Citation
Reexamining Suwannee Valley Pottery: A Typological and Formal Analysis of Pottery in Feature 1 at Parnell Mound

Material Information

Title:
Reexamining Suwannee Valley Pottery: A Typological and Formal Analysis of Pottery in Feature 1 at Parnell Mound
Creator:
Hall, Kristen Cecilia Douglass
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bowls ( jstor )
Decorative ceramics ( jstor )
Diameters ( jstor )
Eggshells ( jstor )
Excavations ( jstor )
Pottery ( jstor )
Prairies ( jstor )
Scallops ( jstor )
Surface treatment ( jstor )
Valleys ( jstor )
Excavations (Archaeology)
Pottery, Ancient
Pottery, Ancient--Analysis
United States--Suwannee River Valley
Genre:
Undergraduate Honors Thesis

Notes

Abstract:
The Suwannee Valley culture (ca. 750-1500) of North Florida has only been recently recognized and defined by archaeologists. Previous definitions of Suwannee Valley have made use of small assemblages from multiple component sites. Pottery analysis of Feature 1 and associated test units at Parnell Mound (8CO326), a Suwannee Valley site dating to ca. A.D. 1200, was conducted in an effort to refine the definition of Suwannee Valley pottery typology. These data provide a guideline for more consistent identification of Suwannee Valley series pottery in future research. Feature 1 at Parnell Mound also offers a lens into an eventful deposition of feasting materials with over 5,000 sherds of pottery. Many large open or slightly restricted vessels, inferred from large rim sherd portions, were found in association with an estimated 100 deer, which supplements the evidence of eventful feasting at Parnell mound. ( en )
General Note:
Awarded Bachelor of Arts; Graduated May 7, 2013 summa cum laude. Major: Anthropology
General Note:
Advisor: Neill J Wallis
General Note:
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Kristen Cecilia Douglass Hall. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 REEXAMINING SUWANNEE VALLEY POTTERY: A TYPOLOGI C AL AND FORMAL ANALYSIS OF POTTERY IN FEATURE 1 AT PARNELL MOUND by Kristen C.D. Hall Dr. Neill J. Wallis, Honors Thesis Advisor A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment Of the requirements f or the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Anthropology University of Florida Gainesville, Florida April 17, 2013

PAGE 2

2 Introduction The Suwannee Valley culture (ca. A.D. 750 1500) of North Florida has been only recently recognized and defined by archaeologists since the early 1990s (Milanich 1994 ). Through its development into a demarcated archaeological culture, it has been discovered, rediscovered, expanded, named and renamed. Lack of sufficient data and interpretations of minimal material c ulture related to Suwannee Valley have obfuscated definitions of its physical boundaries, regional interactions and sociopolitical structure. Given the cursory and continually changing descriptions of late pre Columbian North Florida, Suwannee Valley mat erial culture may still today be discovered during survey and excavation but not recognized. Pottery analysis of Feature 1and associated test units at Parnell Mound (8CO326), a single component Suwannee Valley site dating to the 12 th and 13 th centuries, w as conducted in an effort to narrow and refine the definition of the Suwannee Valley culture. Pottery sherd attributes such as count, weight, form, paste, surface treatment and type were recorded. If applicable to rim sherds, thickness, orifice diameter, p rofiles and vessel form were also recorded. A formal analysis of the pottery will help to elucidate the definitive vessel forms of Suwannee Valley culture and also add sizes and shapes of vessels specific to feasting. This research also provides a guidel ine that will enable more consistent identification of the Suwannee Valley archaeological culture in future archaeological fieldwork and perhaps rediscovere d in past pottery collections. Islands, Ponds and Valleys: North Florida Culture History Regiona lly the Suwannee Valley culture, as the name implies, is confined to the highland Suwannee River drainage basin including the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee rivers (Johnson 1991; Worth 1992a, 2012). Although the North Florida region has been extensively surveye d by

PAGE 3

3 Johnson and Nelson (1990), it is unknown whether Suwannee Valley culture continues down river to its drainage in the Gulf of Mexico. Only four Suwannee Valley sites in North Florida are acceptably well defined including Indian Pond (8CO229), Fig Spri ngs (8CO1), Suwannee Sinks (8SU377) and, most recently, Parnell Mound (8CO326) (Figure 1). The material culture that is now known as Suwannee Valley was first vaguely described by Brenda Sigler Lavelle (1980) in her analysis of North Florida Weeden Island period sites In this work, Sigler Lavelle (1980) recognized pottery types reminis cent of the Alachua culture of N orth central Florida that had been more thoroughly defined (Milanich 1993, 1971). The majority of Suwannee Valley pottery types are also sh ared with the better known North central Alachua tradition, although there are several that are unique to the Suwannee Valley series (Worth 2012). In general, definitions of Suwannee Valley pottery has been hindered by variable characteristics of surface t reatment, which are commonly employed as typological traits in the southeastern U.S. In particular, extreme variations in surface treatment execution characterize Fig Springs Roughened and Lochloosa Punctated, and these types often contain multiple overla pping and non overlapping surface treatments on the same vessel. Identification of the different variants becomes especially difficult the smaller the pottery sherd size. Milanich et al. (1984:201) described early frustrations in distinguishing late pre Columbian pottery by colleagues (1984) preliminary Weeden Island II series was later renamed the Indian Pond complex but was still not well define d due to small samples sizes and the absence of stratigraphic excavations (Johnson a nd Nelson 1990). Although the Indian Pond complex was defined only by surface collection, it was unique enough for Johnson and Nelson (1990) to spatially separate it from the better known Alachua and St. Johns archaeological

PAGE 4

4 Figure 1. Compilation of all North Florida sites mentioned in the text.

PAGE 5

5 cultures and designate the Indian Pond complex as temporally between the Late Weeden Island and Leon Je Springs site documented the first isolated and stratigraphically excavated Suwannee Valley component. The isolated component, named South End, was absent of the later mi ssion period artifacts found throughout the site and contained 525 typed sherds of Suwannee Valley pottery. From this sample size, John E. Worth was able to rename the Indian Pond complex the Suwannee Valley culture. In his initial description, Worth (19 92b) also defined a type of pottery unique to Suwannee Valley which he named Fig Springs Roughened. Twenty years later, Worth (2012) defined three other new pottery types of the Suwannee Valley series, Grassy Hole Pinched, Fig Springs Incised, and Trestle Point Impressed. The separation between the Suwannee Valley and Alachua tradition s is based mostly on pottery, but it has been proposed that another potential defining factor could be the difference between the riverine Suwannee Valley and the inter riv erine and lake adaptations of the Alachua tradition (Worth 1992, Worth 1998 26 32, Worth 2012). The patchy riverine environment of North Florida is believed to have influenced sociopolitical structure through a settlement pattern characterized by small, widely separated hamlets or clusters with a lack of strong regional integration and perhaps a greater dependence on maize agriculture (Milanich 1994, Worth 1998). The politically disorganized Suwannee Valley region was also assumed to be characterized by day to day interactions and isolated from the contemporaneous Mississippianization interaction sphere. The sociopolitical structure of Suwannee Valley was interpreted by Worth (2012) as consisting of small hamlets without strong regional connections or in tegration based on the isolating riverine environment and small scatters of material culture.

PAGE 6

6 Recently, Heller et al. (2011) discovered an additional Suwannee Valley site named Suwannee Sinks (8SU377). Heller and colleagues (2011) excavated 93 square me ters and added a significant amount of data that allowed interpretations of Suwannee Valley culture, particularly pottery typology. Most recently, the largest stratigraphically excavated isolated Suwannee Valley component has been discovered by Neill J. Wallis (in press). Parnell Mound (8CO326), located 2 kilometers south of the Suwannee River, was excavated during the 2011 and 2012 summer field seasons. Diagnostic pottery of Suwannee Valley culture was discovered in a sand mound reported to contain hu man remains, and nearby a large feasting pit recorded as Feature 1 (Figure 2). Feature 1 contained more than 5, 000 pottery sherds the estimated remains of over 100 deer and evidence of ritual deposition of local and extralocal species and objects (Wallis in press, Wallis and Blessing 2013). Obstacles to Defining Suwannee Valley Suwannee Valley culture was only recently defined in the early 1990s effectively filling the gap between two better known temporal periods, Weeden Island (ca. A.D. 200 to 750) an d the later Mission period (ca. A.D. 1585 to ca. 1700) and three better known regional cultures, Fort Walton (Florida panhandle), St. Johns (eastern Florida) and Alachua (north central Florida) As the name implies, the Suwannee Valley culture is defined by the geographic space it is said to occupy in North Florida. The potentially fluid boundaries cannot be confidently defined due to sampling bias. Suwannee Valley sites have been discovered primarily through surface survey, and occasionally are recorded as components of mission sites or near earlier mounds (Johnson and Nelson 1990; Milanich 1984; Sigler Lavelle 1980; Wallis in press; Weisman 1992).

PAGE 7

7 Figure 2. Feature 1 at Parnell Mound Courtesy of Neill J. Wallis (Wallis and Ble ssing 2013).

PAGE 8

8 Radiocarbon dates contemporaneous with Suwannee Valley are lacking towards the mouth of the Suwannee River on the Gulf coast due in part to relatively less survey. There are other problems with the temporal parameters of Suwannee Valley cultu re that stem from the dating of mixed multicomponent sites (Table 1). The radiocarbon dates by Brent Weisman (1992) at the South village at Fig Springs place Suwannee Valley culture from approximately AD 1000 to 1500. Heller and colleagues (2011) were the first to directly date the soot on associated Suwann ee Valley sherds. These dates fall within the range established by Weisman and Worth (1993) but it represents a more limited range from ca. 1000 A.D. to 1200. The radiocarbon date obtained f rom ass ociated charcoal from a sherd concentration was discarded from further analysis due to contamination (Heller et al. 2011 :126). Heller and colleagues (2011) believe that Suwannee Sinks pre dates the Suwannee Valley occupation at Fig Springs and have named a new phase for Suwannee Valley culture. The Sinks Phase as proposed by Heller and colleagues (2011) spans from ca. 1000 A .D. to 1200 and represents the middle phase of the three phases reported to comprise the Suwannee Valley sequence. The first phase, r anging from ca. 750 A.D. to 1000 is defined by the appearance of the unique Suwannee Valley pottery types, includi ng Fig Springs Roughened. The Sinks Phase defined at the Suwanee Sinks site, is characterized by unnamed check stamped varieties and uni que r im variations called modes. The third phase of Suw annee Valley culture named the Fig Springs Phase is represented by the Fig Springs site and ranges from ca. A.D. 1200 to 1540. This phase is characterized by an increase in Prairie Cord Marked and Alachua Cob Marked pottery types (Heller et al. 2011 :129 130). Most recently, excavations at Parnell mound produced a radiocarbon dat e within the ranges defined by the Fig Springs and Suwannee Sinks sites and would fall in the Sinks Phase. Due to small sample siz es, few previously recorded sites and limited radiocarbon dates, a three phase

PAGE 9

9 Site # Beta Lab # Site Context /Material Conventional Radiocarbon Age (BP) Calibrated Radiocarbon Age (2 sigma) Reference 8CO1 41054 Fig Springs South End Village 98050 980 1170 Worth 1990, n.d. 8SU377 303382 Suwannee Sinks Lochloosa Punctated body sherd (soot) 96040 1010 1170 R. Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2011 8SU377 304636 Suwannee Sinks Lochloosa Punctated body sherd (soot) 94030 1020 1170 R. Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2011 8SU377 303381 Suwannee Sinks Fig Springs Roughened rim sherd (soot) 93040 1020 1210 R. Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2011 8CO326 323913 Parnell Mound Feature 1 (charred wood) 83030 1160 1260 Wallis In Press 8CO1 38509 Fig Springs South End Villag e 79050 1160 1290 Worth 1900, n.d. 8CO1 41053 Fig Springs South End Village 68070 1220 1410 Worth 1990, n.d. 8CO1 32577 Fig Springs South End Village pit Feature 85 (charred cobs) 36060 1420 1660 Weisman 1992 8SU377 293691 Suwannee Sinks Sherd Conce ntration (charred wood) 8030 1680 1740 1800 1940 1950 1960 R. Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2011 Table 1. All known radiocarbon dates related to Suwannee Valley culture.

PAGE 10

10 system for Suwannee Valley is premature. Until a greater data set is collected, anal yzed and interpreted, no argument or names should be made for the temporal parameters of the Suwannee Valley culture. The pottery types and variants of Suwannee Valley have been defined and redefined from Weeden Island II to Indian Pond Complex to Suwann ee Valley culture using only relative chronologies developed through frequency seriation of mostly multi component sites To add to the confusion, Heller et al. (2011) added even more variants and modes to the definition s of types within the Suwannee Valle y series Lacking an adequate vessel rims or comparative sites Worth (2012) descri bes Suwannee Valley ceramics as utilitarian, degenerate and the decoration as unintentional because of its unappealing appearance by modern aesthetic standards With the initial description of Suwannee Valley pottery as utilitarian and in the absence of a comparative ceramic assemblage, Suwannee Valley ceramic assemblages have a priori been placed in a sacred versus secular dichotomy. W ith insufficient data sets, multiple assumptions have been made regarding the sociopolitical structure, regional involvement, an d evolution of the culture. A scholarly obsession with Missippianization and maize may be partly blamed for the assumptions regarding Suwannee Valley culture (Wall is in press). Suwannee Valley culture, as well as the rest of North Florida, lacks any observable evidence of Missippianization in the form of platform mounds, iconography, and intensive maize agriculture. Arguably, this does not mean that Suwannee Valle y culture and other surrounding non [ or ] :162 ) If a culture does not evolve into Mississippian chiefdoms it is somehow assumed to be less re gionally connected, more utilitarian and lacking in any sacred ritualized activities. Recent evidence f rom Parnell M ound is redefining and expanding what is known about Suwannee Valley culture. The roast ing pit (Feature 1) at Parnell m ound is an

PAGE 11

11 unprecedented snapshot in Suwannee Valley culture revealing a d istinct pottery assemblage of over 5,000 sherds, extralocal materials and evidence for ritual deposit ion Feature 1 at Parnell Mound The Parnell M o und site (8CO326) is situated 2 kilometers south of the Suwannee River. The large (27 meters across and 3 .5 meters high) sand mound overlook s a large dried up pond fittingly called Indian Mound Swamp. Little is known about the actual mound. The only material recovered from the mound is a Fig Springs Roughened Ichetucknee var. sherd recovered in an auger test like landscape of looter pits bears the history of unprofessional looting of the rumored burial mound. Caretakers of the property described somewhat sen sationalized stories of skulls rolling out of am ateur excavations more than 50 years ago. Recent looting during the last five years left large backhoe trenches near the mound, just missing F eature 1. In addition to modern destruction, preservation at the Parnell site is poor due to acidic soil s and bi oturbation The fill of F eature 1 is the exception with dense charcoal, ceramics and preserved fauna (Figure 3). The density of organics within the feature seems to have fostered preservation and presents an excellent lens into an event of the Suwannee V alley Culture. The stratigraphic layer from the surface to 40 cm below datum is highly mixed due to a combination of plowing and overburden from the looter backhoe tre nch excavation. Below 40 cm, F eature 1 appears to be largely intact to 120 cm below dat um with minimal disturbance. About the size of a Volkswagen Beetle, the pit is approximately 2.5m by 3m and approximately 80 cm at its deepest. Below the plow zone, Feature 1 was first recognized by very dark grayish brown fine sand with dense charcoal fl ecks and then a dense

PAGE 12

12 F igure 3. Stratigraphic profile of Feature 1 in TU 1, 9, 11, and 15 East wall. Courtesy of Neill J. Wallis.

PAGE 13

13 layer of very dark gray ish brown mottled with very dark brown sand with dense charcoal chunks and fleck s and artifacts (shaded in figure 3). Within the feature, an impressive variety of material culture was discovered. Recovered from the feature were o ver 5,000 local and extralocal sherds of pottery, two fragments of quartz crystal, the remains of over 1 00 deer, dog and bear three small nodules of red ochre and numerous Pinellas points and lithic debitage and tools made from chert and fine grained mineral originating from local hard rock phosphate deposits More importantly, F eature 1 at Parnell M ound pro vides a unique opportunity for analysis of the material culture from a single component that may be represent a single feasting event at around A.D. 1200 Not only is Feature 1 an isolated context, but a representative snapsho t of a single event in the Su wannee Valley culture. Methodology Typological designations followed the descriptions of Worth (1992, 2012). Due to inadequate sample sizes, lack of comparative collections and qualified descriptions of previous definitions, some variants ( Worth 1992: 1 94, n.d.) and all rim modes (Heller et al. 2011 ) were not considered in the pottery analysis from the Parnell site. Sherds were recorded based on attributes of count, weight, form, paste, surface treatment and type. Diminutive sherds were defined as being less than 2 cm unless there was an apparent surface treatment. Unidentified sherds greater than 2 cm were described based on surface treatment and paste. If applicable, rim thickness, orifice diameter and rim profiles were also recorded. Unless the ori fice could be accurately and precisely determined, any rim sherds that represented less than five percent of the entire vessel were excluded from orifice diameter estimations. The addition of the highly subjective, variable, and newly defined types, varia nts and modes makes analysis of Suwannee

PAGE 14

14 Valley ceramic collections difficult and confusing. Until greater comparative and holistic analysis can be executed on future (re)discovered ceramic collections, insufficient and qualitative new types, variants and modes should not be created nor haphazardly added to the relatively nascent definition of Suwannee Valley ceramics. Description of Types The Suwannee River Valley ceramic assemblage as defined by Worth (1992, 2012) contains five main types. The only type unique to the Suwannee River Valley culture is Fig Springs Roughened which has two varieties: Ichetucknee and Santa Fe The four other main types include Lochloosa Punctated, with three varieties Lochloosa, Grassy Flats, and Eye (Worth 1992 :194, n.d.) Alachua Cob Marked, Prairie Cord Marked and sand tempered plain the last referred to by Milanich (1971) and Worth (199 2b ) as Alachua Plain. Minority local wares also part of the Suwannee Valley culture include Grassy Hole Pinched, Fig Spring s Incised and Trestle Point Impressed. Extralocal wares also present in the Suwannee Valley series include St. Johns Plain and St. Johns Check Stamped, Pasco Roughened, Pasco Plain, Fort Walton Incised and Lake Jackson Incise d (Milanich 1971, Worth n.d., 2 012) A recent Phase III study of the Suwannee Sinks site (8SU377) has defined more variations of Suwannee Valley ceramics. Heller et al. (2011) argue for the addition of thr ee rim modes which appear indistinguishable from la te Weeden Island II rims. T he Sinks mode (n=15) is defined by Heller et al. (2011) by a single incised line with a row of punctations underneat h on the exterior of the rim. Sinks mode was only found on four decorated sherds and the rest were plain or unidentified. The Line mode (n =8) contains an encircling incised single line on the exterior of the rim without any punctations The final mode, notched lip (n=1) is defined by

PAGE 15

15 diagonal notches in the lip. Along with three new rim modes Heller et al. (2011) also describe a new variety named after a natural spring North of the Suwannee Sinks site (8SU377). Prairie Fabric Impressed var. Lime Springs (n=13) is described as a dimpling on the exterior of the vessel possibly created by a paddle of wrapped fabric. Not a ll previously defined types of Suwannee Valley ceramics were reco vered in excavation at Parnell M ound (8CO326). Some were not utilized in the pottery analysis at Parnell Mound due to inadequate definitions and sample sizes. Specifically, all rim modes, Lochloosa Punctated va riants (except for Eye ) and Prairie Cord Marked var. Lime Springs were not considered in the analysis. T ypes and variants that were discovered at Parnell and considered i n the analysis are listed below. Local Types Fig Springs Roughened The first variety of Fig Springs Roughened is named Santa Fe and is characterized by a roughening of the outside of the vessel with seemingly random, shallow (<1mm) drag marks using a handful of small sticks or straw (Figure 4) The second variety, Ichetuckne e has been described as an overlapping drag or scrape with a scallop shell. The scallop shell seems to be the most likely tool in the production of the I chetucknee design because of the uniformity of the drag marks closely resembling the cross section ri dges of a bay scallop shell. The Suwannee River drainage is the present n orthern extent of Florida Bay Scallop environment. Argopecten irradians has 19 to 21 radiating ribs and an average total shell width between 55 and 90 mm. (Leal, Fay et al. 1983). On average, the radiating ribs of the Florida Bay Scallop should be approximately 3.63 mm wide. Towards the end of the scallop the ridges of the radiating ribs

PAGE 16

16 30 cm 30 cm a. b. c.

PAGE 17

17 d. F igure 4. Fig Springs Roughened var. Ichetucknee : (a) var. Ichetucknee rim with perpendicular breaks ; (b) var. Ichetucknee rim with perpendicular breaks ; (c) Large var. Ichetucknee sherd ; (d) Florida Bay scallop

PAGE 18

18 splay out forming a 1 2 mm gap. Arguably, th ese intercostal gaps could be the stylus for the scraped lines of the Ichetucknee variant. Because of the extreme variability among the two variants, in future analyses of Suwannee Valley ceramics, quantified reexamination and redefinition is needed. L ochloosa Punctated Lochloosa Punctated was first defined by Milanich (1971:33 34) as a part of the north c entral Florida Alachua pottery series (Figure 5) Lochloosa was the first defined variation of Lochloosa Punctated and consists of seemingly rando m punctations or clusters of punctations on the outside of the vessel. These punctations were most likely created using clusters of sticks or straw and often had another brushing or dragging surface treatment. The second variety of Lochloosa Punctated as defined by Worth (1992 b ) is Grassy Flats. Unlike the Lochloosa, Grassy f lats is characterized by punctations covering the entire exterior of the vessel with no space in between clusters of punctations. There is also no evidence of brushing or scraping i n Grassy Flats Worth also added an additional variety of Lochloosa Punctated, which is characterized by half moon fingernail punctations that are often not very deep (relative to other variants of Lochloosa Punctated) and below the rim of th e vessel (Worth n.d.). Due to the high variation of the Lochloosa Pun ctated type, in my analysis, I lumped the Grassy Flats and Lochloosa variants together. Previous minimal data sets may have interpreted these variants to be distinct, but from the exten sive data set and larger sherds from Parnell mound, the clusters of punctations are highly variable over the exterior of the vessel. What may appear to be a cluster of punctations with no space s between them is totally dependent on how much of the vessel is available to observe. In other words, surface treatments consistent with the variants

PAGE 19

19 a. 26 cm 38 cm b.

PAGE 20

20 c. 46 cm d. 50 cm

PAGE 21

21 e. 28 cm Figure 5 Ri ms of Lochloosa Punctated: (a) Mended Lochloosa Punctated rim with perpendicular breaks ; (b) Lochloosa Punctated Rim ; (c) Sponge spicule tempered Lochloosa Punctated rim ; (d) Large cross mended Lochloosa Punctated rim ; (e) Lochloosa Punctated Eye rim

PAGE 22

22 Grassy Flats and Lochloosa were both repeatedly observed on single large sherds in the analysis of the Parnell Mound sample. Heller et al. (2011) also describe the possibility of adding another variant to the Lochloosa Punctated type. They des cribe punctations created using a rolling stylus, such as a pine cone cob. A more detailed and quantified description of the presently highly subjective variants is warranted The excavations at Parnell revealed the first recorded example of Lochloosa Pu nctated tempered with sponge spicules, similar to the paste of the St. Johns ceramic tradition (Figure 5c). Prairie Cord Marked Like Lochloosa Punctated, Prairie Cord Marked was initially described by Milanich (1971:33) as cord impressions on the exteri or of the vessel created by a cord wrapped paddle (Figure 6) Cordmarking is often perpendicular to the rim of the vessel and cross cordmarking is frequent and also found at Parnell (Figure 6a). The cord markings can either be close (1 2 mm apart) or wide ly spaced (up to 5mm) (Figure 6b) (Worth 1992b). Sand Tempered Plain Sand tempered plain pottery is found throughout Florida and over a broad temporal spectrum and is assigned many different names according to temporal and geographic context For the Al achua culture, Milanich (1971:31 32) calls it Alachua Plain and it is defined by an undecorated surface treatment of the vessel. Worth (1992b) also recognizes Alachua Plain as definitive of Suwannee Valley ceramics.

PAGE 23

23 a. 28 cm b. 28 cm Figure 6 Rims of Prairie Cord Marked: (a) Closely spaced cross Prairie Cord Marked rim ; (b) Widely spaced Prairie Cord Marked rim

PAGE 24

24 Grassy Hole Pinched Grassy Hole Pinched is c haracterized by pi nches of the exterior of the vessel (Figure 7). As defined by Worth (1992b) at Fig Springs, th is unpleasantly named type closely resembles Tucker Ridge Pinched, but is instead characterized by random rather than linear. The Grassy Hole Pinched rim discovered at Parnell Mound is unprecedented and offers more insight into the unique type. Trestle Point Impressed This type was also defined by Worth (2012) at the excavations at Fig Springs (Figure 8) Using a stylus similar to Fig Springs Roughened Ichetucknee var. Trestle Point Shell Impressed appear s to be created by punctuating the surface of the vessel with the edge of a scallop shell. Extralocal Types Marsh Island Incised Marsh Island Incised is p art of the better known Fort Walton ceramic series of the Florida Northern Gulf coast (Figure 9a) O riginally defined by Gordon Willey (1949: 422 426, 466), Marsh Island incised and subsequent variations have been refined and developed with some confusion among researchers (Marinaan and White 2007, Scarry 1985). It is characterized by finely incised lin es parallel to the vessel rim.

PAGE 25

25 28 cm Figure 7 Grassy Hole Pinched Rim Figure 8 Trestle Point Shell Impressed body sherd

PAGE 26

26 a. 36 cm b. c. Figure 9 Extralocal Types : (a ) Marsh Island Incised rim; (b ) Swift Creek Complicated Stamped body sherd; (c ) St. Johns Check Stamped rim.

PAGE 27

27 Swift Creek Complicated Stamped One small piece of Swift Creek Co mplicated Stamped was found in Feature 1 at Parnell (Figure 9b) The surface treatment is created by pressing a carved wooden paddle into the exterior of the vessel, often overstamping and smoothing the pattern. St. Johns Plain, Simple Stamped and Chec k Stamped The St. Johns ceramic assemblage is characterized by the distin ctive sponge spicule paste and chalky feel of the sherds. St. Johns complicated Stamped wa s created by using a check ca rved wooden paddle and pressing into the outside of the wet v essel. St. Johns simple stamped is also created with a wooden paddle but with carved perpendicular lines, often overlapping. Ceramic Analysis of Feature 1 Feature 1 and associated test units (Figure 2, 10) at the Parnell Site (8CO326) contained 5,481 spe cimens identifiable as pottery sherds. This sample of pottery represents the largest stratigraphically excavated example of a Suwannee Valley series assemblage to date. Feature 1 adds a sample of Suwannee Valley pottery that is unprecedented in its size and the apparent rapidness of its deposition.. Based on the number of identifiable sherds, the types of pottery remain consistent after 40 cmbd, which is considered Feature 1 (Figure 11 ). There do not seem to be significant trends in the vertical distribut ion of types of pottery within the feature. It may be that Feature 1 is a single depositional event and therefore is considered a single context, regardless of excavation unit or level. There were 12 identifiable types included within the Parnell sample Excluding all diminutive and unidentifiable sherds, 2,756 sherds were assigned to type and represent the sample (n) for the calculated percentages. Of the 12 types, four made

PAGE 28

28 Figure 10. Test units associated with Feature 1 at Parnell mound (8CO326).

PAGE 29

29 *Only the four main types and variants of pottery which make up over 90 percent of the sample were included in the graph. DE=Lochloosa Punctated ICH=Fig Springs Roughened var. Ichetucknee LP=Lochloosa Punctat ed PCM=Prairie Cord Marked SF=Fig Springs Roughened var. Santa Fe STP=sand tempered plain Figure 11 Frequency seriation of number of pottery sherds based on cm below datum and type.

PAGE 30

30 up 93.07% of the total number of identifiable sherds (n=2,565). Those types included Lochloosa Punctated including (48.98%, n=1,350), Fig Spring Roughened, including Ichetucknee var. and Santa Fe var. (19.74%, n=544), sand tempered plain (19.52%, n=538) and Prairie Cord Marked (4.83%, n=133). The rest of t he identified sherds included sand tempered check stamped (1.12%, n=31), Grassy Hole Pinched (0.4 0%, n=11), Marsh Island Incised (0.18%, n=5), Swift Creek Complicated Stamped (0.04%, n=1), St. Johns Check Stamped (0.18%, n=5), Swift Creek Complicated Stam ped (0.04%, n=1), St. Johns Check Stamped (0.76%, n=21), St. Johns eroded (1.60%, n=44), St. Johns Simple Stamped (0.11%, n=3) and Trestle Point Shell Impressed (0.65%, n=18). Together these sherds make up a total minority percentage of 6.93% (n=191) of the sample. From this type percentage breakdown, there is already a clear contrast with the other ceramic assemblages at known Suwannee Valley sites (Table 2). At both Fig Springs and Suwannee Sinks, Fig Springs Roughened is the most frequent type of pot tery while at Parnell Mound almost half of the typed sherds were Lochloosa Punctated. Less than twenty percent of the pottery at Feature 1 is Figs Springs Roughened. Fig Springs Roughened occurs at much higher frequency making up 45.5 percent at Suwanee Sinks and 41.4 percent at Fig Springs. The ceramic assemblage of Feature 1 at Parnell also contains 261 typed rim sherds. From those rim sherds 162 could be further analyzed for orifice diameter, vessel thickness and vessel shape (Table 3 4 ). Lochlo osa Punctated accounts for nearly half of the sample of orifice diameters (n=126). Recorded orifice for the typed rim vessels range from 18 to 42 cm in diameter. Lochloosa Punctated vessels have the largest average orifice at 35.5 cm on average, excludin g Marsh Island Incised and St. Johns Check Stamped due to low sample size (both n=2).

PAGE 31

31 T able 2 Comparison of relative frequencies of types among known Suwannee Valley sites. Site name and number Suwannee Sinks 8SU377 Fig Springs 8CO1 Parnell Mound 8C0326 Type Count Percent of Diagnostic Sherds Count Percent of Diagnostic Sherds Count Perce nt of Diagnostic Sherds Fig Springs Roughened Var. Ichetucknee Var. Santa Fe Var. unspecified 106 24 57 25.8% 5.8% 13.9% 37 3 32 21.3% 1.7% 18.4% 178 366 6.5% 13.3% Lochloosa Punctated Var. Lochloosa Var. unspecifie d Var. Devil's Eye 60 78 14.6% 19.0% 26 15 14.9% 8.6% 1326 24 48.11 0.87% Prairie Cord Marked 4 1.0% 42 24.1% 133 4.83% Prairie Fabric Impressed Var. Lime Springs Var. Unspecified 13 2 3.2% 0.5% 2 1.1% Trestle Point Shell Impressed 8 1.9% 18 0.65% Untyped Check Stamped 48 11.7% 31 1.1% Ft. Walton Varieties 3 0.7% 1 0.6 % 5 0.18% Alachua Cob Marked 9 5.2% Sand Tempered Plain 39 14.7% 538 19.52% St. Johns Varieties 2 0.8% 25 4.5% Grassy Hole Pinched 1 0.4% Swift Creek Complicated Stamped 1 0.04%

PAGE 32

32 Table 3. Feature 1 rim orifice and thickness average, standard deviation and range by type. Rim Type Count Orifice Average (cm) Standard Deviation for Orific e Average (cm) Orifice Diameter Range (cm) Vessel Thickness Average (mm) Vessel Thickness Range (mm) Sand tempered Check Stamped 3 18 7.60 Grassy Hole Pinched 2 22 8.85 8.7 9 Fig Springs Roughened Var. Ichetucknee Var. Santa Fe 17 31 32.7 5 26.8 9.46 9.30 16 50 18 40 8.85 8. 24 3.3 10.3 6.7 10.4 Lochloosa Punctated Var. Devil's Eye 66 6 35.8 28 9.43 9.92 18 50 18 38 6.45 6.78 4.4 8.9 6.2 7.1 Marsh Island Incised 2 36 5.70 5.6 5.8 Prairie Cord Marked 14 25 9.06 20 38 6. 89 4.9 7.9 St. Johns Check Stamped 2 42 16.97 7.10 St. Johns Plain 3 25 4.24 22 28 6.30 6.2 6.4 Sand Tempered Plain 22 31.3 9.39 22 40 6.96 6.1 8.2

PAGE 33

33 Tab le 4. Vessel form and orifice diameter by pottery type from Feature 1 and associated test units. Type /Variant Vessel Class Vessel Form Count (n=63) Orifice Diameter(s) Fig Springs Roughened Var. Santa Fe Restricted Bowl/Jar 8 18, 24, 24 Unrestricted Bowl/Jar 1 28 Lochloosa Punctated Restricted Bowl/Jar 6 18, 26, 30, 30, 26, 28 Bowl 9 30 32, 33, 36, 38, 38, 40, 40, 42 Unrestricted Bowl/Jar 1 30 Bowl 5 26, 42, 48, 50, 50 sand tempered plain Restricted Bowl/Jar 1 22 Bowl 2 34, 40 Unrestricted Bowl 1 34 Collared Jar 2 30, 30 Fig Springs Roughened Var. Ichetucknee Restricted Bowl/jar 2 Jar 1 16 Bowl 7 40, 30, 30, 30, 50, 50, 50 Lochloosa Punctated Var. Devil's Eye Restricted Bowl/jar 1 28 Bowl 1 38 Unrest ricted Bowl/jar 2 16, 18 Marsh Island Incised Restricted Bowl 1 36 Grassy Hole Pinched Restricted Bowl/jar 1 28 Unrestricted Bowl 1 32 sand tempered check stamped Restricted Bowl/jar 1 St. Johns Plain Restricted Bowl/Jar 1 28 Prairie Cord Ma rked Restricted Bowl/Jar 7 20, 20, 20, 26, 28, 28, 38 St. Johns Check Stamped Restricted Bowl 1 42

PAGE 34

34 The frequency distribution of rim orifice diameter shows non symmetric, bimodal peaks over 30 and 40 cm (Figure 12). These large orifice diameters represe nt the two most frequent vessel sizes in Feature 1. The vessels at Parnell mound are larger on average than the vessels from Fig Springs and Suwannee Sinks. Unfortunately, at the Fig Springs site, rims were considered rare and could not be used as a com parative in the analysis (Worth 1992b: 194). At Suwannee Sinks, the average vessel size is 22.13 cm (n=64) which makes the pots at Parnell mound on average over 60 percent larger than the vessels at Suwannee Sinks. Due to lack of sufficient raw pottery da ta, no test could be executed for statistical significance comparing rim orifices from Parnell mound with Suwannee Sinks and Fig Springs (Heller et al. 2011, Weisman 1992). no test could be executed for statistical significance comparing rim orifices fro m Parnell mound with Suwannee Sinks and Fig Springs (Heller et al. 2011, Weisman 1992). In addition to rim thickness and diameter, vessel form was also analyzed from rim profiles. Fortunately, the pottery sample from Parnell mound produced relatively la rge rim sherds which could be used to infer vessel form (Table 4). For my analysis, I used the definitions by Gordon Willey (1949:496 506) for differentiating vessel form. From the sample (n=63), five different vessel forms were identified. The most freq uent vessel form among the different pottery types was a large restricted bowl which represented approximately 55 percent of the sample. A restricted bowl as defined by Willey (1949:496 ) is a vessel whose maximum orifice diameter is greater than it is wi de with incurved walls and a maximum diameter below the lip. Larger restricted bowls may serve a cooking function because of the reduction of heat loss and spillage of contents (Hally 1986: 288).

PAGE 35

35 Figure 12 Frequency distribution of number of rims b ased on orifice diameter (cm). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 46 48 50 Count (n=59) Orifice Diameter (cm)

PAGE 36

36 Eventful Feasting I believe this large ceramic assemblage, together in association with the contents of Feature 1 including associated deer, ritual deposits, extralocal and local, materials creates a strong argument for a fea sting event that occurred at Parnell Mound. Feasting or eventful, large scale food consumption can be expressed in the archaeological record in a number of ways. According to according to Nerissa Russell (2012:377 392) eight hallmarks of these activities are: (1) Associations with nearby ritual places, (2) large quantity of fauna deposited in a high density event, (3) large vessels and/or other large scale eating materials, (4) low species diversity, (5) the choice cuts of proportions and larger portions of fauna, (6) less processing of remains, (7) display of the feast through specific cooking methods like roasting and (8) speedy burial of all remnants of the large scale event including material culture and fauna remains. Neill J. Wallis (in press) consi ders Parnell mound representative of all factors defined by Russell (2012) of eventful, large scale food consumption. Large group food consumption defined by John H. Blitz (1993a) in his analysis of the Mississippi period Lubbub Creek mound (in Alabama) w as identified by (1) larger orifice vessels in the mound than the village and (2) less variation in orifice size in the village than in the mound. Bimodal frequency distributions of rim orifice data similar to Parnell mound (Figure 13) have also been expre ssed in mound contexts analyzed by Blitz (1993b). If the Suwannee Sinks assemblage is considered representative of a village, Parnell Feature 1 appears to have an extraordinary assemblage, with, on average, 60 percent larger vessels and more variety of ori fice diameter, and presumably, size. Direct evidence for feasting has been interpreted as being present at Parnell by Wallis and Bles sing ( 2013) in the massive deposition of over 100

PAGE 37

37 The frequently used dichotomy between the sacred mound and the secular village forces a mutually exclusive comparative approach of ceramic assemblages. Food consumption can be considered a quotidian activity but has the po tential to become a ritualized event creating/reinforcing social ties, ranks and regional connections (Wallis in press). In addition to previously mentioned evidence of feasting, Parnell mound also demonstrates potential ritual deposits of quartz crystal, red ochre, and the presence of species like bear and dog. Almost half of the ceramic assemblage found in Feature 1 is large Lochloosa Punctated vessels suggesting a 2012). The high frequency of Lochloosa Punctated at Parnell mound may be due to functionality of the type itself in feasting contexts. It could also be a potential temporal or spatial marker. This seems unlikely because of how unique Parnell mound compa res to the contemporaneous approximately 45 k nearby Suwannee Sinks site. Lochloosa Punctated may also be a type specific to the feasting event at Parnell. All of these potential markers and functions of Lochloosa Punctated are not mutually exclusive and the high frequency is most likely due to a combination of all of these explanations. Like the problematic dichotomy described by Wallis (in press), Parnell mound represents a quotidian village performing a ritual event and a utilitarian pottery type transf orming into a potential sacred ware of feasting. Conclusions Much of Suwannee Valley culture remains to be defined due to a lack of academic research and substantial data. The pottery of Feature 1 provides a snapshot into Suwannee Valley culture. In com parison to surrounding contemporaneous village sites, Parnell Mound represents a higher density of pottery, different frequency among types and much larger orifice diameters.

PAGE 38

38 The pottery analysis adds to, and supports the evidence of ritual, eventful feas ting at Parnell Mound while simultaneously clarifies the previously cloudy definition of Suwannee Valley culture. This assemblage has permitted a greater refinement of the definition of Suwannee Valley ceramic and vessel types. More specifically, two of the three variants defined by Worth (1992b) as Lochloosa Punctated, Grassy Flats and Lochloosa occur frequently on the same sherd and do not exist as separate categories in the Parnell mound sample. Future investigations of Suwannee Valley culture need mo re comparative data and analysis to move beyond basic descriptions of material culture. The Parnell Mound area offers vast opportunities for new data including additional comparative analysis with non feature related test units and the adjacent Buck site (8CO1201). From the Parnell region alone, petrographic, residue, vessel typology and breakage analyses remain as potential sets of data to be interpreted and added to the definition of Suwannee Valley culture. With future comparative collections, more qua ntifiable descriptions of Suwannee Valley pottery types and variants may be redefined. More quantified definitions will assist future researchers in a more objective identification of Suwannee Valley ceramics. Once Suwannee Valley culture is more easily r ecognizable, the potentially fluid boundaries could stretch past North Florida. Over 116 kilometers away, the warm, Gulf water Florida bay scallop is commonly used in Suwannee commonly Mexico to interpret whether Suwannee Valley culture extends to the mouth of the Suwannee River. The roast ing pit (Feature 1) at Parnell m ound is an un precedented snapshot in Suwannee Valley culture revealing a distinct pottery assemblage of over 5,000 sherds, extralocal materials

PAGE 39

39 and evidence for ritual deposit ion. If the Su wannee Valley culture is to be well defined temporally, spatially and materiall y larger sample sizes, multiple comparative sites and a resolute hesitation of assigning new types, modes and cultural phases before acquiring large samples is required In future research, it would be advantageous to look at Suwannee Valley ceramics in a greater temporal, geographic and quantified manner.

PAGE 40

40 a cknowledgements I am extremely thankful to Dr. Neill Wallis for allowing me the opportunity to analyze the pottery collected from Parnell mound durin g the 2011 2012 field seasons. Without his gui dance and confidence in my research of Suwannee Valley culture this paper would not be possible. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Ken Sassaman for sharing multiple opportunities and advice throughout my undergraduate career. for prehistoric archaeology was the inspiration to change my major to Anthropology. I trust he will continue to inspire many more students like me Thank you, Micah Mons for your open ear and discussion of my ideas from the beginning and for your help navi gating and locating necessary resources. I would also like to thank my parents for their unconditi onal support, love and interest

PAGE 41

41 Bibliography Ashley, Keith H. 2002 On the Periphery of the Early Mississippian World: Looking within and Beyond Northe astern Florida. Southeastern Archaeology 21: 162 Blitz, John H. 1993 a Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58: 80 96. 1993b Ancient Chiefdoms of the Tombigbee. University of Alabama Press, Tuscalo osa, in press. Fay C.W., R.J. Neves and G.P. Pardue 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of costal fishes and invertebrates (Mid Atlantic) bay scallop. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Servies, FWS/O BS 82/11.12. US Army Corp of Engineers, TR EL 82 4. Hally, David J. 1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51:288 Heller, Nathanael, William P. Barse, Haley Holt, Sherman W. Holt III, Charlotte Pevny, Brain Ostahowski, Sean Coughlin, Raegen Buckley 2011 Phase III Archaeological Data Recorver at Site SU377, Suwannee County, Florida. R. Goodwin and Associates, Inc. Submitted to the Florida Master Site File. Survey # 18748. Johnson, Kenneth W., and Bruce C. Nelson 1990 The Utina: Seriations and Chronology. Florida Anthropologist 43:48 62. Leal, J.H. Bivalves Bailey Matthews Shell Museum, Florida http://www.shellmuseum.org/BivalvesLeal.pdf accessed March 2, 2013 Marrian, Rochelle A and Nancy Mar ie White 2007 Modeling Fort Walton Culture in Northwest Florida Vol. 26. No.2. Southeastern Archaeology. Milanich, Jerald T. 1971 The Alachua Tradition of North Central Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Anthropology and History, no. 17, Gainesville. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 42

42 Russell, Nerissa 2012 Social Zooarchaeology: Humans and Animals in Prehistory Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Scarry, John F. 1985 A Proposed Revi sion of the Fort Walton Ceramic Typology: A Type Variety System. The Florida Anthropologist. Vol. 38, No.3, pp 224 226. Sears, William H. 1973 The Sacred and the Secular in Prehistoric Ceramics. In Variations in Anthropology: Essays in Honor of John McG regor edited by a. J. D. D. Lathrap, pp. 31 42. Illinois Archaeological Survey, Urbana. Sigler Lavelle, Brenda J. 1980 On the non random distribution of Weeden Island period sites in North Florida. Southeastern Archaeology Conference Bulletin 22:22 29. Wallis, Neill J. In press. Ritualized Practices of the Suwannee Valley Culture in North Florida. In New Histories of Pre Columbian Florida edited by Neill Wallis and Asa Randall. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Wallis, Neill J. and Megga n E. Blessing Depositing a Suwannee Valley Feast: Feature 1 at Parnell Mound. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 4, 2013. Weisman, Brent Richards 1992 Excavations on the Franciscan Frontier: Archaeology at the Fig Springs Mission .University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Worth, John E n.d. The Prehistory of Mission San Martin de Ayacuto: An Archaeological Exploration of the Suwannee Valley Culture, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, 1990. Draft manuscript on file with the author. 1992a The Timucuan missions of Spanish Florida and the r ebellion of 1656. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 43

43 1992b Revised Aboriginal Ceramic Typology for the Timucua Mission Province, A.D. 1597 1656. Appendix D to Excavations on the Franciscan Fro ntier: Archaeology at the Fig Springs Mission by Brent R. Weisman, pp. 188 205. 1998 The Timucuan Chiefdoms of Spanish Florida, Volume I: Assimilation University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 2012 An Overview of the Suwannee Valley Culture In Late Prehistoric Florida: Archaeology at the Edge of the Mississippian World by Keith Ashley and Nancy Marie White, pp. 149 171. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

PAGE 44

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 44 Fea. # Zone Depth Level TU # Number of sherds Paste form Surface treatment Type Weight Orifice diameter % Rim thick Notes 0 40 CMBD A TU 10 2 SAND/ SPIC RIM PUNCTATED LP 3.8 0 40 CMBD A TU 10 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 2.5 0 40 CMBD A TU 10 6 FINE SAND RIM PLAIN STP 21.7 0 40 CMBD A TU 11 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED DE 13.7 7 0 40 CMBD A TU 11 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 8.3 0 40 CMBD A TU 11 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 2 0 40 CMBD A TU 11 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 1 0 40 CMBD A TU 12 20 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 66.9 0 40 CMBD A TU 12 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 9.3 0 40 CMBD A TU 12 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 0.5 0 40 CMBD A TU 12 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 3.7 0 40 CMBD A TU 13 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 39.6 50 2.5 9.5 0 40 CMBD A TU 13 3 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 47.7 48 4 8.2 0 40 CMBD A TU 13 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED PCM 23.4 20 7 7.7 0 40 CMBD A TU 13 4 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 7.1 19 60 CMBD A TU 14 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 8.2

PAGE 45

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 45 19 60 CMBD A TU 14 2 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 10.9 19 60 CMBD A TU 14 3 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 9.4 0 40 CMBD A T U 15 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 8 0 40 CMBD A TU 16 3 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 4 0 20 CMBD A TU 17 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 3.7 0 20 CMBD A TU 18 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 4.9 0 20 CMBD A TU 18 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 1.8 0 40 CMBD A T U 9 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 17.5 0 40 CMBD A TU 9 1 SAND RIM CORD MARKED PCM 3.3 50 60 CMBD B TU 10 2 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 17.3 50 60 CMBD B TU 11 5 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 14.8 50 60 CMBD B TU 12 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 36.9 30 5 7.5 50 60 CMBD B TU 12 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED PCM 31.4 38 6 7.9 50 60 CMBD B TU 12 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 7.9 50 60 CMBD B TU 13 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 45.2 26 4 6 CROSS MEND TU 13, LVL D, LP RIM 50 60 CMBD B TU 13 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 1.6 60 70 CMBD B TU 14 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED GHP 6.6 9

PAGE 46

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 46 60 70 CMBD B TU 14 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 30.7 48 5 6.9 60 70 CMBD B TU 14 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED TPSI 1.7 50 60 CMBD B TU 15 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 21.7 26 4 7.5 30 40 CMBD B TU 17 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 2.4 30 40 CMBD B TU 18 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 4.6 30 40 CMBD B TU 18 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 4.3 30 40 CMBD B TU 18 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 0.6 50 60 CMBD B TU 9 1 SAND RIM CHECK STAMPED CHECK STAMP UI D 1.6 5.7 50 60 CMBD B TU 9 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 8.8 50 60 CMBD B TU 9 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 19.4 50 60 CMBD B TU 9 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 9.4 10.4 50 60 CMBD B TU 9 1 SPIC RIM PLAIN SJP 6.4 60 70 CMBD C TU 10 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 29.8 8 60 70 CMBD C TU 10 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 3.7 60 70 CMBD C TU 11 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 5.7 60 70 CMBD C TU 13 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 4.6 60 70 CMBD C TU 13 3 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 16.1 60 70 CMBD C T U 13 1 SPIC RIM ERODED SJE 1.3

PAGE 47

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 47 60 70 CMBD C TU 13 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 3.9 70 80 CMBD C TU 14 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 19.7 30 4 8.2 70 80 CMBD C TU 14 1 SAND RIM IMP RESSED PCM 11.4 7.8 70 80 CMBD C TU 14 3 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 11.8 40 50 CMBD C TU 17 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 3.7 40 50 CMBD C TU 17 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED PCM 9.5 40 50 CMBD C TU 17 1 SAND RIM PLAIN PLAIN UID 1.5 40 50 CMBD C TU 18 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 13.2 28 5 5.2 40 50 CMBD C TU 18 1 SAN D RIM IMPRESSED PCM 1.2 40 50 CMBD C TU 18 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 6.3 40 50 CMBD C TU 18 2 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 4.4 60 70 CMBD C TU 9 1 SPIC RIM PUNCTATED LP 2.5 60 70 CMBD C TU 9 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 1.9 60 70 CMBD C TU 9 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 28.2 34 5 6.3 60 70 CMBD C TU 9 2 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 3.2 70 80 CMBD D TU 10 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 28.8 24 6 9.8 70 80 CMBD D TU 11 3 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 28.5 70 80 CMBD D TU 11 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 0.5 70 80 CMBD D TU 13 2 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 7.4

PAGE 48

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 48 70 80 CMBD D TU 13 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 48.8 26 2 5.7 CROSS MEND TU 13, LVL B, LP RIM 70 80 CMBD D TU 13 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 72.2 38 9 8.8 70 80 CMBD D TU 13 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 6.5 5.7 70 80 CMBD D TU 13 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 17.3 70 80 CMBD D TU 13 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED TPSI 1.9 70 80 CMBD D TU 13 2 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 5.1 80 90 CMBD D TU 14 4 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 17.6 80 90 CMBD D TU 14 1 SAND R IM PLAIN STP 4.6 70 80 CMBD D TU 16 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 11.9 50 60 CMBD D TU 17 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 8.1 50 60 CMBD D TU 17 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 9.1 8 50 60 CMBD D TU 18 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 9.7 70 80 CMBD D TU 9 2 SPIC RIM PUNCTATED LP 5.7 70 80 CMBD D TU 9 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 3.9 70 80 CMBD D TU 9 1 MEDIU M SAND RIM PLAIN STP 63 30 12. 5 6.5 CROSS MENDS WITH TU 9, LVL E STP RIM

PAGE 49

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 49 70 80 CMBD D TU 9 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED TPSI 7.9 70 80 CMBD D TU 9 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 2.1 80 90 CMBD E TU 10 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 63.8 50 3 8.7 80 90 CMBD E TU 10 2 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 7.3 80 90 CMBD E TU 10 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 5.2 4.9 80 90 CMBD E TU 10 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 7 4.4 80 90 CMBD E TU 11 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 2 80 90 CMBD E TU 12 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED DE 50.8 28 7 6.9 80 90 CMBD E TU 12 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 4.6 80 90 CMBD E TU 13 4 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 37.2 42 3 8.2 80 90 CMBD E TU 13 1 S PIC RIM PLAIN SJP 13.8 28 5 6.2 80 90 CMBD E TU 13 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 1.5 90 100 CMBD E TU 14 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 11.7 6.7 90 100 CMBD E TU 14 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 6.8 90 100 CMBD E TU 14 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 6.4 7 9 0 100 CMBD E TU 14 3 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 12.3 90 100 CMBD E TU 14 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED TPSI 5.6 80 90 CMBD E TU 16 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 260.3 50 17 8.9 80 90 CMBD E TU 16 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 5.1

PAGE 50

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 50 60 70 CMBD E TU 18 1 SAND RIM S TAMPED CS 6.9 60 70 CMBD E TU 18 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 18.2 6.5 60 70 CMBD E TU 18 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 11.8 80 90 CMBD E TU 9 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 14 10.3 80 90 CMBD E TU 9 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 32.8 30 12. 5 6.5 CROSS MENDS WITH TU 9, LVL D STP RIM 80 90 CMBD E TU 9 2 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 1.6 90 100 CMBD F TU 10 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 4.8 90 100 CMBD F TU 10 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 54.4 16 6 8.5 90 100 CMBD F TU 10 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 11.4 7.1 90 100 CMBD F TU 10 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 14.8 7.7 90 100 CMBD F TU 10 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 7.6 90 100 CMBD F TU 11 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 5.8 90 100 CMBD F TU 12 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 78.8 16 10 8.9 A 90 100 CMBD F TU 13 1 SAND RI M IMPRESSED PCM 14.1 26 5 6.6 B 90 100 CMBD F TU 13 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 5 1 100 110 CMBD F TU 14 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 54.7 40 4 8.7

PAGE 51

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 51 1 100 110 CMBD F TU 14 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED PCM 29.9 20 8 5.9 100 110 CMBD F TU 14 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 24.4 32 7 6.1 1 100 110 CMBD F TU 14 4 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 27.7 6.5 90 100 CMBD F TU 15 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED DE 11.7 38 4 7.1 90 100 CMBD F TU 15 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 20.9 42 4 6.2 90 100 CMBD F TU 15 2 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 15.3 90 100 CMBD F TU 16 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 26.2 32 5 6.8 80 90 CMBD F TU 17 1 SAND RIM STAMPED CS 16.1 18 4 7.6 80 90 CMBD F TU 17 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 14.5 34 5 5.4 80 90 CMBD F TU 17 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 23 40 3 9.2 80 90 CMBD F TU 17 2 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 3.1 80 90 CMBD F TU 18 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 2.3 90 100 CMBD F TU 9 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 6 90 100 CMBD F TU 9 1 SAND RIM CORD MARKED PCM 7.8 5.1 90 100 CMBD F TU 9 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 64.1 28 10 10.3 90 100 CMBD F TU 9 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 11.1 7.1 90 100 CMBD F TU 9 6 MEDIU M SAND RIM PLAIN STP 4.3

PAGE 52

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 52 100 110 CMBD G TU 10 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 3.6 A 100 110 CMBD G TU 11 5 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 46.3 40 3 8.8 A 100 110 CMBD G TU 11 1 SAND RIM INCISED MII 22.9 36 3 5.8 CROSS MEND TU 17, LVL H, FEA. 1 MII RIM A 100 110 CMBD G TU 11 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 10.7 A 100 110 CMBD G TU 11 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 14.4 20 7 6.1 B 100 110 CMBD G TU 12 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 30.5 18 1 0 100 110 CMBD G TU 13 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 2.3 110 120 CMBD G TU 14 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 6.1 100 110 CMBD G TU 15 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 7.8 90 100 CMBD G TU 17 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 14.9 90 100 CMBD G TU 17 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED PCM 20.9 20 12. 5 7.5 90 100 CMBD G TU 18 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED DE 20.7 18 10 6.2 90 100 CMBD G TU 18 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 9.2

PAGE 53

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 53 90 100 CMBD G TU 18 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 23.4 24 6 7.1 100 110 CMBD G TU 9 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED L P 7.1 100 110 CMBD G TU 9 2 SPIC RIM PLAIN SJP 22.9 22 10 6.4 100 110 CMBD G TU 9 3 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 7.9 110 120 CMBD H TU 11 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED GHP 18.3 22 5 8.7 110 120 CMBD H TU 11 1 SAND RIM STAMPED STAMPED UID 15.4 6.3 1 120 130 CMBD H TU 14 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 56.6 30 13 5.8 100 110 CMBD H TU 17 3 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 25.3 100 110 CMBD H TU 17 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 19 26 12. 5 5.1 100 110 CMBD H TU 17 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 34 30 4 6 1 100 110 C MBD H TU 17 1 SAND RIM INCISED MII 17.3 5.6 CROSS MEND TU 11, LVL G, ZONE A, MII RIM 100 110 CMBD H TU 17 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 12.2

PAGE 54

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 54 1 100 110 CMBD H TU 17 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 7.4 100 110 CMBD H TU 17 1 SPIC RIM STAMPED SJCS 24.2 42 4 7 .1 100 110 CMBD H TU 17 2 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 3.1 1 100 110 CMBD H TU 17 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 2.1 100 110 CMBD H TU 18 2 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 12.6 100 110 CMBD H TU 18 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 7.2 5.4 100 110 CMBD H TU 18 1 S AND RIM PUNCTATED LP 21.3 40 4 4.6 100 110 CMBD H TU 18 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 90 18 12 6.7 100 110 CMBD H TU 18 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 9.9 6.8 100 110 CMBD H TU 18 1 SPIC RIM STAMPED SJCS 10.1 100 110 CMBD H TU 18 1 SPIC RIM ERODED SJE 7.7 100 110 CMBD H TU 18 2 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 1.9 110 120 H TU 9 1 SAND RIM CORD MARKED PCM 14.9 20 6 7.6

PAGE 55

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 55 CMBD 120 130 CMBD I TU 11 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 1.3 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 17 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 61.5 30 4 7.7 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 17 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 17.8 50 3 5.8 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 17 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 14.4 30 3 4.7 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 17 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED PCM 6.4 4.9 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 17 2 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 16.1 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 1 7 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 0.5 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 18 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED DE 20.5 6.7 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 18 2 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 43.9 10.1 110 120 CMBD I TU 18 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 16.1 36 3 6.6 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 18 1 SAND RIM PUN CTATED LP 5.7 5.8 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 18 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 20.9 40 3 8.2

PAGE 56

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 56 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 18 1 SAND RIM PLAIN STP 35.1 22 5 7.6 110 120 CMBD I TU 18 1 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 1 1 110 120 CMBD I TU 18 3 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 6.7 120 130 CMBD I TU 9 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 5.2 120 130 CMBD J TU 17 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 10.2 120 130 CMBD J TU 17 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 4 1 120 130 CMBD J TU 17 2 SAND RIM UID PLAIN 6.9 120 130 CMBD J TU 18 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 6.1 130 140 CMBD K TU 17 1 SAND RIM STAMPED CS 15.2 7.6 1 75 120 CMBD TU 11 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 13.5 7.8 1 75 120 CMBD TU 11 1 SAND RIM IMPRESSED PCM 124.8 28 22 1 75 120 CMBD TU 11 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED / SCRAPED PUNCTAT ED UID 22.2 26 5 8.5 1 75 120 CMBD TU 11 2 SAND RIM STAMPED PUNCTAT ED UID 6 1 75 120 CMBD TU 11 2 SAND RIM SCRAPED SF 21

PAGE 57

Appendix A Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 57 1 75 120 CMBD TU 9 1 SAND RIM SCRAPED ICH 39.4 30 3 3.3 1 75 120 CMBD TU 9 3 SPIC RIM PUNCTATED LP 31.4 46 5.9 1 75 120 CMBD TU 9 1 SAND RIM PUNCTATED LP 4.1 1 75 120 CMBD TU 9 1 SAND RIM CORD MARKED PCM 44.3 28 14 7.9 1 75 120 CMBD TU 9 1 MEDIU M SAND RIM PLAIN STP 2.3 Abbreviations for Pottery Types CS check stamped DE var. Devil's Eye GHP Grassy Hole Pin ched ICH var. Ichetucknee LP Lochloosa Punctated MII Marsh Island Incised PCM Prairie Cord Marked SF var. Santa Fe SJCS St. Johns Check Stamped SJE St. Johns eroded SJP St. Johns Plain STP sand tempered plain TPSI Trestle Point Shell Impressed U ID unidentified

PAGE 58

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 58

PAGE 59

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 59

PAGE 60

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 60

PAGE 61

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 61

PAGE 62

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 62

PAGE 63

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 63

PAGE 64

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 64

PAGE 65

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 65

PAGE 66

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 6 6

PAGE 67

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 67

PAGE 68

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 68

PAGE 69

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 69

PAGE 70

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 70

PAGE 71

Appendix B Analyzed pottery rims from Feature 1 and associated contexts. 71