). Even though the vertebrate faunal data show no change

through time, the invertebrate data demonstrate a reduction in size from preceramic levels

to ceramic levels. Shellfish may potentially be more sensitive to strain caused by human

consumption and/or ecological stress than fish, nonetheless, this correlation poses another









question: Was pottery a human response to resource depression, thus keeping the status

quo? Or was pottery independently created within another context?

Considering the data presented here, pottery as a subsistence technology, may not

have played a direct role in food procurement and processing techniques. Technological

development may not always be the product of ecological stress, necessitating change;

the social environment must too be considered contextually as cultures change or stay the

same through time. Material assemblages associated with site subsistence provide a

potential clue in how the site was used by human populations.

The disappearance of marine shell tools in the Orange period from Mt. Taylor

times possibly demonstrated a shift in mobility and settlement. Potential sociopolitical

relationships could have feasibly placed strains on interriverine human populations

whereby marine shell acted as a precursor to pottery given its inaccessibility. The fact

that marine shell is recovered from the Mt. Taylor component and not found associated

with the Orange component is of interest and needs further study.

New data have come to fruition on pottery making cultures in the middle St. Johns

River, revealing that Bullen's Orange pottery sequence should be rethought given the

AMS assays on incised fiber-tempered pottery, demonstrating a coeval existence with

plain Orange fiber-tempered temper pottery, thus providing new implications for the

cultural-history of the region (Sassaman 2003a). With highly decorated wares from Tick

Island (8VO'24) and Mouth of Silver Glen Run (8LAl) being coeval with plain wares

from Blue Spring Midden B (8VO'43) and Groves' Orange Midden (8VO'2601) such

distinct sites with different pottery may be attributed to differing uses between decorated

wares and utilitarian wares. More data are needed to sufficiently explain what is taking










place but knowing that these sites and ceramic vessels are contemporaneous opens the

door for future inquiry on functional difference.

It is important to consider that pottery, at the domestic level, shows no significant

change in the subsistence economy of prehistoric hunter-gatherers. While pottery

associated with large middens and mortuary practice reveal decorated forms being

recovered, possibly from ritual feasting. If feasting is occurring with decorated (e.g.,

incised) Orange vessels at large midden sites and then plain, utilitarian vessels are being

used at domestic sites, this reflects divergent spatial patterns of ideological practice

between ritual and daily life. Although ideological structure may be similar in daily

practice and ritual practice, it is performed or lived in differing ways given the social

environment where human populations participate in ritual behavior by using the

appropriate pottery stipulated by cultural traditions. Since pottery is argued to have no

substantial effect on the subsistence economy at Blue Spring, and the aforementioned

data on vertebrate fauna appear to strengthen such an assertion, what, then, is the

significance of pottery appearing in the archaeological record in the middle St. Johns

River Valley if it is displaying no effect in subsistence practice?

Alternative Explanations

Pottery in the St. Johns River Valley may potentially have more to do with

ritual/ceremonial feasting than with actual day to day subsistence practice. Thus, pottery

may serve as a symbolic marker of distinct ethnic groups throughout peninsular Florida,

signaling identities, reproducing social ties or relaying information. The following

examples can potentially provide avenues in which archaeologist can explore the role of

pottery in prehistoric Florida. Although both examples have to do with beer

consumption, it is the role of pottery as a symbolic marker that is on interest.









Pottery itself can be a medium for information exchange, conveying symbolic

meaning and thus highlighting heterarchical social complexity. Ceramic vessels within

the domestic household have long been assumed to represent a form of 'passive style'

with no inherent symbolic statement or political affiliation (Bowser 2000:219). Bowser

(2000) has demonstrated that pottery can be used as political playing cards, whereby

women assert their identity into the political alliances, accentuating their political

behavior into pottery style. In the small-scale, segmental society in the Ecuadorian

Amazon, women decorate their polychrome pottery bowls (used primarily for drinking

manioc beer) relative to their political affiliation, not ethnicity, whereby, in some cases,

some women are politically ambiguous (Bowser 2000). How is this physically done?

Chicha, an alcoholic beverage, is fundamental to Ecuadorian-Amazonian social relations.

Each woman is responsible for making their own bowls for drinking use, and decorates

them according to their political affiliation (Quichua or Achuar). Women use these bowls

in serving guests and their husbands' chicha. Bowser insinuates that these women make

sociopolitical decisions when choosing which bowl to offer her guests. These bowls do

not merely serve an economic-subsistence function, but rather align and contest people

through their decorative patterns and symbols. Furthermore, the designs and symbols on

these bowls reinforce the Amazonian worldview of male and female binary opposition

and complementarities (Bowser 2000:228). The simple act of women sitting together and

drinking chicha from pottery beer bowls allows for shared information and opinions

concerning daily events and current issues; whereas when a women serves male guests,

she can signal her social distance, status or political disfavor with them while the family

looks on (Bowser 2000:229). Through these sociopolitical strategies, social identity is









constructed and negotiated while social boundaries are maintained with the passing of

people across them (Bowser 2000).

Pottery can also be a means for social reproducing structures of meaning that

conceal behavior, cosmology or ideology which has long passed and has been

transformed and internalized into a new context. The hosting of a feast or ani shreati in

the Conibo-Shipibo signifies the "puberty rite" of young girls into womanhood (DeBoer

2001). Historically, it used to mark and celebrate the marriageability age of young

pubescent girls to older men. A clitoridectomy is performed by specialized female

surgeons in a special structure situated away from the main plaza, which has implications

for male and female opposition in nature and settlement (DeBoer 2001). The preparation

for such a feast is an arduous one, sometimes planned ahead 2 to 3 years and is usually

hosted by the fathers of the girls going through the ritual. Part of the preparation includes

planting manioc, sweet potato and sugarcane so as to be harvested and later fermented for

a liquid drink. However, it is the process of fermenting and serving such libations that

place emphasis on the ceramic manufacturing of new vessels, mainly large beer j ars and

beer-serving mugs (DeBoer 2001). The manufacturing of such vessels for purely

ceremonial use strengthens social and biological reproduction, prompting production of

material goods which would otherwise not be produced (DeBoer 2001:232).

Furthermore, those invited to the feast are not obliged to bring gifts for exchange nor do

the hosts have gifts; simply put, the only thing required of the hosts is plenty of drink.

This potentially opens doors for continued relations and the possible emergence of future

leaders, spouses and rivals (DeBoer 2001). Essentially, the feast has an equilibrating role

whereby meaning congealed in special moments is elaborated among an aggregate group









of humans who share similar ethos and lifestyles, thus preserving their social and cultural

identities despite encapsulation by the Western world.

Future Study

Future research is sorely needed to either support or rej ect the data provided. Sites

like Grove's Orange Midden and Hontoon Island for example, could potentially be

explored to evaluate the significance of pottery in the subsistence record. Distinguishing

between domestic sites with utilitarian wares and ceremonial sites with highly decorated

wares may signal differences in subsistence practice reflecting spatial patterns separating

ritual practice from daily life. Clearly, pots are more than tools; they represent the many

identities of distinct cultures and ethnicities (Gosselain 1992b; Bowser 2000). Through

analysis of vessel type, function, and context within site(s) archaeologist can investigate

questions related to site activities, the size, composition and social standing of domestic

groups, food habits of a community, and the stylistic nature and technological variability

of a ceramic culture (Hally 1986:267). By understanding the cultural-historical

development of early pottery in the Southeastern United States, archaeologist can

hopefully gain insight into the production and use of ancient pots as social barometers for

behavior.















APPENDIX A
ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA

Table A-1 The List of Taxonomic and Common Names


Taxonomic Name
Sigmodon spp.
Sigmodontinae
Muridae
Sylvilagus palustris
Sylvilagus spp.
Rodentia
Sciurus carolinesis
Didelphis virginiana
Procyon lotor
Urocyon
cinereoargenteus
Lutra canadensis
Odocoileus virginianus
Mammalia

Nycticorax spp.
Podilymbus podiceps
Ana~s amnericana
Fulica amnericana
Anatidae
Aves

Chelydra serpentina
Kinosternidae
Deirochelys reticularia
Pseudemys florid~dd~~ddana d~~
Trachemys scripta
Pseudemys/Trachemys
spp.
Terurapene carohina
Apalone ferox
Gopherus polyphemus
Testudines

Alligator
mississippiensis


Common Name
Rat
Rat Subfamily
Rat Family
Marsh Rabbit
Rabbit
Rodents
Eastern Gray Squirrel
Virginia Opossum
North American Raccoon

Gray Fox
North American Otter
White-tailed Deer
Mammals

Heron
Pie-billed Grebe
American Wigeon
American Coot
Ducks
Birds

Snapping Turtle
Mud/Musk Turtles
Chicken Turtle
Florida Cooter
Yellowbelly Slider

Cooters
Box Turtle
Soft-shelled Turtle
Gopher Tortoise
Turtles



Alligator










Table A-1 Continued
Taxonomic Name
Nerodia spp.
Elaphe spp.
Colubridae

Crotalus adamanteus
Crotalus spp.
Agkistrodon piscivorus
Viperidae
Serpentes
Anolis spp.
Squamata
Reptilia

Amphiuma means
Siren lacertina
Caudata
Anura
Rana sp.
Amphibia

Odontaspis taurus
Carcharhinidae
Lamniformes
Raj idae
Anguilla rostrata
Lepisosteus spp.
Amia calva
Notemigonus
crysoleuca~s
Dorosoma spp.
Clupeidae
Erimyzon sucetta
Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp.
Ameiurus catus
Ameriurus natalis
Ameiurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Esox spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis microlophus


Common Name
Water Snake
Rat Snake
Non-Poisonous Snakes
Eastern Diamondback
Rattlesnake
Rattlesnakes
Cottonmouth
Pit Viper Family
Sankes
Iguanian Lizards
Lizards and Snakes
Reptiles

Two-toed Amphiuma
Greater Siren
Salamanders
Frogs and Toads
True Frogs
Amphibians

Sand Tiger Shark
Requiems
Sharks
Skates and Rays
Freshwater Eel
Gar
Bowfin

Golden Shiner
Shad
Shad/Herring Family
Lake Chubsucker
Catfi sh
White Catf sh
Yellow Bullhead Catfish
Brown Bullhead Catfish
Channel Catfish
Pike
Sunfish
Redbreast Sunfish
Warmouth
Bluegill Sunfish
Redear Sunfish










Table A-1 Continued
Taxonomic Name Common Name
Lepomis punctatus Spotted Sunfish
M~icropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass
M~icropterus sp. Bass
Pomoxis
nigromaculatus Black Crappie
Centrarchidae Bass/Sunfish Family
Mugil spp. Mullet
Osteichthyes Bony Fish

UID Vertebrata Vertebrates

Table A-2 MNI Count of Taxon as One Whole Assemblage
Taxon MNI
Sigmodon spp. 1
Sigmodontinae 1
Muridae 1
Sylvilagus palustris 1
Sylvilagus spp. 1
Sciurius carolinesis 1
Rodentia 1
Didelphis virginiana 1
Procyon lotor 1
Urocyon cinereoargenteus 1
Lutra canadensis 1
Odocoileus virginianus 3
Nycticorax spp. 1
Podilymbus podiceps 1
Ana~s amnericana 1
Fulica amnericana 1
Anatidae 1
Chelydra serpentmna 1
Kinosternidae 2
Deirochelys reticularia 1
Pseudemys flori~~dd~~ddana~~dd 1
Trachemys scripta 1
Pseudemys/Trachemys spp. 1
Terurapene carolina 1
Apalone ferox 1
Gopherus polyphemus 1










Table A-2 Continued
Taxon MNI
Alligator mississippiensis 1
Nerodia spp. 1
Elaphe spp. 1
Colubridae 2
Crotalus adamanteus 1
Crotalus spp. 1
Agkistrodon piscivorous 1
Anolis spp. 1
Amphiuma means 1
Siren lacertina 1
Caudata 1
Anura 1
Rana sp. 1
Carcharhinidae 1
Lamniformes 1
Rajidae 1
Anguilla rostrata 6
Lepisosteus spp. 18
Amia calva 17
Notemigonus crysoleuca~s 49
Dorosoma spp. 1
Clupeidae 8
Erimyzon sucetta 62
Ameiurus/Ictalurus spp. 26
Ameiurus catus 5
Ameriurus natalis 9
Ameiurus nebulosus 2
Ictalurus punctatus 3
Esox spp. 7
Lepomis spp. 155
Lepomis auritus 35
Lepomis gulosus 9
Lepomis macrochirus 28
Lepomis microlophus 4
Lepomis punctatus 10
M~icropterus salmoides 24
Pomoxis nigromaculatus 44
Centrarchidae 151
Mugil spp. 3
Total MNI 721
Total Taxa 65
H' = 2.96
E =.71
















Table A-3 MNI anc NISP
PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES
TU 4 STR. Ia Mammalia 6 1.4 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ia Kinosternidae Kinosternon s.1 0.2 1 0.1
TU 4 STR. Ia Testudines 52 12.2 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ia Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 1 0.2 1 0.1 dentar{R
TU 4 STR. Ia Catostomus Erimyon sucetta 2 0.5 1 0.1 2 pieces fused
TU 4 STR. Ia Esocidae Esox sp. 1 0.2 1 0.1
TU 4 STR. Ia Leiotidae Lepisosteus sp 6 1.4 1 0.1
TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus 1 0.2 1 0.1 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae Lepoi microlophus 3 0.7 1 0.1
TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 1 0.2 1 0.1 dentary (L)
TU 4 STR. Ia Centrarchidae 9 2.2 1 0.1
TU 4 STR. Ia Osteichthye 164 38.6 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ia Vertebrata 178 42.0 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ia Total 425 100.0 9 100.0


TU 4 STR. Ilb Procynidae Procon lotor 1 0.0 1 1.4 tibia{L
TU 4 STR. Ilb Mammalia 3 0.1 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ilb Aves 1 0.0 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ilb Sepntes 2 0.0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ilb Trionycide Aplone ferox 1 0.0 1 1.4
TU 4 STR. Ilb Emyiae Pseudemy floridana 7 0.1 1 1.4
TU 4 STR. Ilb Emyiae Trachemy cit 1 0.0 1 1.4
TU 4 STR. Ilb Testudines 197 4.1 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ilb Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 1 0.0 1 1.4
TU 4 STR. Ilb Amiidae Amia calva 7 0.1 1 1.4
TU 4 STR. Ilb Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus 6 0.1 4 5.4 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ilb Centrarchidae Leoi gulosus 1 0.0 1 1.4 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ilb Centrarchidae Lepoi macrochirus 20 0.4 16 21.6 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ilb Centrarchidae Lepoi micrlophus 19 0.4 1 1.4
TU 4 STR. Ilb Centrarchidae Microptrus salmoides 40 0.8 10 13.5 atlases
















Table A-3 Continued
PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES
TU 4 STR. Ilb Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 1 0.0 1 1.4 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ilb Centrarchidae Lepmsp. 14 0.3 4 5.4 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ilb Centrarchidae 353 7.4 12 16.2 articular{L
TU 4 STR. Ilb Lepsseidae Lepisosteus spp 40 0.8 1 1.4
TU 4 STR. Ilb Catostomidae Erimyon sucetta 51 1.1 7 9.4 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ilb Esocidae Esox sp. 3 0.1 1 1.4 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ilb Cypinidae Notemigous crslucas 2 0.0 2 2.7 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ilb Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 6 0.1 3 4.1 dentary {R}
TU 4 STR. Ilb Ictaluridae Ameiurus nebulosus 1 0.0 1 1.4 quadrate{R
Ameiurus/Ictalurus
TU 4 STR. Ilb Ictaluridae sp.2 0.0 2 2.7 articular{L
TU 4 STR. Ilb Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus 1 0.0 1 1.4 dentar{R
TU 4 STR. Ilb Ictaluridae 9 0.2 1 1.4 pet sie{L
TU 4 STR. Ilb Osteichthye 3628 76.0 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ilb Vertebrata 358 7.5 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ilb Total 4776 100.0 74 100.0


TU 4 STR. Ill Cervidae Odocoileus vrinianus 4 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. Ill Mammalia 44 0.9 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ill Aves 3 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. Ill Kinosternidae Kinosternon sp.1 0.0 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. Ill Emyiae Pseudemy floridana 1 0.0 1 1.1 femur{R
TU 4 STR. Ill Testudines 62 1.2 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ill Sepntes 5 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. Ill Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 7 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. Ill Amiidae Amia calva 7 0.1 1 1.1 ectoptryoid{R
TU 4 STR. Ill Centrarchidae Lepoi auritus 7 0.1 7 7.5 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ill Centrarchidae Leoi gulosus 4 0.1 3 3.2 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ill Centrarchidae Lepoi macrochirus 17 0.3 17 18.3 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ill Centrarchidae Lepoi microlophus 15 0.3 2 2.2 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ill Centrarchidae Leoi punctatus 9 0.2 8 8.6 atlases
















Table A-3 Continued
PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES
TU 4 STR. Ill Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 8 0.2 2 2.2 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ill Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 3 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. Ill Centrarchidae Leomss. 15 0.3 7 7.5 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ill Centrarchidae 431 8.7 15 16.1 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ill Lepisotidae Lepisosteus sp 32 0.6 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. Ill Catostomidae Erimyon sucetta 30 0.6 2 2.2 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ill Cypinidae Notemigonus crslucas 16 0.3 11 11.8 atlases
TU 4 STR. Ill Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 8 0.2 4 4.3 dentary {R}
TU 4 STR. Ill Ictaluridae Ameiurus catus 1 0.0 1 1.1 petrlsine{R
TU 4 STR. Ill Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus 1 0.0 1 1.1 dentary {R}
TU 4 STR. Ill Ictaluridae 14 0.3 4 4.3 quadrate{R
TU 4 STR. Ill Osteichthye 2109 42.3 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ill Vertebrata 2131 42.7 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Ill Total 4985 100.0 93 100.0


TU 4 STR. V Cervidae Odocoileus vrinianus 6 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. V Procyonidae Procyon lotor 1 0.0 1 1.1 phalange {L}
TU 4 STR. V Lpridae Syliaus plsrs1 0.0 1 1.1 mandible{L
TU 4 STR. V Mammalia 130 2.0 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. V Anatidae Anas americana 1 0.0 1 1.1 radius{L
TU 4 STR. V Rallidae Fulica americana 1 0.0 1 1.1 coracoid{L
TU 4 STR. V Aves 9 0.1 1 1.1 radius{R
TU 4 STR. V Trionyciae Aplne ferox 7 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. V Kinosternidae Kinosternon spp. 8 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. V Emydidae Trachemy cit 4 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. V Testudines 157 2.4 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. V Viperidae Crotalus adamenteus 1 0.0 1 1.1 dentar{R
TU 4 STR. V Sepntes 21 0.3 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. V Ranidae Rana spp 1 0.0 1 1.1 tibio-fibula
TU 4 STR. V Sirenidae Siren lacertina 8 0.1 1 1.1
















Table A-3 Continued
PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES
TU 4 STR. V Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata 1 0.0 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. V Amiidae Amia calva 8 0.1 1 1.1 ectoptryoid{L
TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepoi auritus 16 0.2 15 15.9 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Leoi gulosus 4 0.1 4 4.2 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepoi macrochirus 9 0.1 9 9.5 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepoi microlophus 7 0.1 1 1.1 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Leoi punctatus 2 0.0 2 2.1 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 11 0.2 4 4.2 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 5 0.1 2 2.1 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae Lepomis spp. 35 0.5 2 2.1 vomers
TU 4 STR. V Centrarchidae 580 8.9 21 22.1 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Lepisotidae Lepisosteus sp 92 1.4 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. V Catostomidae Erimyo sucetta 26 0.4 3 3.2 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Esocidae Esox s. 5 0.1 1 1.1
TU 4 STR. V Clupeidae 1 0.0 1 1.1 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Cypinidae Notemigonus crslucas 16 0.2 9 9.5 atlases
TU 4 STR. V Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 1 0.0 1 1.1 2nd dorsal spine
TU 4 STR. V Ictaluridae 11 0.2 4 4.2 basioccipitals
TU 4 STR. V Osteichthyes 2512 38.4 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. V Vertebrata 2851 43.5 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. V Total 6549 100.0 95 100.0


TU 4 STR. Vlla Cervidae Odocoileus vrinianus 11 0.3 1 1.9 astaolis{L
TU 4 STR. Vlla Mustelidae Lutra canadensis 7 0.2 1 1.9 teeth
TU 4 STR. Vlla Leporidae Syliaus plstris 4 0.1 1 1.9 dentar{L
TU 4 STR. Vlla Mammalia 170 5.3 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Vlla Aves 7 0.2 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Trionycide Aaone ferox 5 0.2 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Kinosternidae Kinosternon sp.3 0.1 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Testudines 35 1.1 0 0.0
















Table A-3 Continued
PROV STRATUM FAMILY GENUS SPECIES NISP %NISP MNI %MNI NOTES
TU 4 STR. Vlla Serpentes 11 0.3 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Sirenidae Siren lacertina 3 0.1 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Anuillidae Anguilla rostrata 2 0.1 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Amiidae Amia calva 10 0.3 1 1.9 basio
TU 4 STR. Vlla Centrarchidae Lepoi auritus 5 0.2 5 9.6 atlases
TU 4 STR. Vlla Centrarchidae Leoi gulosus 2 0.1 2 3.8 atlases
TU 4 STR. Vlla Centrarchidae Lepoi macrochirus 9 0.3 9 17.3 atlases
TU 4 STR. Vlla Centrarchidae Lepomis microlophus 23 0.7 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Centrarchidae Lepoi punctatus 2 0.1 2 3.8 atlases
TU 4 STR. Vlla Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides 10 0.3 2 3.8 atlases
TU 4 STR. Vlla Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus 3 0.1 1 1.9 atlases
TU 4 STR. Vlla Centrarchidae 222 7.0 5 9.6 vomers
TU 4 STR. Vlla Lepisoseidae Lepisosteus sp 56 1.8 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Catostomidae Erimyon sucetta 13 0.4 1 1.9 atlas
TU 4 STR. Vlla Esocidae Esox sp. 20 0.6 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Cyprinidae Notemigous crslucas 55 1.8 7 11.6 atlases
TU 4 STR. Vlla Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis 2 0.1 2 3.8 2nd dorsal spine
TU 4 STR. Vlla Ictaluridae Ictalurus catus 1 0.0 1 1.9 petrlsine{L
TU 4 STR. Vlla Ictaluridae 2 0.1 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Clu edae 2 0.1 1 1.9 atlas
TU 4 STR. Vlla Mugilidae Mugil spp 3 0.1 1 1.9
TU 4 STR. Vlla Osteichthye 933 29.3 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Vlla Vertebrata 1554 48.8 0 0.0
TU 4 STR. Vlla Total 3185 100.0 53 100.0















APPENDIX B
STANDARD LENGTH DATA


Table B-1 Modern Reference Measurements and Weights Taken from FLMNH
Comparative Collection
# Taxa Freshwght(g) SL (mm) Atlas (mm)
Z4498 Lepomis gulosus 124 151 5.98
1803a Lepomis gulosus 231.5 190 3.8
4223 Lepomis gulosus 110 141 5.88
Z4412 Lepomis gulosus 62.3 118 4.37
Z4460 Lepomis gulosus 48.6 120 4.22
Z4461 Lepomis gulosus 61 121 4.61
Z4464 Lepomis gulosus 57.7 113 4.71
Z4465 Lepomis gulosus 64.6 111 4.45
Z4502 Lepomis gulosus 38.9 109 3.96
Z4608 Lepomis gulosus 160.8 158 7.52
Z3843 Lepomis microlophus 32.5 101 3.3
1804a Lepomis punctatus 80.5 130 2.55
2634 Micropterus salmoides 2497 457 13.43
2554 Micropterus salmoides 710 318 9.19
2555 Micropterus salmoides 412.9 243 6.53
Z3485 Micropterus salmoides 346 242 5.45
Z4433 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 31.6 103 2.01
2519 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 185.7 185 4.57
2520 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 91.9 160 3.58
1804c Lepomis punctatus 36.8 100 2.09
1804d Lepomis punctatus 15.8 80 1.17
2518 lepomis macrochirus 38 108 2.06
3320 lepomis macrochirus 302.9 199 4.59
Z4406 lepomis macrochirus 8.9 68 1.21
2515 lepomis macrochirus 60.8 120 2.59


Z4499
Z4500
Z4501
Z4503
Z4504
Z4506
Z4416
1799c
2522
2526


42
24.9
14.8
6.2
23
28.1
36.7
242.6
38.9
38.5


112
90
75
62
92
91
111
235
125
125


2.12
1.76
1.41
1.21
1.72
1.92
2.25
4.35
2.21
2.34


Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis gulosus
Micropterus salmoides
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notemigonus crysoleucas









Table B-1 Continued
# Taxa Freshwght(g) SL (mm) Atlas (mm)
2528 Notemigonus crysoleucas 28.8 113 1.99
2530 Notemigonus crysoleucas 20.5 110 1.81
2531 Notemigonus crysoleucas 22.1 109 1.87
2557 Notemigonus crysoleucas 220 195 3.94
2558 Notemigonus crysoleucas 170 150 3.27
2559 Notemigonus crysoleucas 135 155 3.01
2562 Notemigonus crysoleucas 48 115 2.41
2935 Amia calva 2292 545 11.92
1815 Amia calva 535 300 10.55
Z3376 Amia calva 2040 497 10.89
3377 Amia calva 1297 450 10
3646 Amia calva 1120 397 9.44
3647 Amia calva 1120 412 10.72
Z4417 Amia calva 179.2 220 5.7
Z4418 Amia calva 56.9 156 3.26
Z4614 Amia calva 85.2 184 4.14
Z7152 Amia calva 933 347 8.57
1801a Erimyzon sucetta 580 305 5.7
1801b Erimyzon sucetta 382 275 5.6
1801c Erimyzon sucetta 88.3 164 3.63
1801d Erimyzon sucetta 56.6 143 3.12
1801e Erimyzon sucetta 23.3 110 2.17
3331 Erimyzon sucetta 404.5 260 5.89
3379 Erimyzon sucetta 526.3 345 8.23
3380 Erimyzon sucetta 473.7 250 7.56

SL = stand arddddd~~~~~~dddddd length (mm)
fr~eshwght = fresh weight (g)
atlas = atlas n idthr (mm)











Table B-2 Atlas Width Measurements and Standard Length


Calculations
Cult. SL (mm)
pre 184.7
pre 185.5
pre 194.8
pre 148.3
pre 181.4
pre 185.5
pre 169.8
pre 158.5
pre 185.5
pre 173.6
pre 167.3
pre 147.1
pre 170.7
pre 152.6
pre 120.3
pre 161.5
ceramic 133.6
ceramic 137.1
ceramic 159.4
ceramic 159.0
ceramic 138.0
ceramic 135.4
ceramic 178.9
ceramic 146.2
ceramic 169.8
ceramic 176.5
ceramic 131.0
ceramic 142.8
ceramic 133.2
ceramic 146.6
ceramic 156.4
ceramic 142.8
ceramic 133.2
ceramic 142.3
ceramic 163.2
ceramic 176.1
ceramic 164.8
ceramic 172.3
ceramic 134.9
ceramic 171.1
ceramic 188.7
ceramic 154.7
ceramic 173.2
ceramic 158.1
ceramic 157.7
ceramic 177.3
ceramic 134.5


Test Unit
TU 1
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 2
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 4
TU 1
TU 1
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 5
TU 2
TU 2
TU 2
TU 2
TU 2
TU 2
TU 2
TU 2
TU 2


Depth
STR. IVc
20--30cm
30-40cm
30-40cm
40-50cm
40-50cm
40-50cm
40-50cm
50-60cm
60-70cm
70-80cm
70-80cm
70-80cm
70-80cm
70-80cm
STR. Xlb
E/V
E/V
F/V
F/V
F/V
GIV
HIV
1/V
KlV
J/Vlla
J/Vlla
J/Vlla
J/Vlla
KlVlla
KlVlla
M/Vl la
STR. Illa
STR. Illc
0-10Ocm
0-10Ocm
10-20cm
10-20cm
STR. Ill
STR. IV
STR. IV
STR. IV
STR. V
STR. Vllla
STR. Vllla
STR. Vlllb
STR. Villlc


Taxa
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas
N. crysoleucas


Element
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


AW(mm)
3.7
3.72
3.95
2.83
3.62
3.72
3.34
3.07
3.72
3.43
3.28
2.8
3.36
2.93
2.19
3.14
2.49
2.57
3.09
3.08
2.59
2.53
3.56
2.78
3.34
3.5
2.43
2.7
2.48
2.79
3.02
2.7
2.48
2.69
3.18
3.49
3.22
3.4
2.52
3.37
3.8
2.98
3.42
3.06
3.05
3.52
2.51











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 2 STR. Xa
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVa
TU 1 STR. IVc
TU 1 STR. IVc
TU 1 STR. IVc
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm


Taxa
N. crysoleucas
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. punctatus
L. punctatus
L. punctatus
L. punctatus
L. punctatus
L. punctatus
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.


Element
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


AW(mm)
4.05
2.81
2.48
2.92
2.57
3.1
3.17
2.63
3.04
2.64
2.84
2.48
2.15
2.84
3.31
2.57
2.4
2.35
2.1
2.84
2.6
2.13
2.43
2.03
2.32
2.72
2.65
2.35
2.64
2.62
2.43
2.43
2.52
2.56
2.4
2.69
2.89
2.33
3.34
2.86
2.41
2.54
3.8
3.38
3.18
2.69
3.52


Cult.
ceramic
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre


SL (mm)
198.8
117.1
108.5
119.9
110.9
124.4
126.1
112.5
122.9
112.7
117.9
108.5
99.4
117.9
129.5
110.9
106.3
104.9
97.9
117.9
111.7
98.8
107.1
95.9
104.1
114.8
113.0
104.9
112.7
112.2
107.1
107.1
109.5
110.6
106.3
114.0
119.2
104.4
130.3
118.4
106.6
110.1
141.0
131.2
126.4
114.0
134.5











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 80-90cm
TU 2 STR. Xia
TU 2 STR. Xia
TU 2 STR. Xia
TU 2 STR. Xia
TU 2 STR. Xib
TU 2 STR. Xib
TU 2 STR. Xib
TU 1 STR. Iva
TU 1 STR. Iva
TU 1 STR. Iva
TU 1 STR. Iva
TU 1 STR. Iva
TU 1 STR. Ivb
TU 1 STR. Ivc
TU 1 STR. Ivc
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm


Taxa
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae


Element
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


AW(mm)
3.02
3.08
2.36
2.65
2.57
2.49
4.95
2.94
3.33
3.11
3.28
2.39
2.52
2.82
3.04
3.59
3.31
2.74
2.02
3.59
2.7
2.31
1.78
1.99
2.02
2.38
2.5
1.75
3.69
2.97
2.49
3.2
2.77
2.89
2.6
2.73
2.25
3.42
2.01
2.85
1.91
2.43
3.85
2.7
3.18
2.54
2.16


Cult.
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre


SL (mm)
122.4
123.9
105.2
113.0
110.9
108.7
165.9
120.4
130.0
124.7
128.8
106.0
109.5
117.4
122.9
136.2
129.5
115.3
95.6
136.2
114.3
103.8
88.5
94.7
95.6
105.8
109.0
87.5
138.5
121.2
108.7
126.9
116.1
119.2
111.7
115.1
102.2
132.2
95.3
118.2
92.4
107.1
142.1
114.3
126.4
110.1
99.6











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 40-50
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 80-90cm
TU 5 80-90cm
TU 2 STR. Xla
TU 2 STR. Xib
TU 2 STR. Xib
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 80-90cm


Taxa
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Ce ntra rch id ae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
Centrarch idae
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides


Element AW(mm)


Cult.
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre


SL (mm)
129.3
111.4
115.8
120.9
126.1
122.4
103.8
112.5
106.9
160.7
126.6
131.2
116.1
133.6
115.8
143.5
135.0
117.4
113.0
119.9
114.8
110.1
120.9
138.3
134.1
127.4
121.9
115.8
151.0
121.2
126.6
91.2
105.8
107.7
164.2
162.4
173.0
158.4
144.4
212.8
152.6
151.0
274.9
150.2
140.1
161.9


atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


3.3
2.59
2.76
2.96
3.17
3.02
2.31
2.63
2.42
4.7
3.19
3.38
2.77
3.48
2.76
3.91
3.54
2.82
2.65
2.92
2.72
2.54
2.96
3.68
3.5
3.22
3
2.76
4.25
2.97
3.19
1.87
2.38
2.45
4.87
4.78
5.3
4.59
3.95
7.42
4.32
4.25
11.26
4.21
3.76
4.76


TU 1 STR. Ivb P.nigromaculatus
TU 5 20-30cm P.nigromaculatus











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 5 30-40cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 80-90cm
TU 5 80-90cm
TU 5 80-90cm
TU 2 STR. Xla
TU 4 EN
TU 4 EN
TU 4 FN
TU 4 FN
TU 4 GIV
TU 4 GIV
TU 4 GIV
TU 4 HN
TU 4 HN
TU 4 HN
TU 4 HN
TU 4 IN
TU 4 IN
TU 4 IN
TU 4 JlV
TU 4 K~lla
TU 4 K~lla
TU 4 L/Vlla
TU 4 M/Vlla
TU 4 M/Vlla
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill


Taxa
nig romaculatus
nig romaculatus
nig romaculatus
nig romaculatus
nig romaculatus
nig romaculatus
nig romaculatus
nig romaculatus
nig romaculatus
nigromaculatus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus
L. auritus


Element
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


AW(mm)
3.58
4.31
2.92
3.54
2.67
4.05
3.9
2.05
3.02
3.14
3.11
2.96
3.3
1.95
4.04
2.55
2.38
2.94
3.11
3.26
1.89
2.81
2.21
2.42
2.41
3
2.63
2.58
1.97
2.47
2.13
3.2
2.42
2.89
2.21
2.39
2.7
2.47
2.29


Cult.
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic


SL (mm)
135.9
152.4
119.9
135.0
113.5
146.6
143.3
96.5
122.4
125.4
124.7
120.9
129.3
93.6
146.4
110.3
105.8
120.4
124.7
128.3
91.8
117.1
101.1
106.9
106.6
121.9
112.5
111.1
94.2
108.2
98.8
126.9
106.9
119.2
101.1
106.0
114.3
108.2
103.3











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 4 E/V
TU 4 HN
TU 4 HN
TU 4 IN
TU 4 JNllla
TU 4 K/Vlla
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 4 GN
TU 4 GN
TU 4 GN
TU 4 1/V
TU 4 1/V
TU 4 1/V
TU 4 JlV
TU 4 K/V
TU 4 K/V
TU 4 JNllla
TU 4 K/Vlla
TU 4 K/Vlla
TU 4 L/Vlla
TU 4 L/Vlla
TU 4 L/Vlla
TU 4 L/Vlla
TU 4 L/Vlla
TU 4 MN/lla
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. V
TU 4 F/V
TU 1 STR. Illa
TU 1 STR. Illb
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 4 HN
TU 4 IN
TU 4 K/Vlla
TU 4 K/Vlla
TU 1 STR. Illa


Taxa
L. gulosus
L. gulosus
L. gulosus
L. gulosus
L. gulosus
L. gulosus
L. gulosus
L. gulosus
L. gulosus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. macrochirus
L. microlophus
L. microlophus
L. microlophus
L. microlophus
L. punctatus
L. punctatus
L. punctatus
L. punctatus
Lepomis spp.


Element AW(mm)


Cult. SL (mm)
ceramic 132.9
ceramic 137.1
ceramic 130.3
ceramic 120.4
ceramic 130.5
ceramic 102.5
ceramic 129.8
ceramic 127.1
ceramic 117.6
ceramic 135.0
ceramic 113.2
ceramic 100.5
ceramic 126.1
ceramic 109.5
ceramic 115.1
ceramic 110.3
ceramic 122.4
ceramic 111.9
ceramic 122.7
ceramic 119.4
ceramic 157.9
ceramic 106.0
ceramic 122.9
ceramic 104.1
ceramic 111.1
ceramic 96.8
ceramic 124.9
ceramic 123.9
ceramic 137.8
ceramic 119.7
ceramic 138.7
ceramic 157.5
ceramic 114.0
ceramic 106.6
ceramic 113.0
ceramic 104.9
ceramic 113.5
ceramic 138.3
ceramic 128.6
ceramic 160.9
ceramic 117.9
ceramic 123.4
ceramic 122.9
ceramic 103.0
ceramic 104.4
ceramic 115.1


atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


3.45
3.63
3.34
2.94
3.35
2.26
3.32
3.21
2.83
3.54
2.66
2.19
3.17
2.52
2.73
2.55
3.02
2.61
3.03
2.9
4.57
2.39
3.04
2.32
2.58
2.06
3.12
3.08
3.66
2.91
3.7
4.55
2.69
2.41
2.65
2.35
2.67
3.68
3.27
4.71
2.84
3.06
3.04
2.28
2.33
2.73











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 1 STR. Illa
TU 1 STR. Illa
TU 1 STR. Illc
TU 1 STR. Illc
TU 1 STR. Illc
TU 1 STR. Illc
TU 1 STR. Illd
TU 1 STR. Illd
TU 1 STR. Illd
TU 1 STR. Illd
TU 1 STR. Illd
TU 1 STR. Illd
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI


Taxa
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.


Element
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


AW(mm)
2.45
3.24
2.58
2.66
2.13
2.25
2.85
3.22
3.11
2.72
2.43
2.23
3.1
2.57
3.11
4.44
3.14
2.66
2.58
2.68
2.77
2.99
2.52
4.37
2.92
2.2
3.04
2.49
2.41
2.47
2.42
2.98
2.64
2.46
2.72
2.17
2.18
2.72
2.21
2.62
2.94
3.2
3.33
3.5
3.03
2.98
3.11


Cult.
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic


SL (mm)
107.7
127.8
111.1
113.2
98.8
102.2
118.2
127.4
124.7
114.8
107.1
101.6
124.4
110.9
124.7
155.2
125.4
113.2
111.1
113.8
116.1
121.7
109.5
153.7
119.9
100.8
122.9
108.7
106.6
108.2
106.9
121.4
112.7
107.9
114.8
99.9
100.2
114.8
101.1
112.2
120.4
126.9
130.0
134.1
122.7
121.4
124.7











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. Vllla
TU 2 STR. Vllla
TU 2 STR. Vllla
TU 2 STR. Vllla
TU 2 STR. Vllla
TU 2 STR. Vllla
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Villlc
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 2 STR. Xa
TU 2 STR. Xa
TU 2 STR. Xa
TU 2 STR. Xa
TU 2 STR. Xa
TU 2 STR. Xa
TU 2 STR. Xb
TU 2 STR. Xb
TU 2 STR. Xb


Taxa
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.
Lepomis spp.


Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)


atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


2.77
2.41
2.58
2.3
2.33
2.69
3.74
3.01
1.95
2.59
3.22
2.55
3.32
3.32
2.59
2.48
3.17
2.58
2.94
2.99
2.74
2.95
2.99
2.6
2.9
2.09
2.85
2.16
2.71
3.05
2.3
2.26
2.33
3.31
2.58
2.02
2.2
2.66
2.86
2.81
3.25
2.67
2.63
2.46
2.55
3.32
2.3


ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic


116.1
106.6
111.1
103.6
104.4
114.0
139.6
122.2
93.6
111.4
127.4
110.3
129.8
129.8
111.4
108.5
126.1
111.1
120.4
121.7
115.3
120.7
121.7
111.7
119.4
97.6
118.2
99.6
114.5
123.2
103.6
102.5
104.4
129.5
111.1
95.6
100.8
113.2
118.4
117.1
128.1
113.5
112.5
107.9
110.3
129.8
103.6











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 2 STR. Xb
TU 2 STR. Xb
TU 2 STR. Xb
TU 2 STR. Xb
TU 4 E/V
TU 4 E/V
TU 4 F/V
TU 4 F/V
TU 4 F/V
TU 4 F/V
TU 4 GIV
TU 4 GIV
TU 4 GIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 1/V
TU 4 1/V
TU 4 1/V
TU 4 1/V
TU 1 STR. Illc
TU 1 STR. Illc
TU 1 STR. Illd
TU 1 STR. Illd
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill


Taxa


Element AW(mm)


Cult. SL (mm)
ceramic 108.7
ceramic 99.1
ceramic 100.5
ceramic 108.7
ceramic 139.2
ceramic 115.1
ceramic 107.7
ceramic 116.1
ceramic 106.3
ceramic 95.0
ceramic 117.4
ceramic 114.0
ceramic 112.7
ceramic 130.0
ceramic 143.7
ceramic 116.6
ceramic 132.9
ceramic 104.7
ceramic 103.3
ceramic 104.9
ceramic 113.8
ceramic 138.0
ceramic 133.8
ceramic 106.6
ceramic 102.7
ceramic 101.9
ceramic 117.9
ceramic 133.1
ceramic 100.2
ceramic 122.9
ceramic 116.4
ceramic 147.1
ceramic 163.0
ceramic 109.0
ceramic 123.9
ceramic 127.6
ceramic 92.4
ceramic 131.7
ceramic 115.8
ceramic 113.2
ceramic 131.2
ceramic 138.0
ceramic 150.4
ceramic 127.8
ceramic 120.4
ceramic 134.8
ceramic 126.1


Lepomis spp. atlas
Lepomis spp. atlas
Lepomis spp. atlas
Lepomis spp. atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas
Centrarchidae atlas


2.49
2.14
2.19
2.49
3.72
2.73
2.45
2.77
2.4
2
2.82
2.69
2.64
3.33
3.92
2.79
3.45
2.34
2.29
2.35
2.68
3.67
3.49
2.41
2.27
2.24
2.84
3.46
2.18
3.04
2.78
4.07
4.81
2.5
3.08
3.23
1.91
3.4
2.76
2.66
3.38
3.67
4.22
3.24
2.94
3.53
3.17











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 1/V
TU 4 KlV
TU 4 J/Vlla
TU 4 J/Vlla


Taxa
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Centrarch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Centrarch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Centrarch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Centrarchidae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
Ce ntra rch idae
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides


Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)


atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


3.46
2.65
2.79
2.52
2.8
2.78
2.77
1.83
2.93
2.08
2.64
2.17
2.32
3.49
3.33
2.39
2.59
2.24
1.92
1.93
2.81
6.1
2.8
2.98
2.77
2.42
1.83
2.68
2.31
3.29
2.98
2.6
2.71
2.53
2.74
2.63
2.24
3.33
2.39
2.67
1.85
3.56
3.8
3.62
3.6
7.74
3.25


ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic


133.1
113.0
116.6
109.5
116.9
116.4
116.1
90.0
120.2
97.4
112.7
99.9
104.1
133.8
130.0
106.0
111.4
101.9
92.7
93.0
117.1
188.6
116.9
121.4
116.1
106.9
90.0
113.8
103.8
129.1
121.4
111.7
114.5
109.8
115.3
112.5
101.9
130.0
106.0
113.5
90.6
135.5
141.0
136.9
136.4
218.3
128.1











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 1 STR. Illa
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. Vllla
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. IX
TU 2 STR. Xb
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 1/V
TU 4 L/Vlla
TU 1 STR. Illa
TU 1 STR. Illd
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. IV
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. V
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. VI
TU 2 STR. Vllla
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Vlllb
TU 2 STR. Villlc
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 1 STR. Illa
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill


Taxa
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
M. salmoides
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
P. nigromaculatus
Amia calva
Amia calva
Amia calva
Amia calva
Amia calva
Amia calva
Amia calva


Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)


atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


3.08
5.24
3.89
7.72
2.69
3.65
3.41
2.67
4.26
4.03
5.05
3.02
3.41
4.1
5.06
4.49
3.49
3.12
2.64
2.69
4.79
5.13
3.63
3.59
4.17
3.81
2.5
2.71
4.11
1.93
3.79
3.36
5.23
4.49
3.26
3.19
3.33
2.81
3.56
3.52
8.12
15.04
6.18
7.52
6.71
13.12
9.86


ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
pre
pre
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic


123.9
171.8
143.0
218.0
114.0
137.6
131.9
113.5
151.3
146.2
167.9
122.4
131.9
147.7
168.1
156.2
133.8
124.9
112.7
114.0
162.6
169.6
137.1
136.2
149.3
141.2
109.0
114.5
148.0
93.0
140.8
130.7
171.6
156.2
128.3
126.6
130.0
117.1
135.5
134.5
334.1
580.8
261.5
311.8
281.5
513.8
397.6











Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Villlc
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 20-30cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 40-50cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 50-60cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 60-70cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 70-80cm
TU 5 80-90cm
TU 5 80-90cm
TU 5 80-90cm
TU 2 STR. Xia
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 HIV
TU 4 1/V
TU 4 L/Vlla
TU 1 STR. Illa
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 0-10cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 5 10-20cm
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill
TU 2 STR. Ill


Taxa
Amia calva
Amia calva
Amia calva
Amia calva
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta
Erimyzon sucetta


Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)


atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas
atlas


10.32
10.7
6.94
4.1
5.23
4.65
3.95
4.69
4.46
6.37
5.44
5.14
5.27
5.76
7.02
5.45
4.2
5.22
5.86
5.88
5.24
5.63
5.81
4.57
4.13
4.89
5.65
4.65
5.79
6.04
3.81
5.12
4.95
4.89
6.08
5.37
5.06
5.82
5.46
5.37
5
4.94
5.28
4.89
4.01
4.58
4.58


ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic
ceramic


414.3
427.9
290.2
180.9
232.3
210.5
183.7
212.0
203.3
274.0
240.1
228.9
233.8
251.8
297.2
240.4
193.3
231.9
255.5
256.2
232.7
247.1
253.7
207.5
190.6
219.6
247.8
210.5
252.9
262.0
178.2
228.2
221.8
219.6
263.5
237.5
225.9
254.0
240.8
237.5
223.7
221.5
234.1
219.6
186.0
207.9
207.9







80


Table B-2 Continued
Test Unit Depth Taxa Element AW(mm) Cult. SL (mm)
TU 2 STR. Ill Erimyzon sucetta atlas 3.24 ceramic 155.6
TU 2 STR. VI Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.5 ceramic 204.8
TU 2 STR. VI Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.08 ceramic 226.7
TU 2 STR. IX Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.28 ceramic 234.1
TU 2 STR. Xa Erimyzon sucetta atlas 4.66 ceramic 210.9
TU 2 STR. Xb Erimyzon sucetta atlas 5.35 ceramic 236.7

AW = Atlas Width (mm)
Cult. = Cultural Component (e. g., preceramnic vs. ceramic)
SL = Standard Length (mm)
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
2003 Early and Middle Holocene. In Handbook of North American Indians,
Sambeast~l~ Volume. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Aten, Lawrence E.
1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island, Florida: Ripley P.
Bullen's 1961 Excavation at Harris Creek Site. The Florida
Anthropologist 52: 13 1-200.

Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smokes and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems
and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.

Blitz, John H.
1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian
Community. American Antiquity 58:80-95.

Bourdiue, Pierre
1977 Outline ofa Theory ofPractice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bowser, Brenda J.
2000 From Pottery to politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political
Factionalism, Ethnicity, and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian
Amazon. Journal ofArchaeological M~ethod and Theory 7:219-248.

Braun, David P.
1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J.A.
Moore and A.S. Keene, pp.108-134. Academic Press, New York.

Broughton, Jack M.
1999 Resource Depression and Intensification During the Late Holocene, San
Francisco Bay: Evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate
Fauna. Anthropological Records Vol. 32 University of California Press,
Berkeley.










Brown, James A.
1985 Long-Term Trends to Sedentism and the Emergence of Complexity in the
American Midwest. Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of
Cultural Complexity, pp. 201-224. Academic Press, New York.

1989 The Beginnings of Pottery as an Economic Process. In What 's New ?
A Closer Look at the Process ofhinovation, edited by S.E. van der Leeuw,
pp. 203-224. Unwin Hyman, London.

Brown, James A., and Robert K. Vierra
1983 What Happened in the Middle Archaic? Introduction to an Ecological
Approach to Koster Site Archaeology. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers
hr the American M~idwest, edited by J.L. Phillips and J.A. Brown, pp. 165-
195. Academic Press, New York.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1954 Culture Changes during the Fiber-Tempered Period of Florida.
.,nlrIahI In dian Studies 6:45-48.

1972 The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida. In Fiber-Tenspered Pottery
in .,nlimbesic n r'l United States and Northern-Cohenabia: Its Origins,
Context, and Significance, edited by Ripley P. Bullen and James P.
Stoltman, pp. 9-33. Florida Anthropological Society Publications 6.
Gainesville.

Cashdan, Elizabeth
1980 Egalitarianism among Hunter and Gatherers. American Anthropologist
82:116-129.

Claassen, Cheryl
1991 Gender, Shellfishing, and the Shell Mound Archaic. In Engendering
Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and
Margeret W. Conkey, pp. 276-301. Blackwell, Oxford.

1996 A Consideration of the Social Organization of the Shell Mound Archaic.
In Archaeology of the M~id-Holocene .,nlrmbet ir, edited by Kenneth E.
Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 235-258. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.

Clastres, Pierre
1998 Chronicle of the Guayaki hIdians. Zone Books, New York.

Connaughton, Sean P.
2001 Resource Depression in the Subsistence Economy of Prehistoric Hunter-
Gatherers of the St. Johns River Valley, Florida. Senior Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.










Cumbaa, Stephen L.
1976 A Reconsideration of Freshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida
Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 29 (2): 50-59.

DeBoer, Warren R.
2001 The Big Drink: Feast and Forum in the Upper Amazon. In Feasts:
Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and
Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 215-239. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Ellen, Roy
1995 Foraging, Starch Extraction and the Sedentary Lifestyle in Lowland
Rainforest of Central Seram. In Hunters and Gatherers Vobtnze 1:
History, Evohition and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David
Riches and James Woodburn, pp. 117-134. Berg, Oxford.

Goggin, John M.
1998 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida.
Reprinted. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Originally Published
1952, Volume 47 Publications in Anthropology. Yale University Press,
New Haven.

Gosselain, Oliver P.
1992a Bonfire of the Enquiries. Pottery Firing Temperatures in Archaeology:
What For? Journal ofArchaeological Science 19(3):243-259.

1992b Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among the Bafia of Cameroon.
Man 27:559-586.

Hally, David J.
1983 Use Alteration of Pottery Surfaces: An Important Source of Evidence for
the Identification of Vessel Function. North American Archaeologist 4:3-
26.

1986 The Identifieation of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest
Georgia. Anzerican Antiquity 51:267-295.

Hamilton, Fran
1999 Southeastern Archaic Mounds: Examples of Elaboration in a Temporally
Fluctuating Environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18:
344-355.

Hawkes, K, K. Hill, and J. O'Connell
1982 Why Hunters Gather: Optimal Foraging and the Ache of Eastern
Paraguay. American Ethnologist 9:379-398.










Hayden, Brian
1994 Competition, Labor and Complex Hunter-Gatherers. In Key Issues in
H~unter-Gatherer Research, edited by E.S. Burch, Jr., and L. J. Ellanna,
pp. 223-239. Berg, Oxford.

2002 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon To The Importance Of Feasting. In
Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics,
andPower, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden, pp. 23-64.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Hendon, Julia A.
2000 Having and Holding: Storage, Memory, Knowledge and Social Relations.
American Anthropologist 102:42-53.

Hofman, Jack L.
1985 Middle Archaic Ritual and Shell Midden Archaeology: Considering
The Significance of Cremations. In Exploring Tennessee Prehistory: A
Dedication to Al~fredK. Guthe, edited by T. Whyte, C. Boyd, and B.
Riggs, pp. 1-21. Report of Investigations 42. Knoxville: Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee.

Hoyer, Mark V.
1994 H~andbook of Common Freshwater Fish in Florida. University of Florida
Co. Extensive Services, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Gainesville, Florida.

Ingold, Tim
1999 On the Social Relations of the Hunter-Gatherer Band. In The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, edited by R.B. Lee and R. Daly,
pp. 399-410. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jefferies, Richard W.
1996 The Emergence of Long-Distance Exchange Networks in the Southeastern
United States. In Archaeology of the M~id-Holocene Saidemi~l~, edited by
Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 222-234. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Jochim, Michael A.
198 1 Strategies for Survival: Cultural Behavior in an Ecological Context.
Academic Press, New York.


Joyce, Rosemary A.
1998 Performing the Body in Pre-Hispanic Central America. Res: Anthropology
and~le\ther~ie 33:147-165.










Kelly, Robert L.
1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways.
Smithsonian Institution press, Washington, D.C.

Loney, Helen L.
2000 Society and Technological Control: A Critical Review of Models of
Technological Change in Ceramic Studies. American Antiquity 65:646-
668.

Lourandos, Harry
1995 Palaeopolitics: Resource Intensification in Aboriginal Australia
and Papua New Guinea. In Hunters and Gatherers Vohenze 1: History,
Evohition and Social Change, edited by Tim In gold, David Riches and
James Woodburn, pp. 148-160. Berg, Oxford.

Marquardt, William H.
1985 Complexity and Scale in the Study of Fisher-Gatherer-Hunters : An
Example from the Eastern United States. In Prehistoric Hunter-
Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, edited by T.D. Price
and J.A. Brown, pp.59-98. Academic Press, Orlando.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology ofPrecohenabian Florida. University of Florida Press,
Gainesville.

Mills, Barbara J.
1999 Ceramics and Social Contexts of Food Consumption in the Northern
Southwest. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by
James M. Skibo and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 99-1 14. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.

Moore, Clarence B.
1892 Certain Shell Heaps of the St. John' s River, Florida, Hitherto Unexplored.
The American Naturalist. (November) pp. 912-922.

Page, Lawrence and Brooks M. Burr
1991 A Field Guide to Fresineater Fishes. Houghton Mifflin, New York.

Quitmyer, Iry R.
2001 The Mount Taylor Period Zooarchaeological Record of the Lake Monroe
Outlet Midden (8VO53): Middle Holocene Subsistence in Central-East
Florida. Report Prepared for Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Sarasota,
And for the Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.

Reitz, Elizabeth J., E.S. Wing
1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.










Rice, Prudence M.
1986 Pottery Analysis: A Source Book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

1996 Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style and Origins. Journal of
Archaeological Research 4: 133-163.

1999 On the Origins of Pottery. Journal ofArchaeological M~ethod and' Theory
6:1-54.

Russo, Michael
1988 A Comment on Temporal Pattemns in marine Shellfish Use in Florida and
Georgia. .,nlrlmbeasici n Archaeology 7(1):61-68.

1994 Why We Don't Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We
Should: The Case from Florida. .winheavoinr~ ll Archaeology 13:93-108.

1996a Southeastemn Mid-Holocene Coastal Settlements. In Archaeology of the
M~id-Holocene .,nlrmbeati, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G.
Anderson, pp. 177-199. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1996b Southeastemn Archaic Mounds. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene
.,nlrmbeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp.
259-287. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Russo, Michael, B. Purdy, L. Newsom, and R. McGee
1992 A Reinterpretation of Late Archaic Adaptations in Central-East Florida:
Groves' Orange Midden (8Vo2601). .,nlrlmbeavoinl Archaeology 11(2):
95-108.

Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the .0;mbeast Ir Trad'ition and' Innovation in Cooking
Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1995 The Social Contradictions of Traditional and Innovative Cooking
Technologies in the Prehistoric American Southeast. In The Emergence
ofPottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by
William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes, pp. 223-240. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1996 Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts. In
Archaeology of the M~id-Holocene .,nlrmbeati, edited by Kenneth E.
Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 57-74. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.










2001a Hunter-Gatherers and Traditions of Resistance. In The Archaeology
Of Traditions: Agency andHistory Before and After Columbus, edited by
T. R. Pauketat, pp. 218-236. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2001b Articulating Hidden Histories of the Mid-Holocene Southeast. In
Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands, edited by L.P. Sullivan and
S.C. Prezzano, pp. 103-1 19. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

2003a New AMS Dates on Orange Fiber-Tempered Pottery from the Middle
St. Johns Valley and Their Implications for Culture History in Northeast
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56(1):5-14.

2003b St. Johns Archaeological Field School 2000-2001: Blue Spring and
Hontoon Island State Parks.~~~~PPPPP~~~~PPPP Technical Report 4. Laboratory of
Southeastern Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of
Florida, Gainesville.

2003c Crescent Lake Archaeological Survey 2002: Putnamn and Flagler
Counties, Florida. Technical Report 5. Laboratory of Southeastern
Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., and Wictoria Rudolphi
2001 Communities of Practice in the Early Ceramic Traditions of the American
Southeast. Journal ofAnthropological Research 57:407-425.

Schiffer, Michael B. and James M. Skibo
1987 Theory and experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current
Anthropology 28:595-622.

Schrire, Carmel
1984 Wild Surmises on Savage Thoughts. In Past and Present in Hunter
Gatherer Studies, edited by Carmel Schrire, pp. 1-25. Academic Press,
New York.

Schuldenrein, Joseph
1996 Geoarchaeology and the Mid-Holocene Landscape History of the Greater
Southeast. In Archaeology of the M~id-Holocene Saideav~l~, edited by K.E.
Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 3-27. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.

Sewell, William H., Jr.
1992 A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency and Transformation. American
Journal of Sociology 98:1-29.










Smith, Eric Alden
1995 Risk and Uncertainty in the 'Original Affluent Society': Evolutionary
Ecology of Resource-Sharing and Land Tenure. In Hunters and
Gatherers Volume 1: History, Evolution and Social Change, edited by
Tim Ingold, David Riches and James Woodburn, pp. 222-251. Berg,
Oxford.

Smith, Bruce D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to
deSoto. In Advances in World Archaeology (vol. 5), edited by F. Wendorf
and A. Close, pp.1-92. Academic Press, Orlando.

Stark, Miriam T., Ronald L. Bishop., and Elizabeth Miksa
2000 Ceramic Technology and Social Boundaries: Cultural Practices in Kalinga
Clay Selection and Use. Journal ofArchaeological M~ethod and Theory
7:295-331.

Steward, Julian H.
1955 Theory of Culture Change: The M~ethodology of2~ultilinear Evolution.
Urbana, University of Illinois Press.

Trigger, Bruce
1987 Native .\be~//Mounds of North America: Early Studies. Garland
Publishing Inc., New York.

1989 A History ofArchaeological Thought. Cambrid ge University Press.

Watts, William A., Eric C. Grimm, and T.C. Hussey
1996 Mid-Holocene Forest History of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia
and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the M~id-Holocene Saidemil~r
edited by K.E. Sassaman and D.G. Anderson, pp. 28-38. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wheeler, Ryan J. & Ray M. McGee
1994 Report of Preliminary Zooarchaeological Analysis: Groves' Orange
Midden. The Florida Anthropologist 47 (4): 393-403.

Wheeler, Ryan J., Christine L. Newman, & Ray M. McGee
2000 A New Look at the Mount Taylor and Bluffton Sites, Volusia County
with an Outline of the Mount Taylor Culture. The Florida Anthropologist
53 (2-3):132-157.

Wiessner, Polly
1982 Risk, Reciprocity and Social Influences on !Kung San Economics. In
Politics and History in BandBBBBB~~~~~~~BBBBBB Societies, edited by Eleanor Leacock and
Richard Lee, pp. 61-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.










Winterhalder, Bruce
1993 Work, Resources, and Population in Foraging Societies. Man 28:
321-340.

Winterhalder, Bruce and Eric A. Smith
1992 Evolutionary Ecology and the Social Sciences. In Evohitionary Ecology
and'Human Behavior, edited by Eric A. Smith and Bruce Winterhalder,
pp. 3-24. Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY.

Wright, Rita P.
1991 Women's Labor and Pottery Production in Prehistory. In Engendering
Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J.M. Gero and M.W.
Conkey, pp. 194-223. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge.

Wyman, Jeffries
1875 Fresineater .\he//l M~ounds of the St. John 's River, Florid'a. Memoirs of the
Peabody Academy of Science. Fourth Memoir Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.1-83.
Harvard University, Cambridge.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Sean P. Connaughton graduated from Eau Gallie High School, Melbourne, FL in

1997. He attended the University of Florida (UF) for his undergraduate education

majoring in anthropology. Upon completing his senior thesis, he graduated from UF in

2001 and was admitted to the graduate program in the Department of Anthropology at

UJF. He will graduate in May 2004 with his Master of Art degree in anthropology. In the

fall of 2004 he will attend Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, to pursue his

Ph.D. in Archaeology. His area of focus will be in the South Pacific, particularly Fiji and

Tonga.