<%BANNER%>

Environmental and Cultural Transitions as Reflected in the Zooarchaeology of Pineland's Old Mound (8LL37)

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042957/00001

Material Information

Title: Environmental and Cultural Transitions as Reflected in the Zooarchaeology of Pineland's Old Mound (8LL37)
Physical Description: 1 online resource (109 p.)
Language: english
Creator: PALMIOTTO,ANDREA
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: FLORIDA -- PALEOENVIRONMENT -- SOUTHEAST -- ZOOARCHAEOLOGY
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: I examine a series of five 1/16-inch-and-larger-screened zooarchaeological column samples from Pineland?s Old Mound (8LL37) in coastal southwest Florida, analyzing both the vertebrate and invertebrate remains to discern fluctuations in paleoenvironmental conditions, variations in resource availability, and differences in cultural practices over time. These samples are associated with late Caloosahatchee I and IIA-early periods (ca. A.D. 100 to 650). Much of the region?s inshore estuarine areas are characterized by shallow waters and seagrass flats. Fringed by mangrove wetlands, a variety of shellfish and fish take shelter in these protected waters, providing abundant and diverse resources to residents of the region. Using a historical ecology framework, I examine identified taxa with regard to ecological tolerances in order to reconstruct paleoenvironments and test hypotheses about local paleoenvironmental and cultural contexts (deFrance and Walker 2011). Zooarchaeological results indicate that through time, Pineland occupants exploited a multitude of habitats and used a variety of coastal resources. The shells of small, non-food marine taxa in the deepest two levels indicate aquatic deposition of materials. High quantities of terrestrial invertebrate taxa in those levels give insight into freshwater sources and stormy climatic conditions. Eastern oyster shells decrease in quantity across strata, indicating a loss of oysters? preferred habitats or a shift in resource procurement. Later strata evince exploitation of other habitats and resources. Ducks are more common in the Caloosahatchee IIA-early sample, indicating markedly cooler conditions than experienced in earlier contexts. Frequency of invertebrate remains is also markedly higher during this time period. Fluctuations in crested to eastern oyster ratios reflect substantial changes in salinity levels across the period of time in question, with the lowest salinity level represented by the Caloosahatchee IIA-early sample. By examining sequential column samples using traditional zooarchaeology methods, I identify smaller-scale changes in resource use through time than would be possible by focusing on only broad cultural periods. Over the course of roughly five hundred years, changes in taxa MNI frequencies provide insight into fluctuations of local ecology and climatic conditions.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by ANDREA PALMIOTTO.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Marquardt, William H.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042957:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042957/00001

Material Information

Title: Environmental and Cultural Transitions as Reflected in the Zooarchaeology of Pineland's Old Mound (8LL37)
Physical Description: 1 online resource (109 p.)
Language: english
Creator: PALMIOTTO,ANDREA
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: FLORIDA -- PALEOENVIRONMENT -- SOUTHEAST -- ZOOARCHAEOLOGY
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: I examine a series of five 1/16-inch-and-larger-screened zooarchaeological column samples from Pineland?s Old Mound (8LL37) in coastal southwest Florida, analyzing both the vertebrate and invertebrate remains to discern fluctuations in paleoenvironmental conditions, variations in resource availability, and differences in cultural practices over time. These samples are associated with late Caloosahatchee I and IIA-early periods (ca. A.D. 100 to 650). Much of the region?s inshore estuarine areas are characterized by shallow waters and seagrass flats. Fringed by mangrove wetlands, a variety of shellfish and fish take shelter in these protected waters, providing abundant and diverse resources to residents of the region. Using a historical ecology framework, I examine identified taxa with regard to ecological tolerances in order to reconstruct paleoenvironments and test hypotheses about local paleoenvironmental and cultural contexts (deFrance and Walker 2011). Zooarchaeological results indicate that through time, Pineland occupants exploited a multitude of habitats and used a variety of coastal resources. The shells of small, non-food marine taxa in the deepest two levels indicate aquatic deposition of materials. High quantities of terrestrial invertebrate taxa in those levels give insight into freshwater sources and stormy climatic conditions. Eastern oyster shells decrease in quantity across strata, indicating a loss of oysters? preferred habitats or a shift in resource procurement. Later strata evince exploitation of other habitats and resources. Ducks are more common in the Caloosahatchee IIA-early sample, indicating markedly cooler conditions than experienced in earlier contexts. Frequency of invertebrate remains is also markedly higher during this time period. Fluctuations in crested to eastern oyster ratios reflect substantial changes in salinity levels across the period of time in question, with the lowest salinity level represented by the Caloosahatchee IIA-early sample. By examining sequential column samples using traditional zooarchaeology methods, I identify smaller-scale changes in resource use through time than would be possible by focusing on only broad cultural periods. Over the course of roughly five hundred years, changes in taxa MNI frequencies provide insight into fluctuations of local ecology and climatic conditions.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by ANDREA PALMIOTTO.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Marquardt, William H.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042957:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ENVIRONM E N TAL AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS AS REFLECTED IN THE By ANDREA PALMIOTTO 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 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Andrea Palmiotto

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I sincerely thank my committee: Bill Marquardt for making the Pineland collections available to me and for his patience, support, and guidance; Karen Walker for teaching me zooarchaeology, guiding me towards an understand ing of estuarine ecology, and for her careful proofreading; and Susan deFrance for teaching me zooarchaeology and for her support. I thank Irvy Quitmyer for additional guidance in zooarchaeology and Kitty Emery for granting me work space and access to the comparative collections at the En vironmental Archaeology laboratory at the Florida Museum of Natural History. I also want to thank my friend and colleague Chris Judge for introducing me to archaeology. I thank my family: my dad for helping me acclimate to a new place, my mother always for her enthusiasm, my brother for late night Skypes, and my sister for her artistic input. I also thank my fellow graduate students and friends All of you helped me keep my sanity and provided me with good laughs when I needed them. Special thanks go to Isaac Shearn, who took care of my dog when I was too busy to do it myself.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 10 2 THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS ................................ ...... 12 Historical Ecology ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 12 Environmental Archaeolog y ................................ ................................ ............................... 13 Assessing Past Environments ................................ ................................ ............................. 14 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ............. 18 Enviro nmental Chronology ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 Roman Warm Period (300 B.C. A.D. 500) ................................ ................................ 18 Vandal Minimum (A.D. 500 850) ................................ ................................ ............. 19 Greater Charlotte Harbor Region ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 Local Habitats and Taxon Characteristics ................................ ................................ ........... 20 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ........... 2 7 Regional Archaeological Background ................................ ................................ ................ 27 Ethnographic Accounts ................................ ................................ ............................... 27 Archaeolog ical Research ................................ ................................ ............................. 28 Pineland ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 31 Stratigraphy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 32 Ceramic Artifact Analyses ................................ ................................ ........................... 34 5 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ........................ 42 Field Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 42 Zooarchaeological Materials ................................ ................................ .............................. 43 Quantifications ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 44 Number of Indivi dual Specimen Per Taxon ................................ ................................ 45 Minimum Number of Individuals ................................ ................................ ................ 46 Weight ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 46 Biomass ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 46

PAGE 5

5 Diversity and Equitabili ty ................................ ................................ ............................ 47 Curation ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 49 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 49 6 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 50 Level 92 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 50 Level 94 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 50 Level 96 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 51 Level 98 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 51 Level 101 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 52 7 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 55 Paleoenvironmental Conditions, Habitat Exploitation, And Cultural Implications .............. 55 Diversity and Equitability ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 59 Stratigraphic Comparisons ................................ ................................ ................................ 60 Comparing Zooarchaeological and Ceramic Artifact Assemblages ................................ ..... 61 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 61 8 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 64 APPENDIX A MNI S UMMARY FOR OLD MOUND, OPERATION A, LEVELS 92, 94, 96, 98, AND 101 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 67 B MNI QUANTIFICATIONS FOR OLD MOUND, A 16 92, STRATUM 3 ........................ 73 C QUANTIFICATIONS FOR OLD MOUND, A 16 94, STRATA 5 AND 6 ........................ 76 D QUANTIFICATIONS FOR OLD MOUND, A 16 96, STRATUM 8 ................................ 82 E QUANTIFICATIONS FO R OLD MOUND, A 16 98, STRATUM 9 ................................ 88 F MNI QUANTIFICATIONS FOR OLD MOUND, A 8 101, STRATUM 9 ........................ 95 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 100 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 109

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 .......... 35 4 2 .......... 36 6 1 Summary of total number of identified taxa and MNI from Old Mound Operation A samples. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 53 6 2 Diversity and equitability estimates for Old Mound Operation A samples. ..................... 54 6 3 Crested to eastern oyster ratios for Old Mound Operation A samples. ............................ 54

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 The greater Charlotte Harbor region. ................................ ................................ ............. 25 3 2 The Pineland Sit e Complex with Old Mound circled in red. ................................ ........... 26 4 1 layout. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 37 4 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 38 4 3 (red rectangles) and dated radiocarbon (red triangles) samples labeled. .......................... 39 4 4 triangles) labeled. ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 40 4 5 (red triangles) labeled. ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 41 7 1 Relative frequency shifts through time of commonly identified taxa from Old Mound Operation A samples. ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 63

PAGE 8

8 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 Art s ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL TRANSITIONS AS REFLECTED IN THE By Andrea Palmiotto May 2011 Chair: William H. Marquardt Major: Anthropology I examine a series of five 1/16 inch and larger screened zooarchaeological column vertebrate and invertebrate remains to discern fluctuations in paleoenvironmental conditions, variations in resource availability, and diff erences in cultural practices over time. These samples are associated with late Caloosahatchee I a nd IIA early periods (ca. A.D. 10 0 to 650). seagrass flats. Fringed b y mangrove wetlands, a variety of shellfish and fish t ake shelter in these protected waters, providing abundant and diverse resources to residents of the region. Using a historical ecology framework, I examine identified taxa with regard to ecological tol erances in order to reconstruct paleoenvironments and test hypotheses about local paleo environmental and cultural contexts (deFrance and Walker 2011). Zooarchaeological results indicate that through time, Pineland occupants exploited a multitude of habita ts and used a variety of coastal resources. The shells of small, non food marine taxa in the deepest two levels indicate aquatic deposition of materials. High quantities of terrestrial invertebrate taxa in those level s give insight into freshwater source s and stormy climatic condition s. E astern oyster shells decrease in quantity across strata, indicating a loss of

PAGE 9

9 habitats or a shift in resource procurement Later strata evince exploitation of other habitats and resources Duck s are more common in the Caloosahatchee IIA early sample indicating markedly cooler conditions than experienced in earlier contexts. Frequency of invertebrate remains is also markedly higher during this time period. Fluctuations in crested to eastern oyster r atios reflect substantial changes in salinity levels across the period of time in question with the lowest salinity level represented by the Caloosahatchee IIA early sample By examining sequential column samples using traditional zooarchaeology methods I identify smaller scale changes in resource use through time than would be possible by focusing on only broa d cultural periods. Over the course of roughly five hundred years, changes in taxa MNI frequencies provide insight in to fluctuations of local ec ology and climatic conditions.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION For more than twenty years, research at the Pineland Site Complex (consisting of site s numb ered 8LL33, 8LL34, 8LL36, 8LL37, 8LL38, 8LL757, and 8LL1612, and henceforth referred to as Pineland) in coastal southwest Florida has focused on interpreting dynamic interactions between people and their environments through time with an emphasis on enviro nmental archaeological and historical ecological approaches ( Marquardt ed. 1992 ; Marquardt and Walker ed s 2011). This thesis contributes to zooarchaeological and paleoenvironmental reconstructions using faunal and other relevant data collected from Pinel and. Several questions guide this research: (1) w hat faunal resources were used by Pineland residents ? (2) c an all faunal materials in shell middens be attributed to purposeful collection ? (3) i n which habitats are these resources found in life ? (4) h ow did these habitats change through time ? and (5) c an the e ffects of non cultural and cultural processes be identified from these faunal assemblages, and if so, what are they? I examine how faunal components of midden changed through time between A.D. 100 and A.D. 650 from a historical ecology perspective via analyses of 1/16 inch and larger Mound (8LL37). These analyses add to the existing body of knowledge about variations in faunal use through time at Pineland. Furthermore, they test the hypothesis that paleoenvironmental fluctuations are important factors affecting resource use, as reflected in midden composition (deFranc e and Walker 2011; Walker 1992). The column samples roughly correspond with the late Caloosahatchee I ( A.D. 100 to A.D. 500) (n = 4) and Caloosahatchee IIA early (A.D. 500 to 650) (n=1) cultural periods and with the latter part of the Roman Warm Period (300 B.C. to A.D. 500) and the first half of the Vandal

PAGE 11

11 Minimum (A.D. 500 to 850) climatic episodes However, I largely eschew these broad cultural and climatic associations in order to examine deposits primarily with regard to fluctuating environmental c onditions at a more human relevant scale

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL AND METH ODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK S In this chapter, I discuss the theoretical and methodological frameworks that I use in the analysis. Using a historical ecology framework, the effects o f the dialectical relations between humans and their environments can be examined. Zooarchaeological materials are examined using standard methods employed by environmental archaeologists, as discussed below. Historical Ecology Historical ecology is a t heoretical framework used to interpret the ways that people interact with their environments at various spatial and temporal scales (Marquardt and Crumley 1987:1). al perspective on env ). Whereas cultural ecologists accentuate the effects of environmental factors on human adaptation (Steward 1955:36 41), h istorical ecologists emphasize the significance of human environmental intera ctions Historical ecologists recognize that not only does the environment influence human actions, but also that human actions can have substantial impacts on the environment. In this regard, humans can be identified as a keystone species (Bale 2006 :85 ). The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program defines a keystone species as environment relative to Historical ecologists examine how these interactions are reflect e d i n the formation of cultures and landscapes ( Bale 2006:75). People define their lives, territories, and environment by consciously separating landscapes into different areas (Crumley and Marquardt 1987:1). The landscape, a medium to interpret human ac tions and motives, reflects human mental processes and culture via the intentional and unintentional physical effects of human activity (Crumley 1994:4 9; 200 7:15 18 ). The landscape is also the culmination of a plethora of non cultural factors that are in constant states of

PAGE 13

13 fluctuation, including climate, sea level, inclement weather, local habitats, and resource availability and diversity. The habitats and resources identified in an area (which may not be all of the available resources) contribute largely to societal formation and cultural identity (Steele and Rockman 2003). Because there are so many factors at play in any given situation, it becomes a meticulous task to interpret correlations between these variables (Costanza et al. 2007). The dialectic al approach, as espoused by Marquardt (1992 a ) is a core component of this perspective. The dialectician views the world as the result of mutually defining and continuously interacting conflicting forces According to the dialectical perspective n othing can be understood in isolation, but only relatively in the specific, cognized sociohistorical contexts wherein actions occur (Marquardt 1992 a :104, 110). Environmental Archaeology Aimed at understanding human actions with regard to the environment, enviro nmental archaeology includes a heavy natural sciences com ponent (Reitz et al. 1996:3). P aleoenvironmental reconstruction s, in terms of climate, sea level, and ecology are a key feature of this approach (Dincauze 1987:255). Via natural science concepts, environmental archaeologists seek to under stand the kinds of conditions with which people in the past interacted Environmental archaeology is here used as a methodology. Traditional zooarchaeological techniques are employed in this analysis. Informati on about samples and analysis techniques is discussed in chapter five. Using several quantification methods, I examine zooarchaeological materials to test hypotheses about past human environment interactions (deFrance and Walker 2011 :234 Walker 1992 :300 ). I supplement the zooarchaeological analysis with associated ceramic artifact analyses (Cordell 2011 :434 ) to examine the various interactions of people in the past with fluctuating environmental conditions.

PAGE 14

14 I analyze identified taxa w ith regard to prefe rred habitats and ecological characteristics to determine which habitats were being exploited, as well as details about past environmental conditions. For example, deFrance and Walker (2011 :318 ) interpret high quantities of small, incidental marine invert ebrates 8 101 midden as evidence that the larger remains were deposited directly in the intertidal zone, on top of the smaller, incidental taxa. The smaller taxa inhabit the intertidal zone, whil e the larger faunal remains identified in the midden are found in other habitats during life. Their interp retation places the shoreline 1 6 5 m east of its twentieth century location. In another example, Walker and Marquardt (2011:125) interpret a storm de excavations based on a thin layer of taxa such as surfclams ( Spisula solidissima ) and sea urchins (Echinoidea), taxa that are not commonly associated with food deposits at Pineland or in the adjacent shallow estuarine environ ments To supplement this research, I hope to discern patterns in zooarchaeological distributions to help determine paleoenvironmental fluctuation s and how humans used the resources available to them over time. Archaeological research ers of the coastal so uthwest region of Florida endeavor to examine human interactions with changing environmental conditions ( e.g., Marquardt ed. 1992; Marquardt 1992 a, 2001 ; Marquardt and Walker ed s. 2011; Marquardt and Walker 2011; Walker 1992, 2000a; Walker and Marquardt 20 11) and this Old Mound study will contribute to a better understanding of these relationships Assessing Past Environments Quantitative changes in species diversity and relative abundance can be used as indicators of dynamic environmental change. Theor etically a zooarchaeological assemblag e represents generally which taxa inhabited the local region and what relative quantities the environment was able to sustain. From there, human choice further affects the assemblage what do humans

PAGE 15

15 prefer to eat an d what are they technologically able to exploit from the available resources? Finally, taphonomy also affects the assemblage distribution. Luckily, dense shell middens provide beneficial conditions for the preservation of all zooarchaeological material s, shell and bone alike (Walker and Marquardt 2011:58). Zooarchaeological remains have successfully been used to reconstruct paleoenvironments and supplement re lated environmental research. I present the following examples to demonstrate how human environ mental interactions can be inferred from the examination of zooarchaeological materials. These examples indicate the world wide applicability of this approach. A rchaeological sites in the greater Charlotte Harbor region contain evidence that correlates w ith geological records. At the Solana site, presently located in a low salinity area near the mouth of the Peace River, high salinity taxa were identified 50 cm above twentieth century mean high water (Widmer 1986 :46 ) This midden deposit dated between A .D. 200 and 650 and indicat ed a higher sea level and a higher salinity level during the time of deposition Other sites, such as the Wightman site on the barrier island of Sanibel, contain two strata of high salinity non cultural taxa, which are interpreted as washover deposits due to rising sea level and storm activity, between layers of lower sal inity midden taxa (Walker et al. 1994:172, 175). Small clusters of small eastern oysters in life position were identified between the l ower midden and the washover sand and shell layers indicating the establishment of a live oyster bar on top of the midden, due to the slow rate of sea level rise (Walker et al. 1994:171). Based on several radiocarbon samples, the rise in sea level and th e increase in storm activity occurred at the end of the Caloosahatchee I period (Walker et al. 1994:166, 177).

PAGE 16

16 However, many of the archaeological taxa represented in deposits have wide ecological tolerances, and interpretations are not always so clear c ut. As a result, inferring environmental fluctuations can be an arduous task. Remains of s essile and slow moving invertebrate s tend to provide better proxies for paleoenvironmental reconstructions than fishes and other mobile taxa because invertebrates c an survive only in limited salinity ranges (CHNEP 2007:29) and are unable to migrate quickly away from an area when conditions become unfavorable. In other ex amples, Rick (2007), Erlandson et al. ( 2008), and colleagues use a historical ecology framework for their work on the southern California coast to examine questions of social, economic, and ecological development. Since at least 11 000 B.C. and through European co ntact, maritime oriented groups, including the Chumash occupied the coastal southern Ca lifornia region. Focusing specifically on San Miguel Island, part of the Channel Islands, artifactual, faunal, and settlement data are used to examine daily life and long term int eractions between humans and island habitats. Erlandson et al. (2008) ex amine cultural and non cultural factors that affect the quality and quantity of taxa in midden deposits from 41 archaeological components, spanning a length of more than 10,000 years. They examine changes in shell an d fish size and frequency, the e ffects of sea otter predation, the use of fish resources that occupy lower trophic levels, and the periodic shifting of human occupation sites over time to better understand human environment dynamics, how societies were sustained over time in southern California and how better to manage these areas in the present (Erlandson et al. 2008:2148 2151) In another example, Hunt (200 7 ) r collapse and human induced ecological devastation traditionally associated with overexploitation of Easter Island. Hunt draws on paleoenvironmental reconstructions and discusses the substantial e ffects on island

PAGE 17

17 vegetation by a species of rat, which was introduce d to the islands when humans first arrived. Exonerating humans from the primary blame, Hunt (2007:496 499) introduces a plethora of contributing factors that substantially impacted the ecology of Easter Island. Morrison and Cochrane (2008) examine changes in shellfish sizes and densities over several hundred years in Fiji with regard to human settlement, ecology, erosion, and sea level change. They conclud e that singularly focusing on human exploitation is an inadequate means of understanding changes in s hellfish communities and resource availability through time (Morrison and Cochrane 2008:2396 2397) Based on their work in Central America Emery and Thor n ton (2010) conclude that microscale site level research enhances paleoenvironmental reconstructions a nd provides insight int o the local effects of globally recognized events. Faunal and floral assemblages from several sites indicate a decrease of taxa identified with swamp lands and other freshwater habitats, which is consistent with drought conditions a ssociated with the Classic Period (A.D. 300 to 800). D eFrance (2005) examines how periodic events such a s El Nio/Southern Oscillation a ffected resource procurement strategies among groups living along the Peruv i an coast ca. 8000 years B.P Through the analysis of avian remains, including element frequencies and butchering patterns, and the densities and varieties of fishes, deFrance concluded that humans did not opportunistically use the faunal resources killed or weakened by El Nio even ts. Instead, humans targeted healthy fauna (deFrance 2005:1138, 1143 1144) As these case studies demonstrate, zooarchaeological data can successfully be used in a variety of regions to reconstruct local paleoenvironments and examine the effects of human environment interactions from archaeological contexts.

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGR OUND Environmental Chronology In this section, I summarize paleoenvironmental conditions that are relevant to coastal southwest Florida. Although these climatic p eriods are represented as bounded units, they are not uniformly expressed; there are substantial fluctuations with high and low extremes within each period. The region is large ly affected by substantial fluctuations in weather and climate. Walker ( 2011) discusses the details and effects of paleoclimatic episodes, including the Roman Warm Period and Vandal Minimum. Tanner (1991 2000), Stapor et al. (1991), Walker et al. ( 1994 1995), and others h ave contributed to a local timeline of sea level fluctuations over the past two thousand years refine globally recognized climatic and sea level fluctuations at fine scale intervals of 30 to 50 years that are relevant for southwest Florida. Because the rivers that empty into the greater Charlotte Harbor region do not transport significant amounts of sediments into the estuaries, sedimentation concerns do not affect the res ults of beach ridge investigations in this area. Roman Warm Period (300 B.C. A.D. 500) Pineland was occupied as early as A.D. 10 0. Its early occupations correlate with the latter part of the Roman Warm Period (Marquardt and Walker 2011) A broadly recognized climatic episode it is marked by relatively higher temperatures and increased storm conditions in southwest Florida. These conditions are associated with an overall rise in sea level known locally as the Wulfert High (Stapor et al. 1991:Figure 14) level record (2000:93) a sea level rise centered on A.D. 150 corre sponds wit h increasing warm temperatures (Walker 2011:38 39). Abrupt cold, dry conditions between A.D. 200 and 250 (Walker 2011:38

PAGE 19

19 39) are associated with a se a level drop ca. A.D. 250 (Tanner 2000:93) This was followed by another sea level peak ca. A.D. 300 (Tanner 2000:93) Around A.D. 400 to 450 sea levels dropped, but another rise occurred around A.D. 450 to 500, after which sea levels decreased over the next 300 to 350 years (Tanner 1991:587, 2000:93, 95; Walker 2011:38 39) Vandal Minimum (A.D. 500 8 5 0) Around A.D. 500 a cool, dry global episode known as the Vandal Minimum began, marked by the extreme A.D. 536 event (Gunn ed. 2000; Walker 2000b, 2011) This climatic period is characterized in southwest Florida by a low sea level episode known as Buc k Key Low (Stapor et al. 1991:Figure 14) that roughly corre spond s with the Caloosahatchee IIA early cultural period. Three substantial decreases in sea le vel are recorded for this time (Tanner 2000:95; Walker 2011:40 41) Sea levels were high at the start of this period but reached their low est point around A.D. 850 ( Tanner 2000:95; Walker 2011 :40 41 ). Persistent decreas es in sea level can dry out a shallo w estuarine bay, adversely affecting populations of mangrove trees, s eagrasses, and other life forms DeFrance and Walker (2011:322) suggest that increases in migratory duck remains at Pineland are associated with the widespread e ffects of the cold, dry e pisode. The conditions of Greater Charlotte Harbor Region Southwest Florida is located in the subtropical cl imate zone, experiencing heavy rainfall and stormy weather between June and September (Taylor 1974:206). The greater Charlotte Harbor region extends along the southwest coast of Florida from Charlotte Harbor proper to Estero Bay. Three major rivers empty into this area. The Myakka and Peace rivers converge to form Charlotte Harbor, and the Caloosahatchee River empties into San Carlos Bay. Several

PAGE 20

20 barrier islands delineate the western s eaward boundaries of the estuarine. The salinity levels within this natural enclosure range between 20 and 36.2 psu ( Taylor 1974:209), fluctuating with regard to factors such as temperature and rainfall. Salinity is generally higher during drier conditions and lower during wetter conditions (Boyer et al. 1999:424; Livings ton 1976:389). Figure 3 1 depicts an A.D. 1800 bathymetric reconstruction of the greater Charlotte Harbor region The historical reconstruction is presented instead of twentieth century representations to illustrate significant variation in coastal bounda ries that result from both natural processes, such as erosion or variation in mangrove coverage, and human practices such as dredging, infilling, and construction (Antonini et al. 2002:161). Pineland is located on Pine Island within the greater Charlott e Harbor region ( see chapter 4 and Figure 3 2 ). Pine Island is flanked on the west by Pine Island Sound, a shallow inshore bay with an average depth of only one meter. The greater Charlotte Harbor region is an ideal area to examine paleoenvironmental flu ctuations because the coastal region contains a variety of sensitive habitats that are substantially impacted by relatively small fluctuations in climate and sea level, and the regio n is dotted with cultural shell deposits from which proxy records can be p rocured to examine non cultural and cultural fluctuations. These habitats, including intertidal sand flats, seagrass meadows, mangrove forests, and oyster bars (CHNEP 2007:13), sustain a wide range of plant life, fish, shellfish, and other populations. T he rich resources that are found in this naturally protected coastal region have attracted humans to settle the area since at least 3000 B.C. (Marquardt 1992 b:4 ). Local Habitats and Tax on Characteristics According to nowledge of relati onships between the distribution of estuarine species and their salinity tolerance is invaluable to paleontologists concerned with

PAGE 21

21 the salts that are dissolv thousand (ppt) or practical salinity units (psu); the two units are interchangeable. of water to move in an d regulate the flow of water across the cell membranes when sali Many invertebrate taxa cannot tolerate rapid changes in salinity; therefore, a n understanding of a characteristics provides a basis for paleoenvironmental reconstructions. In this section I discuss characteristics of commonly identified taxa around Pine Island and the habitats with which they are most often associated. Sal inity tolerances of these taxa were documented by the Smithsonian Marine Station (SMS 2009) unless otherwise noted. Adapting from the Chesapeake Bay Benthic Monitoring Program (CBBMP 2003), I delineate six water salinity ranges: (a) tidal freshwater, 0 t o 0.5 psu; (b) oligohaline, 0.5 to 5 psu; (c) lower mesohaline, 5 to 12 psu; (d) higher mesohaline, 12 to 18 psu; (e) lower polyhaline, 18 to 25 psu; and (f) higher polyhaline, 25 to 35 psu. Hypersaline, or oceanic waters, typically have salinity levels 3 5 psu and higher. P olygyrid flatcoil snails (Polygyridae) and Truncatella ( Truncatella sp.) are found on land close to the water. Flatcoil snails are terrestrial and h ave no salinity tolerance; t runcatella are oligohaline. Truncatella live near high tide lines or storm strands, under leaf litter and other dead vegetation (Hubricht 1985 :4 5 ). Red mangrove trees ( Rhizophora mangle ) are the most common type of mangrove ey have the highest salinity tolerance among mangrove trees in Florida, able to survive in freshwater or salt up to 90 psu (Perry 1988; SMS 2009). The roots, which protrude through and above the water, provide

PAGE 22

22 shelter for several species of mollusks and s mall and juvenile fish, while the leaves provide detritus on which many organisms subsist (Odum et al. 1982:50). Black mangrove trees ( Avicennia germinans ) are adapted to a more narrow salinity range and are found at slightly higher elevations than red m angrove trees, where their roots avoid submergence during low tides (SMS 2009). Mangrove forests and seagrass meadows stabilize the physical landscape against the e ffects of storms and erosion (CHNEP 2007:16; Odum et al. 1982:74; Zieman 1982:33). Mussels (Mytlidae), hornsnails ( Cerithidea sp.), ceriths ( Cerithium sp.), and melampus snails ( Melampus sp.) are common invertebrate occupants of mangrove forests (SMS 2009). Ribbed mussels ( Geukensia demissa ) are found near the high tide mark around black mang rove trees; they can survive in any range of brackish water, but prefer lower salinities near the shoreline. Hornsnails, ceriths, and melampus snails are often found among red mangrove roots. While hornsnails have a wide brackish water salinity range, c eriths prefer polyhaline salinities above 18 psu, and melampus snails prefer mesohaline salinities. A wide range of birds also take shelter in the branches of mangrove trees (CHNEP 2007:16). Sea grass meadows supply high quantities of detritus and are p rimarily composed of turtle grasses ( CHNEP 2007:18; Zieman 1982:33) Turtle grasses thrive best in salinities between 25 and 35 psu (SMS 2009). Bay scallops ( Argopecten irradians ), cross barred venus clams ( Chione cancellata ), lightning whelks ( Busycon s inistrum ), pear whelks ( Busycotypus spiratus ), crown conchs ( Melongena corona ), tulips (Fasciolaridae), shark eye ( Neverita duplicata ), and marginella ( Prunum sp.) are common occupants of seagrass meadows. Scallops (Fay et al. 1983) and cross barred venus clams (Rothschild 2004) prefer polyhaline salinities above 18 psu. The ecological characteristics of whelks, conchs, tulips, shark eye, and marginella are not well known (SMS 2009). Sea urchins are found in sandy areas and seagrass meadows

PAGE 23

23 (Hill and Law rence 2003 :16 ; Sharp and Gray 1962 :309 ); they are more commonly observed in the waters around the outer barrier islands of Charlotte Harbor than in the seagrass meadows of Pine Island Sound ( K. J. Walker, personal communication). A polyhaline or oceanic s alinity tolerance is inferred for sea urchins based on their water associations. Southern marshclams ( Polymesoda maritima ) and brown gemclams ( Parastarte triquetra ) are found in intertidal sand flats and areas with little vegetation. Southern marshclam s prefer mesohaline salinities (Murray et al. 2010:9), but they are known to inhabit areas of higher salinity in Pine Island Sound Brown gemclams have a wide salinity tolerance between 15 and 40 psu (SMS 2009). Oyster bars are another habitat that attrac t s a mu ltitude of organisms. Oysters like humans, are considered a keystone species. In addition to providing shelter to a variety of taxa, oysters are filter feeders that remove particles from the water (CHNEP 2007:29). According to the Charlotte Harb 2007:xiv). E astern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) larva e free cl u (Cake 1983:7) in nutrient rich areas with currents ( 1983:9 10). CHNEP (2007:29) note s that oysters sometimes settle on mangrove pr op roots Oysters have wide salinity tolerances, between 5 and 35 psu but are most productive when salinities are between 10 and 28 psu (SMS 2009 ; Wilson et al. 2005:162 ). H ealthy oyster bars encourage the growth of other species that use these habitat s, so long as salinities remain below 35 psu; Wells (1961:249, 252) identified more than 300 species that

PAGE 24

24 use oyster bars Tolley and colleagues ( Tolley and Volety 2005:1010 ; Tolley et al. 2005:135 ) observed that fishes were caught more often during the d ry winter season, specifically noting sheepshead ( Archosargus probatocephalus ), silver perch ( Bairdiella chrysoura ), and pinfish ( Lagodon rhomboides ). Overall density within oyster reefs was higher during rainy seasons, while diversity was higher during d ry seasons (Tolley et al 2005:135). Marquardt and Walker (2011) discuss that some fish, such as jack, grouper, red drum, and seatrout are gene rally caught with hook and line from canoes, while smaller fish such as pinfish, pigfish ( Orthopristis chrystop tera ), silver perch, and herring (Clupeidae) can be caught in bulk with small mes h nets (Marquardt and Walker 2011; Walker 1992:295 296) In his coastal west Florida study, Bowling (1994 :191) observed that crown conchs living on or around oyster bars were significantly larger than those living in seagrass meadows. While crown conchs do not significantly affect healthy oyster populations, they do prey on weakened oysters (Hathaway and Woodburn 1961:60). Lightning whelks are also significant predators of oyster populations (Menzel and Nichy 1958 :130, 144 ) however oyster populations were not identified in terms of health Crested oysters ( Ostre ol a equestris ) cohabitate with eastern oysters and are excellent indicators of high salinities above 28 psu (Wells 1961 :249, 253, Tables 3 and 6 ). The ratio of crested to eastern oyster indicates relative salinities; the higher the ratio, the higher the relative salinity.

PAGE 25

25 Figure 3 1 The greater Charlotte Harbor region (A.D. 1800 Bathymetric reconstruction courtesy of Florida Sea Grant and University of Florida, Department of Geography).

PAGE 26

26 Figure 3 2. The Pineland Site Complex with Old Mound circled in red (2007 LiDAR data courtesy of Lee County GIS).

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKG ROUND Regional Archaeological Background M assive shell midden and mound deposits, extensive engineered waterways, and other impressive features built by people in the past remain visible on the land today. However, m uch of our knowledge of historic period indi genous coastal southwest Floridian cultures has been gleaned from historic Spanish documents (Goggin and Sturtevant 1964; Hann 1 991; Marquardt 1987, 1988, 1992b ; Milanich and Hudson 1993; True 1945). In e arly observa tions, these features were regarded as ( Griffin 2002:50). Ethnographic Accounts Regardless of European skepticism, the Calusa of southwest Florida were socially organized into a stratified chiefdom; classes were divided at a broad level between commoners and nonworking nobles (Marquardt 2004:209). The cacique, or chief, lived in the capital at the Mound Key site in Estero Bay and controlled more than fifty surrounding towns and villages. These villages were connected by complex trade network s and waterways (Marquardt 1988 ; 2004:204). When the Spanish landed in Florida, Calos was the most powerful Calusa chief in south Florida (Marquardt 1987, 1988; Milanich and Hudson 1993:118). Calos received tribute in the form of riches salva ged from European shipwrecks, fruits and other foods, mats, hides, and feathers (Marquardt 1988 2001:168; Milanich and Hudson 1993:119; True 1945). The Calusa attained this chiefdom or weak state level of social complexity by the time of European contact without depending on agricultur e based subsistence methods (Marquardt 1987, 1988). Instead they relied o n the nearby coastal habitats and were sustained mainly on local

PAGE 28

28 aquatic resources. The Calusa were fisher gatherer hunters, able to thrive because of the rich estuarine qualities of the greater Charlotte Harbor region. Spanish friars even remarked on th e general disdain for intensive terrestrial oriented practices (Hann 1991 :184 185 ). Archaeological Research Early archaeological research in the greater Charlotte Harbor region was inspired by the large shell and earthen mounds that dot the coasta l region, containing a variety of artifacts including bone, ceramic, and shell implements, as well as cordage and worked wood, which preserved in waterlogged muck. Frank Hamilton Cushing was one of the first to document archaeological remains in the region. In 1895 and coast, recording pre Columbian sites including one along Pine Island In addition to descriptions and detai led illustrations of some of the more elaborate artifacts he discovered in the region, Cushing also published contour site maps, which hinted at the former grandeur of these once expansive shell features (Cushing 1897). Cla rence B. Moore explored the same areas between Tampa and the Ten Thousand Islands region. However oore 1900:352). Douglass also explored shell and earthen mounds in the area He was equally unimpre ssed with many of his findings, such as mounds conta ining and skeptical that indigenous populations could have construc ted such features (1885:126). Although these antiquarian researchers lacked rigorous scientific methods, research inquiries, and open minded appreciation, their works have provided a foundation for archaeological research and theory in coastal southwest Florida. John Goggin (1947) was among the first to define c ultural periods and typologies in Florida. He designated south Florida as the Glades culture area (1947:119 121) based on

PAGE 29

29 ceramic artifact sequences, shell artifacts, and earth and shell work iden tifications from excavations in the Tekesta, Calusa, and Okeechobee regions. Recent research (e.g., Cordell 2011) has further e lucidated these cultural period s. At Pineland, Cordell identified the majority of pottery as sociated with Caloosahatchee I as S and tempered Plain an d Pineland Plain pot tery types (Cordell 2011:431). The se two are also the most common pottery types associated with Caloosahatchee IIA early Caloosahatchee IIA early also contains quantities of sandy limestone /shell tempered potte ry and Belle Glade pottery, which is characterized by sponge spicule and quartz sand tempering. Belle Glade pottery ha s thinner walls on average than either S and tempered Plain or Pineland P lain These detailed relative ceramic seriations are further sup plemented with radiocarbon dates to provide a more in depth understanding of cultural sequences at Pineland (Marquardt and Walker 2011 ). As archaeology became a more scientific endeavor, researchers such as Widmer (1988) turned to south Florida to understa nd how some coast complexity by nonagricultural means. Widmer argued that inshore fishing practices were more similar to agricultural traditions than hunter gatherer adaptations (1988:280). He focused on the importance of environmental factors on political and economic growth (1988:277) Widmer concluded that the Calusa were able to thrive politically and economically because they adapted in ways similar to those of agriculturalists. The rich, abundant resourc es in the nearby shallow water s were less important tha n the means by which they were procured to sustain growing populations (Widmer 1988 :280 ). Widmer noted the importance of climatic fluctuations to shallow water environments, and he incorporated preliminary sea level data to aid in his discussions (1988:280). However, it was not until later research led by Walker (et al. 1994, 1995), Stapor (et al. 1991), and others (Tanner

PAGE 30

30 1991 2000 ) that details of climatic and sea level chronologies were elucidated These sea level chronologies were used to explain how the Calusa and other occupants interacted with the dynamic environments of coastal southwest Florida (Marquardt and Walker ed s 2011) Since 198 3 (Marquardt 1992b:2) Marquardt, Walker, and their team of rese archers have conducted the majority of archaeological research in the greater Charlotte Harbor region ( e.g., Marquardt ed. 1992; Marquardt and Walker ed s 2011 ; Walker et al. 1994, 1995 ). Using primarily historical ecology and environmental archaeology fr ameworks, Marquardt and Walker have expanded knowledge of and elucidated the importance of pre Columbian fisher gatherer hunters in coastal southwest Florida, challenging the antiquarian dismissal of archaeological value within the region ( e.g., Walker 200 0a:24). From a maritime perspective Walker (2000a) reexamined several types of artifacts often found in coastal archaeological settings. These artifacts were recovered from sites in the Pine Island Sound area and from the Marco Island area of southwest Florida. Combined with ethnographic data from regions outside of Florida she supported her hypothesis that these artifacts which for a long time were known by Florida archaeologists as decorative bone points, grooved shell columella e and polished rect angles could have primarily functioned as fishing implements fishhooks, sinkers, and net mesh gauges. She related the size of these artifacts to the depths of nearby waterways and to the types and sizes of fishes found in these waterways and represent ed in midden deposits (1992 :294 299, 2000a:37 41 ). Walker discerned a positive correlation between these variables. Smaller artifacts were found at sites nearer to shallow waters, while larger artifacts were found at sites nearer to deeper waters. Nearl y all of the fish identified in the associated middens are common modern inhabitants of those contrasting local waters.

PAGE 31

31 Pineland Pineland is comprised of a variety of features, including buried shell m iddens, ridges (with sand and midden layers), shell m ounds, earthen mounds, ponds, and a canal. These features coalesce in a palimpsest of human occupation over two thousand years (Marquardt and Walker ed s 2011) Randell Complex, Brown Complex, Citrus Ridge, Surf Clam Ridge, South Pasture, and several p onds are encompassed under the 8LL33 label, while 8LL34 designates the man made Pine Is land Canal. 8LL36 and 8LL38 designate Smith Mound and Adams Mound, respectively, two earthen mounds. Low Mound, 8LL1612, is located more landward than most of Pineland features and contains late Caloosahatchee I deposits. Old Mound, 8LL37, is the spatial focus of this thesis and contains both late Caloosahatchee I and IIA early deposits (Figure 3 2 ). Zooarchaeological materials used in this analysis were collected from Operation A (see chapter 5 and Figure 4 1) Radiocarbon samples were not dated from each stratum in Operation A. Therefore, r Trench 11A are used to place samples temporally (Table 4 1, Figures 4 2 through 4 5). Excavations at Old Mound indicate an initia l human occupation of ca. A.D. 10 0 ( Marquardt and Walker 2011 ) Shell refuse was likely deposited in an intertidal zone as e vinced by the identification of high numbers of nonfood marine invertebrates that commonly inhabit these intertidal zones (deFrance and Walker 2011 :318 ). High quantities of small articulated bivalve shells were also found in these deposits, mixed with and underlying discarded food remains (deFra nce and Walker 2011:321) However, establishing a permanent residence in this area was difficult. As sea levels fluctuated during Caloosahatchee I (see chapter four ; Marquardt and Walker 2011 ), Pineland

PAGE 32

32 residents moved with the shoreline. When sea level rose, residents moved toward the higher inland grounds of Surf Clam Ridge, Citrus Ridge, and Low Mound (Figure 3 1). These areas are composed in part by dunal sands, and are higher than the surrounding areas ( Mar quardt and Walker 2011; Scudder 2011), and consequentially an advantageous retreat during times of rising sea levels. During times of lowering sea levels, Pin eland residents moved down with the shoreline first to the areas around Old Mound, but later als o expanded to the areas Randell Complexes are located (Marquardt and Walker 2001 :55 were located more seaward than earlier Old Mound deposits, deposited at a time when mean sea level (MSL) was approximately 50 cm below twentieth century MSL based on basal midden elevations (Marquardt and Walker 2001 :55 ). Stratigraphy The strata of Operation A, Excavation S768E785, and Trench 11A (Figure 4 3 through 4 5) are correlated to further investigate paleoenvironment al fluctuations and place samples temporally Operation A and Trench 11A were excavated in 1992 and Excavation S768E785 in 1990. Trench 4, appearing in Figure 4 1, was also excavated in 1990, but its depth was shallow and therefore did not exhibit the lo wer strata. Operation A is described in more detail in chapter 5. Excavation S768E785 began as a 1 x 2 m excavation unit adjacent to Trench 4, located 2 m west of Operation A (Figure 4 1); however, during the first level of excavation, the unit dimension s were redrawn as a 1 x 1 m unit due to the great density of artifacts coupled with a limited excavation timeframe. Excavation desisted at the bottom of Level 96 due to water intrusion, which also prevented profile documentation of Levels 95 and 96 (Walke r and Marquardt 2011:110).

PAGE 33

33 m long by approximately 80 cm wide excavation (Figure 4 2) The trench strata are comparable with Old Mound excavations be cause of proximity to Old Mound and elevations. T he length of the trench allows for an unencumbered view of the strata (Figure 4 5) Radiocarbon dates ( c al ibrated from all three excavations aid in stratigraphic correlations (Table 4 1). 9 (Table 4 2), all consisting of black sand with less shelly material or artifacts than adjacent s an associated radiocarbon date of A.D. 400 to 540. Stratum 4, both con sisting of dark grey sand and quantities of small articulated marine invertebrates. Stratum 4 has a radiocarbon date of A.D. 220 to 370; this date is based on in situ shell and other materials. Stratum 9 also contains three distinct activity lens e 8 may correlate with one of these lens e s, a thin layer of surfclam shells, which is interpreted at Stratum 8 has a radiocarbon date of A.D. 380 to shell dominated midden dating to A.D. 165 to 340 (See sets of dates in Table 4 ver, Marquardt and Walker (2011 ) arg ue that this date may be too late based on the ribbed mussel data from one dates to A.D. 60 to 190; it is a lens located within Stratum 7 (Figure 4 5).

PAGE 34

34 Ceramic Art ifact Analyses S768E785. She concludes that ceramic artifacts from the lowest levels at Old Mound are tempered Plain, with a few Pineland Plain, sandy limestone /shell She interprets the four Belle Glade Plain sherds from the highest level as intrusive from overlying IIA stratum and the one St. Johns Plain sherd collected from the bottom as possibly having fallen from above. tempered Plain sherds, with some sandy limestone /shell tempered plain and Pineland Plain sherds. The few Belle Glade Plain, grog tempered plain, St. Johns and Tomo ka Plain, Goodland Plain, and Glades Red justify a Caloosahatchee IIA temporal assignment, which is corroborated by two radiocarbon dates (combined range of A.D. 420 to 630) from Operation A, Level 90 (Table 4 1). Based on her analysis, Cordell dis tinguishes Level 92 as the boundary between Cal oosahatchee I and IIA early. Additionally, there is a marked increase in ceramic artifact remains at Old Mound around Level 93 (Cordell 2011, Table 20; Figure 5 3), which suggests that residents bega n relying more on containers, or the midden composition distinguishes differential uses of Old Mound as an activity floor rather than a midden. Increasing diversity of re sidents were interacting more with nonlocal groups.

PAGE 35

35 Table 4 and Walker 2011). Provenience Lev Strat Lab. No. Material Msrd 14 C 13 C/ 12 C 13 C adjust Cal. A 8 90 90 2 OS 54180 AMS M. campechiensis .83 1930 40 A.D. 350 590 A.D. 420 540 A 2 90/10 90 3 Beta 52551 M. campechiensis 1430 50 est. 1850 50 A.D. 450 670 A.D. 530 630 A 12 102 102 10 OS 54184 AMS M. campechiensis 1.46 2020 45 A.D. 225 495 A.D. 290 420 A 4 102 102 10 OS 54185 AMS M. campechiensis 1.21 2070 35 A.D. 185 420 A.D. 245 365 A profile 102 102 10 Beta 54799 M. campechiensis 1760 70 est. 2180 70 A.D. 40 370 A.D. 110 270 A 8 102 102 10/12 Beta 72996 P. maritima 1840 60 est. 2260 60 30 B.C. A.D. 240 A.D. 40 160 Excavation S768E785 93 93 5 Beta 41302 M. campechiensis 1830 70 est. 2250 70 40 B.C. A.D. 270 A.D. 40 190 Excavation S768E785 95 95 7 Beta 41303 M. campechiensis 1630 60 est. 2050 60 A.D. 210 480 A.D. 270 420 TR 11A 94 94 9 Beta 60770 M. campechiensis 1530 60 est. 1950 60 A.D. 330 610 A.D. 400 540 TR 11A 96 96 4 Beta 72993 G. demissa 1680 60 est. 2100 60 A.D. 140 430 A.D. 220 370 TR 11A 97 97 8 Beta 60769 S. solidissima 1550 60 est. 1970 60 A.D. 290 580 A.D. 380 510 TR 11A 99 99 5 Beta 60768 M. campechiensis 1700 60 est. 2120 60 A.D. 120 410 A.D. 190 340 TR 11A 99 99 5 OS 54294 AMS M. campechiensis 1.03 2120 40 A.D. 120 370 A.D. 165 300 TR 11A 103 103 13 Beta 72994 B. sinistrum 1820 60 est. 2240 60 10 B.C. A.D. 260 A.D. 60 190

PAGE 36

36 Table 4 11A. Strata Strata Description Radiocarbon Dates (Cal. Range ) Notes Op. A Excavation S768E785 TR 11A 3 4 Black sand ; shell and ash incl. Beta 52551, A.D. 530 to 630 ZA a sample, level 92 4 5 Black sand; moderate shell incl. Beta 41302, A.D. 40 to 190 5 6 9 Black sand; less shell incl. Beta 60770, A.D. 400 to 540 5,6 Black sand ; less shell incl. ZA sample, level 94 7 7 Black sand; moderate shell; some burnt shell Beta 41303, A.D. 270 to 420 11 Whelk and oyster lens Lens between Strata 5, 6 8 4 Dk grey sand ; less shell incl.; articulated bivalves Beta 72993, A.D. 220 to 370 ZA sample, level 96 9 8 Surfclam lens Beta 60769, A.D. 380 to 510 Lens in Op. A Stratum 9 9 5 Black sand ; dense shell incl. Beta 60768, A.D. 190 to 340 b ZA samples, level 98 10 7 Incidental, nonfood taxa Beta 72996, A.D. 40 to 160 b Non cultural stratum near ZA level 101 a ZA = Zooarchaeology b Multiple radiocarbon dates available; see Table 4 1.

PAGE 37

37 Figure 4 1. layout (from Walker and Marquardt 2011:111).

PAGE 38

38 Figure 4 r and Marquardt 2011).

PAGE 39

39 Figure 4 (red triangles) samples labeled (adapted from Walker and Marquardt 2011:113).

PAGE 40

40 Figure 4 4. and Marquardt 2011:112).

PAGE 41

41 Figure 4 (r ed triangles) labeled (adapted from Walker and Marquardt 2011:128).

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 5 MATERIALS AND METHOD S This chapter details the materials and methods involved in the analysis of g a description of the procedure used to identify and quantify zooarchaeological remains. Both invertebrate and vertebrate remains were identified from five 1/16 inch screened column samples. Comparisons of results from sequential samples with nar row cul tural associations allow for the identification of abrupt temporal changes within a single area. The following methods lay out the foundation from which I interpret past human environment interactions and environmental changes that may have affected reso urce availability over time. Specifically earliest shell and earthen midden deposits, documenting changes in late Caloosahatchee I and IIA early samples dating from ca. A.D. 100 to 650 The majority of these deposits are located beneath twentieth century high tide averages. The results from these analyses are used to test and refine the interpretations from previous Pineland zooarchaeological studies concerning depositional practic es, climate, salinity levels, and the location of past shorelines (deFrance and Walker 2011; Walker 1992; Walker et al. 1994, 1995). Taxa frequencies and distribution ratios in conjunction with ecological characteristics provide a means to study past cond itions. On a broader level, the results of these analyses provide an overview of faunal use over time in the Old Mound area Field Methods Between 1953 and 1958, the northwestern portion of Old Mound was bulldozed by the land owners (Torrence 2011: 162 ). In 1990, Trench 4 was placed over the bulldozed portion of Old Mound in order to examine the integrity of the remaining midden In 1992, Operation A, a

PAGE 43

43 4 x 4 m block, was placed nearby to investigate further the high density of cultural materials found in Trench 4 The block was divided into 16 1 x 1 m excavation units (Figure 4 1) Undisturbed Caloosahatchee IIA early materials were identified in the top levels. Four 1 x 1 m units were excavated to the bottom of the deposits (Walker and Marquardt 2011: 111 112). Units were excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels with loc us designations controlling for stratigraphic changes and features. Proveniences were assigned with reference to the master site datum (Torrence 2011). Operation A materials were collect ed from levels 89 through 102. Intact, waterlogged late Caloosahatchee I materials were discovered beneath level 96. Focus shifted to recover ing waterlogged materials in the most timely and efficient manner possible from the four deeper units, A 4, A 8, A 12, and A 16 (Walker and Marquardt 2011:111 121). The majority of excavated materials from Operation A was field screened through inch mesh, but column samples (50 x 50 x 10 cm) were entirely removed from the northeast corner s of units A 8 and A 16 to collect consistent control samples of all materials present in the midden (Walker and Marquardt 2011:111 121). Zooarchaeological Materials The 1/16 inch and larger materials from five 10 cm level sections of the column sample s (50 x 50 x 10 cm) were selected to examine temporal variability at Old Mound. Four of the samples are from unit A 16 (Levels 92, 94, 96, and 98) while the fifth sample is from unit A 8 (Level 101) (Figure 4 2 ). Each of these samples is associated with a s ingle stratum, except Level 94 (Table 4 2) Level 92 coincides with Stratum 3, Level 94 with Strata 5 and 6, Level 96 with Stratum 8, while Level 98 and Level 101 coincide s with the top and bottom of Stratum 9, respectively (Table 4 2) The five samples are from fairly even intervals, providing a fairly continuous sequence for

PAGE 44

44 through 3 are associated with Caloosahatchee IIA early, while Strata 5 through 10 are asso ciated with late Caloosahatchee I. Stratum 4 contains mixed I/IIA deposits. and Trench 11A are available (Table 4 1 and 4 2, Figure 4 2 through 4 4 ). Old Mound Operation A, Stratum 3 provided a date of A.D. 530 to 630 (Beta 52551) which is associated with the Level 92 sample. Excavation S768E785, Stratum 5 provided a date of A.D. 40 and 190 (Beta 41302) w hich Marquardt and Walker (2011 ) interpret as chronologically misplaced based on data from ribbed mussels located in the stratum above Stratum 5 Trench 11A, Stratum 9 provided a date of A.D. 400 to 540 (Beta 60770), which is associated with the Level 94 sample. Trench 11A, Stratum 4 provided a date of A.D. 220 to 370 (Beta 72993), which is a ssociated with the Level 96 sample. Trench 11A, Stratum 5 provided dates of A.D. 165 to 300 (OS 54294 AMS) and A.D. 190 to 340 (Beta 60768), which are associated with the Level 98 sample. Old Mound Operation A, Stratum 10 provided dates of A.D. 110 to 27 0 (Beta 54799), A.D. 245 to 365 (OS 54185 AMS), and A.D. 290 to 420 (OS 54184 AMS), respectively which are associated with the Level 101 sample (Walker and Marquardt 2011:109 111). Quantifications Two samples, from Levels 92 and 101, were previously analyzed by Susan deFrance using collections (deFrance and Walker 2011). I analyzed the remaining three samples in 2010 and recounted several taxa from Level 101. Both invertebrate and vertebrate specimens were identified. Specimens were identified to Archaeology laboratory. Element, side, and size were noted where a pplicable (Reitz and Wing 2008:149 155). All quantifications are appended (Appendices A through F). The scientific

PAGE 45

45 names used in this study follow Turgeon et al. (1999) for mollusks and Nelson et al. (2004) for fishes. The geographic ranges of taxa were considered while making identifications (Odum 1982; Walker 1992; Wang and Raney 1971). Researchers concluded that the ordinal ranking system provided by minimum number of individuals (MNI) quantifications was an efficient means of reconstructing local pal eoenvironmental conditions and exploited habitats and resources within the greater Charlotte Harbor region (deFrance and Walker 2011: 307 ). Number of identified specimens per taxon (NISP), MNI, weight, and biomass were calculated for samples from Levels 94 96, and 98. However, only MNI was calculated from samples from Levels 92 and 101. Diversity and equitability (Reitz and Wing 2008:235) for all five samples based on M NI of food taxa was calculated My analyses are primarily focused on MNI, diversity, and equitability quantifications derived from the zooarchaeological samples. Following previous research (deFrance and Walker 2010; Walker 1992), I divided MNI into categories to examine taxonomic level variations, as well as frequencies of fo od taxa per s ample Incidental taxa identified in my results are based on identifications from previous Pineland samples (deFrance and Walker 2010). Incidental taxa are interpreted as accidental inclusions to midden deposits, either present because they were co llecte d because of their proximity to living food taxa or because they were living at the site of deposition They are not considered as specifically targeted for collection, largely because of their small sizes. However, many incidental taxa are valuable as s ensitive proxies of environmental fluctuations and are therefore still included in assemblage quantifications. Number of Individual Specimen Per Taxon NISP provides a simple count of identifiable elements and/or fragments per taxon. While NISP provides the exact quantities of identifiable zooarchaeological material recovered in the

PAGE 46

46 field, it is misleading concerning taxa abundance and diversity. NISP does not consider differences in numbers of elements per taxa (i.e., a fish generally has more bones per individu al than a large mammal) or post depositional factors (Reitz and Wing 2008:191 202). Minimum Number of Individuals MNI provides a simple ranking of taxa. While MNI does not provide quantified information about dietary contributions, it reflects the relative abundances of taxa based on quantities, siding, and sizes of specific elements (Reitz and Wing 2008:191 202). Lyman all the kinds of skeletal element and two elements each, are often easier to identify than fishes, which have hundreds of small el ements per individual and are more prone to fragmentation than sturdier shells. Weight Weight quantifications reflect total bone or shell weight. Weight interpretations bias against lighter elements and taxa. For instance, fish bones are generally lighte r than mammal remains; therefore, the value of fish is underestimated based on weight quantifications. Because it devalues lighter, small invertebrates that may provide important proxies, weight is not a preferred quantification for studying environmental changes. Shell weight does not accurately correlate the amount of soft tissue provided by an orga nism, nor does it consider post depositional effects such as burning (Reitz and Wing 2008:191 202). Biomass Biomass is a quantification to examine dietary contributions of taxa identified in an assemblage (Reitz and Wing 2008:221). It provides insight into skeletal and meat weight

PAGE 47

47 estimates of specimens. Biomass is derived by entering specimen weights into the allometric equation Y = Log(a) + (b*Log(X)), where Y is biomass, a and b are allometric constants, and X is specimen weight (Reitz and Wing 2008:221 231, Figure 7.20). The allometric constants were taken from Reitz and Wing (2008:Table 3.4) and Walker (1992:Table A2). Allometric constants ar e der ived from measurements of modern specimens in comparative collections. Allometric studies examine the mathematical relationships between the sizes of skeletal elements and the size of the entire body, considering both skeletal weight and live weight (Lyma n 2004:70 71). Bone and shell dimensions changes proportionately with size or growth; they are related by a constant ratio (Reitz et al. 1987:305). Using allometry, b iomass estimates determine average flesh to skeletal weight ratio per taxa. However, b iomass quantifications assume ratios based on entire specimens. It does not account for portion preferences or other practices that require only partial specimen use (Reitz and Wing 2008) Diversity and Equitability antifications reflect environmental conditions and human preferences that affect assemblage distributions (although they do not distinguish between these factors). These quantifications are used to examine the diversity of taxa used at a site and how even ly each tax on was used in relation to the entire assemblage (Reitz and Wing 2008:233 assemblage, or how wide a range of taxa is present in an assemblage. Diversity all ows for multiple assemblages to be compared in terms of taxonomic composition, number of taxa represented, and relative abundances of taxa (Lyman 2008:172 174).

PAGE 48

48 at examines how evenly each taxon is used with regard to oth er taxa present in an assemblage (Lyman 2008:194 195). These measurements are sometimes found in an assemblage, and thus giving insight into environmental a nd social conditions that influenced resource exploitation (Lyman 2008:179). For this reason, I based these measurements on food taxa alone rather than total taxa per sample. The Shannon Weaver diversity and Sheldon equitability formulae are applied as d escribed by Reitz and Wing (2008:233 235). Diversity estimates are calculated with the formula [(p i )( ln (p i ))], i (Reitz and Wing 2008:235), multiplie d by the natural log of p i To arrive at p i the MNI of each tax on is divided by the total MNI of the assemblage. This number is multiplied by its natural log, and then all products are summed. The absolute value of this sum provides a value for the sam diversity (Lyman 2008:193). Equitability estimates are calculated with the formula ln (S), where ive use of only one or few taxa.

PAGE 49

49 Because all five Pineland samples are the same size, were recovered from identical screen mesh, and were taken from th e different levels of the same spatial context (Old Mound), diversity and equitability quantifications should provide insight into changing subsistence patterns, human preferences, and resource availability over time. Curation After the faunal rema ins in e ach sample were sorted and identified all materials were curated in labeled archival quality bags and boxes and were placed in Environmental Archaeology Collections (Accession 0474). Summary Five sequential zooarchaeological column sampl Operation A are analyzed to interpret past local environmental conditions and human environment interactions. Radiocarbon dates place all samples between A.D. 10 0 and A.D. 650. All five samples are quantified at least in ter ms of MNI, diversity, and equitability as outlined by Reitz and Wing (2008:235). Furthermore, MNI is divided into categories to examine frequencies by taxonomic level and of food taxa per assemblage.

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS In the following section, I s ummari ze results for selected taxa frequencies in terms of MNI (Appendix A) Taxa were selected for discussion based on substantial fluctuations in relative size or frequency among samples and on significant ecological characteristics (chapter 3 ). Full results are available in Appendices A through F Level 92 Level 92 yielded a total MNI of 1 559, 1 3 47 of which were considered food MNI. Sixty six tax a were identified; 35 of these a re invertebrates ( Table 6 1 ). A total of 49 overall taxa were identified as food taxa. Roughly subdivided gastropods comprised 50 percent of MNI in the assemblage, followed by bivalves with 27 percent, and fishes with 13 percent ( Appendix B ). The diversity estimate for this samp le is 2.23, and the equitability estimate is 0.57 (Table 6 2) The most common invertebrate taxa identified in this sample were crown conch (32 percent of total invertebrate MNI), eastern oyster (23 percent), lightning whelk (1 2 percent), cross barred venu s clam (5 percent), and tulip s (5 percent). The most commonly identified vertebrate taxa were pinfish (5 3 percent of vertebrate MNI), pigfish (7 percent), killifish (7 percent), sea catfish es ( 7 percent), and migratory birds (Anatidae, 4 percent) ( Appendi x B ). The ratio of crested to eastern oyster s is 1 :62 (Table 6 3) Level 94 Level 94 yielded 1 123 MNI, 813 of which were considered food MNI. Sixty three taxa were identified ; 36 of those a re invertebrates (Table 6 1 ). A total of 39 overall taxa were i dentified as food taxa. Roughly subdivided gastropods comprised 47 percent of MNI in the assemblage, followed by bivalves with 25 percent, and fishes with 17 percent ( Appendix C 1 ). The diversity estimate for this sample is 1.75, and the equitability es timate is 0.48 (Table 6 2)

PAGE 51

51 The most common invertebrate taxa ident ified in this sample were tulips (1 9 percent of total invertebrate MNI), crown conch (16 percent), eastern oyster (1 4 percent) ribbed mussel (10 percent) and pear whelk ( 8 percent) The most commonly identified vertebrate taxa were pinfish (51 percent of vertebrate MNI), pigfish (24 percent), killifish ( Fundulus sp. 4 percent ) spot ( Leiostomus sp., 4 percent) and toadfish ( Opsanus sp., 3 percent ) ( Appendix C 1 ). The ratio of crested to eastern oyster s is 1:6 (Table 6 3) Level 96 Level 96 yielded a total of 906 MNI, 885 of whic h were considered food MNI. Fo rty two taxa were identified, 17 of which are invertebrates (Table 6 1 ). A total of 34 overall taxa were identified as food taxa Roughly subdivided gastropods comprised over 46 percent of MNI in the assemblage, followed by bivalves with 1 8 percent, and fishes with 34 percent ( Appendix D 1 ). The diversity estimate for this sample is 2.32, and the equitability estimate is 0.66 (T able 6 2) The most common invertebrate taxa identified in this sample were lightning whelk (31 percent of total invertebrate MNI), eastern oyster (2 5 percent), crown conch (19 percent), pear whelk (11 percent), and tulips ( 9 percent). The most commonly identified vertebrate taxa were pinfish (43 percent of total vertebrate MNI), herring (25 percent), pigfish (19 percent), sea catfish es (Ariidae, 4 percent), red drum ( Sciaenops ocellatus ) (1 percent), and killifish (1 percent) (Appendix D 1) No crest ed oysters were identified in this level (Table 6 3) Level 98 Level 98 yielded a total of 5 413 MNI, 1,822 of which were considered food MNI. Sixty six taxa were identified, 40 of which are invertebrates (Table 6 1 ). A total of 37 overall taxa were iden tified as food taxa. Roughly subdivided, gastropods comprise 3 2 percent of MNI in the sample followed by bivalves with 2 8 percent, and fish es with 5 percent ( Appendix E 1 ). The

PAGE 52

52 diversity estimate for this sample is calculated at 2.01, and the equitabili ty estimate is calculated at 0.56 (Table 6 2) The most common invertebrate taxa identified in this sample were eastern oyster (18 percent of total invertebrate MNI ), truncatella ( 9 percent), lightning whelk (7 percent), melampus (6 percent) and crested oyster (5 percent) The most commonly identified vertebrate taxa were pinfish ( 40 percent of total vertebrate MNI), herring (2 8 percent), pigfish (1 3 percent), silver perch (2 percent) killifish (2 percent) and spot ( 2 percent) (Appendix E 1) The ratio of crested to eastern oysters is 1 :4 (Table 6 3) Level 101 Level 101 yielded a total of 5 86 8 MNI, 717 of which were considered food MNI. Ninety six taxa were identified, 59 of which are invertebrates (Table 6 1 ). A total of 53 overall taxa were identified as food taxa. Roughly subdivided bivalves comprise 47 percent of MNI in the assemblage, followed by gastropods with 31 percent, and fish es with 3 percent ( Appendix F ). The diversity estimate for this sample is 2.45, and the equitability estimate is 0.62 (Table 6 2) The most common invertebrate taxa identified in this sample were southern marshclam (26 percent of total invertebrate MNI) brown gemclam (10 percent), ladder hornsnail (9 percent), melampus (7 percent), and eastern oyster (4 percent). The most commonly identified vertebrate taxa were pinfish (42 percent of total vertebrate MNI), spot (1 3 percent), Atlantic thread herring ( 10 percent), pigfish (6 percent), and sea catfish es (3 percent) (Appendix F) The ratio of crested to eastern oyster s is 1 :2 (Table 6 3)

PAGE 53

53 Table 6 1. Summary of total number of identified taxa and MNI from Old Mound Operation A samples. Number of Taxa Number of Inv. Taxa Number of Vert. Taxa Total MNI Inv. MNI Vert. MNI Level Total Food Total Food Total Food Total Food Total Food Total Food A 16 92 66 49 35 19 31 30 1559 1347 1330 1117 231 230 A 16 94 63 39 36 12 27 27 1123 813 921 612 201 201 A 16 96 42 34 17 10 26 24 906 885 589 569 318 316 A 16 98 66 37 40 12 26 25 5413 1 8 22 5127 1053 286 285 A 8 101 96 53 59 17 37 36 5867 717 5684 535 183 182

PAGE 54

54 Table 6 2. Diversity and equitability estimates for Old Mound Operation A samples. Total Food Number of Provenience MNI Food Taxa Diversity Equitability A 16 92 1347 49 2.22636 0.572061 A 16 94 813 39 1.74704 0.47689 A 16 96 885 34 2.31655 0.656924 A 16 98 1822 37 2.01133 0.557013 A 8 101 717 53 2.44631 0.616154 Table 6 3. Crested to eastern oyster ratios for Old Mound Operation A samples. Provenience Ratio A 16 92 1:62 A 16 94 1:6 A 16 96 A 16 98 1:4 A 8 101 1:2

PAGE 55

55 CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION Paleoenvironmental Conditions, Habitat Exploitation, a nd Cultural Implications T axa that exhibit substantial fluctuations between samples are discussed t o infer paleoenvironmental conditions habitat exploitation, and cultural implications at the time of deposition For entire list of identified taxa and quantities, see Appendices A through F Figure 7 1 depicts relative variation in taxa frequenc ies between samples. It illustrates the relationships of ta xa distributions between levels; however, it does not represent quantifiable relationships xamine relative taxa fluctuations. I generally refer to this figure from left to right (earliest to latest samples). Compositional variation is evident between samples. The frequency of invertebrate food MNI substantially increase s in L evel 92 when compa red to other samples (Table 6 1), which I attribute to purposeful intensification of invertebrate resource use T he crested to eastern oyster ratio is significant noting that higher ratios equate to higher salinity levels (Table 6 3). T he relatively high salinities inferred from L evels 94 through 101 and the low er salinity associated with L evel 92 can be attributed to several factors. A distinct paleoenvironmental fluctuation may account for differences between Levels 94 and 92, such as t he A.D. 550 decrease in sea level (Tanner 2000:95). Level 92 remains may have never been submerged by rising sea levels, thus decreasing the possibility for incidental taxa to settle on the midden deposits at this level, or environmental fluctuations may have affected resource availability as reflected in the midden. Additionally, the people who deposited materials at Level 92 may have collected resources during different seasons than those individuals responsible for the earlier samples. Seasonal chang es in temperature and rainfall

PAGE 56

56 affect salinity levels (Boyer et al. 1999:424; Livingston 1976:389 390). Higher salinities are generally associated with drier conditions, while lower salinities are generally associated with wetter conditions (Boyer et al. 1999:424). Positive identification s of invertebrate taxa were difficult to determine in Level 96 due to the highly tann in stained materials ; the absence of crested oysters can be interpreted as evidence of the lowest salinity levels among assemblages or as a consequence of poor sample quality due to frequent inundation through time from proximity to the water table. I consider sample quality, rather than other environmental or cultural reasons, the most likely reason for the low MNI from this sample. H owever, this sample contains the highest vertebrate MNI (Table 6 1). deposited directly into the water based on the presence of brown gemclams in sandy, non midden levels of soil core samples. Many of these clam shells were articulated. Marshclam and gemclam shells occur alm evel 101 (Appendix A and Figure 7 1) More than 500 brown gemclams were identified from this level; many were still a rticulated. The other four samples contained fewer than 50 MNI each (Appendix A) The high quantities of ribbed mussels and incidental taxa such as marshclams, gemclams, hornsnails, and melampus in this level (Figure 7 1) suggest that the midden was init ially deposited directly into a mesohaline sandy, intertidal zone, around 18 psu, in proximity to both red and black mangrove wetlands. However, L evel 101 has the highest ratio of crested to eastern oyster shells (Table 6 3) indicating salinities over 2 8 psu. Several interpretations can be considered here. Marquardt and Walker (2011) identified several artesian wells within the site complex and the remnants of a midden filled tidal stream in nearby T rench 11A They consider that a tidal creek may have at one time run through the Operation A locale. The tidal creek and increased storms and

PAGE 57

57 associated flooding can thus account for high quantities of terrestrial flatcoil snails and freshwater vegetation found alongside higher salinity taxa ( Marquardt and Walker 2011). However, t aphonomy is another possibility, that Old Mound deposits were used through time by other organisms post depositionally, thus accounting for high quantities of barnacles and other taxa with varied salinity ranges. The high quantit ies of oyster and whelk shells in L evel 98 (Appendix A and Figure 7 1) suggest heavy oyster bar exploitation during this time. A nearby freshwater tidal stream would provide currents and nutrients needed to enhance oyster bar productivity. Several hundre d truncatella shells were recovered from this level at the top of Stratum 9. These shells are nearly absent from later samples (Appendix A and Figure 7 1) Truncatellas are one of the few terrestrial taxa that live in the transitional zone between land and water. They are found among dead seagrass vegetation that is deposited on shore at high tide lines or at storm strands (Hubrich t 1985 :4 5 ). Truncatella remains in L evel 98 are consistent with a hypothesized A.D. 300 increase in storm conditions. Additional storm evidence may be provided by increased quantiti es of high salinity sea urchins, which c ould have been pushed inshore duri ng extreme storm events, and more than 70 polygyrid landsn ails (Appendix A and Figure 7 1), which could indicate increased floodwaters moving from the interior of Pineland. However, because the sea urchin remains are mixed with the midden sample, sea urchins cannot be positively identified as incidental inclusio ns. The crested to eastern oyster ratio in dicates high salinity during this time (Table 6 3) Barnacle remains are highest in Levels 98 and 101 (Appendix A). I attribute this to the subaquaeous position of these levels compared with later samples. Barn acles adhere to solid objects such as shells and piers. They have wide salinity tolerances (SMS 2009), and thus

PAGE 58

58 provide little information about ecological conditions. Barnacles are considered an incidental taxon in these deposits. Ribbed mussel shells a nd herring remains decrease in quantity across samples (Appendix A and Figure 7 1) suggesting that these taxa were either not collected or not found living near the midden deposit duri ng later time periods. The decrease in mussel shells correlates with M (2011) suggestion that residents cleared the mangrove trees from the shore. Additionally, lowering sea levels may have adversely affected mangrove wetlands, facilitating the drying and decline of these areas. Low eastern oyster she ll frequencies associated with L evels 94 and 96 correspond with the decline of ribbed mussels (Appendix A and Figure 7 1) further suggesting habitat loss and decreases in sea level. No creste d oysters were identified from L evel 96 (Table 6 3) which as I mentioned earlier likely result s from poor sample quality. The crested to eastern oyster ratio is lower in L evel 94 than in earlier levels, but it still ind icates high salinity (Table 6 3) Tulip shells are most common in Level 94 (Appendix A and Figure 7 1). Relatively small whelk, conch and tulip shells in these samples suggest an exploitative focus on seagr ass meadows over o yster bars Declining oyster frequencies suggests several things. First, the putative tidal stream was filled in or othe rwis e removed sometime between L evel 98 and 94 occupations, which contributed to a decline in oyster bar habitats. Additionally oyster bars may have also declined as a result of decreasing sea levels or simply because of cultural preference. The relatively small whelk, conch, and tulip shell sizes suggest a focus on collection from seagrass meadows over oyster bars.

PAGE 59

59 While i nvertebrate remains occur less frequently in Level 94 and 96 samples (Table 6 1), Level 96 has the highest quantities of fish remains (Ap pendix A) which indicates a shift in resource procurement strategies and taxa availability. Although sea levels were decreasing, people followed the shore to collect resources. Increasingly high quant ities of crown conch shells in L evels 94 and 92 (Appe ndix A and Figure 7 1) suggest that crown conchs were taking advantage of poor quality oyster bar populations and people were collecting the abundant crown conchs Level 92 contains nearly four times the crown conch MNI of other samples (Appendix A) An intensification of invertebrate resources is evident in the L evel 92 sample (Table 6 1 and Appendix A) The lowest ratio of crested to eastern oyster s is from this sample (Table 6 3) which indicates the lowest salinity level among analyzed samples. High qua ntities of seasonally migratory bird remains were also identified from this level (Appendix A) correlating with the cooler climate of the Vandal Minimum. Diversity and Equitability Diversity among samples with regard to food taxa ranges between 1. 75 and 2.45 (Table 6 2). Wells (1961:252) observed greater species diversity in high salinity oyster bars. Tolley et al. (2005:135) extrapolated on this, noting that species were more abundant during rainy seasons, while diversity was higher during drier seasons. Walker and colleagues (1994:166) identified a similar pattern, noting that the highest diversity was associated with the high salinity sand and shell washover layer among their samples from the Wightman site. At Pineland, however, while the high est diversity is associated with the high salinity Level 101 sample (based on the crested to eastern ratios), the next highest diversity estimates are associated with a sample with the lowest crested to eastern oyster ratio (Level 92) and a sample with no crested oysters identified (Level 96) (Table 6 2 and 6 3).

PAGE 60

60 Overall Pineland residents used a relatively small range of resources, with moderate diversity. Level 94, the least diverse sample, suggests that residents focused more intensely on fewer resour ces during this time. The decline of oysters and the relatively smaller sizes of whelks and conchs observed indicate depleted availability of resources, correlating with the inferred shifting of habitats and lower sea levels. I interpret low diversity to be a result of the richness of the estuarine habitats. With an abundance of resources, individuals had little need to expend efforts seeking out different types of resources. Equitability among samples ranged between 0.48 and 0.66 (Table 6 2). The lo west equitability correlates with the lowest diversity of Level 94, suggesting that people did not evenly use the resources they collected; whelks and conchs were collected more than other resources. Level 96, with highly stained materials, represents the sample with the highest equitability, indicating resources were used more evenly. Overall, Pineland residents appear to have preferred specific taxa over others, but when necessary, Pineland residents settled for less desirable taxa, evincing a more oppo rtunistic strategy. This opportunistic strategy, however, did not widen diet breadth to include many terrestrial resources. Terrestrial taxa occur only occasionally among any of the samples. Furthermore, diversity and equitability estimates do not vary significantly between Caloosahatchee I and IIA early samples, indicating that certain cultural trends may have exhibited variability independent of the types of resources used. Stratigraphic Comparisons Several thin lens e s of surfclam shells and sea urchin remains in Trench 11A, collectively assigned to Stratum 8 (Figure 4 5), are similar to lens e s in Old Mound Strata 9 (Figure 4 3 and Table 4 2), and strengthen interpretations of increased storm conditions during the Roman Warm Period; however, no intensiv e zooarchaeological analyses from Trench 11A have been completed to date. By examining how strata correlate (Table 4 2), we can also associate

PAGE 61

61 radiocarbon dates from other contexts (e.g., Excavation S768E785 and Trench 11A) with Operation A samples, thus inferring deposition dates. that it was deposited on dry land. Because both middens (Old Mound Stratum 9 and Trench 11A Stratum 13) were initially deposited between ca. A.D. 100 and 150, Marquardt and Walker (2011) interpret that the shoreline was located between these two deposits (Figure 4 2). Compari n g Zooarchaeological and Ceramic Artifact Assemblages Patterns in zooarchaeological distributions and frequencies indicate a distinction between Le vels 92 and 94 similar to that noticed by Cordell (2011) in ceramic artifact assemblages. These two independent lines of evidence as well as paleoenvironmental reconstructions strengthen arguments that ca. A.D. 500, substantial cultural and environmental fluctuations occurred, including decreasing sea levels, the presence of lower salinity taxa in middens, higher comparative invertebrate frequencies, and an increase in ceramic artifact quantities, which substantially impacted and reflected on cultural tren ds. Summary To summarize, late Caloosahatchee I assemblages were deposited during times of highly fluctuating environmental conditions associated wi th the Roman Warm Period. The L evel 101 assemblage indicates deposition at the mouth of a tidal stream in proximity to mangrove wetlands or into a mesohaline, sandy, intertidal zone Level 98 deposits contain evidence of at least one intense storm based on high quantities of truncatella shells and sea urchins. High quantities of relatively large sized whelk and oyster shells indicate intense oyster bar exploitation during this time. Level 96 contains the highest quantities of fish remains, and the lowest frequency of invertebrate remains possible use as an activity floor (see postmolds at Level 96, Figure 4 3) Level 94 assemblages

PAGE 62

62 suggest exploitation of various ecological habitats. This sample emphasiz es the impacts of the loss of freshwater sources and the importance of seagrass meadows to loc al residents at this time. This is evinced by the substantial decrease in ribbed mussel and oyster shell quantities, the abundance of tulip shells, and the concurrent small sizes of whelks and conch shells compared to other samples in this analysis. Lev el 92 represents early Caloosahatchee IIA and the cool, dry conditions associated with the Vandal Minimum. It is characterized by a low salinity level, high invertebrate frequencies, an increase in eastern oyster shells relative to L evel 94, and an increa se in crown conch shells and bird remains. Substantially high quantities of crown conch shells suggest continued seagrass exploitation and weakened oyster bar populations The high quantity of bird remains is largely from seasonally migratory ducks, whic h would have wintered further south during the cooler climate of the Vandal Minimum than in the previous Roman Warm Period.

PAGE 63

63 Figure 7 1. Relative frequency shifts through time of commonly identified taxa from Old Mound Operation A samples.

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS I examined 1/16 inch and larger screened zooarchaeological materials from five sequential column samples from Pinel cultural and non cultural factors that affected midden contents between A.D. 100 and 650. The contents of the middens generally reflect cultural factors such as resource preference and pr ocurement strategies. However, certain aspects of the analysis revealed that non cultural factors such as resource availability, salinity levels and the quality of nearby habitats also affected the composition of midden deposits. Invertebrate remains comp rised the majority of MNI in each sample (Appendix A). Fish remains were the next most common, while terrestrial faunal resources were the least commonly identified faunal class. Whelks, conchs, and oysters were important resources, recurring in varying quantities among all samples. Oyster shells were most common in Levels 98 and 101, tulip shells were most common in Level 94, and crown conchs were most common in Level 92 (and those relatively small in size). In life, a multitude of taxa are found withi n oyster bars (Wells 1961:249, 252), including whelks and conchs. However, whelks and conchs are also found in seagrass meadows; although Bowling (1994:191) notes that conchs found in seagrass meadows are generally smaller than those found in oyster bars. Therefore, while it appears that earlier midden contexts were procured largely from healthy oyster bars, later midden contents appear to be procured largely from seagrass meadows and less from oyster bars. Quantities of incidental taxa provide addition al insight into ecological conditions and procurement areas. The earliest midden contexts contain high quantities of marshclams, gemclams, and ribbed mussels. These remains indicate that the midden was deposited directly into the intertidal zone and in p roximity to mangrove forests, respectively. Truncatella, which

PAGE 65

65 are generally found along the shoreline, above the high tide mark, underneath seagrass vegetation, and sea urchins, which are generally found off shore, indicate increased storm frequencies ar ound the time Level 98 was deposited or not long afterwards. People occupying Pineland exploited various habitats through time, focusing on areas with abundant resources Residents shifted their p rocurement strategies to take advantage of the best avail able resources with regard to fluctuating environmental conditions Early Pineland residents re sponsible for deposits in L evels 98 and 101 intensely focused on oysters, but when oyster sizes an d availabilities decreased due to a loss of freshw ater sources overexploitation and other factors, those residents resp onsible for the deposits above L evel 98 drew on other available resources including abundant populations of whelks and conch s. The Caloosahatchee IIA early sample, Level 92, is distinguished from t he Caloosahatchee I samples in that Level 92 contains substantially more invertebrate remains than previous samples. The crested to eastern oyster ratio suggests that salinity levels were substantially lower when Level 92 materials were deposited compared to earlier contexts. Additionally, high quantities of migratory birds distinguish the Caloosahatchee IIA early sample from Caloosahatchee I samples. Cordell (2011) also distinguished the boundary between Caloosahatchee I and IIA early around Level 92; s he observed variations in pottery types and increased frequencies in deposits at and above Level 92. Results of this analysis demonstrate the value of a historical ecological perspective for examining the various ways that humans interacted with their land scape over time. Zooarchaeological analyses provide a means of examining environmental change as well as subsistence strategies. Multiple lines of evidence result in more in depth, testable interpretations. Such evidence, including cross comparisons bet ween excavation units,

PAGE 66

66 stratigraphic profiles, and artifact assemblages, supports inferences about fluctuating paleoenvironmental and human actions at Pineland through time. dless of paleoenvironmental conditions. The contents of the Old Mound middens indicate changing landscape features, such as shifting shoreline locations and losses of habitats including freshwater tidal streams, mangrove wetlands, and oyster bars. People responded in a variety of ways to these changing conditions, shifting resource procurement strategies and depositional practices to perpetuate their ways of life at Pineland.

PAGE 67

67 APPENDIX A MNI SUMMARY FOR OLD MOUND, OPERATION A, LEVELS 92, 94, 96, 9 8, AND 101 Table A 1. MNI summary for Old Mound, Operation A, Levels 92, 94, 96, 98, and 101 M N I Taxon Common Total Percent A 16 92 A 16 94 A 16 96 A 16 98 A 8 101 Geukensia demissa Ribbed mussel 456 3.07 8 96 166 186 Anadara sp. Ark 10 .07 10 Anadara transversa Transverse ark 102 .69 4 98 Barbatia sp. Ark 1 .01 1 Glycymeris sp. Bittersweet 1 .01 1 Noetia ponderosa Ponderous ark 8 .05 1 2 5 Pinnidae Penshell s 2 .01 1 1 Argopecten irradians Bay scallop 14 .09 1 10 1 2 Anomia simplex Common jingle 3 .02 1 2 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 1745 11.74 309 125 146 925 240 Ostreola equestris Crested oyster 376 2.53 5 21 240 110 Plicatula gibbosa Atlantic kittenpaw 4 .03 4 Carditamera floridana Broad ribbed carditid 19 .13 1 5 1 5 7 Dinocardium robustum Atlantic giant cockle 6 .04 1 2 3 Trachycardium egmontianum Pricklycockle 4 .03 2 2 Crassinella lunulata Lunate crassinella 1 .01 1 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 21 .14 1 1 19 Donax variabilis Variable coquina 9 .06 9 Semele sp. Semele 3 .02 3 Polymesoda carolina Carolina marshclam 2 .01 2 Polymesoda maritima Southern marshclam 1598 10.75 12 5 108 1473 Veneridae Venus clam s 1 .01 1 Anomalocardia sp. Venus clam 2 .01 2 Anomalocardia auberiana Pointed venus 52 .35 2 3 2 45 Chione sp. Venus clam 1 .01 1 Chione cancellata Cross barred venus 80 .54 62 2 2 2 12 Chione grus G ray pygmy venus 2 .01 2

PAGE 68

68 Table A 1. Continued M N I Taxon Common Total Percent A 16 92 A 16 94 A 16 96 A 16 98 A 8 101 Macrocallista nimbosa Sunray venus 12 .08 11 1 Mercenaria campechiensis Southern quahog 24 .16 8 6 4 3 3 Parastarte triquetra Brown gemclam 587 3.95 1 2 1 41 542 Total Bivalvia Bivalves 5146 34.61 427 280 159 1500 2780 Diodora cayenensis Cayenne keyhole limpet 1 .01 1 Cerithium sp. Cerith 189 1.27 19 4 1 165 Cerithium algicola Middle spined cerith 1 .01 1 Cerithium lutosum Variable cerith 52 .35 9 2 41 Cerithium muscarum Flyspeck cerith 78 .52 6 19 53 Batillaria minima West Indian false cerith 6 .04 6 Potamididae Hornsnail s 1 .01 1 Cerithidea sp. Hornsnail 1 .01 1 Cerithidea costata Costate hornsnail 1 .01 1 Cerithidea scalariformis Ladder hornsnail 533 3.58 533 Modulus modulus Buttonsnail 15 .10 4 4 7 Turritellidae Turretsnail s 2 .01 2 Vermicularia sp. Wormsnail 4 .03 2 2 V ermicularia fargoi Wormsnail 1 .01 1 Littoraria angulifera Mangrove periwinkle 2 .01 2 Truncatella sp. Truncatella 15 .10 15 Truncatella caribaeensis Caribbean truncatella 7 .05 1 6 Truncatella pulchella Beautiful truncate lla 455 3.06 445 10 Crepidula sp. Slippersnail 131 .88 2 129 Crepidula maculosa Spotted slippersnail 8 .05 3 5 Crepidula plana Eastern white slippersnail 77 .52 5 5 55 12 Naticidae Shark eye 4 .03 4 Neverita duplicata Shark eye 26 .17 19 3 2 1 1 Urosalpinx cinerea Atlantic oyster drill 3 .02 3 Urosalpinx perrugata Gulf oyster drill 17 .11 3 12 2 Urosalpinx tampaensis Florida oyster drill 1 .01 1

PAGE 69

69 Table A 1. Continued M N I Taxon Common Total Percent A 16 92 A 16 94 A 16 96 A 16 98 A 8 101 Busycon sinistrum Lightning whelk 833 5.60 154 67 181 353 78 Busycotypus spiratus Pear whelk 312 2.10 40 71 67 111 23 Melongena corona Crown conch 816 5.49 428 146 112 82 48 Fasciolaridae Tulip s 309 2.08 61 158 45 44 1 Pleuroploca gigantea Horse conch 2 .01 1 1 Fasciolaria lilium Banded tulip 55 .37 1 20 7 8 19 Fasciolaria tulipa True tulip 7 .05 5 1 1 Nassarius sp. Nassa 6 .04 2 4 Nassarius vibex Bruised nassa 7 .05 2 5 An achis semplicata Gulf dovesnail 5 .03 5 Columbellidae Dovesnail s 7 .05 1 4 2 Columbella rusticoides Rusty dovesnail 1 .01 1 Olividae Olive s 1 .01 1 Olivella sp. Olive 2 .01 2 Prunum sp. Marginella 46 .31 2 5 39 Prunum carneum Marginella 1 .01 1 Turridae Turridae 1 .01 1 Crassispira tampaensis Crassispira 2 .01 2 Conus sp. Cone shell 1 .01 1 Boonea impressa Impressed odostome 126 .85 33 6 67 20 Odostomia laevigata Odostome 12 .08 12 Turbonilla sp. Turbonilla 77 .52 77 Bulla striata Striate bubble 6 .04 6 Aplysiidae Seahare s 2 .01 2 Blauneria helerodita Left hand melampus 4 .03 4 Melampus sp. Melampus 591 3.97 1 320 270 Melamp us bidentatus Eastern melampus 109 .73 3 106 Melampus coffeus Coffee melampus 24 .16 24 Euglandina rosea Rosy wolfsnail 10 .07 1 9 Heleobops sp. Hydrobe 68 .46 68

PAGE 70

70 Table A 1. Continued M N I Taxon Common Total Percent A 16 92 A 16 94 A 16 96 A 16 98 A 8 101 Polygyra sp. Flatcoil 76 .51 1 75 Polygyra cereolus Liptooth 117 .79 117 UID Gastropoda Unidentified gastropods 4 .03 1 3 Total Gastropoda Gastropods 5271 35.45 784 522 418 1706 1841 B rachiopoda Lamp shell s 1 .01 1 Total Brachiopoda Lamp shells 1 .01 1 Brachyura True crab s 1 .01 1 Decapoda Crab s 2 .01 2 Xanthidae Mud crab s 3 .02 3 Callinectes sp. Swimming crab 2 .01 1 1 Menippe mercenari a Stone crab 2 .01 1 1 Total Crustacea Marine arthropods 10 .07 2 3 1 4 Cirripedia Barnacle s 3120 20.98 115 116 11 1837 1041 Total Cirripedia Barnacles 3120 20.98 115 116 11 1837 1041 Anthozoa Hard coral s 1 .01 1 Total Anthozoa Hard co rals 1 .01 1 Echinoidea Sea urchin s 101 .68 1 83 17 Total Echinoidea Sea urchins 101 .68 1 83 17 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 13650 91.80 1328 921 589 5127 5685 Mammalia Mammal s 2 .01 1 1 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 4 .03 1 1 1 1 Procyon lotor Racoon 1 .01 1 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer 3 .02 1 1 1 Total Mammalia Mammals 10 .07 2 2 3 1 2 Aves Bird s 4 .03 1 2 1 Anatidae Duck s 11 .07 10 1 Gavia immer Common loon 2 .01 1 1 Total Aves Birds 17 .11 11 2 2 1 1 Lacertilia Lizard s 3 .02 2 1 Total Lacertilia Lizards 3 .02 2 1

PAGE 71

71 Table A 1. Continued M N I Taxon Common Total Percent A 16 92 A 16 94 A 16 96 A 16 98 A 8 101 Colubridae Nonpoisonous snake s 3 .02 3 Viperidae Poisonous snake s 1 .01 1 Total Serpentes Snakes 4 .03 4 Testudines Turtle s 5 .03 2 1 2 Cheloniidae Sea turtle s 2 .01 2 Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise 1 .01 1 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 1 .01 1 Sternotherus sp. Stinkpot 1 .01 1 Total Testudines Turtles 10 .07 2 2 2 4 Anura Frog s 2 .01 1 1 Total Anura Frogs 2 .01 1 1 Rhinobatos sp. Guitarfish 1 .01 1 Ginglymostoma cirratum Nurse shark 1 .01 1 Carcharhiniformes Shark s 5 .03 2 3 Carcharhinus sp. Shark 2 .01 1 1 Carcharhinus leucus Bull shark 1 .01 1 C. limbatus/brevipinna Blacktip/Spinner shark 2 .01 2 Galeocerdo cuvieri Tiger shark 1 .01 1 Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Atlantic sharpnose shark 1 .01 1 Rajiformes Ray s/skates 4 .03 1 1 2 Dasyatis sp. Ray 2 .01 1 1 Total Chondrichthyes Sharks/Rays 20 .13 6 4 2 4 4 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 4 .03 1 1 1 1 Elops saurus Ladyfish 2 .01 1 1 Clupeidae Herring 7 .05 2 4 1 Opisthonema olignum Atlantic thread herring 174 1.17 2 76 79 17 Ariopsis felis Hardhead catfish 32 .22 15 2 6 4 5 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 12 .08 1 1 6 3 1 Synodus sp. Lizardfish 1 .01 1 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 15 .10 4 6 2 2 1

PAGE 72

72 Table A 1. Continued M N I Taxon Common Total Percent A 16 92 A 16 94 A 16 96 A 16 98 A 8 101 Mugil sp. Mullet 11 .07 4 3 1 1 2 Strongylura sp. Needlefish 4 .03 2 1 1 Tylosurus sp. Houndfish 1 .01 1 Ex ocoetidae Flyingfish es 1 .01 1 Chriodorus atherinoides Hardhead halfbeak 1 .01 1 Fundulus sp. Killifish 34 .23 16 7 3 5 3 Prionotus tribulus Searobin 1 .01 1 Epinephelus sp. Grouper 2 .01 1 1 Caranx sp. Jack 4 .03 1 1 1 1 Lutjanus sp. Snapper 2 .01 1 1 Lutjanus campechanus Red snapper 1 .01 1 Eucinostomus sp. Mojarra 12 .08 2 2 1 3 4 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 172 1.16 17 48 60 36 11 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 11 .07 3 1 2 3 2 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 553 3.72 122 103 137 114 77 Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch 14 .09 2 2 7 3 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 13 .09 6 1 1 3 2 Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 36 .24 1 7 5 23 Menticirrhus sp. Kingfish 1 .01 1 Micropogonias undul atus Atlantic croaker 1 .01 1 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 8 .05 3 4 1 Paralichthys sp. Flounder 11 .07 2 2 1 3 3 Tetraodontiformes Puffer 2 .01 1 1 Chilomycterus sp. Burrfish 7 .05 3 2 2 Lagocephalus sp. Puffer 1 .01 1 UID Actinopterygii Unidentified fish es 2 .01 2 Total Actinopterygii Fishes 1153 7.75 208 192 308 278 167 TOTAL VERTEBRATA 1219 8.20 231 202 317 286 183 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA AND VERTEBRATA 14869 100.00 1559 1123 906 5413 5868

PAGE 73

73 APPEND IX B MNI QUANTIFICATIONS FOR OLD MOUND, A 16 92, STRATUM 3 Table B 1. MNI quantifications for Old Mound, A 16 92, Stratum 3 % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Geukensia demissa Ribbed mussel 8 .6 .5 8 .7 .6 Pinnidae Penshell s 1 .1 .1 1 .1 .1 Argopecten irradians Bay scallop 1 .1 .1 1 .1 .1 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 309 23.2 19.8 309 27.7 22.9 Ostreola equestris Crested oyster 5 .4 .3 Carditamera floridana Br oad ribbed carditid 1 .1 .1 Dinocardium robustum Atlantic giant cockle 1 .1 .1 1 .1 .1 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 1 .1 .1 1 .1 .1 Polymesoda carolina Carolina marshclam 2 .2 .1 2 .2 .1 Polymesoda maritima Southern marshclam 12 .9 .8 Anomalocardia sp. Venus clam 2 .2 .1 Anomalocardia auberiana Pointed venus 2 .2 .1 Chione cancellata Cross barred venus 62 4.7 4.0 62 5.6 4.6 Macrocallista nimbosa Sunray venus 11 .8 .7 11 1.0 .8 Mercenaria campechiensis Southern quahog 8 .6 .5 8 .7 .6 Parastarte triquetra Brown gemclam 1 .1 .1 Total Bivalvia Bivalves 427 32.1 27.4 404.0 36.2 30.0 Modulus modulus Buttonsnail 4 .3 .3 Cerithidea sp. Horn shell 1 .1 .1 Cerithium sp. Cerith 19 1.4 1.2 Cre pidula sp. Slippersnail 2 .2 .1 Crepidula plana Eastern white slippersnail 5 .4 .3 Neverita duplicata Shark eye 19 1.4 1.2 19 1.7 1.4 Urosalpinx cinerea Atlantic oyster drill 3 .2 .2 Columbellidae Dovesnails 1 .1 .1 Busycon sin istrum Lightning whelk 154 11.6 9.9 154 13.8 11.4

PAGE 74

74 Table B 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Busycotypus spiratus Pear whelk 40 3.0 2.6 40 3.6 3.0 Melongena corona Crown conch 428 32.2 27.4 428 38.3 31.8 Pleuroploca gigantea Horse conch 1 .1 .1 1 .1 .1 Fasciolaria sp. Tulip 61 4.6 3.9 61 5.5 4.5 Fasciolaria lilium Banded tulip 1 .1 .1 1 .1 .1 Fasciolaria tulipa True tulip 6 .5 .4 6 .5 .4 Nassarius sp. Nassa 2 2 .1 Conus sp. Cone 1 .1 .1 1 .1 .1 Boonea impressa Impressed odostome 33 2.5 2.1 Melampus bidentatus Eastern melampus 3 .2 .2 Euglandina rosea Rosy wolfsnail 1 .1 .1 Total Gastropoda Gastropods 785 59.0 50.3 711 63.7 52.8 Cir ripedia Barnacle s 115 8.6 7.4 Total Cirripedia Barnacles 115 8.6 7.4 Brachyura True crabs 1 .1 .1 Callinectes sp. Swimming crab 2 .2 .1 2 .2 .1 Total Crustacea Marine arthropods 3 .2 .2 2 .2 .1 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 1330 100.0 85.2 1117 100.0 82.9 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 1 .4 .1 UID Mammalia Unidentified mammal 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Total Mammalia Mammals 2 .9 .1 1 .4 .1 Anatidae Ducks 10 4.3 .6 10 4.4 .7 Gavia immer Common loon 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Total Aves Birds 11 4.8 .7 11 4.8 .8 Testudines Turtle s 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Total Testudines Turtles 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Lacertilia Lizard s 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Total Lacertilia Lizards 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Carcharhinus leucus Bull shark 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1

PAGE 75

75 Table B 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI C. limbatus/brevipinna Blacktip/spinner shark 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Galeocerdo cuvieri Tiger shark 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Dasyatis sp. Stingray 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Rhinobatus sp. Guitarfish 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Total Chondrichthyes Sharks/Rays 6 2.6 .4 6 2.6 .4 Clupeidae Herring 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Ariopsis felis Hardhead catfish 15 6.5 1.0 15 6.5 1.1 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Synodus sp. Lizardfish 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 4 1.7 .3 4 1.7 .3 Strongylura sp. Houndfish 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Fundulus sp. Killifish 16 6.9 1.0 16 7.0 1.2 Epinephalus sp. Grouper 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Caranx sp. Jack 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Eucinostomus sp. Mojarra 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 O rthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 17 7.4 1.1 17 7.4 1.3 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 3 1.3 .2 3 1.3 .2 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 122 52.8 7.8 122 53.0 9.1 Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 6 2.6 .4 6 2.6 .4 Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 Mugil sp. Mullet 4 1.7 .3 4 1.7 .3 Paralichthyes sp. Flounder 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Chilomycterus sp. Burrfish 3 1.3 .2 3 1.3 .2 Lagocephalus sp. Puffer 1 .4 .1 1 .4 .1 UID Osteichthyes Unidentified fish es 2 .9 .1 2 .9 .1 Total Actinopterygii Fishes 208 90.0 13.3 208 90.4 15.4 TOTAL VERTEBRATA 231 100.0 14.8 230 100.0 17.1 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA AND VERTEBRATA 1561 100. 1347 100.0

PAGE 76

76 APPENDIX C QUANTIFICATIONS FOR OLD MOUND, A 16 94, STRATA 5 AND 6 Table C 1. MNI quantifications for Old Mound, A 16 94, Strata 5 and 6 % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Geukensia demissa Ribbed mussel 96 10.4 8.6 Argopecten irradians Bay scallop 10 1.1 .9 10 1.6 1.2 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 125 13.6 11.1 125 20.4 15.4 Ostreola equestris Crested oyster 21 2.3 1.9 Carditamera floridana Broad ribbed carditid 5 .5 .4 Dinocardium robustum Atlantic giant cockle 2 .2 .2 2 .3 .2 Trachycardium egmontianum Pricklycockle 2 .2 .2 2 .3 .2 Polymesoda maritima Southern marshclam 5 .5 .4 Anomalocardia auberiana Pointed venus 3 .3 .3 Chione cancellata Cross barred venus 2 .2 .2 Macrocallista nimbosa Sunray venus 1 .1 .1 1 .2 .1 Mercenaria campechiensis Southern quahog 6 .7 .5 6 1.0 .7 Parastarte triquetra Brown gemclam 2 .2 .2 Total Bivalvia Bivalves 280 30.3 25.0 146 23.8 17.8 Cerithium sp. Cerith 4 .4 .4 Cerithium lutosum Variable cerith 9 1.0 .8 Cerithium muscarum Flyspeck cerith 6 .7 .5 Modulus modulus Buttonsnail 4 .4 .4 Vermicularia fargoi Wormsnail 1 .1 .1 Truncatella caribaeensis Caribbean truncatella 1 .1 .1 Crepidula plana Eastern white slippersnail 5 .5 .4 Crepidula maculosa Spotted slippersnail 3 .3 .3 Naticidae Shark eye 4 .4 .4 Neverita duplicata Shark eye 3 .3 .3 3 .5 .4 Urosalpinx perrugata Gulf oyster drill 3 .3 .3 Busycon sinistrum Lightning whelk 67 7.3 6.0 67 10.9 8.2

PAGE 77

77 Table C 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Busycotypus spiratus Pear whelk 71 7.7 6.3 71 11.6 8.7 Melongena corona Crown conch 146 15.9 13.0 146 23.9 18.0 Fasciolaridae Tu lip s 158 17.2 14.1 158 25.8 19.4 Fasciolaria lilium Banded tulip 20 2.2 1.8 20 3.3 2.5 Columbellidae Dovesnail s 4 .4 .4 Olividae Olive s 1 .1 .1 Prunum sp. Marginella 2 .2 .2 Turridae Turridae 1 .1 .1 Boonea impressa Impressed odostome 6 .7 .5 Melampus sp. Melampus 1 .1 .1 Polygyra sp. Flatcoil 1 .1 .1 UID Gastropoda Unidentified g astropod 1 .1 .1 Total Gastropoda Gastropods 522 56.6 46.8 465 76.0 57.2 Decapoda Crab s 2 .2 .2 Menippe mercenaria Stone crab s 1 .1 .1 1 .2 .1 Total Crustacea Marine arthropods 3 .3 .3 1 .2 .1 Cirripedia Barnacle s 116 12.6 10.3 Total Cirripedia Barnacles 116 12.6 10.3 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 921 100.0 82.1 612 100.0 75.3 Mammalia, small Mammal 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Total Mammalia Mammals 2 1.0 .2 2 1.0 .2 Aves Bird s 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Gavia immer Common loon 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Total Aves Birds 2 1.0 .2 2 1.0 .2 Lacertilia Lizard s 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Total Lacertilia Liz ards 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Ginglymostoma cirratum Nurse shark 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Carcharhiniformes Shark s 2 1.0 .2 2 1.0 .2

PAGE 78

78 Table C 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Rajiformes Ray s/skates 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Total Chondrichthyes Sharks/Rays 4 2.0 .4 4 2.0 .4 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Opisthonema olignum Atlantic thread herring 2 1.0 .2 2 1.0 .2 Ariopsis felis Hardhead c atfish 2 1.0 .2 2 1.0 .2 Bagre marinus Gaff topsail catfish 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 6 3.0 .5 6 3.0 .7 Mugil sp. Mullet 3 1.5 .3 3 1.5 .4 Strongylura sp. Needlefish 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Fundulus sp. K illifish 7 3.5 .6 7 3.5 .9 Caranx sp. Jack 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Lutjanus campechanus Red s napper 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Eucinostomus sp. Mojarra 2 1.0 .2 2 1.0 .2 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 48 23.9 4.3 48 23.9 5.9 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 103 51.2 9.2 103 51.2 12.7 Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perc h 2 1.0 .2 2 1.0 .2 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 7 3.5 .6 7 3.5 .9 Paralichthys sp. Flounder 2 1.0 .2 2 1.0 .2 Tetraodontidae Puffer s 1 .5 .1 1 .5 .1 Total Actinopterygii Fishes 192 91.4 17.1 192 91.4 23.6 TOTAL VERTEBRA TA 201 100.0 17.9 201 100.0 24.7 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA AND VERTEBRATA 1122 100.0 813 100.0

PAGE 79

79 Table C 2. NISP, weight, and biomass quantifications for Old Mound, A 16 94, Strata 5 and 6 % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass Invertebrata Invertebrates 1951.1 52.9 48.4 2.23 13.1 5.1 Geukensia demissa Ribbed mussel 272 14.5 .9 20.3 .6 .5 Argopecten ir radians Bay scallop 20 1.1 .1 19.3 .5 .5 .83 4.9 1.9 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 323 17.2 1.0 685.3 18.6 17.0 .23 1.4 .5 Ostreola equestris Crested oyster 53 2.8 .2 12.9 .4 .3 Carditamera floridana Broad ribbed carditid 9 .5 1.9 .1 Dinocardium robustum Atlantic giant cockle 16 .9 .1 14.0 .4 .3 .92 5.4 2.1 Trachycardium egmontianum Pricklycockle 5 .3 1.2 1.64 9.7 3.8 Cardiidae Cardits 2 .1 4.3 .1 .1 Polymesoda maritima Southern marshclam 9 .5 .1 Anomalocardi a auberiana Pointed venus 4 .2 .8 Chione cancellata Cross barred venus 3 .2 1.0 Macrocallista nimbosa Sunray venus 2 .1 3.4 .1 .1 1.33 7.9 3.1 Mercenaria campechiensis Southern quahog 25 1.3 .1 262.1 7.1 6.5 .05 .3 .1 Parastarte triquetra Brown gemclam 4 .2 Total Bivalvia Bivalves 747.0 39.9 2.3 1026.7 27.8 25.3 5.00 29.5 11.5 Cerithium sp. Cerith 4 .2 .5 Cerithium lutosum Variable cerith 9 .5 .3 Cerithium muscarum Flyspeck cerith 6 .3 .5 Modulus modulus Buttonsnail 4 .2 1.2 Vermicularia fargoi Wormsnail 1 .1 .1 Truncatella caribaeensis Caribbean truncatella 1 .1 Crepidula plana Eastern white slippersnail 5 .3 .1 Crepidula maculosa S potted slippersnail 3 .2 .1 Neverita duplicata Shark eye 3 .2 6.1 .2 .2 .01 .1 Naticidae Shark eye 4 .2 .6 Urosalpinx perrugata Gulf oyster drill 3 .2 .8 Busycon sinistrum Lightning whelk 108 5.8 .3 255.9 6.9 6.3 2.6 2 15.4 6.0 Busycotypus spiratus Pear whelk 90 4.8 .3 103.0 2.8 2.6 2.17 12.8 5.0

PAGE 80

80 Table C 2. Continued % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass Melongena corona Crown conch 180 9.6 .6 209.2 5.7 5.2 1.68 9.9 3.9 Fasciolaria lilium Banded tulip 60 3.2 .2 34.0 .9 .8 2.00 11.8 4.6 Fasciolaridae Tulip s 158 8.4 .5 83.4 2.3 2.1 .97 5.7 2.2 Columbellidae Dovesnail s 4 .2 .1 Olividae Olive s 1 .1 Prunum sp. Marginella 2 .1 Turridae Turridae 1 .1 Boonea impressa Impressed odostome 6 .3 Melampus sp. Melampus 1 .1 .1 Polygyra sp. Flatcoil 1 .1 UID Gastropoda Unidentified gastropod 1 .1 2.0 .1 .1 Total Gastropoda Gastropods 656.0 35.0 1.9 698.0 18.8 17.2 9.45 55.7 21.8 Decapoda Crab s 7 .4 1.2 Menippe mercenaria Stone crab 1 .1 2.3 .1 .1 .30 1.7 .7 Total Crustacea Marine arthropods 8 .4 3.6 .1 .1 .30 1.7 .7 Cirripedia Barnacle s 462 24.7 1.5 7.0 .2 .2 Total Cirripedia Barnacles 462 24.7 1.5 7.0 .2 .2 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 1873.0 100.0 5.7 3686.2 100.0 91.2 16.98 100.0 39.1 Vertebrata Vertebrates 2.2 .6 .1 .3 1.2 .8 Mammalia small Mammal 4 .7 .2 .23 .9 .5 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer 2 4.4 1.3 .1 .67 2.6 1.6 Total Mammalia Mammals 6 5.1 1.5 .1 .90 3.4 2.1 Aves Bird s 10 1.1 .3 .02 .1 Gavia immer Common loon 4 4.0 1.2 .1 59 2.2 1.4 Total Aves Birds 14 5.1 1.5 .1 .61 2.3 1.4 Lacertilia Lizard s 9 .1 Total Lacertilia Lizards 9 .1 Chondric h thyes Shark s/rays 28 .1 .1 .3 .1 .92 3.5 2.1 Ginglymostoma cirratum Nurse shark 1 .3 .1 .90 3.4 2.1

PAGE 81

81 Table C 2. Continued % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass Carcharhiniformes Shark s 58 .2 .2 5.1 1.5 .1 1.12 4.2 2.6 Rajiformes Ray s/skates 1 3.43 13.0 7.9 Total Chondricthyes Sharks/Rays 88 .3 .3 5.7 1.6 .1 6.36 24.1 14.7 Actinopterygii Fish es 28160 96.9 91.1 300.3 86.8 7.4 2.14 8.1 4.9 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 1 1.89 7.2 4.4 Clupeidae Herring 5 1.62 6.1 3.7 Opisthonema olignum Atlantic thread herring 3 1.89 7.2 4.4 Ariidae Sea c atfish es 6 .5 .1 .38 1.4 .9 Ariopsis felis Hardhead c atfish 24 .1 .1 4.2 1.2 .1 .70 2.6 1.6 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 1 .3 .1 .70 2.6 1.6 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 31 .1 .1 5.7 1.6 .1 .59 2.2 1.4 Mugil sp. Mullet 25 .1 .1 3.7 1.1 .1 .41 1.6 1.0 Strongylura sp. Needlefish 2 .1 .89 3.4 2.0 Fundulus sp. killifish 32 .1 .1 .2 .1 .72 2.7 1.7 Carangidae Jack 2 .2 .83 3.2 1.9 Caranx sp. Jack 1 .1 1.13 4.3 2.6 Lutjanus campechanus Red s napper 1 .2 .1 .76 2.9 1.8 Eucinostomus sp. Mojarra 3 .1 .99 3.8 2.3 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 79 .3 .3 1.7 .5 .10 .4 .2 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 2 1.2 .3 .04 .2 .1 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 500 1.7 1.6 5.3 1.5 .1 .66 2.5 1.5 Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch 2 .1 .94 3.6 2.2 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 3 .8 .2 .21 .8 .5 Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 7 .4 .1 .45 1.7 1.0 Paralichthys sp. Flounder 14 1.2 .3 .03 .1 .1 Tetraodontidae Puffer 29 .1 .1 1.8 .5 .13 .5 .3 Total Actinopterygii Fishes 28933 99.4 93.4 327.9 94.6 7.9 18.21 69.0 42.0 TOTAL VERTEBRATA 29050 100.0 93.7 346.0 100.0 8.3 26.41 100.0 60.8 TOTAL INV ERTEBRATA AND VERT EBRATA 30923 100.0 4032.2 100.0 43.39 100.0

PAGE 82

82 APPENDIX D QUANTIFICATIONS FOR OLD MOUND, A 16 96, STRATUM 8 Table D 1. MNI quantifications for Old Mound, A 16 96, Stratum 8 % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Noetia ponderosa Ponderous ark 1 .2 .1 1 .2 .1 Argopecten irradians Bay scallop 1 .2 .1 1 .2 .1 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 146 24.8 16.1 146 25.7 16.5 Carditamera floridana Broad ribbed carditid 1 .2 .1 Dinocardium robustum Atlantic giant cockle 3 .5 .3 3 .5 .3 Chione cancellata Cross barred venus 2 .3 .2 Mercenaria campechiensis Southern quahog 4 .7 .4 4 .7 .5 Parastarte triquetra Brown gemclam 1 .2 .1 Total Bivalvia Bivalves 159 2 7.0 17.5 155 27.2 17.5 Cerithium sp. Cerith 1 .2 .1 Cerithium lutosum Variable cerith 2 .3 .2 Neverita duplicata Shark eye 2 .3 .2 2 .4 .2 Urosalpinx tampaensis Florida oyster drill 1 .2 .1 Busycon sinistrum Lightning whelk 181 30.7 20.0 181 31.8 20.4 Busycotypus spiratus Pear whelk 67 11.4 7.4 67 11.8 7.6 Melongena corona Crown conch 112 19.0 12.3 112 19.7 12.6 Fasciolaridae Tulip s 45 7.6 5.0 45 7.9 5.1 Fasciolaria lilium Banded tulip 7 1.2 .8 7 1.2 .8 Total Gastropoda Gast ropods 418 71.0 46.1 414 72.8 46.7 Cirripedia Barnacle s 11 1.9 1.2 Total Cirripedia Barnacles 11 1.9 1.2 Echinoidea Sea urchin s 1 .2 .1 Total Echinoidea Sea urchins 1 .2 .1 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 589 100.0 64.9 569 100.0 64.2 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 1 .3 .1 Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1

PAGE 83

83 Table D 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Total Mammalia Mammals 3 .9 .3 2 .6 .2 Aves Birds 2 .6 .2 2 .6 .2 Total Aves Birds 2 .6 .2 2 .6 .2 Testudines Turtle s 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Total Testudines Turtles 2 .6 .2 2 .6 .2 Anaxyrus terrestris Frog s 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Total Anura Frogs 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Carcharhinus sp. Shark 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Rajiformes Ray s/skates 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Total Chondricthyes Sharks/Rays 2 .6 .2 2 .6 .2 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Clupeidae Herring 4 1.3 .4 4 1.3 .5 Opisthonema olignum Atlantic thread herring 76 23.9 8.4 76 24.0 8.6 Ariopsis felis Hardhead c atfish 6 1.9 .7 6 1.9 .7 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 6 1.9 .7 6 1.9 .7 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 2 .6 .2 2 .6 .2 Mugil sp. Mullet 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Fundulus sp. Killifish 3 .9 .3 3 .9 .3 Caranx sp. Jack 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Eucinostomus sp. Mojarra 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 60 18.9 6.6 60 18.9 6.8 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 2 .6 .2 2 .6 .2 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 137 43.1 15.1 137 43.2 15.5 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1 Sciaenops ocellatus Red d rum 3 .9 .3 3 .9 .3 Paralichthys sp. Flounder 1 .3 .1 1 .3 .1

PAGE 84

84 Table D 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Chilomycterus sp. Burrfish 2 .6 .2 2 .6 .2 Total Actinopterygii Fishes 308 96.9 34.0 308 97.2 34.8 TOTAL VERTEBRATA 318 100.0 35.1 317 100.0 35.8 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA AND VERTEBRATA 907 100.0 886 100.0

PAGE 85

85 Table D 2. NISP, weight, and biomass quantifications for Old Mound, A 16 96, Stratum 8 % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass Invertebrata Invertebrata 1796.9 56.4 51.6 2.20 10.2 4.6 Noetia ponderosa Ponderous a rk 1 .1 .5 1.93 8.9 4.1 Argopecten irradians Bay scallop 1 .1 1.6 1.57 7.2 3.3 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 241 31.8 .9 530.6 16.7 15.2 2.53 11.7 5.3 Carditamera floridana Broad ribbed carditid 1 .1 .4 Dinocardium robustum Atlantic giant cockle 4 .5 22.8 .7 .7 .78 3.6 1.6 Chione cancellata Cross barred v enus 2 .3 3.3 .1 .1 Mercenaria campechiensis Southern quahog 17 2.2 .1 333.8 10.5 9.6 4.72 21.8 9.9 Parastarte triquetra Brown gemclam 2 .3 Total Bivalvia Bivalves 269 35.5 1.1 892.8 28.0 25.6 11.52 53.3 24.2 Cerithium sp. Cerith 1 .1 Cerithium lutosum Variable cerith 2 .3 .1 Neverita duplicata Shark eye 2 .3 15.7 .5 0.5 .24 1.1 .5 Urosalpinx tampaensis Florida oyster drill 1 .1 .6 Busycon sinistrum Lightning whelk 187 24.7 .7 283.1 8.9 8.1 2.67 12.4 5.6 Busycotypus spiratus Pear whelk 67 8.9 .3 46.0 1.4 1.3 1.77 8.2 3.7 Melongena corona Crown conch 113 14.9 .4 111.4 3.5 3.2 1.43 6.6 3.0 Fasciolaria lilium Banded tulip 8 1.1 9.1 .3 .3 1.23 5.7 2.6 Fasciolaridae Tulip s 45 5.9 .2 29.7 .9 .9 .56 2.6 1.2 Total Gastropoda Gastropods 426 56.3 1.6 495.7 15.6 14.2 7.90 36.5 16.6 Cirripedia Barnacle s 43 5.7 .2 .9 Total Cirripedia Barnacles 43 5.7 .2 .9 Lytechinus variegatus Green sea urchin 19 2.5 .1 .3 Total Echinoidea Sea u rchins 19 2.5 .1 .3 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 757 100.0 2.9 3186.5 100.0 91.4 21.62 100.0 45.4 Vertebrata Vertebrat es 5.5 1.8 .2 .78 3.0 1.6 Mammalia Mammal s 15 .1 .1 5.2 1.8 .2 .76 2.9 1.6 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 7 .2 .1 Procyon lotor Raccoon 1 .2 .1 .76 2.9 1.6

PAGE 86

86 Table D 2. Continued % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass Odo coileus virginianus White tailed deer 2 2.7 .9 .1 .43 1.7 .9 Total Mammalia Mammals 25 .1 .1 8.3 2.8 .2 1.95 7.5 4.1 Aves Bird s 19 .1 .1 1.3 .4 .08 .3 .2 Total Aves Birds 19 .1 .1 1.3 .4 .08 .3 .2 Anaxyrus terrestris Frog s 1 Total Anura Frogs 1 Testudines Turtle s 25 .1 .1 4.0 1.3 .1 .13 .5 .3 Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 12 14.2 4.8 .4 .41 1.6 .9 Total Testudines Turtles 37 .1 .1 18.2 6.1 .5 0.55 2.1 1.1 Chondricthyes Shark s/Rays 23 .1 .1 .2 .1 1.17 4.5 2.5 Carcharhiniformes Shark s 31 .1 .1 1.9 .6 .1 .41 1.6 .9 Carcharhinus sp. Shark 1 2.0 .7 .1 .44 1.7 .9 Rajiformes Ray s/skates 1 .1 2.01 7.7 4.2 Total Chondricthyes Sharks/Rays 56 .2 .2 4.2 1.4 .1 4.03 15.5 8.5 Actinopterygii Fish es 23202 94.2 91.4 229.3 77.1 6.6 2.03 7.8 4.3 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 1 .1 1.26 4.9 2.7 Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 1.89 7.3 4.0 Clupeidae Herring 221 .9 .9 .9 .3 .13 .5 .3 Opisthonema olignum Atlantic thread herring 371 1.5 1.5 2.4 .8 .1 .26 1.0 .5 Ariida e Sea c atfish es 34 .1 .1 2.7 .9 .1 .47 1.8 1.0 Ariopsis felis Hardhead c atfish 35 .1 .1 4.6 1.5 .1 .74 2.9 1.6 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 10 2.2 .7 .1 .36 1.4 .8 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 9 .5 .2 .35 1.4 .7 Mugil sp. Mullet 2 1.62 6.2 3.4 Fundulus sp. Killifish 29 .1 .1 .1 .86 3.3 1.8 Caranx sp. Jack 3 2.2 .8 .1 .22 .9 .5 Eucinostomus sp. Mojarra 2 1.35 5.2 2.8 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 114 .5 .4 1.0 .3 .10 .4 .2 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 11 4.4 1.5 .1 .58 2.3 1.2

PAGE 87

87 Table D 2. Continued % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 41 9 1.7 1.7 4.2 1.4 .1 .56 2.2 1.2 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 3 .8 .3 .23 .9 .5 Sciaenops ocellatus Red d rum 7 2.6 .9 .1 .21 .8 .4 Paralichthys sp. Flounder 6 2.23 8.6 4.7 Chilomycterus spp. Burrfish 7 1.8 .6 .1 .13 .5 .3 Tetraodontidae Puffer s 3 1.35 5.2 2.8 Total Actinopterygii Fishes 24496 99.2 96.2 260.0 87.3 7.4 18.58 71.5 39.0 TOTAL VERTEBRATA 24634 100.0 96.7 297.5 100.0 8.4 25.97 100.0 54.6 TOTAL INV ERTEBRATA AND VERTEBRATA 25391 100.0 3484.0 100.0 47.58 100.0

PAGE 88

88 AP PENDIX E QUANTIFICATIONS FOR OLD MOUND, A 16 98, STRATUM 9 Table E 1. MNI quantifications for Old Mound, A 16 98, Stratum 9 % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Geukensia demissa Ribbed mussel 166 3.2 3.1 Anadara transversa Transverse ark 4 .1 .1 Noetia ponderosa Ponderous a rk 2 2 .2 .1 Anomia simplex Common jingle 1 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 925 18.0 17.1 446 42.4 33.3 Ostreola equestris Crested oyster 240 4.7 4.4 Carditamera floridana Broad ribbed carditid 5 .1 .1 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 1 1 .1 .1 Polymesoda maritima Southern marshclam 108 2.1 2.0 Anomalocardia auberiana Pointed venus 2 Ch ione cancellata Cross barred venus 2 Mercenaria campechiensis Southern quahog 3 .1 .1 3 .3 .2 Parastarte triquetra Brown gemclam 41 .8 .8 Total Bivalvia Bivalves 1500 29.3 27.7 452 42.9 33.8 Cerithium muscarum Flyspeck cerith 19 .4 .4 Batillaria minima West Indian false cerith 6 .1 .1 Potamididae Hornsnail s 1 Littoraria angulifera Mangrove periwinkle 2 Vermicularia fargoi Wormsnail 2 Truncatella pulchella Beautiful truncatella 445 8.7 8.2 Crepidula maculosa Spotted slippersnail 5 .1 .1 Crepidula plana Eastern white slippersnail 55 1.1 1.0 Neverita duplicata Shark eye 1 1 .1 .1 Urosalpinx perrugata Gulf oyster drill 12 .2 .2 Busycon sinistrum Lightning whelk 353 6.9 6.5 353 33.5 26.4 Busycotypus spiratus Pear whelk 111 2.2 2.1 111 10.5 8.3

PAGE 89

89 Table E 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Melongena corona Crown conch 82 1.6 1.5 82 7.8 6.1 Fasciolaridae Tulip s 44 .9 .8 44 4.2 3.3 Fasciolaria lilium Banded tulip 8 .2 .1 8 .8 .6 Fasciolaria tulipa True tulip 1 1 .1 .1 Nassarius vibex Bruised nassa 2 Columbella rusticoides Rusty dovesnail 1 Prunum sp Marginella 5 .1 .1 Boonea impressa Impressed odostome 67 1.3 1.2 Turbonilla sp. Turbonilla 77 1.5 1.4 Melampus sp Melampus 320 6.2 5.9 Euglandina rosea Rosy wolfsnail 9 .2 .2 Polygyra sp. Flatcoil 75 1.5 1.4 UID Gastropoda Uniden tified g astropods 3 .1 .1 Total Gastropoda Gastropods 1706 33.2 31.5 600 57.0 44.8 Menippe mercenaria Stone crab 1 1 .1 .1 Total Crustacea Marine arthropods 1 1 .1 .1 Cirripedia Barnacle s 1837 35.8 33.9 Total Cirripedia Barnacles 1837 3 5.8 33.9 Echinoidea Sea urchin s 83 1.6 1.5 Total Echinoidea Sea urchins 83 1.6 1.5 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 5127 100.0 94.7 1537 100.0 78.7 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 1 .3 Total Mammalia Mammals 1 .3 Aves Bird s 1 .3 1 .4 .1 Total Aves Birds 1 .3 1 .4 .1 Testudines Turtle s 2 .7 2 .7 .1 Total Testudines Turtles 2 .7 2 .7 .1 Carcharhiniformes Shark s 3 1.0 .1 3 1.1 .2 Rajiformes Ray s/Skates 1 .3 1 .4 .1

PAGE 90

90 Table E 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Total Chondrichthyes Sharks/Rays 4 1.4 .1 4 1.4 .3 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 1 .3 1 .4 .1 Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 .3 1 .4 .1 Opisthonema oglinum Atlantic thread herring 79 27.6 1.5 79 2 7.7 5.9 Ariopsis felis Hardhead c atfish 4 1.4 .1 4 1.4 .3 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 3 1.0 .1 3 1.1 .2 Opsanus sp Toadfish 2 .7 2 .7 .1 Mugil sp. Mullet 1 .3 1 .4 .1 Fundulus sp. Killifish 5 1.7 .1 5 1.8 .4 Prionotus tribulus Searobin 1 .3 1 .4 .1 Lutjanus sp. Snapper 1 .3 1 .4 .1 Eucinostomus sp. Mojarra 3 1.0 .1 3 1.1 .2 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 36 12.6 .7 36 12.6 2.7 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 3 1.0 .1 3 1.1 .2 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 114 39.9 2.1 114 40.0 8.5 Baird iella chrysoura Silver perch 7 2.4 .1 7 2.5 .5 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 3 1.0 .1 3 1.1 .2 Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 5 1.7 .1 5 1.8 .4 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 1 .3 1 .4 .1 Sciaenops ocellatus Red d rum 4 1.4 .1 4 1.4 .3 Paralichthys sp. Flounder 3 1.0 .1 3 1.1 .2 Tetraodontidae Puffer s 1 .3 1 .4 .1 Total Actinopterygii Fishes 278 97.2 5.1 278 97.5 20.8 TOTAL VERTEBRATA 286 100.0 5.3 285 100.0 21.3 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA AND VERTEBRATA 5413 100.0 1822 100.0

PAGE 91

91 Table E 2. NISP, weight, an d biomass quantifications for Old Mound, A 16 98, Stratum 9 % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass Invertebrata UID Invertebrates 1599.9 13.5 13.1 2.15 8.5 4.4 Geukensia demissa Ribbed mussel 331 1.1 .4 10.4 .1 .1 Anadara transversa Transverse ark 6 .1 Noetia ponderosa Ponderous a rk 3 2.2 1.46 5.6 3.0 Anomia simplex Common jingle 1 .1 Ostreidae Oyster 275 .9 .4 50.0 .4 .4 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 3960 13.7 5.2 7097.0 60.1 58.2 3.62 14.2 7.3 Ostreola equestris Crested oyster 588 2.0 .8 174.6 1.5 1.4 Carditamera floridana Broad ribbed carditid 24 .1 11.3 .1 .1 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 1 .3 2.10 8.2 4.2 Polymesoda maritima Southern marshclam 201 .7 .3 5.5 Anomalocardia auberiana Pointed venus 3 .3 Chione cancellata Cross barred venus 4 .1 Mercenaria campechiensis Southern quahog 26 .1 254.3 2.2 2.1 1.78 7.0 3.6 Parastarte triquetra Brown gemclam 82 .3 .1 .3 Total Bivalvia Bivalves 5505 18.9 7.1 7606.4 64.3 62.3 8.96 35.2 18.1 Gastropoda Gastropod s 68 .2 .1 17.8 .2 .1 .35 1.4 .7 Cerithium muscarum Flyspeck cerith 19 .1 1.8 Batillaria minima West Indian false cerith 6 .5 Potamididae Hornsnail 1 .1 Littoraria angulifera Mangrove periwinkle 2 .6 Vermicularia sp. Wormsnail 13 14.3 .1 .1 Truncatella pulchella Beautiful truncatella 445 1.5 .6 2.4 Crepidula maculosa Spotted slippersnail 5 .2 Crepidula plana Eastern slippersnail 55 .2 .1 2.1 Neverita duplicata Shark eye 1 15.9 .1 .1 .8 8 3.5 1.8 Urosalpinx perrugata Gulf oyster drill 12 3.7 Busycon sinistrum Lightning whelk 1074 3.7 1.4 1594.6 13.5 13.1 3.53 13.9 7.1 Busycotypus spiratus Pear whelk 236 .8 .3 348.0 2.9 2.9 2.77 10.9 5.6

PAGE 92

92 Table E 2. Continued % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass Melongena corona Crown conch 312 1.1 .4 259.8 2.2 2.1 1.76 6.9 3.6 Fasciolaridae Tulip s 44 .2 .1 25.2 .2 .2 1.83 7.2 3.7 Fasciolaria lilium Banded tulip 43 .1 .1 72.6 .6 .6 2.45 9.6 5.0 Fasciolaria tulipa True tulip 8 23.7 .2 .2 .42 1.6 .8 Nassarius vibex Bruised nassa 2 .2 Columbella rusticoides Rusty dovesnail 1 .1 Prunum sp. Marginella 5 .6 Boonea impressa Impressed odostome 67 .2 .1 .3 Turbonilla sp. Turbonilla 77 .3 .1 3.3 Melampus sp. Melampus 320 1.1 .4 27.2 .2 .2 Euglandina rosea Rosy wolfsnail 9 .1 Pol ygyra sp. Flatcoil 75 .3 .1 .9 UID Gastropoda Unidentified gastropod s 3 1.4 Total Gastropoda Gastropods 2903 9.8 3.7 2417.2 20.3 19.7 13.98 54.9 28.3 Menippe mercenaria Stone crab 3 2.7 .35 1.4 .7 Total Crustacea Crabs 3 2.7 .35 1.4 .7 Cirripedia Barnacle s 7346 25.3 9.6 123.8 1.0 1.0 Total Cirripedia Barnacles 7346 25.3 9.6 123.8 1.0 1.0 Lytechinus variegatus Green sea urchin 13244 45.7 17.4 68.0 .6 .6 Total Echinoidea Sea u rchins 13244 45.7 17.4 68.0 .6 .6 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 29001 100.0 37.8 11818.0 100.0 96.6 25.45 100.0 51.5 Vertebrata Unidentified vertebrates 23.5 6.1 .2 1.49 6.2 3.0 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 3 .1 Total Mammalia Mammals 3 .1 Av es Bird s 9 .1 1.08 4.5 2.2 Total Aves Birds 9 .1 1.08 4.5 2.2 Testudines Turtle s 204 .4 .3 30.2 7.9 .2 .58 2.4 1.2 Total Testudines Turtles 204 .4 .3 30.2 7.9 .2 .58 2.4 1.2 Carcharhiniformes Shark s 48 .1 .1 2.6 .7 .63 2.6 1.3

PAGE 93

93 Table E 2. Continued % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass Rajiformes Ray s/skates 23 1.4 .4 .19 .8 .4 Total Chondricthyes Sharks/Rays 71 .1 .1 4.0 1.0 .82 3.5 1.7 Actinopterygii Unidentified f ishes 43551 92.2 57.1 280.4 73.1 2.3 2.11 8.9 4.3 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 2 1.89 7.9 3.8 Elops saurus Ladyfish 6 1.35 5.6 2.7 Clupeidae Herring 1281 2.7 1.7 5.4 1.4 .57 2.4 1.2 Opisthonema oglinum Atlantic thread herring 379 .8 .5 2.3 .6 .23 1.0 .5 Ariidae Sea c atfish es 210 .4 .3 3.9 1.0 .65 2.7 1.3 Ariopsis felis Hardhead c atfish 82 .2 .1 6.8 1.8 .1 .94 3.9 1.9 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 5 .4 .1 .48 2.0 1.0 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 5 .3 .1 .58 2.4 1.2 Mugil sp Mullet 4 .1 .95 4.0 1.9 Fundulus sp. Killifish 85 .2 .1 .4 .1 .44 1.8 .9 Prionotus tribulus Searobin 1 .2 .1 .72 3.0 1.5 Lutjanus sp. Snapper 1 1.62 6.8 3.3 Eucinostomus sp. Mojarra 4 1.62 6.8 3.3 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 174 .4 .2 2.4 .6 .25 1.0 .5 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 16 3.9 1.0 .53 2.2 1.0 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 1053 2.2 1.4 8.4 2.2 .1 .85 3.5 1.7 Scia enidae Drum 26 .1 6.3 1.6 .1 .52 2.2 1.0 Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch 13 .4 .1 .44 1.8 .9 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 9 1.6 .4 .02 .1 Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 10 .1 .85 3.5 1.7 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 1 1.36 5.7 2.8 Sciaenops ocellatus Red d rum 6 .7 .2 .26 1.1 .5 Paralichthys sp. Flounder 35 .1 1.2 .3 .04 .2 .1 Tetraodontidae Puffer s 12 .2 .1 .72 3.0 1.5 Total Actinopterygii Fishes 46971 99.2 61.4 325.5 84.8 2.5 19.99 83.3 40.5 TOTAL VERTE BRATA 47258 100.0 61.7 383.4 100.0 2.9 24.00 100.0 48.5

PAGE 94

94 Table E 2. Continued % of Total % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total (kg) Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common NISP NISP NISP Weight Weight Weight Biomass Biomass Biomass TOTAL INVERTEBRATA AND VERTEBRATA 76249 100.0 12201.4 100.0 49.40 100.0

PAGE 95

95 APPENDIX F MNI QUANTIFICATIONS FOR OLD MOUND, A 8 101, STRATUM 9 Table F 1. MNI quantifications for Old Mound, A 8 101, Stratum 9 % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Geukensia demissa Ribbed mussel 186 3.3 3.2 90 16.8 12.6 Anadara sp. Ark 10 .2 .2 Anadara transversa Transverse ark 98 1.7 1.7 Barbatia sp. Ark 1 Glycymeris sp. Bittersweet 1 Noetia ponderosa Ponderous a rk 5 .1 .1 5 .9 .7 Pinnidae Penshell s 1 1 .2 .1 Argopecten irradians Bay scallop 2 2 .4 .3 Anomia simplex Common jingle 2 Crassostrea virginica Eastern oyster 240 4.2 4.1 240 44.9 33.5 Ostreola equestris Crested oyster 110 1.9 1.9 Plicatula gibbosa Atlantic kittenpaw 4 .1 .1 Carditamera floridana Broad ribbed carditid 7 .1 .1 Trachycardium egmontianum Pricklycockle 2 2 .4 .3 Crassinella lunulata Lunate cransinella 1 Spisula solidissima Atlantic surfclam 19 .3 .3 19 3.6 2.6 Donax variabilis Variable coquina 9 .2 .2 Semele sp. Semele 3 .1 .1 Polymesoda maritima Southern marshclam 1473 25.9 25.1 Veneridae Venus clam s 1 Anomalocardia auberiana Pointed venus 45 .8 .8 Chione sp. Venus clam 1 Chione cancellata Cross barred venus 12 .2 .2 Chione grus Gray pygmy venus 2 Mercenaria campechiensis Southern quahog 3 .1 .1 3 .6 .4 Parastarte triquetra Brown gemcl am 542 9.5 9.2

PAGE 96

96 Table F 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Total Bivalvia Bivalves 2780 48.9 47.4 362 67.7 50.5 Diodora cayenensis Cayenne keyhole limpet 1 Cerithium sp. Cerith 165 2.9 2.8 Cerithium algicola Middle spined cerith 1 Cerithium lutosum Variable cerith 41 .7 .7 Cerithium muscarum Flyspeck cerith 53 .9 .9 Cerithidea costata Costate hornsnail 1 Cerithidea scalariformis Ladder hornsnail 533 9.4 9.1 Modulus modulus Buttonsnail 7 .1 .1 Turritellidae Turretsnail s 2 Vermetidae Wormsnail s 2 Truncatella sp. Truncatella 15 .3 .3 Truncatella caribaeensis Caribbean truncatella 6 .1 .1 Truncatella pulchella Beautiful truncatella 10 .2 .2 Crepidula sp. Slippersnail 129 2.3 2.2 Crepidula plana Eastern white slippersnail 12 .2 .2 Neverita duplicata Shark eye 1 1 .2 .1 Urosalpinx perrugata Gulf oyster drill 2 Busycon sinistrum Lightning whelk 78 1.4 1.3 78 14.6 10.9 Busycotypus spiratus Pear whelk 23 .4 .4 23 4.3 3.2 Melongena corona Crown conch 48 .8 .8 48 9.0 6.7 Fasciolaridae Tulip s 1 1 .2 .1 Pleuroploca gigantea Horse conch 1 1 .2 .1 Fas ciolaria lilium Banded tulip 19 .3 .3 19 3.6 2.6 Fasciolaria tulipa True tulip 1 1 .2 .1 Nassarius sp. Nassa 4 .1 .1 Nassarius vibex Bruised nassa 5 .1 .1 Anachis semiplicata Gulf dovesnail 5 .1 .1 Columbellidae Dovesnail s 2

PAGE 97

97 Table F 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Olivella sp. Orange marginella 2 Prunum sp. Marginella 39 .7 .7 Prunum carneum Marginella 1 Cra ssispira tampaensis Crassispira 2 Boonea impressa Impressed odostome 20 .4 .3 Odostomia laevigata Odostome 12 .2 .2 Bulla striata Striate bubble 6 .1 .1 Aplysiidae Seahare 2 Blauneria helerodita Left hand melampus 4 .1 .1 Melampus sp. Melampus 270 4.8 4.6 Melampus bidentatus Eastern melampus 106 1.9 1.8 Melampus coffeus Coffee melampus 24 .4 .4 Heleobops sp. Hydrobe 68 1.2 1.2 Polygyra cereolus Liptooth 117 2.1 2.0 Total Gastropoda Ga stropods 1841 32.4 31.4 172 32.1 24.0 Brachiopoda Lamp shell s 1 Total Brachiopoda Lamp shells 1 Xanthidae Mud crab s 3 .1 .1 Callinectes sapidus Blue crab 1 1 .2 .1 Total Crustacea Marine arthropods 4 .1 .1 1 .2 .1 Cirripedia B arnacle s 1041 18.3 17.7 Total Cirripedia Barnacles 1041 18.3 17.7 Echinoidea Sea urchin s 17 .3 .3 Total Echinoidea Sea urchins 17 .3 .3 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA 5684 100.0 96.9 535 100.0 74.6 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid cotton rat 1 .5 Odocoileus virginianus White tailed deer 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Total Mammalia Mammals 2 1.1 1 .5 .1 Anatidae Ducks 1 .5 1 .5 .1

PAGE 98

98 Table F 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Total Aves Birds 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Colubridae Nonpoisonous snakes 3 1.6 .1 3 1.6 .4 Viperidae Viperous snakes 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Total Serpentes Snakes 4 2.2 .1 4 2.2 .6 Cheloniidae Sea turtles 2 1.1 2 1.1 .3 Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Sternotherus sp. Stinkpot 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Total Testudines Turtles 4 2.2 .1 4 2.2 .6 Anura Frog s 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Total Anura Frogs 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Carcharhinus spp. Shark 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Atlantic sharpnose shark 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Rajiformes Rays /skates 2 1.1 2 1.1 .3 Total Chondrichthyes Sharks/Rays 4 2.2 .1 4 2.2 .6 Lepisosteus sp. Gar 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Clupeidae Herring 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Opisthonema oglinum Atlantic thread herring 17 9.3 .3 17 9.3 2.4 Ariopsis felis Hardhead c atfish 5 2.7 .1 5 2.7 .7 Bagre marinus Gafftopsail catfish 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Opsanus sp. Toadfish 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Mugil sp. Mullet 2 1.1 2 1.1 .3 Strongylura sp. Needlefish 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Tylosurus sp. Houndfish 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Exocoetidae Flyingfish es 1 .5 1 .5 1 Chriodorus atherinoides Hardhead halfbeak 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Fundulus sp. Killifish 3 1.6 .1 3 1.6 .4 Epinephelus sp. Grouper 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Caranx sp. Jack 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Lutjanus sp. Snapper 1 .5 1 .5 .1

PAGE 99

99 Table F 1. Continued % of Total % of Total Inv/Vert % of Total Food Inv/Vert % of Total Taxon Common MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI MNI Eucinostomus sp. Mojarra 4 2.2 .1 4 2.2 .6 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 11 6.0 .2 11 6.0 1.5 Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 2 1.1 2 1.1 .3 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 77 42.1 1.3 77 42.3 10.7 Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch 3 1.6 .1 3 1.6 .4 Cynoscion sp. Seatrout 2 1.1 2 1.1 .3 Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 23 12.6 .4 23 12.6 3.2 Menticirrhus sp. Kingfish 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Sciaenops ocellatus Red d rum 1 .5 1 .5 .1 Paralichthys sp. Flounder 3 1.6 .1 3 1.6 .4 Chilomycterus sp. Burrfish 2 1.1 2 1.1 .3 Total Actinopterygii Fishes 167 91.3 2.8 167 91.8 23.3 TOTAL VERTEBRATA 183 100.0 3.1 182 100.0 25.4 TOTAL INVERTEBRATA AND VERTEBRATA 5867 100.0 717 100.0

PAGE 100

100 LIST OF REFERENCES Antonini, G. A., D. A. Fann, and P. Roat 2002 A Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways, Volume 2 : Placida Harbor to Marco Island Florida Sea Grant, Gainesville, FL. Bale W. 2006 The Research Program of Histori cal Ecology. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:75 98. Bowling, C. 1994 Habitat and Size of the Florida Crown Conch ( Melongena corona Gmelin): Why Big Snails Hang out at Bars. Journal of Experimental Marine Biological Ecology 175:181 195. Boye r, J. N., J. W. Fourqurean, and R. D. Jones 1999 Seasonal and Long Term Trends in the Water Quality of Florida Bay (1989 1997). Estuaries 22(2):417 430. Cake, Jr., E. W. 1983 Habitat Suitability Index Models: Gulf of Mexico American Oyster U.S. D epartment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services, Washington D.C. FWS/OBS 82/10.57. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP) 2007 Benthic Invertebrate Species Richness and Diversity at Different Habitats in the Greater Charlotte Harbor S ystem Technical Report Number 1169. Mote Marine Laboratory, Fort Myers, FL. Chesapeake Bay Benthic Monitoring Program (CBBMP) 2003 Monitoring Benthic Habitats, electronic document, http://www.baybenthos.versar.com/benthos/habitat.htm accessed 22 January 2011. Cordell, A. 2011 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability at the Pineland Site Complex. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A .D. 50 to 1710 edited by W. H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker pp.383 544 Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, in press. Costanza, R. L. J. Graumlich, and W. Steffen 2007 Sustaina bility or Collapse: Lessons from Integrating the History of Humans and the Rest of Nature. In Sustainability or Collapse? An Integrated History and Future of People on Earth, edited by R. Costanza, L. Graumlich, and W. Steffen, pp. 3 17. Massachuset t s Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge.

PAGE 101

101 Crumley, C. L. 1994 Historical Ecology: A Multidimensional Ecological Orientation. In Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes edited by C. L. Crumley, pp. 1 16. School of Americ an Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. 2007 Historical Ecology: Integrated Thinking at Multiple Temporal and Spatial Scales. In The World System and The Earth System: Global Socio Environmental Change and Sustainability Since The Neolithic, edited by A. Ho rnborg and C. L. Crumley, pp. 15 28. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Cushing, F. H. 1897 Preliminary Report on the Exploration of Ancient Key Dweller Remains on the Gulf Coast of Florida. MacCalla, Philadelphia, PA. Digitized from original source held at Florida State University Libraries. deFrance, S. D. 2005 Late Pleistocene Marine Birds from Southern Peru: Distinguishing Human Capture from El Nio Induced Windfall. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:1131 1146. deFrance, S. D., and K. J Walker 2011 The Zooarchaeology of Pineland. In The Arch aeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 to 1710 edited by W. H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker pp.305 348 Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, M onograph 4. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, in press. Dincauze, D. 1987 Strategies for Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction in Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 11 edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 255 336. Academic Pre ss, NY. Douglass, A. E. 1885 Florida Diaries, 1881 1885 University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Emery, K. E., and E. Thor n ton 2010 Using Animal Remains to Reconstruct Landscapes and Climate of the Ancient Maya World. Poster p resented at the 2010 Meetings of the International Congress of Archae o zoology, Paris, France. Erlandson, J. M., T. C. Rick, T. J. Braje, A. Steinberg, and R. L. Vellanoweth 2008 Human Impacts on Ancient Shellfish: A 10,000 Year Record from San Miguel I sland, California. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(8):2144 2152. Fay, C. W., R. J. Neves, and G. B. Pardue

PAGE 102

102 1983 Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid Atlantic) Bay Scallop U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS 82/11.12. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL 82 4. Goggin, J. M. 1947 A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Florida. American Antiqui ty 13(2):114 127. Goggin, J. M., and W. C. Sturtevant 1964 The Calusa: A Stratified Nonagricultural Society. In Explorations in Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George Peter Murdock edited by W. H. Goodenough, pp. 179 219. McGraw Hill, NY. Griffin, J. W. 2002 Archaeology of the Everglades University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Gunn, J. D. (editor) 2000 The Years Without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and Its Aftermath. BAR Internatio nal Series 872. Archaeopress, Oxford. Hann, J. H. 1991 Missions to the Calusa University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Hathaway, R. R., and K. D. Woodburn 1961 Studies on the Crown Conch Melongena corona Gmelin. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean 11(1):45 65. Hill, S. K., and J. M Lawrence 2003 Habitats and Characteristics of the Sea Urchins Lytechinus variegatus and Arbacia punctulata (Echinodermata) on the Florida Gulf Coast Shelf. Marine Ecology 24(1):15 30. Hubricht, L. 1985 The Distribution of Native Land Mollusks of the Eastern United States Field Museum of Natural History, Fieldiana Zoology New Series No. 24 Meridian, MS. Hunt, T. L. 2007 Journal of Archaeological Science 34:485 502. Livingston, R. J. 1976 Diurnal and Seasonal Fluctuations of Organisms in a North Florida Estuary. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 4:373 400. Lyman, R. L.

PAGE 103

103 2004 Vertebrate Taphonomy Cambridge University Press, NY. 2008 Quantitative Paleozoology Cambridge University Press, NY. Marquardt, W. H. (editor) 1992 Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1. University of Florida, Gainesville. Marquardt, W. H. 1987 The Calusa Social Formation in Protohistoric South Florida. In Power Relations and State Formation edited by T. C. Patterson and C. W. Gailey, pp. 98 116. American Anthropological As sociation, Archaeology Section, Washington, D.C. 1988 Politics and Produ ction Among the Calusa of South Florida. In Hunters and Gatherers, Volume I : History, Environmenta l and Social Change Among Hunting and Gathering Societies edited by D. Richies, T. Ingold, and J. Woodburn, pp. 161 188. Berg Publishers, London. 199 2a Dialectical Archaeology. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 4, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 101 140. University of Arizona, Tucson. 1992 b The Calusa Domain: An Introduction. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa edited by W. H. Marquardt pp. 1 8. Institute of Archaeology a nd Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2001 Emergence and Demise of the Calusa. In Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indians, A.D. 1400 to 1700, edited by D. S. Brose, C. W. Cowan, and R. C. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 157 171. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2004 Calusa. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 14 : Southeast edited by R. D. Fogelson, pp. 204 212. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Marquardt, W. H., and C. L. Crumley 1987 Theoretical Issues in the Analysis of Spatial Patterning. In Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective edited by C. L. Crumley a nd W. H. Marquardt, pp. 1 18 Academic Press, San Diego Marquardt, W. H., and K. J. Walker (editors) 2011 The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 to 1710 Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4, University of Florida, Gainesville, in press.

PAGE 104

104 Marquardt, W. H., and K. J. Walker 2001 Pineland: A Coastal Wet Site in Southwest Florida. In Enduring Records: The Environmental an d Cultural Heritage of Wetlands edited by B. A. Purdy, pp. 48 60. David Brown Books, Oakville, CT. 2011 Environmental and Cultural Change at the Pineland Site Complex, A.D. 50 to 1710. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 to 1710 edited by W. H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, in press. Menzel, R. W., and F. E. Nichy 1958 Studies of the Distribution and Feeding Habits of Some Oyster Predators in Alligator Harbor, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean 8(2):125 145. Milanich, J. T., and C. Hudson 1993 Hernando d e Soto and the Indians of Florida University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Moore, C. B. 1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:350 395. Morrison, A. E., and E. E. Cochrane 2008 Investigating Shellfish Deposition and Landscape History at t he Natia Beach Site, Fiji. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2387 2399. Murray, J. B., G. L. Wingard, T. M. Cronin, W. H. Orem, D. A. Willard, C. W. Holmes, C. Reich, E. Shinn, M. Marot, T. Lerch, C. Trappe, and B. Landacre 2010 Evidence of Environme ntal Change in Rankin Basin, Central Florida, Everglades National Park. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Open File Report 2010 1125. Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa Perez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Williams 2004 Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Sixth Edition American Fisheries Society, Spec ial Publication 29, Bethesda, MD. Odum, W.E., C. C. McIvor, and T. J. Smith, III. 1982 The Ecology of the Mangroves of South Florida: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Ser vices, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS 81/24. Perry, D. M.

PAGE 105

105 1988 Effects of Associated Fauna on Growth and Productivity in the Red Man grove. Ecology 69(4):1064 1075. Reitz, E. J., L. A. Newsom, and S. J. Scudder 1996 Issues in Environmental Archaeology. In Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, edited by E. J. Reitz, L. A. Newsom, and S. J. Scudder, pp. 3 16. Plenum Press, NY. Reitz, E. J., I. R. Quitmyer, H. S. Hale, S. J. Scudder, and E. S. Wing 1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52(2):304 317. Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing 2008 Zooarchaeology, Second Edition Cambridge University Press, NY Rick, T. C. 2007 The Archaeology and Historical Ecology of Late Holocene San Miguel Island. University of California, Los Angeles. Rothschild, S. B. 2004 Alabama, and Florida. Taylor Trade Publications, MD. Scudder, S. 2003 Sea Level Rise or Shallow Water Midden Deposition? Archaeopedology at the Seminole Rest Archaeological Site, Coastal East Central Florida. Journal of Archaeological Science 30(12): 1551 1557. 2011 Soils and Landscapes: Archaeopedology at the Pineland Site. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 to 1710 edited by W. H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker pp.227 252 Institute of Archaeology an d Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, in press. Sharp, D. T., and I. E. Gray 1962 Studies on Factors Affecting the Local Distribution of Two Sea Urchins, Arbacia punctulata and Lytechinus variegatus Ecology 43(2):309 313. Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce 2009 Completed Species Reports List, electronic document, http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLSpec/Compl_Reports.htm accessed 18 August 2 010. Stapor, Jr., F. W., T. D. Mathews, and F. E. Lindfors Kearns 1991 Barrier Island Progradation and Holocene Sea Level History in Southwest Florida Journal of Coastal Research 7:815 838. Steele, J. and M Rockman

PAGE 106

106 2003 Where Do We Go From here: Mo deling the Decision Making Process During Exploratory Dispersal. In Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The Archaeology of Adaptation edited by M. Rockman and J. Steele, pp. 130 143. Routledge, NY. Steward, J. H. 1955 Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois, Urbana. Tanner, W. F. 1991 Transactions, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 41:583 589. 2000 Beach Ridge History, Sea Level Change, and the A.D. 536 Event. In The Years without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and its Aftermath edited by J. D. Gunn, pp. 89 97 BAR International Series 872. Archaeopress, Oxford. Taylor, J. L. 1974 The Charlotte Harbor Estuarine System. Florida Scientist 37:20 5 216. Tolley, S. G., and A. K. Volety 2005 The Role of Oysters in Habitat Use of Oyster Reefs by Resident Fishes and Decapod Crustaceans. Journal of Shellfish Research 24(4):1007 1012. Tolley, S. G., A. K. Volety, and M. Savarese 2005 Influence of Sal inity on the Habitat Use of Oyster Reefs in Three Southwest Florida Estuaries. Journal of Shellfish Research 24(1):127 137. Torrence, C. 2011 A Topographic Reconstruction of the Pineland Site Complex as it Appeared in 1 89 6. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 to 1710 edited by W. H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker pp.155 174 Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, in press. True, D. O. (editor) 1945 Memoir of D o About the Year 1575 Glade House, Coral Gables, FL. Turgeon, D. D., J. P. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams 1998 Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollu s ks, Second Edition American Fisherie s S ociety, Special Publication 26, Bethesda, MD. Walker, K. J.

PAGE 107

107 1992 Spatial and Temporal Perspectives. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa edited by W. H. Mar quardt, pp. 265 366. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies. Monograph 1. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2000a The Material Culture of Precolumbian Fishing: Artifacts and Fish Remains from Coastal Southwest Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 19(1):24 45. 2000b A Cooling Episode in Southwest Florida During the Sixth and Seventh Centuries A.D. In The Years without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and its Aftermath edited by J. D. Gunn, pp. 119 127. BAR Internatio nal Serie s 872. Archaeopress, Oxford. 2011 The Pineland Site Complex: Environmental Contexts. In The Archaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 to 1710 edited by W. H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker pp. 23 52 Institute of Archaeo logy and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, in press. Walker, K. J., and W. H. Marquardt 2011 Complex: 1988 1995. In The Ar chaeology of Pineland: A Coastal Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50 to 1710 edited by W. H. Marquardt and K. J. Walker pp.53 154 Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 4, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, in pr ess. Walker, K. J., F. W. Stapor, Jr., and W. H. Marquardt 1994 Site. The Florida Anthropologist 47:161 179. 1995 Archaeological Evidence for a 1750 to 1450 BP Higher Than Present Sea Level Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue No. 17:205 218. Wang, J. C. S., and E. C. Raney 1971 Distribution and Fluctuation in the Fish Fauna of th e Charlotte Harbor Estuary, Florida. Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL. Wells, H. W. 1961 The Fauna of Oys t er Beds with Special Reference to the Salinity Factor. Ecological Monographs 31(3):239 266. Wilson, C., L. Scotto, J. Scarpa, A. Volety, S. Laramore, and D. Haunert 2005 Survey of Water Quality, Oyster Reproduction, and Oyster Health Status in the St. Lucie Estuary. Journal of Shellfish Research 24:157 165. Widmer, R. J.

PAGE 108

108 1986 Prehistoric Estuarine Adaptation at the Solana Site, Charlotte Co unty, Florida. Report for the Florida Division of Archives, Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, FL. 1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama, Tuscaloo sa Zieman, J. C. 1982 The Ecology of the Sea Grasses of South Florida: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS 82/25.

PAGE 109

109 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Andrea Palmiotto earned her Bachelo r of Arts in anthropology from the University of South Carolina in 2007 and her Master of Arts in anthropology from the University of Florida in 2011. She was first introduced to southeastern U.S. archaeology in 2005 when she began working with Christoph er Judge, Carl Steen, Sean Taylor, and colleagues at the Johannes Kolb Site in Darlington County, South Carolina. In 2009, she moved to Florida to work with William Marquardt and Karen Walker on materials collected from the Pineland Site Complex. She lea rned zooarchaeological methods under the guidance of Susan deFrance in 2009 at the Department of Anthropology at the University of Florida and of Irvy Quitmyer and Karen Walker in 2009 and 2010 at the Florida Museum of Natural History.