Citation
Spanish and British subsistence strategies at St. Augustine, Florida, and Frederica, Georgia, between 1565 and 1783

Material Information

Title:
Spanish and British subsistence strategies at St. Augustine, Florida, and Frederica, Georgia, between 1565 and 1783
Creator:
Reitz, Elizabeth Jean, 1946-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xii, 359 leaves : ill., maps ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Animals ( jstor )
Biomass ( jstor )
Birds ( jstor )
Cattle ( jstor )
Fish ( jstor )
Meats ( jstor )
Sharks ( jstor )
Species ( jstor )
Swine ( jstor )
Taxa ( jstor )
Animal remains (Archaeology) -- Georgia -- Frederica ( lcsh )
Anthropology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Anthropology -- UF ( lcsh )
Human beings -- Effect of environment on ( lcsh )
City of St. Augustine ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 341-357.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Elizabeth Jean Reitz.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier:
023186140 ( ALEPH )
06025237 ( OCLC )
AAK8352 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text









SPANISH AND BRITISH SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AT ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA,
AND FREDERICA, GEORGIA, BETWEEN 1565 and 1783











BY

ELIZABETH JEAN REITZ


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1979














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Many people have assisted in this effort. The members of my commit-

tee, Elizabeth S. Wing, Kathleen A. Deagan, Charles H. Fairbanks, Maxine

L. Margolis, S. Jeffrey K. Wilkerson, and Ronald G. Wolff, have individ-

ually and collectively contributed to the quality of the research pre-

sented here. Due to their special impact on the course of my career I

wish to thank specifically two of these individuals. In my first

anthropology course twelve years ago Dr. Fairbanks interested me in

human behavior and Dr. Wing helped me focus that interest on subsistence

studies. Their advice and assistance has been greatly appreciated. I

consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to study with them.

Numerous other people have assisted in vital ways with the produc-

tion of this study. The following individuals have read portions of the

manuscript: Erik J. Bitterbaum, George H. Burgess, Thomas Chase, Peter

A. Meylan, Robert W. Simons, and Susan L. Scott. I appreciate their

efforts to improve the quality of the data and the presentation. Also

Dr. John F. Anderson, Dr. Amy Bushnell, Nancy Halliday, Dr. Stephen R.

Humphrey, Dr. Pejaver V. Rao, Dr. Robert L. Reddish, and Dr. Henry R.

Wilson provided needed assistance on difficult facets of the research.

Robert W. Taylor permitted access to his data on gopher tortoise weights.

I am grateful to Arlene Fradkin, Kathleen F. Johnson, L. Jill Loucks,

Henry M. Miller, Steven Ruple, Gary Shapiro, Erika H. Simons, and Robin

L. Smith for access to their unpublished faunal reports. I have also









benefited from conversations with Dr. Kathleen M.Byrd, Dr. Michael C.

Scardaville, and Sylvia Scudder. A special thanks go to Greg

Cunningham and Steven Wing for their help counting the faunal materials,

and to Pamela R. Johnson for typing the tables and text of this disser-

tation.

For faunal materials, financial aid, and work space several people

and institutions are to be thanked. Robert H. Steinbach as Director of

Research and Development, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board,

permitted access to many of the faunal collections reported here and also

assisted in the interpretation of the data. Dr. Kathleen A. Deagan

excavated many of the faunal collections and provided information on

these sites. Theresa A. Singleton discussed SA26-1, the Lorenzo Josef

de Leon site, with me. Nicholas Honerkamp made available the faunal

materials he excavated from the Thomas Hird lot at Fort Frederica

National Monument, as well as answered numerous questions about the site.

John Bostwick assisted with information on the Plaza II well and the

British Period trash pit from SA7-4. The faculty of the Florida State

Museum of the University of Florida graciously provided unlimited access

to their facilities as well as financial support. The Department of

Anthropology of the University of Florida also provided financial assis-

tance, not to mention academic instruction. Faunal analysis for SA36-4

was funded by Florida Board of Regents STAR grant #77-081 to the Historic

St. Augustine Preservation Board and the Department of Anthropology,

Florida State University.

Finally I wish to acknowledge the debt I owe to my parents, Dr. and

Mrs. Herman J. Reitz, and to my brother, Max. My mother's totally biased









opinion of my merits has been and will continue to be an inspiration.

My father and brother both read drafts of the dissertation and provided

valuable suggestions for its improvement. All three have endured with

good grace endless conversations about a topic far removed from their

own spheres of interest.

While all of the above individuals, and many who are not mentioned,

have assisted me in many ways with this work, they are not to be held

responsible for the interpretation. I hope they feel, however, that I

have benefited from their counsel.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .

LIST OF TABLES .

LIST OF FIGURES .

ABSTRACT .

PART ONE: BACKGROUND AND ELABORATION

CWADTCD 1. TMTDnnRIrTTnM


OF HYPOTHESES


Sn. 11 I L \ I .

Historical Archaeology and Human Ecology .

Hypotheses . .

Organization of Presentation .

CHAPTER 2: SOCIAL CLASS AND ANIMAL RESOURCE USE

Archaeology and Social Class .

Archaeological Examples .

Social Status in Spanish Florida .

Discussion . .

CHAPTER 3: AN ACCOUNT OF THE SPANISH AND BRITISH
OCCUPATION ON THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN, 1565-1783

A Brief History . .

The Spanish Florida Population .

The British Population .

Spanish Economics .

British Economics .

Discussion . .


ii

viii

ix

xi

1

2

3

9

11

13

13

15

18

20


23

. 23
. 29
29

* 31

. .33

S. 43

S 45









CHAPTER 4: CULTURAL AFFILIATION AND FOODWAYS ...... .49


Traditional British Foodways .

Traditional Spanish Foodways .

Old World Foodways .

Historic North American Foodways ..

Discussion .

CHAPTER 5: ANIMAL RESOURCES OF THE ATLANTIC

The Atlantic Coastal Plain .

St. Augustine and Frederica .

Species Accounts .

Notes on Capture Techniques .

Summary of Faunal Categories .

Discussion .

PART TWO: SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AT ST. AUGUSTINE

CHAPTER 6: MATERIALS AND METHODS .

Restatement of Hypotheses .

Materials . .

Methods . .

CHAPTER 7: ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS

The Collection as a Whole .

Discussion of Each Site by Cultural/Tempora

Discussion .

CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .

Cultural Affiliation and Local Resources

Social Class .

Political and Social Environment .

Conclusion .

vi


COASTAL PLAIN













AND FREDERICA












1 Division .
. .


. 49


53

55

55

60

62

62

68

70

98

100

101

103

104

104

106

111

128

128

136

158

159

159

160

161

166









APPENDICES.

A.- LIST OF FIELD SPECIMENS ANALYZED FROM EACH SITE 225

B. SPECIES LIST FOR EACH SITE .. .. 239

C. SUMMARY OF FAUNAL CATEGORIES 288

D. FREQUENCY OF BONE ELEMENTS FOR EACH SITE .... .305

E. REGRESSION DATA ..... ...... .. .. 319

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... ..-. .... ;..... ....-. ... .. 341

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .. ........ .... .. 358










LIST OF TABLES


Table 1. Chronology of Events .... .168

Table 2. Activity Period and Seasonal Patterns of Fauna
from the Coastal Plain .... .173

Table 3. Habitats and Habits of Fauna from the Coastal
Plain . .. ... 182

Table 4. Commensal Species .... .190

Table 5. Sites Discussed in Text, Listed by Cultural/
Temporal Division .. .192

Table 6. Regression Formulae Used in Estimating Biomass
of Animals Represented in Study ... .194

Table 7. Diversity and Equitability Values Based on MNI 195

Table 8. Diversity and Equitability Values Based on
Total Biomass ... .196

Table 9. Summary of Species Lists (Appendix B) 197

Table 10. Summary of Faunal Categories (Appendix C):
MNI, Totals, and Percentages 198

Table 11. Summary of Faunal Categories (Appendix C):
Biomass, Totals, and Percentages ... .200


viii










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1. Florida and the Caribbean (Cumbaa 1975) .. 202

Figure 2. The Atlantic Coastal Plain .... .203

Figure 3. The Environs of St. Augustine, Florida (after
Palmer 1862) . 204

Figure 4. The Environs of Frederica, Georgia (after
Honerkamp 1975) .... .205

Figure 5. The Town of St. Augustine, Florida (after
Puente 1764) ... ... 206

Figure 6. The Town of Frederica, Georgia (after
Honerkamp 1975) .... .207

Figure 7. MNI and Biomass Diversity and Equitability Ranges,
Means, and Standard Deviations for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections 208

Figure 8. Comparison of Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard
Deviations for the First Spanish Period and 18th
Century British Collections for Three Faunal
Categories, Biomass and MNI .. 210

Figure 9. Percentage Distribution of MNI from Six Faunal
Categories for Each Site ... .212

Figure 10. Percentage Distribution of Biomass from Six Faunal
Categories for Each Site .... .214

Figure 11. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Pig (Sus scrofa) Biomass and MNI for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections.
SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow 216

Figure 12. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
of Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Biomass and MNI
for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century
British Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow 217

Figure 13. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
of Cow (Bos taurus) Biomass and MNI for the
First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow ... .. 218









Figure 14. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
of Chicken (Gallus gallus) Biomass and MNI for
the First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow .... 219

Figure 15. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Sea Catfish (Ariidae) Biomass and MNI for the
First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow .... 220

Figure 16. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Drum (Sciaenidae) Biomass and MNI for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections.
SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow .... .222

Figure 17. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Mullet (Mugil sp.) Biomass and MNI for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections.
SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow .... .224














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


SPANISH AND BRITISH SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AT ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA,
AND FREDERICA, GEORGIA, BETWEEN 1565 and 1783

By

Elizabeth Jean Reitz

June, 1979

Chairperson: Elizabeth S. Wing
Major Department: Anthropology

Anthropologists have for a number of years been investigating the

relationship between human populations and their environments. Although

much work has been done in this area using prehistoric archaeological

materials, historic archaeologists have been slow to recognize the value

of ecological studies in interpreting their data. The purpose of this

research is to demonstrate the applicability of ecological theory to

studies of archaeological materials from historic sites.

The study focuses upon the use of vertebrate animal remains from

the First Spanish Period, St. Augustine, Florida (1565-1763); the British

occupation at Frederica, Georgia (1736-ca. 1748); and the British Period

at St. Augustine, Florida (1763-1783). Using archaeological faunal

materials from several sites the influence of social class, political

and social environment, cultural affiliation, and local animal resources

on the adaptive strategy is assessed. Particular emphasis is placed upon

the types of species used; the habitat, habits, and seasonality of the

xi









species exploited; and the proportion of wild to domestic species

incorporated in the diet. Standard zooarchaeological techniques are

employed to determine Minimun Number of Individuals and allometric

scaling formula are used to determine biomass estimates.

Analysis demonstrates that the adaptive patterns found at all

of the sites examined differ from the strategies reported for other

European settlements in North America. In addition, the faunal

samples from the British Period at St. Augustine are more similar

to the 18th Century First Spanish Period materials than to the faunal

samples from British Frederica. Environmental factors did have an

influence on the subsistence strategies employed by colonial British

and Spanish residents at St. Augustine and Frederica.






























PART ONE: BACKGROUND AND ELABORATION OF HYPOTHESES













CHAPTER 1


INTRODUCTION

This is a study of human adaptation. Specifically it is a study of

subsistence patterns followed by Spanish and British colonists at two

military outposts on the Atlantic coastal plain of North America between

1565 and 1783 (Fig. 1). The study focuses upon the use of animal re-

sources by the Spanish colonists at St. Augustine, Florida,in the First

Spanish Period (1565-1763); British colonists at Frederica, Georgia (1736-

ca. 1748); and British colonists at St. Augustine during the British

Period (1763-1783).

Guided by principles of human ecology, analysis of faunal materials

from these historic archaeological sites will concentrate upon three

aspects: subsistence activities practiced by members of the same

cultural affiliation in different habitats; populations of distinct

cultural affiliation in the same habitat; and changes in subsistence

activity through time within a population occupying the same habitat.

Factors predicted to be influential in the adaptive strategies to be

observed are social class, political and social environment, cultural

affiliation, and local animal resources. In the ensuing chapters each

of these factors will be briefly discussed, but first the relationship

between historical archaeology and human ecology will be considered.









Historical Archaeology and Human Ecology

The Law of Uniformitarianism (Lyell 1850) states that the processes

which are observed in the present are the same ones which affected past

events. This principle is the basic interpretive link between past and

present human behavior, binding social-cultural, biological, and archae-

ological anthropologists into a single, unified discipline. It is this

same principle that unifies prehistoric and historic archaeology. The

processes which influenced prehistoric human behavior continue to affect

the behavior of recent populations. It follows that the analytical tools

developed in studies of modern ethnographic populations and applied to

the study of prehistoric groups may also be appropriately applied to

historic ones. The basic premise of this study is that subsistence be-

havior of historic populations can be explained in ecological, adaptive

terms on the same basis as the subsistence behavior of current popula-

tions and prehistoric ones.

Although ecological interpretations of anthropological data have

been common since the 1950's (Netting 1971), prehistoric archaeologists

followed this lead slowly (Meighan et al. 1958; Binford 1972; Deetz 1972;

Flannery 1972b). Historic archaeologists have lagged even further behind.

In fact, historic archaeologists have been chided recently for not being

anthropological at all (Schuyler 1970; Griffin 1978).

Traditionally historical archaeologists have been more concerned

with salvage projects, reconstructions, and public interpretive programs

rather than with exploring cultural patterns and questions of human

adaptation. We are faced with the paradox that more is known theoret-

ically about the adaptive behavior of prehistoric populations than of









historic ones. This is in spite of the fact that the presence of

historical documents should make studies of historic adaptations a

fruitful area of research where the validity of ecological interpretations

could be tested.

Part of the reason for the neglect of human adaptation in historic

occupations cannot be attributed solely to the funding base and research

interests of historic archaeologists, but rather to a common assumption

made about domestic plants and animals. Historic populations, at least

ones with a European background, were almost always associated with

domestic plants and animals. It has been assumed that such domestic

food sources somehow protected the human population from the need to

adjust to the natural environment in any but the most superficial sense.

The early discussions of the Neolithic Revolution clearly assume that

humans were consequently freed of environmental constraints (Childe 1958).

This assumption is particularly strong where historic European popula-

tions are involved.

There is ample ethnographic and archaeological evidence indicating

that the presence of plant and animal domesticates does not relieve the

human population of the need to deal with local environmental factors in

some coherent, integrated manner (Clark 1972; P. Lyon 1974; Stark and

Voorhies 1978). Human subsistence behavior must be responsive to

variables of the environment even where domestic plants and animals are

present. The few available examples of European colonial adaptations in

North America clearly indicate that French, British, and Spanish animal

use was highly variable in ways not explicable if the presence of

domestic animals rendered these European populations immune to environ-

mental influence (Cleland 1970; Cumbaa 1975; Barber 1976; Bowen 1976;
Shapiro 1978a, 1978b).









The interpretation of Spanish and British foodways made in this

study is explicitly ecological. Human behavior may be

studied as animal behavior and interpreted the same way
as behavior (or part of the behavior) of any other species,
for instance, in its adaptive aspects and consequent
interaction with natural selection. (Simpson in Vayda and
Rappaport 1968:492)

Adaptive requirements are placed upon human organisms just as they

are placed on non-human ones, with an intervening variable: culture

(Binford 1972).

The culture, or part of the culture, of a human
population is regarded as part of the distinctive
means by which the population maintains itself in
the ecosystem. (Rappaport 1969:185)

It is presumed here that environmental factors are as applicable to

historic populations of European descent as to modern, non-industralized

groups or to prehistoric populations. Just as with these latter two

groups, it is possible to explore species and habitat exploitation,

subsistence scheduling, procurement techniques, and food preparation

habits for a historic population. It is also possible to compare changes

in subsistence activity through time, in different areas occupied by

members of the same cultural affiliation, and between different cultural

groups. Interpretation of human adaptation to the natural and social

environment is as basic to an understanding of historic archaeological

data as it is for prehistoric data.

Analysis of the subsistence patterns of North American colonists of

Old World ancestry can provide interesting insights into the adaptation

made by these people. The colonists arrived here with little under-

standing of their new environment and great naivete. Like modern

historical archaeologists, the early colonists seemed to think that their









domestic food sources and trans-Atlantic supply routes buffered them

from the new environment and made adjustments in their Old World subsis-

tence strategy unnecessary. Reports of "starving times" are almost a

hallmark of early colonial efforts (Weeden 1890; Bruce 1895; Gray 1933;

Thompson 1942) and show that the colonists quickly faced reality. They

had to modify their traditional Old World adaptation to suit the North

American habitats. The new adaptations developed at each outpost reflect-

ed the influence of available technology, political environment, tradi-

tional foodways, and the local natural environment.

One of the basic elements in human adaptations is the ability of

humans to make choices.

Choices of usable resources, decisions as to their
proportional use and time of utilization, and the
demographic and spatial arrangements chosen in order
to accomplish the exploitation, all allot human time
and energy and are visualized as structuring the
subsistence and settlement patterns of a human group.
Even granting the proposition that relatively small
amounts of energy may be expended by hunters and
gatherers in the food quest (Lee 1968; Sahlins 1968),
the allotment of these expenditures depends on choices
among competing or mutually exclusive activities; the
"scarcity" pertains to time and energy devoted (by
choice) to subsistence. (Jochim 1976)

David L. Clarke (1968:490) has defined a strategy as "a program or

plan of an entity's moves.... ." Humans are rational beings who attempt

to maximize satisfactions by choosing between competing objectives, the

decision often involving a compromise among those objectives. There are

several criteria for guiding the food procurement decision making process

according to game theorists (Clarke 1968). The one which appears to be

most useful in explaining human adaptive strategy is the Simon satisficer

criterion in which the objective is to satisfy a safe, low-risk, sub-

maximal aspiration level rather than to provide a maximum yield. Humans









generally attempt to provide themselves with sufficient goods while ex-

pending the minimum or least effort (Haggett 1965; Marshall 1968; Paine

1971). Human adaptive systems are distinctive, however, in their flexi-

bility so a mixture of other game criteria may be implemented to deal

with a problem (Clarke 1968). While the basic strategy may be a satis-

ficer one, during seasonal runs of bluefish or caribou, a maximizing

strategy may be followed.

According to Michael A. Jochim, a population must deal with three

problems: resource use schedule, site placement, and demographic arrange-

ment, with the pattern of resource use being the most important in influ-

encing other aspects of the adaptation (1976). In developing a resource

use schedule, conflicts in seasonal cycles of preferred and possible

foods as well as the distribution of these resources in the area must

be resolved (Flannery 1972a). Humans must also conform to Liebig's "Law

of the Minimum," that is, the adaptation must be to the weakest elements

in the subsistence system rather than to the most favorable ones (Odum

1971; Hardesty 1977). The group adapts to the worst years rather than

to the best ones.

In establishing and following a resource use schedule the primary

goal is to obtain necessary foods and raw materials while keeping the

cost/risk/effort factor low (Jochim 1976). In terms of food species,

it is important to exploit several resources, some of which provide a

moderate return for little effort and with little risk and others which

yield a high return but are costly in terms of effort and low in security.

The more reliable resources will be emphasized in the diet, since it is

of primary importance to have a secure food and raw materials source

available providing high yield at minimum cost. However, the resources









requiring great effort, involving high risk, but providing large yields

will be the more prestigious. Prestige or luxury items are those which

provide high fat and meat content but are scarce and/or highly mobile

(e.g. deer, caribou, cattle). Procurement and processing techniques such

as traps, nets, weirs, and storage facilities increase the efficiency of

capture and help reduce the cost of exploitation. Species which can be

captured with greatest efficiency will be more heavily exploited, though

less valued, than the species which are more difficult to obtain.

Settlement location reflects the resource use strategy (Jochim 1976).

Sites for habitation tend to be selected to minimize the distance to the

most secure and most abundant resources. These are the same resources

which have the lowest prestige. Temporary camps are placed near the less

secure, high-prestige resources. Sites are also selected to provide

protection from the elements and for observation of strangers.

The third problem identified by Jochim (1976) is demographic arrange-

ment. Decisions about group size must be based upon provision of food

for the population, resource distribution, and social interaction. These

will not be reviewed here since it goes beyond the scope of the research

presented here to do so. This decision does not imply that demographic

arrangements for historic occupations cannot be profitably studied.

For a valuable ecological interpretation it is desirable to incor-

porate studies of cultural and historical data, human biology, zoological

and botanical data, demography, and other sciences. Unfortunately all

of this material is not yet available from the study area or on the study

groups. Emphasis is placed here almost entirely upon an interpretation

of human adaptation as revealed in subsistence activities. Subsistence









activities are further delineated to include only those which can be

studied via analysis of faunal remains from archaeological sites. Much

could be learned to supplement the faunal study if floral materials were

also available, but they are not. It is acknowledged that there is more

to an ecological reconstruction than this, but time, space, and available

data do not permit a broader study. As has been implied earlier, there

is little comparative material available on historic, colonial adaptations.

Consequently it is felt that work with material from these sites must be

basically descriptive. The interpretations offered here are tentative

ones, models to be tested carefully in future studies rather than ones

to be accepted without further analysis.


Hypotheses

1. The implication of the preceding discussion is that a human

population must adapt to the resources of the local environment. When a

population moves into a new environment, as happened during the coloni-

zation of the New World by Europeans, cultural traditions relating to

subsistence patterns had to be modified to exploit the new resources and

habitats available. It can be predicted that when two populations of

distinct cultural affiliation occupy the same location, their adaptive

strategies will be similar. The British Period subsistence pattern at

St. Augustine, as reflected in the faunal materials, will be more

similar to the Spanish pattern at St. Augustine than to the British one

at Frederica. Local environment will have more influence than cultural

affiliation upon the subsistence strategy of cultural groups occupying

the same environment, where technological level is the same.









2. It is further predicted that within cultural affiliations, where

environment, political events, and technology are held constant, socio-

economic level will be the most useful explanation of the range of adap-

tive patterns observed (Homans 1950; Warner 1962). Income, occupation,

and ethnic affiliation are used to indicate socio-economic level at St.

Augustine (Poe in prep.) and these have been observed to be important at

St. Augustine (Deagan 1976a). The most frequently used species will be

those that were easily caught near the settlement with a minimum of

effort. Social status can be inferred from the presence of species which

were more risky to obtain, but were larger and provided more meat (Jochim

1976). Variability in social affiliation will be reflected in variability

in the adaptive pattern as observed in the faunal record.

3. Changes in the political and social milieu of the two colonial

occupations will also have some impact on the adaptive strategies ob-

served in the faunal record. This is not a contradiction of the basic

ecological position assumed in this study. The social and political

milieu is part of the environment to which a population must adapt

(Sahlins 1964). Changes in the socio-political environment, just as

changes in the natural one, must be accommodated in the basic adaptive

strategy. This is just as true for prehistoric populations as for

historic or ethnographic ones; however, for prehistoric populations

political events are generally unknown. Some of the adaptive changes

observed through time at Spanish St. Augustine are best explained by

historical events.









Organization of Presentation

Each of these hypotheses will be elaborated on in the following

chapters. Part One will present background material from the historical,

archaeological, and environmental literature. The importance of social

status to subsistence activities, and consequently to excavated faunal

materials, will be discussed with reference to examples of social class

reflected in the faunal record from several historic sites (Chapter 2).

The historical background of the St. Augustine and Frederica populations,

as well as demographic and economic information, will be presented with

a summary of the impact which these factors might have had on local

subsistence strategies (Chapter 3). Following this, traditional British

and Spanish Old World foodways will be described. This material will be

supplemented by reference to zooarchaeological reports from historic

sites in North America in order to contrast British Old and British New

World foodways (Chapter 4). Finally the wild and domestic animal re-

sources of the Atlantic Coastal Plain will be reviewed (Chapter 5).

Part Two will cover the new material being presented here. The

hypotheses outlined above, and refined in Part One, will be tested using

British and Spanish faunal collections recovered during archaeological

excavations at St. Augustine, Florida,and Frederica, Georgia. Of the

sixteen faunal collections that are reviewed, eleven were drawn from the

Spanish occupation at St. Augustine, and five were from British house

lots at St. Augustine and Frederica. They represent a variety of cultural

and temporal divisions as follows: 16th Century First Spanish Period,

St. Augustine (five sites); 17th Century First Spanish Period, St.

Augustine (one site); 18th Century First Spanish Period, St. Augustine





12



(five sites); British Frederica (two sites); and the British Period at

St. Augustine (three sites). These materials and the methods employed

in analysis are reviewed (Chapter 6), analyzed (Chapter 7), and conclu-

sions drawn (Chapter 8).













CHAPTER 2


SOCIAL STATUS AND ANIMAL RESOURCE USE


It has been predicted that variability in faunal use during the

First Spanish Period at St. Augustine will reflect socio-economic level.

It was mentioned briefly that social status might be inferred for an

archaeological collection on the basis of faunal materials (Chapter 1).

This possibility will be explored using evidence of social stratification

in archaeological faunal samples from documented colonial and plantation

sites. The outline of the major social strata in the Hispanic Empire

is well known. These will be described here as they might affect access

to animal resources at St. Augustine. The discussion begins with a

review of the concept of social status.


Archaeology and Social Class

The concept of social class as defined by William Lloyd Warner

incorporates the following socio-economic symbols: occupation, source

of income, house type, and dwelling area (1962). According to Warner,

"a social structure is a system of formal and informal groupings by which

social behavior of individuals is regulated" (Warner and Lunt 1941:14).

Social stratification serves to set limits upon attainment of goals, and

to maintain authority relationships (Lipset 1968). Social criteria are

not based purely upon economic criteria, but also upon self-identification,

life-style, and prestige (Goldschmidt 1968:332). To be a member of the

highest social class a person must not only be wealthy, but must also









display appropriate symbols of importance. These include such conspicu-

ous traits as prestigeful house location, personal adornment, associations,

employment, ceramic assemblages, social behavior, and food. Only some of

these symbols of high social status survive in the archaeological record.

Lewis R. Binford (1972) postulates that it is possible to identify

status grading in archaeological sites from socio-technic items. He

defines these as "the material elements having their primary functional

context in the social subsystem of the total cultural system" (1962:95).

An individual's social status might be inferred from ceramics, metal

objects, items of apparel, house construction materials, house size, and

house location, just to mention a few durable symbols.

In more strictly economic terms,

the stratified society is distinguished by the differential
relationships between the members of the society and its
subsistence means--some of the members of the society have
unimpeded access to its strategic resources while others
have various impediments in their access to the same
fundamental resources.(Fried 1974:32)

Elevated social status is not without its burden of responsibility

however. To maintain rightful access to strategic and luxury resources,

leaders must continually validate their status by supporting the system

and publicly displaying the appropriate symbols of authority. Leaders

must also conform more closely to the norms of acceptable behavior than

do individuals of lower social standing (Homans 1950).

Persons of lower social status experience restricted access to valued

resources. They may be predicted to occupy the less desirable locations,

build with less prestigious materials, and use less valued ceramic vessels.

They may also be predicted to have access to less preferred foods. If,

however, they commit infractions upon social norms, perhaps in the food









quest, this is viewed less harshly than if a person of higher social

standing commits the same offense.


Archaeological Examples

The best documented example of differential access to scarce

resources provided by historical archaeology has been provided by John

S. Otto (1975). Otto excavated cultural and faunal materials from a Sea

Island cotton plantation on St. Simons Island, Georgia, occupied between

1793 and 1861. He had samples from three social-economic levels (planter,

overseer, and slave) from Cannon's Point Plantation. Otto was able to

demonstrate a close correlation between diet as reflected in the faunal

collections and materials found in the cultural collections. He found

that the slave diet included proportionately more domestic animal

individuals than did the planter diet. Slaves had more pigs (Sus scrofa)

and more cattle (Bos taurus). Otto explained this difference by suggesting

that the planter had the ability to employ slaves as hunting specialists

and so had access to more wild resources than did the slaves. Slaves had

to use the nearest available, most secure resource: domestic animals.

In this case, wild animals might have been the prestige food.

Another example of differential access to scarce food resources is

provided by Stephen L. Cumbaa from the 18th Century First Spanish Period

at St. Augustine (1975). Cumbaa analyzed patterns of animal use from

three households whose social status in the community was known from the

documents. He found that the diet of a household (SA16-23) occupied by

an Indian woman, Maria de la Cruz, and her Spanish husband, incorporated

less domestic meat than did the diet of the other two households studied.

This household, of lower social status than the others, made use of more









wild resources from the nearby salt marsh. Occupying an intermediate

social position, the Gertrudis de la Pasqua household (SA13-5) made use

of more domestic individuals than did the de la Cruz household, but of

fewer such animals than the Cristoval Contreras household (SA34-2).

Contreras was from the Canary Islands and a wealthy man, yet he used wild

resources to a greater extent than Cumbaa had expected based on his social

status. Cumbaa interpreted this as an indication that Contreras had

engaged the services of a hunting specialist, possibly one of his slaves.

This contrasts with the de la Cruz household which probably secured its

wild resources through its own or kin group efforts.

It is interesting to note that Dona Katherine Beidleman, in an

analysis of ceramics from the lot occupied by Contreras (SA34-2) found a

close correlation between ceramics and social status (1976). During the

late First Spanish Period, British goods were illegally, or at least

illicitly, imported into St. Augustine (Harman 1969). A member of the

upper class, however, did not make use of these cheaper goods because

of the expectation of behavior associated with higher status and so had

to use the more expensive, lower quality items legitimately shipped to

St. Augustine by Spanish sources. Here is an example of leaders con-

forming strictly to the legal code, to their own discomfort.

Cattle (Bos taurus) were part of the illicit British trade (Harman

1969). Could it not be possible that individuals of high social standing

not only had to avoid using British delftware, but also had to avoid

using British cattle? While the de la Cruz household may have had limited

access to cattle due to low social status, the Contreras household may

have had limited access to cattle due to an elevated status.









Social status is also studied via the faunal record by Henry M.

Miller (1978). Miller analyzed materials from two late 17th Century

homesites on the James River. The Pettus Plantation was occupied by a

wealthy Virginia colonist, while Utopia Cottage was on land owned by

Pettus, and may have been occupied by a tenant farmer. Structure size,

ceramic analysis, and documentary evidence all indicated that Utopia

Cottage was occupied by a person of lower social standing than the Pettus

Plantation site. Cattle (Bos taurus) contributed about equal proportions

of edible meat at both sites, and was the dominant animal food source.

Next in order of edible meat importance were swine (Sus scrofa), which

were also used about equally at both sites. Analysis of elements re-

covered from the two sites, and of butchering patterns, failed to indicate

a substantial difference between the two collections. Swine were more

selectively butchered by age at Pettus than at Utopia and more fish were

consumed at Utopia than at Pettus; however, neither of these differences

was of major importance.

The homogeneity of the Pettus and Utopia faunal materials is

interesting considering the documentary evidence and the clear indication

of lower social status provided by architectural and ceramic materials.

Miller concludes that diet may have been one of the first patterns to

change as a household became upwardly mobile. This interpretation is

supported by the fact that in inventory lists cooking utensils and

bedding are the first things to increase in numbers with increased

wealth (Miller 1978).

This last example serves to provide a cautionary note to interpre-

tations of socio-economic level from faunal collections. Two households









of different social status might well exhibit a similar faunal collection,

although for different reasons. In order to avoid a :misinterpretation

it is critical to incorporate as much cultural and documentaryevidende

as possible into the analysis. Only by doing so was Miller able to avoid

a mistaken interpretation of Pettus and Utopia. Otto also found that the

material assemblages of-the planter and slave habitations he analyzed

were superficially similar, but was able to avoid mis-identifying'the

status of each group of occupants using detailed analysis of the ceramics

in conjunction with documentary evidence. This does not negate the`''

hypothesis that social class is an important variable in the subsistence

strategy practiced, but it does emphasize the difficulty inherent in such

an interpretation. The possibility that the two extremes of a social *:

continue might be similar in the fauna utilized is well worth exploring

and the possibility that social status may be identified using faunal'

materials merits closer examination. It is best to remember, though,-

that patterning is most accurately reflected in the total assemblage

rather than in a single component of the complex.


Social Status in Spanish Florida

Spanish society in the New World was highly structured with over

sixty racial classifications (Morner 1967). The influential posts, and

the persons accorded highest prestige by the Crown, were persons of Old

World birth, called peninsulares (Haring 1947). Immigrants from either

the Spanish Iberian peninsula or the Canary Islands (as Contreras in the

above example) belonged to this favored group. The governors of Florida

were always peninsulares, although criollos (persons born in the New

World) might serve as temporary appointees. Policy as well as custom









combined to maintain the social distance between peninsulares and

criollos. Peninsulares in responsible positions were usually transferred

to a new post after a few years, serving to further isolate them from

local populations. There were rarely enough peninsulares in Florida to

satisfy the Crown (Corbett 1974).

Spaniards of New World birth, creoles or criollos, were excluded

from positions of influence and authority generally, even though the

wealth and local prestige of many might have better qualified them to

serve. They were also barred from major commercial enterprises, which

by law were based only in Seville or Cadiz, Spain (Haring 1947).

Criollos were said to be lazy, indolent, and quarrelsome. It was felt

that no criollo should be on the government payroll (Bushnell 1978b).

The power struggle between peninsulares, assigned to positions of author-

ity for only a few years and essentially outsiders and strangers, and

local, wealthy criollos was intense throughout the Spanish New World.

By 1696, and despite objections against the practice from the Crown,

criollos filled half of the garrison posts at St. Augustine (Arana 1960)

and all of the leadership positions except that of the governor (Arnade

1965). They also managed the extensive, lucrative commercial cattle

ranches that flourished in the latter part of the 17th Century (Bushnell

1978b). The wealthier criollos might have attempted to define their

status by identifying with peninsulares, although not all criollos were

wealthy.

Mestizos, or persons of mixed ancestry, were accorded a low social

status. Since the title originally referred to illegitimate children of

Spanish and Indian parents, the term had a connotation of illegitimacy









(Haring 1947). Peninsulares and criollos alike disdained mestizos, who

were thought tobe vagrants. Mestizos were the ones who did manual labor,

while the "whites" avoided such.work insofar as possible (Morner 1967).

In some areasof the Hispanictworld, mestizos were legally denied educa-

tion beyond religious instruction. In spite of the feelings against

them, mestizos served in the Florida military garrison (Corbett 1976).

Blacks and Indians were at the lowest social level. LegallyIndians

were of a social status above mestizos but this was not so in practice

(Haring 1947). Blacks at St. Augustine may either have been slave or

free. Spanish Florida was a haven for escaped British slaves.since they

were not returned to their owners (Tepaske 1964). Many artisans at St.

Augustine were slaves or Indians (Boniface 1971), and Indians may have

served on St. Augustine ships (Bushnell 1978c) .


Discussion

As examples cited above serve to illustrate, the identification of

social status from faunal assemblages is not without risks. Had documen-

tary assistance been lacking, the slave faunal collection from Cannon's

Point might have been identified as belonging to the planter; and the

households of Pettus Plantation and Utopia might have been interpreted

as belonging to the same social statum.

Is an analysis of differential access to scarce resources justified

in the absence of documentary evidence? Prehistoric archaeologists are

accustomed to doing so using cultural materials. Social value is assigned

to objects excavated from archaeological context on the basis of such

observed evidence as local availability, quality of materials and manu-

facture, scarcity at the site, and distribution within the site. It









seems reasonable to assume that observed differences in faunal use could

also be used to infer social status where social stratification is known

to have existed.

The difficulty lies in assigning value to animal foods. While

archaeologists feel themselves to be safe in predicting that oriental

porcelains were highly valued, who feels secure enough to do the same

for deer? It is here that Jochim's analysis of a valued food source

may be useful (1976). Large animals which provide abundant quantities

of meat, but which are difficult to raise or obtain may be more highly

valued than animals which are reliably secured locally with a minimum

of effort. Archaeological faunal collections which contain larger

quantities of these valued animals may be from households of higher

social status than comtemporaneous sites of the same cultural affiliation

which have these species in lower numbers.

The intent in this study regarding social status is to predict

social status for the 16th Century First Spanish Period sites for which

we have no documentary evidence. It is known that social status was

important at St. Augustine and it will be seen that cattle (Bos taurus)

was a valued commodity (Chapter 5). Members of high social status,

either peninsulares or criollos, might be expected to have the greatest

access to cattle. In the 18th Century, peninsulare access to this

commodity was restricted due to the fact that it was available through

dealings with illicit traders. Upwardly aspiring criollos might also

have followed the high status model and avoided such dealings, so that

both groups may not have had cattle to the extent that their social status









would suggest. Thus in the 18th Century two groups would lack cattle:

low status mestizo households such as that of Maria de la Cruz and high

status individuals such as the peninsulare Contreras.

In the 16th Century there was no illicit British trade to confuse

the issue. Cattle during this time were scarce, however, and therefore

potentially a prestigious item. It is felt, therefore, that socio-

economic level in the 16th Century can be predicted on the basis of

access to cattle. Unfortunately there is no good way to test the inter-

pretation until documentary evidence is found, nor can absolute status

be predicted. While the two extremes of the continuum can be observed

and interpreted with reasonable confidence, identification of households

between the two extremes is more difficult.













CHAPTER 3


AN ACCOUNT OF THE SPANISH AND BRITISH
OCCUPATION ON THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN, 1565-1783

The documented history of British and Spanish interaction in the Old

and New World provides a framework within which to study the subsistence

patterns at St. Augustine and Frederica. The two garrisons were part of

an international struggle which affected the daily lives of the residents,

in as much as their reason for being was based more upon military strategy,

than upon commercial enterprise. Although Frederica was pleasantly

situated, St. Augustine's location was not selected for its pleasing

agricultural prospect. The wealth of Florida and of Frederica lay in

their strategic locations. Much of the subsistence activity at both

locations was formed within constraints imposed by political alliances

and mercantile policies stated by their respective Crowns. Military

duties, disrupted supply lines, relations with natives, and unofficial

trade networks all had to be incorporated into the subsistence plan.

In this chapter the history of the region will be summarized. In

addition, the populations of St. Augustine and Frederica will be

described and the economic conditions of Spanish and British residents

discussed.

A Brief History

There are many excellent histories of the Spanish Empire (Haring

1947), of the Caribbean (Haring 1966; Sauer 1969), of early explorations









in North America (Sauer 1971), and of Florida (Chatelain 1941; Tepaske

1964; Bolton and Ross 1968; Lyon 1977a). It is not the intent here to

supplant these, but only to highlight some of the processes which

directly affected the lives of colonists at St. Augustine and Frederica.

Significant events are summarized in Table 1.

Shortly after Columbus claimed the New World for Spain, Spanish

explorers had extended effective dominion throughout the Caribbean, onto

the mainland of Mexico, and down into South America. Spanish explorers

had also explored much of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of North America

(Sauer 1971). Compared to the wealth known to exist in Central and South

America, North America seemed to hold little promises of riches. None-

theless several attempts were made to explore and settle the area named

"la Florida" by Juan Ponce de Leon. These attempts all ended in failure,

which prompted Filipe II of Spain in 1561 to forbid any further efforts

at colonization.

The very next year France, recognizing the value of the Atlantic

coast's proximity to the wealth of the Caribbean (Fig. 1), began to

establish colonies in the New World. The initial effort at Port Royal

Sound, South Carolina, revived the Spanish Crown's interest in Florida

(Fig. 2). A hostile fortification so close to the vital shipping lane

used by the Spanish treasure fleets each summer could not be tolerated.

This initial French settlement failed before the Spanish could launch

their counter offensive. However, the French established a second out-

post even closer to the sea lane, at the St. Johns River, in 1564. It

was this second French installation which the Adelantado Pedro Menendez

de Aviles attacked and destroyed the following year.









As part of his royal charter Menendez was required to establish two

towns. He did so at once, the first and most southerly of which was

named St. Augustine. In the following years Menendez established a string

of fortifications along the Atlantic coast as far north as Port Royal

Sound (Santa Elena) and around the tip of Florida up the Gulf coast to

Tampa Bay (Lyon 1977a). The purpose of these outposts was to prevent

further foreign intrusions on the Atlantic coast, to protect the vital

Spanish treasure fleet sailing to Spain from Cuba up the Bahama Channel

or Florida Straits, and to aid victims of shipwreck in the treacherous

Straits.

Although the initial intent was for the Florida garrisons to be self-

supporting, this proved to be impossible (Lyon 1977a). Shortly after the

Adelantado's death, the Florida garrison became a dependency of the

Spanish Crown. Unlike other Spanish colonies in the New World, the Royal

subsidy, or situado, rather than commerce, was intended to be the chief

support of the Florida garrison. Consequently there were no encomiendas

(large land grants) or repartimientos (Indian labor grants) on the scale

that these institutions occurred elsewhere, nor were there confirmed

deeds (Gold 1969). As a result there were no fortunes to be made and

most of the population was composed of soldiers on military assignment

rather than colonists there to make a fortune (Corbett 1976).

Spain claimed possession of all of North America east of New Mexico

under the name "La Florida," but in reality control was exercised only

over the narrow geographical strip occupied by the missions and forts

northward from St. Augustine along the Georgia coast and westward across

the northern end of the Florida peninsula. This area was divided into









four provinces: Guale, eastern Georgia and the coastal islands; Timucua,

north-central Florida and a portion of southern Georgia; Apalachee,

southwestern Georgia, southern Alabama, and Florida between the St. Marks

River and Pensacola; and Provincia Nueva, southern Florida (Gillaspie

1961).

During the last half of the 16th Century, existence at St. Augustine

was a tenuous affair. British and French soldiers as well as Indians

continually harassed the Spanish officials with raids and uprisings

(Bolton and Ross 1968). A series of Indian insurrections along the

Georgia coast, culminating in the Guale Revolt of 1573, caused the

virtual abandonment for a while of the Atlantic coast down to present-

day Savannah and by 1597 all of the Georgia missions had been temporarily

deserted. The garrison at St. Augustine was further strained in the

1500's by pirate attacks, pestilance, fires, floods, and worries about

unconfirmed English activities to the north.

At the turn of the century, with Spanish resources strained by war

with England, the outlook for survival of the presidio at St. Augustine

was in doubt. Thoughts were entertained of abandoning the unprofitable

and complaining post entirely (Arnade 1959). When British activity to

the north was confirmed, however, the decision was made to remain at

St. Augustine. After 1602 a series of missions was established westward

from St. Augustine across the Florida peninsula to present-day Tallahassee,

and the chain of missions previously abandoned north of St. Augustine

along the Georgia coast was reestablished. By the mid-1600's Spanish

missions once again extended as far north as Port Royal Sound (Lanning

1935). In conjunction with the interior missions, cattle ranches were









established, principally in the vicinity of present-day Gainesville but

also between St. Augustine and the St. Johns River. In spite of occa-

sional Indian revolts, disturbing intrusions by English traders in the

interior, and pirate attacks, the St. Augustine outpost enjoyed a period

of relative calm during the 1670's and 1680's.

Effective control of the area was being eroded, however. French

and British raids in the Caribbean were becoming increasingly bold.

Around 1686 St. Augustine officials once again began to withdraw the

northern mission chain, this time down to the St. Marys River. English

traders were generating major unrest among the Indians once allied with

the Spanish (Wright 1971). The beginning of the 18th Century marked a

major shift in Spanish control of Florida, bringing with it the disas-

trous raids of British Colonel Moore and French encroachments in the

west of the peninsula. The interior mission system and the cattle ranches

were destroyed. Spanish authority for a while was more strictly limited

to the immediate vicinity of the presidio at St. Augustine than it had

been for a long time.

Frederica and its companion fortifications were established in the

first half of the 18th Century as part of the British southward advance

into territory claimed by Spain as part of "la Florida." Frederica's

mission was primarily strategic, although the colonists were expected to

be self-sufficient and profitably employed in the export of raw agricul-

tural crops such as silk. While there was little cause, the garrison

continually watched for a Spanish raid, and even lost a crop one year

because of an alarm (Wright 1971). Indian relations were not a major

problem to the settlers themselves, although the Salzburger farmers









complained that Indians raided their fields, gardens, and stole their.

livestock (Bonner 1964). In 1739 the War of Jenkin's Ear between.,_

England and Spain began. A raid on St. Augustine, led from Ft. Frederica

by General James Oglethorpe in 1740, did much damage to the town. The

Spanish garrison retaliated in 1742 with a raid of their own. Shortly

after this the war was drawnto a close. Frederica was abandoned by the

British military personnel, and the shopkeepers quickly followed (Reese

1963),

In spite of the exchange of raids between St. Augustine and

Frederica, the period between 1733 and the early 1750's was one of

relative security at St. Augustine (Tepaske 1964). Hostilities among

England, France, and Spain continued, however, with France and England

resuming a state of war in 1756. Although Spain remained aloof from

this confrontation for a while, the Crown eventually joined France

against England, just in time to be on the.losing side. England captured

Cuba in the closing days of this warrand Spain was eager to regain that

island, even if it cost them Florida to do so. As the British prepared

to occupy the peninsula (all that remained of the once extensive Spanish

"la Florida") virtually the entire Spanish and Florida Indian population

evacuated the province (Dunkle 1955).

Britain remained in control of.the Florida colony for twenty years.

Initially it was an idle backwater (Wright 1975), but when-the American

Revolution began St. Augustine remained loyal to the Crown and once again

assumed strategic importance. The town experienced a florescence as,it

became a staging area for British troops and supplies going north. The

town also served as a refuge for Tories fleeing the rebellious colonies.









As part of the agreement ending the Revolution, however, Britain returned

the Florida peninsula to Spain and most of this refugee population evac-

uated the town along with British soldiers and local citizens (Dunkle

1955).

The history of the region between 1565 and 1783 was clearly marked

by unrest and danger. Throughout the Spanish and British occupations

war or the threat of war hung over the garrisons. During much of the

time it was unsafe for Spanish residents at St. Augustine to venture far

from the protection of the fortification. Although the British colony at

Frederica was not so clearly under immediate threat of attack from Indians,

the possibility of a Spanish or French raid was very real to the residents

there.


The Spanish Florida Population

The demographic composition of the population in Spanish Florida has

been studied by John R. Dunkle (1955) and Theodore G. Corbett (1974; 1976).

They found that people who came to the presidio at St. Augustine originated

from two basic sources. The first major source was the Iberian peninsula

and the Canary Islands. The second source was Mexico and the Antilles.

During the First Spanish Period these two areas alternated in supplying

manpower to the garrison. For example, between 1658 and 1691, migration

to St. Augustine from Mexico and the Iberian peninsula was strong (Corbett

1974). After that fewer people arrived from Spanish America, and more

blacks came to the town, either as escaped slaves from the British

Carolinas, or as slaves from the Spanish Antilles. Iberian and Canary

Island migrations also increased. Between 1733 and 1756 a large number

of Cuban criollos came to St. Augustine (Corbett 1974). A census in









1607 also listed twenty-eight Portuguese, six German, twenty French, and

two Flemish residents. After 1685 English Catholics were also allowed,-

to settle in Florida (Dunkle 1955).

The initial migrants to Florida were carefully selected for skills

representing virtually all of the major 16th Century crafts (Lyon 1977a)

but eventually this trend was reversed. .Most of the later migrants to

the presidio were urban poor. Many had either served time in prison,or

had been sent to St. Augustine as part of their sentence. For example,

men who participated in the 1694 food riot in Mexico City were sentenced,

to labor on the Castillo de San Marcos (Corbett 1974). Mexican soldiers-

were generally described as "impressed Indians and half-breeds" (Arana .-:

1960:90-92). Those from the Iberian peninsula were the urban poor, or

criminals, from cities such as Seville, Cadiz, and Granada in the

southern province of Andalusia (Corbett 1974). Settlers from Cuba and

from the Canary Island tended to be more affluent, having the social

advantage also of being either criollos or peninsulares, rather than

mestizos. It must have been difficult for wealthy criollos at St.

Augustine to be viewed in an inferior light to the type of peninsulare

coming from the streets of Cadiz, however.

The size of the population shifted dramatically through time. Some

1,500 people may have come with Menendez to Florida in the initial settle-

ment of 1565 (Boniface 1971). As the focus of Royal attention shifted

elsewhere, and dreams of wealth and glory vanished, the population

declined dramatically. By 1574 only 300 settlers remained, most of whom

were soldiers or sailors. Between 1685 and 1702 there were about 1,500

military and civilian residents (Corbett 1976). The garrison size in









1699 was 315 men, of whom thirty-three were not able to serve, and many

of whom were stationed at outlying posts. By the late 16th Century over

a third of the garrison strength was criollo (Boniface 1971). When the

town was abandoned at the end of the First Spanish Period, 2,996 to 3,104

people were evacuated, including Florida Indians and blacks (Corbett 1976).

At the time of the evacuation St. Augustine was the second largest city

in the south after Charleston, South Carolina (Gold 1969).

The Indian population at St. Augustine deserves special mention.

While there were some Indians living in villages near St. Augustine

(Grinan 1757; Lyon 1977a), the number of Indians living near the forti-

fication grew steadily as English slaving raids became more intense in

the interior (Tepaske 1964). By 1738, 1,350Indians lived in the St.

Augustine area, although only twenty-four actually lived in the town

(Benavides 1738). During work on the coquina Castillo de San Marcos,

as many as 300 Indians were sent to the town from the missions each year

(Dunkle 1955). Some Indians may even have served as sailors on the

presidios' ships (Bushnell 1978c). Most Florida Indians prior to Moore's

raids, however, had little contact with the presidio. Even the Indians

living near the missions had little to do with St. Augustine itself.

As elsewhere, European disease took its toll on the Indians (Swanton

1946; Dunkle 1955). While the Indian population was increasing in the

vicinity of the fort in the last part of the First Spanish Period, the

number of Indians generally was declining.


The British Population

As with their St. Augustine counterparts, most of the British

immigrants to Frederica had an urban background. Many also came from









the poor, or "middle poor" (Saye 1943), Unlike their Spanish counter-

parts, they were not criminals. Most were highly skilled craftsmen and

almost all came from Britain, Scotland, or Germany. The first group of

settlers, 230 persons, came from England together landing first at

Savannah. Many of the German Salzburgers then refused to continue to

Frederica. Those Salzburgers who did continue settled in a small.

farming community apart from the main town of Frederica surrounding the

fortification. The first group to settle on St. Simons Island numbered

104 persons. In 1739 Oglethorpe's Regiment of 700 soldiers and their

families arrived. There were some slaves at Frederica in spite of a

prohibition against slavery in the founding charter.

During the British Period at St. Augustine (1763-1783), the popu-

lation experienced some major shifts (Wright 1971). Initially the town

was settled by a small contingent of Scottish soldiers, a few merchants,

and some large land-owners. Indian allies and slaves also were found at

St. Augustine. In 1777 the Minorcan colony at New Smyrna collapsed and

some 409 of these people took refuge at St. Augustine. Once the American

Revolution began the population swelled rapidly. By 1778 there were 1,000

resident whites, 3,000 local blacks, and 8,000 refugees from the northern

colonies (Dunkle 1955). Most of these were transients waiting to go

north to fight, or waiting for the war to end so they could return to,

their homes. Many of these acquired land for cultivation between the

coast and the St. Johns River, although there was not enough land for all

the refugees (Williams 1976). The Seminole Indians, who had been in the

process of occupying the interior of the Florida peninsula during the

last part of the First Spanish Period, continued to become more populous









during the British Period. In addition, some British settlers lived in

the interior either as traders or as farmers. When the British Period

ended approximately 13,000 people evacuated the province, although some

British citizens avoided the Spaniards by moving further into the

interior of the peninsula (Dunkle 1955).


Spanish Economics
As a military garrison, governmental center, and mission base, most

of the income at St. Augustine was supplied by a royal subsidy (Chatelain

1941; Tepaske 1958; Bushnell 1978c). The Spanish Crown assumed responsi-

bility for the colony's support shortly after Menendez's death in 1568

(Hoffman 1977). The annual subsidy, or situado, was paid out of the

coffers of New Spain and was initially administered by the Viceroy of

New Spain in Mexico City. The situado included pay in cash and in goods.

Commodities might be beeswax, wine, oil, lard, salt pork and beef, ham,

salt, rice, corn, flour, beans, and fabrics (A.G.I. 87-3-13, December

1758). It could also include axes, bows, caldrons, pails, machetes, drills,

goatskins, paper, bells, church furniture, cassava, and munitions (A.G.I.

87-3-12, June, 1740; A.G.I. Contraduria 962 A, 1751).

Delivery of the situado was irregular at best (Tepaske 1958, 1964).

The Viceroy of New Spain frequently delayed payment, or neglected to

supply the necessary funds at all. Once items purchased by the St.

Augustine agent in Mexico using the New Spain funds were aboard ship,

they might be captured by French or British raiders or otherwise lost at

sea. The situado might be delayed for only a matter of months, or for

as long as ten years (Bushnell 1978c).









The situado was unsatisfactory for other reasons as well. Often the

goods purchased by the St. Augustine agent in Mexico were of poor quality

initially, or spoiled during the delays incurred in shipment. Inflation

was a major problem throughout the Hispanic Empire and the goods purchased

for St. Augustine were always exhorbitantly priced. The personnel on the

Royal payroll in Florida received their annual salary in goods and the

remainder in currency. Due to inflation and gouging by Mexican merchants,

once the cost of the goods had been deducted from the annual salary,

little remained of an individual's income to be disbursed as cash

(Gillaspie 1961).

As a result government employees seldom saw any cash money (Bushnell

1978c). In addition, rations were not enough to support a family so that

St. Augustine residents had to purchase additional supplies from the

Royal warehouse or from local merchants and vendors. Due to the lack of

cash in the town such purchases were usually made against future salaries

(Grinan 1757; Chatelain 1941; Bushnell 1978c). When the situado finally

arrived, outstanding debts incurred by the citizens of the town to the

Royal storehouse and favored local merchants, taxes, and church tithes

were deducted before the employee received payment. Often there was no

cash left and the cycle continued. Many of the presidio personnel

served in virtual debt peonage. There was enough cash available in the

town, however, for some wealthy criollos to order personal supplies to

be shipped for their own use, to purchase property at auction, and to

buy maize for speculation (Bushnell 1978c).

In order to correct these conditions responsibility for administra-

tion of the situado payment was shifted in 1702 to the Bishop of Puebla,









assuming that a cleric might be more responsible. He was not (Tepaske

1964). It should be noted that the Bishop of Puebla did not exercise

ecclesiastical responsibility for Florida. Finally, in 1740, the

responsibility for supplying the situado was transferred to the Havana

Company of Cuba in exchange for trade concessions granted to the company

by the Spanish Crown. After this, situado payments became more regular,

and the amount of cash circulating in St. Augustine increased since the

British goods purchased by the Havana Company were less expensive than

the Spanish goods purchased in Mexico and Cuba (Bushnell 1978c).

While officials of New Spain continually neglected the needs of the

garrison, England was eager to serve the St. Augustine market. Legally

British merchants could only deal with New World ports by going through

Spain first. By the early 1600's even this trade was being curtailed.

English trade, originating principally in the North American colonies,

gradually became more and more a matter of contraband and freebooting

(Wright 1971). Under the mercantilist policy it was strictly forbidden

that New World Spanish colonies trade with English merchants directly,

or even between themselves (Haring 1947). All trade legally had to go

through Iberian ports. However, by a treaty signed in 1670, English

vessels could call at Hispanic ports when in distress, or to exchange

prisoners (Harman 1969). Under this guise, or without it, foreign

traffic at St. Augustine was common and continued regardless of any

state of hostility or open warfare that might have prevailed at the

time. During periods of open warfare, Spanish St. Augustinians did

appropriate English merchant vessels by force, when they could, and










British merchants in St. Augustine sometimes had their goods seized by

local governors attempting to enforce the law, or angered that they had

been slighted by some trade deal.

St. Augustine officials and private citizens traded heavily with

English merchants from Charleston, New York, and Virginia. They exchanged

local oranges, fish, deer skins, naval stores, and even sea turtles for

liquors, vinegar, apples, corn, peas, flour, biscuits, salt,beeswax,

fabrics, barrels of salted beef, pork, cod and herring, as well as cheeses,

tools, clothing, and household goods (Harman 1969). In spite of the risks

involved, English goods were of better quality and were cheaper than the

Spanish ones available through the situado (Grinan 1757). In addition to

the maritime trade with the British colonies, there was an active over-

land and inland waterway trade in livestock from the southern British

colonies. Pigs (Sus scrofa) and cattle (Bos taurus) were regularly

smuggled into St. Augustine, or purchased openly (Harman 1969). At one

point in the 1700's it was said that British merchants walked the streets

of the presidio just as if they were in London (Tepaske 1964).

Trade with British merchants was legalized in 1740 when the Havana

Company of Cuba was authorized to act as supply agent for St. Augustine

(Tepaske 1964). The Company could purchase goods from the British

colonies if no Spanish equivalent could be found. This action only made

legitimate a source of trade which had been flourishing for years. After

1740 the repetitious complaints from St. Augustine of privation and

starvation subsided and the amount of cash to be invested by residents

at the town increased. The period between 1733 and 1756 marks, in fact,

one of the two brief periods of stability the colony enjoyed (see above).










St. Augustine residents also conducted limited trade with Hispanic

ports (Gillaspie 1961; Boniface 1971). The colony was allowed to send

one ship a year to Spain, with the Canary Islands being included in this

exchange. An official quota of deer hides could be traded for military

supplies, clothing, wine, and staples such as rice, beans, flour, and

corn. From the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, St. Augustine obtained corn,

salt, henequen, wax, and cacao, among other things, although this trade

was not entirely legal (A.G.I. 54-4-15/89, 1692; Gillaspie 1961). Some

commerce was done also with Veracruz as part of the situado payment.

Cuba was the favored trading partner. From this port the garrison

at St. Augustine received spices, rice, beans, salt pork, tools, and

munitions. The population exchanged deer hides, naval stores, salt beef,

beans, chickens, hams, and lard. It is interesting that this list

contains so many agricultural products since it is not usual to think of

St. Augustine exporting food. Many of these items are found on ship

manifests of 1674-1694 and reflect the production of the interior cattle

ranches near present-day Gainesville. Two or three ships came from

Havana to St. Augustine twice a year between 1731 and 1741 (Grinan 1757).

Purchases were usually made on credit and occasionally Havana merchants

would claim as security the St. Augustine situado ship(s) as it laid

over in Cuba on its voyage from Veracruz to Florida (Bushnell 1978c).

Mercantile ties between Cuba and Florida were supported by extensive

kinship bonds between influential criollos in both communities (Gillaspie

1961). In the 16th Century the Governor of Cuba and Florida was the same

individual although this practice was soon ended because of suspected

graft (Bushnell 1978c).










In conjunction with this extensive external exchange system, St.

Augustine also obtained supplies from within the province of Florida

itself. The Spaniards traded with near-by Indians, and relied heavily

upon livestock and produce from the Apalachee missions near modern

Tallahassee, once those missions were established (Boniface 1971).

Indians were encouraged to supply produce and meat, as well as other

goods to the population at St. Augustine. In a letter written to

Governor Joseph de Zuniga about 1700 his correspondent wrote that fifty

chickens were being sent to the Governor via some Indian carpenters

going to work at St. Augustine. The Governor had originally requested

chickens, hides, tallow, and yarn. At some point Zuniga sent 500 yards

of cloth to San Luis to barter for corn, tallow, hogs, beans, chickens,

deer skins, and wheat (Boyd et al. 1951). Jonathan Dickinson in his

journey on the Atlantic coast of Florida between 1696 and 1697 encoun-

tered Indians going to St. Augustine to trade ambergris (1975). Indians

brought produce to the market at St. Augustine. Their wares included

cassina, sassafrass, deer and buffalo skins, nut oil, bear grease, tobacco,

canoes, rope, fishnet, dried turkeys, fresh fish, and game (Bushnell

1978c). These goods were either bartered or sold on credit. Yards of

cloth amd ambergris were used as units of exchange also (Bushnell 1978c).

Indians contributed to the Spanish economy in other ways as well.

They owed tithes to the religious community and tribute payments to the

Crown (Bushnell 1978c). These were paid either in produce or in a labor

draft. Indians at Apalachee were under orders to supply sixty batches

of cassina each month to the Spanish personnel stationed in that province.

The Franciscans sold excess produce they obtained in this way either in










St. Augustine or, preferably, in Havana. The governors used the tribute

in kind as rations for the soldiers, or sold it at public auction. The

labor of Indians was put to use either in the public fields, on fortress

maintenance, or in private fields. Indians not only tilled the fields,

but guarded the crops-against .crows and wild animals (Bushnell 1978c).

Service Indians were fed and housed during their stay at St. Augustine.

There isrsome suspicion that trade with the Indians was not always

equitable or voluntary (Lanning 1935; Tepaske 1964).-In a report from

San Luis, the administrative center of Apalachee located at the western

end of the mission chain across the northern peninsula, an Indian cacique,

or chief, complained that the wife of the deputy governor had taken fish

and milk from the Indians without compensation (Boyd et al. 1951). The

labor tax also was subject to abuse (Lanning 1935; Gannon 1965).

To compound their-problems the St. Augustine population had to

compete with French, British, and Cuban traders as well as the local

Franciscans for access to the Indian's produce. The Franciscans carefully

guarded the Indians from official requisitions, preferring to sell Indian

products in Havana, where these commanded a better price. Cubans came to

Florida to fish and to trade with the Apalachee ranches for produce, deer

skins, and wild turkeys (Bolton and Ross 1968). Traders from Havana also

dealt with Indians on the southern tip of the Florida peninsula. In 1685

one collection of 185 deer skins and 200 beaver and otter pelts which had

been destined for British markets in Carolina was captured (Lanning 1935).

The British merchants also traded with the Atlantic coast Indians of

southern Florida for ambergris and goods salvaged from Spanish shipwrecks










(Bushnell 1978c). The French traded with the Georgia coastal Indians for

pelts and sassafrass in the 16th Century and with the Apalachee Indians

in the 18th Century.

Soldiers supplemented their incomes by working at trades and pro-

ducing food in their own fields and gardens. Trades included burning

charcoal, fishing, weaving fishing nets, building boats, rounding up

cattle, and hauling firewood (Bushnell 1978c). They cultivated small

plots of land outside the town which were assigned to them, and had

access to the wooded commons. The garrison personnel was essentially

urban and ill-suited for such work. Efforts to produce wheat and other

Iberian crops were particularly doomed to failure. In order to encourage

local food production Governor Mendez Canzo ordered his soldiers into the

fields and constructed both a mill and a market place in 1598 (Manucy

1962). Time and manpower were lacking for large scale plantings, however

(Otto and Lewis 1974), and Indian predations on crops and soldiers made

such work hazardous during some periods. Maps as early as 1597 show field

crops being grown north of the fort and between Maria Sanchez Creek and

the San Sebastian River (Fig. 3; Chatelain 1951:Fig. 2, 3, 4).

Some produce and livestock were grown within the town itself. Maps

show gardens and orchards growing on house lots (Jeffries 1762; Chatelain

1941:Fig. 2). Dickinson reported that such crops as figs, grapes, oranges,

pomegranates, mulberries, squash, radishes, kidney beans, onions, garlic,

lettuce, peppers, cabbage, and sweet potatoes were grown in these gardens

and orchards (1975). Chickens (Gallus gallus) and pigs (Sus scrofa)

roamed the streets of the town (Boniface 1971). In 1602, Governor










Mendez Canzo complained of the cattle (Bos taurus) running loose in the

streets (Arnade 1959).

A major advance in food production coincided with the lull in Indian

hostilities between 1650 and 1700. During this time cattle ranches

flourished in the interior of the Florida peninsula, particularly around

the area of present-day Gainesville. Some ranches also existed along

the St. Johns River and around San Luis in the panhandle of Florida

'(Arnade 1965; Bushnell 1978b). These ranches were operated by the small

cluster of landed criollo families, althoughlsuch large-scale land owner-

ship was prohibited in Florida (Lyon T977a). Many of these ranchers

preferred to ship their produce to the better markets in Havana, using

the Suwannee and St. Marks Rivers as outlets.' Between 1680 and 1687,

Governor Marques Cabrera attempted to stop this trade by ordering that

all cattle be processed through a slaughterhouse he had built at St.

Augustine. A tax was levied on the cattle las well.' Governor Quiroga

in 1693 even attempted to blockade the Suwannee River with debris to stop
'the Havana cattle trade. The era of the cattle ranches coincided with

the most bustling and prosperous period in Spanish Florida as a whole in

conjunction with the construction of the coquina Casti-llo de San Marcos

-at St. Augustine (Bushnell 1978b). It is interesting"to note that in the

1680's this abundant -supply of fresh meat supplanted the usual salted or

dried meat in the soldier's rations. The soldiers complained of this

(Bushnell 1978c), perhaps because fresh meat did not keep well in the

Days prior to refrigeration.

S'Although the only legal retail outlet ih St. Augustine was the

market place and the royal storehouse at the town plaza (Boniface 1971),










there were other retail facilities as well. The market, houses for fish

and meat vendors, as well as a grinding mill were established by Governor

Mendez Canzo in 1597. The market was a place to barter produce (Arnade

1959). Don Pedro Sanchez Grinan reported that between 1731 and 1741 as

many as twelve stores were operating (1757). These sold rum, wine,

vinegar, sugar, tobacco, spices, lard, soap, suet candles, silk, wool,

linen, and ribbons. John J. Tepaske, referring to English traders in the

18th Century, says that these merchants were driving local Spanish shop-

keepers out of business (1964). Criollos, as hidalgos or gentlemen, were

not supposed to be merchants (Bushnell 1978a). This did not prevent

many criollos from trading ambergris and cattle (Bushnell 1978b), and

one even operated two stores in St. Augustine in the late 1600's, one of

which was in his home (Gillaspie 1961). At least one commercial fisher-

man existed in the town in the 17th Century since such an individual was

on salary to supply fish to the laborers working on the Castillo de San

Marcos in the late 1600's (Chatelain 1941). Commercial fishermen and

hunters existed in the 1500's as well (Lyon 1977b). A soldier's partner-

ship in the 16th Century sold venison in the town (Lyon 1977b). A

tannery and slaughterhouse were present and in the 1750's one of the

butchers was an Englishman (Solana 1960). The tongue of the slaughtered

cattle was reserved for the governor (Bushnell 1978c).

It is not known what volume of food consumed at St. Augustine was

sold or exchanged at the market, purchased from Indian vendors, secured

through private agriculture, hunting, fishing or collecting efforts, or

acquired through barter and private exchange systems. While the evidence

is tentative, the following assumptions will be made: that there was a










public market where produce could be purchased or bartered; that there

were a few shops also; and that there were a few people, who may have

been Indians, willing to serve as hunting and fishing specialists.

In addition to the above efforts to obtain needed goods, the Spanish

employed another strategy as well. Throughout almost the entire 200 year

occupation, complaints from the presidio were regular and consistent.

Almost every governor wrote.reports to the Crown complaining of short or

unsatisfactory rations and requesting additional assistance from the

Crown both in cash and in.the form of reprimands to New Spain officials.

At one point an official letter wrote that the population "ate herbs, fish,

and other scum and vermin. ; ."(Conner 1925:99). After British seizure

of the situado ship in 1712, Governor Don Francisco de Corcoles y Martinez

reported that the population ate rodents, dogs, cats, and horses (Tepaske

1964). While these complaints were persistent, they did not usually

produce the desired result.


British Economics

As at St. Augustine, most of the residents at Frederica were expected

to do military duty; however, the colony was also expected to be self-

supporting. The roster of Frederica residents, and their trades, indicates

that the colonists were basically self-sufficient in craft skills, much

as St. Augustine had been originally (Saye and Coulter 1949). There were

at least three shopkeepers included among the colonists, but few farmers

(Saye and Coulter 1949). The settlers were given small grants of land,

agricultural tools, and seed. Efforts to produce small fruit and

vegetable gardens as well as field crops were successful. Most of the

British townsmen did not farm, but preferred to rely upon the Salzburger










farmers for produce (Deagan 1972). Using Frederica and Savannah as head-

quarters British merchants James Spaulding and William Panton traded

extensively with Indians, exchanging firearms, trade goods, and liquor

for deer skins. It was trade such as this that was so annoying to the

Spaniards at this time. Frederica was not entirely independent, however,

and as late as 1741 was still dependent upon Georgia trustees for rations

of food (Bonner 1964). The period between 1737 and 1741 was a particu-

larly trying one as bad weather caused a series of crop failures (Bonner

1964).

The British Period at St. Augustine was marked more by military

activity than by economic prosperity. Recognizing that the town, with

its increasing population could not possibly feed the refugees produced

by the American Revolution, the English Crown supplied food for these

people (Wright 1971). The British residents continued to use the small

backyard gardens established by the Spaniards earlier, and also cultivated

plots of land outside the town (Wright 1971). There were merchants in the

town, and some large landowners who produced rice, indigo, naval stores,

and barrel staves for the export market. Due to favorable Indian treaties

many colonists lived outside the fortifications as far away as the St.

Johns River (Bartram 1955; Covington 1961). Traders such as Spaulding

and Panton (originally from Frederica) continued the Indian trade with

posts in the interior although raids by the Indians on these posts were

not unknown (Bartram 1955). Local butchers not only maintained their

own cattle herds, but also purchased cattle from Georgia (Wright 1975).

Indian hunters were employed on at least one plantation on the St. Johns

River (Bartram 1955).










Discussion
-In terms of Spanish and British subsistence patterns, several points

are of importance. One is that the Spanish population at St. Augustine

and the British population at Frederica and, to a lesser extent, at St.

Augustine during the British Period, were essentially military in

orientation. Among the Spanish residents almost every individual was a

part of the military or civilian bureaucracy, a dependent of it, or a

member of the religious community.- While the British populations included

some merchants and large landowners, they also were basically military

communities. This fact, in conjunction with the urban orientation of the

population, left the colonists ill-prepared for efficient food production.

'The second observation is that during most of the First Spanish

Period it was dangerous for Spanish residents to venture far from the

fort (Tepaske 1964). Essentially St. Augustine was the Florida colony.

Only during the mid-1600's and again in the last decades of the First

Spanish Period was the interior a place of relative safety. This contrasts

-sharply with the comparative security of the British frontier where the

;colonists could exploit the resources of their environment more peaceably.

In addition to the hazards of the interior, the Spanish residents at

St. Augustine had difficulties with their supply network. Trade with the

Indians must have been tricky, with-watchful missionaries anxious to

'protect their charges, the Britons eager to supplant the Spaniards as

allies and trading partners, and the Indians given to periodic revolts

-against Spanish control. The situado was undependable. Illicit trade

with British merchants was subject to the vagaries of international

politics, pirates, Spanish official seizures, and acts of God. While










British ships were not immune to accidents on the high seas, supply lines

to Frederica and British St. Augustine seem to have been more secure.

After all most of the pirates that plagued the Spanish shipping lane were

British subjects.

Guided by Liebig's "Law of the Minimum," it is predicted that the

Spanish population at St. Augustine did not simply starve in the face of

the irregular supply routes. Liebig's "Law" states that a population's

adaptation must be toward those elements which are most important to

survival, but available in limited quantities. Adpatation must be made

to a complex of limiting factors. If an environment is subject to a

severe drought during the span of a generation on a regular and routine

basis, the population, to survive, adapts to the drought, not to the

intervening years of plenty. The Spanish population, to have survived,

must have been adapted to an irregular situado rather than to a prompt

one. This adaptation included trade with British merchants and Indians,

in conjunction with some production of food locally. The faunal record

should indicate reliance upon the animal resources obtained through

these activities.

Based on Liebig's "Law," it is doubted that the Spanish claims to

have eaten unusual food items will be supported in the faunal record. It

is expected that the quantity of dog (Canis familiaris), cat (Felis

domesticus), rodent, and horse (Equus caballus) remains in Spanish and

British collections will be about the same. Periods of starvation caused

by a failure of every strategy would have been rare and would be camou-

flaged in the record by the intervening years in which the strategy

employed functioned successfully.










Due to the hazards of venturing away from the fort during much of

the First Spanish Period, the faunal collections will probably contain

little wild terrestrial fauna, or cattle (Bos taurus). Reliance upon the

nearby marine resources, and upon pigs (Sus scrofa) and chickens (Gallus

gallus), which could have been raised in the backyards and streets of the

town, may be predicted. In the 17th Century faunal collection from the

Spanish occupation, cattle may be more prominent, reflecting the presence

of cattle ranches in the interior and the relative safety of that region.

The British, both at Frederica and at St. Augustine, enjoyed unham-

pered access to the area around their settlement. They were, therefore,

free to exploit wild terrestrial fauna if they wished, and to raise

cattle with only minor interference from Indian predations.

The military and urban composition of all three components, Spanish

St. Augustine, British Frederica, and British St. Augustine, should be

reflected in the faunal samples also. The species exploited should be

those which could be captured near the settlements, with a minimum of

time expenditure due to the need to resolve the scheduling conflict

between military duties and subsistence activities. Highly seasonal

resources which might conflict with official duties would not be a regular

item in the diet of any of these components. Emphasis can be expected

to be placed on species which could be caught in large numbers, or using

untended devices, during off-duty hours.

The predictions expressed in these last three paragraphs are

slightly contradictory. The Spanish and British components at St.

Augustine may be similar to each other for two different reasons, and

it is not altogether clear how to distinguish the valid explanation for










each sample. If the British Period component at St. Augustine is more

similar to the Spanish one at St. Augustine than to the British Frederica

collection, this may indicate that both the Spanish and British diets

used immediately available resources due to scheduling conflicts rather

than to restricted access to the interior, which would not have been a

factor in the British adaptation. Both explanations, scheduling conflicts

and restricted access to the interior may have been influential in the

Spanish adaptation. This question will be returned to in Chapter 5 when

the resources of the environment are discussed. It may have been un-

necessary for either the Spanish or the British garrisons to venture more

than a mile or two from the confines of the fort to obtain any of their

animal resources other than cattle. If that is the case the Spaniards

at St. Augustine could have exploited local resources just as safely as

did the Britons and the Spanish adaptation will best be explained in

terms of scheduling conflicts.















CHAPTER 4


CULTURAL AFFILIATION AND FOODWAYS

In addition to social status, historical events, demography, and

economics, the subsistence strategies Followed by the Spanish and British

households being studied here may have been influenced by traditional

Old World foodways. Although the origins of the populations at

Frederica and St. Augustine were mixed, the predominant traditions would

have been either from England or from Spain. These two foodways will be

discussed here. Recognizing that many of the British Period residents

at St. Augustine would also have been more correctly described as

American colonists rather than British citizens, some foodways of the

American colonies will also be explored as they have been examined in

zooarchaeological studies. As will be seen, these materials have little

value in predicting the subsistence strategies observed from the faunal

collections of Frederica and St. Augustine beyond the initial observation

that domestic animals predominate.


Traditional British Foodways

Since very little information is available on traditional British

foodways of the 17th and 18th Centuries, emphasis will be placed here

upon a single source, 'A Solid Suffiency': An Ethnography of Yeoman

Foodways in Stuart England, written as a dissertation by Jay Allan

Anderson in 1971. This excellent work represents a synthesis of primary

materials dealing with the 17th Century English yeoman/husbandman class.

49










According to Anderson, there are virtually no other works on pre-

industrial English food habits which deal with this material. Conse-

quently this section will be confined to a summary of some of Anderson's

findings as they relate to food habits at Frederica or St. Augustine.

Two reservations about the adequacy of this treatment must be noted.

First, Anderson deals with basically rural food habits, whereas most of

the British residents at Frederica and St. Augustine had an urban back-

ground. Secondly, he is dealing principally with the 17th Century and

the present study of British foodways is placed in the 18th Century.

However, Anderson himself addresses the first objection by indicating

that even those few people who did live in market towns and cities in

the 17th Century kept barnyard animals on their lots, which also included

a garden and an orchard (1971:20). "The majority of these part-time

farmers were craftsmen who because their skills were long and difficult

to learn gradually became specialists" (1971:5). This description might

well fit the specialists that joined Oglethorpe's Frederica expedition.

In fact, Anderson equates the urban artisans, craftsmen, and tradesmen

as the urban counterparts of the rural husbandmen and yeomen (1971:15).

Perhaps many of Oglethorpe's people had a similar background. The second

objection is addressed simply by questioning how much change would have

occurred in yeoman foodways between the 1600's and the early 1700's.

The procurement technique employed by the English husbandman was

mixed farming incorporating locally available products and emphasizing

self-sufficiency with a little surplus to be used in trade or converted

to cash. Most of the cash crops produced were cheese, barley, poultry,

and eggs (1971:27). While field crops such as wheat, barley, oats, rye,










and legumes were important in this strategy, so also were garden vege-

tables and orchards. Apparently few wild fruits or herbs were used in

the diet (1971:45).

Domestic stock included horses, oxen, dairy cattle, goats, sheep,

swine, rabbits, poultry, pigeons, and bees (1971:58-77). Other fowl

included geese, ducks, capons, hens, and "thirty tame birds usually

baked in pies" (1971:59). The dairy herd was the most valuable and

productive of these since they produced a variety of milk products.

Almost no cattle were bred for meat and usually only those animals not

expected to last the winter were slaughtered. Cattle butchered in this

manner were typically at least 10 years of age (1971:187). Beef was not

a major food source (1971:66). Sheep were a basic source of meat, al-

though they also supplied milk, milk products, and wool. The most

significant source of meat was swine (1971:68). Some of these were

confined to the yard, but most roamed the wooded lowlands in the nearby

commons. The yeomen of Stuart England were not blind to the good yield

for minimal effort that pigs provided. Goats also were allowed to fend

for themselves, but were not a major food source.

Wild mammals, birds, and fish constituted a small, but important,

part of the diet (1971:77). Wild birds were usually snared, but some

were also shot with fowling pieces. Birds included wild goose, lark,

plover, teal, mallard, quail, woodcock, partridge, and pheasant. Wild

hares were trapped both as a food item and to eliminate a crop pest.

Deer were rare. It was a symbol of the New World's bounty that so many

deer could be hunted. Yeomen also fished, using eel weirs, herring nets,

or gaffs. Most seafood was purchased at market, however. Seafood was a

dietary staple due to "fish days," which were retained after the










Reformation. Fish were more frequently consumed in the cities than in

the country since meat was more expensive to purchase in town (1971:80).

Over one hundred different kinds of fish were regularly consumed, either

fresh or salted. These included ray, mullet, skate, sole, and whiting.

Most of the produce of the farms had to be preserved. Mammals,

birds, and fish were usually preserved by salting, either wet or dry.

Beef and pork were the basic preserved meats, with pork as the most

important. Ham and bacon were first wet or dry salted and then exposed

to slow drying or smoking. Smaller cuts of meat, as well as fish and

birds were often potted. Potted meat was salted and/or cooked and then

sealed with congealed fat. Pickled meat could either be "collared" or

"souced." Collared meat was first deboned and then allowed to sit in

an herb brew until needed. It was best kept only about a week. Souced

meat was much the same except that it included wine and the product

could be kept longer. Mutton was usually not brined (1971:68).

Food preparation techniques included a variety of different methods.

Bread, cheese, and ale figured prominently at most meals, although dinner

usually included roasts, stews, hot salads, and eggs. Vegetables often

were consumed raw. Roasts of beef, pork, poultry, mutton, kid, lamb,

and veal were popular, but boiled foods were more common since they

required less attention. Meat or fish was consumed in some form every

day. "Spoon-meats," the name for soups, gruels, and porridges were made

with cereal grains and perhaps some spices and dried fruits. Rice, an

imported item, was also popular and considered a staple. Pies were

eaten in large quantities, and contained almost any flesh. To quote

Anderson on one type of pie "the 'battalion' pie, included almost any-

thing that happened to be perched or swimming around" (1971:198). Tartes










contained fruit, custards, or vegetables. Stews included meat, while

pottages contained vegetables and broth. Interestingly, the omelette or

quelquechose was popular. The idea had just recently been imported from

continental Europe (1971:227). Eggs were also consumed in fried, hard

boiled, roasted, and baked form.


Traditional Spanish Foodways

Traditional Spanish foodways will also be summarized from a single

source, although for a different reason than given above. There are a

number of interesting sources available dealing with foodways of the

Iberian peninsula. These were consulted by Stephen L. Cumbaa in his

dissertation Patterns of Resource Use and Cross-Cultural Dietary Change

in the Spanish Colonial Period written in 1975. He cited this material

in order to demonstrate for the 18th Century Spanish adaptation at St.

Augustine what I hope to demonstrate for the entire First Spanish Period

as well as the British occupations at Frederica and St. Augustine: that

traditional foodways were modified to meet New World conditions. His

position is well supported and it seems unnecessary to expand upon his

work. His contribution will be summarized here for the convenience of

the reader, who may not have Cumbaa's dissertation at hand.

Many of the more popular dietary items in Spain were those also

popular in England. The traditional Iberian field crops included wheat,

barley, oats, rye, as well as legumes. Fruits such as oranges, figs, and

apples were also prominently used. Maize was grown after its introduction

from the New World and quickly became a major food crop, supplanting rice.

Sheep were the most important animal produced. Although principally

grown for wool, mutton, milk, and cheese were also consumed from the









animals. Cattle were primarily draft animals, with milk and meat

consumed after the animal had served its time. Goats likewise were

present, but in small quantities. Young horses, called "red deer" were

commonly eaten, as were dogs in some parts of Spain. Swine were present

in small numbers, but were not allowed to forage on their own as in

England. From these domestic species, pork was the most expensive meat,

followed by beef and lastly by mutton. Fowl had a price similar to that

for beef.

Wild mammals, birds, and fish were not a major component of the

diet generally. Hunting was a marginal activity, with hares and deer

being the primary game species. Deer were protected by royal decree,

but may have been hunted at least by the nobility. Birds, especially

partridges, pheasants, and cormorants, were hunted. Young birds were

caught on the nest for consumption. Most fish were obtained by

commercial fishermen in the Atlantic and Meriterranean. Species

included grouper, pompano, cod, tuna, sole, mullet, drum, and shark.

Non-commercial fishing was done by hook and line on the interior mountain

streams, which in Spain are rare, and using cast nets. Fish sold more

cheaply than did domestic meats.

The most popular food preparation techniques included a boiled stew,

puchero or olla podrida, and a cold soup or broth, gazpacho. Puchero and

its more elaborate form, olla podrida, included a combination of meats

and vegetables boiled in a covered earthenware pot. Roasting was also

popular, as were frying and broiling.










Old World Foodways

If the traditional patterns of animal use described above were

transferred to the New World as a complete complex several patterns

could be expected to be observed in the faunal record. The British

faunal pattern would include mostly swine remains, followed by sheep and

a few aged cattle. Goat might also appear in limited numbers. There

would be a few domestic rabbits, wild hare, and an occasional deer. A

wide variety of domestic fowl should be recovered, as well as a large

number of wild fowl of various species. Fish would be quite common in

the collections, with marine species being most abundant.

The Spanish pattern would be quite different. Sheep would dominate

the collection, followed by cattle and pigs. Some domestic fowl such as

chickens, pigeons, and ducks would be present. Wild species such as deer

and wild hare might be present in small numbers; but wild birds, particu-

larly young ones, would be fairly common. Fish would be common also, and

be mostly pelagic species. Cumbaa's research demonstrated that this

pattern was modified in response to New World conditions.


Historic North American Foodways

A number of faunal collections will be reviewed here. A variety of

geographical locations are represented, but all date to the pre-Revolu-

tionary period, and most coincide with the French and Indian War. Both

domestic and military occupations are represented. All should follow

the British traditional foodways extrapolated from Anderson's study if

these traditional foodways were transferred unmodified to the New World.

It should be noted at the outset that this comparison is handicapped

by a methodological problem common to zooarchaeology. There is little










comparability in reporting techniques. Some use the Minimum Number of

Individuals technique (MNI), others refer to bone count or bone weight,

still others present their data as pounds of edible meat, but their

techniques of determining pounds of edible meat are not standard. This

problem will be further discussed in the chapter on methods and materials.

As the moment there appears to be no way to resolve the issue. Emphasis

in this analysis will be upon MNI where that is available since the

technique by which this is derived is fairly uniform among faunal

analysts. Where MNI is not available, emphasis will be placed upon the

species utilized rather than upon the proportion of species contributing

edible meat.

Fort Loudoun, in eastern Tennessee, was a British fort used

during the French and Indian War (Parmalee 1960; Bowen 1976). The

faunal assemblage indicates that cattle were most heavily used, followed

by pig and deer. There were no sheep or goats identified in the

collection. Some waterfowl were identified, but emphasis was placed

upon the domestic chicken and turkey. There were also passenger

pigeons identified from the site. Some fish, particularly freshwater

catfish, were identified from the sample. There was also a small

collection of aquatic turtles, as well as bear, beaver, and woodchuck.

At Fort Ligonier, a French and Indian War fort located in western

Pennsylvania, domestic animals contributed most of the MNI (Guilday 1970),

19% of which were sheep and 19% of which were cattle. Pigs represented

only 5% of the individuals. Wild fauna contributed 40% of the individuals.

Most of these wild animals were mammals (26%), with some birds, reptiles,










and two fish. Deer contributed 13% of the MNI, but bear, fox, bobcat,

squirrel, and rabbit were also present.

Fort Pelham, a third French and Indian War fortification, is located

on the northern border of Massachusetts (Bowen 1976). At this fort, there

were no sheep at all. Cow and pig contributed 40% and 49% respectively

of the individuals. It is not known what other species may have been

utilized.

Mott Farm, a farm site in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, was occupied in

the mid-18th Century (Bowen 1975, 1976). Pigs constituted 40% of the

individuals identified from the faunal collection, cattle contributed

36% of the individuals, and sheep 24% of the individuals. By comparing

the ages of the sheep, Joanne Bowen concluded that sheep were raised

primarily for wool, and incidentally for sale or consumption. Over 80%

of the cattle in the collection were older than three years of age, which

indicated to Bowen that cattle were used as draft and dairy animals and

slaughtered after a period of useful service.

Joanne Bowen, from whose studies (1975, 1976) the above sites have

been summarized, concluded (1976) that the predominance of domestic

animals at the sites reflected the basic foodway pattern in England,

that the changing proportions of domestic animal use at the four sites

indicated local, regional variation in that basic tradition. The

frontier Ft. Loudoun materials, on which more information was available,

indicate some significant departures from the yeomen pattern described

by Anderson (1971), particularly in the use of an extensive range of

wild mammals.









Several samples of faunal materials from Fort Michlimackinac have

been analyzed, first by Charles E. Cleland (1970) and recently a new

collection was studied by Gary Shapiro (1978a and b). FortMichlimackinac,

located at the Straits of Mackinac, Michigan, was occupied by the French

between 1715 and 1760. British soldiers manned the post from 1760 until

1780. Cleland found that both the French and British occupants relied

heavily upon domestic animals. Pig was the only domestic animal

identified by Cleland from the French Features studied, whereas the

British Features also contained cattle and sheep, in that order. Bear,

snowshoe hare, and beaver were found in both components, as well as a

wide variety of wild birds and fish. The French population at the fort,

according to Cleland, used a greater variety of mammals than did the

British occupants, who used a greater variety of fish.

While Cleland interprets the differences between French and British

collections to be quite distinct, I would interpret them to be fairly

similar, except in the use of cattle and sheep. Certainly it would not

be possible to confuse either of these collections with those discussed

by Bowen (1975, 1976) or Anderson (1971). The British adaptation at

Michlimackinac as revealed in the faunal collection studied by Cleland

supports the hypothesis being tested here that the British colonists did

not transfer their barnyard complex to the New World unmodified. There

is very little similarity with the pattern that would be expected from

Anderson's study (1971).

Gary Shapiro directed his study to British adaptations at

Michlimackinac, testing the assumption made by Cleland and others that

the British were "transplanted Englishmen" unwilling to modify their

traditional foodways to a new environment (1978a and b). Comparing










faunal materials from three archaeological Features, Shapiro found that

the British collections followed a seasonal round exploiting wild species,

indicating that the British colonists adapted their foodways to a schedule

similar to that of local Indians, with account being taken for the more

sophisticated technological level of the British residents. It might be

added here to Shapiro's analysis that the British adaptation to the

seasonal availability of resources appears to be similar to that of the

French occupants in the same location.

Turning now to faunal reports from colonial sites in the southeast,

Henry M. Miller (1978) has analyzed two late-17th Century Virginia

households, Pettus Plantation and Utopia Cottage. These two sites,

adjacent to each other on the James River, were very similar to one

another in their faunal use, in spite of documentary and archaeological

evidence of different social class (Chapter 2). Important to this

discussion is that at both sites swine constituted a plurality of the

individuals, followed by cattle, while sheep were a minor component.

Deer, raccoon, opossum, squirrel, and rabbit were also used, as were

chicken, goose, and turkey. Catfish, gar, striped bass, and marine red

drum were identified along with a few aquatic and terrestrial turtles.

The Pettus Plantation was sold in 1700 to James Bray II (Miller 1978)

and the faunal materials from one of Bray's wells has been analyzed

(Barber 1976). Barber discusses his materials in terms of usable meat.

However, to make his material comparable to that discussed above, his

presentation will be reviewed in terms of MNI, which will alter the

interpretation he made of the data. Of the domestic species, sheep were

the most abundant, followed by pigs and cattle. Cattle provided the bulk

of the edible meat followed by pigs and sheep, which were about equal









contributors. Goats were also present. Several of the cattle were

apparently under three years of age. Deer, raccoon, and opossum are

absent from the collection, although a large number of wild rabbits were

present as well as a bear and a muskrat. There are a number of birds in

the collection, but not the variety of barnyard fowl that might have

been expected from Anderson's discussion (1971). Some freshwater fish

were used, and several aquatic and terrestrial turtles.

From Williamsburg, Virginia, a similar pattern of species use

emerges. Williamsburg faunal analysis was done by Stanley J. Olsen and

recently published by Audrey Noel Hume (1978). Although proportional

contributions are not known, cattle, pigs, and sheep were reported from

all sites. Mutton was less popular according to Noel Hume than was pork

or beef (1978). In addition deer, rabbit, opossum, squirrel, and otter

were consumed, as well as a variety of wild and domestic birds. The

Williamsburg fauna also included marine fish such as black drum, sturgeon,

shad, and catfish. Turtles were esteemed as were shellfish (Noel Hume 1978).

Discussion

It is clear from the above discussion that, just as Bowen had

concluded on a smaller sample of sites (1975, 1976), the British

adaptation in the New World was a highly varied one,.and not altogether

similar to the one which would have been predicted from Anderson's study

(1971). Just as Cumbaa concluded from Spanish New World materials (1975),

it appears that the British subsistence pattern in the New World was

adapted to new, local environmental conditions. Cultural affiliation,

that is traditional Old World foodways, had little to do with British

foodways in the New World. Clearly domestic animals did not buffer the










colonists from the need to adapt to new environmental factors. Efforts

made by the early colonists to transfer the English barnyard animal

complex to the New World did not entirely succeed, although a few sites

discussed above appear to conform to the Old World pattern more closely

than others. The differences observed particularly in the British,

French, and Indian War fort samples, where temporal and cultural factors

are constant, probably reflect adaptations to local environmental factors.

Using the New World British colonial foodways as a guide, a series

of predictions will be tested using the Frederica and British Period

St. Augustine faunal collections. First, it appears that either cattle

or swine will be the dominant species in the collections, with preference

to.cattle biomass. This will be in contradiction to the yeoman pattern

in which swine predominates. Wild terrestrial species were used, but not

extensively. Deer were the most popular wild species. There was a

wide range of wild birds, but not of domestic ones, a departure from the

yeoman pattern. Fish were rare (Barber 1976; Miller 1978), another

departure from the yeoman pattern. Turtles, a class not mentioned by

Anderson, were included as a minor component of the species used. It

is further predicted that the trend seen here, for British subsistence

patterns to reflect local conditions, will continue to be a factor. To

this extent, the British and the 18th Century Spanish faunal collections

from St. Augustine may be quite similar to each other, just as the

British, French, and Indian collections from Ft. Michlimackinac are.

These predictions may be refined in the following discussion as it is

seen how the British residents at St. Augustine and Frederica adapted

to those environments and the Spanish population adapted to the environs

of St. Augustine.















CHAPTER 5


ANIMAL RESOURCES OF THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN


In the first chapter, four factors were identified as being

influential in the formation of Spanish and British subsistence strategies.

Social class, political and social environment, and cultural affiliation

have been reviewed. In this chapter the last factor, animal resources,

will be considered. The Atlantic Coastal Plain and the estuarine

environments occupied by Frederica and St. Augustine represent a series

of intergrading biotopes. These will be described in terms of their

proximity to St. Augustine and Frederica. The major portion of the

chapter will deal with local wild and domestic animal resources. Habits,

habitats, seasonal occurrences, and size of the species identified from

Frederica and St. Augustine will be discussed, along with information

about colonial use of these species where possible. As will be seen,

all of the species used at these two sites could have been encountered

within a mile or two of either Frederica or St. Augustine.


The Atlantic Coastal Plain

The Atlantic Coastal Plain (Fig. 2) is the old coastal region of

the southeastern United States. Its northern and western edge is

defined by the Fall Line, a Mesozoic Era shoreline (Johnson et al. 1974).

The coastal plain was deposited by a series of marine advances during

the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods. The soils are sands and sandy clays

of marine origin which are usually acidic. They possess a low native

fertility due to excessive leaching.
62










In Georgia the climate found on the coastal plain is a mild one

(Johnson et al. 1974). The average annual temperature is 60-70F.

Daily temperature maxima in July and August range within the 80's and

90'sF. Average winter temperatures are around 430F, with occasional

winter freezes. The coastal islands may be somewhat cooler than the

mainland. The rainfall pattern is for a summer rainy season, followed

by a winter drought. Average annual rainfall is about 53 inches.

Hurricanes in the late summer affect the Georgia coast about every ten

years, between August and October. A major hurricane was recorded in

1752.

The climate at St. Augustine is similar to that in Georgia. It has

been described as humid-subtropical (Mehta and Jones 1977). Most of the

precipitation falls in July and September, with spring and fall droughts

and a mean annual rainfall of 47 inches. The average annual temperature

is 690F, with daily means ranging from 810F in July to 570F in January

(Dunkle 1955). St. Augustine experiences about one hurricane every

seven years.

The Atlantic coastal plain is a low, flat region of well drained,

gently rolling hills and poorly drained flatwoods extending east and

south of the fall line to the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico from

southeastern Virginia to eastern Texas, excluding the southern end of

Florida (Johnson et al. 1974). On well drained soil the dominant plant

species are long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly pine (P. teada),

and several species of oak (Quercus sp.). On poorly drained soil the

dominant species are long-leaf pine and slash pine (P. ellioti) with a

dense ground cover of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), gallberry (Ilex

glabra), and wire grass (Aristida stricta). This is the community









referred to as the Pine Barrens sector by Lewis Larson (1970). The long-

leaf pine is adapted to a humid subtropical climate of mild winters, hot

summers, high rainfall, and frequent ground fires. Today the long-leaf

pine community is much less extensive and formidable than it was in the

past.

Other biotopes also are found on the coastal plain. Where the soil

is very poorly drained pond pines (P. serotina) dominate. Slash pine

(P. ellioti) is the common member of the Pine Flatwoods community along

the coast of Florida, while long-leaf pines are less common on the coast

than they are further inland. At St. Augustine, sand pine (P. clausa)

together with evergreen species of Lyonia and Quercus forms a scrub

community that is common on the dunes of ancient shore lines that form

sandy ridges back from the present coast. Sand pine do not occur on the

coast (Simons pers. comm.).

The Southern Mixed Hardwood community is dominated by oaks (Quercus

sp.), although the composition of this community can be quite diverse.

Live oak (Q. virginiana), laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), sweet gum

(Liquidamber styraciflua), magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), red bay

(Persea borbonia), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), cabbage palm (Sabel

palmetto), and Florida elm (Ulmus americana floridana) are the more

common species. Near St. Augustine this forest type is found bordering

freshwater creeks and floodplain swamps or in low, fertile areas near

the coast. Wooded swamps are composed principally of pond cypress

(Taxodium ascendens), swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), and/or red maple

(Acer rubrum). The coastal plain is traversed by many sluggish, meander-

ing streams and dotted by innumberable swamps, ponds, and lakes where

these latter communities can be found.









S Another important terrestrial community is one caused by human

activity. Disturbed habitats are found in urban centers, as garden plots,

and as agricultural fields. While the plant species found in these areas

are largely selected by human agents, the wild animal populations exploit-

ing them are self-selected. Usually the animals are attracted either to

the crops grown there, to the prey species attracted to the crops,or to

the hedgerows bordering the fields.

An important topographic feature of the coastal plain is a series

of offshore islands known as sea, or barrier, islands. While a chain

of these islands stretches from New Jersey to Texas, the segment between

North Island, South Carolina, and Anastasia Island, Florida, shares a

similar natural history (Johnson et al. 1974). The Georgia islands,

such as St. Simons Island where Frederica is located, are separated

from the mainland by extensive marshland, tidal streams, and sound

systems (Fig. 4). Anastasia Island is separated from the mainland by

less than half a mile (Fig. 3). Nonetheless, between Anastasia Island

and the mainland lies a rich estuarine environment containing many of

the same features as at St. Simons Island. Low sandy beaches border

the seaward edges of the islands. Elevation on the islands is usually

less than 25 feet, although individual dunes may be much higher.

' The major communities on these islands are maritime oak forests

and pine forests. The oak forest is dominated by live oak (Q. virginiana)

with cabbage palms (Sabel palmetto) and a low woody understory. Pine

forests are found on better drained portions of the islands and may be

the by-product of old agricultural clearings (Johnson et al. 1974).

Between the beach and the first dune crest there is a salt spray

tolerant community of grasses and herbs characterized by sea oats










(Uniola paniculata). At St. Simons Island, the pine community is

composed principally of loblolly pine (P. taeda) with some slash pine

(P. ellioti) or long-leaf pine (P. palustris) (Johnson et al. 1974).

Anastasia Island at St. Augustine is vegetated by a saw-palmetto scrub

on the highest elevations, with a live oak-palmetto biotope bordering

this (Deagan 1976). There is a mildly brackish marsh dominated by clump

cordgrass (Spartina bakeri) on the southern part of the Island.

Michael Dahlberg has defined two major habitats for marine organisms

(1975). The inshore area includes the waters along the beaches and in

the estuaries. The offshore region encompasses the continental shelf.

The inshore beach waters are an area of turbidity and surf made uneven

by sandbars. Many of the same species found inside the estuary are also

found adjacent to the beaches.

The estuarine environment lies behind the barrier islands and is

protected from the ocean by them. Estuaries are subject to regular tidal

fluctuation through a series of inlets which separate the islands from

one another. There is considerable current in these inlets due to tidal

flow and as a consequence the inlets are usually deeper than adjacent

coastal or estuarine waters (Larson 1970). The lower estuary is a saline

environment diluted by freshwater runoff from the mainland. It contains

deep bays, or sounds, surrounded by salt marshes which are traversed

throughout by tidal creeks of various sizes. These creeks are the access

route for humans into this area of dense vegetation and soft mud.

Using the height of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) as an

index, the salt marsh biotope has been divided into several communities

(Johnson et al. 1974). Spartina sp. forms vast flat marshes within the

estuary. The "Tall Spartina edge marsh" is the border of vegetation










found immediately adjacent to the low tide mark. Where the marsh is

inundated by tidal waters for several hours each day the "Short Spartina

low marsh" is defined. The Short Spartina high marsh" biotope occurs

where daily tidal flow is short. Smooth cordgrass is replaced by salt-

meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) where the marsh is only flooded a few

times a week, and by needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) where tidal inunda-

tion is rare. Bordering the saltmarsh is a shrub community of salt

myrtle (Baccharis glomeruliflora), groundsel tree (B. halimifolia), and

southern red cedar (Juniperus silicicola).

Freshwater is found in a few locations. As ponds or sloughs on

barrier islands they-contain a variety of aquatic plants depending on

depth. Freshwater and brackish marshes are found around the mouths of

large mainland streams. As they extend up the rivers these become the

cypress-gum or hardwood swamps discussed above. There is a small fresh-

water spring on the northern end of Anastasia Island.

The offshore habitats lie beyond the barrier island beaches and are

defined by depth rather than by vegetation or salinity (Dahlberg 1975).

The continental shelf on which these biotopes are located is about 70

to 80 miles wide, with a gentle drop of about two feet per mile. The

coastal habitat is a zone of transition between the beaches and a depth

of 8 to 10 fathoms. When these waters are diluted by freshwater (around

inlets), they are turbid and productive. Both offshore and inshore

fauna are found here, due to the transitional nature of the habitat.

The open shelf, between 10 and 30 fathoms, is of intermediate fertility

and does not support a rich fauna, nor do the shelf edge (30-40 fathoms)

and the lower shelf edge (60-100 fathoms) habitats. The open waters

beyond are clear and less productive (Johnson et al. 1974). Where live










bottoms, or reefs, are found (9-30 fathoms) a diverse subtropical and

tropical fish faunas are found also. These include groupers (Serranidae),

snappers (Lutjanidae), and porgies (Sparidae). Two such reefs occur

off St. Augustine (Freeman and Walford 1976). It is not known if similar

reefs are found off St. Simons Island. A reef has been recently identified

off Sapelo Island, an island just north of St. Simons, at 10-12 fathoms

(Dahlberg 1975). Such shallow reefs are less-diverse than deeper ones

(Dahlberg 1975).


St. Augustine and Frederica

Comparing Figures 3 and 4 it can be seen that both communities are

located within estuarine environments. Two important differences appear.

First, Anastasia Island is much smaller than St. Simons Island. Second,

St. Augustine is located directly on the sound, whereas Frederica lies

some three miles north of St. Simons Sound on the Frederica River and

three miles south of Sapelo or Altamaha Sound.

St. Augustine occupies a low, sandy spit of land between the

Matanzas River and Santa Maria Creek. Originally located on Anastasia

Island, the town was moved to its present position in 1572 (Chatelain

1941). The Matanzas River is not actually a river at all, but an arm

of the sea extending behind Anastasia Island from Matanzas Inlet at the

south end of Anastasia Island north to St. Augustine Inlet, a distance

of 15 miles. The North River parallels the Atlantic coast for 13 miles

and did not originally have a northern outlet. Its waters were fresh

in the upper reaches before channelization. To the west about a half

mile beyond tiny Santa Maria Creek lies the San Sebastian River. Although

subject to tidal action in its lower reaches, the San Sebastian is fresh
iC-.










upstream. Inland from the coast the land slowly rises in elevation to a

broad coastal plane of pine flatwoods interrupted by freshwater streams,

swamps, and ponds and by sand pine scrub on the ancient dune ridges. At

about the latitude of St. Augustine the Gulf Stream current so important

to Spanish shipping begins to flow away from North America toward Europe

(Boniface 1971). Anastasia Island is about 3 miles long and less than a

mile wide. The lagoon behind it is deep and is one of the few protected

harbors on Florida's Atlantic coast.

The garrison at St. Augustine used this environment in a number of

ways. Two sentinel posts were maintained on Anastasia Island as part of

the defense system, one at Matanzas Inlet, and the other at the northern

end of the island. Ships were often anchored at the north end of

Anastasia rather than off the town proper and a wharf was built here in

the 18th Century (Olano 1740; Jeffreys 1762). In the 1500's at least

there were fields on Anastasia (Chatelain 1941:Fig. 2), and later fisher-

men possibly maintained a weir on the bars in the Inlet itself (Jeffreys

1762). In addition the marsh north of the fort, known as Hospital Creek

today, could have been extensively used, as it is today, by fishermen.

There were fields grown within sight of the fort between Santa Maria

Creek and the San Sebastian River (Chatelain 1941:Fig. 2, 4, 10, 13).

St. Simons Island is a more hospitable island than Anastasia and

today is graced by large oak trees with occasional pine hammocks. The

island is about 12 miles long and 3 miles wide. On the seaward side it

is buffered from the Atlantic by Little St. Simons Island and Sea Island.

Consequently the only strip of beach on the island is on the southern

tip along St. Simons Sound. The town is located on the Frederica River,

which may be likened to the North or Tolomoto River at St. Augustine










except that the Frederica River eventually connects with Altamaha Sound

at the north end of the Island. The river is a meandering stream which

is eroding into the bluff on which the town of Frederica is located. On

the far side of the stream is an extensive marsh system. There are

several freshwater sloughs and small streams on the island, which is

separated from the mainland by about 3 miles of marsh and tidal streams.

Like the Spanish colony, the garrison at Frederica also manned an outpost

on the southern end of their island, and had extensive fields adjacent

to the fort (Reese 1963).


'Species Accounts

A wide variety of animals use the biotopes discussed above, not all

of which will be reviewed here. In order to make the following presen-

tation reasonably manageable, only those species which have actually been

identified from either Frederica or St. Augustine will be reviewed. In

addition, Tables 2 and 3 summarize the data on seasonality, habits, and

preferred habitat presented here. When possible, these data will be

supplemented by traveler's accounts and data on colonial use of these

species. The classes will be discussed in the text in the same order as

they appear in the Tables: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, sharks,

rays, and bony fish. Unless otherwise noted, species accounts were

compiled from the following sources: Bent 1962a, 1962b, 1963; Bull and

Farrand 1977; Burt and Grossenheider 1964; Caldwell et al. 1959; Carr

1952; Conant 1975; Dahlberg 1975; Freeman and Walford 1976; Golley 1962;

Hoese and Moore 1977; Howell 1932; Iverson 1977; Jennings n.d.; Johnson

et al. 1974; Jordon 1969; Kortright 1943; Lowery 1974; McClane 1974a and

1974b; McIlHenny 1935; McLane 1955; Palmer 1976; Peterson 1947; Robbins
et al. 1966; Schwartz and Burgess 1975; Sprunt 1954; and Youatt 1847.










An animal's use of its environment is not as clear-cut or restricted

as Tables 3 and 4 suggest. Species generally use a variety of biotopes,

with preference for one or two of these. Likewise nocturnal animals can

occasionally be found abroad during the day, and vice versa. The daily

cycle of many marsh animals is timed to coincide with the tides. Peak

feeding activity occurs at the turn of the tides, whether that is at

noon or midnight. However fish that prefer to feed at night may be more

active at the evening tide than at the diurnal tide. Species which

hibernate further north, seldom reduce their activity on the coastal

plain except during spells of exceptionally cold weather. In terms of

human use of animal species, the capture technique employed can circum-

vent the habits of the animal. For example, use of a turtle trap makes

the fact that turtles are diurnal immaterial to the collector, who can

collect the trapped animals whenever it is convenient.

The presence of marine species is correlated with shifting water

temperatures and the salinity of the inshore waters. The salinity of

the estuary varies considerably according to rainfall and freshwater

drainage (Gilmore 1977). During the wet season, runoff may lower

salinity considerably, and affect the species present. Species which

require greater salinity must temporarily retreat to more saline off-

shore waters. During cold spells water temperature drops to lethal

levels for some of the more tropical fish and these also must retreat

to warmer offshore waters. In addition, inshore waters become colder

in Florida during July and August due to cold water upwellings. Fishing

is usually poor during these months (Gilmore 1977).










Mammals

The opossum, Didelphis virginiana, is a small, cat-sized animal

weighing about 1.9 to 2.8 Kgs. Opossum are omnivorous and nocturnal.

They prefer deciduous forests in bottomlands, and along streams. Through-

out the study area they are a common mammal, but not very prevalent in

salt marshes. Opossums are often accused of raiding gardens and hen

houses. William Bartram in his travels reported (1955) that they were

eaten by residents of Florida and Georgia, who considered them a deli-

cious, healthy food. Some considered opossum better than raccoon, which

was tough and stringy (Hilliard 1972).

Two rabbit species may be found in the study area, the cottontail

(Sylvilagus floridanus) and the marsh rabbit (S. palustris). In most

cases the post-cranial skeletons of these species are difficult to

distinguish from one another. The cottontail weighs about 1 Kg and is

a nocturnal herbivore. The marsh rabbit weighs around 1.2 Kgs. The

cottontail prefers uplands, both wooded and open, particularly old fields

with thickets, or hedgerows of thick grass and is common near agricul-

tural lands (Hilliard 1972). The marsh rabbit prefers lowlands, partic-

ularly swamps and brackish water areas, and is characteristic of high

marsh.

Two species of squirrels also inhabit the area, the gray squirrel

(Sciurus carolinensis) and the fox squirrel (S. niger). The gray

squirrel, about 461-512 grams, is found in hardwood forests and urban

areas, usually near trees. The fox squirrel, 821-972 grams, prefers

pine uplands. Fox squirrels tolerate more open conditions than gray

squirrels and are frequently seen near corn or soybean fields, in which

they feed by day.










The hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), a small rodent weighing

about 86 grams, has been called the most abundant mammal in Georgia by

Frank Golley (1962). They do much damage to garden crops because they

are moderately abundant in cover around house sites.

The Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), roof rat (R. rattus), and house

mouse (Mus musculus), are all introduced species of Old World origin.

Presumably their introduction was unintentional since they are serious

pests, doing extensive damage to human property and acting as transport

for disease. The Norway rat is omnivorous, but are particularly attracted

to stored grains and garbage dumps. They are also found in salt marshes.

Roof rats live by preference in walls and lofts of barns, or under refuse.

Corn is a major food source. House mice are also human commensals living

in old fields, barns, and houses. They are omnivorous, preferring small

grain seeds and herb seeds.

The domestic dog (Canis familiaris) may have been of almost any

known size and either of Old World or New World ancestry. The Florida

Tocobaga ate dogs (Bullen 1978). The Spanish claimed to have eaten them

when placed under extreme privation due to delays in the situado.

Although it is not expected that the dog remains to be studied will show

evidence of butchering marks or burning, the possibility that the Spanish

did consume dog remains. It should be noted that dogs were a regular

food item in the Mediterranean region and Frederick J. Simoons reports

that dog flesh is still valued as a delicacy in Extremadura, Spain (1967).

If the Spaniards at St. Augustine did eat dog flesh, it may not have been

out of necessity.

The gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) is a medium sized animal

(ca. 3.5 Kg) which is nocturnal and prefers a habitat with a mixture of










fields and woods. Areas of cultivated fields surrounded by woods are

particularly favored. This is reasonable considering that their pre-

ferred prey species are rabbits, hispid cotton rats, mice, pocket gophers,

Norway rats, and gallinaeceous birds which also frequent shrub thickets.

Fox have often been implicated as barnyard raiders (Johnson and Brown

1903). During the colonial period there was some trade in fox skins

(Bruce 1895).

The black bear (Ursus americanus) weighs around 120 to 150 Kgs, is

omnivorous, and generally nocturnal. While they may den in the winter,

they may not always do so. They prefer heavily wooded areas but also

frequent corn fields and swamps. Bartram (1955) noted that bear and

raccoon were both extremely fond of young corn. Bear meat was occasion-

ally preserved for storage (Reddish pers. comm.), was thought to be

"least apt to rise" in the stomach, and was valued as an aphrodisiac

(Booth 1971). Bear fat was a valued grease (Gray 1933) and served as

candle material in St. Augustine (Bushnell 1978c), and to keep firearms

clean (Kirkland ca. 1967). It also served as an insect repellant

(Booth 1971).

The raccoon (Procyon lotor) is one of the most abundant mammals in

the salt marsh. These animals weigh about 5-10Kgs and are generally

nocturnal. Besides being members of the salt marsh community they also

utilize low lying farmland and mixed woodlands. They frequently raid

garbage areas and have been associated with garden and barnyard thefts

as well. Bartram, discussing an encounter with raccoon and opossum,

considered coons delicious eating (1955), and the British in Virginia

thought that coon meat was equal to lamb (Weeden 1890). In addition to










being good to eat, there was some trade in raccoon skins. Raccoon meat

was thought to be beneficial on swellings and inflammations of the body

(Booth 1971).

The bobcat (Lynx rufus) weighs about 8.2 Kgs,is nocturnal, and

prefers river bottoms and swamps. Primarily carnivorous, it seeks out

rabbits, mice, and opossums as food. It is found around old fields and

thickets and has been implicated in barnyard raids. There was some trade

in bobcat hides during the colonial period (Bruce 1895). Its flesh was

compared with veal, although it was thought to be sweeter than veal

(Booth 1971).

The domestic cat (Felis domesticus) was transported from Europe as

was the horse (Equus caballus). The horse, like its allies the mule

and donkey, were not very common in the British colonial period (Gray

1933; Bonner 1964). However, the supply of horses in Georgia increased

after Oglethorpe's 1740 attack on St. Augustine. He returned to

Savannah with several hundred head of captured cattle and a number of

horses (Bonner 1964). There were some horses in Spanish St. Augustine,

although they do not appear to have been plentiful. The elite seem to

have access to them (Bushnell 1978c), and some wild horses were hunted

in the spring (Grinan 1756). According to Grinan, there were no wild

ass or mules (1756).

Both Spanish and British colonists claim to have eaten horses

during periods of starvation. Consumption of horse flesh had once been

common in Europe. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church attempted

to abolish this "pagen" practice (Simoons 1967), but Spain was occupied

by Moors during much of this time so the custom of eating horses endured










in that country longer than elsewhere. There was a revival in horse-

flesh consumption among both the poor and the elite of France in the

18th Century (Simoons 1967).

The pig (Sus scrofa) is one of the most interesting and important

of the mammalian food species, although Bonner says that they were of

less importance in Georgia than cattle (Bos taurus) (1964). One of the

principal reasons that swine were popular animals was that they require

very little care. In Britain (Fussell 1937b; Anderson 1971) and in the

British colonies (Weeden 1890; Bruce 1895; Grey 1933; Bonner 1964) pigs

were almost totally neglected. Occasionally pigs would be set out on

islands in order to limit their dispersal (Thompson 1942), but this

was not a universal habit. The Spanish as a matter of policy released

both hogs and cattle during their explorations so that their increase

could support travelers on passing or wrecked ships. The increase was

remarkable in many cases (Haring 1966; Sauer 1969). The Indians of

Florida provided the French colonists with pigs before St. Augustine

was founded and also supplied pigs to settlers in South Carolina (Towne

and Wentworth 1950). Presumably these had been wild animals, escapees

from Hernando de Soto's journey or from a passing ship.

The feral pig is a wild and resourceful animal.

The real American hog is what is termed the wood hog; they
are long in the leg, narrow on the back, short in the body,
flat on the sides, with a long snout, very rough in their
hair, in make more like the fish called a perch than any
thing I can describe. You may as well think of stopping
a crow as those hogs. They will go to a distance from a
fence, take a run, and leap through the rails three or
four feet from the ground, turning themselves sidewise.
These hogs suffer such hardships as no other animal could
endure.(Parkinson in Gray 1933)










They prefer moist bottomlands, feeding on seeds, roots, fruits, nuts,

mushrooms, snakes, larvae, worms, eggs, carrion, mice, small mammals,

kitchen refuse, and feces. As a feral animal the pig is nocturnal and

gregarious.

Pigs are frequent raiders of gardens and fields and it may be an

incident related to this habit that gave Bonner the impression that pigs

were not valued in the Georgia colony. Oglethorpe did not permit pigs

to roam the streets of Frederica as they did other towns (hogs roamed

the streets of New York City well into the 19th Century). When a herd

of pigs invaded Frederica, Oglethorpe had them all shot (Bonner 1964).

Prior to the 1800's there were no standard breeds of hogs, or other

domestic livestock (Rouse 1977). The size range of the animal appears

to vary dramatically, as does the conformation, depending upon heredity

and food supplies. In 1827, a contest was held in North Carolina for

the largest hog, neatly dressed. The winner was a 2 1/2 year old

weighing 238 Kgs (Southern Agriculturalist 1828). An average slaughtered

weight of 4,000 southern hogs in 1860 was 63 Kgs (Fogel 1965), which is

more likely. A feral hog of about eight months weighed at the Florida

State Museum recently tipped the scales at 8.5 Kgs. Two adult feral

females of about 1 1/2 years weighed 34 Kgs and 38 Kgs. A male of the

same age weighed 58 Kgs. The hogs sold by John Pynchon, of Massachusetts,

in 1662-1683 averaged 77 Kgs (Weeden 1890).

Pigs have several attractive qualities that make them a profitable

crop. In addition to the fact that they are easily reared (as long as

you do not try to pen them in) and will subsist on a variety of foods,

they will also provide a larger and quicker return of flesh in proportion

to their live weight and food consumed. The pig stores 35% of the calories










it consumes, contrasted to 11% for cattle and sheep (Towne and Wentworth

1950). A carcass yields 65-80% dressed meat compared to 50-60% for

cattle and 45-55% for sheep. A pig gains one pound for every three to

five pounds of feed, and it will eat a great variety of foods. In 18

months a pig may gain 90 Kgs,with a yield of 54 usable kilograms. Almost

the entire carcass can be put to some use, and pork takes more kindly

to preservation than do other meats. Nutritionally pork is very

satisfying due to its high fat content. Pork also contains more thiamin

than any other meat (Towne and Wentworth 1950). It is little wonder

that salt pork was one of the habitual foods of the urban poor in Europe

between 1391 and 1560 (Braudel 1967).

The Spanish at St. Augustine made use of both feral and penned hogs.

In 1574, Dr. Alonso de Caceres reported that there were fifty pigs

running loose and that these were wild and skinny (1574). This number

surely increased. Pigs roamed the streets of the town and were raised

in the backyards along with poultry (Boniface 1971). Due to the

difficulty of confining hogs, some of these animals may have been free

without the design of their owners.

Deer, Odocoileus virginianus, was also an important species in the

colonial economy, not only for meat, but for skins as well. The average

weight of deer on the coastal plain is around 46-54 Kgs on the coastal

plain. It adapts to a wide variety of habitats, such as deep forests,

swamps, and open farmland. It also will feed at the edge of salt marshes.

Its preferred habitat is a brushy woodland, or disturbed situation.

Deer feed during dawn and dusk hours, and are attracted to fields and

gardens. Deer were said to have destroyed three acres of peas belonging

to one Georgia colonial farmer (Coulter and Saye 1949). Today they eat










young citrus trees and are a major crop pest. Trade in deer skins was

extensive prior to the Spanish settlement at St. Augustine. In the'

1560's Indians brought quantities of deer skins to trade with English

ships scouting the Florida coast (Chatelain 1941). As was mentioned

earlier the British continued this trade. A collection of skins evac-

uated in front of a Spanish scouting party in 1685 required 150 Indians

to carry. At another time the Spanish were successful in capturing a

shipment that included 500 deerskins (Bolton and Ross 1968).

Like pigs, cattle (Bos taurus) were popular colonial livestock and,

like hogs, they usually roamed free over the countryside. According to

John E. Rouse (1977) there were two basic sources of cattle in the New

World. The British brought with them, or imported from Ireland, a pre-

breed which he calls the Native American cattle. These animals were not

well adapted to the humid subtropics of Florida or the rest of the

Hispanic Empire.

The cradle of the cattle industry instead lay in Spain, around

Castile, where a tough, hardy pre-breed which he calls the criollo

developed. In Spain, as in England, cattle were originally raised for

traction rather than for beef. By the end of the Reconquest of Spain

in 1492 some of the northern provinces of Spain also raised vast herds

of cattle for beef and hides (Bishko 1952). In these areas cattle even

took precedence over sheep. These animals were tough, resourceful, and

adapted to a hot, humid environment where pasturage was low in nutrients,

and scarce. The Galician and Castilian method of herding was very similar

to the round-up technique transferred to the New World with the cattle for

whom it had been developed (Rouse 1977).









The weight of cattle is highly variable. An English beef in 1710

weighed about 167 Kgs (Thompson 1942) although by 1795 the average weight

had risen to 362 Kgs (Fussel 1929, 1937a). A modern Florida scrub cow,

descendent of the original Spanish criollo cattle, weighs about 204 Kgs

when grazed on pine flatwoods, and 294 Kgs on prairie. A bull weighs

slightly more (Rouse 1977). The average weight of a cow in colonial

Georgia was 317 Kgs, with oxen averaging 362 Kgs (Bonner 1964).

Cattle usually were allowed to fend for themselves. In Georgia

the Spanish pattern was followed, and in both Florida and Georgia roving

cattle were a problem since they raided fields and gardens (Bonner 1964).

In an effort to control this cattle were occasionally confined to islands

(Andres de San Miguel in Garcia 1902). The Spanish (Grinan 1757; Arnade

1965; Bushnell 1978b) and the British (Bonner 1964) conducted annual

cattle roundups, but cattle thefts were common. There was also a good

deal of raiding across the border in territory claimed by both Spain and

England. Spanish Florida in the 1700's must have had more cattle than

is normally credited if Oglethorpe could return from his 1740 seige with

several hundred head of cattle. In 1727 Governor Perier of French

Louisiana requested to purchase 800 head from Florida (Gray 1933). It

was reported in 1602 that every family at St. Augustine had four to ten

cows (Arnade 1959).

Cattle raising, however, is not quite as easy as swine raising.

Although cattle will forage for themselves, the product is a scrawny,

rather than a lean, beast. They will not produce a good weight gain

except with improved feeds, and never provide as good a yield as hogs.

They are also more subject to debilitating diseases. A pig in its first

eight months attains almost adult size although it was not the general










custom to slaughter them until 18 months (Commissioner of Patent Reports

1844). Cattle do not provide the return for effort of pigs. In addition

beef does not preserve as well as pork and so was not as highly valued

on the market (Weeden 1890). There was, however, an active demand for

cattle hides (Rouse 1977) and both cheese (Harman 1969) and milk (Boyd

et al. 1951) were used by the Spanish residents in Florida.

Sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hircus), appear not to have been

very popular in the southern colonies or in Florida. Sheep were partic-

ularly disfavored because they were helpless to defend themselves against

wild dogs and wolves and would not reproduce themselves freely (Weeden

1850; Thompson 1942). Since the preferred animal husbandry technique

was to turn the animals loose, this was an obvious drawback.

The early colonists did bring sheep and goats with them. The French

had brought sheep with them to Ft. Caroline and Menendez also brought

sheep with him, but they did not do well (Lyon 1977a). When sheep were

turned loose at Frederica in 1735, they reverted to wildness and could

not be herded as they had been in England (Bonner 1964). Goats also were

included among the Spanish livestock inventories (Lyon 1977a). They

fared better than did sheep because they could defend themselves against

carnivores (Bonner 1964). Goats were introduced to Georgia in 1741 when

Robert Williams brought some over, but they were not immediately popular

(Bonner 1964).

Sheep had been a major herd animal in Spain, perhaps because the

Moors preferred mutton to beef (Rouse 1977), and were prohibited from

eating pork (Simoons 1967). It may be no coincidence that northern Spain,

the area under Moorish domination for the shortest period of time and the

first area to free itself, was the center of cattle raising in contrast










to the more southerly provinces which did not expel the Moors until 1492,

and were sheep raisers.


Birds

A great variety of wild birds and some domestic ones appear in the

species lists from St. Augustine and Frederica. It should be noted that

birds provide a number of useful items in addition to flesh. Eggs of

wild birds were often consumed (Johnson and Brown 1903; Sprunt 1954;

Braudel 1967) and feathers were a valuable commodity. In 1702, five

pounds of feathers could be bartered for the value of one beaver skin

in Massachusetts (Weeden 1890). In Georgia, geese, in particular, were

raised for feathers, and it was also thought that having geese graze a

field was beneficial to the crop (Bonner 1964). It is not possible to

assess the use of the birds identified for these purposes. The flesh

of a wide variety of birds was consumed, both adults and juvenile birds,

called squabs (Bartram 1955). It would appear that in terms of exploi-

tation, birds might not only have been captured at their preferred day-

time feeding area, but at their rookeries as well. Consequently,

reference to roosting habits will be included below. In order to keep

the account as succinct as possible, the birds will be reviewed by order

rather than by genus.

Pelecaniformes are represented in the collections by cormorant

(Phalacrocorax auritus) and gannet (Moris bassana). Both are water birds

which are gregarious and feed on fish. Gannets are essentially winter

residents in the study area and the number of resident cormorants

increases in the winter as northern individuals come south.









Ardeiformes present in the samples include the great blue heron

(Ardea herodias), American egret (Casmerodius albus), Louisiana heron

(Hydranassa tricolor), little blue heron (Florida coerulea), black-

crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), and white ibis (Eudocimus
albus). With the exception of the night heron all are commonly found in

the salt marsh as well as around freshwater ponds, sloughs, and streams.

The great blue heron and the American egret are found also on the beaches

and along the sounds where they can wade in search of fish. The white

ibis is not only frequently found in the salt marshes, but also visits

fields and pastures. The other three species are either salt marsh

residents, or found near freshwater. All of the species are diurnal in

habit, except the night heron, and all are communal roosters at night;

in fact, many of these species share their night-time abode with one
another in trees and low hanging brush near water.

Many of these birds were part of the once-active feather trade, but

also could have been used for food. Night herons, particularly young

ones, were often shot, and white ibis, called "curlews," were referred
to in Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings novel The Yearling (in Sprunt 1954).

Until very recently heron eggs were a favorite food (Johnson and Brown

1903). Herons, egrets, wild swans, bitterns, cranes, and flamingos were

consumed in France between 1391 and 1560 (Braudel 1967).

Anseriformes is a varied order which includes the following: the
Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), black

duck (A. rubripes), Florida duck (A. fulvigula), gadwell (A. strepera),

green-winged teal (A. carolinensis), blue-winged teal (A. discors),

shoveller (Spatula clypeata), wood duck (Aix sponsa), redhead (Aythya

americana), ring-necked duck (A. collaris), scaup (Aythya marilla),










hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) and red-breasted merganser

(Mergus serrator). With the exception of the wood duck and the Florida

duck most individuals of these species are migratory, being found here

only in the fall and winter. All are found in flocks either in sheltered

waters or in tidal streams. The wood duck prefers quiet, secluded bodies

of freshwater. Geese often visit fields and gardens. Until recently

only the mottled duck or Florida duck of the genus Anas would be found

nesting in salt marshes, although the black duck, which often interbreeds

with the Florida duck, also is found in salt marshes. The shoveller

prefers freshwater, as does the wood duck, the redhead, the ring-necked

duck and the red-breasted merganser. Scaup, however, raft in salt water

during the winter in large flocks and the hooded merganser also is found

in estuaries. The redhead is a nighttime feeder but they, like the

scaup, form large daytime rafts.

Several of these birds may have been tamed. The Canada goose and

mallard were listed in the earliest American Poultry Association's

Standard of Excellence (1874) and breeding experiments had been done to

improve the breeds (Johnson and Brown 1903). Wood ducks had been tamed

successfully (Johnson and Brown 1903). It will be remembered that

Anderson also referred to tamed birds (1971).

Accipitriformes are represented by several birds of prey, which

could not be identified down to a useful category, and two genera of

vultures, the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and the black vulture

(Coragyps atratus). These two birds are common scavengers around garbage

dumps and may represent non-food activity; however, they and other

members of this order were hunted widely as food (Booth 1971).










Galliformes include several genera, some of which might have been

domestic species. These include: the bobwhite (Colinus virginianus),

the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus), and the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo).

The turkey is thought to be a wild rather than a domestic species because

of the difficulty encountered in raising them until recently due to

diseases (Johnson and Brown 1903; Schorger 1966). The wild turkey was

once very common in the area, preferring moist hardwood swamps, where it

is found today in a habitat shared with feral swine. Although flocks of

3-4 individuals are found today, flocks of up to 40 individuals were

reported by Jamestown settlers (in Bruce 1895). Turkeys roost in trees.

Bobwhite prefer open pine-lands and thickets. In the winter coveys of

up to 24 birds can be seen foraging in open fields. Neither of these

species is found in the salt marsh and both are gregarious birds.

As with the other Old World domesticants introduced by the colonists,

chickens were introduced before breed registers were established. Since

chickens were basically allowed to fend for themselves, with occasional

scraps to keep them close, it is assumed that the chickens used by the

early colonists would have been small in size, roughly comparable to a

Mediterranean class, Brown Leghorn Bantam (Wilson pers. comm.). A

Bantam dozen eggs weigh about 396 grams (Johnson and Brown 1903) and

the bird itself weighs about 680 grams (Florida State Museum files).

Chickens, although small, nonetheless represented an available food

supply which could be raised in the yards or streets until needed, when

the tough bird was probably boiled rather than baked! Chickens will

eat a variety of table scraps, and the Spaniards even fed them shellfish

(Caceres 1574). Predators, including opossums, raccoons, foxes, owls,

and snakes take a heavy toll on barnyard chickens and their eggs.










Sam Hilliard suggests, though, that chickens were experts in survival

in an era when protection provided by humans was minimal (1972). They

could fly well and roosted twenty to fifty feet above the ground. In

spite of these qualities they may at one time have been very expensive

in Spanish St. Augustine (Geiger 1937), although Indian villages had

these birds as early as the 16th Century (Garcia 1902).

Gruiformes includes a number of varied species: whooping crane

(Grus americana), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), and clapper rail

(Rallus longirostris). Since whooping cranes no longer are found in the

area it is not known if they were permanent residents or not, but they

once were found in salt marshes. The sandhill crane is today a resident

of freshwater marshes and has both migratory and non-migratory popu-

lations. Both species are gregarious, and once fed in grain fields as

well as in marshes. Bartram says that the "Savannah crane" makes an

excellent soup (1955) although it is not known to which crane he was

referring. Clapper rails are still popular game birds. Clapper rails

are one of the most typical of the salt marsh species, where they are

concealed in the tall grasses. Rails are permanent residents of the

salt marshes.

Charadriiformes include the following species: killdeer (Charadrius

vociferus), Wilson's snipe (Capella gallinago), long-billed curlew

(Numenius americanus), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), dowitcher

(Limnodromus griseus), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), and

two-striped thick knee (Burhinus bistriatus). This last bird is an

introduced species from Mexico found at the mestizo household of 18th

Century St. Augustine (SA16-23) by Cumbaa and discussed at length by










him (1975). He interpreted the bird to be a watch-bird. The other birds

are common beach and mud flat species except for the snipe which is a

freshwater slough and open ground resident. The willet is found more

often in the salt marsh than on the beach and killdeer often feed in

fields and pastures. These last two species are permanent residents,

as are stilts. Most of these species were in recent years popular game

birds, and generally referred to as curlews.

The razor-billed auk (Alca torda) is also a member of Charadriiformes,

but Florida does not constitute its normal range. Unlike the thick-knee,

it was probably not brought here as a watch-bird, but came here on its

own. The auk is a small arctic bird which frequents the open sea and

occasionally winters as far south as New'England. No explanation is

offered for its presence at St. Augustine other than to add that there

have been several sightings of these birds on the Florida coast

(Cruickshank 1967; Robertson 1967; Kale 1976) and they have also been

reported from a few aboriginal sites in Florida (Hamon 1959; Fradkin

1978).

Columbiformes include the rock dove or domestic pigeon (Columba

livia) and the mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura). The rock dove was a

European domestic introduction which soon became feral. As feral animals,

they continue to prefer human habitations and urban areas where they

congregate in large numbers on public monuments, buildings, and in parks.

Mourning doves are permanent residents in Florida whose numbers are

swelled in the winter by migrants. They are found in large groups in

urban areas, cultivated fields and pastures, and on dunes.

Strigiformes are represented by a single species, the barred owl

(Strix varia). It is not.known if this bird was eaten, but considering









the number of rodents and chickens which might have been around houses

in the colonial period, the owl may have been attracted to that resource

and accidently been included in the refuse. The barred owl today is

found as a permanent resident near the edges of towns. In view of the

range of wild fowl that did end up in the stew pot (Braudel 1967; Anderson

1971) it does not seem unlikely that the owl also was eaten.

Passeriformes is a diverse order of perching birds, represented here

by the fish crow (Corvus ossifragus) and the common grackle (Quiscalus

quiscula). Both of these animals are common birds in coastal areas and

both are attracted to garbage dumps, gardens, and fields. Considering

the nursery rhyme about "4 and 20 blackbirds" and the fact that bird pies

were common menu items (Anderson 1971) these species may well be food

items rather than accidental inclusions. Blackbirds are mentioned by

Braudel (1967) among birds commonly consumed in France.


Reptiles and Amphibians

The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) can attain a
length of between 1.8 meters and 5.0 meters, with a record of 5.8 meters.

Its flesh is quite tasty and is esteemed, as are the eggs. Alligators

prefer quiet freshwater sloughs and ponds on barrier islands or on the

mainland, but they also are found in tidal creeks and sounds as they

move between freshwater and brackish marshes. Alligators also inhabit

salt marsh. Colonials thought that alligator meat would cure ulcers

and cancer (Booth 1971).

Most turtles are rare in the estuarine environment. Six species of

normally terrestrial or freshwater turtles do manage to survive in the

coastal area, including the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). The




Full Text
291
SA34-1, EPISCOPAL CHURCH SITE
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
6
27.3
4.66
71.4
Wild Terrestrial
5
22.7
1.57
24.1
Wild Birds
2
9.1
0.05
0.8
Aquatic Reptiles
1
4.6
0.03
0.5
Fish and Sharks
7
31.8
0.21
3.2
Commensals
L
4.6
0.004
0.06
Totals
22
6.52
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa Kg %
Mammals
0.89
82.3
Birds
0.009
0.8
Reptiles
0.009
0.8
Amphibians
0.004
0.4
Fish and Sharks
0.17
15.7
Total
1.08


318
Frequency of Bone Elements, Plaza II Well
British Period, St. Augustine (Wing and Simons 1977)
Element
Group
Species
fO
rt)
s-
E <0
r
jQ
3r
r- _C
r
a;
C =s
r +->
+-> CD
4->
i- CL
3 CD
CD
s~
cu ns
CD
CD fO
CU
+-> o
00 1
u- a.
>
oooo
r CM
CD
r
r
00
+J
to
r
-Q
fO
jQ
3
3
£
C
E
n*
r
E
00
00
r
E
3
r
CD
O
t-
O
_c
_d
S-
c
U
c
to
to
o
c
fO
1
1
r
Li-
11
oo
in
u.
Lu
Cam's familiaris
6
17
9
.
1
1
1
Sus scrofa
6
2
1
Bos taurus
13
31
13
5
16
2
17
Capra/Ovis sp.
9
44
4
5
5
10
Gall us gall us
5
1
4
1
2
Other Birds*
5
Ariidae
14
7
3
31
Sciaenidae
10
3
*Identified to family


86
Sam Hilliard suggests, though, that chickens were experts in survival
in an era when protection provided by humans was minimal (1972). They
could fly well and roosted twenty to fifty feet above the ground. In
spite of these qualities they may at one time have been very expensive
in Spanish St. Augustine (Geiger 1937), although Indian villages had
these birds as early as the 16th Century (Garcia 1902).
Gruiformes includes a number of varied species: whooping crane
(Grus americana), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), and clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris). Since whooping cranes no longer are found in the
area it is not known if they were permanent residents or not, but they
once were found in salt marshes. The sandhill crane is today a resident
of freshwater marshes and has both migratory and non-migratory popu
lations. Both species are gregarious, and once fed in grain fields as
well as in marshes. Bartram says that the "Savannah crane" makes an
excellent soup (1955) although it is not known to which crane he was
referring. Clapper rails are still popular game birds. Clapper rails
are one of the most typical of the salt marsh species, where they are
concealed in the tall grasses. Rails are permanent residents of the
salt marshes.
Charadriiformes include the following species: kill deer (Charadrius
vociferus), Wilson's snipe (Capella gallinago), long-billed curlew
(Numenius americanus), willet (Catoptrophorus semi palmatus), dowitcher
(Limnodromus griseus), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), and
two-striped thick knee (Burhinus bistriatus). This last bird is an
introduced species from Mexico found at the mestizo household of 18th
Century St. Augustine (SA16-23) by Cumbaa and discussed at length by


91
Several individuals of the sea turtle family (Cheloniidae) occur off
of Florida and Georgia. These include the green turtle (Chelonia mydas),
the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and the ridley (Lepidochelys kempi).
Only the loggerhead is common in the area today. It nests on Jekyll
Island and Little Cumberland Island (Caldwell et al. 1959). These are
the two islands immediately south of St. Simons Island. Sea turtles
frequent the area in the summer, and sometimes enter the sounds and even
ascend large rivers., such as the Brunswick or Frederica Rivers, to feed
during the day. In mid-summer they nest on the Atlantic beaches at night.
The reputation that sea turtles and their eggs have as food does not need
to be underscored. One ship's manifest cited by Joyce Harman included
17 sea turtles as cargo (1969).
Very few snakes inhabit the coastal area. The ones identified from
Frederica and St. Augustine are species which can live in such a habitat.
They include water snakes (Natrix sp.), racer (Coluber constricta),
eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon
piscivorous). The cottonmouth and the diamondback rattlesnake are very
common on sea islands although no rattlesnakes were identified. The
cottonmouth prefers sloughs and ponds on those islands. Racers are also
common on the sea islands. The gulf salt marsh snake (Natrix fasciata
clarki) is the only water snake normally found in salt or brackish water
habitats. Snakes are known to prey upon rabbits, small rodents, lizards,
toads, frogs, and birds and their eggs. Although the cottonmouth obtains
a size to be worth eating, and in fact is eaten by some people today, the
other species are smallish in diameter. All may be commensal species
attracted to houses by rodents and toads.


356
Stark, Barbara L., and Barbara Voorhies, ds.
1978 Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations. Academic Press, New York.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian
Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 137,
Washington, D. C.
Tepaske, John J.
1958 "Economic Problems of Florida Governors, 1700-1763."
Florida Historical Quarterly 37:1:42-52.
1964 The Governorship of Spanish Florida:1700-1763. Duke
University Press, Durham.
Thomas, D. H.
1969 "Great Basin Hunting Patterns: A Quantitative Method
for Treating Faunal Remains." American Antiquity 34:392-401.
Thompson, James Westfall
1942 History of Livestock Raising in the United States, 1607-
1860. Report of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
m D. C.
Towne, Charles Wayland, and E. N. Wentworth
1950 Pigs: From Cave to Combe!t. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Vayda, Andrew P., and Roy A. Rappaport
1968 "Ecology: Cultural and Noncultural." In Introduction to
Cultural Anthropology, edited by James A. Clifton, pp. 477-497.
Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Warner, William Lloyd
1962 American Life: Dream and Reality. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Warner, William Lloyd, and Paul S. Lunt
1941 The Social Life of a Modern Community, Yankee Town Series 1.
Yale University Press, New Haven.
Watt, Bernice K., and Annabel! L. Merrill
1963 Composition of Foods. U.S.D.A. Agriculture Handbook 8,
Washington, D. C.
Weeden, William B.
1890 Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1789.
Houghton-Mifflin, New York.
White, Theodore
1953 "A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various
Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples." American
Antiguity 18:4:396-398.


37
St. Augustine residents also conducted limited trade with Hispanic
ports (Gillaspie 1961; Boniface 1971). The colony was allowed to send
one ship a year to Spain, with the Canary Islands being included in this
exchange. An official quota of deer hides could be traded for military
supplies, clothing, wine, and staples such as rice, beans, flour, and
corn. From the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, St. Augustine obtained corn,
salt, henequen, wax, and cacao, among other things, although this trade
was not entirely legal (A.G.I. 54-4-15/89, 1692; Gillaspie 1961). Some
commerce was done also with Veracruz as part of the situado payment.
Cuba was the favored trading partner. From this port the garrison
at St. Augustine received spices, rice, beans, salt pork, tools, and
munitions. The population exchanged deer hides, naval stores, salt beef,
beans, chickens, hams, and lard. It is interesting that this list
contains so many agricultural products since it is not usual to think of
St. Augustine exporting food. Many of these items are found on ship
manifests of 1674-1694 and reflect the production of the interior cattle
ranches near present-day Gainesville. Two or three ships came from
Havana to St. Augustine twice a year between 1731 and 1741 (Grinan 1757).
Purchases were usually made on credit and occasionally Havana merchants
would claim as security the St. Augustine situado ship(s) as it laid
over in Cuba on its voyage from Veracruz to Florida (Bushnell 1978c).
Mercantile ties between Cuba and Florida were supported by extensive
kinship bonds between influential criollos in both communities (Gillaspie
1961). In the 16th Century the Governor of Cuba and Florida was the same
individual although this practice was soon ended because of suspected
graft (Bushnell 1978c).


145
I
have shot more deer than hogs. This indicates that for at least one
17th Century household, all of the faunal resources could have been
obtained in the immediate vicinity of the town.
Parenthetically, it should be noted that one of the six horse
(£quus cabal 1 us) elements identified from St. Augustine to this date was
identified from this site. The element, like its fellows from SA7-4 in
the British Period and SA-1, is a tooth. Considering that the Spanish
documents repeatedly assert that horses were consumed, the fact that
only six teeth and no limb bones have been found leaves room for suspicion
about the accuracy of these claims.
18th Century First Spanish Period, St. Augustine
SA7-6, the lot occupied by treasury official don Antonio de Mesa
in the 18th Century part of the First Spanish Period, is quite similar
to the mean diversity and equitability of biomass and individuals for
the 18th Century First Spanish Period as a whole (Tables 7 and 8, Fig.
7). The percentage of wild fauna biomass, 14%, and of pigs (Sus scrofa),
6%,indicates an orientation toward an almost exclusive use of beef in
the diet (76% of biomass). It is of interest that caprines (Capra sp./
Ovis sp.) contributed 2.3% of MNI and 2.5% of the biomass. Perhaps
Antonio de Mesa could afford the services of a cow or goat herder or was
willing to endure the expense and inconvenience of stabling cattle (Bos
taurus) and goats (Capra hi reus) in his backyard. According to the
Puente map, Mesa's lot was a large one and this second approach may have
been his strategy.
It has been suggested that traits having the connotation of being
"Old World" may have been more highly valued than traits not given this


306
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA26-1, Lorenzo Josef de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
rt3
r-
fO
s-
-Q
1 -C
OJ
r
4-> 4J
3 O)
S-
0)
CU fO
00 f
U.O.
>
to
+>
"e e
c
Z3i
1
- E
C 3
r
e 3
i- CL
a;
0 s-
s-
c 0
4-> U
0
C ra
LOCO
Ll.
M C/0
,.
C\J
=**=
=*=
,
1
CO
r
r
.0
3
3
E
r
OO
OO
I
"O
JC
-C
c
CO
to
I
p-
u.
Ll.
Didel phis virginiana
1
S.ylvilagus sp.
11
8
8
2
7
4
9
Sciurus sp.
1
1
Canis familiaris
2
Proc.yon lotor
2
2
2
Felis domesticus
1
1
1
Sus scrofa
52
69
2
9
1
12
Odocoileus virqinianus
8
29
11
9
1 ~
6
Bos taurus
2
3
1
1
Capra/Ovis sp.
2
Gall us gall us
3
15
5
19
39
6
44
Other Birds*
3
2
6
61
14
Ariidae
292
259
134
268
Sciaenidae
3
675
317
53
Muqil sp.
4
1265
632
43
identified to family
J


264
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass,
#
Kg
%
Unidentified Turtle
14
6.9
0.02
0.02
cf. Gopherus polyphemus
6
7.0
0.05
0.06
Gopherus polyphemus
5
2
2.3
6.4
0.05
0.06
Rana/Bufo sp.
7
1
1.1
0.7
0.005
0.006
Squaliformes
1
0.1
0.008
0.01
Ginglymostoma cirratum
2
1
1.1
0.6
0.05
0.06
Carcharhinidae
2
0.8
0.07
0.08
Carcharhinus sp.
7
3
3.4
3.0
0.25
0.3
Rajiformes
1
0.3
0.02
0.02
Unidentified Fish
1207
188.3
4.62
5.6
Ari i dae
27
5.0
0.09
0.11
Arius felis
55
6
6.9
13.8
0.28
0.34
Bagre marinus
7
2
2.3
1.9
0.03
0.03
cf. Centropomus undecimal is
1
1
1.1
0.6
0.01
0.01
Pomatomus saltatrix
1
1
1.1
0.2
0.003
0.003
Sparidae
1
0.6
0.01
0.01
Archosargus probatocephalus
11
2
2.3
3.7
0.05
0.06
Sciaenidae
10
12.3
0.33
0.4
C.ynoscion nebulosus
2
2
2.3
0.8
0.02
0.02
Micropogonias undulatus
1
1
1.1
0.2
0.006
0.007
Pogonias cromis
26
4
4.6
32.8
0.86
1.0
Scianops ocellata
30
5
5.7
54.2
1.42
1.7


314
Frequency of Bone Elements, Thomas Hird Lot
Fort Frederica, Georgia
Element
Group
Species
Skull/
Teeth
Feet/
Patella
Vertebra
Sternum/
j Scapula
Forelimbs
Innominate/
Sacrum
Hindiimbs
Fish Skull #1
Fish Skull #2
Didelphis virginiana
7
2
28
2
4
2
3
Sylvilagus sp.
1
1
Sciurus carolinensis
1
1
2
2
Ursus americanus
1
1
1
Proc.yon lotor
28
13
4
3
13
1
7
Lynx rufus
5
4
1
Felis domesticus
5
8
12
4
3 '
4
Sus scrofa
197
44
3
4
35
5
17
Odocoileus virginianus
185
149
10
8
36
13
22
Bos taurus
53
54
122
11
22
29
44
Capra/Ovis sp.
1
1
1
Gall us gall us
24
4
55
14
37
10
30
Other Birds*
2
8
9
67
27
Ariidae
236
148
84
187
Sciaenidae
84
211
9
Mugil sp.
27
1
*Identified to family


39
St. Augustine or, preferably, In Havana. The governors used the tribute
in kind as rations for the soldiers, or sold it at public auction. The
labor of Indians was put to use either in the public fields, on fortress
maintenance, or in private fields. Indians not only tilled the fields,
but guarded the crops^against crows and wild animals (Bushnell 1978c).
Service Indians were fed and housed during their stay at St. Augustine.
There is some suspicion that trade with the Indians was not always
equitable or voluntary (Lanning 1935; Tepaske 1964).'.In a report from
San Luis, the administrative center of Apalachee located at the western
end of the mission chain across the northern peninsula, an Indian cacique,
or chief, complained that the wife of the deputy governor had taken fish
and milk from the Indians without compensation (Boyd et al. 1951). The
labor tax also was subject to abuse (Lanning 1935; Gannon 1965).
To compound their problems the St. Augustine population had to
compete with French, British, and Cuban traders as well as the local
Franciscans for access to the Indian's produce. The Franciscans carefully
guarded the Indians from official requisitions, preferring to sell Indian
products in Havana, where these commanded a better price. Cubans came to
Florida to fish andto trade with the Apalachee ranches for produce, deer
skins, and wild turkeys (Bolton and Ross 1968). Traders from Havana also
dealt with Indians on the southern tip of the Florida peninsula. In 1685
one collection of 185 deer skins and 200 beaver and otter pelts which had
been destined for British markets in Carolina was captured (Lanning 1935).
The British merchants also traded with the Atlantic coast Indians of
southern Florida for ambergris and goods salvaged from Spanish shipwrecks


Table 10.--continued
BRITISH COLLECTIONS
Frederica
British Period, St. Augustine
Hird Lot
Hawkins-Davison
SA 7-4
7-6
Plaza II
Terrestrial Animals
17.0
24.4
1.8
3.7
3.1
Wild Birds
20.9
15.6
8.2
8.7
6.3
Aquatic Reptiles
3.0
4.4
0
0
3.1
Fish
37.0
n.i
78.2
47.8
34.0
Commensals
1.7
2.2
2.7
8.7
3.1
SUMMARY OF PERCENTAGES
First Spanish Period
British Collections
16th Cent.
17th Cent. 18th Cent.
Frederica
British Period
Domestic Species
16.2
14.9 15.5
31.8
28.4
Wild Species
83.9
85.1 84.7
68.7
71.6
VO
VO


0 DOMESTIC ANIMALS ^ WILD BIRDS
[v] TERRESTRIAL ANIMALS @ AQUATIC REPTILES
[JJ] FISH AND SHARKS ^ OTHER


176
Table 2.--continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Colinus virginianus
bob-white
crepuscular
year-round
Gall us gall us
domestic chicken
domestic
Meleagris gallopavo
turkey
diurnal
year-round
Grus americana
whooping crane
crepuscular
unknown for area
Grus canadensis
sandhill crane
crepuscular
permanent or semi_
migratory in winter
Rail us lonqirostris
clapper rail
crepuscular
permanent
Charadrius vociferus
kill deer
nocturnal
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Capel!a gallinago
Wilson's snipe
crepuscular
September-March
Numenius americanus
long-billed curlew
diurnal
September-May
Catoptrophorus semi palmatus
willet
diurnal
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Limnodromus griseus
dowitcher
crepuscular
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Himantopus mexicanus
black-necked stilt
diurnal
February-July
Burhinus bistriatus
two-striped thick-knee
tamed bird
Larus sp.
gul Is
diurnal
some year-round
others migratory
Alca torda
razor-billed auk
diurnal
winter-rarely


336
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total
Mass,
Body
X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
21415
Xenichthyes
xanti
1
0.2265
0.0050
21419
Xenichthyes
xanti
1
0.1812
0.0062
21421
Xenichthyes
xanti
1
0.2265
0.0075
# of entries 25
# of individuals 52
r = 0.86
b = 0.7464
a = 0.0323


121
All of the specimens used in calculating the constants of allometry
are part of the zooarchaeological laboratory's comparative skeletal
collection, with the exception of the gopher tortoises. The gophers
(Gopherus polyphemus) are part of the Herpetology Collection of the
Florida State Museum. Casteel (1978) recommended subtracting skeletal
mass from body mass in this procedure; however,this was not done in order
to keep this data comparable with that presented by Prange, Anderson and
Rahn (1979). All skeletons had been prepared by bacterial maceration or
dermestid cleaning. The slight differences which result from these two
procedures are not significant in the equation, which is calculated in
kilograms rather than in grams. The raw data on skeletal (Y) and body
weight (X) for each specimen are given in Appendix E. Table 6 represents
the constants of allometry used to estimate biomass of animals represented
in this study.
Since the data available on Osteichthyes were so extensive, a decision
was made to obtain constant values for these on the family level, for the
common families. The class was also divided into perciform and non-
perciform categories. It is thought that using the formula for the
nearest taxonomic level will produce the most satisfactory results. It
should be noted that efforts in incorporate Tetradontiformes data into
the Osteichthyes or non-perciformes formula did not meet with success.
The level of confidence for the family was 0.60, with fifteen indivi
duals of four genera included. Tetradontiformes data were excluded from
the calculations for this reason.
Using the allometric formula with archaeological materials requires
modifying the formula somewhat from the way it is usually written. This


203


83
Ardeiformes present in the samples include the great blue heron
(Ardea herodias), American egret (Casmerodius albus), Louisiana heron
(Hydranassa tricolor), little blue heron (Florida coerulea), black-
crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), and white ibis (Eudocimus
albus). With the exception of the night heron all are commonly found in
the salt marsh as well as around freshwater ponds, sloughs, and streams.
The great blue heron and the American egret are found also on the beaches
and along the sounds where they can wade in search of fish. The white
ibis is not only frequently found in the salt marshes, but also visits
fields and pastures. The other three species are either salt marsh
residents, or found near freshwater. All of the species are diurnal in
habit, except the night heron, and all are communal roosters at night;
in fact, many of these species share their night-time abode with one
another in trees and low hanging brush near water.
Many of these birds were part of the once-active feather trade, but
also could have been used for food. Night herons, particularly young
ones, were often shot, and white ibis, called "curlews," were referred
to in Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings novel The Yearling (in Sprunt 1954).
Until very recently heron eggs were a favorite food (Johnson and Brown
1903). Herons, egrets, wild swans, bitterns, cranes, and flamingos were
consumed in France between 1391 and 1560 (Braudel 1967).
Anseriformes is a varied order which includes the following: the
Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), black
duck (A. rubripes), Florida duck (A. ful vi gula), gadwell (A. strepera),
green-winged teal (A. carolinensis), blue-winged teal (A. discors),
shoveller (Spatula clypeata), wood duck (Aix sponsa), redhead (Aythya
americana), ring-necked duck (A. collaris), scaup (Aythya marilla),


51
and legumes were important in this strategy, so also were garden vege
tables and orchards. Apparently few wild fruits or herbs were used in
the diet (1971:45).
Domestic stock included horses, oxen, dairy cattle, goats, sheep,
swine, rabbits, poultry, pigeons, and bees (1971:58-77). Other fowl
included geese, ducks, capons, hens, and "thirty tame birds usually
baked in pies" (1971:59). The dairy herd was the most valuable and
productive of these since they produced a variety of milk products.
Almost no cattle were bred for meat and usually only those animals not
expected to last the winter were slaughtered. Cattle butchered in this
manner were typically at least 10 years of age (1971:187). Beef was not
a major food source (1971:66). Sheep were a basic source of meat, al
though they also supplied milk, milk products, and wool. The most
significant source of meat was swine (1971:68). Some of these were
confined to the yard, but most roamed the wooded lowlands in the nearby
commons. The yeomen of Stuart England were not blind to the good yield
for minimal effort that pigs provided. Goats also were allowed to fend
for themselves, but were not a major food source.
Wild mammals, birds, and fish constituted a small, but important,
part of the diet (1971:77). Wild birds were usually snared, but some
were also shot with fowling pieces. Birds included wild goose, lark,
plover, teal, mallard, quail, woodcock, partridge, and pheasant. Wild
hares were trapped both as a food item and to eliminate a crop pest.
Deer were rare. It was a symbol of the New World's bounty that so many
deer could be hunted. Yeomen also fished, using eel weirs, herring nets,
or gaffs. Most seafood was purchased at market, however. Seafood was a
dietary staple due to "fish days," which were retained after the


294
SA36-4, FRANCISCO PONCE DE LEON SITE
First Spanish Period, 17th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
l
Domestic Animals
7
14.9
1.9
21A
Wild Terrestrial
5
10.6
1.95
28.1
Wild Birds
3
6.4
0.06
0.9
Aquatic Reptiles
2
4.3
0.02
0.3
Fish and Sharks
29
61.7
3.05
43.9
Commensals
J_
2.1
0.007
0.1
Totals
47
6.94
Biomass of Taxa
for which MNI
was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
8.26
72.5
Birds
0.16
1.4
Reptiles
0.21
1.8
Amphibians
0.002
0.02
Fish and Sharks
2.77
24.3
Total
11.40


Table 5
Sites Discussed in Text, Listed by Cultural/Temporal Division
Site Name
Number Excavator and Date Reference Faunal Analyst
16th Century, St. Augustine, 1565-1600
Lorenzo Joseph de Leon
SA26-1
Deagan 1977
Braly
Singleton
1977
1977
Reitz
this MS
Lester's Gallery
SA29-2
Deagan 1977 (Survey)
Deagan
1978 a
Reitz
this MS
Episcopal Church
SA34-1
Deagan 1977 (Survey)
Deagan
1978 a
Reitz
this MS
Public Library
SA34-3
Deagan 1977 (Survey)
Deagan
1978 a
Reitz
this MS
Francisco Ponce de Leon
SA36-4
Deagan 1978
Deagan
in
prep
Reitz
this MS
17th Century, St. Augustine,
1600-1700
Francisco Ponce de Leon
SA36-4
Deagan 1978
Deagan
in
prep
Reitz
this MS
18th Century Spanish, St. Augustine, 1700-
1763
Antonio de Mesa
SA 7-6
Deagan 1977
Jones
Deagan
in
prep
1978 b
Reitz
this MS
Acosta/Pasqua
SA13-5
Deagan 1974
Deagan
1975
Cumbaa
1975
Maria de la Cruz
SA16-23
Deagan 1973
Fairbanks 1972
Deagan
MacMurray
1974
1975
Cumbaa
1975


333
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total
Mass,
Body
X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2050b
Lepomis punctatus
1
0.0488
0.0030
2050c
Lepomis punctatus
1
0.0377
0.0030
1802a
Micropterus salmoides
1
0.4782
0.0305
1802b
Micropterus salmoides
1
0.1417
0.0100
2519
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
1
0.1857
0.0143
2520
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
1
0.0919
0.0695
2521
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
1
0.0104
0.00135
*in collection of Stephen L. Cumbaa
# of entries 29
# of individuals 29
r = 0.83
b = 0.9749
a = 0.0759


140
(Odocoileus virginianus) recovered from the site. Yet terrestrial bio
mass constituted 61% of the faunal biomass. This is so because gopher
tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) contributed 21% of the biomass (7% of
the MNI). With only fifteen individuals of all taxa identified for the
site, however, this phenomenon may only be a function of sample size.
The 16th Century component of SA36-4 is the last of the 16th Century
sites to be reported here and is sufficiently large (MNI = 119) to be
discussed with some confidence. Like SA26-1 it has a highly diverse
biomass and a high equitability (Tables 7 and 8, Fig. 7). Emphasis was
generally placed on a wide range of species, most of which were domestic.
While the high diversity at SA26-1 can perhaps be attributed to mullet
(Mugil sp.), at SA36-4 in the 16th Century it is ascribed to a heavy
reliance on cattle (Bos taurus), 50% of the biomass for which MNI was
determined. Using Jochim's hypothesis as a model (1976), it is possible
to predict that the SA36-4 occupant was an individual of means, able to
support cattle, or to hire someone to guard them when pastured outside
the town, or to hire someone to hunt them down.
The emphasis on cattle at SA36-4 in the 16th Century corresponds
with a depressed use of hogs (Sus scrofa), which contributed 16% of the
biomass and 7% of the individuals. Hogs, as easily raised animals, may
have been disdained by a household with access to "better" meat, such
as beef. The apparent reduction of hogs in the collection also may
be only a statistical one caused by the preponderence of cattle in the
collection. It should be noted as well that deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
contributed only 5% of the biomass and 3% of the MNI so that the emphasis
was generally placed on beef by the 16th Century occupant.


320
Body and Skeletal Mass for Turtles
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1672
Chrysemys concinna
1
2.70
0.78
1674
Chrysemys concinna
1
1.89
0.52
1527
Chrysemys floridana
1
5.89
1.81
1537a
Chrysemys floridana
1
0.65
0.14
1537b
Chrysemys floridana.
1
0.74
0.13
1574c
Chrysemys floridana
1
0.86
0.17
1641
Chrysemys scripta
1
1.56
0.63
1646
Chrysemys scripta
1
1.33
0.51
2235
Chrysemys scripta
1
0.44
0.17
43501
Gopherus polyphemus
(RT 247)
1
2.8433
0.595
43502
Gopherus polyphemus
(RT 147)
1
4.4375
0.0805
RT12*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
1.81
0.367
RT27*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
2.95
0.45
RT36*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
4.19
0.8932
RT46*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
2.664
0.3904
RT48*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
3.04
0.6952
RT248*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
6.123
1.291
RT257*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
3.288
0.843
RT368*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
2.438
0.567
# of entries 19 *in collection of Robert Taylor
# of individuals 19
r = 0.91
b = 0.8984
a = 0.2482


324
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2530
Notemigonus cr.ysoleucas
1
0.0205
0.00155
2531
Notemigonus cr.ysoleucas
1
0.0221
0.0009
SC*5
Notemigonus cr.ysoleucas
1
0.0339
0.00155
SC*6
Notemigonus cr.ysoleucas
1
0.0339
0.00195
1824
Phractocephalus sp.
1
2.0000
0.2013
1788
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.0617
0.0032
1801a
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.580
0.0413
1801b
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.382
0.0418
1801c
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.0883
0.0050
1801 d
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.0566
0.0034
1801e
Erimyzon sucetta
1
0.0233
0.0009
1814c
Min.ytrema melanops
1
0.6100
0.0355
21407
Batrachoides pacificus
1
0.7701
0.06125
1593a
Opsanus beta
1
0.205
0.0122
1593b
Opsanus beta
1
0.250
0.01477
1593c
Opsanus beta
1
0.250
0.0128
1593d
Opsanus beta
1
0.230
0.0143
1717a
Porichth.ys plectorodon
1
0.0173
0.0002
1762a
Brotula clarkae
1
0.2786
0.0134
1754
Gen.ypterus maculatus
1
0.3052
0.0175
1718
Ophidion holbrooki
2
0.0323
0.0012
1734
Ophidion holbrooki
1
0.1602
0.0083
1800
Fundulus simi no!us
1
0.0221
0.0008


293
SA36-4, FRANCISCO PONCE DE LEON SITE
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
18
15.1
16.54
68.7
Wild Terrestrial
15
12.6
2.75
11.4
Wild Birds
8
6.7
0.64
2.7
Aquatic Reptiles
1
0.8
0.002
0.008
Fish and Sharks
76
63.9
4,15
17.2
Commensals
1
0.8
0.003
0.01
Totals
119
24.09
Biomass
for Taxa for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg %
Mammals
11.88
59.6
Bi rds
0.50
2.5
Reptiles
0.11
0.6
Amphibians
0.005
0.03
Fish and Sharks
7.43
37.3
Total
19.93


228
Field Specimens from SA26-1, Lorenzo Josef de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
FS#
FS#
10
15
16*
17*
18
22
25
26
30
31
33
35
36
37
46
50
53*
55
57
58
62
69
75
76*
77
78
84
87*
96
98
100
102
103
105*
108
115
120
121*
123*
125*
126
127


81
custom to slaughter them until 18 months (Commissioner of Patent Reports
1844). Cattle do not provide the return for effort of pigs. In addition
beef does not preserve as well as pork and so was not as highly valued
on the market (Weeden 1890). There was, however, an active demand for
cattle hides (Rouse 1977) and both cheese (Harman 1969) and milk (Boyd
et al. 1951) were used by the Spanish residents in Florida.
Sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hi reus), appear not to have been
very popular in the southern colonies or in Florida. Sheep were partic
ularly disfavored because they were helpless to defend themselves against
wild dogs and wolves and would not reproduce themselves freely (Weeden
1850; Thompson 1942). Since the preferred animal husbandry technique
was to turn the animals loose, this was an obvious drawback.
The early colonists did bring sheep and goats with them. The French
had brought sheep with them to Ft. Caroline and Menendez also brought
sheep with him, but they did not do well (Lyon 1977a). When sheep were
turned loose at Frederica in 1735, they reverted to wildness and could
not be herded as they had been in England (Bonner 1964). Goats also were
included among the Spanish livestock inventories (Lyon 1977a). They
fared better than did sheep because they could defend themselves against
carnivores (Bonner 1964). Goats were introduced to Georgia in 1741 when
Robert Williams brought some over, but they were not immediately popular
(Bonner 1964).
Sheep had been a major herd animal in Spain, perhaps because the
Moors preferred mutton to beef (Rouse 1977), and were prohibited from
eating pork (Simoons 1967). It may be no coincidence that northern Spain,
the area under Moorish domination for the shortest period of time and the
first area to free itself, was the center of cattle raising in contrast


17
Social status is also studied via the faunal record by Henry M.
Miller (1978). Miller analyzed materials from two late 17th Century
homesites on the James River. The Pettus Plantation was occupied by a
wealthy Virginia colonist, while Utopia Cottage was on land owned by
Pettus, and may have been occupied by a tenant farmer. Structure size,
ceramic analysis, and documentary evidence all indicated that Utopia
Cottage was occupied by a person of lower social standing than the Pettus
Plantation site. Cattle (Bos taurus) contributed about equal proportions
of edible meat at both sites, and was the dominant animal food source.
Next in order of edible meat importance were swine (Sus scrofa), which
were also used about equally at both sites. Analysis of elements re
covered from the two sites, and of butchering patterns, failed to indicate
a substantial difference between the two collections. Swine were more
selectively butchered by age at Pettus than at Utopia and more fish were
consumed at Utopia than at Pettus; however, neither of these differences
was of major importance.
The homogeneity of the Pettus and Utopia faunal materials is
interesting considering the documentary evidence and the clear indication
of lower social status provided by architectural and ceramic materials.
Miller concludes that diet may have been one of the first patterns to
change as a household became upwardly mobile. This interpretation is
supported by the fact that in inventory lists cooking utensils and
bedding are the first things to increase in numbers with increased
wealth (Miller 1978).
This last example serves to provide a cautionary note to interpre- .
tations of socio-economic level from faunal collections. Two households


Appendix E. REGRESSION DATA
Body and Skeletal Masses are presented in the following
order:
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
or
Turtles
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Snakes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of Chondrichthyes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Non-Perciformes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Siluriformes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
PIeuronectiformes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Perciformes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Serranidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Centrachidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of Carangidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Pomadasyidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Sparidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Sciaenidae
319


79
young citrus trees and are a major crop pest. Trade in deer skins was
extensive prior to the Spanish settlement at St. Augustine. In the
1560's Indians brought quantities of deer skins to trade with English
ships scouting the Florida coast (Chatelain 1941). As was mentioned
earlier the British continued this trade. A collection of skins evac
uated in front of a Spanish scouting party in 1685 required 150 Indians
to carry. At another time the Spanish were successful in capturing a
shipment that included 500 deerskins (Bolton and Ross 1968).
Like pigs, cattle (Bos taurus) were popular colonial livestock and,
like hogs, they usually roamed free over the countryside. According to
John E. Rouse (1977) there were two basic sources of cattle in the New
World. The British brought with them, or imported from Ireland, a pre
breed which he calls the Native American cattle. These animals were not
well adapted to the humid subtropics of Florida or the rest of the
Hispanic Empire.
The cradle of the cattle industry instead lay in Spain, around
Castile, where a tough, hardy pre-breed which he calls the criollo
developed. In Spain, as in England, cattle were originally raised for
traction rather than for beef. By the end of the Reconquest of Spain
in 1492 some of the northern provinces of Spain also raised vast herds
of cattle for beef and hides (Bishko 1952). In these areas cattle even
took precedence over sheep. These animals were tough, resourceful, and
adapted to a hot, humid environment where pasturage was low in nutrients,
and scarce. The Galician and Castilian method of herding was very similar
to the round-up technique transferred to the New World with the cattle for
whom it had been developed (Rouse 1977).


164
upon a safe, annual arrival of supply ships laden with wholesome goods.
This hypothetical optimum situation apparently never occurred in the
entire 200 year history of the garrison so it would have been strange
if the subsistence strategy were based on such an unlikely, although
desirable, event.
The Spanish St. Augustine garrison developed a subsistence strategy
which incorporated food supplements from an irregular situado, but' did
not depend upon them. The settlement's location gives a clue as to which
were the most reliable resources: those from the local estuarine envi
ronment, trade with British colonies, and perhaps trade within the
Hispanic Empire, particularly Spain and Havana. In this context, it
is interesting to observe that in 1602, when the fate of St. Augustine
was "on trial," the presidio residents were unwilling to move even 50
to 70 miles further north. This would have moved them to a better
harbor, but would also have taken them further away from the Gulf Stream
and its sharp turn toward Spain just off the St. Augustine Inlet. This
location may have been too important to the garrison to be traded even
for an environment superior in other respects. Had there been a suit
able estuarine environment with a good harbor further south, they might
have moved, although the Timucuan and Guale Indians, in spite of their
predations, may also have been too important in the subsistence strategy
to be abandoned for an uncertain relationship with the Ais Indians of
the lower Florida peninsula.
This is not be belittle the contribution of the situado to the
Spanish adaptation. The location of the town and the residents' reluc
tance to move might logically be interpreted as indications of the


Table l--continued
1763 Spain cedes Florida to Britain in exchange for Havan
Cuba
British Period
1768 Andrew Turnbull establishes New Smyrna. Colony
abandoned in 1777
1776 American Revolution begins
1783 Florida returned to Spanish control. Second Spanish
Period begins, lasting until 1821 when Florida
becomes a territory of the United States


112
Fragment Count
One of the original methods used in faunal analysis is to count the
number of fragments identified for each taxon. It is a technique that
has been heavily criticized (White 1953, Grayson 1973, Smith 1976). The
problem inherent in such an analytical method'is that the number of bones
recovered archaeologically may have little or nothing to do with the past
human behavior which is the object of a zooarchaeological study. The
number of fragments can be attributed to the size of the site, the length
of occupation at the site, post-depositional events, and the recovery
technique involved, just to mention a few possibilities. For this reason
zooarchaeologists have tried to develop a more relevant and sensitive
analytical tool.
Minimum Numbers of Individuals (MNI)
In 1953, T.E. White suggested to faunal analysts that the pairing
of identified elements could be used as an analytical device, although
the method had been employed by paleontologists prior to this (Shotwell
1955, Grayson 1973). The method is basically quite simple. If a sample
contains two left femora of a deer, at least two deer are represented in
the sample. Quite likely more than two deer were involved, but at least
it is known for certain that a minimum of two deer were used at the site.
The technique has the advantage of reflecting human activity more directly
than does bone fragment count. White's original technique has often been
modified in practice by using indications of age, sex, and side differ
ences as criteria in addition to the element's side for determining the
minimum number of individuals represented in the collection (Grayson 1973,
Flannery 1972b, Smith 1976).


312
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
fO
(0
i.
"e fO
r
J2
3 r
r JZ
'V>s. f
ai
C 3
i -P
p a>
+->
S- CL
=3 CD
cu -p
s-
a; to
0)
0) fO

+J u
00 1
Lu D.
>
oo is)
r CNJ
CD
r
r
P
tA
r
i
JD
JD
3
3
E
£
£
r
E
*r
00
OO
r
E
3
r
CD
o
S-
*o
J£
_£
S-
£
a
c.
CO
to
o
£
fO
f
i
r
Lu
h1
00
:c
LU
LU
Didel phis virginiana
2
2
Cam's familiaris
16
3
1
2
1
Proc.yon lotor
1
Felis domesticus
1
Sus scrofa
25
8
2
3
1
Odocoileus virginianus
1
6
1
2
2
5
Bos taurus
15
14
23
4
7
4
- n
Capra/Ovis sp.
1
3
1
2
Gall us gall us
4
2
3
12
1
Other Birds*
3
10
1
4
Ariidae
32
8
14
Sciaenidae
13
34
Mugil sp.
128
72
^Identified to family


316
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar
British Period, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
fd
S-
"s' fO
_Q
C3 i
1
r
(1)
C 3
1 -M
4-> +->
S- Q.
3
S-
O)
CD
O)
+-> u
co 1
LU CL.
>
CO CO
r
C\J
=5
=*=
r
r
CO
4->
CO
p
i
_Q
fO
.Q
3
Z3
e
C
E
r
E
i
CO
CO
E
Z3
r
03
o
S-
o
-C
_c
U
c
u
c
CO .
CO
o
C
id
r-
r
r~
Lu
l-H
CO
ZT .
LU
Lu
Canis familiaris
1
Equus cabal 1 us
1
Sus scrofa
4
6
1
4
1
3
Odocoileus virqinianus
1
Bos taurus
10 22
2
6
1
7
Gall us gall us
1
2
2
1
Other Birds*
1
4
9
5
Ariidae
332
117
252
376
Sciaenidae
32
73
7
Mugil sp.
6
230
50
21
identified to family


Table 6
Regression Formulae Used in Estimating Biomass of Animals Represented in Study
Animal
Number
Formulae (Y = aX*3)
r
Measurement
Mammal1
Birds1
49
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.061 (X)1'09
= 0.065 (X)1'071
0.99
Skeletal Weight (Y)
Body Weight (X)
311
Y,
Kgs.
0.99
II
Turtles
19
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.2482(X)*8984
0.91
II
Snakes2
17
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0727(X)*9357
0.98
II
Chondrichthyes
9
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0116(X)*9786
0.91
II
Osteichthyes
486
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0438(X)9528
0.92
II
non-Perciformes
81
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0468(X)1-021
0.95
Siluriformes
13
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0433(X)0-887
0.96
it
PIeuronectiformes
20
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.053 (X)1*081
0.97
Perciformes
406
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0401(X)-9061
0.89
II
Serranidae
33
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0364(X)0-9374
0.96
Centrachidae
29
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0759(X)*9749
0.83
II
Carangidae
11
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0241(X)0*9228
0.90
II
Pomadasyidae
52
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.032 3(X)0 *7464
0.86
Sparidae
22
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0803(X)1*055
0.99
II
Sciaenidae
63
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0380(X)1-012
0.93
lPrange et al.(1979)
2Fradkin personal communication


114
Features. It may help to understand this distinction if it is realized
that wells are Features, but trash pits are not. When a well becomes
contaminated it is usually filled with debris very quickly but a trash
pit may be active for years. While bones discarded in the trash pit may
have been recirculated about the yard by dogs and other scavengers, bones
deposited in a Feature probably did not move about. Nor would materials
from the general yard have intruded upon the materials of a Feature. In
other words, materials from Features and non-features probably did not
mix. Excavation levels were ignored for Features, as well as for non
feature units where the levels were contemporaneous in date.
The use of MNI is not without hazards of its own. Non-comparable
techniques in determining MNI is one of these problems. Also, as White
(1953) and Odum (1971) have pointed out, the MNI method emphasizes small
species over large ones. This point has not been lost on faunal analysts,
and many faunal reports, using MNI as the basic tool, include qualifying
statements to this effect. Although a site may contain ten mullet and
only one deer, the deer undoubtedly contributed more calories and nutri
ents than did the mullet, if the entire animal was consumed at the site.
Total Live Weight and Edible Meat Weight
There have been many efforts to quantify the difference between
total live weight and edible meat weight. White (1953) attempted to
estimate the average live weight of animals, the percentage of usable
meat provided by them, and the pounds of edible meat represented by a
carcass. The procedure recommended by him was to multiply the number of
individuals of each species by the pounds of usable meat for that species.


74
fields and woods. Areas of cultivated fields surrounded by woods are
particularly favored. This is reasonable considering that their pre
ferred prey species are rabbits, hispid cotton rats, mice, pocket gophers,
Norway rats, and gal 1inaeceous birds which also frequent shrub thickets.
Fox have often been implicated as barnyard raiders (Johnson and Brown
1903). During the colonial period there was some trade in fox skins
(Bruce 1895).
The black bear (Ursus americanus) weighs around 120 to 150 Kgs, is
omnivorous, and generally nocturnal. While they may den in the winter,
they may not always do so. They prefer heavily wooded areas but also
frequent corn fields and swamps. Bartram (1955) noted that bear and
raccoon were both extremely fond of young corn. Bear meat was occasion
ally preserved for storage (Reddish pers. comm.), was thought to be
"least apt to rise" in the stomach, and was valued as an aphrodisiac
(Booth 1971). Bear fat was a valued grease (Gray 1933) and served as
candle material in St. Augustine (Bushnell 1978c), and to keep firearms
clean (Kirkland ca. 1967). It also served as an insect repellant
(Booth 1971).
The raccoon (Procyon lotor) is one of the most abundant mammals in
the salt marsh. These animals weigh about 5-10 Kgs and are generally
nocturnal. Besides being members of the salt marsh community they also
utilize low lying farmland and mixed woodlands. They frequently raid
garbage areas and have been associated with garden and barnyard thefts
as well. Bartram, discussing an encounter with raccoon and opossum,
considered coons delicious eating (1955), and the British in Virginia
thought that coon meat was equal to lamb (Weeden 1890). In addition to


276
Species List, Fort Frederica, Thomas Hird Lot
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
6ms
Biomass
#
Kg
%
Unidentified Mammal
18572
13580.1
142.47
34.6
Didel phis virginiana
48
6
2.6
58.6
0.96
0.2
S.ylvilagus sp.
2
1
0.4
1.3
0.03
0.007
Sciurus carolinensis
6
2
0.9
2.1
0.05
0.01
Rattus sp.
1
0.5
0.01
0.002
Rattus norveqicus
7
1
0.4
3.4
0.07
0.02
Rattus rattus
4
1
0.4
1.3
0.03
0.007
Ursus americanus
3
1
0.4
82.6
1.32
0.3
Proc.yon lotor
70
8
3.5
92.3
1.46
0.4
Lynx rufus
10
2
0.9
16.2
0.30
0.07
Felis domesticus
36
3
1.3
39.8
0.68
0.2
Artiodactyl
272
1702.1
21.20
5.1
Sus scrofa
299
14
6.1
1645.2
20.55
5.0
Odocoileus virginianus
412
18
7.8
2642.7
31.74
7.7
Bos taurus
442
15
6.5
11898.0
126.20
30.6
Capra/Ovis sp.
3
1
0.4
24.7
0.44
0.1
Unidentified Bird
234
78.2
1.19
0.3
Phalacrocorax auritus
1
1
0.4
1.0
0.002
0.0005
Ardeidae
1
0.7
0.02
0.005
Ardea herodias
1
1
0.4
1.6
0.03
0.007
Casmerodius albus
3
2
0.9
2.7
0.05
0.01
H.ydranassa tricolor
6
2
0.9
2.3
0.04
0.01
Florida coerulea
1
1
0.4
0.9
0.02
0.005


115
Average live weight for the species was taken from the literature, and
the percentage of-that weight determined to be usable meat obtained
from the meat packing industry.
Since White's early work there have been many attempts to develop
improved techniques for determining total edible and usable meat weights.
Some of these are reviewed by R.W. Casteel (1978), D.K. Grayson (1973),
C.A. Reed (1963), D.H. Thomas (1969), E.S. Wing (1976), and A.C. Ziegler
(1973). All have the similarity that a ratio of skeletal weight to live
weight is used to obtain usable meat estimates. The MNI data for each
species may then be multiplied by this estimate, or a ratio of usable
meat weight to archaeological bone weight may be employed as in Cumbaa's
dissertation on St. Augustine (1975) and to a limited extent in this
study. The difference between the two methods is that between estimating
for the total pig and for a ham.
None of these efforts has been entirely satisfactory primarily
because of the assumptions that must be made in the process of using
them. One of the major steps in these procedures is to obtain an
estimated live weight for the species under question. An animal can
vary in size dramatically throughout its range and it is important that
the live weight used by the analyst be appropriate to the locale of the
site being studied. For example, the literature on the white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virqinianus) provides live weights that range from 34
to 181 Kgs (Burt and Grossenheider 1964) and a couple of deer weighed at
the Florida State Museum recently were 42 and 44 Kgs. Yet White assumed
that the average weight of a deer was 90 Kgs (1953) and this figure is
often used somewhat uncritically by researchers. Obviously great care
must be exercised to obtain live weights that are most similar to those


125
and Weaver 1949). P.¡ is actually the evenness component since the
Shannon-Weaver Index measures both how many species were used and how
much each was relied upon. Diversity was calculated both for MNI and
biomass and the results for the sites are presented in Tables 8 and 9.
Equitability was calculated using the Sheldon Index,
E = H'/H max
where H' is the diversity Index and H max is the natural log of the
number of observed species (Sheldon 1969). Equitability was determined
for MNI and biomass and the results are presented for each site in
Tables 7 and 8.
Interpretation of the results can be difficult. Basically diver
sity increases as both the number of species and the equitability of
species abundance increases. A diversity of 4.99 is the highest
possible value. A sample with many species identified in which the
number of individuals slowly declines from most abundant to least
abundant will be high in diversity. Diversity can be increased by
adding one new species to the list; but if another individual of an
already present taxon is added, diversity is decreased. A low diversity
can be obtained either from having a few different species, or by having
a low equitability, where one species is more abundant than another. A
low equitability value indicates that one species was more heavily used
than the other species in the sample. A high equitability, approaching
1.0, indicates an even distribution of species in the sample following
a normal pattern where there are a few abundant species, a moderate
number of common ones, and many rare ones.


43
public market where produce could be purchased or bartered; that there
were a few shops also; and that there were a few people, who may have
been Indians, willing to serve as hunting and fishing specialists.
In addition to the above efforts to obtain needed goods, the Spanish
employed another strategy as well. Throughout almost the entire 200 year
occupation, complaints from the presidio were regular and consistent.
Almost every governor wrote reports to the Crown complaining of short or
unsatisfactory rations and requesting additional assistance from the
Crown both in cash and in the form of reprimands to New Spain officials.
At one point an official letter wrote that the population "ate herbs, fish,
and other scum and vermin. .."(Conner 1925:99). After British seizure
of the situado ship in 1712, Governor, Don Francisco de Coreles y Martinez
reported that the population;ate rodents, dogs, cats, and horses (Tepaske
1964). While these complaints were persistent, they did not usually
produce the desired result. ;
British Economics
As at St. Augustine, most of the residents at Frederica were expected
to do military duty; however, the colony was also expected to be self-
supporting. The roster of Frederica residents, and their trades, indicates
that the colonists were basically self-sufficient in craft skills, much
as St. Augustine had been originally (Saye and Coulter 1949). There were
at least three shopkeepers included among the colonists, but few farmers
(Saye and Coulter 1949). The settlers were given small grants of land,
agricultural tools, and seed. Efforts to produce small fruit and
vegetable gardens as well as field crops were successful. Most of the
British townsmen did not farm, but preferred to rely upon the Salzburger


Table 9
Summary of Species Lists (Appendix B)
Site
Date
Ct.*
#MNI
Bone Weight (gm)
Biomass (kg)
SA26-1
16th Cent. Spanish
24238
453
8631.0
149.17
SA29-2
16th Cent. Spanish
843
29
808.8
12.12
SA34-1
16th Cent. Spanish
192
22
533.2
7.60
SA34-3
16th Cent. Spanish
228
15
157.3
2.38
SA36-4
16th Cent. Spanish
. 3745
119
3023.4
44.01
SA36-4
17th Cent. Spanish
2275
47
1176.7
18.34
SA 7-6
18th Cent. Spanish
4751
87
6321.6
82.47
SA13-5
18th Cent. Spanish
2546
50
1957.0
26.45
SA16-23
18th Cent. Spanish
4940
101
2864.0
53.59
SA34-2
18th Cent. Spanish
4443
154
19730.5
228.45
SA36-4
18th Cent. Spanish
18853
227
21872.0
257.84
Hird Lot
Frederica, British
25266
230
33517.0
411.85
Hawkins-Davison
Frederica, British
530
45
2502.6
97.78
SA 7-4
British Period
3310
no
3887.8
61.68
SA 7-6
British Period
170
23
530.2
8.22
Plaza II Well
British Period
833
32
9171.8
107.46
Unidentified Bone category not included
197


98
Mullets (Mugil sp.) are herbivorous fishes with very small mouths.
They rarely take a hook. They school in large numbers throughout the
inshore area and into brackish water as well. By day schools of mullets
are active in mid-channel of bays and larger tidal creeks. They
frequently follow the tide into smaller creeks as well and are attracted
to refuse heaps dumped into the bay. Mullets are generally taken with
a net. Cold weather may drive them from the bay temporarily. Along
with the gafftopsail, whiting, and croaker, mullets are considered to
be the surf fish at St. Augustine. Large roe, or striped mullets (M.
cephalus) make a spawning run along the beaches in the fall. Spaniards
frequently made use of these roe fishes (Grinan 1756). The striped
mullet is larger than the white mullet (M. curema), which prefers saltier
water than the striped mullet, and is the mullet more commonly found on
the beaches.
Barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma),
and porcupine fish (Diodon histrix) are the last species to be discussed.
Barracudas are seasonal carnivores that are found in the bay and over
shallow water, principally as young individuals. Flounders are present
over mud flats where they actively feed at night. They are present year-
round to some extent and also move into freshwater. The porcupine fish
is present during the warmer months of the year inshore, although it is
generally an offshore reef fish and is very rare at St. Augustine.
Notes on Capture Techniques
Fish may be captured either actively or passively (Rost!und 1952).
Active fishing, using hand-held hooks, cast nets, or gigs, requires
individual attention and effort for a period of time. Passive devices


CHAPTER 5
ANIMAL RESOURCES OF THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN
In the first chapter, four factors were identified as being
influential in the formation of Spanish and British subsistence strategies
Social class, political and social environment, and cultural affiliation
have been reviewed. In this chapter the last factor, animal resources,
will be considered. The Atlantic Coastal Plain and the estuarine
environments occupied by Frederica and St. Augustine represent a series
of intergrading biotopes. These will be described in terms of their
proximity to St. Augustine and Frederica. The major portion of the
chapter will deal with local wild and domestic animal resources. Habits,
habitats, seasonal occurrences, and size of the species indentified from
Frederica and St. Augustine will be discussed, along with information
about colonial use of these species where possible. As will be seen,
all of the species used at these two sites could have been encountered
within a mile or two of either Frederica or St. Augustine.
The Atlantic Coastal Plain
The Atlantic Coastal Plain (Fig. 2) is the old coastal region of
the southeastern United States. Its northern and western edge is
defined by the Fall Line, a Mesozoic Era shoreline (Johnson et al. 1974).
The coastal plain was deposited by a series of marine advances during
the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods. The soils are sands and sandy clays
of marine origin which are usually acidic. They possess a low native
fertility due to excessive leaching.
62


no
Hawkins-Davison Houses (Lots 1_ and 2^ S)
The houses of Dr. Thomas Hawkins and Samuel Davison of Frederica
shared a common wall and were excavated jointly in 1952 by Charles H.
Fairbanks, University of Florida (1956). The faunal materials were
identified by Steve Cumbaa and reported by Kathleen Deagan in 1972. The
faunal materials from both houses were combined in Cumbaa's study. Hawkins
and Davison were substantial members of the community (Cate 1956).
Hawkins was the surgeon for Oglethorpe's Regiment, town doctor, local
apothecary, and First Bailiff. He was removed from this last post
because of the strife he caused in the town. Hawkins may have been
wealthy, but he was not well-liked. Davison got along much better with
his neighbors, although not with Hawkins. Although a chairman by trade,
he kept a tavern at Frederica and was Second Constable. In 1739 he was
appointed Overseer of the Trustee's Servants and in 1740 was Searcher of
Ships. Davison left Frederica in 1741 for South Carolina and Hawkins
returned to England in 1743.
Sites Reanalyzed
Several sites were reanalyzed in order to make them comparable to
the above collections. These reanalyzed collections include three sites
studied by Stephen L. Cumbaa: SA13-2, SA16-23, and SA34-4 (1975); the
Plaza II well studied by Elizabeth S. Wing and Erika Simons (1977); and
the Hawkins-Davison site from Frederica identified by Cumbaa and reported
by Deagan (1972). The three sites from St. Augustine studied by Cumbaa
were discussed in Chapter 2, and the Hawkins-Davison site introduced
above. The Plaza II well materials are from a collection recovered when
half of a public well found on the plaza at St. Augustine was excavated.


101
amphibians are thought to be commensal species (Table 4). It does not
seem likely that they were dietary components. To be usefully consumed
as food large numbers of each would have to be ingested. It seems, based
on ecological theory (Lee and Devore 1968), that humans faced with star
vation would turn first to exploitation of non-preferred foods before
using species that provide such a small return for effort and might have
been classified as non-food. It is for this reason that horses, cats,
and dogs are included among the food categories. The species listed as
"Commensals" are common house lot residents represented by one or a few
bones per site, numbers too small to have provided sufficient nutrition.
They probably are accidental inclusions in the faunal record.
Discussion
It is predicted that when the proportional contribution of the
above species is presented in the next two chapters that several patterns
of animal resource use will appear, based on the assumption that the most
immediate resources would have been also the most heavily exploited
(Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1972; Jochim 1976).
1. The typical English and Spanish barnyard animal complex will be
substantially altered. Cattle and pig will be the dominant food species,
followed closely by deer and perhaps chicken.
2. The other most common species will be mullet, catfish, and drum.
These species do not show the high degree of seasonality of other fish
species and could have been amenable to mass capture techniques that
provide maximum return for effort.
3. The prestige food will be cattle. Cattle closely conform to
Jochim's criteria for a luxury item in that they are mobile and require


127
statistically random manner; secondly, the samples from the five cultural/
temporal divisions are too small to be valid; thirdly, the number of
observations (sites) within the five divisions is unequal. Any one of
these factors could invalidate the results. Before statistical tests of
significance can appropriately be applied to faunal materials from St.
Augustine many more sites from each century must be excavated, and the
faunal collections must be selected in a statistically random manner.


274
MNI
Weiqht
Biomass, Kq
Species
Ct
# %
Gms
# %
Malaclemys terrapin 2
Gopherus polyphemus 47
Cheloniidae 1
Unidentified Snake 1
Viparidae 2
Unidentified Amphibian 4
Rana/Bufo sp. 6
Bufo sp. 38
Carcharhinidae 6
Carcharhinus sp. 5
Galeocerdo cuvieri 2
Sph.yrna sp. 26
Unidentified Fish 1345
Elops saurus 1
Ariidae 217
Arius felis 249
Bagre marinus 11
Centropristis sp. 1
cf. Epinephalus sp. 1
Lut.janus sp. 1
Archosargus probatocephal us 6
Sciaenidae 395
Cynoscion sp. 6
Leiostomus xanthurus 1
2
0.9
3.0
0.02
0.008
5
2.2
116.8
0.69
0.3
1
0.4
1.2
0.003
0.001
0.2
0.003
0.001
1
0.4
1.0
0.01
0.004
0.4
0.003
0.001
1.1
0.007
0.003
2
0.9
6.2
0.04
0.02
3.2
0.27
0.1
1
0.4
6.7
0.57
0.2
1
0.4
0.6
0.05
0.02
6
2.6
16.7
1.45
0.6
381.0
9.68
3.8
1
0.4
0.2
0.003
0.001
41.8
0.96
0.4
19
8.3
74.9
1.85
0.7
5
2.2
3.5
0.06
0.02
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.004
1
0.4
2.8
0.07
0.03
1
0.4
0.1
0.001
0.0004
1
0.4
1.2
0.02
0.008
93.6
2.44
1.0
4
1.7
2.0
0.06
0.02
1
0.4
0.3
0.008
0.003


Figure 16. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Drum
(Sciaenidae) Biomass and MNI for the First Spanish Period
and 18th Century British Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by
Arrow.


4
historie ones. This is in spite of the fact that the presence of
historical documents should make studies of historic adaptations a
fruitful area of research where the validity of ecological interpretations
could be tested.
Part of the reason for the neglect of human adaptation in historic
occupations cannot be attributed solely to the funding base and research
interests of historic archaeologists, but rather to a common assumption
made about domestic plants and animals. Historic populations, at least
ones with a European background, were almost always associated with
domestic plants and animals. It has been assumed that such domestic
food sources somehow protected the human population from the need to
adjust to the natural environment in any but the most superficial sense.
The early discussions of the Neolithic Revolution clearly assume that
humans were consequently freed of environmental constraints (Childe 1958).
This assumption is particularly strong where historic European popula
tions are involved.
There is ample ethnographic and archaeological evidence indicating
that the presence of plant and animal domesticates does not relieve the
human population of the need to deal with local environmental factors in
some coherent, integrated manner (Clark 1972; P. Lyon 1974; Stark and
Voorhies 1978). Human subsistence behavior must be responsive to
variables of the environment even where domestic plants and animals are
present. The few available examples of European colonial adaptations in
North America clearly indicate that French, British, and Spanish animal
use was highly variable in ways not explicable if the presence of
domestic animals rendered these European populations immune to environ
mental influence (Cleland 1970; Cumbaa 1975; Barber 1976; Bowen 1976;
Shapiro 1978a, 1978b).


CHAPTER 4: CULTURAL AFFILIATION AND FOODWAYS 49
Traditional British Foodways 49
Traditional Spanish Foodways 53
Old World Foodways 55
Historic North American Foodways 55
Discussion 60
CHAPTER 5: ANIMAL RESOURCES OF THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN 62
The Atlantic Coastal Plain ..... . 62
St. Augustine and Frederica 68
Species Accounts . 70
Notes on Capture Techniques 98
Summary of Faunal Categories 100
Discussion 101
PART TWO: SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AT ST. AUGUSTINE AND FREDERICA 103
CHAPTER 6: MATERIALS AND METHODS 104
Restatement of Hypotheses . 104
Materials 106
Methods Ill
CHAPTER 7: ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS ....... 128
The Collection as a Whole 128
Discussion of Each Site by Cultural/Temporal Division . 136
Discussion 158
CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 159
Cultural Affiliation and Local Resources ........ 159
Social Class 160
Political and Social Environment ..... 161
Conclusion 166
vi


144
made use of the lull in hostilities to use wild terrestrial resources
to an extent greater than at any other site studied here (Tables 10 and
11, Fig. 9 and 10).
The use of the individuals from the three major faunal groups at
SA36-4 in the 17th Century is very similar to that of the First Spanish
Period in general (Fig. 8), but the distribution of biomass in the
domestic faunal group is extraordinarily depressed, with a corresponding
increase in the percentages of terrestrial biomass. This increase is
most pronounced in the dominance of deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 25%
of the biomass and 4% of the individuals. Either the access to
domesticates was limited because there were few such animals available
to St. Augustinians or this was a very low status individual who had no
access to the system by which cattle were distributed. It is not
thought that the presence of a hunting specialist such as suggested by
Cumbaa for SA34-2 in the 18th Century First Spanish Period (1975, and
Chapter 2 above) is applicable here since the low use of cattle at SA36-4
in the 17th Century is quite distinct from the high use of these animals
at SA34-2. The low percentage of pork biomass, 5%, is perhaps due to
two of several possible factors: the resident at SA36-4 did not hunt
feral pigs as he hunted deer, or else did not raise them in the town
following the 16th Century pattern.
This may be an indication of the habitat in which the SA36-4
occupant did most of his hunting. Deer prefer forest-edge, disturbed
situations, and feral hogs frequent bottomlands. The deer may have
been caught near the fields, and hogs would not have been as common
there. Consequently a hunter concentrating on the nearby fields would


151
that the collection might indicate involvement in this trade by Hird.
The distribution of elements from these birds (Appendix D) indicates
that the entire bird, not just wings, or breasts, was discarded at the
site. Only one of these elements, a Canada goose (Branta canadensis)
coracoid, had a butchering mark. This does not preclude a feather trade
involvement, but it does suggest that Hird consumed these birds as well,
in keeping with a British food tradition. Due to the quantity of birds
utilized the Hird lot is the most diverse site based on MNI of all the
sites examined. Since 40% of the bird individuals at the lot are from a
single provenience, FS #60, the high diversity at the site may be
anomalous or may represent a special activity area.
While the reduced use of fish individuals can be explained in terms
of the location of Frederica on the Frederica River (see below), it is
odd that it is mullet (Mugil sp.) that seem under utilized rather than
catfish (Ariidae) or drum (Sciaenidae). Mullet will tolerate a much
less saline environment than will members of either of the other two
families. It would appear that the resident at the Hird lot obtained
or was supplied fish acquired by the use of hook and line rather than
by net. Since net fishing was part of the traditional British procure
ment repertory, the low utilization of the technique here, and at the
other British sites except SA7-4 in the British Period at St. Augustine,
is difficult to explain. It is one Old World pattern that would have
been expected to be easily adapted to the new environment and procure
ment of mullet.
In most respects the percentages of the biomass contributors are
very similar to those of the First Spanish Period in the 18th Century,


87
him (1975). He interpreted the bird to be a watch-bird. The other birds
are common beach and mud flat species except for the snipe which is a
freshwater slough and open ground resident. The willet is found more
often in the salt marsh than on the beach and kill deer often feed in
fields and pastures. These last two species are permanent residents,
as are stilts. Most of these species were in recent years popular game
birds, and generally referred to as curlews.
The razor-billed auk (Alca torda) is also a member of Charadriiformes,
but Florida does not constitute its normal range. Unlike the thick-knee,
it was probably not brought here as a watch-bird, but came here on its
own. The auk is a small arctic bird which frequents the open sea and
occasionally winters as far south as New'England. No explanation is
offered for its presence at St. Augustine other than to add that there
have been several sightings of these birds on the Florida coast
(Cruickshank 1967; Robertson 1967; Kale 1976) and they have also been
reported from a few aboriginal sites in Florida (Hamon 1959; Fradkin
1978).
Columbiformes include the rock dove or domestic pigeon (Columba
livia) and the mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura). The rock dove was a
European domestic introduction which soon became feral. As feral animals,
they continue to prefer human habitations and urban areas where they
congregate in large numbers on public monuments, buildings, and in parks.
Mourning doves are permanent residents in Florida whose numbers are
swelled in the winter by migrants. They are found in large groups in
urban areas, cultivated fields and pastures, and on dunes.
Strigiformes are represented by a single species, the barred owl
(Strix varia). It is not.known if this bird was eaten, but considering


CHAPTER 2
SOCIAL STATUS AND ANIMAL RESOURCE USE
It has been predicted that variability in faunal use during the
First Spanish Period at St. Augustine will reflect socio-economic level.
It was mentioned briefly that social status might be inferred for an
archaeological collection on the basis of faunal materials (Chapter 1).
This possibility will be explored using evidence of social stratification
in archaeological faunal samples from documented colonial and plantation
sites. The outline of the major social strata in the Hispanic Empire
is well known. These will be described here as they might affect access
to animal resources at St. Augustine. The discussion begins with a
review of the concept of social status.
Archaeology and Social Class
The concept of social class as defined by William Lloyd Warner
incorporates the following socio-economic symbols: occupation, source
of income, house type, and dwelling area (1962). According to Warner,
"a social structure is a system of formal and informal groupings by which
social behavior of individuals is regulated" (Warner and Lunt 1941:14).
Social stratification serves to set limits upon attainment of goals, and
to maintain authority relationships (Lipset 1968). Social criteria are
not based purely upon economic criteria, but also upon self-identification,
life-style, and prestige (Goldschmidt 1968:332). To be a member of the
highest social class a person must not only be wealthy, but must also
13


252
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
6ms
Biomass, Kq
# %
Paralichthyes lethostiqma
113
9 2.0
32.2
0.63 0.4
Unidentified Bone
2040.0
Totals
24238
453
8631.0
149.17


204
Figure 3. The Environs of St. Augustine, Florida (after
Palmer 1862).


Table 5.--continued
Site Name
Number
Excavator and Date
Reference
Faunal Analyst
Contreras/Ximenez-Fatio
SA34-2
Clauser
1974-73
Clauser
Beidleman
MacMurray
1974
1976
1972
Cumbaa 1975
Francisco Ponce de Leon
SA36-4
Deagan
1978
Deagan in
Poe i n
prep
prep
Reitz this MS
Matanzas North
Deagan
1976
Deagan
1976
Johnson 1976
British, Frederica, 1736-1748
Thomas Hird Lot
L 12-N
Honerkamp
1975
Honerkamp
1975
Reitz this MS
Hawkins-Davison
/
L 12-S
Fairbanks
1952
Deagan
1972
Cumbaa 1972
British Period, St. Augustine,
1763-1783
Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar
SA 7-4
Bostwick
1978
Bostwick
1978
Reitz this MS
Plaza II Well
Bostwick
1977
Bostwick
1975
Wing and Simons 1977
Mantanzas West
Deagan
1975
Deagan
1976
Johnson 1976
Antonio de Mesa
SA 7-6
Deagan
1977
Jones in
Deagan
prep
1978 b
Reitz this MS


284
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass, Kq
# %
Diodon histrix
1
1
0.9
0.1
0.002 0.003
Unidentified Bone
59.3
Totals
3310
no
3887.8
61.68


119
the constants of allometry. B is the ratio of geometric rates, and is
called the constant of allometry, or the slope of the line. A is the Y-
intercept of a log-log plot using the method of least squares and the
best fit line. Many biological phenomena show allometry in accordance
with this law. These include metabolic rates, muscle power, locomotion,
body size, and body shape.
The use of allometry on archaeological materials is not new.
Efforts to describe the relationship between brain weight and body weight
of australopithecine materials began in the 1890's (Pilbeam and Gould
1974). Recently David Pilbeam and S.J. Gould (1974) applied scaling
theory to their own discussion of australopithecine materials. These
efforts involved using linear dimensions rather than skeletal weight.
Linear dimensions have also been used on faunal materials. In 1974
Casteel recommended that linear allometry be used to analyze fish mate
rials (1974). He and Wing (1976) correlated linear measurements (Y) with
total live weight (X) using the same method of least squares regression
analysis employed here. Wing (1976) found that different linear dimen
sions on dentarys correlated well with live weight depending upon the
species being measured. H.D. Prange, J.F. Anderson, and H. Rahn (1979)
found a good correlation between linear measurements of avian long bones
and body weight. T.E. Emerson (1978) had good results using measurements
of astragali as did Richard Casteel working with fish vertebra (1974).
While the results of such allometry are quite reliable and the technique
of linear measurements useful, Wing (1976) has underscored one of its
limitations. Rarely are complete elements recovered from an archaeo
logical context. The need to have the appropriate element entire and
in good condition eliminates most of the collection from analysis.


163
and other scum and vermin ..." (Conner 1925:99). The quotation comes
from correspondence in 1573, but was repeated in various forms for 200
years.
As was noted in Chapter 4, fish were a traditional Spanish food
source. It is incongruous that this fauna would be mentioned in the
context quoted above. In addition, of all the faunal collections examined,
no mice or dog bones have butchering marks, and the five horse teeth
found from the debris of Spanish St. Augustine hardly confirm that horses
were consumed. It is doubtful that the marks on the two cat elements
from the 16th and 18th Century components of SA36-4 were produced by
butchering tools. It should be remembered that the official documents
in which these complaints occurred were not necessarily accurate descrip
tions of the financial and economic conditions of the settlement. The
official correspondence with Spain and New Spain' was a subsistence
strategy in itself, an effort to pry loose greater Crown support.
This is not to say that there were not periodic food shortages at
St. Augustine. Obviously there must have been problems with the food
supply resulting from the raids and storms that afflicted St. Augustine
over the years. It is inconsistent with human ecological theory, how
ever, to assume that the Spanish population at St. Augustine passively
starved when the situado failed to arrive. Irregular subsidies and
occasional pirate or Indian alarms were part of the political environ
ment to which the garrison had to adapt. Based on Liebig's "Law of the
Minimum" (Odum 1971), we would expect that the subsistence strategy
adopted by the Spanish population must have been based on the worst
possible likelihood rather than upon an optimum condition predicated


CHAPTER 3
AN ACCOUNT OF THE SPANISH AND BRITISH
OCCUPATION ON THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN, 1565-1783
The documented history of British and Spanish interaction in the Old
and New World provides a framework within which to study the subsistence
patterns at St. Augustine and Frederica. The two garrisons were part of
an international struggle which affected the daily lives of the residents,
in as much as their reason for being was based more upon military strategy,
than upon commercial enterprise. Although Frederica was pleasantly
situated, St. Augustine's location was not selected for its pleasing
agricultural prospect. The wealth of Florida and of Frederica lay in
their strategic locations. Much of the subsistence activity at both
locations was formed within constraints imposed by political alliances
and mercantile policies stated by their respective Crowns. Military
duties, disrupted supply lines, relations with natives, and unofficial
trade networks all had to be incorporated into the subsistence plan.
In this chapter the history of the region will be summarized. In
addition, the populations of St. Augustine and Frederica will be
described and the economic conditions of Spanish and British residents
discussed.
A Brief History
There are many excellent histories of the Spanish Empire (Haring
1947), of the Caribbean (Haring 1966; Sauer 1969), of early explorations
23


278
Species
Ct
1
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
>. KJ_._-
%
Numenius americanus
10
4
1.7
4.2
0.08
0.02
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
3
1
0.4
1.4
0.03
0.007
Limnodromus qriseus
2
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Laridae
2
0.8
0.02
0.005
Larus sp.
1
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Columba livia
2
1
0.4
0.7
0.02
0.005
Zenaidura macroura
1
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Passeriformes
1
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Unidentified Reptile
1
0.5
0.001
0.0002
Unidentified Turtle
67
30.0
0.20
0.05
Kinosternon sp.
2
1
0.4
1.0
0.002
0.0004
Emydidae
2
1.5
0.008
0.002
Malaclemys terrapin
27
2
0.9
18.5
0.08
0.02
Chrysem.ys sp.
1
1
0.4
1.2
0.007
0.002
Deirochel.ys reticularia
9
3
1.3
12.8
0.06
0.02
Gopherus polyphemus
12
1
0.4
11.4
0.08
0.02
Rana/Bufo sp.
36
1.9
0.01
0.002
Bufo sp.
1
1
0.4
0.3
0.002
0.0005
Rana sp.
1
1
0.4
0.3
0.002
0.0005
Squaliformes
1
0.8
0.07
0.02
Odontaspis taurus
1
1
0.4
0.7
0.06
0.02
Carcharhinidae
FOSSIL
TOOTH
Sphyrna sp.
1
1
0.4
1.3
0.11
0.03
Rhinobatos lentiqinosus
1
1
0.4
0.3
0.02
0.005


% 12
BIOMASS
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

-L 16th 17th 18th Fred. St. Aug.
Spanish Period British Sites
MNI
Figure 13. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Cow (Bos taurus)
Biomass and MNI for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow.
218


258
Species List, SA 36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
i
M
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
j_Kg_
%
Unidentified Mammal
1412
730.3
9.75
22.2
Sylvilaqus sp.
15
5
4.2
13.2
0.25
0.7
Sciurus cf. niqer
1
1
0.8
0.9
0.02
0.05
Proc.yon lotor
1
1
0.8
0.1
0.003
0.007
Felis domesticus
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.02
0.05
Artiodactyl
20
60.4
0.99
2.3
Sus scrofa
26
8
6.8
271.2
3.93
8.9
Odocoileus virqinianus
9
4
3.4
83.6
1.34
3.1
cf. Bos taurus
2
70.5
1.14
2.6
Bos taurus
11
2
1.7
924.5
12.11
27.5
Unidentified Bird
40
25.5
0.42
1.0
Casmerodeus albus
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.02
0.05
Anas sp.
1
1.1
0.02
0.05
Anas cf. platyrhynchos
1
1
0.8
0.2
0.005
0.01
Anas platyrhynchos
2
1
0.8
1.6
0.03
0.07
Anas cf. carolinensis
1
1
0.8
1.3
0.03
0.07
cf. Gall us gall us
3
3.2
0.06
0.14
Gall us qallus
28
7
5.9
29.3
0.48
1.1
Meleaqris gallopavo
5
3
2.5
34.2
0.55
1.2
Laridae
1
1
0.8
0.1
0.002
0.005
Unidentified Turtle
12
6.7
0.02
0.05
cf. Gopherus polyphemus
34
13.4
0.09
0.2


153
University of Florida in the 1970's. The impression one gets is that
all the "little stuff," i.e. fish and scrap bone, had been discarded.
In addition, some of the British remains may have been mixed with later
occupational debris. Furthermore, the collection is very small (MNI =
45). In spite of these reservations, the collection almost mirrors,
on a percentile basis, the pattern observed at the Thomas Hird lot.
British activities at Frederica can be compared to the activities
practiced later by the British residents at St. Augustine in order to
assess the importance of traditional foodways to the subsistence strategy
employed at St. Augustine. Unfortunately the British Period sites at
St. Augustine are difficult to characterize, perhaps because two of the
collections are very small (Table 9) and the third is from a single trash
pit (SA7-4). The range in biomass diversity is almost as great as in
the 16th Century First Spanish Period at St. Augustine (Fig. 7). The
equitability range is also similar to that in the 16th Century. The
MNI range, while as wide as that of the 18th Century Spanish collection,
is depressed to the 16th Century level. This suggests that there is a
great deal of difference among the three sites, but that generally a
smaller number of individuals were exploited in the British Period and
more reliance was placed upon a single source of biomass.
SA7-4, occupied in the British Period by Captain Rainesford,
compares quite closely to SA26-1 and SA16-23, the 16th Century site and
the 18th Century mestizo household, in the proportion of wild as com
pared to domestic animals used, principally because of the high level
of fish found at SA7-4. For example sea catfish (Ariidae) are unusually
prominent (45% of the individuals and 21% of the biomass), while deer


20
(Haring 1947). Peninsulares and crio!los alike disdained mestizos, who
were thought to,be vagrants. Mestizos were the ones who did manual labor
while the "whites" avoided such.work insofar as possible (Morner 1967).
In some areas, of. the Hispanic>world, mestizos were legally denied educa
tion beyond religious instruction. In spite of the feelings against
them, mestizos served in the Florida military garrison (Corbett:1976).
: Blacks and Indians were at the lowest social leve). Legally;Indians
were of a social status above mestizos but this was not so in practice
(Haring 1947). Blacks at St. Augustine may either have been slave or
free. Spanish Florida was a haven for escaped British slaves.since they
were not returned to their owners (Tepaske 1964). Many artisans.-.at St.
Augustine were slaves or Indians (Boniface 1971), and Indians may .have
served on St. Augustine ships (Bushnell 1978c) r-
Discussion
As examples cited above serve to illustrate, the identification of
social status from faunal assemblages is not without risks. Had documen
tary assistance been lacking, the slave faunal collection from Cannon's
Point might have been identified as belonging to the planter; and the
households of Pettus Plantation and Utopia might have been interpreted
as belonging to the same social statum.
Is an analysis of differential access to scarce resources justified
in the absence of documentary evidence? Prehistoric archaeologists are
accustomed to doing so using cultural materials. Social value is assigned
to objects excavated from archaeological context on the basis of such
observed evidence as local availability, quality of materials and manu
facture, scarcity at the site, and distribution within the site. It


6
domestic food sources and trans-Atlantic supply routes buffered them
from the new environment and made adjustments in their Old World subsis
tence strategy unnecessary. Reports of "starving times" are almost a
hallmark of early colonial efforts (Weeden 1890; Bruce 1895; Gray 1933;
Thompson 1942) and show that the colonists quickly faced reality. They
had to modify their traditional Old World adaptation to suit the North
American habitats. The new adaptations developed at each outpost reflect
ed the influence of available technology, political environment, tradi
tional foodways, and the local natural environment.
One of the basic elements in human adaptations is the ability of
humans to make choices.
Choices of usable resources, decisions as to their
proportional use and time of utilization, and the
demographic and spatial arrangements chosen in order
to accomplish the exploitation, all allot human time
and energy and are visualized as structuring the
subsistence and settlement patterns of a human group.
Even granting the proposition that relatively small
amounts of energy may be expended by hunters and
gatherers in the food quest (Lee 1968; Sahlins 1968),
the allotment of these expenditures depends on choices
among competing or mutually exclusive activities; the
"scarcity" pertains to time and energy devoted (by
choice) to subsistence. (Jochim 1976)
David L. Clarke (1968:490) has defined a strategy as "a program or
plan of an entity's moves..,. ." Humans are rational beings who attempt
to maximize satisfactions by chosing between competing objectives, the
decision often involving a compromise among those objectives. There are
several criteria for guiding the food procurement decision making process
according to game theorists (Clarke 1968). The one which appears to be
most useful in explaining human adaptive strategy is the Simon satisficer
criterion in which the objective is to satisfy a safe, low-risk, sub-
maximal aspiration level rather than to provide a maximum yield. Humans


339
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1742b
Menticirrhus americanus
1
0.112
0.0068
2083
Mentidrrhus americanus
1
0.0394
0.0015
2468
Menticirrhus littoralis
1
0.3246
0.0151
2470
Menticirrhus littoral is
1
0.2644
0.0131
2471
Menticirrhus littoral is
1
0.1431
0.0065
21405
Menticirrhus rostratus
1
0.1812
0.0018
21422
Menticirrhus rostratus
1
0.1812
0.0021
2396
Menticirrhus saxatilis
1
0.3209
0.0119
2397
Menticirrhus saxatilis
1
0.3264
0.0141
2398
Menticirrhus saxatilis
1
0.4882
0.0165
2399
Menticirrhus saxatilis
1
0.2052
0.0007
21423
Micropoqonias altipinnis
1
0.5436
0.0301
21424
Micropoqonias altipinnis
1
0.5889
0.03705
2089
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.0625
0.0032
2351
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.2114
0.0116
2352
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.1412
0.0070
2353
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.1665
0.0007
2362
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.1586
0.0087
2430
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.3095
0.0255
21399
Odontoscion xanthops
1
0.1359
0.0021
21409
Odontoscion xanthops
1
0.1359
0.0032
21451
Odontoscion xanthops
1
0.2265
0.00385
21447
Paralonchurus dumerili
1
0.453
0.0196


234
Field Specimens from SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
FS#
FS#
6
172
11
221
12
226
18
230*
37
232
38
238*
48
241
49
250
57
251
82
252*
93
253*
99
254*
101
255
112
257
113
258*
125
271
126
272*
165
273
169
278*
170
279*
171


183
Table 3.continued
Species
Habitat
Moris bassana
gannet
rocky ledges on maritime islands,
open sea
Phalacrocorax auritis
cormorant
bays, lagoons, rivers, lakes,
nest with herons
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
rivers, lakes, salt marshes, nest
in tall trees, solitary
Casmerodius albus
American egret
ponds, rivers, salt marshes, nest
in brush with herons, solitary
feeders
H.ydranassa tricolor
Louisiana heron
coastal ponds, mud flats, marshes,
nests in bushes
Florida caerulea
little blue heron
swampy areas, grainfields, nests
with herons in thickets
N.ycticorax n.ycticorax
black-crowned night heron
marshes, swamps, wooded streams of
interior, rookery may be apart
from other herons
Eudocimus albus
white ibis
sloughs, mud flats, swamps, nests
with other herons
Branta canadensis
Canada goose
salt marshes, shallow bays, grass
lands
Anas plat.yrhynchos
mallard
dabbler in freshwater, stubble
f i e 1 ds
Anas rubripes
black duck
coastal marshes, tidal streams,
mud flats
Anas ful vi gula
Florida or mottled duck
salt marshes, streams, lakes, fields
Anas strepera
gadwal1
freshwater ponds, sloughs, fields,
occasionally in salt marsh
Anas carolinensis
green-winged teal
freshwater ponds and marshes,
some coastal
Anas discors
blue-winged teal
shallow ponds, stubble fields,
seldom on coast


304
PLAZA II WELL
British Period, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
16
50.0
78.2
97.7
Wild Terrestrial
1
3.1
0.76
1.0
Wild Birds
2
6.3
0.18
0.2
Aquatic Reptiles
1
3.1
0.42
0.5
Fish and Sharks
11
34.4
0.48
0.6
Commensals
J_
3.1
0.001
0.001
Totals
32
80.04
Biomass
of Taxa for which MNI was Not Determined
Taxa
Biomass
Kg %
Mammals
26.88
98.0
Birds
0.05
0.2
Reptiles
0.05
0.2
Fish and Sharks
0.44
1.6
Total
27.42


PART TWO: SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AT ST. AUGUSTINE AND FREDERICA


207


42
there were other retail facilities as well. The market, houses for fish
and meat vendors, as well as a grinding mill were established by Governor
Mendez Canzo in 1597. The market was a place to barter produce (Arnade
1959). Don Pedro Sanchez Grinan reported that between 1731 and 1741 as
many as twelve stores were operating (1757). These sold rum, wine,
vinegar, sugar, tobacco, spices, lard, soap, suet candles, silk, wool,
linen, and ribbons. John J. Tepaske, referring to English traders in the
18th Century, says that these merchants were driving local Spanish shop
keepers out of business (1964). Criollos, as hidalgos or gentlemen, were
not supposed to be merchants (Bushnell 1978a). This did not prevent
many criollos from trading ambergris and cattle (Bushnell 1978b), and
one even operated two stores in St. Augustine in the late 1600's, one of
which was in his home (Gillaspie 1961). At least one commercial fisher
man existed in the town in the 17th Century since such an individual was
on salary to supply fish to the laborers working on the Castillo de San
Marcos in the late 1600's (Chatelain 1941). Commercial fishermen and
hunters existed in the 1500's as well (Lyon 1977b). A soldier's partner
ship in the 16th Century sold venison in the town (Lyon 1977b). A
tannery and slaughterhouse were present and in the 1750's one of the
butchers was an Englishman (Solana 1960). The tongue of the slaughtered
cattle was reserved for the governor (Bushnell 1978c).
It is not known what volume of food consumed at St. Augustine was
sold or exchanged at the market, purchased from Indian vendors, secured
through private agriculture, hunting, fishing or collecting efforts, or
acquired through barter and private exchange systems. While the evidence
is tentative, the following assumptions will be made: that there was a


BIOMASS
Spanish Period British Sites
MNI
Figure 11. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Pig (Sus scrofa)
Biomass and MNI for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow.
216


137
biomass and 2% of the individuals. Pig (Sus scrofa) contributed 24% of
the biomass and 3% of the individuals. Cattle (Bos taurus) contributed
only 4% of the biomass and 0.4% of the individuals. Chickens (Gal 1 us
gallus) contributed as much biomass as cattle (4%) and more individuals
(3%). These data and those from other species are graphed in Figures
11 through 17. From these Figures it can be seen that SA26-1 represents
an extreme not only for the 16th Century, but for Spanish St. Augustine
as a whole.
The uniqueness of the faunal assemblage from this site corresponds
with the novelty of the ceramic assemblage as well. This is the only
site from St. Augustine at which Mesoamerican colonial wares, Feldspar
Inlaid redware, and burnished redware have been recovered (Singleton
1977). In addition there are more majolica sherds from this site,
representing a greater variety of types than found at other 16th Century
excavations in St. Augustine (Singleton 1977). There is also greater
variety in glass fragments and more nails.
The social status of the 16th Century residents at this site is
unknown. It may be possible, though, to predict social status from the
faunal collection. Michael Jochim (1976) suggested that high risk
resources would be utilized more by high status individuals. Cattle
(Bos taurus) may have been a scarce resource due to the difficulty in
caring for the animals, and in capturing feral individuals. Once captured,
the criollo cow would have yielded more biomass than a pig (Sus scrofa),
and so would have been the highest yield animal available. As mentioned
in Chapters 2 and 5, cattle are assumed to be indicators of social status
for these reasons. Although all domestic animals were only slightly


352
01 ano, Pedro Ruiz de
1740 "Plan of the Fort of San Agustn, Florida and Its
Environments in Which is Demonstrated the Places which the
English have Occupied, Batteries of Cannon and Sorters with
which they have attacked said Fort." A.G.I. Santo Domingo
2655. Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board Map # 68.
Otto, John Solomon
1975 Status Differences and the Archaeological Record--A
Comparison of Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites from
Cannon's Point Plantation (1794-1861), St. Simons Island,
Georgia. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Otto, John Solomon, and Russell Lamar Lewis
1974 "A Formal and Functional Analysis of San Marcos Pottery
from Site SA 16-23, St. Augustine, Florida." Bureau
of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 4:95-117.
Paine, R.
1971 "Animals as Capital: Comparisons Among Northern Nomadic
Herders and Hunters." Anthropological Quarterly 44:157-172.
Palmer, Ralph S., ed.
1976 Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press,
New Haven.
Palmer, W. R.
1862 "Preliminary Chart of St. Augustine Harbor, Florida."
U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Record Group 23, Chart 456,
edition 1. National Archives and Records Service,
Washington,D. C.
Parma!ee, Paul W.
1960 "Vertebrate Remains from Fort Loudoun, Tennessee. Tennessee
Archaeological Society Miscellaneous Papers 6:26-29.
Parma!ee, Paul, and Walter E. Klippel
1974 "Freshwater Mussels as a Prehistoric Food Resource."
American Antiquity 39:3:421-434.
Pedley, T. J., ed.
1977 Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion." Academic Press,
New York.
Peterson, Roger Troy
1947 A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.
Pilbeam, David, and Stephen Jay Gould
1974 "Size and Scaling in Human Evolution." Science 186:892-901.
Poe, Charles Boyce
in prep Status Variability in 18th Century Criollo Culture.
MA Thesis. Florida State University, Tallahassee.


12
(five sites); British Frederica (two sites); and the British Period at
St. Augustine (three sites). These materials and the methods employed
in analysis are reviewed (Chapter 6), analyzed (Chapter 7), and conclu
sions drawn (Chapter 8).


178
Table 2.--continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Lepidochel.ys kempi
Atlantic ridley
diurnal
summer
Natrix sp.
water snakes
diurnal
year-round
Coluber constricta
racer
diurnal
year-round
Masticophis flaqellum
coachwhip
diurnal
year-round
Aqkistrodon piscivorus
cottonmouth
diurnal
year-round
Rana sp.
pig or leopard frog
nocturnal
summer
Bufo terrestris
southern toad
nocturnal
summer
Ginql.ymostoma cirratum
nurse shark
tidal
summer
Odontaspis taurus
sand tiger shark
tidal
Oune-September
Carcharhinus leucas
bull shark
ti dal
July-September
Carcharhinus milberti
sandbar shark
tidal
June-September
Galeocherdo cuvieri
tiger shark
tidal
April-December
Sph.yrna mokorran
great hammerhead
tidal
June-August
Sphyrna tiburo
bonnethead
tidal
March-November
Sphyrna z.yqaena
smooth hammerhead
tidal
June-October


348
Grinan, Pedro Sanchez
1757 "Relacin MSS 11.265: 1725,1750,1792,1800. "trans. by
Jesus Maria Belmonte. MS on file, Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board, St. Augustine.
Guilday, John E.
1970 "Animal Remains from Archaeological Excavations at
Fort Ligonier." Annals of the Carnegie Museum 42:177-186.
Haggett, P.
1965 Locational Analysis in Human Geography. Edward Arnold,
London.
Hamon, J. Hill
1959 "Northern Birds from a Florida Indian Midden." The Auk:
76:533-534.
Hardesty, Donald L.
1975 "The Niche Concept: Suggestions for Its Use in Human
Ecology." Human Ecology 3:2:71-85.
1977 Ecological Anthropology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Haring, C. H.
1947 The Spanish Empire in America. Harbinger, New York.
1966 The Buccaneers in the West Indies in the XVII Century.
Archon Books, Hamden, Conn.
Harman, Joyce Elizabeth
1969 Trade and Privateering in Spanish Florida, 1732-1763.
St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine.
Higgs, E. S.,and C. Vita-Finzi
1972 "Prehistoric Economies: A Territorial Approach" In
Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 27-36.
University Press, Cambridge.
Hilliard, Sam B.
1972 Hogmeat and Hoecake: Food Supply in the Old South, 1840-1860
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Hoese, H. Dickson, and Richard H. Moore
1977 Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A and M University
Press, College Station.
Hoffman, Paul E.
1977 "St.Augustine 1580, the Research Project." El Escribano:
14:5-19.
Homans, George C.
1950 The Human Group. Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York.
Honerkamp, Nicholas
1975 The Material Culture of Fort Frederica, the Thomas Hird Lot.
MA Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville.


257
Species List, SA34-3, Public Library Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
118
76.9
1.24
52.1
Rattus rattus
1
1
6.7
0.4
0.01
0.4
Sylvilaqus sp.
5
1
6.7
2.3
0.05
2.1
Artiodactyl
3
11.0
0.21
8.8
Sus scrofa
5
1
6.7
7.2
0.14
5.9
Bos taurus
1
1
6.7
6.0
0.12
5.0
Unidentified Bird
4
1.9
0.04
1.7
Unidentified Turtle
30
12.6
0.04
1.7
Malaclemys terrapin
1
1
6.7
0.5
0 .003
0.1
Gopherus polyphemus
10
1
6.7
21.0
0.14
5.9
Sph.yrna tiburo
1
1
6.7
0.4
0 .03
1.3
Unidentified Fish
19
6.2
0 .13
5.5
Ari i dae
1
0.5
0 .007
0.3
Arius felis
4
2
13.3
2.1
0 .03
1.3
Sparidae
1
0.4
0.007
0.3
Archosarqus probatocephalus
2
1
6.7
0.6
0.01
0.4
Sciaenidae
6
1.7
0.05
2.1
Pogonias cromis
1
1
6.7
0.6
0.02
0.8
Scianops ocellata
4
1
6.7
1.5
0.04
1.7
Muqil sp.
9
2
13.3
2.9
0.06
2.5
Diodon histrix
2
L
6.7
0.6
0.01
0.4
Totals
228
15
157.3
2.38


28
complained that Indians raided their fields, gardens, and stole their
livestock (Bonner 1964). In 1739 the War of Jenkin's Ear between .,
England and Spain began.; A raid on St. Augustine, led from Ft. Frederica
by General James Oglethorpe in 1740, did much damage to the town. The ;
Spanish garrison retaliated in 1742 with a raid of their own. Shortly
after this the war was drawn:to a close. Frederica was abandoned by the
British military personnel, and the shopkeepers quickly followed (Reese
1963). .. .. ,
In spite of the exchange of raids between St. Augustine and
Frederica, the period between 1733 and the early 1750's was one of
relative security at St. Augustine (Tepaske 1964). Hostilities among
England, France, and Spain continued, however, with France and England
resuming a state of war in 1756. Although Spain remained aloof from
this confrontation for a while, the Crown eventually joined France ...
against. England, just in time to be on the losing side. England captured
Cuba in the closing days of this war.and Spain was eager to regain that
island, even if it cost them Florida to do so. As the British prepared
to occupy the peninsula (all that remained of the once extensive Spanish
"la Florida") virtually the entire Spanish and Florida Indian population
evacuated the province (Dunkle 1955).
Britain remained in control of the Florida colony.for twenty years.
Initially it was an idle backwater (Wright 1975), but when.the American.
Revolution began St. Augustine remained loyal to the Crown and once again
assumed strategic importance. The town experienced a florescence as.it
became a staging area for British troops and supplies going north. The
town also served as a refuge for Tories fleeing the rebellious colonies.


116
of animals from the region being studied. There is, unfortunately, no
way to confirm that modern live weights conform to the weights of animals
in the past, even in the same locality. Thus the first assumption that
must be made is that the live weights used in the live weight-edible meat
weight ratio are an accurate reflection of the situation in the past.
When fish, or other species that grow more or less continuously
throughout their lives, are involved in the analysis, the situation
becomes further complicated. Black drum (Pogonias cromis), for example,
weight between 500 Gms and 45 Kgs (McLane 1955). Is the average weight
of the black drum found in an archaeological site 22 Kgs? It is possible
to make a reasonable guess on the basis of the size of the bones recovered
for fish and sharks, but the degree of accuracy is not certain.
An additional set of assumptions involves the use made of the
animal's carcass. Usually bone weight and visceral weight are subtracted
to obtain usable meat weight, but this may not be an accurate reflection
of the butchering habits of the archaeological population. They may
have used the bone to make bone grease (Leechman 1951); they may have
relished all or portions of the viscera; or they may have consumed the
tongue and brains. In order to work with usable meat weights it is
necessary to decide what portions of the animal were considered food by
the consumers, usually on the basis of very little evidence. The
problems inherent in this assumption are avoided when a ratio of skeletal
to live weight is used in conjunction with the archaeological bone weight
rather than with MNI (Wing 1976).
Where the total usable meat weight is multiplied by the MNI at the
site no allowance is made for a redistributive system. It may be that


265
Species
Ct
z.
ii
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
Muqil sp.
203
26
30.0
23.7
0.56
0.68
Sph.yraena barracuda
3
1
1.1
0.4
0.006
0.007
Paralichthyes lethostiqma
1
1
1.1
0.2
0.006
0.007
Unidentified Bone
79
8.2
Totals
4751
87
6321.6
82.47


138
utilized at the site, the low percentages of domestic individuals and
biomass can be attributed principally to the low incidence of cattle in
the collection. It is, therefore, possible that the occupant at the site
was a person whose access to cattle was restricted below the level of the
occupants of the other 16th Century sites, possibly because of lower
social standing in the community. At this time the 16th Century pattern
is too poorly explored to understand the meaning of the ceramic and
faunal assemblages beyond noting the uniqueness of the site. Since
social standing includes factors other than income and occupation, such
as ethnic affiliation and familial ties, it is possible that some of
these additional factors are being reflected in the artifacts.
The faunal collection from SA26-1 indicates that the 16th Century
resident made use of several species which represent low risk/high yield
resources. Fish, particularly mullet (Mugil sp.), sea catfish (Ariidae),
and drum (Sciaenidae) are such a resource. As can be seen in Figures
15-17, the use of these three species at SA26-1 is remarkable. The
presence of large quantities of mullet is particularly interesting since
they are herbivorous fish best caught with a net, by means of which
mullet could easily have been procured almost anywhere around St.
Augustine in large quantities. Maximizing yield by means of a net can
be interpreted as an indication of a need to compensate for a lack of
domestic meat in the diet. Chickens (Gallus gallus) are an easily
raised resource that require little care beyond protection against
predators. Raised in the backyard, perhaps fed some scraps, they were
a reliable, nearby resource also. Swine, particularly ones raised in
backyards or streets, would have been a dependable resource requiring
little care and providing substantial annual increases.


Table 10
Summary of Faunal Categories (Appendix C): MNI, Totals, and Percentages
FIRST SPANISH PERIOD
16th Centurv
17th Centurv
18th Centurv
SA 26-1 29-2 34-1 34-3 36-4
SA 36-4
SA 7-6 13-5 16-23 34-2 36-4
Total MNI
453
29
22
15
119 47
87
50
101
154
227
Faunal Cateqories/Percentaqes
Domestic Animals
8.0
17.2
27.3
13.3
15.1 14.9
17.2
14.0
8.9
17.5
19.8
Terrestrial Animals
8.2
17.2
22.7
13.3
12.6 10.6
9.2
8.0
5.0
16.9
10.1
Wild Birds
6.2
3.5
9.1
0
6.7 6.4
6.6
2.0
6.9
4.6
11.0
Aquatic Reptiles
1.6
3.5
4.6
6.7
0.8 4.3
0
6.0
4.0
5.2
1.3
Fish
73.5
55.2
31.8
60.0
63.9 61.7
64.4
62.0
68.3
55.2
54.6
Commensals
2.7
3.5
4.6
6.7
0.8 2.1
3.5
8.0
6.9
0.7
3.1
Frederica
BRITISH COLLECTIONS
British Period. St.
Auaustine
Hird Lot
Hawkins-Davison
SA 7-4
7-6
Plaza II
Total MNI
230
45
110
23
32
Faunal Cateqories/Percentaqes
Domestic Animals
20.4
42.2
9.0
26.1
50.0
00


272
Species List, SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
13079
7945.5
87.13
33.8
Seal opus aquaticus
6
1
0.4
1.0
0.02
0.008
Sylvilagus sp.
14
4
1.7
12.7
0.24
0.09
Sylvilaqus cf. palustris
1
1.9
0.04
0.02
Cricitidae
2
1
0.4
0.4
0.01
0.004
Rattus norveqicus
1
1
0.4
0.2
0.005
0.002
Rattus rattus
3
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.004
Carnivora
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Proc.yon lotor
8
3
1.3
6.2
0.12
0.05
cf. Felis domesticus
1
0.7
0.02
0.008
Felis domesticus
21
5
2.2
41.6
0.70
0.03
Artiodactyl
333
2023.6
24.84
9.6
cf. Sus scrofa
3
encrusted
Sus scrofa
194
14
6.1
1441.7
18.20
7.1
Odocoileus virqinianus
80
11
4.8
1076.4
13.92
5.4
Bos taurus
202
13
5.7
7309.9
80.72
31.3
Capra/Ovis sp.
18
3
1.3
312.3
4.47
1.7
Unidentified Bird
145
67.2
1.03
0.4
Ardea herodias
1
1
0.4
encrusted
N.ycti corax nycti corax
1
1
0.4
0.2
0.005
0.002
Eudocimus albus
5
4
1.7
9.9
0.17
0.07
Branta canadensis
1
1
0.4
encrusted
Anatidae
4
2.4
0.05
0.02


15
quest, this is viewed less harshly than if a person of higher social
standing commits the same offense,
Archaeological Examples
The best documented example of differential access to scarce
resources provided by historical archaeology has been provided by John
S. Otto (1975). Otto excavated cultural and faunal materials from a Sea
Island cotton plantation on St, Simons Island, Georgia, occupied between
1793 and 1861, He had samples from three social-economic levels (planter,
overseer, and slave) from Cannon's Point Plantation. Otto was able to
demonstrate a close correlation between diet as reflected in the faunal
collections and materials found in the cultural collections. He found
that the slave diet included proportionately more domestic animal
individuals than did the planter diet. Slaves had more pigs (Sus scrofa)
and more cattle (Bos taurus). Otto explained this difference by suggesting
that the planter had the ability to employ slaves as hunting specialists
and so had access to more wild resources than did the slaves. Slaves had
to use the nearest available, most secure resource: domestic animals.
In this case, wild animals might have been the prestige food.
Another example of differential access to scarce food resources is
provided by Stephen L. Cumbaa from the 18th Century First Spanish Period
at St. Augustine (1975). Cumbaa analyzed patterns of animal use from
three households whose social status in the community was known from the
documents. He found that the diet of a household (SA16-23) occupied by
an Indian woman, Maria de la Cruz, and her Spanish husband, incorporated
less domestic meat than did the diet of the other two households studied.
This household, of lower social status than the others, made use of more


64
referred to as the Pine Barrens sector by Lewis Larson (1970). The long-
leaf pine is adapted to a humid subtropical climate of mild winters, hot
summers, high rainfall, and frequent ground fires. Today the long-leaf
pine community is much less extensive and formidable than it was in the
past.
Other biotopes also are found on the coastal plain. Where the soil
is very poorly drained pond pines (P_. sertina) dominate. Slash pine
(P_. el 1ioti) is the common member of the Pine Flatwoods community along
the coast of Florida, while long-leaf pines are less common on the coast
than they are further inland. At St. Augustine, sand pine (P_. clausa)
together with evergreen species of Lyonia and Quercus forms a scrub
community that is common on the dunes of ancient shore lines that form
sandy ridges back from the present coast. Sand pine do not occur on the
coast (Simons pers. comm.).
The Southern Mixed Hardwood community is dominated by oaks (Quercus
sp.), although the composition of this community can be quite diverse.
Live oak (£. virginiana), laurel oak (£. laurifolia), sweet gum
(Liquidamber styraciflua), magnolia (Magno!ia grandiflora), red bay
(Persea borbonia), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), cabbage palm (Sabe!
palmetto), and Florida elm (Ulmus americana floridana) are the more
common species. Near St. Augustine this forest type is found bordering
freshwater creeks and floodplain swamps or in low, fertile areas near
the coast. Wooded swamps are composed principally of pond cypress
(Taxodium ascendens), swamp tpelo (Nyssa sylvatica), and/or red maple
(Acer rubrum). The coastal plain is traversed by many sluggish, meander
ing streams and dotted by innumberable swamps, ponds, and lakes where
these latter communities can be found.


126
As Wing has indicated, when Diversity and Equitability Indices are
applied to archaeological faunal materials some basic assumptions must be
made (1973). It must be assumed that the faunal collection recovered
archaeologically and analyzed is representative of the animals used at
the site. It must further be assumed that the relative contribution of
species used at the site is accurately reflected in the faunal sample
being studied. These, of course, are the basic premises behind all
zooarchaeological work, and the major criteria against which a sample
must be measured. If the analyst does not have confidence in the sample
being studied it may be best to go no further than a species list.
Statistical Tests
It may occur to some readers that a measure of statistical signifi
cance would have been appropriate. In fact, a One Way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was calculated in two forms: comparing all five cultural/
temporal divisions, and comparing only the 16th and 18th Century First
Spanish Period materials. This was done both for biomass and MNI and
for diversity and equitability. No statistical significance in variance
was found at the 5% level. ANOVA was used because the size of the
samples was too unequal for direct comparison of raw data and because
it is not certain that biomass as derived here can be directly compared
with other sites.
The results of these tests of significance are considered to be
invalid, in spite of the fact that they support the hypothesis being
tested here. The reasons for this opinion are as follows: first, the
archaeological excavations and faunal materials were not collected in a


32
the poor, or "middle poor" (Saye 1943), Unlike their Spanish counter- v.
parts, they were not criminals. Most were highly skilled craftsmen and
almost all came from Britain, Scotland, or Germany. The first group of
settlers, 230 persons, came from England together landing first at ;
Savannah. Many of the German Salzburgers then refused to continue to
Frederica. Those Salzburgers who did continue settled in a small
farming community apart from the main town of Frederica surrounding the
fortification. The first group to settle on St. Simons Island numbered
104 persons. In 1739 Oglethorpe's Regiment of 700 soldiers and their
families arrived. There were some slaves at Frederica in spite of a
prohibition against slavery in the founding charter.
During the British Period at St. Augustine (1763-1783), the popu
lation experienced some major shifts (Wright 1971). Initially the town
was settled by a small contingent of Scottish soldiers, a few merchants,
and some large land owners. Indian allies and slaves also were found at
St. Augustine. In 1777 the Minorcan colony at New Smyrna collapsed and
some 409 of these people took refuge at St. Augustine. Once the American
Revolution began the population swelled rapidly. By 1778 there were 1,000
resident whites, 3,000 local blacks, and 8,000 refugees from the northern
colonies (Dunkle 1955). Most of these were transients waiting to go
north to fight, or waiting for the war to end so they could return to:,
their homes. Many of these acquired land for cultivation between the
coast and the St. Johns River, although there was not enough land for all
the refugees (Williams 1976). The Seminole Indians, who had been in the
process of occupying the interior of the Florida peninsula during the
last part of the First Spanish Period, continued to become more populous


226
Field Specimens from SA7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar Site
British Period, St. Augustine
FS#
592
Field Specimens from SA7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site
British Period, St. Augustine
FS#
69*
196
241
259
268
*Indicates a Feature


38
In conjunction with this extensive external exchange system, St.
Augustine also obtained supplies from within the province of Florida
itself. The Spaniards traded with near-by Indians, and relied heavily
upon livestock and produce from the Apalachee missions near modern
Tallahassee, once those missions were established (Boniface 1971).
Indians were encouraged to supply produce and meat, as well as other
goods to the population at St. Augustine. In a letter written to
Governor Joseph de Zuniga about 1700 his correspondent wrote that fifty
chickens were being sent to the Governor via some Indian carpenters
going to work at St. Augustine. The Governor had originally requested
chickens, hides, tallow, and yarn. At some point Zuniga sent 500 yards
of cloth to San Luis to barter for corn, tallow, hogs, beans, chickens,
deer skins, and wheat (Boyd et al. 1951). Jonathan Dickinson in his
journey on the Atlantic coast of Florida between 1696 and 1697 encoun
tered Indians going to St. Augustine to trade ambergris (1975). Indians
brought produce to the market at St. Augustine. Their wares included
cassina, sassafrass, deer and buffalo skins, nut oil, bear grease, tobacco,
canoes, rope, fishnet, dried turkeys, fresh fish, and game (Bushnell
1978c). These goods were either bartered or sold on credit. Yards of
cloth amd ambergris were used as units of exchange also (Bushnell 1978c).
Indians contributed to the Spanish economy in other ways as well.
They owed tithes to the religious community and tribute payments to the
Crown (Bushnell 1978c). These were paid either in produce or in a labor
draft. Indians at Apalachee were under orders to supply sixty batches
of cassina each month to the Spanish personnel stationed in that province.
The Franciscans sold excess produce they obtained in this way either in


275
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Mentcirrhus sp.
81
3
1.3
7.1
0.19
0.07
Micropoqonias undulatus
. 4
4
1.7
1.0
0.03
0.01
Poqonias cromis
26
5
2.2
40.5
1.07
0.4
Scianops ocellata
40
12
5.2
36.2
0.95
0.4
Muqil sp.
981
53
23.1
111.6
3.09
1.2
Paral ichth.yes lethostiqma
23
5
2.2
8.3
0.18
0.07
Unidentified Bone
462.9
Totals
18853 229
21872.0 257.84


342
Bent, Arthur Cleveland
1962a Life Histories of North American Shore Birds, Vols.l and 2.
Dover, New York (1927,1929).
1962b Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl, Vols.l and 2.
Dover, New York (1923,1925).
1963 Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover, New
York (1926).
Binford, Lewis R.
1972 "Archaeology as Anthropology." In Contemporary Archaeology,
edited by M. P. Leone, pp. 93-102. Southern Illinois University
Press, Carbondale .
Binford, Lewis R.,and Jack B. Bertram
1977 "Bone FrequenciesAnd Attritional Processes." In
For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L. R. Binford,
pp.77-156. Academic Press, New'York.
Bishko, Charles J.
1952 "The Peninsular Background of Latin American Cattle
Ranching." Hispanic American Historical Review 32:4:491-515.
Bolton, Herbert,and Mary Ross
1968 The Debatable Land. Russell and Russell, New York (1925).
Boniface, Grian George
1971 A Historical Geography of Spanish Florida, Circa 1700.
MA Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.
Bonner, James C.
1964 A History of Georgia Agriculture, 1732-1860. University
of Georgia Press, Athens.
Booth, Sally S.
1971 Hung, Strung, and Potted: A History of Eating in Colonial
America. Clarkson N. Potter, New York.
Bostwick, John A.
1975 "A Preliminary Report on the Completion of the Plaza II
Salvage Project." MS on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation
Board, St. Augustine.
1978 "Further Excavations at the de Hita Site, SA 7-4, 1977-1978."
MS on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, St.
Augustine.
Bowen, Joanne
1975 "Probate Inventories: An Evaluation from the Perspective
of Zooarchaeology and Agricultural History at Mott Farm."
Historical Archaeology 9:11-25.
1976 "Zooarchaeology and Military Foodways: An Example from
Fort Pelham." Paper presented to the Society for American
Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri.


286
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass, Kq
# %
Mugil sp.
24
1
4.3
1.5
0.02
0.2
Paral ichth.yes lethostigma
2
L
4.3
0.5
0.01
. ,?0
Totals
170 23
530.2
8.22


166
The lack of cooperation on the part of well-to-do businessmen who pre
ferred to send their beef and hides to Havanna directly may have had
serious repercussions for 17th Century residents. With the missions
actively protecting the Indians from the garrisons' acquisition of their
produce and cattle from the ranches being sent to Cuba, this may have
been the one time period in which the specter of famine was a very real
one. Blockading the Santa Fe River as Governor Quiroga attempted to do
may not have just been an outburst of official anger by a peninsulare
governor against criollos, but an action supported and necessitated by
a desperate population at St. Augustine. However, even if that were
the case, even if hunger faced them, the quantity of commensal species
in the Spanish collections shows no increase.
Cone!usion
A word of caution is necessary at this point. It has been found
that there is great variety among these sixteen sites in the ways by
which the occupants of the various lots combined the common species of
the area into a diet. It has been suggested that social status in the
18th Century and in the 16th Century was probably the principal factor
in molding the subsistence strategy observed within a cultural group
at a specific time, with historical factors also involved. With this
knowledge before us, caution should be exercised in using these data
to make predictions for new materials. Clearly all St. Augustine sites,
whether British or Spanish, are not alike and there was not a single,
uniform adaptive strategy being employed at any time during either the
Spanish or British occupations. It is this variety in the use of
essentially the same available resources which makes studies at St.
Augustine so interesting.


opinion of my merits has been and will continue to be an inspiration.
My father and brother both read drafts of the dissertation and provided
valuable suggestions for its improvement. All three have endured with
good grace endless conversations about a topic far removed from their
own spheres of interest.
While all of the above individuals, and many who are not mentioned,
have assisted me in many ways with this work, they are not to be held
responsible for the interpretation. I hope they feel, however, that I
have benefited from their counsel.
iv


61
colonists from the need to adapt to new environmental factors. Efforts
made by the early colonists to transfer the English barnyard animal
complex to the New World did not entirely succeed, although a few sites
discussed above appear to conform to the Old World pattern more closely
than others. The differences observed particularly in the British,
French, and Indian War fort samples, where temporal and cultural factors
are constant, probably reflect adaptations to local environmental factors.
Using the New World British colonial foodways as a guide, a series
of predictions will be tested using the Frederica and British Period
St. Augustine faunal collections. First, it appears that either cattle
or swine will be the dominant species in the collections, with preference
to.cattle biomass. This will be in contradiction to the yeoman pattern
in which swine predominates. Wild terrestrial species were used, but not
extensively. Deer were the most popular wild species. There was a
wide range of wild birds, but not of domestic ones, a departure from the
yeoman pattern. Fish were rare (Barber 1976; Miller 1978), another
departure from the yeoman pattern. Turtles, a class not mentioned by
Anderson, were included as a minor component of the species used. It
is further predicted that the trend seen here, for British subsistence
patterns to reflect local conditions, will continue to be a factor. To
this extent, the British and the 18th Century Spanish faunal collections
from St. Augustine may be quite similar to each other, just as the
British, French, and Indian collections from Ft. Michlimackinac are.
These predictions may be refined in the following discussion as it is
seen how the British residents at St. Augustine and Frederica adapted
to those environments and the Spanish population adapted to the environs
of St. Augustine.


100
in the water. Anderson mentioned snares and nets in connection with
wild hares and birds (1971) and Cumbaa refers to these devices as well
(1975). Many of the nocturnal field, garden, and barnyard raiders may
have been captured by a series of traps or snares. Turkeys and quails
were often caught in such traps (Hilliard 1972). Fledgling birds and
eggs could have been plucked off the nests without much effort. In
fact, domestic animals and deer may have been the only species not
acquired by such devices, although raccoons and opossums are also hunted
actively. Today raccoons are often clubbed from boats on the marsh of
Frederica during fall high tides (Fairbanks pers. comm.).
Summary of Faunal Categories
Reviewing the above species accounts it appears that the animals
utilized can be lumped into broader categories based on preferred habitat,
or upon domesticity (Table 11 and 12; Appendix C). The first category
is that of "Domestic Animals," including chickens. Dogs, cats, and
horses are included in this category although it is questionable that
they were consumed. "Terrestrial Animals" include such mammals as deer
and raccoon as well as the terrestrial turtles: the box turtle
(Terrapene Carolina) and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus).
"Wild Birds" include all birds except the chicken. Some of these birds
may have been tamed or even domesticated. The faunal category of
"Aquatic Reptiles" includes the alligator, and the remaining turtles,
but not the snakes. "Fish" subsumes sharks, skates, rays, and bony
fishes.
The sixth faunal category requires more discussion. The eastern
mole (Scalopus aquaticus), the small rodents, all of the snakes, and the


261
Species List, SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 17th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
. Kg
%
Unidentified Mammal
890
607.70
8.24
45.0
Sylvilaqus sp.
3
1
2.1
4.10
0.08
0.4
Uroc.yon cinereoarqenteus
1
1
2.1
0.2
0.005
0.03
Equus cabal!us
1
1
2.1
19.5
0.35
1.9
Artiodactyl
2
1.0
0.02
0.1
Sus scrofa
9
2
4.3
19.2
0.35
1.9
Odocoileus virqinianus
12
2
4.3
110.5
1.72
9.4
Bos taurus
3
1
2.1
67.2
1.09
6.0
Unidentified Bird
25
9.1
0.16
0.9
Ardea herodius
1
1
2.1
1.6
0.03
0.2
Gall us qallus
6
3
6.4
5.9
0.11
0.6
Scolopacidae
1
1
2.1
0.8
0.02
0.1
Passeriformes
1
1
2.1
0.2
0.005
0.03
Unidentified Turtle
59
57.1
0.20
1.1
Emydidae
6
0.9
0.005
0.03
Malaclem.ys terrapin
1
1
2.1
2.7
0.01
0.06
Gopherus polyphemus
13
1
2.1
21.2
0.14
0.8
Lepidochel.ys kempi
1
1
2.1
2.2
0.005
0.03
Unidentified Amphibian
6
0.3
0.002
0.01
Rana/Bufo sp.
9
1
2.1
1.1
0.007
0.04
Chondrichthyes
2
1.0
0.08
0.4
Carcharhinus sp.
2
1
2.1
7.1
0.61
3.3
Galeocerdo cuvieri
3
1
2.1
2.3
0.19
1.0


29
As part of the agreement ending the Revolution, however, Britain returned
the Florida peninsula to Spain and most of this refugee population evac
uated the town along with British soldiers and local citizens (Dunkle
1955).
The history of the region between 1565 and 1783 was clearly marked
by unrest and danger. Throughout the Spanish and British occupations
war or the threat of war hung over the garrisons. During much of the
time it was unsafe for Spanish residents at St. Augustine to venture far
from the protection of the fortification. Although the British colony at
Frederica was not so clearly under immediate threat of attack from Indians,
the possibility of a Spanish or French raid was very real to the residents
there.
The Spanish Florida Population
The demographic composition of the population in Spanish Florida has
been studied by John R. Dunkle (1955) and Theodore G. Corbett (1974; 1976).
They found that people who came to the presidio at St. Augustine originated
from two basic sources. The first major source was the Iberian peninsula
and the Canary Islands. The second source was Mexico and the Antilles.
During the First Spanish Period these two areas alternated in supplying
manpower to the garrison. For example, between 1658 and 1691, migration
to St. Augustine from Mexico and the Iberian peninsula was strong (Corbett
1974). After that fewer people arrived from Spanish America, and more
blacks came to the town, either as escaped slaves from the British
Carolinas, or as slaves from the Spanish Antilles. Iberian and Canary
Island migrations also increased. Between 1733 and 1756 a large number
of Cuban criollos came to St. Augustine (Corbett 1974). A census in


35
assuming that a cleric might be more responsible. He was not (Tepaske
1964). It should be noted that the Bishop of Puebla did not exercise
ecclesiastical responsibility for Florida. Finally, in 1740, the
responsibility for supplying the situado was transferred to the Havana
Company of Cuba in exchange for trade concessions granted to the company
by the Spanish Crown. After this, situado payments became more regular,
and the amount of cash circulating in St. Augustine increased since the
British goods purchased by the Havana Company were less expensive than
the Spanish goods purchased in Mexico and Cuba (Bushnell 1978c).
While officials of New Spain continually neglected the needs of the
garrison, England was eager to serve the St. Augustine market. Legally
British merchants could only deal with New World ports by going through
Spain first. By the early 1600's even this trade was being curtailed.
English trade, originating principally in the North American colonies,
gradually became more and more a matter of contraband and freebooting
(Wright 1971). Under the mercantilist policy it was strictly forbidden
that New World Spanish colonies trade with English merchants directly,
or even between themselves (Haring 1947). All trade legally had to go
through Iberian ports. However, by a treaty signed in 1670, English
vessels could call at Hispanic ports when in distress, or to exchange
prisoners (Harman 1969). Under this guise, or without it, foreign
traffic at St. Augustine was common and continued regardless of any
state of hostility or open warfare that might have prevailed at the
time. During periods of open warfare, Spanish St. Augustinians did
appropriate English merchant vessels by force, when they could, and


89
snapper prefers any aquatic situation where it can find soft mud,
including brackish water situations. It seldom basks above the waterline,
preferring to lie quietly just below the surface on a submerged log. They
are omnivorous, growing to an average of between 20-30 cm. Snappers may
be less active during periods of cold weather although they do not follow
a regular pattern of hibernation. They are active on land only during
the breeding season, which in Florida appears to be in the summer months.
Archie Carr considers them to be succulent (1952) and their eggs were
also consumed by humans.
The mud turtle (Kinosternon sp.) is a small turtle about 7.5 to
12.1 cm long. An aquatic animal, it is a bottom-dwelling resident of
small, shallow, quiet bodies of fresh or brackish water. They rarely
bask above the waterline and will take a baited hook. The Frederica and
St. Augustine mud turtles are either the common mud turtle (j<. subrubrum)
or the striped mud turtle (K. bauri). The striped mud turtle is partic
ularly fond of brackish water ponds, as is the common mud turtle. Both
species in Florida reproduce year-round (Iverson 1977) and while they
prefer not to venture from water, they will be found seeking nests on
dry land throughout the year. In addition, the striped mud turtle may
be semi-terrestrial. During dry seasons when their home ponds shrink
they evacuate the pond in order to avoid being consumed by predators,
preferring to burrow in leaves nearby and await the rains (Wygoda 1976).
The Emydidae are a diverse family of turtles including a terrestrial
species and one strictly estuarine species. The box turtle (Terrapene
Carolina) is about 11-15 cm long and completely terrestrial. It prefers
open woodlands near quiet bodies of water. In Florida it nests between


196
Table 8
Diversity and Equitability Values Based on Total Biomass
Biomass
Sites (Kgs) # of Taxa Diversity Equitability
16th Century Spanish
SA26-1
149.17
93
2.4500
0.5405
SA29-2
12.12
27
1.7492
0.5307
SA34-1
7.60
25
1.4439'-
0.4485
SA34-3
2.38
21
1.9200
0.6306
SA36-4
44.01
45
2.3609
0.6202
17th Century Spanish
SA36-4
18.34
36
2.0903
0.5833
18th Century Spanish
SA 7-6
82.47
47
1.6238
0.4217
SA13-5
26.45
29
1.1412
0.3389
SA16-23
53.59
46
1.6374
0.4276
SA34-2
228.45
43
1.8157
0.4827
SA36-4
257.84
74
1.8963
0.4405
British Frederica
Hird Lot
411.85
89
1.9059
0.4246
Hawkins/Davison
97.78
29
1.3050
0.3875
British St. Augustine
SA 7-4
61.68
45
2.1488
0.5644
SA 7-6
8.22
25
1.5355
0.4770
Plaza II
107.46
22
1.2487
0.4039


94
prefers the estuarine habitat with a moderate current. It is a small
carnivorous fish (2 kg) that is found seasonally. Herrings (Clupeidae)
may either have been caught during a seasonal run along the coast, or
have entered the collection as debris left from a salted herring barrel.
Members of this family were imported into St. Augustine in large quan
tities (Tepaske 1964; Harman 1969; Lyon 1977b), but they are also among
the most common fish in the area today. Freshwater catfishes (letaluridae)
are bottom-feeding fishes and scavengers. Some members of this family
occasionally penetrate brackish waters of rivers and streams where they
may be caught using baited hooks on trot lines. This is especially
true for the white catfish (letalurus catus).
Sea catfishes (Ariidae) are very common in the estuarine environment.
The sea catfish (Arius felis), weighing about 1 kg, is more common than
the larger gafftopsail (Bagre marinus), which weighs about 2 kg. The
gafftopsail is said to taste better. Both are bottom feeders, living
as scavengers, but may rise to the surface in large numbers to feed at
night. The sea catfish tolerates a greater range of salinity than does
the gafftopsail and is more widely distributed throughout the inshore
zone, even frequenting tidal creeks of brackish water. Both are present
in the inshore area year-round although they may leave the sound tempo-
arily during cold weather. Capture could be effected either using a
baited set line, trot line, strong nets, weirs, or seines (Hilliard 1972).
The oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau) and snook (Centropomus undecimal is)
are inshore fishes. The toadfish is a small fish (about 500 gms) which
is common around pilings and debris where invertebrates can be found.
It is a bottom-dwelling species particularly fond of oyster bars. Toad-
fishes are found in the inshore area throughout the year. Snooks prefer


177
Table 2.continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Columbia 1ivia
rock dove
domestic
Zenaidura macroura
mourning dove
diurnal
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Strix varia
barred owl
nocturnal
permanent
Corvus ossifragus
fish crow
diurnal
permanent
Quiscalus quiscula
common grackle
diurnal
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Alligator mississippiensis
alligator
diurnal
active in spring
Chel.ydra serpentina
snapping turtle
diurnal
breed in April -
November, more active
Kinosternon sp.
mud turtle
diurnal
breeds year-round
Terrapene Carolina
box turtle
diurnal
breeds June and July,
more active
Malaclemys terrapin
diamondback terrapin
diurnal
breeds May-June,
more active
Chrysemys floridana
coastal plains turtle
diurnal
breeds year-round
Chrysemys scripta
yellow-bellied turtle
diurnal
breeds year-round
Deirochel.ys reticularia
chicken turtle
diurnal
breeds year-round
Gopherus pol.yphemus
gopher tortoise
diurnal
breeds April to July,
more active
Chelonia m.ydas
Atlantic green turtle
diurnal/
nocturnal
summer
Caretta caretta
loggerhead turtle
diurnal/
nocturnal
April to August


354
Sahlins, Marshall D.
1968 "Notes on the Original Affluent Society." In Man the
Hunter, edited by R. B. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 85-89.
Aldine, Chicago.
Sauer, Carl Ortwin
1969 The Early Spanish Main. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
1971 Sixteenth Century North America. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Saye, Albert Berry
1943 Mew Viewpoints on Georgia History. University of
Georgia Press, Athens.
Saye, Albert B., and E. Merton Coulter, eds.
1949 A List of Early Settlers in Georgia. University of
Georgia Press, Athens.
Schorger, A. W.
1966 The Wild Turkey: Its History and Domestication. University
of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Schuyler, Robert L.
1970 "Historical and Historic Sites Archaeology as Anthropology."
Historical Archaeology 4:83-89.
Schwartz, Frank J.,and George H. Burgess
1975 Sharks of North Carolina and Adjacent Waters.
North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources,
Information Series. Morehead City, North Carolina.
Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver
1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana.
Shapiro, Gary
1978a "Appendix 5: Early British Subsistence Strategy at
Mi chi1imackinac: An Analysis of Faunal Remains from the 1977
Excavation Season." In Excavations at Fort Mi chi 1imackinac, 1977:
House 1 of the South Southeast Row House, by ,D.. P.
Heldman, pp. 161-177. MS on file, Mackinac Island State Park
Commission, Mackinac Island, Michigan.
1978b Early British Subsistence Strategy at Mi chi 1imackinac:
A Case Study in Systemic Particularism. MA Thesis.
University of Georgia, Athens.
Sheldon, A. L.
1969 "Equitability Indices: Dependence on the Species Count."
Ecology 50:466-467.


96
individuals are found offshore. Both snappers and grunts are more
commonly offshore, reef fishes but do appear as small individuals in
open waters of the bays, where they congregate around jetties or pilings.
Snappers, particularly mangrove snapper (L.. griseus), and grunts come
inshore during warmer weather. The mangrove snapper may be present
during all warm months and a grunt, the pigfish (Orthopristis chrysurus),
is a year-round resident of estuaries.
Sheepsheads (Archosargus probatocephalus) are common residents of
the inshore area year-round. They are gregarious and are found near the
bottom clustered about jetties and pilings where they seek invertebrates.
They will take a hook, or anything shiny, are also caught with cast nets,
but they are best caught using live bait.
Along with sea catfish (Ariidae) and mullets (Mugil sp.), members of
the drum family (Sciaenidae) are the most common species of the coastal
habitat. Much information on seasonality and habitat exploitation is
lost in this collection due to the fact that seatrouts (Cynoscion sp.)
could not in most cases be identified beyond the generic level. Spotted
seatrouts (C^. nebulosus) are present in inner bays at St. Augustine in
small aggregations throughout the year. They are reluctant to venture
out to the beaches. Silver seatrouts (£. nothus) are more common off
beaches than inside bays. They are highly seasonal, only entering the
bay in cold weather. Weakfishes (C^. regal is) are found throughout the
inshore habitat from surf zone to tidal creek. They are present year-
round generally, schooling in shallow water. All three are carnivorous
fish and active feeders, especially at night when they move close to
the water's edge in large surface schools (McLane 1955). Seatrouts are
caught today at the bend in the Frederica River (Fairbanks pers. comm.).


54
animals. Cattle were primarily draft animals, with milk and meat
consumed after the animal had served its time. Goats likewise were
present, but in small quantities. Young horses, called "red deer" were
commonly eaten, as were dogs in some parts of Spain. Swine were present
in small numbers, but were not allowed to forage on their own as in
England. From these domestic species, pork was the most expensive meat,
followed by beef and lastly by mutton. Fowl had a price similar to that
for beef.
Wild mammals, birds, and fish were not a major component of the
diet generally. Hunting was a marginal activity, with hares and deer
being the primary game species. Deer were protected by royal decree,
but may have been hunted at least by the nobility. Birds, especially
partridges, pheasants, and cormorants, were hunted. Young birds were
caught on the nest for consumption. Most fish were obtained by
commercial fishermen in the Atlantic and Meriterranean. Species
included grouper, pompano, cod, tuna, sole, mullet, drum, and shark.
Non-commercial fishing was done by hook and line on the interior mountain
streams, which in Spain are rare, and using cast nets. Fish sold more
cheaply than did domestic meats.
The most popular food preparation techniques included a boiled stew,
puchero or olla podrida, and a cold soup or broth, gazpacho. Puchero and
its more elaborate form, olla podrida, included a combination of meats
and vegetables boiled in a covered earthenware pot. Roasting was also
popular, as were frying and broiling.


236
Field Specimens from the Thomas Hird Lot
Fort Frederica, Georgia
FS# FS#
2
45
3
47
5
49
8
50
10
52
13
53
14
54
16
56
17*
57
18*
58
22
60*
25
61
29
63
30
64*
31
65
33
67
36
68*
37
69
38
70
41
71
42
74
43


255
Species List, SA34-1, Episcopal Church Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kg
%
Unidentified Mammal
93
50.6
0 .84
11.0
Procyon lotor
1
1
4.5
0.5
0 .01
0.1
Artiodactyl
2
2.3
0 .05
0.7
Sus scrofa
3
3
13.6
315.4
4.52
59.5
Odocoileus virginianus
2
2
9.1
75.4
1.22
16.1
Bos taurus
1
1
4.5
2.8
0.06
0.8
Unidentified Bird
1
0.4
0.009
0.1
Anas sp.
1
1
4.5
1.0
0.02
0.3
Gall us gall us
6
2
9.1
4.4
0.08
1.1
Strix varia
1
1
4.5
1.4
0.03
0.4
Unidentified Turtle
6
3.7
0.009
0.1
Malaclem.ys terrapin
4
1
4.5
5.6
0.03
0.4
Gopherus pol.yphemus
5
2
9.1
54.9
0.34
4.5
cf. Bufo sp.
19
0.6
0.004
0.05
Bufo sp.
2
1
4.5
0.6
0.004
0.05
Carcharhinus sp.
1
1
4.5
1.1
0.09
1.2
Pristis cf. pectinata
1
1
4.5
0.6
0.05
0.7
Unidentified Fish
21
3.8
0.08
1.1
Ari i dae
4
1.9
0.03
0.4
Arius felis
4
1
4.5
1.4
0.02
0.3
Archosargus probatocephalus
2
1
4.5
0.6
0.01
0.1
Sciaenidae
6
2.3
0.06
0.8


73
The hispid cotton rat (Siqmodon hispidus), a small rodent weighing
about 86 grams, has been called the most abundant mammal in Georgia by
Frank Golley (1962). They do much damage to garden crops because they
are moderately abundant in cover around house sites.
The Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), roof rat (R_. rattus), and house
mouse (Mus musculus), are all introduced species of Old World origin.
Presumably their introduction was unintentional since they are serious
pests, doing extensive damage to human property and acting as transport
for disease. The Norway rat is omnivorous, but are particularly attracted
to stored grains and garbage dumps. They are also found in salt marshes.
Roof rats live by preference in walls and lofts of barns, or under refuse.
Corn is a major food source. House mice are also human commensals living
in old fields, barns, and houses. They are omnivorous, preferring small
grain seeds and herb seeds.
The domestic dog (Cam's familiaris) may have been of almost any
known size and either of Old World or New World ancestry. The Florida
Tocobaga ate dogs (Bullen 1978). The Spanish claimed to have eaten them
when placed under extreme privation due to delays in the situado.
Although it is not expected that the dog remains to be studied will show
evidence of butchering marks or burning, the possibility that the Spanish
did consume dog remains. It should be noted that dogs were a regular
food item in the Mediterranean region and Frederick J. Simoons reports
that dog flesh is still valued as a delicacy in Extremadura, Spain (1967).
If the Spaniards at St. Augustine did eat dog flesh, it may not have been
out of necessity.
The gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) is a medium sized animal
(ca. 3.5 Kg) which is nocturnal and prefers a habitat with a mixture of


65
Another important terrestrial community is one caused by human
activity. Disturbed habitats are found in urban centers, as garden plots,
and as agricultural fields. While the plant species found in these areas
are largely selected by human agents, the wild animal populations exploit
ing them are self-selected. Usually the animals are attracted either to
the crops grown there, to the prey species attracted to the crops, or to
the hedgerows bordering the fields.
An, important topographic feature of the coastal plain is a series
of offshore islands known as sea, or barrier, islands. While a chain
of these islands stretches from New Jersey to Texas, the segment between
North Island, South Carolina, and Anastasia Island, Florida, shares a
similar natural history (Johnson et al. 1974). The Georgia islands,
such as St. Simons Island where Frederica is located, are separated
from the mainland by extensive marshland, tidal streams, and sound
systems (Fig. 4). Anastasia Island is separated from the mainland by
less than half a mile (Fig. 3). Nonetheless, between Anastasia Island
and the mainland lies a rich estuarine environment containing many of
the same features as at St. Simons Island. Low sandy beaches border
the seaward edges of the islands. Elevation on the islands is usually
less than 25 feet, although individual dunes may be much higher.
The major communities on these islands are maritime oak forests
and pine forests. The oak forest is dominated by live oak (Q. virginiana)
with cabbage palms (Sabe! palmetto) and a low woody understory. Pine
forests are found on better drained portions:of the islands and may be
the by-product of old agricultural clearings (Johnson et al. 1974).
Between the beach and the first dune crest there is a salt spray
tolerant community of grasses and herbs characterized by sea oats


benefited from conversations with Dr. Kathleen M.Byrd, Dr. Michael C.
Scardaville, and Sylvia Scudder. A special thanks go to Greg
Cunningham and Steven Wing for their help counting the faunal materials,
and to Pamela R. Johnson for typing the tables and text of this disser
tation.
For faunal materials, financial aid, and work space several people
and institutions are to be thanked. Robert H. Steinbach as Director of
Research and Development, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board,
permitted access to many of the faunal collections reported here and also
assisted in the interpretation of the data. Dr. Kathleen A. Deagan
excavated many of the faunal collections and provided information on
these sites. Theresa A. Singleton discussed SA26-1, the Lorenzo Josef
de Leon site, with me. Nicholas Honerkamp made available the faunal
materials he excavated from the Thomas ,Hird lot at Fort Frederica
National Monument, as well as answered numerous questions about the site.
John Bostwick assisted with information on the Plaza II well and the
British Period trash pit from SA7-4. The faculty of the Florida State
Museum of the University of Florida graciously provided unlimited access
to their facilities as well as financial support. The Department of
Anthropology of the University of Florida also provided financial assis
tance, not to mention academic instruction. Faunal analysis for SA36-4
was funded by Florida Board of Regents STAR grant #77-081 to the Historic
St. Augustine Preservation Board and the Department of Anthropology,
Florida State University.
Finally I wish to acknowledge the debt I owe to my parents, Dr. and
Mrs. Herman J. Reitz, and to my brother, Max. My mother's totally biased
i i i


309
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA34-3, Public Library Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
fO
s-
-Q
1 _e
*s%s,r
1 -p
-P CU -
P
3 CU -P
s-
CU
CD CO
CD
00 h-
-Q,
>
CU
to
-P
J=i
<13
£
<0
£
c
3
r
r*
r
£
c
3
i
£
3
s-
Q_
CD
o
CD
fO
S-
c
u
P
O
o
c
CO
00
00
Ll.
h1
oo
r
CM
=#=
=tt=
r
r
to
r
r
jQ
3
3
s
r
00
00
r*
-o
.c
je
c
to
to
1
r-
r*
re
Lu
U-
Sylvilagus sp. 4
Sus scrofa 4 1
Bos taurus 1
1
Ariidae
7
4'
Sciaenidae
Mugil sp.
1
7
2
4


241
cf. Felis domesticus
Possible domestic cat
Felis domesticus
Domestic cat
Equus cabellus
Domestic horse
Artiodactyl
Even-toed ungulates
cf. Sus scrofa
Possible pig
Sus scrofa
Domestic and feral pig
Odocoileus virqinianus
White-tailed deer
cf. Bos taurus
Possible domestic cow
Bos taurus
Domestic cow
Capra or Ovis sp.
Goat or sheep
Capra hi reus
Domestic goat
Ovis aries
Domestic sheep
Unidentified bird
Moris bassana
Gannet
Phalacrocorax auritus
Cormorant
Ardeidae
Herons and bitterns
Ardea herodias
Great blue heron
Casmerodius albus
American egret
H.ydranassa tricolor
Louisiana heron
Florida coerulea
Little blue heron
N.ycti corax n.ycti corax
Black-crowned night heron
Eudocimus albus
White ibis
Branta canadensis
Canada goose
Anser anser
Domestic goose
Anatidae
Ducks
Anas sp.
Surface feeding ducks


Table 2. continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Caranx hippos
crevalle jack
tidal
year-round. Best
April-September
Lut.ianus sp.
tidal
warm months
snapper
Pomadasyidae
tidal
April-September
grunt
Archosargus probatocephalus
sheepshead
tidal
year-round. Best
March-May; August-
October
C.ynoscion nothus
silver sea trout
tidal
March-December. Best
June-July
C.ynoscion nebulosis
spotted sea trout
nocturnal
year-round. Best
September-April
C.ynoscion regal is
weakfish
nocturnal
year-round. Best
March-May
Leiostomus xanthurus
spot
tidal
March-December. Best
July-September
Menticirrhus littoral is
Gulf kingfish
tidal
year-round. Best
December-May
Menticirrhus americanus
southern kingfish
tidal
year-round. Best
December-May
Micropogonias undulatus
Atlantic croaker
nocturnal
March-November. Best
July-September
Pogonias cromis
black drum
nocturnal
year-round. Best
February-May in bay,
June-in surf
Scianops ocellata
red drum
nocturnal
year-round. Best
March-May; November-
January
Muqil sp.
diurnal
year-round
mullet
Sph.yraena barracuda
great barracuda
tidal
April-November. Best
July-October


169
Table 1continued
1566 Captain Pardo leads an exploratory mission into the
interior of present-day Georgia. Returns 1567
1570 Jesuit mission effort along Atlantic coast ends in
failure
St. Augustine established in its present location
1572 Menendez leaves St. Augustine for final time
1573 Franciscan mission effort begins. Guale revolt
1576 Due to Indian unrest, Spanish abandon missions
1582 Guale revolt
1585 Sir Walter Raleigh founds Roanoke, Va. Colony abandoned
in 1588. Another Indian revolt against the Spanish
missions
1586 Sir Francis Drake attacks St. Augustine and Georgia
missions. Spanish abandon territory north of
Savannah, Ga.
1588 Spanish Armada defeated
1595 St. Augustine suffers heavy flood damage. Mission
effort on Georgia coast resumed
1597 Juanillo revolt against Spanish missions
1599 Fire and storms do much damage to St. Augustine
1602 Fernando Valdes conducts the Trial of St. Augustine
1604 Anglo-Spanish War ends
1606 Juan de las Cabezas de Altamirano, Bishop of Santiago
de Cuba, visits St. Augustine. Northern mission
activity resumed
1607 Jamestown founded by British
1608 Western mission activity by Spanish begins
1618 Thirty Years War begins
1620 Plymouth, Mass., founded
First resident missionary assigned to Apalachee.
43 missions active in Florida
1633


154
(Odocoileus Virginianus) are notably under-utilized (1.6% of the biomass
and 0.9% of the MNI). It would appear that Captain Rainesford did not
hunt extensively or else did not have access to wild game through a
market or specialists. Perhaps deer were not as common about St.
Augustine in the British Period as they were on St. Simons Island.
Rainesford did fish, probably using trot lines. In this way he supple
mented his rather limited access to domestic biomass. It should, however,
be noted that this analysis is based upon a single trash pit from the
site and may not be representative of the site as a whole. Parenthet
ically, one of the six horse teeth mentioned in the discussion of SA36-4
in the 17th Century was found in this British trash pit.
Joseph Stout, the owner of SA7-6, used more domestic animals and
deer than Rainesford. Except for the low use of mullet (Mugil sp.),
the faunal pattern here is similar to that of other St. Augustine sites,
and relatively dissimilar to British Frederica. This is the only British
Period collection which represents a general lot excavation of a private
residence. For this reason it is hypothesized that the Stout collection
represents the more typical British pattern at St. Augustine even though
the sample is small (MNI = 23). This pattern includes a high use of
domestic animals, supplemented by wild fauna, most of which were marine
rather than terrestrial.
The Plaza II well is the only public facility in the analysis.
The faunal materials were identified and quantified by Elizabeth S. Wing
and Erika Simons (1977), but are included in this discussion because of
the new information provided by the biomass analysis. One of the most
surprising characteristics of this collection is the high percentage of


34
The situado was unsatisfactory for other reasons as well. Often the
goods purchased by the St. Augustine agent in Mexico were of poor quality
initially, or spoiled during the delays incurred in shipment. Inflation
was a major problem throughout the Hispanic Empire and the goods purchased
for St. Augustine were always exhorbitantly priced. The personnel on the
Royal payroll in Florida received their annual salary in goods and the
remainder in currency. Due to inflation and gouging by Mexican merchants,
once the cost of the goods had been deducted from the annual salary,
little remained of an individual's income to be disbursed as cash
(Gillaspie 1961).
As a result government employees seldom saw any cash money (Bushnell
1978c). In addition, rations were not enough to support a family so that
St. Augustine residents had to purchase additional supplies from the
Royal warehouse or from local merchants and vendors. Due to the lack of
cash in the town such purchases were usually made against future salaries
(Grinan 1757; Chatelain 1941; Bushnell 1978c). When the situado finally
arrived, outstanding debts incurred by the citizens of the town to the
Royal storehouse and favored local merchants, taxes, and church tithes
were deducted before the employee received payment. Often there was no
cash left and the cycle continued. Many of the presidio personnel
served in virtual debt peonage. There was enough cash available in the
town, however, for some wealthy criollos to order personal supplies to
be shipped for their own use, to purchase property at auction, and to
buy maize for speculation (Bushnell 1978c).
In order to correct these conditions responsibility for administra
tion of the situado payment was shifted in 1702 to the Bishop of Puebla,


270
Species List, SA34-2, Contreras/Ximenez-Fatio Site (Cumbaa 1975)
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Species
MNI
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
5808.5
65.37
28.6
Didel phis virginiana
1
4.5
0.09
0.04
S.ylvilagus sp.
2
10.5
0.20
0.09
Rattus rattus
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Ursus americanus
1
60.5
0.99
0.4
Proc.yon lotor
1
13.0
0.24
0.1
Felis domesticus
1
28.5
0.50
0.2
Sus s ero fa
7
1720.5
21.40
9.4
Odocoileus Virginianus
6
1283.0
16.36
7.2
Bos taurus
7
8128.5
88.97
39.0
Ovis aries
2
15.5
0.29
0.1
Unidentified Bird
4.0
0.07
0.03
Morus bassanus
1
3.5
0.07
0.03
Cathartes aura
1
3.0
0.06
0.03
Anser anser
1
4.0
0.07
0.03
Gall us gall us
10
141.5
2.07
0.9
Meleagris gallopavo
2
18.0
0.30
0.1
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Columba livia
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Alligator mississippiensis
1
27.0
0.35
0.2
Unidentified Turtle
0.5
0.001
0.0004
Terrapene Carolina
1
0.5
0.001
0.0004
Malaclemys terrapin
2
9.0
0.02
0.009


167
With additional archaeological research it should be possible to
examine both the 17th Century Spanish Period and the British Period
foodways more closely and more reliably. This prospect holds great
promise, but only if we become more skilled in identifying social
status of unknown residents in the absence of documentary aid. It
will also be useful to study additional sites from 16th Century St.
Augustine in order to see whether the faunal patterns found at SA26-1
or SA36-4 (16th Century) are the more typical for that time period.
Although the two sites at Frederica were quite similar to each
other, in spite of possible selective shipment of the Hawkins-Davison
materials, they also suggest interesting avenues for future research.
At Frederica the variables of political and social events, cultural
affiliation, and local animal resources can be held constant. Addi
tionally the identity, occupation, and social standing of the residents
are known and their records of local animal husbandry and wild animal
use are available. These documents may also be more reliable than the
Spanish ones. If social class is the major variable in influencing
the form of subsistence patterns of historic populations within a given
environment, it should be possible to quantifiably test this using
Frederica fauna.
Whatever the final explanation of the faunal assemblages observed
at Frederica and St. Augustine may be, the data presented above clearly
demonstrate that local environmental conditions were influential in the
adaptive strategies used by historic, colonial populations.


2 60
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass. Ka
# %
Paralichth.yes lethostigma
10
4 3.4
3.8
0.09 0.2
Unidentified Bone
118.9
Totals
3745
119
3023.4
44.01


326
Body and Skeletal
Mass
of Siluriformes
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1557
letalurus natal is
1
0.210
0.0082
2044
P.ylodictis olivaris
1
0.7975
0.0347
*
Arius felis
1
0.477
0.026
1531a
Arius felis
1
0.477
0.021
1531b
Arius felis
1
0.323
0.019
1532
Arius felis
1
0.863
0.0185
2081
Arius felis
1
0.1626
0.0134
*
Bagre marinus
1
0.288
0.011
1588
Bagre marinus
1
1.0352
0.0547
2079
Bagre marinus
1
0.028
0.0018
2080
Bagre marinus
1
0.0232
0.0014
2413
Bagre marinus
1
0.7945
0.0449
1758
Selenaspis dowi
1
0.550
0.0323
*in collection of Stephen L. Cumbaa
# of entries 13
# of individuals 13
r = 0.96
b = 0.0887
a = 0.0433


109
(Trinity Episcopal Church), and SA34-3 (Public Library). The names refer
to current ownership and use rather than to historic events. Although
it is known that all three sites were within the town boundaries, it is
not known by whom they were occupied.
SA36-4
SA36-4 contained materials from all three centuries of the First
Spanish Period. It is not known who occupied the site in the 16th and
17th Centuries, although it appears likely that two separate households
were using the lot in the 16th Century (Deagan pers. comm.). The 18th
Century resident was don Francisco Ponce de Leon. Ponce was chief
adjutant at the presidio, sometimes storehouse guard, and a slave owner.
He was a member of one of the wealthiest criollo families in St. Augustine
The lot was excavated by Deagan in 1978 and is the subject of a thesis in
preparation (Poe in prep.). A portion of the faunal collection was
analyzed by Erika H. Simons (1978).
Thomas Hird Lot (Lot 12 IN)
Thomas Hird arrived in Georgia from England in 1736, at the Georgia
Trustee's expense (Saye and Coulter 1949). He was a dyer by trade, but
was also town constable and possibly a brew-house operator. Apparently
he was an able and industrious resident at Frederica and quite likely
became one of the garrison's more affluent members (Honerkamp 1975).
The lot was abandoned by the Hird family by 1759. The faunal materials
were recovered during excavations by Nicholas Honerkamp in 1974 and 1975.
A preliminary faunal report prepared by Steve Ruple was included by
Honerkamp in his thesis (1975).


107
material, or was first used as food and later as construction material.
In addition, invertebrate remains were not systematically collected and
so could not be quantified. It is doubtful that shellfish substantially
influenced the subsistence strategy of the human populations being
studied here due to their minimal nutritive value (Watt and Merrill
1963; Parmalee and Klippel 1974). It should also be noted that a single
oyster roast can produce a very impressive mound of shells. For these
reasons analysis was confined to vertebrate remains.
SA7-4
SA7-4 was occupied in the late First Spanish Period by Gernimo
Jose de Hita y Salazar and during the British Period by a Captain
Rainesford, a member of the military garrison stationed at St. Augustine
during the British Period. The Spanish occupation was the focus of
excavations by Kathleen A. Deagan, Florida State University, in 1975
and 1976. The results of this archaeological work and faunal analysis
are reported by Steve Shephard (1975). The site was revisited by John
Bostwick in 1978. During Bostwick's excavations a large trash pit
dating to the British occupation of Captain Rainesford was recovered
(Bostwick 1978). Only the faunal materials from this trash pit were
studied for this report.
SA7-6
SA7-6, located two lots south of SA7-4, was also occupied during
both the late First Spanish Period and the British Period. Faunal
materials from these two occupations were studied. Antonio de Mesa
lived at the site during a portion of the First Spanish Period. He was
a port guard who immigrated from Veracruz in 1756, was married to a local


334
Body and Skeletal
Hass
of Carangidae
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2090
Cholorscombrua chrysurus
1
0.0032
0.0002
21408
Chloroscombrus orqueta
1
0.1812
0,0025
21460
Chloroscombrus orqueta
1
0.2265
0.00235
21474
Oligoplites altus
1
0.454
0.0194
21475
Oliqoplites altus
1
0.3405
0.0152
21462
Selene brevoortii
1
0.8172
0.0588
21412
Selene peruvianus
1
0.2265
0.0038
21457
Selene peruvianus
1
0.2265
0.0039
21458
Selene peruvianus
1
0.2268
0.00475
2451
Trachinotus carolinus
1
0.1475
0.0039
2452
Trachinotus carolinus
1
0.259
0.0090
# of entries 11
# of individuals 11
r = 0.90
b = 0.9228
a = 0.0241


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This is a study of human adaptation. Specifically it is a study of
subsistence patterns followed by Spanish and British colonists at two
military outposts on the Atlantic coastal plain of North America between
1565 and 1783 (Fig. 1). The study focuses upon the use of animal re
sources by the Spanish colonists at St. Augustine, Florida,in the First
Spanish Period (1565-1763); British colonists at Frederica, Georgia (1736-
ca. 1748); and British colonists at St. Augustine during the British
Period (1763-1783).
Guided by principles of human ecology, analysis of faunal materials
from these historic archaeological sites will concentrate upon three
aspects: subsistence activities practiced by members of the same
cultural affiliation in different habitats; populations of distinct
cultural affiliation in the same habitat; and changes in subsistence
activity through time within a population occupying the same habitat.
Factors predicted to be influential in the adaptive strategies to be
observed are social class, political and social environment, cultural
affiliation, and local animal resources. In the ensuing chapters each
of these factors will be briefly discussed, but first the relationship
between historical archaeology and human ecology will be considered.
2


173
Table 2
Activity Period and Seasonal Patterns of Fauna from the Coastal Plain
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Didel phis virqiniana
opossum
nocturnal
year-round
Sylvilaqus cf. palustris
marsh rabbit
nocturnal
year-round
Sciurus carolinensis
gray squirrel
crepuscular
year-round
Sciurus cf. niqer
fox squirrel
crepuscular
year-round
Perom.yscus sp.
white-footed mouse
nocturnal
year-round
Siqmodon hispidus
hispid cotton rat
crepuscular
year-round
Rattus norveqicus
Norway rat
nocturnal
year-round
(introduced 1727)
Rattus rattus
roof rat
nocturnal
year-round
Mus musculus
house mouse
nocturnal
year-round
Canis familiaris
domestic dog
domestic
Uroc.yon cinereoargenteus
gray fox
nocturnal
year-round
Ursus americanus
American black bear
nocturnal
may den in winter
Procyon lotor
raccoon
nocturnal
year-round
Lynx rufus
bobcat
nocturnal
year-round
Felis domesticus
domestic cat
domestic


303
SA7-6, ANTONIO DE MESA SITE
British Period, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
6
26.1
3.31
80.9
Wild Terrestrial
2
8.7
0.32
7.8
Wild Birds
2
8.7
0.3
0.7
Aquatic Reptiles
0
0
0
0
Fish and Sharks
11
47.8
0.43
10.5
Commensals
2
8.7
0.004
0.1
Totals
23
4.09
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
3.84
93.0
Bi rds
0.04
1.0
Fish and Sharks
0.25
6.1
Total
4.13


25
As part of his royal charter Menendez was required to establish two
towns. He did so at once, the first and most southerly of which was
named St. Augustine. In the following years Menendez established a string
of fortifications along the Atlantic coast as far north as Port Royal
Sound (Santa Elena) and around the tip of Florida up the Gulf coast to
Tampa Bay (Lyon 1977a). The purpose of these outposts was to prevent
further foreign intrusions on the Atlantic coast, to protect the vital
Spanish treasure fleet sailing to Spain from Cuba up the Bahama Channel
or Florida Straits, and to aid victims of shipwreck in the treacherous
Straits.
Although the initial intent was for the Florida garrisons to be self-
supporting, this proved to be impossible (Lyon 1977a). Shortly after the
Adelantado's death, the Florida garrison became a dependency of the
Spanish Crown. Unlike other Spanish colonies in the New World, the Royal
subsidy, or situado, rather than commerce, was intended to be the chief
support of the Florida garrison. Consequently there were no encomiendas
(large land grants) or repartimientos (Indian labor grants) on the scale
that these institutions occurred elsewhere, nor were there confirmed
deeds (Gold 1969). As a result there were no fortunes to^be made and
most of the population was composed of soldiers on military assignment
rather than colonists there to make a fortune (Corbett 1976).
Spain claimed possession of all of North America east of New Mexico
under the name "La Florida," but in reality control was exercised only
over the narrow geographical strip occupied by the missions and forts
northward from St. Augustine along the Georgia coast and westward across
the northern end of the Florida peninsula. This area was divided into


95
tidal backwaters, ditches, and streams of shallow brackish water. They
are also found in freshwater. Snooks are highly seasonal fishes. Both
fish will take a hook and neither aggregate.
Sea basses (Centropristis sp.) and groupers (Epinephalus sp.) are
interesting in that both are more typically reef fishes than inshore
species. Young sea basses are found in estuaries, particularly in grass
beds, where they are bottom-dwelling carnivores. The arrival of the
black sea bass (C^. striata) each spring constitutes a sport-fishing event
at St. Augustine. Groupers are rarely found inshore, although small jew-
fish (£. itajara) do occasionally enter estuaries. Both fishes will take
a hook. Neither fish aggregates. Size ranges greatly among fish of
this family (Appendix E).
The largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) is strictly a freshwater
fish. It prefers shallow, weedy lakes and backwaters where it lurks near
the surface waiting for frogs, crayfish, insects, and other fishes. It
is one of the most important freshwater game fishes in North America and
readily takes a hook. The record size for this fish is 10 kg (McClane
1978a).
The bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) is also an important game fish
found in water near beaches. A pelagic carnivore, its fall and spring
runs along the coast attract almost as many anglers as fish. Although
generally found in nearshore waters some are present throughout the
year in the sound. Bluefishes reach about 6 kg, although most are of
a much smaller size (Appendix E).
Crevalle jacks (Caranx hippos), snappers (Lutjanus sp.), and grunts
(Pomadasyidae) are carnivorous fishes. Small jacks are found throughout
the year in limited numbers in the estuary. Generally the large


60
contributors. Goats were also present. Several of the cattle were
apparently under three years of age. Deer, raccoon, and opossum are
absent from the collection, although a large number of wild rabbits were
present as well as a bear and a muskrat. There are a number of birds in
the collection, but not the variety of barnyard fowl that might have
been expected from Anderson's discussion (1971). Some freshwater fish
were used, and several aquatic and terrestrial turtles.
From Williamsburg, Virginia, a similar pattern of species use
emerges. Williamsburg faunal analysis was done by Stanley J. Olsen and
recently published by Audrey Noel Hume (1978). Although proportional
contributions are not known, cattle, pigs, and sheep were reported from
all sites. Mutton was less popular according to Noel Hume than was pork
or beef (1978). In addition deer, rabbit, opossum, squirrel, and otter
were consumed, as well as a variety of wild and domestic birds. The
Williamsburg fauna also included marine fish such as black drum, sturgeon,
shad, and catfish. Turtles were esteemed as were shellfish (Noel Hume 1978)
Discussion
It is clear from the above discussion that, just as Bowen had
concluded on a smaller sample of sites (1975, 1976), the British
adaptation in the New World was a highly varied one,.and not altogether
similar to the one which would have been predicted from Anderson's study
(1971). Just as Cumbaa concluded from Spanish New World materials (1975),
it appears that the British subsistence pattern in the New World was
adapted to new, local environmental conditions. Cultural affiliation,
that is traditional Old World foodways, had little to do with British
foodways in the New World. Clearly domestic animals did not buffer the


250
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kg
%
Terrapene Carolina
2
1
0.2
3.0
0.02
0.01
Malaclemys terrapin
20
3
0.7
14.6
0.07
0.05
Chrysemys cf. scripta
1
1
0.2
1.2
0.007
0.005
cf. Gopherus polyphemus
11
23.7
0.16
0.1
Gopherus polyphemus
190
12
2.7
257.0
1.42
1.0
Cheloniidae
3
2
0.4
3.5
0.009
0.006
Colubridae
1
0.6
0.008
0.005
Natrix sp.
1
1
0.2
0.1
0.001
0.001
Coluber constricta
52
1
0.2
3.7
0.05
0.03
Aqkistrodon piscivorous
2
1
0.2
1.4
0.02
0.01
Unidentified Amphibian
1
0.4
0.003
0.002
Rana/Bufo sp.
38
5.8
0.04
0.03
Rana sp.
1
1
0.2
0.5
0.003
0.002
Bufo sp.
7
4
0.9
1.8
0.01
0.007
Chondrichthyes
3
1.2
0.10
0.07
Carcharhinidae
6
2.0
0.17
0.1
Carcharhinus sp.
38
53.7
4.79
3.2
Carcharhinus leucas
2
2
0.4
0.3
0.02
0.01
Carcharhinus milberti
5
3
0.7
6.7
0.57
0.4
Galeocerdo cuvieri
4
4
0.9
7.0
0.60
0.4
Sphyrna sp.
19
14.0
1.21
0.8
Sph.yrna mokorran
1
1
0.2
0.7
0.06
0.04
Sphyrna tiburo
15
2
0.4
7.4
0.63
0.4


3
If
16th 17th 18th Fred. St. Aug.
First Spanish British Sites
DIVERSITY MNI
DIVERSITY BIOMASS
1.0
EQUITABILITY MNI
EQUITABILITY BIOMASS to


345
Corbett, Theodore G.
1976 "Population Structure in Hispanic St. Augustine, 1629-
1763." Florida Historical Quarterly 54:3:263-284.
Covington, James W.
1961 "The British Meet the Seminles." Contributions of the
Florida State Museum, Social Sciences 7.
Cruickshank, Allan D.
1967 "First Razorbill for Florida." Florida Naturalist 40:2:48-49.
Cumbaa, Stephen L.
1975 Patterns of Resource Use and Cross-Cultural Dietary Change
in the Spanish Colonial Period. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Dahlberg, Michael E.
1975 Guide to Coastal Fishes of Georgia and Nearby States.
University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Deagan, Kathleen A.
1972 "Pipestems and Drug Jars: The Colonial Middle Class in
18th Century Georgia." MS on file, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
1974 Sex, Status, and Role in the Mestizaje of Spanish Colonial
Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville.
1975 "Field Report on Excavations at SA 13-5; the Acosta Site."
MS on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, St.
Augustine.
1976a Archaeology at the National Greek Orthodox Shrine, St.
Augustine, Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
1976b "Archaeological Investigations at Fort Matanzas National
Monument." Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1978a "Archeological Strategy in the Investigation of an Unknown
Era: Sixteenth Century St. Augustine." Project Report to
St. Augustine Restoration Foundation, St. Augustine.
1978b "Archeological and Architectural Investigations in the
De Mesa-Sanchez House Interior, 1977." MS on file, Historic
St. Augustine Preservation Board, St. Augustine.
Deetz, James F.
1972 "Archaeology as a Social Science." In Contemporary Archaeology,
edited by M.P. Leone, pp. 108-118. Southern Illinois University
Press, Carbondale.
Department of Agriculture
1844 Commissioner of Patents Report. Washington, D. C.


76
in that country longer than elsewhere. There was a revival in horse
flesh consumption among both the poor and the elite of France in the
18th Century (Simoons 1967).
The pig (Sus scrofa) is one of the most interesting and important
of the mammalian food species, although Bonner says that they were of
less importance in Georgia than cattle (Bos taurus) (1964). One of the
principal reasons that swine were popular animals was that they require
very little care. In Britain (Fussell 1937b; Anderson 1971) and in the
British colonies (Weeden 1890; Bruce 1895; Grey 1933; Bonner 1964) pigs
were almost totally neglected. Occasionally pigs would be set out on
islands in order to limit their dispersal (Thompson 1942), but this
was not a universal habit. The Spanish as a matter of policy released
both hogs and cattle during their explorations so that their increase
could support travelers on passing or wrecked ships. The increase was
remarkable in many cases (Haring 1966; Sauer 1969). The Indians of
Florida provided the French colonists with pigs before St. Augustine
was founded and also supplied pigs to settlers in South Carolina (Towne
and Wentworth 1950). Presumably these had been wild animals, escapees
from Hernando de Soto's journey or from a passing ship.
The feral pig is a wild and resourceful animal.
The real American hog is what is termed the wood hog; they
are long in the leg, narrow on the back, short in the body,
flat on the sides, with a long snout, very rough in their
hair, in make more like the fish called a perch than any
thing I can describe. You may as well think of stopping
a crow as those hogs. They will go to a distance from a
fence, take a run, and leap through the rails three or
four feet from the ground, turning themselves sidewise.
These hogs suffer such hardships as no other animal could
endure.(Parkinson in Gray 1933)


40
(Bushnell 1978c). The French traded with the Georgia coastal Indians for
pelts and sassafrass in the 16th Century and with the Apalachee Indians
in the 18th Century.
Soldiers supplemented their incomes by working at trades and pro
ducing food in their own fields and gardens. Trades included burning
charcoal, fishing, weaving fishing nets, building boats, rounding up
cattle, and hauling firewood (Bushnell 1978c). They cultivated small
plots of land outside the town which were assigned to them, and had
access to the wooded commons. The garrison personnel was essentially
urban and ill-suited for such work. Efforts to produce wheat and other
Iberian crops were particularly doomed to failure. In order to encourage
local food production Governor Mendez Canzo ordered his soldiers into the
fields and constructed both a mill and a market place in 1598 (Manucy
1962). Time and manpower were lacking for large scale plantings, however
(Otto and Lewis 1974), and Indian predations on crops and soldiers made
such work hazardous during some periods. Maps as early as 1597 show field
crops being grown north of the fort and between Maria Sanchez Creek and
the San Sebastian River (Fig. 3; Chatelain 1951:Fig. 2, 3, 4).
Some produce and 1ivestock were grown within the town itself. Maps
show gardens and orchards growing on house lots (Jeffries 1762; Chatelain
1941:Fig. 2). Dickinson reported that such crops as figs, grapes, oranges,
pomegranates, mulberries, squash, radishes, kidney beans, onions, garlic,
lettuce, peppers, cabbage, and sweet potatoes were grown in these gardens
and orchards (1975). Chickens (Gallus gall us) and pigs (Sus scrofa)
roamed the streets of the town (Boniface 1971). In 1602, Governor


321
Body and Skeletal Mass for Snakes1
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1578A
Liodytes alleni
1
0.030
0.0025
1578B
Liod.ytes alleni
1
0.050
0.0043
1578C
Liodytes alleni
1
0.045
0.0040
1582A
Liodytes alleni
1
0.065
0.0047
1582B
Liodytes alleni
1
0.040
0.0035
1582C
Liodytes alleni
1
0.020
0.0017
1582D
Liodytes alleni
1
0.0150
0.0008
1781A
Micrurus fulvius
1
0.015
0.0011
1718B
Micrurus fulvius
1
0.020
0.0015
1577B
Natrix fasciata
1
0.060
0.0041
1583
Natrix taxispilota
1
0.140
0.0122
1606
Pituophis melanoleucus
1
1.085
0.0957
1816
Pituophis melanoleucus
1
0.780
0.0492
1584
Reqina septemuittata
1
0.035
0.0037
1780
Sistrurus miliarius
1
0.028
0.0021
1558
Thamnophis sirtalis
1
0.170
0.0098
1682
Thamnophis sirtalis
1
0.125
0.0071
# of entries 17
# of individuals 17
r = 0.98
b = 0.9857
a = 0.0727
1 after Fradkin, personal communication


256
MNI
Weight
Biomass,
Kq
Species
Ct
#
%
Gms
#
%
Poqonias cromis
1
1
4.5
0.5
0.01
0.1
Mugil sp.
2
1
4.5
0.4
0.006
0.08
Paral ichth.yes lethostigma
3
1
4.5
0.7
0.02
0.3
Unidentified Bone

... Q., .3
Totals
192
22
533.2
7.60


117
identification of a distal radius fragment signifies that the entire
animal was consumed by the household. However, the analyst does not
know that fact unless the distribution of elements from each provenience
indicates such a system. Possibly the hunter gave portions of the deer
away to honor reciprocal obligations and the distal radius fragment
indicates that the household only had a portion of the shoulder. Once
again, using a ratio of recovered bone weight to usable meat weight in
conjunction with the archaeological bone weight avoids the problems
inherent in this situation (Wing 1976).
Biomass
Another tool that can be used in analysis, the one employed in
addition to MNI in this study where possible, involves the calculation
of biomass represented by the archaeological bone. The technique was
taken from the ecological literature, where it is a common measure
(Odum 1971). Referred to as the power function by Casteel (1978), the
method predicts the amount of biomass represented by a measured quantity
of skeletal mass. The weight of the archaeological bone is used in an
allometric formula to derive the quantity of biomass for the skeletal
mass recovered, not the total live weight of the individual animal
represented by the recovered bone. It therefore involves no assumptions
as to the original weight of that animal and is a more conservative
estimator than the edible meat ratio.
This method is based upon the principle that the body mass and
skeletal mass proportions of animals tend to change with increasing size.
As body weight increases there must be an increase in the proportion of
the total body weight contributed by the skeleton. Galileo in 1638


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
re Curator of Anthropology,
Florida State Museum; Associate
Professor of Anthropology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and qualityj^s-r-^issertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
Ronald 6. Wolff^ vi
Associate Professor of Zoology
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department
Anthropology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the
Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the require
ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
June 1979
Dean, Graduate School


75
being good to eat, there was some trade in raccoon skins. Raccoon meat
was thought to be beneficial on swellings and inflammations of the body
(Booth 1971).
The bobcat (Lynx rufus) weighs about 8.2 Kgs, is nocturnal, and
prefers river bottoms and swamps. Primarily carnivorous, it seeks out
rabbits, mice, and opossums as food. It is found around old fields and
thickets and has been implicated in barnyard raids. There was some trade
in bobcat hides during the colonial period (Bruce 1895). Its flesh was
compared with veal, although it was thought to be sweeter than veal
(Booth 1971).
The domestic cat (Felis domesticus) was transported from Europe as
was the horse (Equus caballus). The horse, like its allies the mule
and donkey, were not very common in the British colonial period (Gray
1933; Bonner 1964). However, the supply of horses in Georgia increased
after Oglethorpe's 1740 attack on St. Augustine. He returned to
Savannah with several hundred head of captured cattle and a number of
horses (Bonner 1964). There were some horses in Spanish St. Augustine,
although they do not appear to have been plentiful. The elite seem to
have access to them (Bushnell 1978c), and some wild horses were hunted
in the spring (Grinan 1756). According to Grinan, there were no wild
ass or mules (1756).
Both Spanish and British colonists claim to have eaten horses
during periods of starvation. Consumption of horse flesh had once been
common in Europe. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church attempted
to abolish this "pagen" practice (Simoons 1967), but Spain was occupied
by Moors during much of this time so the custom of eating horses endured


253
Species List, SA29-2, Lester's Gallery Site
First.Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
491
216.7
3.2
26.4
Sylvilagus sp.
4
2
6.9
1.9
0.04
0.3
Unidentified Rodent
1
1
3.4
0.1
0.003
0.02
Artiodactyl
6
11.1
0.21
1.7
Sus scrofa
4
2
6.9
110.9
1.73
14.3
Odocoileus virginianus
2
2
6.9
24.5
0.43
3.5
Bos taurus
n
2
6.9
347.8
4.94
40.6
Unidentified Bird
i
0.2
0.005
0.04
Branta canadensis
i
1
3.4
1.0
0.02
0.2
Gall us gall us
i
1
3.4
0.3
0.007
0.06
Unidentified Turtle
22
16.7
0.05
0.4
Chrysemys sp.
1
1
3.4
19.8
0.09
0.7
Gopherus pol.yphemus
1
1
3.4
1.6
0.01
0.08
Chondrichthyes
1
0.3
0.02
0.2
Carcharhinidae
1
1
3.4
0.5
0.04
0.3
Sphyrna tiburo
5
1
3.4
2.6
0.22
1.8
Unidentified Fish
174
28.1
0.63
5.2
Ariidae
6
2.2
0.04
0.3
Arius felis
23
3
10.3
7.4
0.12
1.0
Carangidae
1
1
3.4
0.4
0.01
0.08
Sparidae
3
1.3
0.02
0.2
Archosargus probatocephalus
1
1
3.4
0.7
0.01
0.08
Sciaenidae
24
4.1
0.11
0.9


APPENDICES r :
A.' LIST OF FIELD SPECIMENS ANALYZED FROM EACH SITE . . 225
B. SPECIES LIST FOR EACH SITE ...... 239
C. SUMMARY OF FAUNAL CATEGORIES . . 288
D. FREQUENCY OF BONE ELEMENTS FOR EACH SITE ....... 305
E. REGRESSION DATA 319
BIBLIOGRAPHY . .. . . . . . :. L1. 341
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............ . . 358


171
Table l--continued
1697 Situado has been missing for three years. Spanish report
famine. Jonathan Dickinson takes refuge in St. Augustine
after being shipwrecked. Breakfasts on chocolate
1698 Pensacola fortified by the Spanish
1699 French establish colony at Biloxi, Mississippi
1701 Mobile, Alabama, established by French
War of Spanish Succession (Queen Anne's War) begins
1702 James B. Moore attacks Timucua and St. Augustine
1704 Moore raids Apalache three times between 1704 and 1707
1713 End of War of Spanish Succession
1715 Yamassee revolt against British. Ends in 1717
1718 San Marcos de Apalache reopened by the Spanish
1719 Pensacola captured by the French
1720 French return Pensacola to the Spanish
1721 Fort King George established on the Altamaha by the British
1727 Plague at St. Augustine
1728 Colonel John Palmer attacks St. Augustine
1733 Savannah, Georgia established
1736 British established fortifications at St. Simons Island,
Jekyll Island. Frederica colonized
1739 War of Jenkins Ear (King George's War) begins.
Ends in 1748
1740 General James Oglethorpe attacks St. Augustine, which
has a garrison of 1000 men
1742 Governor Monti ano attacks Frederica. Garrison at
St. Augustine has 2000 men
1756 French and Indian War begins (Seven Years War)
1762 Spain allies with France in war


122
is necessary since the unknown in this case is the body weight, X. The
formula Y = aX^ is transformed to
X = [Y/a]1//b
The results of the calculations are in terms of kilograms of biomass
represented by kilograms of bones recovered and identified for each taxon.
This technique is not without hazards of its own. In the first
place, the weight of the archaeological bone is basic to the final results.
The weight of archaeological bone may be influenced by depositional factors.
That is the bone may be leached, mineralized, burned, or excessively en
crusted. After recovery the bone may have been treated with a preservative
such as polyvinyl acetate (PVA) or butvar, or the bone may simply be very
dirty.
It must be admitted that this may not be an analytical tool that can
be applied to every sample with equal reliability. In addition it may
be that samples from widely different depositional matrices cannot be
compared directly because of different factors influencing the weight of
the bone. However, where the bone weight appears unbiased, as it does
at St. Augustine and Frederica, it is a useful technique for comparison
on a percentile basis within a site, if not between sites. The advantage
of being a direct reflection of .original biomass outweighs the limitation
where the technique is used judiciously.
Another, less important, risk is pointed out by Odum as a correlary
to his qualification of MNI analysis (1971). Biomass overemphasizes the
importance of larger animals. It now becomes necessary to say that while
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) constituted 78% of the biomass at a site,
fish such as mullet (Mugil sp.) were of importance to the diet in some
way and that efforts expended by the archaeological population to obtain


155
caprines (Ovis sp./Capra sp.), which contributed 11% of the biomass and
19% of the individuals. Domestic animals overall contributed 98% of
the collection's biomass, which explains the low biomass diversity for
the sample (Table 8, Fig. 7). Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are entirely
absent, as are mullet (Mugil sp.). In this respect the Plaza II well
assemblage reaffirms the possibility that a high use of domestic animal
biomass was the norm for the British Period, while it casts doubt over
the general role of wild terrestrial and marine fauna as in the adapta
tion practiced at SA7-6 by Captain Rainesford. It should be remembered,
however, that the material from the Plaza II well may have been Spanish
rather than British debris (Bostwick 1977).
Cattle contributed 81% of the biomass and 9% of the individuals
at the Plaza II well, which raises another interesting possibility. The
well was located directly on the main square, near the public market
(Wiles 1964; Fig. 5). When wells became contaminated it was common to
fill them up quickly with debris in order to reduce the possibility of
someone falling into the abandoned, but open, hole (Fairbanks pers. comm).
Perhaps when the Plaza IT well became contaminated debris from the
adjacent market was dumped into it, with most of the bone coming from
the stalls, which sold domestic meats. Alternatively, the debris may
have come from immediately adjacent household middens.
Two British subsistence patterns can be observed, one at Frederica
and another at St. Augustine. As was predicted, the British Period
subsistence pattern at St. Augustine is more similar to the 18th Century
Spanish one than to the pattern followed by the British population at
Frederica. This is reflected in the use of three faunal categories,


CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This discussion began with the proposal that historic European
populations were as subject to the need to adjust to their environment
as prehistoric or non-industrial groups. For that reason it was stated
that ecological theory could be as useful in describing colonial be
havior patterns as it had been in discussing ethnographic and prehistoric
adaptations. Several hypotheses were generated to predict subsistence
patterns at Frederica, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida. The pre
dictions were then tested using faunal collections from British and
Spanish occupations at those two locations. The conclusion to be drawn
from this is that the subsistence strategies of human populations can
be accounted for in ecological terms. Several interesting facets of
historical adaptations have been observed.
Cultural Affiliation and Local Resources
The review of faunal assemblages in Chapters 4 and 7 demonstrate
the role of the local environment in subsistence strategies. The British
adaptations discussed in Chapter 7 are distinct from those found at other
British outposts (Chapter 3), in spite of cultural tradition and the
possession of domestic animals. Further, the British Period samples from
St. Augustine, small as they are, do appear more similar to the Spanish
ones at that town than to those at Frederica, even though the British
159


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ECWW8BSAX_4B2Y30 INGEST_TIME 2017-07-14T21:37:51Z PACKAGE UF00025914_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


108
woman, owned a slave, and carried the title "don.11 Mesa also engaged in
a variety of commercial activities (St. Augustine Historic Preservation
Board files). Joseph Stout, a British merchant, occupied the lot during
the British Period. The lot was excavated by Deagan in 1977 and reported
by her (1978b) and James R. Jones (in prep.). A structure currently is
located on the property and excavations were conducted both inside and
outside the building. There appeared to be a great deal of mixing of
materials inside the house due to remodeling of the structure since its
original construction and to the use of trash from elsewhere as fill
between the floors. For this reason it was thought best to include here
only the data from outside the building.
SA26-1
At the end of the First Spanish Period, SA26-1 was owned by don
Lorenzo Josef de Leon; however, the Spanish occupation of the lot extends
back into the late 16th Century. Only the faunal materials dating to
this earliest occupation were studied. Unfortunately it is not known
who lived at the site in the 16th Century. The lot was excavated in
1976 and 1977 by Deagan and is reported by her (1978a), Chad Braley
(1977), and Theresa Singleton (1977). Samples of the fauna have been
studied by Kathleen F. Johnson (1976), L. Jill Loucks (1977), and Robin
L. Smith (1977).
SA29-2, SA34-1, and SA34-3
Three small 16th Century faunal samples were collected as part of
a survey of 16th Century St. Augustine conducted by Deagan in 1977
(1978a). The samples are from SA29-2 (Lester's Gallery), SA34-1


186
Table 3.continued
Species
Habitat
Malaclemys terrapin
diamondback terrapin
salt marshes
Chrysemys floridana
coastal plains turtle
ubiquitous around water, basks on
logs
Chrysemys scripta
yellow-bellied turtle
ponds, streams, sloughs, basks on
logs
Deirochelys reticularia
chicken turtle
quiet water, ponds, sloughs, basks
on logs
Gopherus polyphemus
gopher tortoise
dry, sandy ridges and dunes, high
pinewoods
Chelonia mydas
green turtle
plant beds over shallow water,
beaches
Caretta caretta
loggerhead turtle
coastal bay, streams, beaches
Lepidochelys kempi
Atlantic ridley
red mangrove shorelines, beaches
Natrix sp.
water snakes
semi-aquatic
Coluber constricta
racer
brush and trees
Masticophis flagellum
coachwhip
dry, sandy flatwoods and swamps
Agkistrodon piscivorous
cottonmouth
in thickets near water, semi-aquatic
Rana sp.
pig or leopard frog
aquatic and terrestrial
Bufo terrestris
southern toad
terrestrial
Ginql.ymostoma cirratum
nurse shark
offshore reefs, breeds in shallow
Odontaspis taurus
sand tiger shark
bottom-dweller, shallow water,
estuaries and some freshwater
streams


85
Gall i formes include several genera, some of which might have been
domestic species. These include: the bobwhite (Colinus virginianus),
the domestic chicken (Gal 1 us gal 1 us), and the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)
The turkey is thought to be a wild rather than a domestic species because
of the difficulty encountered in raising them until recently due to
diseases (Johnson and Brown 1903; Schorger 1966). The wild turkey was
once very common in the area, preferring moist hardwood swamps, where it
is found today in a habitat shared with feral swine. Although flocks of
3-4 individuals are found today, flocks of up to 40 individuals were
reported by Jamestown settlers (in Bruce 1895). Turkeys roost in trees.
Bobwhite prefer open pine-lands and thickets. In the winter coveys of
up to 24 birds can be seen foraging in open fields. Neither of these
species is found in the salt marsh and both are gregarious birds.
As with the other Old World domesticants introduced by the colonists,
chickens were introduced before breed registers were established. Since
chickens were basically allowed to fend for themselves, with occasional
scraps to keep them close, it is assumed that the chickens used by the
early colonists would have been small in size, roughly comparable to a
Mediterranean class, Brown Leghorn Bantam (Wilson pers. comm.). A
Bantam dozen eggs weigh about 396 grams (Johnson and Brown 1903) and
the bird itself weighs about 680 grams (Florida State Museum files).
Chickens, although small, nonetheless represented an available food
supply which could be raised in the yards or streets until needed, when
the tough bird was probably boiled rather than baked! Chickens will
eat a variety of table scraps, and the Spaniards even fed them shellfish
(Caceres 1574). Predators, including opossums, raccoons, foxes, owls,
and snakes take a heavy toll on barnyard chickens and their eggs.


78
it consumes, contrasted to 11% for cattle and sheep (Towne and Wentworth
1950). A carcass yields 65-80% dressed meat compared to 50-60% for
cattle and 45-55% for sheep. A pig gains one pound for every three to
five pounds of feed, and it will eat a great variety of foods. In 18
months a pig may gain 90 Kgs, with a yield of 54 usable kilograms. Almost
the entire carcass can be put to some use, and pork takes more kindly
to preservation than do other meats. Nutritionally pork is very
satisfying due to its high fat content. Pork also contains more thiamin
than any other meat (Towne and Wentworth 1950). It is little wonder
that salt pork was one of the habitual foods of the urban poor in Europe
between 1391 and 1560 (Braudel 1967).
The Spanish at St. Augustine made use of both feral and penned hogs.
In 1574, Dr. Alonso de Caceres reported that there were fifty pigs
running loose and that these were wild and skinny (1574). This number
surely increased. Pigs roamed the streets of the town and were raised
in the backyards along with poultry (Boniface 1971). Due to the
difficulty of confining hogs, some of these animals may have been free
without the design of their owners.
Deer, Odocoileus virginianus, was also an important species in the
colonial economy, not only for meat, but for skins as well. The average
weight of deer on the coastal plain is around 46-54 Kgs on the coastal
plain. It adapts to a wide variety of habitats, such as deep forests,
swamps, and open farmland. It also will feed at the edge of salt marshes.
Its preferred habitat is a brushy woodland, or disturbed situation.
Deer feed during dawn and dusk hours, and are attracted to fields and
gardens. Deer were said to have destroyed three acres of peas belonging
to one Georgia colonial farmer (Coulter and Saye 1949). Today they eat


Appendix A. LIST OF FIELD SPECIMENS ANALYZED FROM EACH SITE
The sites are listed in the following order:
SA 7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar Site
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, British Period
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, First Spanish Period
SA26-1, Lorenzo Josef de Leon Site, First Spanish Period
SA29-2, Lester's Gallery Site, First Spanish Period
SA34-1, Trinity Episcopal Church Site, First Spanish Period
SA34-3, Public Library Site, First Spanish Period
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon, First Spanish Period,
16th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon, First Spanish Period,
17th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon, First Spanish Period,
18th Century
Thomas Hird Lot, Fort Frederica, Georgia
225


245
Bufo sp.
Toad
Bufo cf. terrestris
Southern toad
Chondrichthyes
Cartilagenous fish
Squaliformes
Sharks
Ginglymostoma cirratum
Nurse shark
Odontaspis taurus
Sand tiger shark
Carcharhinidae
Requiem sharks
Carcharhinus sp.
Requiem shark
Carcharhinus leucas
Bull shark
Carcharhinus milberti
Sandbar shark
Galeocerdo cuvieri
Tiger shark
Sphyrnidae
Hammerhead sharks
Sphyrna sp.
Hammerhead shark
Sphyrna mokorran
Great hammerhead shark
Sphyrna tiburo
Bonnethead shark
Sphyrna zygaena
Smooth hammerhead shark
Rajiformes
Skates and rays
Pristis pectinata
Small tooth sawfish
Rhinobatos lentinginosus
Atlantic guitarfish
Das.yatis sp.
Sting ray
Rhinoptera bonasus
Cownose ray
Unidentified fish
Lepisosteus sp.
Gar
El ops saurus
Ladyfish
Clupeidae
Herrings
Siluriformes
Catfishes


30
1607 also listed twenty-eight Portuguese, six German, twenty French* and
two Flemish residents. After 1685 English Catholics were al somalowedc-
to settle in Florida (Dunkle 1955). c'
The initial migrants to Florida were carefully selected for skills
representing virtually all of the major 16th Century crafts (Lyon 1977a)
but eventually this trend was reversed. Most of the later migrants to
the presidio were urban poor. Many had either served time in prisoner
had been sent to St. Augustine as part of their sentence. For example,
men who participated in the 1694 food riot in Mexico City were sentenced,
to labor on the Castillo de San Marcos (Corbett 1974). Mexican soldiers-
were generally described as "impressed Indians and half-breeds" (Arana
1960:90-92). Those from the Iberian peninsula were the urban poor, or
criminals, from cities such as Seville, Cadiz, and Granada in the
southern province of Andalusia (Corbett 1974). Settlers from Cuba and
from the Canary Island tended to be more affluent, having the social
advantage also of being either criollos or peninsulares, rather than
mestizos. It must have been difficult for wealthy criollos at St.
Augustine to be viewed in an inferior light to the type of peni nsulare
coming from the streets of Cadiz, however.
The size of the population shifted dramatically through time. Some
1,500 people may have come with Menendez to Florida in the initial settle
ment of 1565 (Boniface 1971). As the focus of Royal attention shifted
elsewhere, and dreams of wealth and glory vanished, the population
declined dramatically. By 1574 only 300 settlers remained, most of whom
were soldiers or sailors. Between 1685 and 1702 there were about 1,500
military and civilian residents (Corbett 1976). The garrison size in


31
1699 was 315 men, of whom thirty-three were not able to serve, and many
of whom were stationed at outlying posts. By the late 16th Century over
a third of the garrison strength was criollo (Boniface 1971). When the
town was abandoned at the end of the First Spanish Period, 2,996 to 3,104
people were evacuated, including Florida Indians and blacks (Corbett 1976).
At the time of the evacuation St. Augustine was the second largest city
in the south after Charleston, South Carolina (Gold 1969).
The Indian population at St. Augustine deserves special mention.
While there were some Indians living in villages near St. Augustine
(Grinan 1757; Lyon 1977a), the number of Indians living near the forti
fication grew steadily as English slaving raids became more intense in
the interior (Tepaske 1964). By 1738, 1,350 Indians lived in the St.
Augustine area, although only twenty-four actually lived in the town
(Benavides 1738). During work on the coquina Castillo de San Marcos,
as many as 300 Indians were sent to the town from the missions each year
(Dunkle 1955). Some Indians may even have served as sailors on the
presidios' ships (Bushnell 1978c). Most Florida Indians prior to Moore's
raids, however, had little contact with the presidio. Even the Indians
living near the missions had little to do with St. Augustine itself.
As elsewhere, European disease took its toll on the Indians (Swanton
1946; Dunkle 1955). While the Indian population was increasing in the
vicinity of the fort in the last part of the First Spanish Period, the
number of Indians generally was declining.
The British Population
As with their St. Augustine counterparts, most of the British
immigrants to Frederica had an urban background. Many also came from


269
Species
MNI
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Pristis sp.
1
0.5
0.04
0.07
Unidentified Fish
267.5
6.68
12.47
Ariidae
25.5
0.55
1.0
Arius felis
22
49.0
1.15
2.2
Baqre marinus
5
11.0
0.21
0.4
Pomatomus saltatrix
1
0.5
0.008
0.02
Archosarqus probatocephalus
6
35.0
0.46
0.9
Cynoscion sp.
1
1.5
0.04
0.07
Cynoscion nebulosus
1
1.0
0.03
0.06
Menticirrhus cf. americanus
2
1.5
0.04
0.07
Poqonias cromis
2
6.0
0.16
0.3
Scianops ocellata
3
36.5
0.96
1.8
Muqil sp.
17
12.0
0.26
0.5
Paral ichth.yes lethostigma
2
1.5
0.05
0.09
Opsanus tau
3
2.0
0.04
0.07
Totals
101
2864.0
53.59


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Florida and the Caribbean (Cumbaa 1975) 202
Figure 2. The Atlantic Coastal Plain 203
Figure 3. The Environs of St. Augustine, Florida (after
Palmer 1862) . 204
Figure 4. The Environs of Frederica, Georgia (after
Honerkamp 1975) 205
Figure 5. The Town of St. Augustine, Florida (after
Puente 1764) 206
Figure 6. The Town of Frederica, Georgia (after
Honerkamp 1975) 207
Figure 7. MNI and Biomass Diversity and Equitability Ranges,
Means, and Standard Deviations for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections 208
Figure 8. Comparison of Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard
Deviations for the First Spanish Period and 18th
Century British Collections for Three Faunal
Categories, Biomass and MNI 210
Figure 9. Percentage Distribution of MNI from Six Faunal
Categories for Each Site 212
Figure 10. Percentage Distribution of Biomass from Six Faunal
Categories for Each Site 214
Figure 11. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Pig (Sus scrofa) Biomass and MNI for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections.
SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow 216
Figure 12. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
of Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Biomass and MNI
for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century
British Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow 217
Figure 13. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow . . 218
IX


340
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
21396
Paralonchurus peruanus
1
0.2265
0.0037
21398
Paralonchurus peruanus
1
0.2718
0.0040
21403
Paralonchurus peruanus
1
0.2265
0.0056.
1729a
Pareques umbrosus
1
0.072
0.0034
1729b
Pareques umbrosus
1
0.0421
0.0020
1729c
Pareques umbrosus
1
0.0308
0.0011
2350
Poqonias cromis
1
0.1389
0.0079
2359
Pogonias cromis
1
0.2426
0.0124
2360
Poqonias cromis
1
0.1262
0.0079
2361
Poqonias cromis
1
0.1538
0.008
1765b
Sciaena deliciosa
1
0.1348
0.0044
1589
Scianops ocellata
1
7.945
0.4523
2095
Stellifer lanceolatus
1
0.0024
0.0001
21397
Umbrina xanti
1
0.11325
0.0011
21401
Umbrina xanti
1
0.3171
0.01215
21425
Umbrina xanti
1
0.1359
0.0039
# of entries 61
# of individuals 63
r = 0.93
b = 1.012
a = 0.0380


24
in North America (Sauer 1971), and of Florida (Chatelain 1941; Tepaske
1964; Bolton and Ross 1968; Lyon 1977a). It is not the intent here to
supplant these, but only to highlight some of the processes which
directly affected the lives of colonists at St. Augustine and Frederica.
Significant events are summarized in Table 1.
Shortly after Columbus claimed the New World for Spain, Spanish
explorers had extended effective dominion throughout the Caribbean, onto
the mainland of Mexico, and down into South America. Spanish explorers
had also explored much of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of North America
(Sauer 1971). Compared to the wealth known to exist in Central and South
America, North America seemed to hold little promises of riches. None
theless several attempts were made to explore and settle the area named
"la Florida" by Juan Ponce de Leon. These attempts all ended in failure,
which prompted Filipe II of Spain in 1561 to forbid any further efforts
at colonization.
The very next year France, recognizing the value of the Atlantic
coast's proximity to the wealth of the Caribbean (Fig. 1), began to
establish colonies in the New World. The initial effort at Port Royal
Sound, South Carolina, revived the Spanish Crown's interest in Florida
(Fig. 2). A hostile fortification so close to the vital shipping lane
used by the Spanish treasure fleets each summer could not be tolerated.
This initial French settlement failed before the Spanish could launch
their counter offensive. However, the French established a second out
post even closer to the sea lane, at the St. Johns River, in 1564. It
was this second French installation which the Adelantado Pedro Menendez
de Aviles attacked and destroyed the following year.




143
17th Century First Spanish Period, St. Augustine
Only one faunal sample is available for this interesting time period.
It is a very small sample (MNI = 47) so that generalizations from this
collection to the entire 17th Century are unwarranted. The following
discussion is a tentative analysis at best and raises more questions
than it answers.
As was discussed in Chapter 3 this century was one of great activity
in St. Augustine and the latter part of the century has been called the
town's "Golden Age." It was predicted that the use of domestic animals,
particularly of cattle (Bos taurus), would be higher during this temporal
period than at other times because of the extensive ranches in the
interior. It was also predicted that the use of wild terrestrial species
might have increased from the 16th Century and be higher than the 18th
Century Spanish pattern because the documents suggest that access to the
interior resources was more secure during the temporary relaxation of
hostilities with the Indians which occurred prior to major British
encroachments.
From the faunal analysis of the 17th Century component of SA36-4
it was found that cattle (Bos taurus) contributed only 16% of the biomass
and 2% of the individuals. This is considered to be lower than anticipated
if the cattle ranches were really contributing substantially to the town's
diet. This is assuming that the resident at SA36-4 in the 17th Century
had access to the system by which those cattle were distributed in the
town. Apparently the resident either did not have such access or the
cattle ranches were not contributing substantially to the town's food
supply. In either case the SA36-4 occupant developed a strategy that


359
Elizabeth's interests have not been entirely academic. She enjoys
traveling and has visited most of the contiguous states as well as many
European countries, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Peru. Outdoor activities,
especially swimming and canoeing, have helped keep body and mind healthy.
During the course of her doctoral studies Max has paddled more silent
miles with her than he probably ever intended, and her father has spent
endless hours refinishing a wood and canvas canoe which she has not had
the time to complete.


353
Prange, Henry D., John F. Anderson, and Hermann Rahn
1979 "Scaling of Skeletal Mass to Body Mass in Birds and Mammals."
American Naturalist 113:1:103-122.
Puente, Juan Joseph Elixio de la
1764 "Plano de la Real Fuerza, Baluarte, y Linea de la Plaze
de Sn. Augustin de la Florida." Buckingham Smith Collection,
Reel 2, P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Rappaport, R.
1969 "Some Suggestions Concerning Concept and Method in
Ecological Anthropology." National Museum of Canada
Bulletin 230.
Reed, Charles A.
1963 "Osteo-archaeology." In Science in Archaeology, edited
by E. S. Higgs and D. Brothwell, pp. 204-216. Thames and
Hudson, New York.
Reese, Trevor R.
1963 Colonial Georgia: A Study in British Imperial Policy in
the Eighteenth Century. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Reynolds, W. W.
1977 "Skeleton Weight Allometry in Aquatic and Terrestrial
Vertebrates." Hydrobiologica 56:1:35-37.
Reynolds, W. W.,and William J. Karlotski
1977 "The Allometric Relationship of Skeletal Weight to Body
Weight in Teleost Fishes: A Preliminary Comparison with Birds
and Mammals." Copeia 1:160-164.
Robbins, Chandler, B. Bruun, and Herbert S. Zim
1966 A Guide to Field Identification of North American Birds.
Golden Press, New York.
Robertson, William B.
1967 "Regional Reports, Florida Region, Winter Season."
Audubon Field Notes 21:3:410.
Rostlund, Erhard
1952 Freshwater Fish and Fishing in Native North America.
University of California Publications in Geography 9,
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Rouse, John E.
1977 The Criollo. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Sahlins, Marshall D.
1964 "Culture and Environment: The Study of Cultural Ecology."
In Horizons in Anthropology, edited by S. Tax, pp. 132-147.
Aldine, Chicago.


357
Wiles, Doris, ed.
1964 "The Public Market Place." El Escribano 54:1:1-12.
Williams, Linda K.
1976 "East Florida as a Loyalists Haven." Florida Historical
Quarterly 54:4:456-478.
Wing, Elizabeth S.
1973 "Subsistence Systems in the Southeast." Paper presented
to the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, Tennessee.
1976 "Ways of Going from a Sliver of Bone to a Calorie."
Paper presented to the Society for American Archaeology,
St. Louis, Missouri.
Wing, Elizabeth S., and Antoinette B. Brown
nd Prehistoric Foodways: Method and Theory in Paleonutrition.
MS in prep, Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Florida State Museum,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Wing, Elizabeth S., and Erika H. Simons
1977 "Faunal Remains from the Plaza II Site in St. Augustine."
MS on file, Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Florida State Museum,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Wright, J. Leitch
1971 Anglo-Spanish Rivalry in North America. University of
Georgia Press, Athens.
1975 British St. Augustine. Historic St. Augustine Preservation
Board, St. Augustine, Florida.
Wygoda, Mark L.
1976 Terrestrial Activity of the Striped Mud Turtle, Kinosternon
baurii, in a Seasonal Hardwood Swamp Forest. MA Thesis.
University of South Florida, Tampa.
Youatt, William
1847 The Pig: A Treatise on the Breeds, Management, Feeding, and
Medical Treatment of Swine; with Directions for Salting Pork,
and Curing Bacons and Hams. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia.
Ziegler, Alan C.
1973 "Inference from Prehistoric Faunal Remains." Addison-
Wesley Module in Anthropology 43.


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Elizabeth Jean Reitz was born in Winter Haven, Florida, on November
13, 1946. She lived with her parents, Dr. and Mrs. Herman J. Reitz, and
her brother, Max, in Lake Alfred, Florida, until entering Florida
Presbyterian College in 1965. On a field trip to Mexico, Elizabeth
became interested in anthropology. Pursuing that interest, she trans
ferred to the University of Florida, from which institution she graduated
with a B.A. in anthropology in 1969. Following graduation she worked in
the public school system, receiving her teaching certification from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1971. Unconvinced that
the classroom was the best place to work with young people, she became
a professional Field Executive with Citrus Council of Girl Scouts. In
this capacity Elizabeth enjoyed a variety of experiences, among which
two summers of leading an archaeological field school for senior high
school girls figured prominantly. This was done under the direction of
Dr. Charles H. Fairbanks. In 1974 she returned to the University of
Florida, obtaining a master's degree in anthropology two years later under
the supervision of Drs. Elizabeth M. Eddy and Solon T. Kimball. Had it
not been for her roommate at that time, Elizabeth would probably be work
ing for the 4-H now. Kathleen Byrd, being a very pursuasive person,
convinced Elizabeth to contact Dr. Elizabeth S. Wing about pursuing a
latent interest in faunal studies. As a result, Kass is to a large extent
responsible for this dissertation.
358


313
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
S.ylvilaqus sp.
Procyon lotor
Felis domesticus
Sus scrofa
Odocoileus virginianus
Bos taurus
Capra/Ovis sp.
Gall us gall us
Other Birds*
05
05
C
E 03
r
jd
3 f
r
-C
C 3
r
4->
4-> CU
+->
£- Q.
3
Q)

CU 03
4-> O
00
1
Ll. d_
>
00 00
4
6
1
1
3
2
8
6
4
106
21
3
5
7
27
4
5
24 27 45 14
3 7 1
2 1 17
7 8
r
CM
==
=tfc
05
i
i
to
4->
to
_Q
03
3
3
£
C
£
r-e
r
OO
00
r
E3
r
0)
OS-
.C
-C
S-
CO
c
to
to
o
C03
r
r
LL.
HOO
zc
LU
U.
1
2
2
2
2 1
32 7 19
26 7 16
13 30 25
3 4 2
28 3 17
34 10
Ariidae
134 231
73 101
Sciaenidae
174
70 5
Mugil sp.
808
160 6
identified to family


346
Dickinson, Jonathan
1975 Jonathan Dickinson's Journal, or, God's Protecting Providence,
edited by E. W. Andrews and C. Me. Andrews. Valentine Books, Stuart
(1699).
Dubois, Arthur B.
1977 "The Biological Basis for Development of Scaling Factors in
Animal Locomotion." In Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion,
edited by T. J. Pedley, pp. 83-92. Academic Press, New York.
Dunkel, John Robert
1955 St. Augustine, Florida: A Study in Historical Geography.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Emerson, Thomas E.
1978 "New Method for Calculating the Live Weight of the
Northern White-tailed Deer from Osteoarchaeological Material."
Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 3:1:35-44.
Fairbanks, Charles H.
1956 "The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses, Frederica
National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia." Fort Frederica
Association Publication 2.
Flannery, Kent V.
1972a "Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica."
In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M.P. Leone, pp. 222-235.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
1972b "Culture History v. Cultural Process: A Debate in American
Archaeology." In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M.P. Leone,
pp. 102-108. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
FogeT, Robert W.
1965 "A New Provisional View of the 'New Economic History'."
In New Views on American Economic Development, edited by
R. L. Andreano, pp. 201-212. Schenkman, Cambridge.
Fradkin, Arlene
1978 "Bird Remains in South Florida Prehistoric Aboriginal Sites."
Paper presented to the Florida Anthropology Society, Ft. Walton
Beach, Florida.
Freeman, Bruce, and Lionel A. Walford
1976 Angler's Guide to the United States Atlantic Coast.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
Fried, Morton H.
1974 "On the Evolution of Social Stratification and the State."
In The Rise and Fall of Civilization, edited by J. A. Sabi off
and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 26-41. Cummings, Menlo Park.
Fussell, G. E.
1929 "The Size of English Cattle in the Eighteenth Century."
Agricultural History 3:160-181.


SPANISH AND BRITISH SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AT ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA,
AND FREDERICA, GEORGIA, BETWEEN 1565 and 1783
BY
ELIZABETH JEAN REITZ
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1979
AAK1352

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ,
Many people have assisted in this effort. The members of my commit
tee, Elizabeth S. Wing, Kathleen A. Deagan, Charles H. Fairbanks, Maxine
L. Margo!is, S. Jeffrey K. Wilkerson, and Ronald G. Wolff, have individ
ually and collectively contributed to the quality of the research pre
sented here. Due to their special impact on the course of my career I
wish to thank specifically two of these individuals. In my first
anthropology course twelve years ago Dr. Fairbanks interested me in
human behavior and Dr. Wing helped me focus that interest on subsistence
studies. Their advice and assistance has been greatly appreciated. I
consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to study with them.
Numerous other people have assisted in vital ways with the produc
tion of this study. The following individuals have read portions of the
manuscript: Erik J. Bitterbaum, George H. Burgess, Thomas Chase, Peter
A. Meylan, Robert W. Simons, and Susan L. Scott. I appreciate their
efforts to improve the quality of the data and the presentation. Also
Dr. John F. Anderson, Dr. Amy Bushnell, Nancy Halliday, Dr. Stephen R.
Humphrey, Dr. Pejaver V. Rao, Dr. Robert L. Reddish, and Dr. Henry R.
Wilson provided needed assistance on difficult facets of the research.
Robert W. Taylor permitted access to his data on gopher tortoise weights.
I am grateful to Arlene Fradkin, Kathleen F. Johnson, L. Jill Loucks,
Henry M. Miller, Steven Ruple, Gary Shapiro, Erika H. Simons, and Robin
L. Smith for access to their unpublished faunal reports. I have also
i i

benefited from conversations with Dr. Kathleen M.Byrd, Dr. Michael C.
Scardaville, and Sylvia Scudder. A special thanks go to Greg
Cunningham and Steven Wing for their help counting the faunal materials,
and to Pamela R. Johnson for typing the tables and text of this disser
tation.
For faunal materials, financial aid, and work space several people
and institutions are to be thanked. Robert H. Steinbach as Director of
Research and Development, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board,
permitted access to many of the faunal collections reported here and also
assisted in the interpretation of the data. Dr. Kathleen A. Deagan
excavated many of the faunal collections and provided information on
these sites. Theresa A. Singleton discussed SA26-1, the Lorenzo Josef
de Leon site, with me. Nicholas Honerkamp made available the faunal
materials he excavated from the Thomas ,Hird lot at Fort Frederica
National Monument, as well as answered numerous questions about the site.
John Bostwick assisted with information on the Plaza II well and the
British Period trash pit from SA7-4. The faculty of the Florida State
Museum of the University of Florida graciously provided unlimited access
to their facilities as well as financial support. The Department of
Anthropology of the University of Florida also provided financial assis
tance, not to mention academic instruction. Faunal analysis for SA36-4
was funded by Florida Board of Regents STAR grant #77-081 to the Historic
St. Augustine Preservation Board and the Department of Anthropology,
Florida State University.
Finally I wish to acknowledge the debt I owe to my parents, Dr. and
Mrs. Herman J. Reitz, and to my brother, Max. My mother's totally biased
i i i

opinion of my merits has been and will continue to be an inspiration.
My father and brother both read drafts of the dissertation and provided
valuable suggestions for its improvement. All three have endured with
good grace endless conversations about a topic far removed from their
own spheres of interest.
While all of the above individuals, and many who are not mentioned,
have assisted me in many ways with this work, they are not to be held
responsible for the interpretation. I hope they feel, however, that I
have benefited from their counsel.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABSTRACT xi
PART ONE: BACKGROUND AND ELABORATION OF HYPOTHESES 1
CHAPTER!: INTRODUCTION ... 2
Historical Archaeology and Human Ecology 3
Hypotheses 9
Organization of Presentation 11
CHAPTER 2: SOCIAL CLASS AND ANIMAL RESOURCE USE .... 13
Archaeology and Social Class 13
Archaeological Examples . 15
Social Status in Spanish Florida 18
Discussion 20
CHAPTER 3: AN ACCOUNT OF THE SPANISH AND BRITISH
OCCUPATION ON THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN, 1565-1783 ... 23
A Brief History 23
The Spanish Florida Population 29
The British Population 31
Spanish Economics . 33
British Economics 43
Discussion 45
v

CHAPTER 4: CULTURAL AFFILIATION AND FOODWAYS 49
Traditional British Foodways 49
Traditional Spanish Foodways 53
Old World Foodways 55
Historic North American Foodways 55
Discussion 60
CHAPTER 5: ANIMAL RESOURCES OF THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN 62
The Atlantic Coastal Plain ..... . 62
St. Augustine and Frederica 68
Species Accounts . 70
Notes on Capture Techniques 98
Summary of Faunal Categories 100
Discussion 101
PART TWO: SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AT ST. AUGUSTINE AND FREDERICA 103
CHAPTER 6: MATERIALS AND METHODS 104
Restatement of Hypotheses . 104
Materials 106
Methods Ill
CHAPTER 7: ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS ....... 128
The Collection as a Whole 128
Discussion of Each Site by Cultural/Temporal Division . 136
Discussion 158
CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 159
Cultural Affiliation and Local Resources ........ 159
Social Class 160
Political and Social Environment ..... 161
Conclusion 166
vi

APPENDICES r :
A.' LIST OF FIELD SPECIMENS ANALYZED FROM EACH SITE . . 225
B. SPECIES LIST FOR EACH SITE ...... 239
C. SUMMARY OF FAUNAL CATEGORIES . . 288
D. FREQUENCY OF BONE ELEMENTS FOR EACH SITE ....... 305
E. REGRESSION DATA 319
BIBLIOGRAPHY . .. . . . . . :. L1. 341
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............ . . 358

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Chronology of Events 168
Table 2. Activity Period and Seasonal Patterns of Fauna
from the Coastal Plain . 173
Table 3. Habitats and Habits of Fauna from the Coastal
Plain 182
Table 4. Commensal Species 190
Table 5. Sites Discussed in Text, Listed by Cultural/
Temporal Division 192
Table 6. Regression Formulae Used in Estimating Biomass
of Animals Represented in Study 194
Table 7. Diversity and Equitability Values Based on MNI . 195
Table 8. Diversity and Equitability Values Based on
Total Biomass 196
Table 9. Sumnary of Species Lists (Appendix B) 197
Table 10. Summary of Faunal Categories (Appendix C):
MNI, Totals, and Percentages 198
Table 11. Summary of Faunal Categories (Appendix C):
Biomass, Totals, and Percentages ... 200
vi i i

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Florida and the Caribbean (Cumbaa 1975) 202
Figure 2. The Atlantic Coastal Plain 203
Figure 3. The Environs of St. Augustine, Florida (after
Palmer 1862) . 204
Figure 4. The Environs of Frederica, Georgia (after
Honerkamp 1975) 205
Figure 5. The Town of St. Augustine, Florida (after
Puente 1764) 206
Figure 6. The Town of Frederica, Georgia (after
Honerkamp 1975) 207
Figure 7. MNI and Biomass Diversity and Equitability Ranges,
Means, and Standard Deviations for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections 208
Figure 8. Comparison of Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard
Deviations for the First Spanish Period and 18th
Century British Collections for Three Faunal
Categories, Biomass and MNI 210
Figure 9. Percentage Distribution of MNI from Six Faunal
Categories for Each Site 212
Figure 10. Percentage Distribution of Biomass from Six Faunal
Categories for Each Site 214
Figure 11. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Pig (Sus scrofa) Biomass and MNI for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections.
SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow 216
Figure 12. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
of Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Biomass and MNI
for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century
British Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow 217
Figure 13. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow . . 218
IX

Figure 14. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
of Chicken (Gal 1 us gall us) Biomass and MNI for
the First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow ..... 219
Figure 15. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Sea Catfish (Ariidae) Biomass and MNI for the
First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow 220
Figure 16. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Drum (Sciaenidae) Biomass and MNI for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections.
SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow . 222
Figure 17. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Mullet (Mugil sp.) Biomass and MNI for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections.
SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow 224
x

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
SPANISH AND BRITISH SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AT ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA,
AND FREDERICA, GEORGIA, BETWEEN 1565 and 1783
By
Elizabeth Jean Reitz
June, 1979
Chairperson: Elizabeth S. Wing
Major Department: Anthropology
Anthropologists have for a number of years been investigating the
relationship between human populations and their environments. Although
much work has been done in this area using prehistoric archaeological
materials, historic archaeologists have been slow to recognize the value
of ecological studies in interpreting their data. The purpose of this
research is to demonstrate the applicability of ecological theory to
studies of archaeological materials from historic sites.
The study focuses upon the use of vertebrate animal remains from
the First Spanish Period, St. Augustine, Florida (1565-1763); the British
occupation at Frederica, Georgia (1736-ca. 1748); and the British Period
at St. Augustine, Florida (1763-1783). Using archaeological faunal
materials from several sites the influence of social class, political
and social environment, cultural affiliation, and local animal resources
on the adaptive strategy is assessed. Particular emphasis is placed upon
the types of species used; the habitat, habits, and seasonality of the
xi

species exploited; and the proportion of wild to domestic species
incorporated in the diet. Standard zooarchaeological techniques are
employed to determine Minimun Number of Individuals and allometric
scaling formula are used to determine biomass estimates.
Analysis demonstrates that the adaptive patterns found at all
of the sites examined differ from the strategies reported for other
European settlements in North America. In addition, the faunal
samples from the British Period at St. Augustine are more similar
to the 18th Century First Spanish Period materials than to the faunal
samples from British Frederica. Environmental factors did have an
influence on the subsistence strategies employed by colonial British
and Spanish residents at St. Augustine and Frederica.
xn

PART ONE: BACKGROUND AND ELABORATION OF HYPOTHESES

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This is a study of human adaptation. Specifically it is a study of
subsistence patterns followed by Spanish and British colonists at two
military outposts on the Atlantic coastal plain of North America between
1565 and 1783 (Fig. 1). The study focuses upon the use of animal re
sources by the Spanish colonists at St. Augustine, Florida,in the First
Spanish Period (1565-1763); British colonists at Frederica, Georgia (1736-
ca. 1748); and British colonists at St. Augustine during the British
Period (1763-1783).
Guided by principles of human ecology, analysis of faunal materials
from these historic archaeological sites will concentrate upon three
aspects: subsistence activities practiced by members of the same
cultural affiliation in different habitats; populations of distinct
cultural affiliation in the same habitat; and changes in subsistence
activity through time within a population occupying the same habitat.
Factors predicted to be influential in the adaptive strategies to be
observed are social class, political and social environment, cultural
affiliation, and local animal resources. In the ensuing chapters each
of these factors will be briefly discussed, but first the relationship
between historical archaeology and human ecology will be considered.
2

3
Historical Archaeology and Human Ecology
The Law of Uniform'tarianism (Lyell 1850) states that the processes
which are observed in the present are the same ones which affected past
events. This principle is the basic interpretive link between past and
present human behavior, binding social-cultural, biological, and archae
ological anthropologists into a single, unified discipline. It is this
same principle that unifies prehistoric and historic archaeology. The
processes which influenced prehistoric human behavior continue to affect
the behavior of recent populations. It follows that the analytical tools
developed in studies of modern ethnographic populations and applied to
the study of prehistoric groups may also be appropriately applied to
historic ones. The basic premise of this study is that subsistence be
havior of historic populations can be explained in ecological, adaptive
terms on the same basis as the subsistence behavior of current popula
tions and prehistoric ones.
Although ecological interpretations of anthropological data have
been common since the 1950's (Netting 1971), prehistoric archaeologists
followed this lead Slowly (Meighan et al. 1958; Binford 1972; Deetz 1972;
Flannery 1972b). Historic archaeologists have lagged even further behind.
In fact, historic archaeologists have been chided recently for not being
anthropological at all (Schuyler 1970; Griffin 1978).
Traditionally historical archaeologists have been more concerned
with salvage projects, reconstructions, and public interpretive programs
rather than with exploring cultural patterns and questions of human
adaptation. We are faced with the paradox that more is known theoret
ically about the adaptive behavior of prehistoric populations than of

4
historie ones. This is in spite of the fact that the presence of
historical documents should make studies of historic adaptations a
fruitful area of research where the validity of ecological interpretations
could be tested.
Part of the reason for the neglect of human adaptation in historic
occupations cannot be attributed solely to the funding base and research
interests of historic archaeologists, but rather to a common assumption
made about domestic plants and animals. Historic populations, at least
ones with a European background, were almost always associated with
domestic plants and animals. It has been assumed that such domestic
food sources somehow protected the human population from the need to
adjust to the natural environment in any but the most superficial sense.
The early discussions of the Neolithic Revolution clearly assume that
humans were consequently freed of environmental constraints (Childe 1958).
This assumption is particularly strong where historic European popula
tions are involved.
There is ample ethnographic and archaeological evidence indicating
that the presence of plant and animal domesticates does not relieve the
human population of the need to deal with local environmental factors in
some coherent, integrated manner (Clark 1972; P. Lyon 1974; Stark and
Voorhies 1978). Human subsistence behavior must be responsive to
variables of the environment even where domestic plants and animals are
present. The few available examples of European colonial adaptations in
North America clearly indicate that French, British, and Spanish animal
use was highly variable in ways not explicable if the presence of
domestic animals rendered these European populations immune to environ
mental influence (Cleland 1970; Cumbaa 1975; Barber 1976; Bowen 1976;
Shapiro 1978a, 1978b).

5
The interpretation of Spanish and British foodways made in this
study is explicitly ecological. Human behavior may be
studied as animal behavior and interpreted the same way
as behavior (or part of the behavior) of any other species,
for instance, in its adaptive aspects and consequent
interaction with natural selection. (Simpson in Vayda and
Rappaport 1968:492)
Adaptive requirements are placed upon human organisms just as they
are placed on non-human ones, with an intervening variable: culture
(Binford 1972).
The culture, or part of the culture, of a human
population is regarded as part of the distinctive
means by which the population maintains itself in
the ecosystem. (Rappaport 1969:185)
It is presumed here that environmental factors are as applicable to
historic populations of European descent as to modern, non-industralized
groups or to prehistoric populations. Just as with these latter two
groups, it is possible to explore species and habitat exploitation,
subsistence scheduling, procurement techniques, and food preparation
habits for a historic population. It is also possible to compare changes
in subsistence activity through time, in different areas occupied by
members of the same cultural affiliation, and between different cultural
groups. Interpretation of human adaptation to the natural and social
environment is as basic to an understanding of historic archaeological
data as it is for prehistoric data.
Analysis of the subsistence patterns of North American colonists of
Old World ancestry can provide interesting insights into the adaptation
made by these people. The colonists arrived here with little under
standing of their new environment and great naivete. Like modern
historical archaeologists, the early colonists seemed to think that their

6
domestic food sources and trans-Atlantic supply routes buffered them
from the new environment and made adjustments in their Old World subsis
tence strategy unnecessary. Reports of "starving times" are almost a
hallmark of early colonial efforts (Weeden 1890; Bruce 1895; Gray 1933;
Thompson 1942) and show that the colonists quickly faced reality. They
had to modify their traditional Old World adaptation to suit the North
American habitats. The new adaptations developed at each outpost reflect
ed the influence of available technology, political environment, tradi
tional foodways, and the local natural environment.
One of the basic elements in human adaptations is the ability of
humans to make choices.
Choices of usable resources, decisions as to their
proportional use and time of utilization, and the
demographic and spatial arrangements chosen in order
to accomplish the exploitation, all allot human time
and energy and are visualized as structuring the
subsistence and settlement patterns of a human group.
Even granting the proposition that relatively small
amounts of energy may be expended by hunters and
gatherers in the food quest (Lee 1968; Sahlins 1968),
the allotment of these expenditures depends on choices
among competing or mutually exclusive activities; the
"scarcity" pertains to time and energy devoted (by
choice) to subsistence. (Jochim 1976)
David L. Clarke (1968:490) has defined a strategy as "a program or
plan of an entity's moves..,. ." Humans are rational beings who attempt
to maximize satisfactions by chosing between competing objectives, the
decision often involving a compromise among those objectives. There are
several criteria for guiding the food procurement decision making process
according to game theorists (Clarke 1968). The one which appears to be
most useful in explaining human adaptive strategy is the Simon satisficer
criterion in which the objective is to satisfy a safe, low-risk, sub-
maximal aspiration level rather than to provide a maximum yield. Humans

7
generally attempt to provide themselves with sufficient goods while ex
pending the minimum or least effort (Haggett 1965; Marshall 1968; Paine
1971). Human adaptive systems are distinctive, however, in their flexi
bility so a mixture of other game criteria may be implemented to deal
with a problem (Clarke 1968). While the basic strategy may be a satis-
ficer one, during seasonal runs of bluefish or caribou, a maximizing
strategy may be followed.
According to Michael A. Jochim, a population must deal with three
problems: resource use schedule, site placement, and demographic arrange
ment, with the pattern of resource use being the most important in influ
encing other aspects of the adaptation (1976). In developing a resource
use schedule, conflicts in seasonal cycles of preferred and possible
foods as well as the distribution of these resources in the area must
be resolved (Flannery 1972a). Humans must also conform to Liebig's "Law
of the Minimum," that is, the adaptation must be to the weakest elements
in the subsistence system rather than to the most favorable ones (Odum
1971; Hardesty 1977). The group adapts to the worst years rather than
to the best ones.
In establishing and following a resource use schedule the primary
goal is to obtain necessary foods and raw materials while keeping the
cost/risk/effort factor low (Jochim 1976). In terms of food species,
it is important to exploit several resources, some of which provide a
moderate return for little effort and with little risk and others which
yield a high return but are costly in terms of effort and low in security.
The more reliable resources will be emphasized in the diet, since it is
of primary importance to have a secure food and raw materials source
available providing high yield at minimum cost. However, the resources

8
requiring great effort, involving high risk, but providing large yields
will be the more prestigious. Prestige or luxury items are those which
provide high fat and meat content but are scarce and/or highly mobile
(e.g. deer, caribou, cattle). Procurement and processing techniques such
as traps, nets, weirs, and storage facilities increase the efficiency of
capture and help reduce the cost of exploitation. Species which can be
captured with greatest efficiency will be more heavily exploited, though
less valued, than the species which are more difficult to obtain.
Settlement location reflects the resource use strategy (Jochim 1976).
Sites for habitation tend to be selected to minimize the distance to the
most secure and most abundant resources. These are the same resources
which have the lowest prestige. Temporary camps are placed near the less
secure, high-prestige resources. Sites are also selected to provide
protection from the elements and for observation of strangers.
The third problem identified by Jochim (1976) is demographic arrange
ment. Decisions about group size must be based upon provision of food
for the population, resource distribution, and social interaction. These
will not be reviewed here since it goes beyond the scope of the research
presented here to do so. This decision does not imply that demographic
arrangements for historic occupations cannot be profitably studied.
For a valuable ecological interpretation it is desirable to incor
porate studies of cultural and historical data, human biology, zoological
and botanical data, demography, and other sciences. Unfortunately all
of this material is not yet available from the study area or on the study
groups. Emphasis is placed here almost entirely upon an interpretation
of human adaptation as revealed in subsistence activities. Subsistence

9
activities are further delineated to include only those which can be
studied via analysis of faunal remains from archaeological sites. Much
could be learned to supplement the faunal study if floral materials were
also available, but they are not. It is acknowledged that there is more
to an ecological reconstruction than this, but time, space, and available
data do not permit a broader study. As has been implied earlier, there
is little comparative material available on historic, colonial adaptations.
Consequently it is felt that work with material from these sites must be
basically descriptive. The interpretations offered here are tentative
ones, models to be tested carefully in future studies rather than ones
to be accepted without further analysis.
Hypotheses
1. The implication of the preceding discussion is that a human
population must adapt to the resources of the local environment. When a
population moves into a new environment, as happened during the coloni
zation of the New World by Europeans, cultural traditions relating to
subsistence patterns had to be modified to exploit the new resources and
habitats available. It can be predicted that when two populations of
distinct cultural affiliation occupy the same location, their adaptive
strategies will be similar. The British Period subsistence pattern at
St. Augustine, as reflected in the faunal materials, will be more
similar to the Spanish pattern at St. Augustine than to the British one
at Frederica. Local environment will have more influence than cultural
affiliation upon the subsistence strategy of cultural groups occupying
the same environment, where technological level is the same.

10
2. It is further predicted that within cultural affiliations, where
environment, political events, and technology are held constant, socio
economic level will be the most useful explanation of the range of adap
tive patterns observed (Homans 1950; Warner 1962). Income, occupation,
and ethnic affiliation are used to indicate socio-economic level at St.
Augustine (Poe in prep.) and these have been observed to be important at
St. Augustine (Deagan 1976a). The most frequently used species will be
those that were easily caught near the settlement with a minimum of
effort. Social status can be inferred from the presence of species which
were more risky to obtain, but were larger and provided more meat (Jochim
1976). Variability in social affiliation will be reflected in variability
in the adaptive pattern as observed in the faunal record.
3. Changes in the political and social milieu of the two colonial
occupations will also have some impact on the adaptive strategies ob
served in the faunal record. This is not a contradiction of the basic
ecological position assumed in this study. The social and political
milieu is part of the environment to which a population must adapt
(Sahlins 1964). Changes in the socio-political environment, just as
changes in the natural one, must be accommodated in the basic adaptive
strategy. This is just as true for prehistoric populations as for
historic or ethnographic ones; however, for prehistoric populations
political events are generally unknown. Some of the adaptive changes
observed through time at Spanish St. Augustine are best explained by
historical events.

n
Organization of Presentation
Each of these hypotheses will be elaborated on in the following
chapters. Part One will present background material from the historical,
archaeological, and environmental literature. The importance of social
status to subsistence activities, and consequently to excavated faunal
materials, will be discussed with reference to examples of social class
reflected in the faunal record from several historic sites (Chapter 2).
The historical background of the St. Augustine and Frederica populations,
as well as demographic and economic information, will be presented with
a summary of the impact which these factors might have had on local
subsistence strategies (Chapter 3). Following this, traditional British
and Spanish Old World foodways will be described. This material will be
supplemented by reference to zooarchaeological reports from historic
sites in North America in order to contrast British Old and British New
World foodways (Chapter 4). Finally the wild and domestic animal re
sources of the Atlantic Coastal Plain will be reviewed (Chapter 5).
Part Two will cover the new material being presented here. The
hypotheses outlined above, and refined in Part One, will be tested using
British and Spanish faunal collections recovered during archaeological
excavations at St. Augustine, Florida,and Frederica, Georgia. Of the
sixteen faunal collections that are reviewed, eleven were drawn from the
Spanish occupation at St. Augustine, and five were from British house
lots at St. Augustine and Frederica. They represent a variety of cultural
and temporal divisions as follows: 16th Century First Spanish Period,
St. Augustine (five sites); 17th Century First Spanish Period, St.
Augustine (one site); 18th Century First Spanish Period, St. Augustine

12
(five sites); British Frederica (two sites); and the British Period at
St. Augustine (three sites). These materials and the methods employed
in analysis are reviewed (Chapter 6), analyzed (Chapter 7), and conclu
sions drawn (Chapter 8).

CHAPTER 2
SOCIAL STATUS AND ANIMAL RESOURCE USE
It has been predicted that variability in faunal use during the
First Spanish Period at St. Augustine will reflect socio-economic level.
It was mentioned briefly that social status might be inferred for an
archaeological collection on the basis of faunal materials (Chapter 1).
This possibility will be explored using evidence of social stratification
in archaeological faunal samples from documented colonial and plantation
sites. The outline of the major social strata in the Hispanic Empire
is well known. These will be described here as they might affect access
to animal resources at St. Augustine. The discussion begins with a
review of the concept of social status.
Archaeology and Social Class
The concept of social class as defined by William Lloyd Warner
incorporates the following socio-economic symbols: occupation, source
of income, house type, and dwelling area (1962). According to Warner,
"a social structure is a system of formal and informal groupings by which
social behavior of individuals is regulated" (Warner and Lunt 1941:14).
Social stratification serves to set limits upon attainment of goals, and
to maintain authority relationships (Lipset 1968). Social criteria are
not based purely upon economic criteria, but also upon self-identification,
life-style, and prestige (Goldschmidt 1968:332). To be a member of the
highest social class a person must not only be wealthy, but must also
13

14
display appropriate symbols of importance. These include such conspicu
ous traits as prestigeful house location, personal adornment, associations,
employment, ceramic assemblages, social behavior, and food. Only some of
these symbols of high social status survive in the archaeological record.
Lewis R. Binford (1972) postulates that it is possible to identify
status grading in archaeological sites from socio-technic items. He
defines these as "the material elements having their primary functional
context in the social subsystem of the total cultural system" (1962:95).
An individual's social status might be inferred from ceramics, metal
objects, items of apparel, house construction materials, house size, and
house location, just to mention a few durable symbols.
In more strictly economic terms,
the stratified society is distinguished by the differential
relationships between the members of the society and its
subsistence meanssome of the members of the society have
unimpeded access to its strategic resources while others
have various impediments in their access to the same
fundamental resources. (Fried 1974:32)
Elevated social status is not without its burden of responsibility
however. To maintain rightful access to strategic and luxury resources,
leaders must continually validate their status by supporting the system
and publicly displaying the appropriate symbols of authority. Leaders
must also conform more closely to the norms of acceptable behavior than
do individuals of lower social standing (Homans 1950).
Persons of lower social status experience restricted access to valued
resources. They may be predicted to occupy the less desirable locations,
build with less prestigous materials, and use less valued ceramic vessels.
They may also be predicted to have access to less preferred foods. If,
however, they commit infractions upon social norms, perhaps in the food

15
quest, this is viewed less harshly than if a person of higher social
standing commits the same offense,
Archaeological Examples
The best documented example of differential access to scarce
resources provided by historical archaeology has been provided by John
S. Otto (1975). Otto excavated cultural and faunal materials from a Sea
Island cotton plantation on St, Simons Island, Georgia, occupied between
1793 and 1861, He had samples from three social-economic levels (planter,
overseer, and slave) from Cannon's Point Plantation. Otto was able to
demonstrate a close correlation between diet as reflected in the faunal
collections and materials found in the cultural collections. He found
that the slave diet included proportionately more domestic animal
individuals than did the planter diet. Slaves had more pigs (Sus scrofa)
and more cattle (Bos taurus). Otto explained this difference by suggesting
that the planter had the ability to employ slaves as hunting specialists
and so had access to more wild resources than did the slaves. Slaves had
to use the nearest available, most secure resource: domestic animals.
In this case, wild animals might have been the prestige food.
Another example of differential access to scarce food resources is
provided by Stephen L. Cumbaa from the 18th Century First Spanish Period
at St. Augustine (1975). Cumbaa analyzed patterns of animal use from
three households whose social status in the community was known from the
documents. He found that the diet of a household (SA16-23) occupied by
an Indian woman, Maria de la Cruz, and her Spanish husband, incorporated
less domestic meat than did the diet of the other two households studied.
This household, of lower social status than the others, made use of more

16
wild resources from the nearby salt marsh. Occupying an intermediate
social position, the Gertrudis de la Pasqua household (SA13-5) made use
of more domestic individuals than did the de la Cruz household, but of
fewer such animals than the Cristoval Contreras household (SA34-2).
Contreras was from the Canary Islands and a wealthy man, yet he used wild
resources to a greater extent than Cumbaa had expected based on his social
status. Cumbaa interpreted this as an indication that Contreras had
engaged the services of a hunting specialist, possibly one of his slaves.
This contrasts with the de la Cruz household which probably secured its
wild resources through its own or kin group efforts.
It is interesting to note that Dona Katherine Beidleman, in an
analysis of ceramics from the lot occupied by Contreras (SA34-2) found a
close correlation between ceramics and social status (1976). During the
late First Spanish Period, British goods were illegally, or at least
illicitly, imported into St. Augustine (Harman 1969). A member of the
upper class, however, did not make use of these cheaper goods because
of the expectation of behavior associated with higher status and so had
to use the more expensive, lower quality items legitimately shipped to
St. Augustine by Spanish sources. Here is an example of leaders con
forming strictly to the legal code, to their own discomfort.
Cattle (Bos taurus) were part of the illicit British trade (Harman
1969). Could it not be possible that individuals of high social standing
not only had to avoid using British delftware, but also had to avoid
using British cattle? While the de la Cruz household may have had limited
access to cattle due to low social status, the Contreras household may
have had limited access to cattle due to an elevated status.

17
Social status is also studied via the faunal record by Henry M.
Miller (1978). Miller analyzed materials from two late 17th Century
homesites on the James River. The Pettus Plantation was occupied by a
wealthy Virginia colonist, while Utopia Cottage was on land owned by
Pettus, and may have been occupied by a tenant farmer. Structure size,
ceramic analysis, and documentary evidence all indicated that Utopia
Cottage was occupied by a person of lower social standing than the Pettus
Plantation site. Cattle (Bos taurus) contributed about equal proportions
of edible meat at both sites, and was the dominant animal food source.
Next in order of edible meat importance were swine (Sus scrofa), which
were also used about equally at both sites. Analysis of elements re
covered from the two sites, and of butchering patterns, failed to indicate
a substantial difference between the two collections. Swine were more
selectively butchered by age at Pettus than at Utopia and more fish were
consumed at Utopia than at Pettus; however, neither of these differences
was of major importance.
The homogeneity of the Pettus and Utopia faunal materials is
interesting considering the documentary evidence and the clear indication
of lower social status provided by architectural and ceramic materials.
Miller concludes that diet may have been one of the first patterns to
change as a household became upwardly mobile. This interpretation is
supported by the fact that in inventory lists cooking utensils and
bedding are the first things to increase in numbers with increased
wealth (Miller 1978).
This last example serves to provide a cautionary note to interpre- .
tations of socio-economic level from faunal collections. Two households

18
of different social status might well exhibit a similar faunal collection,
although for different' reasons. In order to avoid a : misinterpretation
it is critical to incorporate as much cultural and documentar^ evidente
as possible into the analysis. Only by doing so was Miller able to avoid
a mistaken interpretation of Pettus and Utopia. Otto also found that the
material assemblages of 4he planter and slave habitations he analyzed
were superficially similar, but was able to avoid mis-identifying the
status of each group of occupants using detailed analysis of the ceramics
in conjunction with documentary evidence. This does not negate the
hypothesis that social class is an important variable in the subsistence
strategy practiced, but it does emphasize the difficulty inherent in such
an interpretation. The possibility that the two extremes of a social1 t;c ;
continum might be similar in the fauna utilized is well worth exploring
and the possibility that social status may be identified using faunal '
materials merits closer examination. It is best to remember, though,
that patterning is most accurately reflected in the total assemblage
rather than in a single component of the complex.
Social Status in Spanish Florida
Spanish society in the New World was highly structured with over
sixty racial classifications (Morner 1967). The influential posts, and
the persons accorded highest prestige by the Crown, were persons of Old
World birth, called peninsulares (Haring 1947). Immigrants from either
the Spanish Iberian peninsula or the Canary Islands (as Contreras in the
above example) belonged to this favored group. The governors of Florida
were always peninsulares, although criollos (persons born in the New
World) might serve as temporary appointees. Policy as well as custom

19
combined to maintain the social distance between peninsulares and
criollos. Peninsulares in responsible positions were usually transferred
to a new post after a few years, serving to further isolate them from
local populations. There were rarely enough peninsulares in Florida to
satisfy the Crown (Corbett 1974).
Spaniards of New World birth, creoles or criollos, were excluded
from positions of influence and authority generally, even though the
wealth and local prestige of many might have better qualified them to
serve. They were also barred from major commercial enterprises, which
by law were based only in Seville or Cadiz, Spain (Haring 1947).
Criollos were said to be lazy, indolent, and quarrelsome. It was felt
that no criollo should be on the government payroll (Bushnell 1978b).
The power struggle between peninsulares, assigned to positions of author
ity for only a few years and essentially outsiders and strangers, and
local, wealthy criollos was intense throughout the Spanish New World.
By 1696, and despite objections against the practice from the Crown,
criollos filled half of the garrison posts at St. Augustine (Arana 1960)
and all of the leadership positions except that of the governor (Arnade
1965). They also managed the extensive, lucrative commercial cattle
ranches that flourished in the latter part of the 17th Century (Bushnell
1978b). The wealthier criollos might have attempted to define their
status by identifying with peninsulares, although not all criollos were
wealthy.
Mestizos, or persons of mixed ancestry, were accorded a low social
status. Since the title originally referred to illegitimate children of
Spanish and Indian parents, the term had a connotation of illegitimacy

20
(Haring 1947). Peninsulares and crio!los alike disdained mestizos, who
were thought to,be vagrants. Mestizos were the ones who did manual labor
while the "whites" avoided such.work insofar as possible (Morner 1967).
In some areas, of. the Hispanic>world, mestizos were legally denied educa
tion beyond religious instruction. In spite of the feelings against
them, mestizos served in the Florida military garrison (Corbett:1976).
: Blacks and Indians were at the lowest social leve). Legally;Indians
were of a social status above mestizos but this was not so in practice
(Haring 1947). Blacks at St. Augustine may either have been slave or
free. Spanish Florida was a haven for escaped British slaves.since they
were not returned to their owners (Tepaske 1964). Many artisans.-.at St.
Augustine were slaves or Indians (Boniface 1971), and Indians may .have
served on St. Augustine ships (Bushnell 1978c) r-
Discussion
As examples cited above serve to illustrate, the identification of
social status from faunal assemblages is not without risks. Had documen
tary assistance been lacking, the slave faunal collection from Cannon's
Point might have been identified as belonging to the planter; and the
households of Pettus Plantation and Utopia might have been interpreted
as belonging to the same social statum.
Is an analysis of differential access to scarce resources justified
in the absence of documentary evidence? Prehistoric archaeologists are
accustomed to doing so using cultural materials. Social value is assigned
to objects excavated from archaeological context on the basis of such
observed evidence as local availability, quality of materials and manu
facture, scarcity at the site, and distribution within the site. It

21
seems reasonable to assume that observed differences in faunal use could
also be used to infer social status where social stratification is known
to have existed.
The difficulty lies in assigning value to animal foods. While
archaeologists feel themselves to be safe in predicting that oriental
porcelains were highly valued, who feels secure enough to do the same
for deer? It is here that Jochim's analysis of a valued food source
may be useful (1976). Large animals which provide abundant quantities
of meat, but which are difficult to raise or obtain may be more highly
valued than animals which are reliably secured locally with a minimum
of effort. Archaeological faunal collections which contain larger
quantities of these valued animals may be from households of higher
social status than comtemporaneous sites of the same cultural affiliation
which have these species in lower numbers.
The intent in this study regarding social status is to predict
social status for the 16th Century First Spanish Period sites for which
we have no documentary evidence. It is known that social status was
important at St. Augustine and it will be seen that cattle (Bos taurus)
was a valued commodity (Chapter 5). Members of high social status,
either peninsulares or criollos, might be expected to have the greatest
access to cattle. In the 18th Century, peninsulare access to this
commodity was restricted due to the fact that it was available through
dealings with illicit traders. Upwardly aspiring criollos might also
have followed the high status model and avoided such dealings, so that
both groups may not have had cattle to the extent that their social status

22
would suggest. Thus in the 18th Century two groups would lack cattle:
low status mestizo households such as that of Maria de la Cruz and high
status individuals such as the peninsulare Contreras.
In the 16th Century there was no illicit British trade to confuse
the issue. Cattle during this time were scarce, however, and therefore
potentially a prestigious item. It is felt, therefore, that socio
economic level in the 16th Century can be predicted on the basis of
access to cattle. Unfortunately there is no good way to test the inter
pretation until documentary evidence is found, nor can absolute status
be predicted. While the two extremes of the continuum can be observed
and interpreted with reasonable confidence, identification of households
between the two extremes is more difficult.

CHAPTER 3
AN ACCOUNT OF THE SPANISH AND BRITISH
OCCUPATION ON THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN, 1565-1783
The documented history of British and Spanish interaction in the Old
and New World provides a framework within which to study the subsistence
patterns at St. Augustine and Frederica. The two garrisons were part of
an international struggle which affected the daily lives of the residents,
in as much as their reason for being was based more upon military strategy,
than upon commercial enterprise. Although Frederica was pleasantly
situated, St. Augustine's location was not selected for its pleasing
agricultural prospect. The wealth of Florida and of Frederica lay in
their strategic locations. Much of the subsistence activity at both
locations was formed within constraints imposed by political alliances
and mercantile policies stated by their respective Crowns. Military
duties, disrupted supply lines, relations with natives, and unofficial
trade networks all had to be incorporated into the subsistence plan.
In this chapter the history of the region will be summarized. In
addition, the populations of St. Augustine and Frederica will be
described and the economic conditions of Spanish and British residents
discussed.
A Brief History
There are many excellent histories of the Spanish Empire (Haring
1947), of the Caribbean (Haring 1966; Sauer 1969), of early explorations
23

24
in North America (Sauer 1971), and of Florida (Chatelain 1941; Tepaske
1964; Bolton and Ross 1968; Lyon 1977a). It is not the intent here to
supplant these, but only to highlight some of the processes which
directly affected the lives of colonists at St. Augustine and Frederica.
Significant events are summarized in Table 1.
Shortly after Columbus claimed the New World for Spain, Spanish
explorers had extended effective dominion throughout the Caribbean, onto
the mainland of Mexico, and down into South America. Spanish explorers
had also explored much of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of North America
(Sauer 1971). Compared to the wealth known to exist in Central and South
America, North America seemed to hold little promises of riches. None
theless several attempts were made to explore and settle the area named
"la Florida" by Juan Ponce de Leon. These attempts all ended in failure,
which prompted Filipe II of Spain in 1561 to forbid any further efforts
at colonization.
The very next year France, recognizing the value of the Atlantic
coast's proximity to the wealth of the Caribbean (Fig. 1), began to
establish colonies in the New World. The initial effort at Port Royal
Sound, South Carolina, revived the Spanish Crown's interest in Florida
(Fig. 2). A hostile fortification so close to the vital shipping lane
used by the Spanish treasure fleets each summer could not be tolerated.
This initial French settlement failed before the Spanish could launch
their counter offensive. However, the French established a second out
post even closer to the sea lane, at the St. Johns River, in 1564. It
was this second French installation which the Adelantado Pedro Menendez
de Aviles attacked and destroyed the following year.

25
As part of his royal charter Menendez was required to establish two
towns. He did so at once, the first and most southerly of which was
named St. Augustine. In the following years Menendez established a string
of fortifications along the Atlantic coast as far north as Port Royal
Sound (Santa Elena) and around the tip of Florida up the Gulf coast to
Tampa Bay (Lyon 1977a). The purpose of these outposts was to prevent
further foreign intrusions on the Atlantic coast, to protect the vital
Spanish treasure fleet sailing to Spain from Cuba up the Bahama Channel
or Florida Straits, and to aid victims of shipwreck in the treacherous
Straits.
Although the initial intent was for the Florida garrisons to be self-
supporting, this proved to be impossible (Lyon 1977a). Shortly after the
Adelantado's death, the Florida garrison became a dependency of the
Spanish Crown. Unlike other Spanish colonies in the New World, the Royal
subsidy, or situado, rather than commerce, was intended to be the chief
support of the Florida garrison. Consequently there were no encomiendas
(large land grants) or repartimientos (Indian labor grants) on the scale
that these institutions occurred elsewhere, nor were there confirmed
deeds (Gold 1969). As a result there were no fortunes to^be made and
most of the population was composed of soldiers on military assignment
rather than colonists there to make a fortune (Corbett 1976).
Spain claimed possession of all of North America east of New Mexico
under the name "La Florida," but in reality control was exercised only
over the narrow geographical strip occupied by the missions and forts
northward from St. Augustine along the Georgia coast and westward across
the northern end of the Florida peninsula. This area was divided into

26
four provinces: Guale, eastern Georgia and the coastal islands; Timucua,
north-central Florida and a portion of southern Georgia; Apalachee,
southwestern Georgia, southern Alabama, and Florida between the St. Marks
River and Pensacola; and Provincia Nueva, southern Florida (Gillaspie
1961).
During the last half of the 16th Century, existence at St. Augustine
was a tenuous affair. British and French soldiers as well as Indians
continually harassed the Spanish officials with raids and uprisings
(Bolton and Ross 1968). A series of Indian insurrections along the
Georgia coast, culminating in the Guale Revolt of 1573, caused the
virtual abandonment for a while of the Atlantic coast down to present-
day Savannah and by 1597 all of the Georgia missions had been temporarily
deserted. The garrison at St. Augustine was further strained in the
1500's by pirate attacks, pestilance, fires, floods, and worries about
unconfirmed English activities to the north.
At the turn of the century, with Spanish resources strained by war
with England, the outlook for survival of the presidio at St. Augustine
was in doubt. Thoughts were entertained of abandoning the unprofitable
and complaining post entirely (Arnade 1959). When British activity to
the north was confirmed, however, the decision was made to remain at
St. Augustine. After 1602 a series of missions was established westward
from St. Augustine across the Florida peninsula to present-day Tallahassee,
and the chain of missions previously abandoned north of St. Augustine
along the Georgia coast was reestablished. By the mid-1600's Spanish
missions once again extended as far north as Port Royal Sound (Lanning
1935). In conjunction with the interior missions, cattle ranches were

27
established, principally in the vicinity of present-day Gainesville but
also between St. Augustine and the St. Johns River. In spite of occa
sional Indian revolts, disturbing intrusions by English traders in the
interior, and pirate attacks, the St. Augustine outpost enjoyed a period
of relative calm during the 1670's and 1680's.
Effective control of the area was being eroded, however. French
and British raids in the Caribbean were becoming increasingly bold.
Around 1686 St. Augustine officials once again began to withdraw the
northern mission chain, this time down to the St. Marys River. English
traders were generating major unrest among the Indians once allied with
the Spanish (Wright 1971). The beginning of the 18th Century marked a
major shift in Spanish control of Florida, bringing with it the disas
trous raids of British Colonel Moore and French encroachments in the
west of the peninsula. The interior mission system and the cattle ranches
were destroyed. Spanish authority for a while was more strictly limited
to the immediate vicinity of the presidio at St. Augustine than it had
been for a long time.
Frederica and its companion fortifications were established in the
first half of the 18th Century as part of the British southward advance
into territory claimed by Spain as part of "la Florida." Frederica's
mission was primarily strategic, although the colonists were expected to
be self-sufficient and profitably employed in the export of raw agricul
tural crops such as silk. While there was little cause, the garrison
continually watched for a Spanish raid, and even lost a crop one year
because of an alarm (Wright 1971). Indian relations were not a major
problem to the settlers themselves, although the Salzburger farmers

28
complained that Indians raided their fields, gardens, and stole their
livestock (Bonner 1964). In 1739 the War of Jenkin's Ear between .,
England and Spain began.; A raid on St. Augustine, led from Ft. Frederica
by General James Oglethorpe in 1740, did much damage to the town. The ;
Spanish garrison retaliated in 1742 with a raid of their own. Shortly
after this the war was drawn:to a close. Frederica was abandoned by the
British military personnel, and the shopkeepers quickly followed (Reese
1963). .. .. ,
In spite of the exchange of raids between St. Augustine and
Frederica, the period between 1733 and the early 1750's was one of
relative security at St. Augustine (Tepaske 1964). Hostilities among
England, France, and Spain continued, however, with France and England
resuming a state of war in 1756. Although Spain remained aloof from
this confrontation for a while, the Crown eventually joined France ...
against. England, just in time to be on the losing side. England captured
Cuba in the closing days of this war.and Spain was eager to regain that
island, even if it cost them Florida to do so. As the British prepared
to occupy the peninsula (all that remained of the once extensive Spanish
"la Florida") virtually the entire Spanish and Florida Indian population
evacuated the province (Dunkle 1955).
Britain remained in control of the Florida colony.for twenty years.
Initially it was an idle backwater (Wright 1975), but when.the American.
Revolution began St. Augustine remained loyal to the Crown and once again
assumed strategic importance. The town experienced a florescence as.it
became a staging area for British troops and supplies going north. The
town also served as a refuge for Tories fleeing the rebellious colonies.

29
As part of the agreement ending the Revolution, however, Britain returned
the Florida peninsula to Spain and most of this refugee population evac
uated the town along with British soldiers and local citizens (Dunkle
1955).
The history of the region between 1565 and 1783 was clearly marked
by unrest and danger. Throughout the Spanish and British occupations
war or the threat of war hung over the garrisons. During much of the
time it was unsafe for Spanish residents at St. Augustine to venture far
from the protection of the fortification. Although the British colony at
Frederica was not so clearly under immediate threat of attack from Indians,
the possibility of a Spanish or French raid was very real to the residents
there.
The Spanish Florida Population
The demographic composition of the population in Spanish Florida has
been studied by John R. Dunkle (1955) and Theodore G. Corbett (1974; 1976).
They found that people who came to the presidio at St. Augustine originated
from two basic sources. The first major source was the Iberian peninsula
and the Canary Islands. The second source was Mexico and the Antilles.
During the First Spanish Period these two areas alternated in supplying
manpower to the garrison. For example, between 1658 and 1691, migration
to St. Augustine from Mexico and the Iberian peninsula was strong (Corbett
1974). After that fewer people arrived from Spanish America, and more
blacks came to the town, either as escaped slaves from the British
Carolinas, or as slaves from the Spanish Antilles. Iberian and Canary
Island migrations also increased. Between 1733 and 1756 a large number
of Cuban criollos came to St. Augustine (Corbett 1974). A census in

30
1607 also listed twenty-eight Portuguese, six German, twenty French* and
two Flemish residents. After 1685 English Catholics were al somalowedc-
to settle in Florida (Dunkle 1955). c'
The initial migrants to Florida were carefully selected for skills
representing virtually all of the major 16th Century crafts (Lyon 1977a)
but eventually this trend was reversed. Most of the later migrants to
the presidio were urban poor. Many had either served time in prisoner
had been sent to St. Augustine as part of their sentence. For example,
men who participated in the 1694 food riot in Mexico City were sentenced,
to labor on the Castillo de San Marcos (Corbett 1974). Mexican soldiers-
were generally described as "impressed Indians and half-breeds" (Arana
1960:90-92). Those from the Iberian peninsula were the urban poor, or
criminals, from cities such as Seville, Cadiz, and Granada in the
southern province of Andalusia (Corbett 1974). Settlers from Cuba and
from the Canary Island tended to be more affluent, having the social
advantage also of being either criollos or peninsulares, rather than
mestizos. It must have been difficult for wealthy criollos at St.
Augustine to be viewed in an inferior light to the type of peni nsulare
coming from the streets of Cadiz, however.
The size of the population shifted dramatically through time. Some
1,500 people may have come with Menendez to Florida in the initial settle
ment of 1565 (Boniface 1971). As the focus of Royal attention shifted
elsewhere, and dreams of wealth and glory vanished, the population
declined dramatically. By 1574 only 300 settlers remained, most of whom
were soldiers or sailors. Between 1685 and 1702 there were about 1,500
military and civilian residents (Corbett 1976). The garrison size in

31
1699 was 315 men, of whom thirty-three were not able to serve, and many
of whom were stationed at outlying posts. By the late 16th Century over
a third of the garrison strength was criollo (Boniface 1971). When the
town was abandoned at the end of the First Spanish Period, 2,996 to 3,104
people were evacuated, including Florida Indians and blacks (Corbett 1976).
At the time of the evacuation St. Augustine was the second largest city
in the south after Charleston, South Carolina (Gold 1969).
The Indian population at St. Augustine deserves special mention.
While there were some Indians living in villages near St. Augustine
(Grinan 1757; Lyon 1977a), the number of Indians living near the forti
fication grew steadily as English slaving raids became more intense in
the interior (Tepaske 1964). By 1738, 1,350 Indians lived in the St.
Augustine area, although only twenty-four actually lived in the town
(Benavides 1738). During work on the coquina Castillo de San Marcos,
as many as 300 Indians were sent to the town from the missions each year
(Dunkle 1955). Some Indians may even have served as sailors on the
presidios' ships (Bushnell 1978c). Most Florida Indians prior to Moore's
raids, however, had little contact with the presidio. Even the Indians
living near the missions had little to do with St. Augustine itself.
As elsewhere, European disease took its toll on the Indians (Swanton
1946; Dunkle 1955). While the Indian population was increasing in the
vicinity of the fort in the last part of the First Spanish Period, the
number of Indians generally was declining.
The British Population
As with their St. Augustine counterparts, most of the British
immigrants to Frederica had an urban background. Many also came from

32
the poor, or "middle poor" (Saye 1943), Unlike their Spanish counter- v.
parts, they were not criminals. Most were highly skilled craftsmen and
almost all came from Britain, Scotland, or Germany. The first group of
settlers, 230 persons, came from England together landing first at ;
Savannah. Many of the German Salzburgers then refused to continue to
Frederica. Those Salzburgers who did continue settled in a small
farming community apart from the main town of Frederica surrounding the
fortification. The first group to settle on St. Simons Island numbered
104 persons. In 1739 Oglethorpe's Regiment of 700 soldiers and their
families arrived. There were some slaves at Frederica in spite of a
prohibition against slavery in the founding charter.
During the British Period at St. Augustine (1763-1783), the popu
lation experienced some major shifts (Wright 1971). Initially the town
was settled by a small contingent of Scottish soldiers, a few merchants,
and some large land owners. Indian allies and slaves also were found at
St. Augustine. In 1777 the Minorcan colony at New Smyrna collapsed and
some 409 of these people took refuge at St. Augustine. Once the American
Revolution began the population swelled rapidly. By 1778 there were 1,000
resident whites, 3,000 local blacks, and 8,000 refugees from the northern
colonies (Dunkle 1955). Most of these were transients waiting to go
north to fight, or waiting for the war to end so they could return to:,
their homes. Many of these acquired land for cultivation between the
coast and the St. Johns River, although there was not enough land for all
the refugees (Williams 1976). The Seminole Indians, who had been in the
process of occupying the interior of the Florida peninsula during the
last part of the First Spanish Period, continued to become more populous

33
during the British Period. In addition, some British settlers lived in
the interior either as traders or as farmers. When the British Period
ended approximately 13,000 people evacuated the province, although some
British citizens avoided the Spaniards by moving further into the
interior of the peninsula (Dunkle 1955).
Spanish Economics
As a military garrison, governmental center, and mission base, most
of the income at St. Augustine was supplied by a royal subsidy (Chatelain
1941; Tepaske 1958; Bushnell 1978c). The Spanish Crown assumed responsi
bility for the colony's support shortly after Menendez's death in 1568
(Hoffman 1977). The annual subsidy, or situado, was paid out of the
coffers of New Spain and was initially administered by the Viceroy of
New Spain in Mexico City. The situado included pay in cash and in goods.
Commodities might be beeswax, wine, oil, lard, salt pork and beef, ham,
salt, rice, corn, flour, beans, and fabrics (A.G.I. 87-3-13, December
1758). It could also include axes, bows, caldrons, pails, machetes, drills,
goatskins, paper, bells, church furniture, cassava, and munitions (A.G.I.
87-3-12, June, 1740; A.G.I. Contraduria 962 A, 1751).
Delivery of the situado was irregular at best (Tepaske 1958, 1964).
The Viceroy of New Spain frequently delayed payment, or neglected to
supply the necessary funds at all. Once items purchased by the St.
Augustine agent in Mexico using the New Spain funds were aboard ship,
they might be captured by French or British raiders or otherwise lost at
sea. The situado might be delayed for only a matter of months, or for
as long as ten years (Bushnell 1978c).

34
The situado was unsatisfactory for other reasons as well. Often the
goods purchased by the St. Augustine agent in Mexico were of poor quality
initially, or spoiled during the delays incurred in shipment. Inflation
was a major problem throughout the Hispanic Empire and the goods purchased
for St. Augustine were always exhorbitantly priced. The personnel on the
Royal payroll in Florida received their annual salary in goods and the
remainder in currency. Due to inflation and gouging by Mexican merchants,
once the cost of the goods had been deducted from the annual salary,
little remained of an individual's income to be disbursed as cash
(Gillaspie 1961).
As a result government employees seldom saw any cash money (Bushnell
1978c). In addition, rations were not enough to support a family so that
St. Augustine residents had to purchase additional supplies from the
Royal warehouse or from local merchants and vendors. Due to the lack of
cash in the town such purchases were usually made against future salaries
(Grinan 1757; Chatelain 1941; Bushnell 1978c). When the situado finally
arrived, outstanding debts incurred by the citizens of the town to the
Royal storehouse and favored local merchants, taxes, and church tithes
were deducted before the employee received payment. Often there was no
cash left and the cycle continued. Many of the presidio personnel
served in virtual debt peonage. There was enough cash available in the
town, however, for some wealthy criollos to order personal supplies to
be shipped for their own use, to purchase property at auction, and to
buy maize for speculation (Bushnell 1978c).
In order to correct these conditions responsibility for administra
tion of the situado payment was shifted in 1702 to the Bishop of Puebla,

35
assuming that a cleric might be more responsible. He was not (Tepaske
1964). It should be noted that the Bishop of Puebla did not exercise
ecclesiastical responsibility for Florida. Finally, in 1740, the
responsibility for supplying the situado was transferred to the Havana
Company of Cuba in exchange for trade concessions granted to the company
by the Spanish Crown. After this, situado payments became more regular,
and the amount of cash circulating in St. Augustine increased since the
British goods purchased by the Havana Company were less expensive than
the Spanish goods purchased in Mexico and Cuba (Bushnell 1978c).
While officials of New Spain continually neglected the needs of the
garrison, England was eager to serve the St. Augustine market. Legally
British merchants could only deal with New World ports by going through
Spain first. By the early 1600's even this trade was being curtailed.
English trade, originating principally in the North American colonies,
gradually became more and more a matter of contraband and freebooting
(Wright 1971). Under the mercantilist policy it was strictly forbidden
that New World Spanish colonies trade with English merchants directly,
or even between themselves (Haring 1947). All trade legally had to go
through Iberian ports. However, by a treaty signed in 1670, English
vessels could call at Hispanic ports when in distress, or to exchange
prisoners (Harman 1969). Under this guise, or without it, foreign
traffic at St. Augustine was common and continued regardless of any
state of hostility or open warfare that might have prevailed at the
time. During periods of open warfare, Spanish St. Augustinians did
appropriate English merchant vessels by force, when they could, and

36
British merchants in St. Augustine sometimes had their goods seized by
local governors attempting to enforce the law, or angered that they had
been slighted by some trade deal.
. St. Augustine officials and private citizens traded heavily with
English merchants from Charleston, New York, and Virginia. They exchanged
local oranges, fish, deer skins, naval stores, and even sea turtles for
liquors, vinegar, apples, corn, peas, flour, biscuits, salt, beeswax,
fabrics, barrels of salted beef, pork, cod and herring, as well as cheeses,
tools, clothing, and household goods (Harman 1969). In spite of the risks
involved, English goods were of better quality and were cheaper than the
Spanish ones available through the situado (Grinan 1757). In addition to
the maritime trade with the British colonies, there was an active over
land and inland waterway trade in livestock from the southern British
colonies. Pigs (Sus scrofa) and cattle (Bos taurus) were regularly
smuggled into St. Augustine, or purchased openly (Harman 1969). At one
point in the 1700's it was said that British merchants walked the streets
of the presidio just as if they were in London (Tepaske 1964).
Trade with British merchants was legalized in 1740 when the Havana
Company of Cuba was authorized to act as supply agent for St. Augustine
(Tepaske 1964). The Company could purchase goods from the British
colonies if no Spanish equivalent could be found. This action only made
legitimate a source of trade which had been flourishing for years. After
1740 the repetitious complaints from St. Augustine of privation and
starvation subsided and the amount of cash to be invested by residents
at the town increased. The period between 1733 and 1756 marks, in fact,
one of the two brief periods of stability the colony enjoyed (see above).

37
St. Augustine residents also conducted limited trade with Hispanic
ports (Gillaspie 1961; Boniface 1971). The colony was allowed to send
one ship a year to Spain, with the Canary Islands being included in this
exchange. An official quota of deer hides could be traded for military
supplies, clothing, wine, and staples such as rice, beans, flour, and
corn. From the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, St. Augustine obtained corn,
salt, henequen, wax, and cacao, among other things, although this trade
was not entirely legal (A.G.I. 54-4-15/89, 1692; Gillaspie 1961). Some
commerce was done also with Veracruz as part of the situado payment.
Cuba was the favored trading partner. From this port the garrison
at St. Augustine received spices, rice, beans, salt pork, tools, and
munitions. The population exchanged deer hides, naval stores, salt beef,
beans, chickens, hams, and lard. It is interesting that this list
contains so many agricultural products since it is not usual to think of
St. Augustine exporting food. Many of these items are found on ship
manifests of 1674-1694 and reflect the production of the interior cattle
ranches near present-day Gainesville. Two or three ships came from
Havana to St. Augustine twice a year between 1731 and 1741 (Grinan 1757).
Purchases were usually made on credit and occasionally Havana merchants
would claim as security the St. Augustine situado ship(s) as it laid
over in Cuba on its voyage from Veracruz to Florida (Bushnell 1978c).
Mercantile ties between Cuba and Florida were supported by extensive
kinship bonds between influential criollos in both communities (Gillaspie
1961). In the 16th Century the Governor of Cuba and Florida was the same
individual although this practice was soon ended because of suspected
graft (Bushnell 1978c).

38
In conjunction with this extensive external exchange system, St.
Augustine also obtained supplies from within the province of Florida
itself. The Spaniards traded with near-by Indians, and relied heavily
upon livestock and produce from the Apalachee missions near modern
Tallahassee, once those missions were established (Boniface 1971).
Indians were encouraged to supply produce and meat, as well as other
goods to the population at St. Augustine. In a letter written to
Governor Joseph de Zuniga about 1700 his correspondent wrote that fifty
chickens were being sent to the Governor via some Indian carpenters
going to work at St. Augustine. The Governor had originally requested
chickens, hides, tallow, and yarn. At some point Zuniga sent 500 yards
of cloth to San Luis to barter for corn, tallow, hogs, beans, chickens,
deer skins, and wheat (Boyd et al. 1951). Jonathan Dickinson in his
journey on the Atlantic coast of Florida between 1696 and 1697 encoun
tered Indians going to St. Augustine to trade ambergris (1975). Indians
brought produce to the market at St. Augustine. Their wares included
cassina, sassafrass, deer and buffalo skins, nut oil, bear grease, tobacco,
canoes, rope, fishnet, dried turkeys, fresh fish, and game (Bushnell
1978c). These goods were either bartered or sold on credit. Yards of
cloth amd ambergris were used as units of exchange also (Bushnell 1978c).
Indians contributed to the Spanish economy in other ways as well.
They owed tithes to the religious community and tribute payments to the
Crown (Bushnell 1978c). These were paid either in produce or in a labor
draft. Indians at Apalachee were under orders to supply sixty batches
of cassina each month to the Spanish personnel stationed in that province.
The Franciscans sold excess produce they obtained in this way either in

39
St. Augustine or, preferably, In Havana. The governors used the tribute
in kind as rations for the soldiers, or sold it at public auction. The
labor of Indians was put to use either in the public fields, on fortress
maintenance, or in private fields. Indians not only tilled the fields,
but guarded the crops^against crows and wild animals (Bushnell 1978c).
Service Indians were fed and housed during their stay at St. Augustine.
There is some suspicion that trade with the Indians was not always
equitable or voluntary (Lanning 1935; Tepaske 1964).'.In a report from
San Luis, the administrative center of Apalachee located at the western
end of the mission chain across the northern peninsula, an Indian cacique,
or chief, complained that the wife of the deputy governor had taken fish
and milk from the Indians without compensation (Boyd et al. 1951). The
labor tax also was subject to abuse (Lanning 1935; Gannon 1965).
To compound their problems the St. Augustine population had to
compete with French, British, and Cuban traders as well as the local
Franciscans for access to the Indian's produce. The Franciscans carefully
guarded the Indians from official requisitions, preferring to sell Indian
products in Havana, where these commanded a better price. Cubans came to
Florida to fish andto trade with the Apalachee ranches for produce, deer
skins, and wild turkeys (Bolton and Ross 1968). Traders from Havana also
dealt with Indians on the southern tip of the Florida peninsula. In 1685
one collection of 185 deer skins and 200 beaver and otter pelts which had
been destined for British markets in Carolina was captured (Lanning 1935).
The British merchants also traded with the Atlantic coast Indians of
southern Florida for ambergris and goods salvaged from Spanish shipwrecks

40
(Bushnell 1978c). The French traded with the Georgia coastal Indians for
pelts and sassafrass in the 16th Century and with the Apalachee Indians
in the 18th Century.
Soldiers supplemented their incomes by working at trades and pro
ducing food in their own fields and gardens. Trades included burning
charcoal, fishing, weaving fishing nets, building boats, rounding up
cattle, and hauling firewood (Bushnell 1978c). They cultivated small
plots of land outside the town which were assigned to them, and had
access to the wooded commons. The garrison personnel was essentially
urban and ill-suited for such work. Efforts to produce wheat and other
Iberian crops were particularly doomed to failure. In order to encourage
local food production Governor Mendez Canzo ordered his soldiers into the
fields and constructed both a mill and a market place in 1598 (Manucy
1962). Time and manpower were lacking for large scale plantings, however
(Otto and Lewis 1974), and Indian predations on crops and soldiers made
such work hazardous during some periods. Maps as early as 1597 show field
crops being grown north of the fort and between Maria Sanchez Creek and
the San Sebastian River (Fig. 3; Chatelain 1951:Fig. 2, 3, 4).
Some produce and 1ivestock were grown within the town itself. Maps
show gardens and orchards growing on house lots (Jeffries 1762; Chatelain
1941:Fig. 2). Dickinson reported that such crops as figs, grapes, oranges,
pomegranates, mulberries, squash, radishes, kidney beans, onions, garlic,
lettuce, peppers, cabbage, and sweet potatoes were grown in these gardens
and orchards (1975). Chickens (Gallus gall us) and pigs (Sus scrofa)
roamed the streets of the town (Boniface 1971). In 1602, Governor

41
Mendez Canzo complained of the cattle (Bos taurus) running loose in the
streets (Arnade 1959). '
A major advance in food production coincided with the lull in Indian
hostilities between 1650 and 1700. During this time cattle ranches
flourished in the interior of the Florida peninsula, particularly around
the area of present-day Gainesville. Some ranches also existed along
the St. Johns River and around San Luis in the panhandle of Florida
'(Arnade 1965; Bushnell 1978b). These ranches were operated by the small
cluster of landed criollo families, although'such large-scale land owner
ship was prohibited in Florida (Lyon T977a). Many of these ranchers
preferred to ship their produce to The better markets in Havana, using
the Suwannee and St. Marks Rivers as outlets. Between 1680 and 1687,
Governor Marques Cabrera attempted to stop this trade by ordering that
all cattle be processed through a slaughterhouse he had built at St.
Augustine. A tax was levied on the cattle as well. Governor Quiroga
in 1693 even attempted to blockade the Suwannee River with debris to stop
the'Havana cattle trade. The era of the cattle ranches coincided with
the most bustling and prosperous period in Spanish Florida as a whole in
conjunction with the construction of the coquina Castillo de San Marcos
at St. Augustine (Bushnell 1978b). It is interest!ng'To note that in the
1680's this abundant supply of fresh meat supplanted the usual salted or
dried meat in the soldier's rations. The soldiers complained of this
(Bushnell 1978c), perhaps because fresh meat did not keep well in the
'days prior to refrigeration.
- Although the only legal retail outlet in St. Augustine was the
market place and the royal storehouse at the town plaza (Boniface 1971),

42
there were other retail facilities as well. The market, houses for fish
and meat vendors, as well as a grinding mill were established by Governor
Mendez Canzo in 1597. The market was a place to barter produce (Arnade
1959). Don Pedro Sanchez Grinan reported that between 1731 and 1741 as
many as twelve stores were operating (1757). These sold rum, wine,
vinegar, sugar, tobacco, spices, lard, soap, suet candles, silk, wool,
linen, and ribbons. John J. Tepaske, referring to English traders in the
18th Century, says that these merchants were driving local Spanish shop
keepers out of business (1964). Criollos, as hidalgos or gentlemen, were
not supposed to be merchants (Bushnell 1978a). This did not prevent
many criollos from trading ambergris and cattle (Bushnell 1978b), and
one even operated two stores in St. Augustine in the late 1600's, one of
which was in his home (Gillaspie 1961). At least one commercial fisher
man existed in the town in the 17th Century since such an individual was
on salary to supply fish to the laborers working on the Castillo de San
Marcos in the late 1600's (Chatelain 1941). Commercial fishermen and
hunters existed in the 1500's as well (Lyon 1977b). A soldier's partner
ship in the 16th Century sold venison in the town (Lyon 1977b). A
tannery and slaughterhouse were present and in the 1750's one of the
butchers was an Englishman (Solana 1960). The tongue of the slaughtered
cattle was reserved for the governor (Bushnell 1978c).
It is not known what volume of food consumed at St. Augustine was
sold or exchanged at the market, purchased from Indian vendors, secured
through private agriculture, hunting, fishing or collecting efforts, or
acquired through barter and private exchange systems. While the evidence
is tentative, the following assumptions will be made: that there was a

43
public market where produce could be purchased or bartered; that there
were a few shops also; and that there were a few people, who may have
been Indians, willing to serve as hunting and fishing specialists.
In addition to the above efforts to obtain needed goods, the Spanish
employed another strategy as well. Throughout almost the entire 200 year
occupation, complaints from the presidio were regular and consistent.
Almost every governor wrote reports to the Crown complaining of short or
unsatisfactory rations and requesting additional assistance from the
Crown both in cash and in the form of reprimands to New Spain officials.
At one point an official letter wrote that the population "ate herbs, fish,
and other scum and vermin. .."(Conner 1925:99). After British seizure
of the situado ship in 1712, Governor, Don Francisco de Coreles y Martinez
reported that the population;ate rodents, dogs, cats, and horses (Tepaske
1964). While these complaints were persistent, they did not usually
produce the desired result. ;
British Economics
As at St. Augustine, most of the residents at Frederica were expected
to do military duty; however, the colony was also expected to be self-
supporting. The roster of Frederica residents, and their trades, indicates
that the colonists were basically self-sufficient in craft skills, much
as St. Augustine had been originally (Saye and Coulter 1949). There were
at least three shopkeepers included among the colonists, but few farmers
(Saye and Coulter 1949). The settlers were given small grants of land,
agricultural tools, and seed. Efforts to produce small fruit and
vegetable gardens as well as field crops were successful. Most of the
British townsmen did not farm, but preferred to rely upon the Salzburger

44
farmers for produce (Deagan 1972). Using Frederica and Savannah as head
quarters British merchants James Spaulding and William Panton traded
extensively with Indians, exchanging firearms, trade goods, and liquor
for deer skins. It was trade such as this that was so annoying to the
Spaniards at this time. Frederica was not entirely independent, however,
and as late as 1741 was still dependent upon Georgia trustees for rations
of food (Bonner 1964). The period between 1737 and 1741 was a particu
larly trying one as bad weather caused a series of crop failures (Bonner
1964).
The British Period at St. Augustine was marked more by military
activity than by economic prosperity. Recognizing that the town, with
its increasing population could not possibly feed the refugees produced
by the American Revolution, the English Crown supplied food for these
people (Wright 1971). The British residents continued to use the small
backyard gardens established by the Spaniards earlier, and also cultivated
plots of land outside the town (Wright 1971). There were merchants in the
town, and some large landowners who produced rice, indigo, naval stores,
and barrel staves for the export market. Due to favorable Indian treaties
many colonists lived outside the fortifications as far away as the St.
Johns River (Bartram 1955; Covington 1961). Traders such as Spaulding
and Panton (originally from Frederica) continued the Indian trade with
posts in the interior although raids by the Indians on these posts were
not unknown (Bartram 1955). Local butchers not only maintained their
own cattle herds, but also purchased cattle from Georgia (Wright 1975).
Indian hunters were employed on at least one plantation on the St. Johns
River (Bartram 1955).

45
; Discussion
In terms of Spanish and British subsistence patterns, several points
are of importance. One is that the Spanish population at St. Augustine
and the British population at Frederica and, to a lesser extent, at St.
Augustine during the British Period, were essentially military in
orientation. Among the Spanish residents almost every individual was a
part of the military or civilian bureaucracy, a dependent of it, or a
member of the religious community. While the British populations included
some merchants and large landowners, they also were basically military
communities. This fact, in conjunction with the urban orientation of the
population, left the colonists ill-prepared for efficient food production.
The second observation is that during most of the First Spanish
Period it was dangerous for Spanish residents to venture far from the
fort (Tepaske 1964). Essentially St. Augustine was the Florida colony.
Only during the mid-1600's and again in the last decades of the First -
Spanish Period was the interior a place of relative safety!- This contrasts
sharply with the comparative security of the British frontier where the
^colonists could exploit the resources of their environment more peaceably.
In addition to the hazards of the interior, the Spanish residents at
St. Augustine had difficulties with their supply network. Trade with the
Indians must have been tricky, with watchful'missionaries anxious to
protect their charges, the Britons eager to supplant the Spaniards as
allies and trading partners, and the Indians given to periodic revolts
cagainst Spanish control. The situado was undependable. Illicit trade
with British merchants was subject to the vagaries of international
politics, pirates, Spanish official seizures, and acts of God. While

46
British ships were not immune to accidents on the high seas, supply lines
to Frederica and British St. Augustine seem to have been more secure.
After all most of the pirates that plagued the Spanish shipping lane were
British subjects.
Guided by Liebig's "Law of the Minimum," it is predicted that the
Spanish population at St. Augustine did not simply starve in the face of
the irregular supply routes. Liebig's "Law" states that a population's
adaptation must be toward those elements which are most important to
survival, but available in limited quantities. Adpatation must be made
to a complex of limiting factors. If an environment is subject to a
severe drought during the span of a generation on a regular and routine
basis, the population, to survive, adapts to the drought, not to the
intervening years of plenty. The Spanish population, to have survived,
must have been adapted to an irregular situado rather than to a prompt
one. This adaptation included trade with British merchants and Indians,
in conjunction with some production of food locally. The faunal record
should indicate reliance upon the animal resources obtained through
these activities.
Based on Liebig's "Law," it is doubted that the Spanish claims to
have eaten unusual food items will be supported in the faunal record. It
is expected that the quantity of dog (Cam's familiaris), cat (Felis
domesticus), rodent, and horse (Equus caballus) remains in Spanish and
British collections will be about the same. Periods of starvation caused
by a failure of every strategy would have been rare and would be camou
flaged in the record by the intervening years in which the strategy
employed functioned successfully.

47
Due to the hazards of venturing away from the fort during much of
the First Spanish Period, the faunal collections will probably contain
little wild terrestrial fauna, or cattle (Bos taurus). Reliance upon the
nearby marine resources, and upon pigs (Sus scrofa) and chickens (Gallus
gall us), which could have been raised in the backyards and streets of the
town, may be predicted. In the 17th Century faunal collection from the
Spanish occupation, cattle may be more prominent, reflecting the presence
of cattle ranches in the interior and the relative safety of that region.
The British, both at Frederica and at St. Augustine, enjoyed unham
pered access to the area around their settlement. They were, therefore,
free to exploit wild terrestrial fauna if they wished, and to raise
cattle with only minor interference from Indian predations.
The military and urban composition of all three components, Spanish
St. Augustine, British Frederica, and British St. Augustine, should be
reflected in the faunal samples also. The species exploited should be
those which could be captured near the settlements, with a minimum of
time expenditure due to the need to resolve the scheduling conflict
between military duties and subsistence activities. Highly seasonal
resources which might conflict with official duties would not be a regular
item in the diet of any of these components. Emphasis can be expected
to be placed on species which could be caught in large numbers, or using
untended devices, during off-duty hours.
The predictions expressed in these last three paragraphs are
slightly contradictory. The Spanish and British components at St.
Augustine may be similar to each other for two different reasons, and
it is not altogether clear how to distinguish the valid explanation for

48
each sample. If the British Period component at St. Augustine is more
similar to the Spanish one at St. Augustine than to the British Frederica
collection, this may indicate that both the Spanish and British diets
used immediately available resources due to scheduling conflicts rather
than to restricted access to the interior, which would not have been a
factor in the British adaptation. Both explanations, scheduling conflicts
and restricted access to the interior may have been influential in the
Spanish adaptation. This question will be returned to in Chapter 5 when
the resources of the environment are discussed. It may have been un
necessary for either the Spanish or the British garrisons to venture more
than a mile or two from the confines of the fort to obtain any of their
animal resources other than cattle. If that is the case the Spaniards
at St. Augustine could have exploited local resources just as safely as
did the Britons and the Spanish adaptation will best be explained in
terms of scheduling conflicts.

CHAPTER 4
CULTURAL AFFILIATION AND FOODWAYS
In addition to social status, historical events, demography, and
economics, the subsistence strategies followed by the Spanish and British
households being studied here may have been influenced by traditional
Old World foodways. Although the origins of the populations at
Frederica and St. Augustine were mixed, the predominant traditions would
have been either from England or from Spain. These two foodways will be
discussed here. Recognizing that many of the British Period residents
at St. Augustine would also have been more correctly described as
American colonists rather than British citizens, some foodways of the
American colonies will also be explored as they have been examined in
zooarchaeological studies. As will be seen, these materials have little
value in predicting the subsistence strategies observed from the faunal
collections of Frederica and St. Augustine beyond the initial observation
that domestic animals predominate.
Traditional British Foodways
Since very little information is available on traditional British
foodways of the 17th and 18th Centuries, emphasis will be placed here
upon a single source, 'A Solid Suffiency1: An Ethnography of Yeoman
Foodways in Stuart England, written as a dissertation by Jay Allan
Anderson in 1971. This excellent work represents a synthesis of primary
materials dealing with the 17th Century English yeoman/husbandman class.
49

50
According to Anderson, there are virtually no other works on pre
industrial English food habits which deal with this material. Conse
quently this section will be confined to a summary of some of Anderson's
findings as they relate to food habits at Frederica or St. Augustine.
Two reservations about the adequacy of this treatment must be noted.
First, Anderson deals with basically rural food habits, whereas most of
the British residents at Frederica and St. Augustine had an urban back
ground. Secondly, he is dealing principally with the 17th Century and
the present study of British foodways is placed in the 18th Century.
However, Anderson himself addresses the first objection by indicating
that even those few people who did live in' market towns and cities in
the 17th Century kept barnyard animals on their lots, which also included
a garden and an orchard (1971:20). "The majority of these part-time
farmers were craftsmen who because their skills were long and difficult
to learn gradually became specialists" (1971:5). This description might
well fit the specialists that joined Oglethorpe's Frederica expedition.
In fact, Anderson equates the urban artisans, craftsmen, and tradesmen
as the urban counterparts of the rural husbandmen and yeomen (1971:15).
Perhaps many of Oglethorpe's people had a similar background. The second
objection is addressed simply by questioning how much change would have
occurred in yeoman foodways between the 1600's and the early 1700's.
The procurement technique employed by the English husbandman was
mixed farming incorporating locally available products and emphasizing
self-sufficiency with a little surplus to be used in trade or converted
to cash. Most of the cash crops produced were cheese, barley, poultry,
and eggs (1971:27). While field crops such as wheat, barley, oats, rye,

51
and legumes were important in this strategy, so also were garden vege
tables and orchards. Apparently few wild fruits or herbs were used in
the diet (1971:45).
Domestic stock included horses, oxen, dairy cattle, goats, sheep,
swine, rabbits, poultry, pigeons, and bees (1971:58-77). Other fowl
included geese, ducks, capons, hens, and "thirty tame birds usually
baked in pies" (1971:59). The dairy herd was the most valuable and
productive of these since they produced a variety of milk products.
Almost no cattle were bred for meat and usually only those animals not
expected to last the winter were slaughtered. Cattle butchered in this
manner were typically at least 10 years of age (1971:187). Beef was not
a major food source (1971:66). Sheep were a basic source of meat, al
though they also supplied milk, milk products, and wool. The most
significant source of meat was swine (1971:68). Some of these were
confined to the yard, but most roamed the wooded lowlands in the nearby
commons. The yeomen of Stuart England were not blind to the good yield
for minimal effort that pigs provided. Goats also were allowed to fend
for themselves, but were not a major food source.
Wild mammals, birds, and fish constituted a small, but important,
part of the diet (1971:77). Wild birds were usually snared, but some
were also shot with fowling pieces. Birds included wild goose, lark,
plover, teal, mallard, quail, woodcock, partridge, and pheasant. Wild
hares were trapped both as a food item and to eliminate a crop pest.
Deer were rare. It was a symbol of the New World's bounty that so many
deer could be hunted. Yeomen also fished, using eel weirs, herring nets,
or gaffs. Most seafood was purchased at market, however. Seafood was a
dietary staple due to "fish days," which were retained after the

52
Reformation. Fish were more frequently consumed in the cities than in
the country since meat was more expensive to purchase in town (1971:80).
Over one hundred different kinds of fish were regularly consumed, either
fresh or salted. These included ray, mullet, skate, sole, and whiting.
Most of the produce of the farms had to be preserved. Mammals,
birds, and fish were usually preserved by salting, either wet or dry.
Beef and pork were the basic preserved meats, with pork as the most
important. Ham and bacon were first wet or dry salted and then exposed
to slow drying or smoking. Smaller cuts of meat, as well as fish and
birds were often potted. Potted meat was salted and/or cooked and then
sealed with congealed fat. Pickled meat could either be "collared" or
"souced." Collared meat was first deboned and then allowed to sit in
an herb brew until needed. It was best kept only about a week. Souced
meat was much the same except that it included wine and the product
could be kept longer. Mutton was usually not brined (1971:68).
Food preparation techniques included a variety of different methods.
Bread, cheese, and ale figured prominantly at most meals, although dinner
usually included roasts, stews, hot salads, and eggs. Vegetables often
were consumed raw. Roasts of beef, pork, poultry, mutton, kid, lamb,
and veal were popular, but boiled foods were more common since they
required less attention. Meat or fish was consumed in some form every
day. "Spoon-meats," the name for soups, gruels, and porridges were made
with cereal grains and perhaps some spices and dried fruits. Rice, an
imported item, was also popular and considered a staple. Pies were
eaten in large quantities, and contained almost any flesh. To quote
Anderson on one type of pie "the 'battalion' pie, included almost any
thing that happened to be perched or swimming around" (1971:198). Tartes

53
contained fruit, custards, or vegetables. Stews included meat, while
pottages contained vegetables and broth. Interestingly, the omelette or
quelquechose was popular. The idea had just recently been imported from
continental Europe (1971:227). Eggs were also consumed in fried, hard
boiled, roasted, and baked form.
Traditional Spanish Foodwa.ys
Traditional Spanish foodways will also be summarized from a single
source, although for a different reason than given above. There are a
number of interesting sources available dealing with foodways of the
Iberian peninsula. These were consulted by Stephen L. Cumbaa in his
dissertation Patterns of Resource Use and Cross-Cultural Dietary Change
in the Spanish Colonial Period written in 1975. He cited this material
in order to demonstrate for the 18th Century Spanish adaptation at St.
Augustine what I hope to demonstrate for the entire First Spanish Period
as well as the British occupations at Frederica and St. Augustine: that
traditional foodways were modified to meet New World conditions. His
position is well supported and it seems unnecessary to expand upon his
work. His contribution will be summarized here for the convenience of
the reader, who may not have Cumbaa's dissertation at hand.
Many of the more popular dietary items in Spain were those also
popular in England. The traditional Iberian field crops included wheat,
barley, oats, rye, as well as legumes. Fruits such as oranges, figs, and
apples were also prominantly used. Maize was grown after its introduction
from the New World and quickly became a major food crop, supplanting rice.
Sheep were the most important animal produced. Although principally
grown for wool, mutton, milk, and cheese were also consumed from the

54
animals. Cattle were primarily draft animals, with milk and meat
consumed after the animal had served its time. Goats likewise were
present, but in small quantities. Young horses, called "red deer" were
commonly eaten, as were dogs in some parts of Spain. Swine were present
in small numbers, but were not allowed to forage on their own as in
England. From these domestic species, pork was the most expensive meat,
followed by beef and lastly by mutton. Fowl had a price similar to that
for beef.
Wild mammals, birds, and fish were not a major component of the
diet generally. Hunting was a marginal activity, with hares and deer
being the primary game species. Deer were protected by royal decree,
but may have been hunted at least by the nobility. Birds, especially
partridges, pheasants, and cormorants, were hunted. Young birds were
caught on the nest for consumption. Most fish were obtained by
commercial fishermen in the Atlantic and Meriterranean. Species
included grouper, pompano, cod, tuna, sole, mullet, drum, and shark.
Non-commercial fishing was done by hook and line on the interior mountain
streams, which in Spain are rare, and using cast nets. Fish sold more
cheaply than did domestic meats.
The most popular food preparation techniques included a boiled stew,
puchero or olla podrida, and a cold soup or broth, gazpacho. Puchero and
its more elaborate form, olla podrida, included a combination of meats
and vegetables boiled in a covered earthenware pot. Roasting was also
popular, as were frying and broiling.

55
Old World Foodways
If the traditional patterns of animal use described above were
transferred to the New World as a complete complex several patterns
could be expected to be observed in the faunal record. The British
faunal pattern would include mostly swine remains, followed by sheep and
a few aged cattle. Goat might also appear in limited numbers. There
would be a few domestic rabbits, wild hare, and an occasional deer. A
wide variety of domestic fowl should be recovered, as well as a large
number of wild fowl of various species. Fish would be quite common in
the collections, with marine species being most abundant.
The Spanish pattern would be quite different. Sheep would dominate
the collection, followed by cattle and pigs. Some domestic fowl such as
chickens, pigeons, and ducks would be present. Wild species such as deer
and wild hare might be present in small numbers; but wild birds, particu
larly young ones, would be fairly common. Fish would be common also, and
be mostly pelagic species. Cumbaa's research demonstrated that this
pattern was modified in response to New World conditions.
Historic North American Foodways
A number of faunal collections will be reviewed here. A variety of
geographical locations are represented, but all date to the pre-Revolu-
tionary period, and most coincide with the French and Indian War. Both
domestic and military occupations are represented. All should follow
the British traditional foodways extrapolated from Anderson's study if
these traditional foodways were transferred unmodified to the New World.
It should be noted at the outset that this comparison is handicapped
by a methodological problem common to zooarchaeology. There is little

56
comparability in reporting techniques. Some use the Minimum Number of
Individuals technique (MNI), others refer to bone count or bone weight,
still others present their data as pounds of edible meat, but their
techniques of determining pounds of edible meat are not standard. This
problem will be further discussed in the chapter on methods and materials.
As the moment there appears to be no way to resolve the issue. Emphasis
in this analysis will be upon MNI where that is available since the
technique by which this is derived is fairly uniform among faunal
analyists. Where MNI is not available, emphasis will be placed upon the
species utilized rather than upon the proportion of species contributing
edible meat.
Fort Loudoun, in eastern Tennessee, was a British fort used
during the French and Indian War (Parmalee I960; Bowen 1976). The
faunal assemblage indicates that cattle were most heavily used, followed
by pig and deer. There were no sheep or goats identified in the
collection. Some waterfowl were identified, but emphasis was placed
upon the domestic chicken and turkey. There were also passenger
pigeons identified from the site. Some fish, particularly freshwater
catfish, were identified from the sample. There was also a small
collection of aquatic turtles, as well as bear, beaver, and woodchuck.
At Fort Ligonier, a French and Indian War fort located in western
Pennsylvania, domestic animals contributed most of the MNI (Guilday 1970),
19% of which were sheep and 19% of which were cattle. Pigs represented
only 5% of the individuals. Wild fauna contributed 40% of the individuals.
Most of these wild animals were mammals (26%), with some birds, reptiles,

57
and two fish. Deer contributed 13% of the MNI, but bear, fox, bobcat,
squirrel, and rabbit were also present.
Fort Pelham, a third French and Indian War fortification, is located
on the northern border of Massachusetts (Bowen 1976). At this fort, there
were no sheep at all. Cow and pig contributed 40% and 49% respectively
of the individuals. It is not known what other species may have been
utilized.
Mott Farm, a farm site in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, was occupied in
the mid-18th Century (Bowen 1975, 1976). Pigs constituted 40% of the
individuals identified from the faunal collection, cattle contributed
36% of the individuals, and sheep 24% of the individuals. By comparing
the ages of the sheep, Joanne Bowen concluded that sheep were raised
primarily for wool, and incidentially for sale or consumption. Over 80%
of the cattle in the collection were older than three years of age, which
indicated to Bowen that cattle were used as draft and dairy animals and
slaughtered after a period of useful service.
Joanne Bowen, from whose studies (1975, 1976) the above sites have
been summarized, concluded (1976) that the predominance of domestic
animals at the sites reflected the basic foodway pattern in England,
that the changing proportions of domestic animal use at the four sites
indicated local, regional variation in that basic tradition. The
frontier Ft. Loudoun materials, on which more information was available,
indicate some significant departures from the yeomen pattern described
by Anderson (1971), particularly in the use of an extensive range of
wild mammals.

58
Several samples of faunal materials from Fort Mi chiimackinac have
been analyzed, first by Charles E. Cl el and (1970) and recently a new
collection was studied by Gary Shapiro (1978a and b). FortMichlimackinac,
located at the Straits of Mackinac, Michigan, was occupied by the French
between 1715 and 1760. British soldiers manned the post from 1760 until
1780. Cleland found that both the French and British occupants relied
heavily upon domestic animals. Pig was the only domestic animal
identified by Cleland from the French Features studied, whereas the
British Features also contained cattle and sheep, in that order. Bear,
snowshoe hare, and beaver were found in both components, as well as a
wide variety of wild birds and fish. The French population at the fort,
according to Cleland, used a greater variety of mammals than did the
British occupants, who used a greater variety of fish.
While Cleland interprets the differences between French and British
collections to be quite distinct, I would interpret them to be fairly
similar, except in the use of cattle and sheep. Certainly it would not
be possible to confuse either of these collections with those discussed
by Bowen (1975, 1976) or Anderson (1971). The British adaptation at
Michlimackinac as revealed in the faunal collection studied by Cleland
supports the hypothesis being tested here that the British colonists did
not transfer their barnyard complex to the New World unmodified. There
is very little similarity with the pattern that would be expected from
Anderson's study (1971).
Gary Shapiro directed his study to British adaptations at
Michlimackinac, testing the assumption made by Cleland and others that
the British were "transplanted Englishmen" unwilling to modify their
traditional foodways to a new environment (1978a and b). Comparing

59
faunal materials from three archaeological Features, Shapiro found that
the British collections followed a seasonal round exploiting wild species,
indicating that the British colonists adapted their foodways to a schedule
similar to that of local Indians, with account being taken for the more
sophisticated technological level of the British residents. It might be
added here to Shapiro's analysis that the British adaptation to the
seasonal availability of resources appears to be similar to that of the
French occupants in the same location.
Turning now to faunal reports from colonial sites in the southeast,
Henry M. Miller (1978) has analyzed two late-17th Century Virginia
households, Pettus Plantation and Utopia Cottage. These two sites,
adjacent to each other on the James River, were very similar to one
another in their faunal use, in spite of documentary and archaeological
evidence of different social class (Chapter 2). Important to this
discussion is that at both sites swine constituted a plurality of the
individuals, followed by cattle, while sheep were a minor component.
Deer, raccoon, opossum, squirrel, and rabbit were also used, as were
chicken, goose, and turkey. Catfish, gar, striped bass, and marine red
drum were identified along with a few aquatic and terrestrial turtles.
The Pettus Plantation was sold in 1700 to James Bray II (Miller 1978)
and the faunal materials from one of Bray's wells has been analyzed
(Barber 1976). Barber discusses his materials in terms of usable meat.
However, to make his material comparable to that discussed above, his
presentation will be reviewed in terms of MNI, which will alter the
interpretation he made of the data. Of the domestic species, sheep were
the most abundant, followed by pigs and cattle. Cattle provided the bulk
of the edible meat followed by pigs and sheep, which were about equal

60
contributors. Goats were also present. Several of the cattle were
apparently under three years of age. Deer, raccoon, and opossum are
absent from the collection, although a large number of wild rabbits were
present as well as a bear and a muskrat. There are a number of birds in
the collection, but not the variety of barnyard fowl that might have
been expected from Anderson's discussion (1971). Some freshwater fish
were used, and several aquatic and terrestrial turtles.
From Williamsburg, Virginia, a similar pattern of species use
emerges. Williamsburg faunal analysis was done by Stanley J. Olsen and
recently published by Audrey Noel Hume (1978). Although proportional
contributions are not known, cattle, pigs, and sheep were reported from
all sites. Mutton was less popular according to Noel Hume than was pork
or beef (1978). In addition deer, rabbit, opossum, squirrel, and otter
were consumed, as well as a variety of wild and domestic birds. The
Williamsburg fauna also included marine fish such as black drum, sturgeon,
shad, and catfish. Turtles were esteemed as were shellfish (Noel Hume 1978)
Discussion
It is clear from the above discussion that, just as Bowen had
concluded on a smaller sample of sites (1975, 1976), the British
adaptation in the New World was a highly varied one,.and not altogether
similar to the one which would have been predicted from Anderson's study
(1971). Just as Cumbaa concluded from Spanish New World materials (1975),
it appears that the British subsistence pattern in the New World was
adapted to new, local environmental conditions. Cultural affiliation,
that is traditional Old World foodways, had little to do with British
foodways in the New World. Clearly domestic animals did not buffer the

61
colonists from the need to adapt to new environmental factors. Efforts
made by the early colonists to transfer the English barnyard animal
complex to the New World did not entirely succeed, although a few sites
discussed above appear to conform to the Old World pattern more closely
than others. The differences observed particularly in the British,
French, and Indian War fort samples, where temporal and cultural factors
are constant, probably reflect adaptations to local environmental factors.
Using the New World British colonial foodways as a guide, a series
of predictions will be tested using the Frederica and British Period
St. Augustine faunal collections. First, it appears that either cattle
or swine will be the dominant species in the collections, with preference
to.cattle biomass. This will be in contradiction to the yeoman pattern
in which swine predominates. Wild terrestrial species were used, but not
extensively. Deer were the most popular wild species. There was a
wide range of wild birds, but not of domestic ones, a departure from the
yeoman pattern. Fish were rare (Barber 1976; Miller 1978), another
departure from the yeoman pattern. Turtles, a class not mentioned by
Anderson, were included as a minor component of the species used. It
is further predicted that the trend seen here, for British subsistence
patterns to reflect local conditions, will continue to be a factor. To
this extent, the British and the 18th Century Spanish faunal collections
from St. Augustine may be quite similar to each other, just as the
British, French, and Indian collections from Ft. Michlimackinac are.
These predictions may be refined in the following discussion as it is
seen how the British residents at St. Augustine and Frederica adapted
to those environments and the Spanish population adapted to the environs
of St. Augustine.

CHAPTER 5
ANIMAL RESOURCES OF THE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN
In the first chapter, four factors were identified as being
influential in the formation of Spanish and British subsistence strategies
Social class, political and social environment, and cultural affiliation
have been reviewed. In this chapter the last factor, animal resources,
will be considered. The Atlantic Coastal Plain and the estuarine
environments occupied by Frederica and St. Augustine represent a series
of intergrading biotopes. These will be described in terms of their
proximity to St. Augustine and Frederica. The major portion of the
chapter will deal with local wild and domestic animal resources. Habits,
habitats, seasonal occurrences, and size of the species indentified from
Frederica and St. Augustine will be discussed, along with information
about colonial use of these species where possible. As will be seen,
all of the species used at these two sites could have been encountered
within a mile or two of either Frederica or St. Augustine.
The Atlantic Coastal Plain
The Atlantic Coastal Plain (Fig. 2) is the old coastal region of
the southeastern United States. Its northern and western edge is
defined by the Fall Line, a Mesozoic Era shoreline (Johnson et al. 1974).
The coastal plain was deposited by a series of marine advances during
the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods. The soils are sands and sandy clays
of marine origin which are usually acidic. They possess a low native
fertility due to excessive leaching.
62

63
In Georgia the climate found on the coastal plain is a mild one
(Johnson et al. 1974). The average annual temperature is 60-70F.
Daily temperature maxima in July and August range within the 80's and
90'sF. Average winter temperatures are around 43F, with occasional
winter freezes. The coastal islands may be somewhat cooler than the
mainland. The rainfall pattern is for a summer rainy season, followed
by a winter drought. Average annual rainfall is about 53 inches.
Hurricanes in the late summer affect the Georgia coast about every ten
years, between August and October. A major hurricane was recorded in
1752.
The climate at St. Augustine is similar to that in Georgia. It has
been described as humid-subtropical (Mehta and Jones 1977). Most of the
precipitation falls in July and September, with spring and fall droughts
and a mean annual rainfall of 47 inches. The average annual temperature
is 69F, with daily means ranging from 81F in July to 57F in January
(Dunkle 1955). St. Augustine experiences about one hurricane every
seven years.
The Atlantic coastal plain is a low, flat region of well drained,
gently rolling hills and poorly drained flatwoods extending east and
south of the fall line to the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico from
southeastern Virginia to eastern Texas, excluding the southern end of
Florida (Johnson et al. 1974). On well drained soil the dominant plant
species are long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly pine (P_. teada),
and several species of oak (Quercus sp.). On poorly drained soil the
dominant species are long-leaf pine and slash pine (IP. el 1 ioti) with a
dense ground cover of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), gall berry (Ilex
glabra), and wire grass (Aristida stricta). This is the community

64
referred to as the Pine Barrens sector by Lewis Larson (1970). The long-
leaf pine is adapted to a humid subtropical climate of mild winters, hot
summers, high rainfall, and frequent ground fires. Today the long-leaf
pine community is much less extensive and formidable than it was in the
past.
Other biotopes also are found on the coastal plain. Where the soil
is very poorly drained pond pines (P_. sertina) dominate. Slash pine
(P_. el 1ioti) is the common member of the Pine Flatwoods community along
the coast of Florida, while long-leaf pines are less common on the coast
than they are further inland. At St. Augustine, sand pine (P_. clausa)
together with evergreen species of Lyonia and Quercus forms a scrub
community that is common on the dunes of ancient shore lines that form
sandy ridges back from the present coast. Sand pine do not occur on the
coast (Simons pers. comm.).
The Southern Mixed Hardwood community is dominated by oaks (Quercus
sp.), although the composition of this community can be quite diverse.
Live oak (£. virginiana), laurel oak (£. laurifolia), sweet gum
(Liquidamber styraciflua), magnolia (Magno!ia grandiflora), red bay
(Persea borbonia), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), cabbage palm (Sabe!
palmetto), and Florida elm (Ulmus americana floridana) are the more
common species. Near St. Augustine this forest type is found bordering
freshwater creeks and floodplain swamps or in low, fertile areas near
the coast. Wooded swamps are composed principally of pond cypress
(Taxodium ascendens), swamp tpelo (Nyssa sylvatica), and/or red maple
(Acer rubrum). The coastal plain is traversed by many sluggish, meander
ing streams and dotted by innumberable swamps, ponds, and lakes where
these latter communities can be found.

65
Another important terrestrial community is one caused by human
activity. Disturbed habitats are found in urban centers, as garden plots,
and as agricultural fields. While the plant species found in these areas
are largely selected by human agents, the wild animal populations exploit
ing them are self-selected. Usually the animals are attracted either to
the crops grown there, to the prey species attracted to the crops, or to
the hedgerows bordering the fields.
An, important topographic feature of the coastal plain is a series
of offshore islands known as sea, or barrier, islands. While a chain
of these islands stretches from New Jersey to Texas, the segment between
North Island, South Carolina, and Anastasia Island, Florida, shares a
similar natural history (Johnson et al. 1974). The Georgia islands,
such as St. Simons Island where Frederica is located, are separated
from the mainland by extensive marshland, tidal streams, and sound
systems (Fig. 4). Anastasia Island is separated from the mainland by
less than half a mile (Fig. 3). Nonetheless, between Anastasia Island
and the mainland lies a rich estuarine environment containing many of
the same features as at St. Simons Island. Low sandy beaches border
the seaward edges of the islands. Elevation on the islands is usually
less than 25 feet, although individual dunes may be much higher.
The major communities on these islands are maritime oak forests
and pine forests. The oak forest is dominated by live oak (Q. virginiana)
with cabbage palms (Sabe! palmetto) and a low woody understory. Pine
forests are found on better drained portions:of the islands and may be
the by-product of old agricultural clearings (Johnson et al. 1974).
Between the beach and the first dune crest there is a salt spray
tolerant community of grasses and herbs characterized by sea oats

66
(Unila paniculata). At St. Simons Island, the pine community is
composed principally of loblolly pine (£. taeda) with some slash pine
(_P. el 1 ioti) or long-leaf pine (_P. palustris) (Johnson et al. 1974).
Anastasia Island at St. Augustine is vegetated by a saw-palmetto scrub
on the highest elevations, with a live oak-palmetto biotope bordering
this (Deagan 1976). There is a mildly brackish marsh dominated by clump
cordgrass (Spartina bakeri) on the southern part of the Island.
Michael Dahlberg has defined two major habitats for marine organisms
(1975). The inshore area includes the waters along the beaches and in
the estuaries. The offshore region encompasses the continental shelf.
The inshore beach waters are an area of turbidity and surf made uneven
by sandbars. Many of the same species found inside the estuary are also
found adjacent to the beaches.
The estuarine environment lies behind the barrier islands and is
protected from the ocean by them. Estuaries are subject to regular tidal
fluctuation through a series of inlets which separate the islands from
one another. There is considerable current in these inlets due to tidal
flow and as a consequence the inlets are usually deeper than adjacent
coastal or estuarine waters (Larson 1970). The lower estuary is a saline
environment diluted by freshwater runoff from the mainland. It contains
deep bays, or sounds, surrounded by salt marshes which are traversed
throughout by tidal creeks of various sizes. These creeks are the access
route for humans into this area of dense vegetation and soft mud.
Using the height of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) as an
index, the salt marsh biotope has been divided into several communities
(Johnson et al. 1974). Spartina sp. forms vast flat marshes within the
estuary. The "Tall Spartina edge marsh" is the border of vegetation

67
found immediately adjacent to the low tide mark. Where the marsh is
inundated by tidal waters for several hours each day the "Short Spartina
low marsh" is defined. The Short Spartina high marsh" biotope occurs
where daily tidal flow is short. Smooth cordgrass is replaced by salt-
meadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) where the marsh is only flooded a few
times a week, and by needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) where tidal inunda
tion is rare. Bordering the saltmarsh is a shrub community of salt
myrtle (Baccharis glomeruliflora), groundsel tree (Bu halimifolia), and
southern red cedar (Juniperus silicicola).
Freshwater is found in a few locations. As ponds or sloughs on
barrier islands they contain a variety of aquatic plants depending on
depth. Freshwater and brackish marshes are found around the mouths of
large mainland streams. As they extend up the rivers these become the
cypress-gum or hardwood swamps discussed above. There is a small fresh
water spring on the northern end of Anastasia Island.
The offshore habitats lie beyond the barrier island beaches and are
defined by depth rather than by vegetation or salinity (Dahlberg 1975).
The continental shelf on which these biotopes are located is about 70
to 80 miles wide, with a gentle drop of about two feet per mile. The
coastal habitat is a zone of transition between the beaches and a depth
of 8 to 10 fathoms. When these waters are diluted by freshwater (around
inlets), they are turbid and productive. Both offshore and inshore
fauna are found here, due to the transitional nature of the habitat.
The open shelf, between 10 and 30 fathoms, is of intermediate fertility
and does not support a rich fauna, nor do the shelf edge (30-40 fathoms)
and the lower shelf edge (60-100 fathoms) habitats. The open waters
beyond are clear and less productive (Johnson et al. 1974). Where live

68
bottoms, or reefs, are found (9-30 fathoms) a diverse subtropical and
tropical fish faunas are found also. These include groupers (Serranidae),
snappers (Lutjanidae), and porgies (Sparidae). Two such reefs occur
off St. Augustine (Freeman and Walford 1976). It is not known if similar
reefs are found off St. Simons Island. A reef has been recently identified
off Sapelo Island, an island just north of St. Simons, at 10-12 fathoms
(Dahlberg 1975). Such shallow reefs are less-diverse*than deeper ones
(Dahlberg 1975). : ,
St. Augustine and Frederica
Comparing Figures 3 and 4 it can be seen that both communities are
located within estuarine environments. Two important differences appear.
First, Anastasia Island is much smaller than St. Simons Island. Second,
St. Augustine is located directly on the sound, whereas Frederica lies
some three miles north of St. Simons Sound on the Frederica River and
three miles south of Sapelo or Altamaha Sound.
St. Augustine occupies a low, sandy spit of land between the
Matanzas River and Santa Maria Creek. Originally located on Anastasia
Island, the town was moved to its present position in 1572 (Chatelain
1941). The Matanzas River is not actually a river at all, but an arm
of the sea extending behind Anastasia Island from Matanzas Inlet at the
south end of Anastasia Island north to St. Augustine Inlet, a distance
of 15 miles. The North River parallels the Atlantic coast for 13 miles
and did not originally have a northern outlet. Its waters were fresh
in the upper reaches before channelization. To the west about a half
mile beyond tiny Santa Maria Creek lies the San Sebastian River. Although
subject to tidal action in its lower reaches, the San Sebastian is fresh

69
upstream. Inland from the coast the land slowly rises in elevation to a
broad coastal plane of pine flatwoods interrupted by freshwater streams,
swamps, and ponds and by sand pine scrub on the ancient dune ridges. At
about the latitude of St. Augustine the Gulf Stream current so important
to Spanish shipping begins to flow away from North America toward Europe
(Boniface 1971). Anastasia Island is about 3 miles long and less than a
mile wide. The lagoon behind it is deep and is one of the few protected
harbors on Florida's Atlantic coast.
The garrison at St. Augustine used this environment in a number of
ways. Two sentinel posts were maintained on Anastasia Island as part of
the defense system, one at Matanzas Inlet, and the other at the northern
end of the island. Ships were often anchored at the north end of
Anastasia rather than off the town proper and a wharf was built here in
the 18th Century (Olano 1740; Jeffreys 1762). In the 1500's at least
there were fields on Anastasia (Chatelain 1941:Fig. 2), and later fisher
men possibly maintained a weir on the bars in the Inlet itself (Jeffreys
1762). In addition the marsh north of the fort, known as Hospital Creek
today, could have been extensively used, as it is today, by fishermen.
There were fields grown within sight of the fort between Santa Maria
Creek and the San Sebastian River (Chatelain 1941:Fig. 2, 4, 10, 13).
St. Simons Island is a more hospitable island than Anastasia and
today is graced by large oak trees with occasional pine hammocks. The
island is about 12 miles long and 3 miles wide. On the seaward side it
is buffered from the Atlantic by Little St. Simons Island and Sea Island.
Consequently the only strip of beach on the island is on the southern
tip along St. Simons Sound. The town is located on the Frederica River,
which may be likened to the North or Tolomoto River at St. Augustine

70
except that the Frederica River eventually connects with Altamaha Sound
at the north end of the Island. The river is a meandering stream which
is eroding into the bluff on which the town of Frederica is located. On
the far side of the stream is an extensive marsh system. There are
several freshwater sloughs and small streams on the island, which is
separated from the mainland by about 3 miles of marsh and tidal streams.
Like the Spanish colony, the garrison at Frederica also manned an outpost
on the southern end of their island, and had extensive fields adjacent
to the fort (Reese 1963).
* Species Accounts
A wide variety of animals use the biotopes discussed above, not all
of which will be reviewed here. In order to make the following presen
tation reasonably manageable, only those species which have actually been
identified from either Frederica or St. Augustine will be reviewed. In
addition, Tables 2 and 3 summarize the data on seasonality, habits, and
preferred habitat presented here. When possible, these data will be
supplemented by traveler's accounts and data on colonial use of these
species. The classes will be discussed in the text in the same order as
they appear in the Tables: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, sharks,
rays, and bony fish. Unless otherwise noted, species accounts were
compiled from the following sources: Bent 1962a, 1962b, 1963; Bull and
Farrand 1977; Burt and Grossenheider 1964; Caldwell et al. 1959; Carr
1952; Conant 1975; Dahlberg 1975; Freeman and Walford 1976; Golley 1962;
Hoese and Moore 1977; Howell 1932; Iverson 1977; Jennings n.d.; Johnson
et al. 1974; Jordon 1969; Kortright 1943; Lowery 1974; McClane 1974a and
1974b; McIlHenny 1935; McLane 1955; Palmer 1976; Peterson 1947; Robbins
et al. 1966; Schwartz and Burgess 1975; Sprunt 1954; and Youatt 1847.

71
An animal's use of its environment is not as clear-cut or restricted
as Tables 3 and 4 suggest. Species generally use a variety of biotopes,
with preference for one or two of these. Likewise nocturnal animals can
occasionally be found abroad during the day, and vice versa. The daily
cycle of many marsh animals is timed to coincide with the tides. Peak
feeding activity occurs at the turn of the tides, whether that is at
noon or midnight. However fish that prefer to feed at night may be more
active at the evening tide than at the diurnal tide. Species which
hibernate further north, seldom reduce their activity on the coastal
plain except during spells of exceptionally cold weather. In terms of
human use of animal species, the capture technique employed can circum
vent the habits of the animal. For example, use of a turtle trap makes
the fact that turtles are diurnal immaterial to the collector, who can
collect the trapped animals whenever it is convenient.
The presence of marine species is correlated with shifting water
temperatures and the salinity of the inshore waters. The salinity of
the estuary varies considerably according to rainfall and freshwater
drainage (Gilmore 1977). During the wet season, runoff may lower
salinity considerably, and affect the species present. Species which
require greater salinity must temporarily retreat to more saline off
shore waters. During cold spells water temperature drops to lethal
levels for some of the more tropical fish and these also must retreat
to warmer offshore waters. In addition, inshore waters become colder
in Florida during July and August due to cold water upwellings. Fishing
is usually poor during these months (Gilmore 1977).

72
Mammals
The opossum, Pi del phis virginiana, is a small, cat-sized animal
weighing about 1.9 to 2.8 Kgs. Opossum are omnivorous and nocturnal.
They prefer deciduous forests in bottomlands, and along streams. Through
out the study area they are a common mammal, but not very prevalent in
salt marshes. Opossums are often accused of raiding gardens and hen
houses. William Bartram in his travels reported (1955) that they were
eaten by residents of Florida and Georgia, who considered them a deli
cious, healthy food. Some considered opossum better than raccoon, which
was tough and stringy (Hilliard 1972).
. Two rabbit species may be found in the study area, the cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus) and the marsh rabbit (S_. palustris). In most
cases the post-cranial skeletons of these species are difficult to
distinguish from one another. The cottontail weighs about 1 Kg and is
a nocturnal herbivore. The marsh rabbit weighs around 1.2 Kgs. The
cottontail prefers uplands, both wooded and open, particularly old fields
with thickets, or hedgerows of thick grass and is common near agricul
tural lands (Hilliard 1972). The marsh rabbit prefers lowlands, partic
ularly swamps and brackish water areas, and is characteristic of high
marsh.
Two species of squirrels also inhabit the area, the gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) and the fox squirrel (S_. niger). The gray
squirrel, about 461-512 grams, is found in hardwood forests and urban
areas, usually near trees. The fox squirrel, 821-972 grams, prefers
pine uplands. Fox squirrels tolerate more open conditions than gray
squirrels and are frequently seen near corn or soybean fields, in which
they feed by day.

73
The hispid cotton rat (Siqmodon hispidus), a small rodent weighing
about 86 grams, has been called the most abundant mammal in Georgia by
Frank Golley (1962). They do much damage to garden crops because they
are moderately abundant in cover around house sites.
The Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), roof rat (R_. rattus), and house
mouse (Mus musculus), are all introduced species of Old World origin.
Presumably their introduction was unintentional since they are serious
pests, doing extensive damage to human property and acting as transport
for disease. The Norway rat is omnivorous, but are particularly attracted
to stored grains and garbage dumps. They are also found in salt marshes.
Roof rats live by preference in walls and lofts of barns, or under refuse.
Corn is a major food source. House mice are also human commensals living
in old fields, barns, and houses. They are omnivorous, preferring small
grain seeds and herb seeds.
The domestic dog (Cam's familiaris) may have been of almost any
known size and either of Old World or New World ancestry. The Florida
Tocobaga ate dogs (Bullen 1978). The Spanish claimed to have eaten them
when placed under extreme privation due to delays in the situado.
Although it is not expected that the dog remains to be studied will show
evidence of butchering marks or burning, the possibility that the Spanish
did consume dog remains. It should be noted that dogs were a regular
food item in the Mediterranean region and Frederick J. Simoons reports
that dog flesh is still valued as a delicacy in Extremadura, Spain (1967).
If the Spaniards at St. Augustine did eat dog flesh, it may not have been
out of necessity.
The gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) is a medium sized animal
(ca. 3.5 Kg) which is nocturnal and prefers a habitat with a mixture of

74
fields and woods. Areas of cultivated fields surrounded by woods are
particularly favored. This is reasonable considering that their pre
ferred prey species are rabbits, hispid cotton rats, mice, pocket gophers,
Norway rats, and gal 1inaeceous birds which also frequent shrub thickets.
Fox have often been implicated as barnyard raiders (Johnson and Brown
1903). During the colonial period there was some trade in fox skins
(Bruce 1895).
The black bear (Ursus americanus) weighs around 120 to 150 Kgs, is
omnivorous, and generally nocturnal. While they may den in the winter,
they may not always do so. They prefer heavily wooded areas but also
frequent corn fields and swamps. Bartram (1955) noted that bear and
raccoon were both extremely fond of young corn. Bear meat was occasion
ally preserved for storage (Reddish pers. comm.), was thought to be
"least apt to rise" in the stomach, and was valued as an aphrodisiac
(Booth 1971). Bear fat was a valued grease (Gray 1933) and served as
candle material in St. Augustine (Bushnell 1978c), and to keep firearms
clean (Kirkland ca. 1967). It also served as an insect repellant
(Booth 1971).
The raccoon (Procyon lotor) is one of the most abundant mammals in
the salt marsh. These animals weigh about 5-10 Kgs and are generally
nocturnal. Besides being members of the salt marsh community they also
utilize low lying farmland and mixed woodlands. They frequently raid
garbage areas and have been associated with garden and barnyard thefts
as well. Bartram, discussing an encounter with raccoon and opossum,
considered coons delicious eating (1955), and the British in Virginia
thought that coon meat was equal to lamb (Weeden 1890). In addition to

75
being good to eat, there was some trade in raccoon skins. Raccoon meat
was thought to be beneficial on swellings and inflammations of the body
(Booth 1971).
The bobcat (Lynx rufus) weighs about 8.2 Kgs, is nocturnal, and
prefers river bottoms and swamps. Primarily carnivorous, it seeks out
rabbits, mice, and opossums as food. It is found around old fields and
thickets and has been implicated in barnyard raids. There was some trade
in bobcat hides during the colonial period (Bruce 1895). Its flesh was
compared with veal, although it was thought to be sweeter than veal
(Booth 1971).
The domestic cat (Felis domesticus) was transported from Europe as
was the horse (Equus caballus). The horse, like its allies the mule
and donkey, were not very common in the British colonial period (Gray
1933; Bonner 1964). However, the supply of horses in Georgia increased
after Oglethorpe's 1740 attack on St. Augustine. He returned to
Savannah with several hundred head of captured cattle and a number of
horses (Bonner 1964). There were some horses in Spanish St. Augustine,
although they do not appear to have been plentiful. The elite seem to
have access to them (Bushnell 1978c), and some wild horses were hunted
in the spring (Grinan 1756). According to Grinan, there were no wild
ass or mules (1756).
Both Spanish and British colonists claim to have eaten horses
during periods of starvation. Consumption of horse flesh had once been
common in Europe. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church attempted
to abolish this "pagen" practice (Simoons 1967), but Spain was occupied
by Moors during much of this time so the custom of eating horses endured

76
in that country longer than elsewhere. There was a revival in horse
flesh consumption among both the poor and the elite of France in the
18th Century (Simoons 1967).
The pig (Sus scrofa) is one of the most interesting and important
of the mammalian food species, although Bonner says that they were of
less importance in Georgia than cattle (Bos taurus) (1964). One of the
principal reasons that swine were popular animals was that they require
very little care. In Britain (Fussell 1937b; Anderson 1971) and in the
British colonies (Weeden 1890; Bruce 1895; Grey 1933; Bonner 1964) pigs
were almost totally neglected. Occasionally pigs would be set out on
islands in order to limit their dispersal (Thompson 1942), but this
was not a universal habit. The Spanish as a matter of policy released
both hogs and cattle during their explorations so that their increase
could support travelers on passing or wrecked ships. The increase was
remarkable in many cases (Haring 1966; Sauer 1969). The Indians of
Florida provided the French colonists with pigs before St. Augustine
was founded and also supplied pigs to settlers in South Carolina (Towne
and Wentworth 1950). Presumably these had been wild animals, escapees
from Hernando de Soto's journey or from a passing ship.
The feral pig is a wild and resourceful animal.
The real American hog is what is termed the wood hog; they
are long in the leg, narrow on the back, short in the body,
flat on the sides, with a long snout, very rough in their
hair, in make more like the fish called a perch than any
thing I can describe. You may as well think of stopping
a crow as those hogs. They will go to a distance from a
fence, take a run, and leap through the rails three or
four feet from the ground, turning themselves sidewise.
These hogs suffer such hardships as no other animal could
endure.(Parkinson in Gray 1933)

77
They prefer moist bottomlands, feeding on seeds, roots, fruits, nuts,
mushrooms, snakes, larvae, worms, eggs, carrion, mice, small mammals,
kitchen refuse, and feces. As a feral animal the pig is nocturnal and
gregarious.
Pigs are frequent raiders of gardens and fields and it may be an
incident related to this habit that gave Bonner the impression that pigs
were not valued in the Georgia colony. Oglethorpe did not permit pigs
to roam the streets of Frederica as they did other towns (hogs roamed
the streets of New York City well into the 19th Century). When a herd
of pigs invaded Frederica, Oglethorpe had them all shot (Bonner 1964).
Prior to the 1800's there were no standard breeds of hogs, or other
domestic livestock (Rouse 1977). The size range of the animal appears
to vary dramatically, as does the conformation, depending upon heredity
and food supplies. In 1827, a contest was held in North Carolina for
the largest hog, neatly dressed. The winner was a 2 1/2 year old
weighing 238 Kgs (Southern Agriculturalist 1828). An average slaughtered
weight of 4,000 southern hogs in 1860 was 63 Kgs (Fogel 1965), which is
more likely. A feral hog of about eight months weighed at the Florida
State Museum recently tipped the scales at 8.5 Kgs. Two adult feral
females of about 1 1/2 years weighed 34 Kgs and 38 Kgs. A male of the
same age weighed 58 Kgs. The hogs sold by John Pynchon, of Massachusetts,
in 1662-1683 averaged 77 Kgs (Weeden 1890).
Pigs have several attractive qualities that make them a profitable
crop. In addition to the fact that they are easily reared (as long as
you do not try to pen them in) and will subsist on a variety of foods,
they will also provide a larger and quicker return of flesh in proportion
to their live weight and food consumed. The pig stores 35% of the calories

78
it consumes, contrasted to 11% for cattle and sheep (Towne and Wentworth
1950). A carcass yields 65-80% dressed meat compared to 50-60% for
cattle and 45-55% for sheep. A pig gains one pound for every three to
five pounds of feed, and it will eat a great variety of foods. In 18
months a pig may gain 90 Kgs, with a yield of 54 usable kilograms. Almost
the entire carcass can be put to some use, and pork takes more kindly
to preservation than do other meats. Nutritionally pork is very
satisfying due to its high fat content. Pork also contains more thiamin
than any other meat (Towne and Wentworth 1950). It is little wonder
that salt pork was one of the habitual foods of the urban poor in Europe
between 1391 and 1560 (Braudel 1967).
The Spanish at St. Augustine made use of both feral and penned hogs.
In 1574, Dr. Alonso de Caceres reported that there were fifty pigs
running loose and that these were wild and skinny (1574). This number
surely increased. Pigs roamed the streets of the town and were raised
in the backyards along with poultry (Boniface 1971). Due to the
difficulty of confining hogs, some of these animals may have been free
without the design of their owners.
Deer, Odocoileus virginianus, was also an important species in the
colonial economy, not only for meat, but for skins as well. The average
weight of deer on the coastal plain is around 46-54 Kgs on the coastal
plain. It adapts to a wide variety of habitats, such as deep forests,
swamps, and open farmland. It also will feed at the edge of salt marshes.
Its preferred habitat is a brushy woodland, or disturbed situation.
Deer feed during dawn and dusk hours, and are attracted to fields and
gardens. Deer were said to have destroyed three acres of peas belonging
to one Georgia colonial farmer (Coulter and Saye 1949). Today they eat

79
young citrus trees and are a major crop pest. Trade in deer skins was
extensive prior to the Spanish settlement at St. Augustine. In the
1560's Indians brought quantities of deer skins to trade with English
ships scouting the Florida coast (Chatelain 1941). As was mentioned
earlier the British continued this trade. A collection of skins evac
uated in front of a Spanish scouting party in 1685 required 150 Indians
to carry. At another time the Spanish were successful in capturing a
shipment that included 500 deerskins (Bolton and Ross 1968).
Like pigs, cattle (Bos taurus) were popular colonial livestock and,
like hogs, they usually roamed free over the countryside. According to
John E. Rouse (1977) there were two basic sources of cattle in the New
World. The British brought with them, or imported from Ireland, a pre
breed which he calls the Native American cattle. These animals were not
well adapted to the humid subtropics of Florida or the rest of the
Hispanic Empire.
The cradle of the cattle industry instead lay in Spain, around
Castile, where a tough, hardy pre-breed which he calls the criollo
developed. In Spain, as in England, cattle were originally raised for
traction rather than for beef. By the end of the Reconquest of Spain
in 1492 some of the northern provinces of Spain also raised vast herds
of cattle for beef and hides (Bishko 1952). In these areas cattle even
took precedence over sheep. These animals were tough, resourceful, and
adapted to a hot, humid environment where pasturage was low in nutrients,
and scarce. The Galician and Castilian method of herding was very similar
to the round-up technique transferred to the New World with the cattle for
whom it had been developed (Rouse 1977).

80
The weight of cattle is highly variable. An English beef in 1710
weighed about 167 Kgs (Thompson 1942) although by 1795 the average weight
had risen to 362 Kgs (Fussel 1929, 1937a). A modern Florida scrub cow,
descendent of the original Spanish criollo cattle, weighs about 204 Kgs
when grazed on pine flatwoods, and 294 Kgs on prairie. A bull weighs
slighly more (Rouse 1977). The average weight of a cow in colonial
Georgia was 317 Kgs, with oxen averaging 362 Kgs (Bonner 1964).
Cattle usually were allowed to fend for themselves. In Georgia
the Spanish pattern was followed, and in both Florida and Georgia roving
cattle were a problem since they raided fields and gardens (Bonner 1964).
In an effort to control this cattle were occasionally confined to islands
(Andres de San Miguel in Garcia 1902). The Spanish (Grinan 1757; Arnade
1965; Bushnell 1978b) and the British (Bonner 1964) conducted annual
cattle roundups, but cattle thefts were common. There was also a good
deal of raiding across the border in territory claimed by both Spain and
England. Spanish Florida in the 1700's must have had more cattle than
is normally credited if Oglethorpe could return from his 1740 seige with
several hundred head of cattle. In 1727 Governor Perier of French
Louisiana requested to purchase 800 head from Florida (Gray 1933). It
was reported in 1602 that every family at St. Augustine had four to ten
cows (Arnade 1959).
Cattle raising, however, is not quite as easy as swine raising.
Although cattle will forage for themselves, the product is a scrawny,
rather than a lean, beast. They will not produce a good weight gain
except with improved feeds, and never provide as good a yield as hogs.
They are also more subject to debilitating diseases. A pig in its first
eight months attains almost adult size although it was not the general

81
custom to slaughter them until 18 months (Commissioner of Patent Reports
1844). Cattle do not provide the return for effort of pigs. In addition
beef does not preserve as well as pork and so was not as highly valued
on the market (Weeden 1890). There was, however, an active demand for
cattle hides (Rouse 1977) and both cheese (Harman 1969) and milk (Boyd
et al. 1951) were used by the Spanish residents in Florida.
Sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hi reus), appear not to have been
very popular in the southern colonies or in Florida. Sheep were partic
ularly disfavored because they were helpless to defend themselves against
wild dogs and wolves and would not reproduce themselves freely (Weeden
1850; Thompson 1942). Since the preferred animal husbandry technique
was to turn the animals loose, this was an obvious drawback.
The early colonists did bring sheep and goats with them. The French
had brought sheep with them to Ft. Caroline and Menendez also brought
sheep with him, but they did not do well (Lyon 1977a). When sheep were
turned loose at Frederica in 1735, they reverted to wildness and could
not be herded as they had been in England (Bonner 1964). Goats also were
included among the Spanish livestock inventories (Lyon 1977a). They
fared better than did sheep because they could defend themselves against
carnivores (Bonner 1964). Goats were introduced to Georgia in 1741 when
Robert Williams brought some over, but they were not immediately popular
(Bonner 1964).
Sheep had been a major herd animal in Spain, perhaps because the
Moors preferred mutton to beef (Rouse 1977), and were prohibited from
eating pork (Simoons 1967). It may be no coincidence that northern Spain,
the area under Moorish domination for the shortest period of time and the
first area to free itself, was the center of cattle raising in contrast

82
to the more southerly provinces which did not expel the Moors until 1492,
and were sheep raisers.
Birds
A great variety of wild birds and some domestic ones appear in the
species lists from St. Augustine and Frederica. It should be noted that
birds provide a number of useful items in addition to flesh. Eggs of
wild birds were often consumed (Johnson and Brown 1903; Sprunt 1954;
Braudel 1967) and feathers were a valuable commodity. In 1702, five
pounds of feathers could be bartered for the value of one beaver skin
in Massachusetts (Weeden 1890). In Georgia, geese, in particular, were
raised for feathers, and it was also thought that having geese graze a
field was beneficial to the crop (Bonner 1964). It is not possible to
assess the use of the birds identified for these purposes. The flesh
of a wide variety of birds was consumed, both adults and juvenile birds,
called squabs (Bartram 1955). It would appear that in terms of exploi
tation, birds might not only have been captured at their preferred day- ,
time feeding area, but at their rookeries as well. Consequently,
reference to roosting habits will be included below. In order to keep
the account as succinct as possible, the birds will be reviewed by order
rather than by genus.
Pelecaniformes are represented in the collections by cormorant
(Phalacrocorax auritus) and gannet (Moris bassana). Both are water birds
which are gregarious and feed on fish. Gannets are essentially winter
residents in the study area and the number of resident cormorants
increases in the winter as northern individuals come south.

83
Ardeiformes present in the samples include the great blue heron
(Ardea herodias), American egret (Casmerodius albus), Louisiana heron
(Hydranassa tricolor), little blue heron (Florida coerulea), black-
crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), and white ibis (Eudocimus
albus). With the exception of the night heron all are commonly found in
the salt marsh as well as around freshwater ponds, sloughs, and streams.
The great blue heron and the American egret are found also on the beaches
and along the sounds where they can wade in search of fish. The white
ibis is not only frequently found in the salt marshes, but also visits
fields and pastures. The other three species are either salt marsh
residents, or found near freshwater. All of the species are diurnal in
habit, except the night heron, and all are communal roosters at night;
in fact, many of these species share their night-time abode with one
another in trees and low hanging brush near water.
Many of these birds were part of the once-active feather trade, but
also could have been used for food. Night herons, particularly young
ones, were often shot, and white ibis, called "curlews," were referred
to in Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings novel The Yearling (in Sprunt 1954).
Until very recently heron eggs were a favorite food (Johnson and Brown
1903). Herons, egrets, wild swans, bitterns, cranes, and flamingos were
consumed in France between 1391 and 1560 (Braudel 1967).
Anseriformes is a varied order which includes the following: the
Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), black
duck (A. rubripes), Florida duck (A. ful vi gula), gadwell (A. strepera),
green-winged teal (A. carolinensis), blue-winged teal (A. discors),
shoveller (Spatula clypeata), wood duck (Aix sponsa), redhead (Aythya
americana), ring-necked duck (A. collaris), scaup (Aythya marilla),

84
hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) and red-breasted merganser
(Mergus serrator). With the exception of the wood duck and the Florida
duck most individuals of these species are migratory, being found here
only in the fall and winter. All are found in flocks either in sheltered
waters or in tidal streams. The wood duck prefers quiet, secluded bodies
of freshwater. Geese often visit fields and gardens. Until recently
only the mottled duck or Florida duck of the genus Anas would be found
nesting in salt marshes, although the black duck, which often interbreeds
with the Florida duck, also is found in salt marshes. The shoveller
prefers freshwater, as does the wood duck, the redhead, the ring-necked
duck and the red-breasted merganser. Scaup, however, raft in salt water
during the winter in large flocks and the hooded merganser also is found
in estuaries. The redhead is a nighttime feeder but they, like the
scaup, form large daytime rafts.
Several of these birds may have been tamed. The Canada goose and
mallard were listed in the earliest American Poultry Association's
Standard of Excellence (1874) and breeding experiments had been done to
improve the breeds (Johnson and Brown 1903). Wood ducks had been tamed
successfully (Johnson and Brown 1903). It will be remembered that
Anderson also referred to tamed birds (1971).
Accipitriformes are represented by several birds of prey, which
could not be identified down to a useful category, and two genera of
vultures, the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and the black vulture
(Coraqyps atratus). These two birds are common scavengers around garbage
dumps and may represent non-food activity; however, they and other
members of this order were hunted widely as food (Booth 1971).

85
Gall i formes include several genera, some of which might have been
domestic species. These include: the bobwhite (Colinus virginianus),
the domestic chicken (Gal 1 us gal 1 us), and the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)
The turkey is thought to be a wild rather than a domestic species because
of the difficulty encountered in raising them until recently due to
diseases (Johnson and Brown 1903; Schorger 1966). The wild turkey was
once very common in the area, preferring moist hardwood swamps, where it
is found today in a habitat shared with feral swine. Although flocks of
3-4 individuals are found today, flocks of up to 40 individuals were
reported by Jamestown settlers (in Bruce 1895). Turkeys roost in trees.
Bobwhite prefer open pine-lands and thickets. In the winter coveys of
up to 24 birds can be seen foraging in open fields. Neither of these
species is found in the salt marsh and both are gregarious birds.
As with the other Old World domesticants introduced by the colonists,
chickens were introduced before breed registers were established. Since
chickens were basically allowed to fend for themselves, with occasional
scraps to keep them close, it is assumed that the chickens used by the
early colonists would have been small in size, roughly comparable to a
Mediterranean class, Brown Leghorn Bantam (Wilson pers. comm.). A
Bantam dozen eggs weigh about 396 grams (Johnson and Brown 1903) and
the bird itself weighs about 680 grams (Florida State Museum files).
Chickens, although small, nonetheless represented an available food
supply which could be raised in the yards or streets until needed, when
the tough bird was probably boiled rather than baked! Chickens will
eat a variety of table scraps, and the Spaniards even fed them shellfish
(Caceres 1574). Predators, including opossums, raccoons, foxes, owls,
and snakes take a heavy toll on barnyard chickens and their eggs.

86
Sam Hilliard suggests, though, that chickens were experts in survival
in an era when protection provided by humans was minimal (1972). They
could fly well and roosted twenty to fifty feet above the ground. In
spite of these qualities they may at one time have been very expensive
in Spanish St. Augustine (Geiger 1937), although Indian villages had
these birds as early as the 16th Century (Garcia 1902).
Gruiformes includes a number of varied species: whooping crane
(Grus americana), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), and clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris). Since whooping cranes no longer are found in the
area it is not known if they were permanent residents or not, but they
once were found in salt marshes. The sandhill crane is today a resident
of freshwater marshes and has both migratory and non-migratory popu
lations. Both species are gregarious, and once fed in grain fields as
well as in marshes. Bartram says that the "Savannah crane" makes an
excellent soup (1955) although it is not known to which crane he was
referring. Clapper rails are still popular game birds. Clapper rails
are one of the most typical of the salt marsh species, where they are
concealed in the tall grasses. Rails are permanent residents of the
salt marshes.
Charadriiformes include the following species: kill deer (Charadrius
vociferus), Wilson's snipe (Capella gallinago), long-billed curlew
(Numenius americanus), willet (Catoptrophorus semi palmatus), dowitcher
(Limnodromus griseus), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), and
two-striped thick knee (Burhinus bistriatus). This last bird is an
introduced species from Mexico found at the mestizo household of 18th
Century St. Augustine (SA16-23) by Cumbaa and discussed at length by

87
him (1975). He interpreted the bird to be a watch-bird. The other birds
are common beach and mud flat species except for the snipe which is a
freshwater slough and open ground resident. The willet is found more
often in the salt marsh than on the beach and kill deer often feed in
fields and pastures. These last two species are permanent residents,
as are stilts. Most of these species were in recent years popular game
birds, and generally referred to as curlews.
The razor-billed auk (Alca torda) is also a member of Charadriiformes,
but Florida does not constitute its normal range. Unlike the thick-knee,
it was probably not brought here as a watch-bird, but came here on its
own. The auk is a small arctic bird which frequents the open sea and
occasionally winters as far south as New'England. No explanation is
offered for its presence at St. Augustine other than to add that there
have been several sightings of these birds on the Florida coast
(Cruickshank 1967; Robertson 1967; Kale 1976) and they have also been
reported from a few aboriginal sites in Florida (Hamon 1959; Fradkin
1978).
Columbiformes include the rock dove or domestic pigeon (Columba
livia) and the mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura). The rock dove was a
European domestic introduction which soon became feral. As feral animals,
they continue to prefer human habitations and urban areas where they
congregate in large numbers on public monuments, buildings, and in parks.
Mourning doves are permanent residents in Florida whose numbers are
swelled in the winter by migrants. They are found in large groups in
urban areas, cultivated fields and pastures, and on dunes.
Strigiformes are represented by a single species, the barred owl
(Strix varia). It is not.known if this bird was eaten, but considering

88
the number of rodents and chickens which might have been around houses
in the colonial period, the owl may have been attracted to that resource
and accidently been included in the refuse. The barred owl today is
found as a permanent resident near the edges of towns. In view of the
range of wild fowl that did end up in the stew pot (Braudel 1967; Anderson
1971) it does not seem unlikely that the owl also was eaten.
Passeriformes is a diverse order of perching birds, represented here
by the fish crow (Corvus ossifragus) and the common grackle (Quisca!us
quiscula). Both of these animals are common birds in coastal areas and
both are attracted to garbage dumps, gardens, and fields. Considering
the nursery rhyme about "4 and 20 blackbirds" and the fact that bird pies
were common menu items (Anderson 1971) these species may well be food
items rather than accidental inclusions. Blackbirds are mentioned by
Braudel (1967) among birds commonly consumed in France.
Reptiles and Amphibians
The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) can attain a
length of between 1.8 meters and 5.0 meters, with a record of 5.8 meters.
Its flesh is quite tasty and is esteemed, as are the eggs. Alligators
prefer quiet freshwater sloughs and ponds on barrier islands or on the
mainland, but they also are found in tidal creeks and sounds as they
move between freshwater and brackish marshes. Alligators also inhabit
salt marsh. Colonials thought that alligator meat would cure ulcers
and cancer (Booth 1971).
Most turtles are rare in the estuarine environment. Six species of
normally terrestrial or freshwater turtles do manage to survive in the
coastal area, including the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). The

89
snapper prefers any aquatic situation where it can find soft mud,
including brackish water situations. It seldom basks above the waterline,
preferring to lie quietly just below the surface on a submerged log. They
are omnivorous, growing to an average of between 20-30 cm. Snappers may
be less active during periods of cold weather although they do not follow
a regular pattern of hibernation. They are active on land only during
the breeding season, which in Florida appears to be in the summer months.
Archie Carr considers them to be succulent (1952) and their eggs were
also consumed by humans.
The mud turtle (Kinosternon sp.) is a small turtle about 7.5 to
12.1 cm long. An aquatic animal, it is a bottom-dwelling resident of
small, shallow, quiet bodies of fresh or brackish water. They rarely
bask above the waterline and will take a baited hook. The Frederica and
St. Augustine mud turtles are either the common mud turtle (j<. subrubrum)
or the striped mud turtle (K. bauri). The striped mud turtle is partic
ularly fond of brackish water ponds, as is the common mud turtle. Both
species in Florida reproduce year-round (Iverson 1977) and while they
prefer not to venture from water, they will be found seeking nests on
dry land throughout the year. In addition, the striped mud turtle may
be semi-terrestrial. During dry seasons when their home ponds shrink
they evacuate the pond in order to avoid being consumed by predators,
preferring to burrow in leaves nearby and await the rains (Wygoda 1976).
The Emydidae are a diverse family of turtles including a terrestrial
species and one strictly estuarine species. The box turtle (Terrapene
Carolina) is about 11-15 cm long and completely terrestrial. It prefers
open woodlands near quiet bodies of water. In Florida it nests between

90
April and May and may hibernate briefly during cold spells. The diamond-
back terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) is the only turtle which inhabits the
salt marsh uniquely. Terrapins nest in May and June. In cold weather
they may hibernate. In spite of their small size they are a very popular
food item (Carr 1952).
The other Emydid turtles prefer freshwater. These include the cooter
(Chrysemys floridana), yellow-bellied turtle (£. scripta), and the chicken
turtle (Deirochelys reticularia). The cooter is not listed by Johnson et
al. (1974) as being found in the coastal region of Georgia. It prefers
freshwater rivers, ponds, and swamps, where it, like its fellows, can be
found basking above the waterline on exposed logs. It is between 23 and
33 cm long. The yellow-bellied turtle is similar in all respects to the
cooter, except that it can be found more often in brackish water (Johnson
et al. 1974). It also is more typically a pond resident. The chicken
turtle also prefers quiet water and is somewhat smaller than the others
(10-15 cm). All three are considered good eating although the chicken
turtle is the preferred species (Carr 1952). In Florida these three
Emydidae produce eggs year-round (Iverson 1977).
The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is a large terrestrial
turtle which prefers sandy, dry soil where it constructs extensive
burrows. Some gophers reach a length of 30 cm. A series of live
weights for these turtles is found in Appendix E. They are typical of
pine flatwoods which are well drained, and also of sandy dunes and
coastal scrub. Gophers today are considered excellent eating and are
collected extensively. During breeding season, April to July, gophers
are active outside their dens, and can also be found grazing outside
during all but the coldest months. Typically they are collected by
hooking them out of their dens.

91
Several individuals of the sea turtle family (Cheloniidae) occur off
of Florida and Georgia. These include the green turtle (Chelonia mydas),
the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and the ridley (Lepidochelys kempi).
Only the loggerhead is common in the area today. It nests on Jekyll
Island and Little Cumberland Island (Caldwell et al. 1959). These are
the two islands immediately south of St. Simons Island. Sea turtles
frequent the area in the summer, and sometimes enter the sounds and even
ascend large rivers., such as the Brunswick or Frederica Rivers, to feed
during the day. In mid-summer they nest on the Atlantic beaches at night.
The reputation that sea turtles and their eggs have as food does not need
to be underscored. One ship's manifest cited by Joyce Harman included
17 sea turtles as cargo (1969).
Very few snakes inhabit the coastal area. The ones identified from
Frederica and St. Augustine are species which can live in such a habitat.
They include water snakes (Natrix sp.), racer (Coluber constricta),
eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon
piscivorous). The cottonmouth and the diamondback rattlesnake are very
common on sea islands although no rattlesnakes were identified. The
cottonmouth prefers sloughs and ponds on those islands. Racers are also
common on the sea islands. The gulf salt marsh snake (Natrix fasciata
clarki) is the only water snake normally found in salt or brackish water
habitats. Snakes are known to prey upon rabbits, small rodents, lizards,
toads, frogs, and birds and their eggs. Although the cottonmouth obtains
a size to be worth eating, and in fact is eaten by some people today, the
other species are smallish in diameter. All may be commensal species
attracted to houses by rodents and toads.

92
Only two amphibians have been identified, a pig or leopard frog
(Rana sp.) and a southern toad (Bufo terrestris). Both the leopard frog
and the southern toad show remarkable tolerance for salt water and are
found on sea islands near brackish and salt water. The leopard frog may
be found well away from water in the summer and is about 5.1 to 8.9 cm
long. The southern toad (4.1-7.6 cm) is a very common toad in the south,
especially in sandy areas. While frogs are considered good eating, it is
not known if small frogs, such as the leopard frog, or toads of any size,
would have been included in the Spanish diet. Salt marsh leopard frogs,
however, are larger than freshwater ones, and might be worth eating
(Meylan pers. comm.).
Chondrichthyes
Several different species of sharks have been identified, all of
which are present in estuaries and nearshore waters during warm summer
months. The nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) is a common inshore
species in the summer. It breeds in shallow water, and also frequents
inlets. The sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus) is a bottom-dwelling
animal which prefers shallow water. In the summer it will enter estuaries.
The bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) not only comes into estuaries, but
also enters freshwater. The sand bar shark (£. milberti) is more common
in the surf zone and occasionally enters estuaries. The tiger shark
(Galeocerdo cuvieri) is common in the coastal area throughout the year.
Of the hammerheads, none are common, although the bonnethead (Sphyrna
tiburo) is often observed in shallow nearshore waters. The smooth
hammerhead (S_. zygaena) is unlikely to enter an estuary although it may
be found in the coastal zone.

93
Skates and rays are represented by several species. The small tooth
sawfish (Pristis pectinata) is rare, but may be found in the lower reaches
of freshwater rivers and in very shallow brackish waters in the warm
months. The guitarfish (Rhinobatos lentinginosus) also is found in
shallow waters, or in the surf, during warm months. The cownose ray
(Rhinoptera bonasus) is found on mud and sand flats from August to
September. The Spaniards journeyed north to the St. John's River to
harvest skate's eggs (Grinan 1756).
While not consumed in large numbers by North Americans today,
cartilaginous fishes were once commonly eaten. As scavengers, sharks
in the inshore area might have been taken around anchored ships, or
where the tide waters flushed the Castillo's latrine system. They, and
the skates and rays, feed at the changing tide. They could have been
captured using stout hook and line, or gaffs, since most of the
individuals caught were less than a meter long estimating from the
size of the vertebrae. They could also have been taken with nets.
Qsteichtyes
The first four Osteichthyes to be discussed are either small
species, or not common in the estuary. Gars (Lepisosteus sp.) are
found in freshwater streams of Florida and Georgia throughout the year
and the longnose gar (L_. osseus) is sometimes observed in brackish
water. They are usually found in mid-channel just below the surface.
Gars are carnivorous. They are often caught at the bend in the
Frederica River just off the Fort (Fairbanks pers. comm.). The
ladyfish (Elops saurus) is rather common at St. Augustine where it

94
prefers the estuarine habitat with a moderate current. It is a small
carnivorous fish (2 kg) that is found seasonally. Herrings (Clupeidae)
may either have been caught during a seasonal run along the coast, or
have entered the collection as debris left from a salted herring barrel.
Members of this family were imported into St. Augustine in large quan
tities (Tepaske 1964; Harman 1969; Lyon 1977b), but they are also among
the most common fish in the area today. Freshwater catfishes (letaluridae)
are bottom-feeding fishes and scavengers. Some members of this family
occasionally penetrate brackish waters of rivers and streams where they
may be caught using baited hooks on trot lines. This is especially
true for the white catfish (letalurus catus).
Sea catfishes (Ariidae) are very common in the estuarine environment.
The sea catfish (Arius felis), weighing about 1 kg, is more common than
the larger gafftopsail (Bagre marinus), which weighs about 2 kg. The
gafftopsail is said to taste better. Both are bottom feeders, living
as scavengers, but may rise to the surface in large numbers to feed at
night. The sea catfish tolerates a greater range of salinity than does
the gafftopsail and is more widely distributed throughout the inshore
zone, even frequenting tidal creeks of brackish water. Both are present
in the inshore area year-round although they may leave the sound tempo-
arily during cold weather. Capture could be effected either using a
baited set line, trot line, strong nets, weirs, or seines (Hilliard 1972).
The oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau) and snook (Centropomus undecimal is)
are inshore fishes. The toadfish is a small fish (about 500 gms) which
is common around pilings and debris where invertebrates can be found.
It is a bottom-dwelling species particularly fond of oyster bars. Toad-
fishes are found in the inshore area throughout the year. Snooks prefer

95
tidal backwaters, ditches, and streams of shallow brackish water. They
are also found in freshwater. Snooks are highly seasonal fishes. Both
fish will take a hook and neither aggregate.
Sea basses (Centropristis sp.) and groupers (Epinephalus sp.) are
interesting in that both are more typically reef fishes than inshore
species. Young sea basses are found in estuaries, particularly in grass
beds, where they are bottom-dwelling carnivores. The arrival of the
black sea bass (C^. striata) each spring constitutes a sport-fishing event
at St. Augustine. Groupers are rarely found inshore, although small jew-
fish (£. itajara) do occasionally enter estuaries. Both fishes will take
a hook. Neither fish aggregates. Size ranges greatly among fish of
this family (Appendix E).
The largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) is strictly a freshwater
fish. It prefers shallow, weedy lakes and backwaters where it lurks near
the surface waiting for frogs, crayfish, insects, and other fishes. It
is one of the most important freshwater game fishes in North America and
readily takes a hook. The record size for this fish is 10 kg (McClane
1978a).
The bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) is also an important game fish
found in water near beaches. A pelagic carnivore, its fall and spring
runs along the coast attract almost as many anglers as fish. Although
generally found in nearshore waters some are present throughout the
year in the sound. Bluefishes reach about 6 kg, although most are of
a much smaller size (Appendix E).
Crevalle jacks (Caranx hippos), snappers (Lutjanus sp.), and grunts
(Pomadasyidae) are carnivorous fishes. Small jacks are found throughout
the year in limited numbers in the estuary. Generally the large

96
individuals are found offshore. Both snappers and grunts are more
commonly offshore, reef fishes but do appear as small individuals in
open waters of the bays, where they congregate around jetties or pilings.
Snappers, particularly mangrove snapper (L.. griseus), and grunts come
inshore during warmer weather. The mangrove snapper may be present
during all warm months and a grunt, the pigfish (Orthopristis chrysurus),
is a year-round resident of estuaries.
Sheepsheads (Archosargus probatocephalus) are common residents of
the inshore area year-round. They are gregarious and are found near the
bottom clustered about jetties and pilings where they seek invertebrates.
They will take a hook, or anything shiny, are also caught with cast nets,
but they are best caught using live bait.
Along with sea catfish (Ariidae) and mullets (Mugil sp.), members of
the drum family (Sciaenidae) are the most common species of the coastal
habitat. Much information on seasonality and habitat exploitation is
lost in this collection due to the fact that seatrouts (Cynoscion sp.)
could not in most cases be identified beyond the generic level. Spotted
seatrouts (C^. nebulosus) are present in inner bays at St. Augustine in
small aggregations throughout the year. They are reluctant to venture
out to the beaches. Silver seatrouts (£. nothus) are more common off
beaches than inside bays. They are highly seasonal, only entering the
bay in cold weather. Weakfishes (C^. regal is) are found throughout the
inshore habitat from surf zone to tidal creek. They are present year-
round generally, schooling in shallow water. All three are carnivorous
fish and active feeders, especially at night when they move close to
the water's edge in large surface schools (McLane 1955). Seatrouts are
caught today at the bend in the Frederica River (Fairbanks pers. comm.).

97
Spots (Leisotomus xanthurus) are small drums that are found in the
warmer months in the inner bay. They are gregarious bottom feeders. They
are caught today at the bend in the Frederica River off of Frederica
(Fairbanks pers. comm.).
As with the seatrouts, it is unfortunate that more of the kingfishes
(Menticirrhus sp.) could not be identified to the species level. The gulf
kingfish (M. littoral is) is a bottom feeder that prefers a habitat that is
more saline than that frequented by the southern kingfish (M. americanus).
The southern kingfish is more common in the inner bay than off the beaches
although it is found in both places. The southern kingfish is also a
bottom feeder and both species feed principally on invertebrates. They
are present in St. Augustine bay year-round, although they are more
abundant in the colder months.
The Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) is a small, but common,
drum which is found in the warmer months throughout the coastal habitat.
The croaker is a bottom feeder, preferring invertebrates.
The two most common, and largest, drums are the black drum (Pogonias
cromis) and the red drum or redfish (Sciaenops ocellata). The black drum
is a gregarious feeder on bottoms containing clam and oyster beds, as
well as near jetties. Black drums are also found along the beaches next
to rocks or pilings and in deep holes of open bay water. Sea catfishes
(Ariidae) are sometimes found in these holes also. Large black drums
of 45 kg have been observed during the February to May run as much as
ten miles up the North River at St. Augustine. Smaller fishes are
present year-round. The red drum also feeds on invertebrates and is
found in mid-water over shoals and oyster bars as well as in the surf
and near pilings.

98
Mullets (Mugil sp.) are herbivorous fishes with very small mouths.
They rarely take a hook. They school in large numbers throughout the
inshore area and into brackish water as well. By day schools of mullets
are active in mid-channel of bays and larger tidal creeks. They
frequently follow the tide into smaller creeks as well and are attracted
to refuse heaps dumped into the bay. Mullets are generally taken with
a net. Cold weather may drive them from the bay temporarily. Along
with the gafftopsail, whiting, and croaker, mullets are considered to
be the surf fish at St. Augustine. Large roe, or striped mullets (M.
cephalus) make a spawning run along the beaches in the fall. Spaniards
frequently made use of these roe fishes (Grinan 1756). The striped
mullet is larger than the white mullet (M. curema), which prefers saltier
water than the striped mullet, and is the mullet more commonly found on
the beaches.
Barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma),
and porcupine fish (Diodon histrix) are the last species to be discussed.
Barracudas are seasonal carnivores that are found in the bay and over
shallow water, principally as young individuals. Flounders are present
over mud flats where they actively feed at night. They are present year-
round to some extent and also move into freshwater. The porcupine fish
is present during the warmer months of the year inshore, although it is
generally an offshore reef fish and is very rare at St. Augustine.
Notes on Capture Techniques
Fish may be captured either actively or passively (Rost!und 1952).
Active fishing, using hand-held hooks, cast nets, or gigs, requires
individual attention and effort for a period of time. Passive devices

99
such as trot lines, set lines, weirs, basket traps, or gill nets, do not
require constant vigilance, but only routine checking. The use of trot
lines is a traditional way to catch many bottom-dwelling carnivores and
net casting is a popular way to catch schooling species of the mid- and
upper-water column such as mullet and some drum. Cast nets will catch
other species as well and provide a large yield when the user is skilled.
Cast nets were used by Spanish fishermen at St. Augustine (Garcia 1902).
Gigging over flounder beds at night can also be rewarding. Untended
methods increase the amount of yield for effort expended. Perhaps only
part-time recreational fishermen can afford the luxury of hand-held hook
and line fishing where success is not assured. Cast nets make up in
volume for the time required to work the net.
One form of netting is to set nets, or weirs, across the mouths of
smaller tidal creeks just at high tide. Many fish not normally found in
these creeks follow the tide up them at this time. When the tide turns
these species also attempt to return to deeper water, and are caught in
the net. This is a generalized catch system but would yield principally
mullet, catfish, and drum. There is documentary evidence that such a
technique was employed by the Spanish (Garcia 1902). There is also a
map on which a weir-like device is drawn with an accompanying legend
"Fishermen" (Jeffries 1763).
A variety of nets, traps, and snares could have been used to capture
mammals, birds, and reptiles instead of stalking them. Basking turtles
of the Emydidae family discussed above often are caught by setting
baskets below logs upon which these turtles habitually sun themselves.
When the turtle drops off the log, it ends up in the basket rather than

100
in the water. Anderson mentioned snares and nets in connection with
wild hares and birds (1971) and Cumbaa refers to these devices as well
(1975). Many of the nocturnal field, garden, and barnyard raiders may
have been captured by a series of traps or snares. Turkeys and quails
were often caught in such traps (Hilliard 1972). Fledgling birds and
eggs could have been plucked off the nests without much effort. In
fact, domestic animals and deer may have been the only species not
acquired by such devices, although raccoons and opossums are also hunted
actively. Today raccoons are often clubbed from boats on the marsh of
Frederica during fall high tides (Fairbanks pers. comm.).
Summary of Faunal Categories
Reviewing the above species accounts it appears that the animals
utilized can be lumped into broader categories based on preferred habitat,
or upon domesticity (Table 11 and 12; Appendix C). The first category
is that of "Domestic Animals," including chickens. Dogs, cats, and
horses are included in this category although it is questionable that
they were consumed. "Terrestrial Animals" include such mammals as deer
and raccoon as well as the terrestrial turtles: the box turtle
(Terrapene Carolina) and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus).
"Wild Birds" include all birds except the chicken. Some of these birds
may have been tamed or even domesticated. The faunal category of
"Aquatic Reptiles" includes the alligator, and the remaining turtles,
but not the snakes. "Fish" subsumes sharks, skates, rays, and bony
fishes.
The sixth faunal category requires more discussion. The eastern
mole (Scalopus aquaticus), the small rodents, all of the snakes, and the

101
amphibians are thought to be commensal species (Table 4). It does not
seem likely that they were dietary components. To be usefully consumed
as food large numbers of each would have to be ingested. It seems, based
on ecological theory (Lee and Devore 1968), that humans faced with star
vation would turn first to exploitation of non-preferred foods before
using species that provide such a small return for effort and might have
been classified as non-food. It is for this reason that horses, cats,
and dogs are included among the food categories. The species listed as
"Commensals" are common house lot residents represented by one or a few
bones per site, numbers too small to have provided sufficient nutrition.
They probably are accidental inclusions in the faunal record.
Discussion
It is predicted that when the proportional contribution of the
above species is presented in the next two chapters that several patterns
of animal resource use will appear, based on the assumption that the most
immediate resources would have been also the most heavily exploited
(Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1972; Jochim 1976).
1. The typical English and Spanish barnyard animal complex will be
substantially altered. Cattle and pig will be the dominant food species,
followed closely by deer and perhaps chicken.
2. The other most common species will be mullet, catfish, and drum.
These species do not show the high degree of seasonality of other fish
species and could have been amenable to mass capture techniques that
provide maximum return for effort.
3. The prestige food will be cattle. Cattle closely conform to
Jochim's criteria for a luxury item in that they are mobile and require

102
great effort to capture, as well as being difficult to tend. During parts
of the First Spanish Period they may have been rare. Cattle will be used
as the index to social class in the 16th Century Spanish components
(Jochim 1976; Chapter 2).
4. Species such as Emydidae, turkeys, and largemouth bass will not
be extensively used at St. Augustine since it would be necessary to
travel further away to acquire them. Ducks may be more common at
Frederica since that town is located on brackish water rather than on a
sound.
5. Diurnal species, such as squirrels, and highly seasonal fish,
such as whitings and seatrouts, will not be heavily used at either
Frederica or St. Augustine due to scheduling conflicts.
6. Most of the species used will be those immediately available in
the area. It seems reasonable that the Spanish could have exploited
these resources in comparative safety. Consequently it is not expected
that there will be much difference in the amount of wild terrestrial
species used by British or Spanish households.
7. Fish in general will not be a heavily exploited resource at
Frederica due to Frederica's location on a brackish river rather than
a more saline open bay and beach.
These predictions can be summarized by concluding that the faunal
records which will be examined in the next two chapters can be explained
in terms of human adaptation to the local resources of their environment
within the constraints of political and social events.

PART TWO: SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AT ST. AUGUSTINE AND FREDERICA

CHAPTER 6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Restatement of Hypotheses
The hypotheses formulated in Part I were:
1. Cultural Affiliation and Local Resources. Where technological
level is constant, the resources available in the local environment will
be more influential than cultural affiliation in the subsistence strat
egy followed. Using material from England and the British colonies in
North America, it was seen that the Britons adapted their traditional
foodways to local conditions. Cumbaa (1975) has already demonstrated
this point for the Spanish adaptation at St. Augustine in the First
Spanish Period, 18th Century. It remains only to observe in the new
materials presented below a continuation of this process in the Spanish
and British Period materials from St. Augustine and the British materials
from Frederica. From faunal reports of New World British subsistence
activities a series of predictions were made about British faunal collec
tions to be reported here (Chapter 4). It is anticipated that these
predictions will need further modification as the British residents
adapted to the specific environments offered at St. Augustine and
Frederica, and the Spanish residents adapted to the environment of
St. Augustine.
2. Social class. Within a cultural group, where environment and
political events are held constant, social class will affect the
104

105
adaptive strategy to be observed in the faunal collections. Faunal
studies from several North American sites were reviewed to demonstrate
the correlation between social class and animal use, as well as the
pitfalls which might lie ahead for such interpretations. It was pre
dicted that large, hard-to-secure mammals might be more highly valued
than resources easily secured in the immediate environment and so could
be used as indicators of social standing. Cattle (Bos taurus) were
selected as the major high risk/high yield species. This aspect will be
examined using 16th and 18th Century Spanish materials.
3. Political and Social Factors. It was expected that both
political and social factors would have an influence on the adaptive
strategy. It was expected that military duties would dictate a
scheduling strategy which emphasized easily caught species found near
the fortifications rather than distant species or ones which had to be
hunted. Only the more influential people could have access to species
which would require more time, money, or effort to acquire. Since the
Spanish garrison members were often unable to venture from the fort in
safety, but the British colonists did not experience this difficulty,
it might be found that the Britons used more wild terrestrial fauna
than the Spanish population. Spanish collections might contain more
of those species which provide a high return for low effort, such as
pigs (Sus scrofa), chickens (Gall us gall us), and mullet (Mugil sp.).
Spanish collections may also contain more unusual, or non-preferred,
foods since they reportedly suffered from food shortages, and the 17th
Century Spanish collection could be exception to the general lack of
cattle expected because of the^cattle ranches in the interior during
the latter part of that century.

106
Materials
Faunal samples from seven sites at St. Augustine and two sites at
Frederica were identified and analyzed. These represent five 16th
Century, one 17th Century, and two 18th Century First Spanish occupations;
two British collections from Frederica; and two British Period samples
from St. Augustine. Each of these sites is briefly reviewed below and
is summarized in Table 5. The identities of the Spanish owners is
correlated with the Puente map (1764), which indicates ownership at the
time when possession of the territory of Florida transferred from Spain
to Britain. It is not known how long each of these individuals actually
occupied the lot. The locations of the sites, as well as of other sites
discussed in the text, are indicated in Figures 5 and 6. The St.
Augustine sites are presented in numerical order by block and lot
designation. These block and lot numbers refer to the site's location
on a map of St. Augustine compiled in 1922 by Gould T. Butler (1922).
Field specimen numbers for the faunal samples from each site are listed
in Appendix A. All faunal materials were recovered during archaeological
excavations using 1/4-inch mesh screen and are currently housed at the
Zooarchaeological Laboratory, Florida State Museum, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Shellfish were excluded from the analysis. It is clear from the
documentary evidence (Grinan 1757; Garcia 1902; Tepaske 1964; Lyon 1977a)
and from the condition of the sites themselves that shellfish were
heavily used at St. Augustine. This appears also to have been the case
at Frederica. However, shellfish were commonly used as a building
material called tabby or tapia. It is impossible to tell for a given
shell whether it was used exclusively as a food source, a building

107
material, or was first used as food and later as construction material.
In addition, invertebrate remains were not systematically collected and
so could not be quantified. It is doubtful that shellfish substantially
influenced the subsistence strategy of the human populations being
studied here due to their minimal nutritive value (Watt and Merrill
1963; Parmalee and Klippel 1974). It should also be noted that a single
oyster roast can produce a very impressive mound of shells. For these
reasons analysis was confined to vertebrate remains.
SA7-4
SA7-4 was occupied in the late First Spanish Period by Gernimo
Jose de Hita y Salazar and during the British Period by a Captain
Rainesford, a member of the military garrison stationed at St. Augustine
during the British Period. The Spanish occupation was the focus of
excavations by Kathleen A. Deagan, Florida State University, in 1975
and 1976. The results of this archaeological work and faunal analysis
are reported by Steve Shephard (1975). The site was revisited by John
Bostwick in 1978. During Bostwick's excavations a large trash pit
dating to the British occupation of Captain Rainesford was recovered
(Bostwick 1978). Only the faunal materials from this trash pit were
studied for this report.
SA7-6
SA7-6, located two lots south of SA7-4, was also occupied during
both the late First Spanish Period and the British Period. Faunal
materials from these two occupations were studied. Antonio de Mesa
lived at the site during a portion of the First Spanish Period. He was
a port guard who immigrated from Veracruz in 1756, was married to a local

108
woman, owned a slave, and carried the title "don.11 Mesa also engaged in
a variety of commercial activities (St. Augustine Historic Preservation
Board files). Joseph Stout, a British merchant, occupied the lot during
the British Period. The lot was excavated by Deagan in 1977 and reported
by her (1978b) and James R. Jones (in prep.). A structure currently is
located on the property and excavations were conducted both inside and
outside the building. There appeared to be a great deal of mixing of
materials inside the house due to remodeling of the structure since its
original construction and to the use of trash from elsewhere as fill
between the floors. For this reason it was thought best to include here
only the data from outside the building.
SA26-1
At the end of the First Spanish Period, SA26-1 was owned by don
Lorenzo Josef de Leon; however, the Spanish occupation of the lot extends
back into the late 16th Century. Only the faunal materials dating to
this earliest occupation were studied. Unfortunately it is not known
who lived at the site in the 16th Century. The lot was excavated in
1976 and 1977 by Deagan and is reported by her (1978a), Chad Braley
(1977), and Theresa Singleton (1977). Samples of the fauna have been
studied by Kathleen F. Johnson (1976), L. Jill Loucks (1977), and Robin
L. Smith (1977).
SA29-2, SA34-1, and SA34-3
Three small 16th Century faunal samples were collected as part of
a survey of 16th Century St. Augustine conducted by Deagan in 1977
(1978a). The samples are from SA29-2 (Lester's Gallery), SA34-1

109
(Trinity Episcopal Church), and SA34-3 (Public Library). The names refer
to current ownership and use rather than to historic events. Although
it is known that all three sites were within the town boundaries, it is
not known by whom they were occupied.
SA36-4
SA36-4 contained materials from all three centuries of the First
Spanish Period. It is not known who occupied the site in the 16th and
17th Centuries, although it appears likely that two separate households
were using the lot in the 16th Century (Deagan pers. comm.). The 18th
Century resident was don Francisco Ponce de Leon. Ponce was chief
adjutant at the presidio, sometimes storehouse guard, and a slave owner.
He was a member of one of the wealthiest criollo families in St. Augustine
The lot was excavated by Deagan in 1978 and is the subject of a thesis in
preparation (Poe in prep.). A portion of the faunal collection was
analyzed by Erika H. Simons (1978).
Thomas Hird Lot (Lot 12 IN)
Thomas Hird arrived in Georgia from England in 1736, at the Georgia
Trustee's expense (Saye and Coulter 1949). He was a dyer by trade, but
was also town constable and possibly a brew-house operator. Apparently
he was an able and industrious resident at Frederica and quite likely
became one of the garrison's more affluent members (Honerkamp 1975).
The lot was abandoned by the Hird family by 1759. The faunal materials
were recovered during excavations by Nicholas Honerkamp in 1974 and 1975.
A preliminary faunal report prepared by Steve Ruple was included by
Honerkamp in his thesis (1975).

no
Hawkins-Davison Houses (Lots 1_ and 2^ S)
The houses of Dr. Thomas Hawkins and Samuel Davison of Frederica
shared a common wall and were excavated jointly in 1952 by Charles H.
Fairbanks, University of Florida (1956). The faunal materials were
identified by Steve Cumbaa and reported by Kathleen Deagan in 1972. The
faunal materials from both houses were combined in Cumbaa's study. Hawkins
and Davison were substantial members of the community (Cate 1956).
Hawkins was the surgeon for Oglethorpe's Regiment, town doctor, local
apothecary, and First Bailiff. He was removed from this last post
because of the strife he caused in the town. Hawkins may have been
wealthy, but he was not well-liked. Davison got along much better with
his neighbors, although not with Hawkins. Although a chairman by trade,
he kept a tavern at Frederica and was Second Constable. In 1739 he was
appointed Overseer of the Trustee's Servants and in 1740 was Searcher of
Ships. Davison left Frederica in 1741 for South Carolina and Hawkins
returned to England in 1743.
Sites Reanalyzed
Several sites were reanalyzed in order to make them comparable to
the above collections. These reanalyzed collections include three sites
studied by Stephen L. Cumbaa: SA13-2, SA16-23, and SA34-4 (1975); the
Plaza II well studied by Elizabeth S. Wing and Erika Simons (1977); and
the Hawkins-Davison site from Frederica identified by Cumbaa and reported
by Deagan (1972). The three sites from St. Augustine studied by Cumbaa
were discussed in Chapter 2, and the Hawkins-Davison site introduced
above. The Plaza II well materials are from a collection recovered when
half of a public well found on the plaza at St. Augustine was excavated.

m
The well was constructed prior to 1763 and filled in during the British
Period. It is possible, however, that the fill materials date to the
First Spanish Period. It was excavated by John Bostwick in 1975 (1977).
Reanalysis of these sites was generally restricted to calculating the
biomass of the samples. In the case of the Hawkins-Davison materials
the MNI was also recalculated in a more conservative manner as will be
discussed below.
Methods
By and large the methods used with the faunal collections followed
standard zooarchaeological procedures. The materials were identified
using the comparative skeletal collection of the Zooarchaeological
Laboratory, Florida State Museum, University of Florida. Some of the
birds were identified using comparative skeletons in the collection of
Dr. Pierce Brodkorb, Department of Zoology, University of Florida. In
particular both the Razor-billed Auk (Alca torda) and the Whooping Crane
(Grus americana) were identified using Brodkorb's collection. It should
be noted that identification of the ducks in the archaeological collections
is tentative. Distinctions among ducks are difficult and the species
designations should all be viewed as the best choice rather than a posi
tive identification. A composite list of species identified from all the
sites under discussion, with common names, is included in Appendix B.
All the materials were weighed, counted, and MNI and biomass were calcu
lated. Species lists including this information for each site are
found in Appendix B. In addition, element distribution was tabulated.
A summary of these elements, by site, is included in Appendix D.

112
Fragment Count
One of the original methods used in faunal analysis is to count the
number of fragments identified for each taxon. It is a technique that
has been heavily criticized (White 1953, Grayson 1973, Smith 1976). The
problem inherent in such an analytical method'is that the number of bones
recovered archaeologically may have little or nothing to do with the past
human behavior which is the object of a zooarchaeological study. The
number of fragments can be attributed to the size of the site, the length
of occupation at the site, post-depositional events, and the recovery
technique involved, just to mention a few possibilities. For this reason
zooarchaeologists have tried to develop a more relevant and sensitive
analytical tool.
Minimum Numbers of Individuals (MNI)
In 1953, T.E. White suggested to faunal analysts that the pairing
of identified elements could be used as an analytical device, although
the method had been employed by paleontologists prior to this (Shotwell
1955, Grayson 1973). The method is basically quite simple. If a sample
contains two left femora of a deer, at least two deer are represented in
the sample. Quite likely more than two deer were involved, but at least
it is known for certain that a minimum of two deer were used at the site.
The technique has the advantage of reflecting human activity more directly
than does bone fragment count. White's original technique has often been
modified in practice by using indications of age, sex, and side differ
ences as criteria in addition to the element's side for determining the
minimum number of individuals represented in the collection (Grayson 1973,
Flannery 1972b, Smith 1976).

113
When the MNI method is employed an additional factor must be
considered: that is, how to combine the archaeological categories. It
is possible to maintain the discrete archaeological excavation divisions
as separate analytical units, combine them into one large unit, or re
combine them in some manner different from the archaeological proveniences.
Donald K. Grayson (1973) has addressed the problem of analytical units and
identified three approaches. The minimum distinction method ignores all
excavation subdivisions and considers the material from the site as a
single analytical unit. A second method is to isolate as single analytical
units each cultural zone within the site. Thirdly, the materials may be
analyzed in terms of all discrete excavation proveniences: unit, zone,
level. This last method will yield the maximum distinction, and the
largest number of individuals. As Grayson points out, faunal analysts
usually do not clarify their approach to this problem although it affects
the resulting MNI data substantially.
The technique employed to determine MNI for the samples studied here
recognizes the importance of the criteria used to determine MNI. The
MNI identified for each site was determined using paired elements, with
different age groups, sex, and size considered where such differences
were apparent. Each site, and each temporal component within a site,
was analyzed separately. Within each site, or temporal component, the
Features were treated as separate analytical units distinct from non
features, regardless of the square, zone, or level. This is justified
because Features at historic sites are defined as samples of discrete,
short-term activity undisturbed by later events. They should be more
representative of subsistence activity than non-feature material which
has been deposited by more haphazard, longer-lived human behavior than

114
Features. It may help to understand this distinction if it is realized
that wells are Features, but trash pits are not. When a well becomes
contaminated it is usually filled with debris very quickly but a trash
pit may be active for years. While bones discarded in the trash pit may
have been recirculated about the yard by dogs and other scavengers, bones
deposited in a Feature probably did not move about. Nor would materials
from the general yard have intruded upon the materials of a Feature. In
other words, materials from Features and non-features probably did not
mix. Excavation levels were ignored for Features, as well as for non
feature units where the levels were contemporaneous in date.
The use of MNI is not without hazards of its own. Non-comparable
techniques in determining MNI is one of these problems. Also, as White
(1953) and Odum (1971) have pointed out, the MNI method emphasizes small
species over large ones. This point has not been lost on faunal analysts,
and many faunal reports, using MNI as the basic tool, include qualifying
statements to this effect. Although a site may contain ten mullet and
only one deer, the deer undoubtedly contributed more calories and nutri
ents than did the mullet, if the entire animal was consumed at the site.
Total Live Weight and Edible Meat Weight
There have been many efforts to quantify the difference between
total live weight and edible meat weight. White (1953) attempted to
estimate the average live weight of animals, the percentage of usable
meat provided by them, and the pounds of edible meat represented by a
carcass. The procedure recommended by him was to multiply the number of
individuals of each species by the pounds of usable meat for that species.

115
Average live weight for the species was taken from the literature, and
the percentage of-that weight determined to be usable meat obtained
from the meat packing industry.
Since White's early work there have been many attempts to develop
improved techniques for determining total edible and usable meat weights.
Some of these are reviewed by R.W. Casteel (1978), D.K. Grayson (1973),
C.A. Reed (1963), D.H. Thomas (1969), E.S. Wing (1976), and A.C. Ziegler
(1973). All have the similarity that a ratio of skeletal weight to live
weight is used to obtain usable meat estimates. The MNI data for each
species may then be multiplied by this estimate, or a ratio of usable
meat weight to archaeological bone weight may be employed as in Cumbaa's
dissertation on St. Augustine (1975) and to a limited extent in this
study. The difference between the two methods is that between estimating
for the total pig and for a ham.
None of these efforts has been entirely satisfactory primarily
because of the assumptions that must be made in the process of using
them. One of the major steps in these procedures is to obtain an
estimated live weight for the species under question. An animal can
vary in size dramatically throughout its range and it is important that
the live weight used by the analyst be appropriate to the locale of the
site being studied. For example, the literature on the white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virqinianus) provides live weights that range from 34
to 181 Kgs (Burt and Grossenheider 1964) and a couple of deer weighed at
the Florida State Museum recently were 42 and 44 Kgs. Yet White assumed
that the average weight of a deer was 90 Kgs (1953) and this figure is
often used somewhat uncritically by researchers. Obviously great care
must be exercised to obtain live weights that are most similar to those

116
of animals from the region being studied. There is, unfortunately, no
way to confirm that modern live weights conform to the weights of animals
in the past, even in the same locality. Thus the first assumption that
must be made is that the live weights used in the live weight-edible meat
weight ratio are an accurate reflection of the situation in the past.
When fish, or other species that grow more or less continuously
throughout their lives, are involved in the analysis, the situation
becomes further complicated. Black drum (Pogonias cromis), for example,
weight between 500 Gms and 45 Kgs (McLane 1955). Is the average weight
of the black drum found in an archaeological site 22 Kgs? It is possible
to make a reasonable guess on the basis of the size of the bones recovered
for fish and sharks, but the degree of accuracy is not certain.
An additional set of assumptions involves the use made of the
animal's carcass. Usually bone weight and visceral weight are subtracted
to obtain usable meat weight, but this may not be an accurate reflection
of the butchering habits of the archaeological population. They may
have used the bone to make bone grease (Leechman 1951); they may have
relished all or portions of the viscera; or they may have consumed the
tongue and brains. In order to work with usable meat weights it is
necessary to decide what portions of the animal were considered food by
the consumers, usually on the basis of very little evidence. The
problems inherent in this assumption are avoided when a ratio of skeletal
to live weight is used in conjunction with the archaeological bone weight
rather than with MNI (Wing 1976).
Where the total usable meat weight is multiplied by the MNI at the
site no allowance is made for a redistributive system. It may be that

117
identification of a distal radius fragment signifies that the entire
animal was consumed by the household. However, the analyst does not
know that fact unless the distribution of elements from each provenience
indicates such a system. Possibly the hunter gave portions of the deer
away to honor reciprocal obligations and the distal radius fragment
indicates that the household only had a portion of the shoulder. Once
again, using a ratio of recovered bone weight to usable meat weight in
conjunction with the archaeological bone weight avoids the problems
inherent in this situation (Wing 1976).
Biomass
Another tool that can be used in analysis, the one employed in
addition to MNI in this study where possible, involves the calculation
of biomass represented by the archaeological bone. The technique was
taken from the ecological literature, where it is a common measure
(Odum 1971). Referred to as the power function by Casteel (1978), the
method predicts the amount of biomass represented by a measured quantity
of skeletal mass. The weight of the archaeological bone is used in an
allometric formula to derive the quantity of biomass for the skeletal
mass recovered, not the total live weight of the individual animal
represented by the recovered bone. It therefore involves no assumptions
as to the original weight of that animal and is a more conservative
estimator than the edible meat ratio.
This method is based upon the principle that the body mass and
skeletal mass proportions of animals tend to change with increasing size.
As body weight increases there must be an increase in the proportion of
the total body weight contributed by the skeleton. Galileo in 1638

118
observed this fact and it has been studied extensively in recent years
(Pedley 1977). Another way to say this is that "animal skeletons scale
allometrically with body mass so that skeletons of large animals are
proportionately more massive than those of small animals" (Prange et
al. 1979:103).
This scale effect of body weight to skeletal weight results from a
need to compensate for weaknesses in the basic structural materials. An
explanatory example is offered by Arthur B. Dubois:
A somewhat similar problem, weakness of the basic
structural material, was encountered by shipbuilders
in the days of sail. Larger ships required larger
areas of canvas, and therefore the sails weighed more.
But heavy sails would tear under their own weight, or
under wind pressure. The ship builders solved the
problem of the intrinsic weakness of cloth by dividing
the canvas into smaller units and suspending the units
from yard arms. Square riggers were designed because
of the weakness of canvas rather than the desirability
of yard arms. The animal body uses many devices to
reduce the transmural pressure on the cell wall and
capillary wall to safe limits. Instead of sails
suspended from yard arms, we have flesh hung from
our bone. (1977:85)
To carry the analogy a step further, in an archaeological site frag
ments of the yard arms (bone) are recovered and we wish to estimate the
quantity of canvas (flesh) which could have been carried by the excavated
fragments. This can be accomplished using an allometric equation. Where
two dimensions of an organism grow in such a way that the ratio between
their geometric growth rates remains constant over time the relationship
may be described by the equation,
Y = aXb
(Simpson, Roe, Lewontin 1960:397). In the case of skeletal mass and
biomass, Y is the skeletal mass and X is the biomass while a and b are

119
the constants of allometry. B is the ratio of geometric rates, and is
called the constant of allometry, or the slope of the line. A is the Y-
intercept of a log-log plot using the method of least squares and the
best fit line. Many biological phenomena show allometry in accordance
with this law. These include metabolic rates, muscle power, locomotion,
body size, and body shape.
The use of allometry on archaeological materials is not new.
Efforts to describe the relationship between brain weight and body weight
of australopithecine materials began in the 1890's (Pilbeam and Gould
1974). Recently David Pilbeam and S.J. Gould (1974) applied scaling
theory to their own discussion of australopithecine materials. These
efforts involved using linear dimensions rather than skeletal weight.
Linear dimensions have also been used on faunal materials. In 1974
Casteel recommended that linear allometry be used to analyze fish mate
rials (1974). He and Wing (1976) correlated linear measurements (Y) with
total live weight (X) using the same method of least squares regression
analysis employed here. Wing (1976) found that different linear dimen
sions on dentarys correlated well with live weight depending upon the
species being measured. H.D. Prange, J.F. Anderson, and H. Rahn (1979)
found a good correlation between linear measurements of avian long bones
and body weight. T.E. Emerson (1978) had good results using measurements
of astragali as did Richard Casteel working with fish vertebra (1974).
While the results of such allometry are quite reliable and the technique
of linear measurements useful, Wing (1976) has underscored one of its
limitations. Rarely are complete elements recovered from an archaeo
logical context. The need to have the appropriate element entire and
in good condition eliminates most of the collection from analysis.

120
Skeletal weight shows allometry with body weight in accordance with
the law Y = aX*3 (Wing 1976, Casteel 1978, Prange et al. 1979). Using the
allometric equation it is possible to predict the amount of biomass
represented by the bone recovered, without any reference to the original
live weight of the species, or the portions of the animal which might
have been consumed. A given quantity of bone must represent a predictable
amount of tissue due to the effects of allometric growth.
The first,step required in the application of the allometric equa
tion to archaeological problems of biomass is.to obtain values for the
constants a and b, the Y-intercept and the slope of the Tine respectively.
This cannot be done using archaeological materials, but can easily be
accomplished using comparative skeletal collections where both live weight
and bone weight have been recorded. Using a hand calculator it is possi
ble to enter a series of values for X and Y, plot these against each other
and obtain slope and Y-intercept values for the best fitted line.
For persons who do not have access to a comparative collection most
of the necessary data will soon be available from the literature, and it
is thought that persons with small collections should also refer to the
literature in order to have access to larger samples (Wing and Brown
in prep.). Y-intercept and slope constants for mammals and birds have
been published by Prange, Anderson and Rahn (1979). W.W. Reynolds (1977),
and Reynolds and W.J. Karlotski (1977), have published data on fish.
Using the more extensive collections at the Florida State Museum it was
possible to recalculate the formula for fish. In addition constants were
generated for turtles and for snakes. It should be noted that even more
comprehensive data on these classes will be available soon (Wing and
Brown in prep.).

121
All of the specimens used in calculating the constants of allometry
are part of the zooarchaeological laboratory's comparative skeletal
collection, with the exception of the gopher tortoises. The gophers
(Gopherus polyphemus) are part of the Herpetology Collection of the
Florida State Museum. Casteel (1978) recommended subtracting skeletal
mass from body mass in this procedure; however,this was not done in order
to keep this data comparable with that presented by Prange, Anderson and
Rahn (1979). All skeletons had been prepared by bacterial maceration or
dermestid cleaning. The slight differences which result from these two
procedures are not significant in the equation, which is calculated in
kilograms rather than in grams. The raw data on skeletal (Y) and body
weight (X) for each specimen are given in Appendix E. Table 6 represents
the constants of allometry used to estimate biomass of animals represented
in this study.
Since the data available on Osteichthyes were so extensive, a decision
was made to obtain constant values for these on the family level, for the
common families. The class was also divided into perciform and non-
perciform categories. It is thought that using the formula for the
nearest taxonomic level will produce the most satisfactory results. It
should be noted that efforts in incorporate Tetradontiformes data into
the Osteichthyes or non-perciformes formula did not meet with success.
The level of confidence for the family was 0.60, with fifteen indivi
duals of four genera included. Tetradontiformes data were excluded from
the calculations for this reason.
Using the allometric formula with archaeological materials requires
modifying the formula somewhat from the way it is usually written. This

122
is necessary since the unknown in this case is the body weight, X. The
formula Y = aX^ is transformed to
X = [Y/a]1//b
The results of the calculations are in terms of kilograms of biomass
represented by kilograms of bones recovered and identified for each taxon.
This technique is not without hazards of its own. In the first
place, the weight of the archaeological bone is basic to the final results.
The weight of archaeological bone may be influenced by depositional factors.
That is the bone may be leached, mineralized, burned, or excessively en
crusted. After recovery the bone may have been treated with a preservative
such as polyvinyl acetate (PVA) or butvar, or the bone may simply be very
dirty.
It must be admitted that this may not be an analytical tool that can
be applied to every sample with equal reliability. In addition it may
be that samples from widely different depositional matrices cannot be
compared directly because of different factors influencing the weight of
the bone. However, where the bone weight appears unbiased, as it does
at St. Augustine and Frederica, it is a useful technique for comparison
on a percentile basis within a site, if not between sites. The advantage
of being a direct reflection of .original biomass outweighs the limitation
where the technique is used judiciously.
Another, less important, risk is pointed out by Odum as a correlary
to his qualification of MNI analysis (1971). Biomass overemphasizes the
importance of larger animals. It now becomes necessary to say that while
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) constituted 78% of the biomass at a site,
fish such as mullet (Mugil sp.) were of importance to the diet in some
way and that efforts expended by the archaeological population to obtain

123
fish are worthy of study as examples of human behavior. In fact, as
will be seen, mullet were a basic staple in the diet of the Spanish
residents at St. Augustine and should not be ignored even though at
most they contributed only 15% of the biomass for taxa for which MNI
was determined from any one site. The biomass analytical technique
is not viewed as a substitute for MNI, but rather as a complementary
method.
The biomass of several species could not be obtained using the
allometric formula as a and b constants are not available for them.
These included the amphibians and alligator. The standard proportion of
skeletal weight bone weight
live weight x
was used. The pickled weight of the southern toad (Bufo terrestrial is)
of 28.5 grams and bone weight of 4.4 grams were used for the amphibians.
A live weight of 1240 grams and a skeletal weight of 95.3 grams as record
ed in the Florida State Museum's collection was used for the alligator.
The unidentified reptiles, Kinosternidae, and Cheloniidae were calcu
lated using the constants of turtles in Table 6, although members of
these taxa were not used to generate the constants of allometry. The
Osteichthyes formula was used for the porcupine fish (Diodon histrix),
a member of the refractory order Tetradontiformes mentioned above.'
A further note on biomass. Since comparison of this new material
with the faunal collections analyzed by Cumbaa (1975) was to be a basic
part of the research described here, it was decided to rework Cumbaa1s
material to some extent. Using Cumbaa1s bone weight as presented in his
dissertation, a new series of biomass data was generated. This new
series is presented here in Appendix B under the appropriate sites. In

124
addition, the diversity-evenness indices presented by Cumbaa using the
bone weight-edible meat ratio were recalculated using these new biomass
data.
Diversity and Evenness Indices
One method by which the variability of the samples and the degree of
specialization can be compared is to measure the diversity and equita-
bility of the species identified from each site (Wing 1973, 1976; Cumbaa
1975; Hardesty 1975). Diversity is a measure of the number of species
used at the site. Equitability is a measure of the degree of dependence
on the utilized resources and the effective variety of species used at
the site based upon the even, or uneven, use of individual species. D.L.
Hardesty offers the following example to illustrate the relationship
between diversity (richness) and equitability (evenness),
Suppose that two human groups have precisely the same
subsistence richness, consisting of 20 resources. How
ever, one of the groups depends on only two resources
for 90% of its total caloric intake, each of the re
maining resources contributing very little. . The
other group utilizes each of the 20 resources equally.
It is clear that the effective variety of the economies
is quite different in the face of identical richness,
since failure of the same resource could have very
different consequences. (1975:75)
Use of these indices allows discussion of food habits in terms of the
variety of animals used at the site (richness or diversity) and the
equitability (evenness) with which those species were relied upon.
To measure diversity the Shannon-Weaver Index was used. The formula
is written,
H' = -z pi logep.
where p.¡ is the number of ith species divided by the sample size (Shannon

125
and Weaver 1949). P.¡ is actually the evenness component since the
Shannon-Weaver Index measures both how many species were used and how
much each was relied upon. Diversity was calculated both for MNI and
biomass and the results for the sites are presented in Tables 8 and 9.
Equitability was calculated using the Sheldon Index,
E = H'/H max
where H' is the diversity Index and H max is the natural log of the
number of observed species (Sheldon 1969). Equitability was determined
for MNI and biomass and the results are presented for each site in
Tables 7 and 8.
Interpretation of the results can be difficult. Basically diver
sity increases as both the number of species and the equitability of
species abundance increases. A diversity of 4.99 is the highest
possible value. A sample with many species identified in which the
number of individuals slowly declines from most abundant to least
abundant will be high in diversity. Diversity can be increased by
adding one new species to the list; but if another individual of an
already present taxon is added, diversity is decreased. A low diversity
can be obtained either from having a few different species, or by having
a low equitability, where one species is more abundant than another. A
low equitability value indicates that one species was more heavily used
than the other species in the sample. A high equitability, approaching
1.0, indicates an even distribution of species in the sample following
a normal pattern where there are a few abundant species, a moderate
number of common ones, and many rare ones.

126
As Wing has indicated, when Diversity and Equitability Indices are
applied to archaeological faunal materials some basic assumptions must be
made (1973). It must be assumed that the faunal collection recovered
archaeologically and analyzed is representative of the animals used at
the site. It must further be assumed that the relative contribution of
species used at the site is accurately reflected in the faunal sample
being studied. These, of course, are the basic premises behind all
zooarchaeological work, and the major criteria against which a sample
must be measured. If the analyst does not have confidence in the sample
being studied it may be best to go no further than a species list.
Statistical Tests
It may occur to some readers that a measure of statistical signifi
cance would have been appropriate. In fact, a One Way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was calculated in two forms: comparing all five cultural/
temporal divisions, and comparing only the 16th and 18th Century First
Spanish Period materials. This was done both for biomass and MNI and
for diversity and equitability. No statistical significance in variance
was found at the 5% level. ANOVA was used because the size of the
samples was too unequal for direct comparison of raw data and because
it is not certain that biomass as derived here can be directly compared
with other sites.
The results of these tests of significance are considered to be
invalid, in spite of the fact that they support the hypothesis being
tested here. The reasons for this opinion are as follows: first, the
archaeological excavations and faunal materials were not collected in a

127
statistically random manner; secondly, the samples from the five cultural/
temporal divisions are too small to be valid; thirdly, the number of
observations (sites) within the five divisions is unequal. Any one of
these factors could invalidate the results. Before statistical tests of
significance can appropriately be applied to faunal materials from St.
Augustine many more sites from each century must be excavated, and the
faunal collections must be selected in a statistically random manner.

CHAPTER 7
ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE PATTERNS
Eleven new sites were analyzed for this research. Each belongs to one
of five cultural or temporal divisions: 16th Century First Spanish Period,
St. Augustine; 17th Century First Spanish Period, St. Augustine; 18th
Century First Spanish Period, St. Augustine; British Frederica; and British
Period St. Augustine. The results were studied for trends or patterns in
differential faunal use among these five divisions. It was found that
there was more variation within each cultural/temporal division than there
was among the divisions. In the following discussion the faunal collec
tions from the Hawkins-Davison lot at Frederica and the Plaza II well
from the British Period at St. Augustine will be included although they
have been identified by other researchers. Reference will also be made
frequently to Cumbaa's three sites from St. Augustine: SA13-5, SA16-23,
and SA34-2, but they will not be discussed specifically since they were
reviewed in Chapter 2.
The Collection as a Whole
Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI)
With only two exceptions, Hawkins-Davison and Plaza II well, the
majority of the individuals identified from all sites are fish (Tables 9,
10; Fig. 9). Of these fish, mullet (Mugil sp.),sea catfish (Ariidae),
and drum (Sciaenidae) are the prominent species. The second major
128

129
category is either domestic animals or wild terrestrial species, depend
ing upon the site. These two faunal categories, in fact, usually mirror
each other in prominence and at several sites are within a percentage
point of being identical in value. Birds, aquatic reptiles, and commen
sal faunal categories are minor components at all St. Augustine sites.
The percentages of individuals for each faunal group from the Summary
of Faunal Categories (Appendix C) are summarized in Table 10 and graphed
in Figure 9. The three major faunal categories are presented in Figure
8.
The sites studied here have high diversity and equitability value
for MNI, with a mean diversity of 2.85 and a mean equitability of 0.86
(Table 7, Fig. 7). This would indicate that a great many different
species were used, and that each taxon contributed evenly to the species
list. When the diversity range, mean and standard deviation for each of
the five cultural/temporal divisions, or sites, are plotted there is an
interesting difference (Fig. 7). The 16th Century components cluster
more tightly together than do the other divisions. They also are some
what less diverse although generally more equitable than the other
cultural/temporal divisions.
Biomass
The major contributors of biomass at the sites studied were domestic
fauna, except at SA26-1 in the 16th Century and SA36-4 in the 17th
Century (Table 9). The prominent species identified are pig (Sus scrofa)
and cow (Bos taurus). Wild terrestrial animals were the next important
contributors of biomass at many sites, although fish assumed this
prominence at other sites in the collection. Birds, aquatic reptiles,

130
and commensal species together contributed less than 5% of the biomass at
all of the St. Augustine and Frederica sites. The percentage of biomass
for each faunal category at each site is summarized in Table 11, and the
percentage distribution for each faunal group by cultural/temporal
division is graphed in Figure 10. The three major faunal groups are
presented in Figure 8.
The biomass diversity and equitability values are much lower than
those obtained from the MNI (Table 7, 8; Fig. 7). The mean biomass
diversity for all sites was 1.76 and the mean equitability 0.48. This
suggests that in general more reliance was placed on only a few taxa in
spite of the larger number of different species found at the sites.
When the range, mean, and standard deviation of the biomass diversity
and equitability are plotted it is found that the 16th Century component
is more diverse and more equitable than three of the other cultural/
temporal divisions (Fig. 7). Although the 16th Century component con
tained fewer different species, more uniform reliance was placed upon
the total range of species utilized by the occupant than in the other
cultural/temporal divisions. The other divisions used a greater variety
of animals, but relied upon only a few of these as major sources of
biomass.
Habitat Orientation
It is clear from the above discussion that most of the biomass came
from terrestrial species, either wild or domestic. All of the terrestrial
species might have been encountered within a two-mile radius of both
Frederica and St. Augustine (Table 3). This is particularly significant
if the garden hunting model suggested by Olga Linares (1976) is appli
cable in this instance. Linares, working with Central American fauna,

131
observed that most of the terrestrial species in her collection were
known garden-raiders. She postulated that many, if not all, of the
animals could have been caught raiding the gardens of an evening or
morning and would not have been "hunted" at all in the traditional
sense.
The historic materials from St. Augustine and Frederica appear to
fit this model. Most of the terrestrial species in the collections are
known to raid gardens and/or henhouses. William Bartram during his
journey through the area in the British Period reported seeing young
men and boys stationed to protect the fields from such animal predations.
By day these watchmen hunted squirrels and a variety of birds. At night
they hunted deer, bear, and raccoon as these made their raids (1955).
Many of these animals also frequent garbage dumps. They could have been
hunted or trapped in such situations with a minimum of time expended in
pursuit.
Other animals found in the faunal lists could have been obtained
with a minimum of travel or effort. For example, the domestic animals
may have been penned in the backyards or may have roamed the streets of
the town. Gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) may have been collected
either during excursions to the interior, or on the nearby dunes.
The second most heavily exploited habitat was the immediate estu
arine environment (Table 3). All of the marine species could have been
captured immediately adjacent to the towns of St. Augustine and
Frederica. The fish and sharks are principally shallow water, inshore
species. Most of the birds are found on or near the water, and the
aquatic reptiles are mainly shoreline residents of freshwater that will

132
also be found in brackish situations. Some sea turtles (Cheloniidae)
nest today in small numbers on the beaches, being found inside the
harbor occasionally.
In this context, the large quantity of waterfowl from the Frederica
sites is of interest in that it highlights a difference in the location
of the two towns in the estuarine environment. St. Augustine faces onto
an open bay (Fig. 3), not a habitat favored by most waterfowl, and has
relatively few bird individuals in the faunal collections, although the
biomass contribution of birds at St. Augustine is higher than at Frederica.
Frederica actually faces onto the Frederica River rather than onto St.
Simons Sound (Fig. 6). The River is a more protected waterway, and thus
a habitat preferred by many waterfowl. Birds contributed 16% to 21% of
the individuals at the two Frederica sites, although only 1% of the
biomass. At St. Augustine, birds contributed at most 11% of the indi
viduals, but 6% of the biomass.
Seasonality, Habits, and Capture Techniques
As can be seen in Tables 2 and 3, and as was discussed in Chapter
5, most of the species exploited at both Frederica and St. Augustine do
not show major seasonal patterns. While many of the fish are more
abundant at certain times of the year, they are generally present to
some extent throughout the year. The two most seasonal faunal categories
are wild birds and aquatic reptiles, both of which were minor components
in terms of biomass at Frederica and St. Augustine. In general, the
study of the collections indicates that high species seasonality corre
lates with low utilization and reliance. For example, the bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix), one of the most seasonal fish in the study region,

133
makes spectacular runs at St. Augustine in the fall and the spring, yet
it is a minor component at all sites. It is interesting to speculate
that this seasonality is the factor contributing to the low level of
exploitation of such animals. The scheduling conflict that they may
have presented to individuals who had official duties elsewhere may have
precluded large scale use of this fauna.
The majority of the species used are crepuscular or nocturnal.
Diurnal birds might have been captured at night when at their roost.
Only mullet (Mugil sp.) and squirrels (Sciurus sp.) would have required
active diurnal hunting. The domestic animals, of course, could have
been tended in the daytime, although pigs (Sus scrofa), when feral,
conform to a habit of greatest activity in the evening through morning
hours. Active hunting and fishing would have been best in the morning,
evening, or at night. This might have conformed well to the off-duty
hours of the residents. The conflict that mullet (Mugil sp.) would
have presented in scheduling subsistence activities may have been
resolved due to the larger return for effort that this schooling fish
provides.
There is not necessarily a close correlation between habits and
species utilization since capture techniques can make a difference in
this respect (Tables 2 and 3). A species could be captured using an
untended trap or line, in which case the preferred habit or the species
assumes less significance in the subsistence strategy. The fact that
basking turtles (Emydidae) are diurnal becomes incidential if they were
taken in traps, which could have been tended at a time most convenient
to the trapper. The seasonal activity of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus

134
polyphemus) is muted by the fact that they can be "hooked" from their dens
at any time of the year. In this respect it is of interest that so many
members of the wild terrestrial, fish, and aquatic reptile faunal cate
gories could have been trapped or fished with untended lines. There is
a clear selection in favor of species which are present more or less
continually during the year and could be exploited using mass capture
or untended devices with a good return for minimum effort. Species which
would have required travel over a greater distance (freshwater turtles,
for example) or conflicted with official duties were not heavily exploited.
It is true that to achieve maximum return more diligent methods would
have been employed, but the interpretation made here is based on the
satificer criterion for maximizing food procurement (Chapter 1).
Butchering Techniques and Element Distributions
At all of the sites studied, it was found that butchering marks
tended to cluster around major articulations and muscle attachments.
Usually mammalian astragali and calcanea were cut, the olecranon process
severed, and there were miscellaneous gouges at the distal and proximal
ends of humeri, femora, and tibiae as well as along the shafts of these
bones. The articular end of the scapula and the acetabular region of
the innominates were cut. Frequently the vertebrae were cut in half
along the anterior-posterior axis. Most of the butchering marks found
on birds were on the femur and coracoid.
Attempts to determine the butchering tools were inconclusive. No
striations which could be attributed to saws were encountered. However,
many of the bones had clean cuts across them. It is difficult to imagine
that these straight breaks could have been produced with an ax or similar

135
tool. There were numerous jagged cuts and deep gouges which were clearly
the product of the straight cutting edge of an ax or knife.
The frequency or distribution of elements is presented in Appendix
D. It should be remembered that the elements included on these tables
reflect four factors. The first is the use made of the animal by the
human agents. Bones may have been so altered or damaged by use as to
/
preclude their survival, or identification, in the recovered faunal
sample. Secondly, some bones are too fragile to survive deposition and
recovery. Mullet (Mugil sp.) maxilla are an excellent example of such
fragility. In addition to the survival potential of elements, the
recovery techniques used during excavation always tend to favor recovery
of large elements. It is a favorable comment on the recovery technique
used by Deagan that maxilla and dentary of mullet were recovered at all
and the presence of the herring (Clupeidae) vertebrae is indeed unusual.
The fourth factor is identifiability. Some elements, even though com
plete, are difficult to identify. Lewis R. Binford (Binford and Bertram
1977) to the contrary, there is such a thing as an unidentifiable bone,
and this factor can serve to bias the data substantially. For example,
large numbers of drum (Sciaenidae) vertebrae are probably classified in
this collection as unidentified fish, and undoubtedly many skull and
shaft fragments of Artiodactyls are included under the unidentified
mammal category. On the opposite extreme mullet vertebra and sea catfish
(Ariidae) pectoral spines are easily identifiable as very small fragments
The frequency of identified elements reflects these facts. Consequently
frequency data such as presented in Appendix D must be interpreted with
caution.

136
Discussion of Each Site by Cultural/Temporal Division
In general, the subsistence patterns found for the sites studied
indicate heavy reliance upon domestic biomass, with supplements from
marine species and wild terrestrial animals. Each cultural/temporal
division will be reviewed below in terms of the subsistence activities
at each site and for subsistence patterns. The contribution of MNI and
biomass from the three major faunal categories to each cultural/temporal
division is plotted in Figure 8. MNI and biomass from each site re
graphed in Figures 9 and 10 and listed in Tables 10 and 11.
It should be noted that when reference is made in these figures and
in the following discussion to the percentage of biomass a species con
tributed to a faunal assemblage, the total biomass of taxa for which MNI
was determined is the referent, not the total site biomass. Taxa for
which MNI had not been calculated in the species lists presented in
Appendix B, i.e. unidentified mammal, Carnivora, or Colubridae, were
not included in the biomass calculations of the faunal categories
summarized in Appendix C, presented in Tables 10 and 11, or graphed
in Figures 7 through 17.
16th Century First Spanish Period, St. Augustine
SA26-1 is one of five sites studied from the 16th Century, and one
of the most interesting of these. The low biomass contribution of
domestic animals (32%) and the high biomass contribution of wild animals
(68%) is almost unique to this site. Mullet (Mugil sp.) are the most
prominent of the species, contributing 15% of the biomass and 37% of
the individuals. Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) contributed 15% of the

137
biomass and 2% of the individuals. Pig (Sus scrofa) contributed 24% of
the biomass and 3% of the individuals. Cattle (Bos taurus) contributed
only 4% of the biomass and 0.4% of the individuals. Chickens (Gal 1 us
gallus) contributed as much biomass as cattle (4%) and more individuals
(3%). These data and those from other species are graphed in Figures
11 through 17. From these Figures it can be seen that SA26-1 represents
an extreme not only for the 16th Century, but for Spanish St. Augustine
as a whole.
The uniqueness of the faunal assemblage from this site corresponds
with the novelty of the ceramic assemblage as well. This is the only
site from St. Augustine at which Mesoamerican colonial wares, Feldspar
Inlaid redware, and burnished redware have been recovered (Singleton
1977). In addition there are more majolica sherds from this site,
representing a greater variety of types than found at other 16th Century
excavations in St. Augustine (Singleton 1977). There is also greater
variety in glass fragments and more nails.
The social status of the 16th Century residents at this site is
unknown. It may be possible, though, to predict social status from the
faunal collection. Michael Jochim (1976) suggested that high risk
resources would be utilized more by high status individuals. Cattle
(Bos taurus) may have been a scarce resource due to the difficulty in
caring for the animals, and in capturing feral individuals. Once captured,
the criollo cow would have yielded more biomass than a pig (Sus scrofa),
and so would have been the highest yield animal available. As mentioned
in Chapters 2 and 5, cattle are assumed to be indicators of social status
for these reasons. Although all domestic animals were only slightly

138
utilized at the site, the low percentages of domestic individuals and
biomass can be attributed principally to the low incidence of cattle in
the collection. It is, therefore, possible that the occupant at the site
was a person whose access to cattle was restricted below the level of the
occupants of the other 16th Century sites, possibly because of lower
social standing in the community. At this time the 16th Century pattern
is too poorly explored to understand the meaning of the ceramic and
faunal assemblages beyond noting the uniqueness of the site. Since
social standing includes factors other than income and occupation, such
as ethnic affiliation and familial ties, it is possible that some of
these additional factors are being reflected in the artifacts.
The faunal collection from SA26-1 indicates that the 16th Century
resident made use of several species which represent low risk/high yield
resources. Fish, particularly mullet (Mugil sp.), sea catfish (Ariidae),
and drum (Sciaenidae) are such a resource. As can be seen in Figures
15-17, the use of these three species at SA26-1 is remarkable. The
presence of large quantities of mullet is particularly interesting since
they are herbivorous fish best caught with a net, by means of which
mullet could easily have been procured almost anywhere around St.
Augustine in large quantities. Maximizing yield by means of a net can
be interpreted as an indication of a need to compensate for a lack of
domestic meat in the diet. Chickens (Gallus gallus) are an easily
raised resource that require little care beyond protection against
predators. Raised in the backyard, perhaps fed some scraps, they were
a reliable, nearby resource also. Swine, particularly ones raised in
backyards or streets, would have been a dependable resource requiring
little care and providing substantial annual increases.

139
Two exceptions are seen in this general tendency at SA26-1 to either
use dependable, mass-capture species or ones raised with a minimum of
attention, that is the presence of substantial quantities of deer, and
of sheep or goat in the collection. The use of deer at the site does
conform to the tendency at the site to rely upon wild foods rather than
domestic ones. The occurrence of the sheep or goat (Ovis sp. or Capra
sp.) is difficult to explain, considering that no other individuals of
this group have been identified from the 16th Century. There is ample
evidence from the documents that these animals were brought to the town
both at the original time of settlement and at several other times in
the 16tn Century (Lyon 1977a). It is understandable, of course, that
many of these animals were consumed rather than husbanded for future in
crease as had been the Royal intent, and it is not entirely unexpected
that sheep or goat should appear in a 16th Century site. Why they appear
in this one site and in no other 16th Century site is odd. It may be
that since this is the largest sample from St. Augustine (Table 9), what
appears to be a unique example of sheep or goat use reflects sampling
bias at the other sites.
SA29-2, SA34-1, and SA34-3 are three small samples from which it
would be unwise to draw any major conclusions. SA29-2 and SA34-1 both
conform to patterns of faunal use found at St. Augustine sites of the
18th Century First Spanish Period. High MNI diversity and equitability
indicate a more or less even use of a wide range of species (Tables 7
and 8, Fig. 7). The low biomass diversity and equitability for these
two sites suggest heavy reliance upon a few of these exploited species
for most of the biomass. Domestic animals were the heavily used species
at these two sites. SA34-3 is unique in that there were no deer

140
(Odocoileus virginianus) recovered from the site. Yet terrestrial bio
mass constituted 61% of the faunal biomass. This is so because gopher
tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) contributed 21% of the biomass (7% of
the MNI). With only fifteen individuals of all taxa identified for the
site, however, this phenomenon may only be a function of sample size.
The 16th Century component of SA36-4 is the last of the 16th Century
sites to be reported here and is sufficiently large (MNI = 119) to be
discussed with some confidence. Like SA26-1 it has a highly diverse
biomass and a high equitability (Tables 7 and 8, Fig. 7). Emphasis was
generally placed on a wide range of species, most of which were domestic.
While the high diversity at SA26-1 can perhaps be attributed to mullet
(Mugil sp.), at SA36-4 in the 16th Century it is ascribed to a heavy
reliance on cattle (Bos taurus), 50% of the biomass for which MNI was
determined. Using Jochim's hypothesis as a model (1976), it is possible
to predict that the SA36-4 occupant was an individual of means, able to
support cattle, or to hire someone to guard them when pastured outside
the town, or to hire someone to hunt them down.
The emphasis on cattle at SA36-4 in the 16th Century corresponds
with a depressed use of hogs (Sus scrofa), which contributed 16% of the
biomass and 7% of the individuals. Hogs, as easily raised animals, may
have been disdained by a household with access to "better" meat, such
as beef. The apparent reduction of hogs in the collection also may
be only a statistical one caused by the preponderence of cattle in the
collection. It should be noted as well that deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
contributed only 5% of the biomass and 3% of the MNI so that the emphasis
was generally placed on beef by the 16th Century occupant.

141
SA36-4 is noteworthy for another fact. The documents report that
cats (Felis domesticus), dogs (Canis familiaris), rodents, and horses
(Equus cabal!us) were consumed at St. Augustine during periods of famine.
The faunal record generally does not support this contention; however,
there is a tiny fragment of evidence at SA36-4 to support these reports.
A cat astragalus which had been cut cleanly in half along the long axis
was identified from Feature 16, a well construction pit. It is not
clear whether this mark is an intentional butchering mark.
The 16th Century First Spanish Period subsistence pattern is
difficult to define since there was apparently a very wide range of
strategies employed as seen in the above materials. It would appear
that the range of adaptive strategies followed during this time period
was more diverse than for any of the other cultural/temporal divisions
(Fig. 7 and 8). In general the diversity of individuals employed is
low, although the diversity of biomass use is high. Domestic animals
were not heavily used, although pigs were more important in the diet
than cattle. In general pigs were more heavily exploited by the
Spanish in the 16th Century than in the 18th Century, as were most fish.
From the political events of the times, particularly the hazards of
venturing away from the fortified area due to Indian hostilities, it
is inferred that in the 16th Century most of the swine were backyard
and street animals rather than feral ones. Such "confined" swine, and
the local fish, would be secure resources which could be procured within
the protective guard of the fort. With such in interpretation the deer
probably represent animals captured as they raided the fields and gardens
adjacent to the town.

142
It should be clarified at this point that patterns of land owner
ship are not known for the 16th Century. It is not clear if fields and
gardens were tended as government property by soldiers as part of their
military duties, or by individuals as part of their household respon
sibilities. Nor is it known to whom the animals captured at these fields
would have belonged. Would a soldier guarding a royal field have claim
to animals he shot or trapped at that field or would they go into the
government larder? If the lands were privately farmed, would the
animals shot or trapped belong to the landowner or to the individual
guarding the field, assuming that they may have been different people?
There is not sufficient information to support any firm conclusion on
this matter, although the assumption made here is that the fields were
private responsibility and that animals captured during their raids on
the fields would belong to the person who shot or trapped them. Since
all of the wild terrestrial mammals and some of the domestic ones
identified from the 16th Century sites are known to be field and garden
pests, the garden hunting model suggested by Linares appears particularly
applicable (1976).
Recognizing that to a great extent the types of species exploited
most heavily in the 16th Century may have been initially a reflection of
political necessity, the differences observed among the 16th Century sites
seems best explained by social status. Presuming that domestic animals,
particularly cattle, were more rare in the 16th Century than in the 18th
Century, it appears that differential access to this scarce resource was
more extreme in the 16th Century of the First Spanish Period than for any
other cultural/temporal division studied here, with the exception of the
17th Century component of'SA36-4.

143
17th Century First Spanish Period, St. Augustine
Only one faunal sample is available for this interesting time period.
It is a very small sample (MNI = 47) so that generalizations from this
collection to the entire 17th Century are unwarranted. The following
discussion is a tentative analysis at best and raises more questions
than it answers.
As was discussed in Chapter 3 this century was one of great activity
in St. Augustine and the latter part of the century has been called the
town's "Golden Age." It was predicted that the use of domestic animals,
particularly of cattle (Bos taurus), would be higher during this temporal
period than at other times because of the extensive ranches in the
interior. It was also predicted that the use of wild terrestrial species
might have increased from the 16th Century and be higher than the 18th
Century Spanish pattern because the documents suggest that access to the
interior resources was more secure during the temporary relaxation of
hostilities with the Indians which occurred prior to major British
encroachments.
From the faunal analysis of the 17th Century component of SA36-4
it was found that cattle (Bos taurus) contributed only 16% of the biomass
and 2% of the individuals. This is considered to be lower than anticipated
if the cattle ranches were really contributing substantially to the town's
diet. This is assuming that the resident at SA36-4 in the 17th Century
had access to the system by which those cattle were distributed in the
town. Apparently the resident either did not have such access or the
cattle ranches were not contributing substantially to the town's food
supply. In either case the SA36-4 occupant developed a strategy that

144
made use of the lull in hostilities to use wild terrestrial resources
to an extent greater than at any other site studied here (Tables 10 and
11, Fig. 9 and 10).
The use of the individuals from the three major faunal groups at
SA36-4 in the 17th Century is very similar to that of the First Spanish
Period in general (Fig. 8), but the distribution of biomass in the
domestic faunal group is extraordinarily depressed, with a corresponding
increase in the percentages of terrestrial biomass. This increase is
most pronounced in the dominance of deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 25%
of the biomass and 4% of the individuals. Either the access to
domesticates was limited because there were few such animals available
to St. Augustinians or this was a very low status individual who had no
access to the system by which cattle were distributed. It is not
thought that the presence of a hunting specialist such as suggested by
Cumbaa for SA34-2 in the 18th Century First Spanish Period (1975, and
Chapter 2 above) is applicable here since the low use of cattle at SA36-4
in the 17th Century is quite distinct from the high use of these animals
at SA34-2. The low percentage of pork biomass, 5%, is perhaps due to
two of several possible factors: the resident at SA36-4 did not hunt
feral pigs as he hunted deer, or else did not raise them in the town
following the 16th Century pattern.
This may be an indication of the habitat in which the SA36-4
occupant did most of his hunting. Deer prefer forest-edge, disturbed
situations, and feral hogs frequent bottomlands. The deer may have
been caught near the fields, and hogs would not have been as common
there. Consequently a hunter concentrating on the nearby fields would

145
I
have shot more deer than hogs. This indicates that for at least one
17th Century household, all of the faunal resources could have been
obtained in the immediate vicinity of the town.
Parenthetically, it should be noted that one of the six horse
(£quus cabal 1 us) elements identified from St. Augustine to this date was
identified from this site. The element, like its fellows from SA7-4 in
the British Period and SA-1, is a tooth. Considering that the Spanish
documents repeatedly assert that horses were consumed, the fact that
only six teeth and no limb bones have been found leaves room for suspicion
about the accuracy of these claims.
18th Century First Spanish Period, St. Augustine
SA7-6, the lot occupied by treasury official don Antonio de Mesa
in the 18th Century part of the First Spanish Period, is quite similar
to the mean diversity and equitability of biomass and individuals for
the 18th Century First Spanish Period as a whole (Tables 7 and 8, Fig.
7). The percentage of wild fauna biomass, 14%, and of pigs (Sus scrofa),
6%,indicates an orientation toward an almost exclusive use of beef in
the diet (76% of biomass). It is of interest that caprines (Capra sp./
Ovis sp.) contributed 2.3% of MNI and 2.5% of the biomass. Perhaps
Antonio de Mesa could afford the services of a cow or goat herder or was
willing to endure the expense and inconvenience of stabling cattle (Bos
taurus) and goats (Capra hi reus) in his backyard. According to the
Puente map, Mesa's lot was a large one and this second approach may have
been his strategy.
It has been suggested that traits having the connotation of being
"Old World" may have been more highly valued than traits not given this

146
meaning (Shephard 1975). Normally only members of the community with
sufficient means to afford such traits would evidence them, but such
visible displays could communicate to the rest of the community the
individual's perception and claim to their social standing (Warner and
Lunt 1941; Homans 1950; Bushnell 1978a). If this is true at St. Augustine,
then the presence of unusual numbers of caprines in the collection, a
trait shared with the peninsulare Contreras (Cumbaa 1975) and with the
wealthy criollo Ponce (below) may indicate something of Mesa's social
standing in the community. Contreras and Ponce could afford to keep
sheep and goats as symbols of their affluence and ties with the Iberian
peninsula. Perhaps Mesa was trying to identify with such behavior and
so also kept caprines. It may also be that Mesa kept a small herd as
part of the commercial transactions he conducted in the community,
supplementing his royal income as port guard.
The second 18th Century Spanish lot introduced here (SA36-4) was
occupied by don Francisco Ponce de Leon, whose family had been of major
influence in the presidio for decades. It was predictable that SA36-4
in the 18th Century would be most similar to SA34-2, the lot occupied
by Cristobal Contreras and studied by Cumbaa (1975). Although a new
arrival, Contreras was also a man of wealth in the community. Cumbaa
suggested that the high number of wild individuals found at SA34-2 was
due to the fact that Contreras could afford the services of a hunting
specialist. Whatever is the case, Ponce de Leon did not surpass
Contreras in this respect, although the percentage of deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) biomass at both sites was 11%. The use of wild resources
at the Ponce lot (20% of the biomass) is slightly above the average for

147
18th Century Spanish St. Augustine (19%), but less than for the
Contreras site. As a peninsulare, Contreras would have been even less
likely to make use of illicit, British beef than the upper status criollo
Ponce (Homans 1950; Chapter 2). Cattle biomass percentages at these two
sites are the two lowest values in the 18th Century range, below that for
the mestizo household at SA16-23.
While domestic biomass at the site was high, principally due to the
presence of pigs, deer biomass and MNIwerealso high. This use of deer
increases the use of wild species above that of sites such as SA7-6 and
SA13-5 in the First Spanish Period where the occupants did not use wild
terrestrial game such as deer in quantities similar to those at the
Ponce or Contreras households. Ponce could perhaps afford the services
of a hunter, was able to purchase wild meats, or enjoyed the luxury of
sport hunting. A fowling piece was recovered from the site (Poe in
prep.). The relatively high percentage of caprines (3% of the biomass
and 1% of the MNI) in the Ponce collection may indicate an avante-garde
orientation in this family toward items having Old World connotations
(see Cumbaa 1975).
SA36-4 in the 18th Century is the other First Spanish Period
component where an element of a species usually considered to be non
food items has been found with butchering marks. As in the 16th Century
component at this same lot, the element is part of a cat's foot (Felis
domesticus); this time the element is a metapodial fragment. The marks
are two very light scratches across the surface of the bone. Since
the element is from FS #284, a First Spanish Period zone, it is possible
that the marks were the result of plowing at the lot while it was an

148
orange grove in the 19th Century. It would be quite significant if a
family such as the Ponces' ate cats, but such a conclusion based on
this minimal evidence is untenable at present.
Several conclusions can be drawn about 18th Century First Spanish
Period subsistence patterns. Although the percentage contribution of
individuals from the three major faunal categories in the 18th Century
Spanish St. Augustine collections are very similar to that in the 16th
Century, the domestic biomass range increased to a level which was
approximated by the Spaniards' contemporaries at Frederica and was
sustained in the later British Period at St. Augustine (Fig. 8). While
the MNI diversity and equitability of the Spanish 18th Century component
is higher, the biomass diversity and equitability is lower, than that in
the 16th Century (Fig. 7). Although the 18th Century residents exploited
a wider variety of species than did the 16th Century, the relative bio
mass contribution of many of those species was less. More emphasis was
placed upon a few major biomass contributors than in the 16th Century
and the individual sites were more similar in their access to these
favored species. It would appear that life did in fact improve for the
Spanish St. Augustinians through time, measured especially by the in
creased use of domestic meat in general and of beef in particular.
Another interesting feature, one suggested in the 16th Century and
17th Century collections, but coming into focus in the 18th Century, is
the role of social standing in the strategies implemented. The low use
of beef in the diets of the peninsulare (SA34-2) and the upper income
criollo (SA36-4) households is striking compared with what are presumed
to be middle status households (SA7-6 and SA13-5). The pattern of the

149
upper status beef use is mirrored in the collections of the mestizo
household of Maria de la Cruz (SA16-23) (Cumbaa 1975; Chapter 2). While
the mestiza Maria de la Cruz perhaps could not afford access to beef
coming to the town from British merchants, the upper class households
might not have taken advantage of the access to this resource which
their wealth would have allowed because of their conformance with social
and legal norms. This has been suggested by Beidleman for ceramic
assemblages found at the Contreras site (SA34-2) (1976).
It appears that throughout the First Spanish Period a major pattern
was to utilize immediately available resources. Many of the fish species
are ones which are readily available in the immediate vicinity of the
town, most could have been attracted to garbage dumped into the bay,
literally coming to the townspeople. Likewise, the wild terrestrial
species also came to the townspeople, by raiding the gardens. Birds
and aquatic reptiles were heavily exploited only by the mestizo house
hold (SA16-23). Cumbaa suggested that this household was following an
aboriginal pattern in its subsistence activities (1975).
It might be inferred from this that the Spanish population through
out the 200 year residence at the town was restricted in its access to
the resources of the interior by political events. Alternatively, the
population's behavior can be explained by reference to E.S. Higgs and
C. Vita-Finzi's model in which, by and large, only resources available
within "reasonable" traveling distance of a site will be used (1972).
Jochim's model in which low risk/high yield species provide the major
part of the biomass (1976) is also applicable, particularly when the
town itself was located precisely where a range of species conforming

150
to such a description was available. Thus, while the population's
ability to use wild terrestrial resources undoubtedly was hampered by
political events, i.e. relations with neighboring Indians and British
colonies to the north, this may not have been overly influential in
the form that the subsistence adaptation assumed.
18th Century British Collections
The British occupation at Frederica, Georgia, was contemporaneous
with that of 18th Century Spanish St. Augustine (Table 1). The Frederica
collections provide control on the British Period materials from late
18th Century St. Augustine. If traditional British foodways override
environmental factors, then the two British components should be similar.
If the local environment is more influential in the formation of a
subsistence strategy than cultural affiliation as reflected in tradi
tional foodways, the British Period collections at St. Augustine should
be more similar to the 18th Century First Spanish Period collections
than to the Frederica ones.
Two faunal collections from Frederica were examined. The materials
from the Thomas Hird lot have a very high diversity for individuals, but
one very near the mean for all sites for biomass (Tables 7 and 8, Fig.
7). The reason for this is that 21% of the individuals at the Hird lot
are wild birds, but only 1% of the biomass is from that faunal group
(Tables 10 and 11). Less than 2% of the individuals are mullet (Mugil
sp.) although line-caught fish such as drum (Sciaenidae) and sea catfish
(Ariidae) are abundant at the site (27% of the MNI).
Since so many of the birds identified from the Hird lot are ones
which have been traditionally exploited in a feather trade, it was thought

151
that the collection might indicate involvement in this trade by Hird.
The distribution of elements from these birds (Appendix D) indicates
that the entire bird, not just wings, or breasts, was discarded at the
site. Only one of these elements, a Canada goose (Branta canadensis)
coracoid, had a butchering mark. This does not preclude a feather trade
involvement, but it does suggest that Hird consumed these birds as well,
in keeping with a British food tradition. Due to the quantity of birds
utilized the Hird lot is the most diverse site based on MNI of all the
sites examined. Since 40% of the bird individuals at the lot are from a
single provenience, FS #60, the high diversity at the site may be
anomalous or may represent a special activity area.
While the reduced use of fish individuals can be explained in terms
of the location of Frederica on the Frederica River (see below), it is
odd that it is mullet (Mugil sp.) that seem under utilized rather than
catfish (Ariidae) or drum (Sciaenidae). Mullet will tolerate a much
less saline environment than will members of either of the other two
families. It would appear that the resident at the Hird lot obtained
or was supplied fish acquired by the use of hook and line rather than
by net. Since net fishing was part of the traditional British procure
ment repertory, the low utilization of the technique here, and at the
other British sites except SA7-4 in the British Period at St. Augustine,
is difficult to explain. It is one Old World pattern that would have
been expected to be easily adapted to the new environment and procure
ment of mullet.
In most respects the percentages of the biomass contributors are
very similar to those of the First Spanish Period in the 18th Century,

152
except for a higher use of deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Deer contrib
uted 16% of the biomass at the site and 7% of the individuals, a level
of use which is comparable to that observed in the 16th Century at SA26-1.
Use of cattle is somewhat low by comparison with 18th Century sites here
and at St. Augustine, constituting 61% of the biomass and 7% of the
individuals. It would appear that the Hird household had an orientation
toward wild terrestrial animals, particularly toward deer. This finding
correlates well with the abundant firearms evidence found archaeologically
at this site (Honerkamp 1975).
The materials from the Hawkins-Davison lot were identified by Cumbaa,
and reported by him briefly in Deagan's analysis of the lot (1972). Wild
birds once again contributed a high number of individuals, 16%, and a
low percentage of biomass, 1%. Domestic animals, including caprines,
contributed 83% of the biomass. The total wild animal percentage in
the biomass was 18%, of which 15% came from deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
(At the Hird lot 27% of the biomass was from wild fauna.) This indicates
that the Hawkins-Davison households also had a land-based orientation
similar to that of Hird, but employing less wild fauna. The main
difference between the two sites is that fish are almost entirely
absent in the sample studied from the Hawkins-Davison collection, and
there are no. mullet (Mugil sp.) at all. Another variance is that at
the Hird lot caprines (Ovis/Capra sp.) contributed only 0.2% of the
biomass and 0.4% of the individuals, while at the Hawkins-Davison lot
these animals comprised 4% of the biomass and 8% of the individuals.
There are some questions about collection biases. Although screen
sifted, it was apparently rough-sorted before being shipped to the

153
University of Florida in the 1970's. The impression one gets is that
all the "little stuff," i.e. fish and scrap bone, had been discarded.
In addition, some of the British remains may have been mixed with later
occupational debris. Furthermore, the collection is very small (MNI =
45). In spite of these reservations, the collection almost mirrors,
on a percentile basis, the pattern observed at the Thomas Hird lot.
British activities at Frederica can be compared to the activities
practiced later by the British residents at St. Augustine in order to
assess the importance of traditional foodways to the subsistence strategy
employed at St. Augustine. Unfortunately the British Period sites at
St. Augustine are difficult to characterize, perhaps because two of the
collections are very small (Table 9) and the third is from a single trash
pit (SA7-4). The range in biomass diversity is almost as great as in
the 16th Century First Spanish Period at St. Augustine (Fig. 7). The
equitability range is also similar to that in the 16th Century. The
MNI range, while as wide as that of the 18th Century Spanish collection,
is depressed to the 16th Century level. This suggests that there is a
great deal of difference among the three sites, but that generally a
smaller number of individuals were exploited in the British Period and
more reliance was placed upon a single source of biomass.
SA7-4, occupied in the British Period by Captain Rainesford,
compares quite closely to SA26-1 and SA16-23, the 16th Century site and
the 18th Century mestizo household, in the proportion of wild as com
pared to domestic animals used, principally because of the high level
of fish found at SA7-4. For example sea catfish (Ariidae) are unusually
prominent (45% of the individuals and 21% of the biomass), while deer

154
(Odocoileus Virginianus) are notably under-utilized (1.6% of the biomass
and 0.9% of the MNI). It would appear that Captain Rainesford did not
hunt extensively or else did not have access to wild game through a
market or specialists. Perhaps deer were not as common about St.
Augustine in the British Period as they were on St. Simons Island.
Rainesford did fish, probably using trot lines. In this way he supple
mented his rather limited access to domestic biomass. It should, however,
be noted that this analysis is based upon a single trash pit from the
site and may not be representative of the site as a whole. Parenthet
ically, one of the six horse teeth mentioned in the discussion of SA36-4
in the 17th Century was found in this British trash pit.
Joseph Stout, the owner of SA7-6, used more domestic animals and
deer than Rainesford. Except for the low use of mullet (Mugil sp.),
the faunal pattern here is similar to that of other St. Augustine sites,
and relatively dissimilar to British Frederica. This is the only British
Period collection which represents a general lot excavation of a private
residence. For this reason it is hypothesized that the Stout collection
represents the more typical British pattern at St. Augustine even though
the sample is small (MNI = 23). This pattern includes a high use of
domestic animals, supplemented by wild fauna, most of which were marine
rather than terrestrial.
The Plaza II well is the only public facility in the analysis.
The faunal materials were identified and quantified by Elizabeth S. Wing
and Erika Simons (1977), but are included in this discussion because of
the new information provided by the biomass analysis. One of the most
surprising characteristics of this collection is the high percentage of

155
caprines (Ovis sp./Capra sp.), which contributed 11% of the biomass and
19% of the individuals. Domestic animals overall contributed 98% of
the collection's biomass, which explains the low biomass diversity for
the sample (Table 8, Fig. 7). Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are entirely
absent, as are mullet (Mugil sp.). In this respect the Plaza II well
assemblage reaffirms the possibility that a high use of domestic animal
biomass was the norm for the British Period, while it casts doubt over
the general role of wild terrestrial and marine fauna as in the adapta
tion practiced at SA7-6 by Captain Rainesford. It should be remembered,
however, that the material from the Plaza II well may have been Spanish
rather than British debris (Bostwick 1977).
Cattle contributed 81% of the biomass and 9% of the individuals
at the Plaza II well, which raises another interesting possibility. The
well was located directly on the main square, near the public market
(Wiles 1964; Fig. 5). When wells became contaminated it was common to
fill them up quickly with debris in order to reduce the possibility of
someone falling into the abandoned, but open, hole (Fairbanks pers. comm).
Perhaps when the Plaza IT well became contaminated debris from the
adjacent market was dumped into it, with most of the bone coming from
the stalls, which sold domestic meats. Alternatively, the debris may
have come from immediately adjacent household middens.
Two British subsistence patterns can be observed, one at Frederica
and another at St. Augustine. As was predicted, the British Period
subsistence pattern at St. Augustine is more similar to the 18th Century
Spanish one than to the pattern followed by the British population at
Frederica. This is reflected in the use of three faunal categories,

156
birds, fish, and wild terrestrial animals. Wild birds were not as
heavily exploited at British St. Augustine as they had been at Frederica,
based on the numbers of individuals. The range of fish species including
mullet (Mugil sp.), sea catfish (Ariidae), and drum (Sciaenidae) was not
exploited at Frederica as it was at British St. Augustine. Wild ter
restrial resources were more heavily used at Frederica than at British
St. Augustine.
In Chapter 5 the estuarine systems within which Frederica and St.
Augustine are located were reviewed. The observation was made that
while the two systems were similar, the precise location of the two
towns within these systems was different. St. Augustine is located
directly on the bay while Frederica lies upstream on a tidal river
(Figs. 3 and 4). This difference in location may be the influential
factor in the use made at the two towns of birds and of fish. While
most ducks do not favor the open bay location of St. Augustine, they
may have been attracted to the Frederica River. Likewise, the fish
which are so abundant in the St. Augustine area would not have been
particularly common adjacent to Frederica. The St. Augustine and
Frederica collections reflect this environmental difference in their
faunal collections.
The high use of wild birds at Frederica might be interpreted as a
reflection of the traditional English enjoyment of bird pies. Two
observations preclude such a conclusion. First, the Spanish traditional
foodway also included bird pies. Secondly, the British at St. Augustine,
some of whom were the same individuals who had earlier lived at Frederica,
and presumably had the same British fondness for bird pies, used no more

157
wild birds than the Spanish at St. Augustine had done a few years earlier
In fact, fewer birds were used by the British at St. Augustine than by
the Spanish at the town.
The most significant resource at Frederica, after domestic animals,
consisted of wild terrestrial mammals, particularly deer (Odocoileus
virginianus). This may reflect the security of St. Simons Island in
comparison to St. Augustine, that is, it may have been safer for hunters
to venture away from Frederica to hunt on the island than it was for the
Spanish population at St. Augustine to have done so. The quantity of
deer may also reflect the difference between deer populations at the two
locations. Deer at St. Augustine had been heavily exploited in the 16th
and possibly in the 17th Centuries. By the 18th Century the deer
population immediately adjacent to St. Augustine, those animals which
might easily have been shot while they raided nearby gardens, may have
been reduced in numbers. On St. Simons Island, the deer population may
have been larger or the animals less wary. Once again the British Period
collections from St. Augustine are more similar to the Spanish ones
from that town, indicating that a local variation in availability of this
resource was influential in the strategy employed.
There does not appear to be any clear differences based on social
status in the British collections. While there appears to have been a
slight degree of social status differentiation among Hird, Hawkins and
Davison, this does not appear to be useful in explaining the differences
observed between the two Frederica faunal collections. It seems likely
that the selective sorting to which the Hawkins-Davison sample may have
been subjected prior to analysis is a more useful explanation of the

158
difference in fish at that site, for example. Perhaps the degree of
variance among the three families was slight, or the access to animal
resources was not as restricted at Frederica as at St. Augustine during
the Spanish Period. The collections from the British Period at St.
Augustine may suggest greater differential access to strategic food
resources, e.g. cattle (Bos taurus). Captain Rainesford, a military
officer, may have been supplementing military rations and participating
only marginally in a market economy. Joseph Stout, as a private citizen
(SA7-6), may have enjoyed freer access to domestic meats.
Discussion
Several observations can be made to summarize the preceding discus
sion. One is that the range of adaptations in the First Spanish Period
at St. Augustine is quite wide. Within each temporal division social
standing, identified by use of domestic animals, may offer an hypothesis
to explain variability in the strategies observed. Using the British
Frederica materials as a control it appears that the British Period
adaptations at St. Augustine are more reflective of local environmental
conditions than of traditional British foodways. It also appears that
political events which restricted the Spanish population to the immediate
vicinity of the fort may not have been as confining or restrictive in
terms of subsistence strategy as assumed. The British Period population
was under no such constraint, and could have made use of more wild
terrestrial resources, had they been available. It appears that local
resources were important in the subsistence strategies used by both
Spanish and British households and that in general sufficient resources
could be obtained within the immediate environment.

CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This discussion began with the proposal that historic European
populations were as subject to the need to adjust to their environment
as prehistoric or non-industrial groups. For that reason it was stated
that ecological theory could be as useful in describing colonial be
havior patterns as it had been in discussing ethnographic and prehistoric
adaptations. Several hypotheses were generated to predict subsistence
patterns at Frederica, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida. The pre
dictions were then tested using faunal collections from British and
Spanish occupations at those two locations. The conclusion to be drawn
from this is that the subsistence strategies of human populations can
be accounted for in ecological terms. Several interesting facets of
historical adaptations have been observed.
Cultural Affiliation and Local Resources
The review of faunal assemblages in Chapters 4 and 7 demonstrate
the role of the local environment in subsistence strategies. The British
adaptations discussed in Chapter 7 are distinct from those found at other
British outposts (Chapter 3), in spite of cultural tradition and the
possession of domestic animals. Further, the British Period samples from
St. Augustine, small as they are, do appear more similar to the Spanish
ones at that town than to those at Frederica, even though the British
159

160
residents had more secure supply lines and could have used the interior
to comparative safety since they enjoyed better relations with the Indians.
Social Class
Variation found within the cultural/temporal division at Spanish ^
St. Augustine was as great as that between cultural/temporal divisions.^
The best explanation for this observation is that social standing
affected the adaptive strategy employed in each century and by both
cultural groups. Documentary evidence on socio-economic level was only
available for the 18th Century. There was a good correlation at those
18th Century sites between elevated social level and intensive use of
deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and low use cattle (Bos taurus) as evidenced
by remains of these species. Persons of intermediate social status had
limited access to wild terrestrial species perhaps because they could not
afford the services of a specialist, sport hunting, or the convenience
of the market. The greater use of cattle over swine (Sus scrofa) observed
in the collection may be an indication that pigs in the 18th Century were
feral animals hunted on the same basis as deer and therefore also luxury
items. The swine from the 16th Century may have been backyard or street
animals, as perhaps the pigs from the mestizo household in the 18th
Century (SA16-23). Use of documentary and archaeological evidence allows
the conclusion that cattle, deer, and feral pigs might have been high
status items. These animals were then used as criteria to predict social
standing at the 16th Century sites of SA26-1 and SA36-4, with the two
sites defining a continuum of access to animal resources. It is unfor
tunate that this identification cannot at the moment be tested against
documentary evidence for the 16th Century.

161
Political and Social Environment
Further analysis of the results indicates that certain historical
and social factors were also influential in structuring the adaptations
of these two cultural groups. The increase in domestic biomass contri
bution at Spanish St. Augustine from the 16th to the 18th Centuries,
combined with an actual decline in domestic individuals cannot be ex
plained in terms of the natural environment, but rather in terms of the
historical one.
It would appear that the use by the Spaniards of additional quanti
ties of domestic biomass as observed in the 18th Century occurred as
cattle became relatively more abundant in the collections than pigs.
Pigs and chickens require less care than do cattle, and they can be
raised in the backyards of the houses or in the streets of the community.
The Spaniard's ability to use cattle may have been limited by the hazards
involved in exploiting the better grazing land of the interior, but they
could raise pigs and chickens safely within the town. By the 18th Century,
the Spaniards either had safer access to better grazing lands, or had
increased commerce with the British colonies to the north or both. The
*>7.
higher status individuals could not avail themselves of the supply of
illicit British beef.
One prediction from Chapter 3 that was supported in the collections
was that the Spanish and British diets would reflect the scheduling
difficulties of conflicts between official duties and seasonal resources.
Highly seasonal species such as most wild birds, aquatic turtles, and
migratory fish were not exploited by the people of St. Augustine. Nor
were they heavily used at Frederica, with the exception of migratory

162
waterfowl. These might have been used extensively at Frederica because
their accessibility in the Frederica River outweighed the seasonal
nature of their presence. In general, the species used were those which
were more or less available throughout the year.
It is also reasonable to attribute the low use of basking turtles
(Emydidae) to the fact that they are minor species in an estuarine
situation. Since it is doubtful that anyone ventured far from either
town to procure wild resources, it is reasonable to expect low utilization
of a basically freshwater resource. Official duties at both fortifica
tions, and the danger of venturing far from the safety of the fort at
St. Augustine during most of the First Spanish Period, may have been
factors influencing the choice made not to venture far for wild animal
foods. It also may be that sufficient nutrients were available within
a short distance of the towns so that it was unnecessary for either
population to venture beyond a mile or two from their towns.
It would also appear from the species utilized that fauna were
selected which could be taken by mass capture techniques or untended
devices. The mass capture methods of net fishing and trot line or set
line fishing would maximize return for effort and also allow for flex
ibility in tending the lines or traps. The nocturnal habits of many of
the species also allow for exploitation during off-duty hours where un
tended traps or lines could not be used. Except for mullet, species
which could only be taken in the daytime were not heavily used.
The faunal analysis of these materials raises questions about the
accuracy of Spanish documents. The Spanish officials repeatedly pro
fessed to be starving. At one point they claimed to be consuming horses,
cats, dogs, ". . and when there was nothing else they ate herbs, fish,

163
and other scum and vermin ..." (Conner 1925:99). The quotation comes
from correspondence in 1573, but was repeated in various forms for 200
years.
As was noted in Chapter 4, fish were a traditional Spanish food
source. It is incongruous that this fauna would be mentioned in the
context quoted above. In addition, of all the faunal collections examined,
no mice or dog bones have butchering marks, and the five horse teeth
found from the debris of Spanish St. Augustine hardly confirm that horses
were consumed. It is doubtful that the marks on the two cat elements
from the 16th and 18th Century components of SA36-4 were produced by
butchering tools. It should be remembered that the official documents
in which these complaints occurred were not necessarily accurate descrip
tions of the financial and economic conditions of the settlement. The
official correspondence with Spain and New Spain' was a subsistence
strategy in itself, an effort to pry loose greater Crown support.
This is not to say that there were not periodic food shortages at
St. Augustine. Obviously there must have been problems with the food
supply resulting from the raids and storms that afflicted St. Augustine
over the years. It is inconsistent with human ecological theory, how
ever, to assume that the Spanish population at St. Augustine passively
starved when the situado failed to arrive. Irregular subsidies and
occasional pirate or Indian alarms were part of the political environ
ment to which the garrison had to adapt. Based on Liebig's "Law of the
Minimum" (Odum 1971), we would expect that the subsistence strategy
adopted by the Spanish population must have been based on the worst
possible likelihood rather than upon an optimum condition predicated

164
upon a safe, annual arrival of supply ships laden with wholesome goods.
This hypothetical optimum situation apparently never occurred in the
entire 200 year history of the garrison so it would have been strange
if the subsistence strategy were based on such an unlikely, although
desirable, event.
The Spanish St. Augustine garrison developed a subsistence strategy
which incorporated food supplements from an irregular situado, but' did
not depend upon them. The settlement's location gives a clue as to which
were the most reliable resources: those from the local estuarine envi
ronment, trade with British colonies, and perhaps trade within the
Hispanic Empire, particularly Spain and Havana. In this context, it
is interesting to observe that in 1602, when the fate of St. Augustine
was "on trial," the presidio residents were unwilling to move even 50
to 70 miles further north. This would have moved them to a better
harbor, but would also have taken them further away from the Gulf Stream
and its sharp turn toward Spain just off the St. Augustine Inlet. This
location may have been too important to the garrison to be traded even
for an environment superior in other respects. Had there been a suit
able estuarine environment with a good harbor further south, they might
have moved, although the Timucuan and Guale Indians, in spite of their
predations, may also have been too important in the subsistence strategy
to be abandoned for an uncertain relationship with the Ais Indians of
the lower Florida peninsula.
This is not be belittle the contribution of the situado to the
Spanish adaptation. The location of the town and the residents' reluc
tance to move might logically be interpreted as indications of the

165
importance of the situado to the garrison. The situado supplied the
garrison military hardware, religious furnishings, and contact with the
Hispanic world which must have been quite valuable to the small, isolated
outpost at the fringe of the Empire. The British traders probably
supplied none of these needs. The situado was also the source of the
garrison's coinage and payroll, no small matter in itself! Apparently
what it did not supply was a regular food source and for that the St.
Augustine population had to look elsewhere.
Another question raised by the materials focuses on the 17th Century
faunal component at SA36-4. The documents are quite clear that in the
later half of the century extensive cattle ranches were maintained in
the interior of the Florida peninsula and there is no reason to doubt
that. It also appears that the Spanish had access to terrestrial wild
resources with more safety than they had experienced before, or were
to experience in the future. On that basis it was predicted that the
17th Century faunal assemblage would reflect this condition and have
high levels of wild terrestrial and beef biomass, much as is found in
the 18th Century Contreras (SA34-2) and Ponce SA36-4, 18th Century)
faunas, although for different reasons. This expectation was not met.
It may be, of course, that the collection at SA36-4 was deposited
prior to the florescence of the cattle ranches. If it was a result of
activity while the cattle ranches were in place, it is difficult to
explain this collection. Perhaps the suggestion offered in Chapter 7
is accurate; or maybe there is more to the complaints recorded in
Spanish correspondence that the cattle ranch owners were not sending
their stock to the St. Augustine market than is ordinarily granted.

166
The lack of cooperation on the part of well-to-do businessmen who pre
ferred to send their beef and hides to Havanna directly may have had
serious repercussions for 17th Century residents. With the missions
actively protecting the Indians from the garrisons' acquisition of their
produce and cattle from the ranches being sent to Cuba, this may have
been the one time period in which the specter of famine was a very real
one. Blockading the Santa Fe River as Governor Quiroga attempted to do
may not have just been an outburst of official anger by a peninsulare
governor against criollos, but an action supported and necessitated by
a desperate population at St. Augustine. However, even if that were
the case, even if hunger faced them, the quantity of commensal species
in the Spanish collections shows no increase.
Cone!usion
A word of caution is necessary at this point. It has been found
that there is great variety among these sixteen sites in the ways by
which the occupants of the various lots combined the common species of
the area into a diet. It has been suggested that social status in the
18th Century and in the 16th Century was probably the principal factor
in molding the subsistence strategy observed within a cultural group
at a specific time, with historical factors also involved. With this
knowledge before us, caution should be exercised in using these data
to make predictions for new materials. Clearly all St. Augustine sites,
whether British or Spanish, are not alike and there was not a single,
uniform adaptive strategy being employed at any time during either the
Spanish or British occupations. It is this variety in the use of
essentially the same available resources which makes studies at St.
Augustine so interesting.

167
With additional archaeological research it should be possible to
examine both the 17th Century Spanish Period and the British Period
foodways more closely and more reliably. This prospect holds great
promise, but only if we become more skilled in identifying social
status of unknown residents in the absence of documentary aid. It
will also be useful to study additional sites from 16th Century St.
Augustine in order to see whether the faunal patterns found at SA26-1
or SA36-4 (16th Century) are the more typical for that time period.
Although the two sites at Frederica were quite similar to each
other, in spite of possible selective shipment of the Hawkins-Davison
materials, they also suggest interesting avenues for future research.
At Frederica the variables of political and social events, cultural
affiliation, and local animal resources can be held constant. Addi
tionally the identity, occupation, and social standing of the residents
are known and their records of local animal husbandry and wild animal
use are available. These documents may also be more reliable than the
Spanish ones. If social class is the major variable in influencing
the form of subsistence patterns of historic populations within a given
environment, it should be possible to quantifiably test this using
Frederica fauna.
Whatever the final explanation of the faunal assemblages observed
at Frederica and St. Augustine may be, the data presented above clearly
demonstrate that local environmental conditions were influential in the
adaptive strategies used by historic, colonial populations.

Table 1
Chronology of Events
First Spanish Period
1496 Santo Domingo, first Spanish colony, founded
1513 Juan Ponce de Leon, governor of Florida, leads first
expedition to east and west coasts of peninsula
1519 Hernando Cortes "discovers" wealth of Mexico
1521 Ponce de Leon leads second expedition to Florida,
with settlers
1526 Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon attempts to settle at Axacan,
near Chesapeake Bay
1527 Panfilo de Narvaez and Cabeza de Vaca independently
attempt to colonize Gulf coast of Florida
1532 Franciso Pizarro conquers Peru
1539 Hernando de Soto explores interior of North America,
starting on Gulf coast of Florida. Exploration
ends in 1542
1549 Friar Luis Cancer de Barbastro attempts to establish
religious contact with natives on the Gulf coast of
Florida
1559 Tristan de Luna y Arellano attempts to colonize near
Pensacola, Florida. Colony fails in 1561
1561 Angel de Vi 11 afane attempts to settle at Port Royal,
S.C. With the failure of this effort Filipe II of
Spain forbids future efforts to colonize Florida
1562 Jean Jacques Ribault attempts to establish a French
colony at Port Royal, S.C.
1564 Rene de Laudonniere settles at Ft. Caroline, St. Johns
River, Florida
i
1565 Pedro Menendez de Aviles, Adelantado of Florida routs
the French and establishes St. Augustine
1566 Spanish establish Fort San Felipe at Port Royal, S.C.

169
Table 1continued
1566 Captain Pardo leads an exploratory mission into the
interior of present-day Georgia. Returns 1567
1570 Jesuit mission effort along Atlantic coast ends in
failure
St. Augustine established in its present location
1572 Menendez leaves St. Augustine for final time
1573 Franciscan mission effort begins. Guale revolt
1576 Due to Indian unrest, Spanish abandon missions
1582 Guale revolt
1585 Sir Walter Raleigh founds Roanoke, Va. Colony abandoned
in 1588. Another Indian revolt against the Spanish
missions
1586 Sir Francis Drake attacks St. Augustine and Georgia
missions. Spanish abandon territory north of
Savannah, Ga.
1588 Spanish Armada defeated
1595 St. Augustine suffers heavy flood damage. Mission
effort on Georgia coast resumed
1597 Juanillo revolt against Spanish missions
1599 Fire and storms do much damage to St. Augustine
1602 Fernando Valdes conducts the Trial of St. Augustine
1604 Anglo-Spanish War ends
1606 Juan de las Cabezas de Altamirano, Bishop of Santiago
de Cuba, visits St. Augustine. Northern mission
activity resumed
1607 Jamestown founded by British
1608 Western mission activity by Spanish begins
1618 Thirty Years War begins
1620 Plymouth, Mass., founded
First resident missionary assigned to Apalachee.
43 missions active in Florida
1633

Table
1640
1647
1649
1650
1653
1655
1656
1659
1668
1670
1672
1674
1680
1682
1683
1684
1686
l--continued
Fort San Luis established near Tallahassee, Florida
Apalache Indian Revolt
Typhus or Yellow Fever epidemic at St. Augustine
San Luis de Apalache founded
Famine at St. Augustine
Smallpox epidemic in Florida. British appropriate
Jamaica, a Spanish colony
Timucuan Rebellion
Situado has been unpaid for two years
The British pirate Robert Searles (Davis) sacks
St. Augustine. Situado has been unpaid for
eight years
British settle Charleston, S.C.
Construction on the coquina block Castillo de San
Marcos begins at St. Augustine. Castillo
completed in 1687
Gabriel Diaz Vara Calderon, Bishop of Santiago de
Cuba, visits St. Augustine. Reports illness and
storm damage.
English and Yamassee Indians attack northern
chain. Missions north of Sapalo Island
abandoned by Spanish
Pirates attack cattle ranches in interior of Florida
peninsula by sailing up Suwannee and Santa Fe Rivers
The pirate Agramont attacks remaining Atlantic coast
missions. Fort Mantanzas and Penon burned by English
raids. Scotch colony established at Port Royal, S.C.
The pirate Hinckley attacks Spanish missions on
Jekyll Island
The pirate Agramont attacks again, missions withdrawn
to St. Marys River. Scotch colony destroyed by
Spanish attack.

171
Table l--continued
1697 Situado has been missing for three years. Spanish report
famine. Jonathan Dickinson takes refuge in St. Augustine
after being shipwrecked. Breakfasts on chocolate
1698 Pensacola fortified by the Spanish
1699 French establish colony at Biloxi, Mississippi
1701 Mobile, Alabama, established by French
War of Spanish Succession (Queen Anne's War) begins
1702 James B. Moore attacks Timucua and St. Augustine
1704 Moore raids Apalache three times between 1704 and 1707
1713 End of War of Spanish Succession
1715 Yamassee revolt against British. Ends in 1717
1718 San Marcos de Apalache reopened by the Spanish
1719 Pensacola captured by the French
1720 French return Pensacola to the Spanish
1721 Fort King George established on the Altamaha by the British
1727 Plague at St. Augustine
1728 Colonel John Palmer attacks St. Augustine
1733 Savannah, Georgia established
1736 British established fortifications at St. Simons Island,
Jekyll Island. Frederica colonized
1739 War of Jenkins Ear (King George's War) begins.
Ends in 1748
1740 General James Oglethorpe attacks St. Augustine, which
has a garrison of 1000 men
1742 Governor Monti ano attacks Frederica. Garrison at
St. Augustine has 2000 men
1756 French and Indian War begins (Seven Years War)
1762 Spain allies with France in war

Table l--continued
1763 Spain cedes Florida to Britain in exchange for Havan
Cuba
British Period
1768 Andrew Turnbull establishes New Smyrna. Colony
abandoned in 1777
1776 American Revolution begins
1783 Florida returned to Spanish control. Second Spanish
Period begins, lasting until 1821 when Florida
becomes a territory of the United States

173
Table 2
Activity Period and Seasonal Patterns of Fauna from the Coastal Plain
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Didel phis virqiniana
opossum
nocturnal
year-round
Sylvilaqus cf. palustris
marsh rabbit
nocturnal
year-round
Sciurus carolinensis
gray squirrel
crepuscular
year-round
Sciurus cf. niqer
fox squirrel
crepuscular
year-round
Perom.yscus sp.
white-footed mouse
nocturnal
year-round
Siqmodon hispidus
hispid cotton rat
crepuscular
year-round
Rattus norveqicus
Norway rat
nocturnal
year-round
(introduced 1727)
Rattus rattus
roof rat
nocturnal
year-round
Mus musculus
house mouse
nocturnal
year-round
Canis familiaris
domestic dog
domestic
Uroc.yon cinereoargenteus
gray fox
nocturnal
year-round
Ursus americanus
American black bear
nocturnal
may den in winter
Procyon lotor
raccoon
nocturnal
year-round
Lynx rufus
bobcat
nocturnal
year-round
Felis domesticus
domestic cat
domestic

174
Table 2.--continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Equus cabal1 us
domestic horse
domestic
Sus scrofa
pig
crepuscular
year-round
Odocoileus virginianus
white-tailed deer
crepuscular
year-round
Bos taurus
cow
domestic
Capra hi reus
goat
domestic
Ovis aries
sheep
domestic
Moris bassana
gannet
diurnal
December-Apri1
Phalacrocorax auritis
cormorant
diurnal
year-round, more
numerous in winter
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
diurnal
year-round
Casmerodius a!bus
American egret
diurnal
year-round
H.ydranassa tricolor
Louisiana heron
diurnal
year-round
Florida caerulea
little blue heron
diurnal
year-round
N.ycti corax n.ycticorax
black-crowned night heron
nocturnal
year-round
Eudocimus albus
white ibis
diurnal
year-round
Branta canadensis
Canada goose
dirunal
October-March

175
Table 2 .--continued
Activity Seasonal
Period Pattern
Anser anser
domestic goose
domestic
Anas platyrh.ynchos
mallard
di urna!
fall, winter, spring
Anas rubripes
black duck
nocturnal
November-March
Anas cf. ful vi gula
Florida or mottled duck
diurnal
year-round
Anas strepera
gadv/al 1
diurnal/
nocturnal
September-May
Anas carolinensis
green-winged teal
diurnal/
nocturnal
September-May
Anas discors
blue-winged teal
diurnal
September-May
cf. Spatula clypeata
shoveller
crepuscular
September-April
Aix sponsa
wood duck
diurnal
year-round, more
numerous in winter
Aythya americana
redhead
crepuscular
November-February
Aythya col laris
ring-necked duck
crepuscular
November-March
Aythya man'll a
greater scaup duck
crepuscular
October-April
Lophod.ytes cucullatus
hooded merganser
diurnal
year-round, more
numerous in winter
Mergus serrator
red-breasted merganser
diurnal
October-May
Cathartes aura
turkey vulture
diurnal
year-round
Coragyps atratus
black vulture
diurnal
year-round

176
Table 2.--continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Colinus virginianus
bob-white
crepuscular
year-round
Gall us gall us
domestic chicken
domestic
Meleagris gallopavo
turkey
diurnal
year-round
Grus americana
whooping crane
crepuscular
unknown for area
Grus canadensis
sandhill crane
crepuscular
permanent or semi_
migratory in winter
Rail us lonqirostris
clapper rail
crepuscular
permanent
Charadrius vociferus
kill deer
nocturnal
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Capel!a gallinago
Wilson's snipe
crepuscular
September-March
Numenius americanus
long-billed curlew
diurnal
September-May
Catoptrophorus semi palmatus
willet
diurnal
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Limnodromus griseus
dowitcher
crepuscular
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Himantopus mexicanus
black-necked stilt
diurnal
February-July
Burhinus bistriatus
two-striped thick-knee
tamed bird
Larus sp.
gul Is
diurnal
some year-round
others migratory
Alca torda
razor-billed auk
diurnal
winter-rarely

177
Table 2.continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Columbia 1ivia
rock dove
domestic
Zenaidura macroura
mourning dove
diurnal
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Strix varia
barred owl
nocturnal
permanent
Corvus ossifragus
fish crow
diurnal
permanent
Quiscalus quiscula
common grackle
diurnal
permanent, more
numerous in winter
Alligator mississippiensis
alligator
diurnal
active in spring
Chel.ydra serpentina
snapping turtle
diurnal
breed in April -
November, more active
Kinosternon sp.
mud turtle
diurnal
breeds year-round
Terrapene Carolina
box turtle
diurnal
breeds June and July,
more active
Malaclemys terrapin
diamondback terrapin
diurnal
breeds May-June,
more active
Chrysemys floridana
coastal plains turtle
diurnal
breeds year-round
Chrysemys scripta
yellow-bellied turtle
diurnal
breeds year-round
Deirochel.ys reticularia
chicken turtle
diurnal
breeds year-round
Gopherus pol.yphemus
gopher tortoise
diurnal
breeds April to July,
more active
Chelonia m.ydas
Atlantic green turtle
diurnal/
nocturnal
summer
Caretta caretta
loggerhead turtle
diurnal/
nocturnal
April to August

178
Table 2.--continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Lepidochel.ys kempi
Atlantic ridley
diurnal
summer
Natrix sp.
water snakes
diurnal
year-round
Coluber constricta
racer
diurnal
year-round
Masticophis flaqellum
coachwhip
diurnal
year-round
Aqkistrodon piscivorus
cottonmouth
diurnal
year-round
Rana sp.
pig or leopard frog
nocturnal
summer
Bufo terrestris
southern toad
nocturnal
summer
Ginql.ymostoma cirratum
nurse shark
tidal
summer
Odontaspis taurus
sand tiger shark
tidal
Oune-September
Carcharhinus leucas
bull shark
ti dal
July-September
Carcharhinus milberti
sandbar shark
tidal
June-September
Galeocherdo cuvieri
tiger shark
tidal
April-December
Sph.yrna mokorran
great hammerhead
tidal
June-August
Sphyrna tiburo
bonnethead
tidal
March-November
Sphyrna z.yqaena
smooth hammerhead
tidal
June-October

179
Table 2 .--continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Pristis pectinata
unknown
March-September
small tooth sawfish
Rhinobatos lentinqinosus
unknown
May-September
Atlantic guitarfish
Rhinoptera bonasus
tidal
August-September
cownose ray
Lepisosteus sp.
diurnal
year-round
gar
Elops saurus
tidal
May-November. Best
ladyfish
from August to
October
Clupeidae
nocturnal
warm months
herring
letaluridae
nocturnal
fall and winter
freshwater catfish
primarily
Arius felis
nocturnal
April to November
sea catfish
best. Year-round
Baqre marinus
nocturnal
year-round. April to
gafftopsail catfish
November best.
Opsanus tau
tidal
year-round
oyster toadfish
Centropomus cf. undecimal is
tidal
year-round
snook
Centropristis sp.
tidal
year-round. Best
sea bass
May to September
cf. Epinephalus sp.
tidal
warm months
grouper
Micropterus salmoides
crepuscular
year-round
largemouth bass
Pomatomus saltatrix
tidal
year-round. Best
blue fish
November-June

Table 2. continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Caranx hippos
crevalle jack
tidal
year-round. Best
April-September
Lut.ianus sp.
tidal
warm months
snapper
Pomadasyidae
tidal
April-September
grunt
Archosargus probatocephalus
sheepshead
tidal
year-round. Best
March-May; August-
October
C.ynoscion nothus
silver sea trout
tidal
March-December. Best
June-July
C.ynoscion nebulosis
spotted sea trout
nocturnal
year-round. Best
September-April
C.ynoscion regal is
weakfish
nocturnal
year-round. Best
March-May
Leiostomus xanthurus
spot
tidal
March-December. Best
July-September
Menticirrhus littoral is
Gulf kingfish
tidal
year-round. Best
December-May
Menticirrhus americanus
southern kingfish
tidal
year-round. Best
December-May
Micropogonias undulatus
Atlantic croaker
nocturnal
March-November. Best
July-September
Pogonias cromis
black drum
nocturnal
year-round. Best
February-May in bay,
June-in surf
Scianops ocellata
red drum
nocturnal
year-round. Best
March-May; November-
January
Muqil sp.
diurnal
year-round
mullet
Sph.yraena barracuda
great barracuda
tidal
April-November. Best
July-October

181
Table 2.--continued
Activity
Period
Seasonal
Pattern
Paral ichth.yes lethostiqma
nocturnal
March-November. Best
southern flounder
June-August
Diodon histrix
unknown
April-November
porcupine fish

182
Table 3
Habitats and Habits of Fauna from the Coastal Plain
Species
Habitat
Didel phis virqiniana
opossum
wooded lands, farming areas, some
coastal marshes
Sylvilagus palustris
marsh rabbit
wet bottomlands, swamps, brackish
marsh
Sciurus carolinensis
gray squirrel
hardwood forests, bottomlands,
urban areas
Sciurus niger
fox squirrel
pine uplands, cornfields
Perom.yscus sp.
white-footed mouse
wooded areas and thickets
Sigmodon hispidus
hispid cotton rat
thickets, grassy ditches, gardens
Rattus norvegicus
Norway rat
house foundations, grain bins
Rattus rattus
roof rat
house walls and attics, barns,
corn cribs
Mus musculus
house mouse
towns and thickets
Urocyon cinereoarqenteus
gray fox
mixed woodlands near fields
Ursus americanus
American black bear
heavily wooded areas, cornfields,
swamps
Proc.yon lotor
raccoon
mixed woodlands, gardens, cornfields,
marshes
Lynx rufus
bobcat
hardwood bottomlands, thickets
Sus scrofa
feral or domestic hog
wooded bottomlands, swamps, marshes
Odocoileus virginianus
white-tailed deer
forest-edge, gardens, and orchards

183
Table 3.continued
Species
Habitat
Moris bassana
gannet
rocky ledges on maritime islands,
open sea
Phalacrocorax auritis
cormorant
bays, lagoons, rivers, lakes,
nest with herons
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
rivers, lakes, salt marshes, nest
in tall trees, solitary
Casmerodius albus
American egret
ponds, rivers, salt marshes, nest
in brush with herons, solitary
feeders
H.ydranassa tricolor
Louisiana heron
coastal ponds, mud flats, marshes,
nests in bushes
Florida caerulea
little blue heron
swampy areas, grainfields, nests
with herons in thickets
N.ycticorax n.ycticorax
black-crowned night heron
marshes, swamps, wooded streams of
interior, rookery may be apart
from other herons
Eudocimus albus
white ibis
sloughs, mud flats, swamps, nests
with other herons
Branta canadensis
Canada goose
salt marshes, shallow bays, grass
lands
Anas plat.yrhynchos
mallard
dabbler in freshwater, stubble
f i e 1 ds
Anas rubripes
black duck
coastal marshes, tidal streams,
mud flats
Anas ful vi gula
Florida or mottled duck
salt marshes, streams, lakes, fields
Anas strepera
gadwal1
freshwater ponds, sloughs, fields,
occasionally in salt marsh
Anas carolinensis
green-winged teal
freshwater ponds and marshes,
some coastal
Anas discors
blue-winged teal
shallow ponds, stubble fields,
seldom on coast

184
Table 3.--continued
Species
Habitat
cf. Spatula cl.ypeata
shoveller
grassy ponds, sloughs of freshwater,
occasionally brackish water
Aix sponsa
wood duck
wooded swamps, land
A.ythya americana
redhead
diving duck rafts in deep water by
day, feeds near shore at night,
bays, estuaries, lakes
A.yth.ya col laris
ring-necked duck
inland lakes and ponds, occasionally
on coast
Ay thy a man'll a
greater scaup duck
rafts in deep water by day, bays,
lagoons in winter
Lophodytes cuculatus
hooded merganser
coastal bays at water's edge, up to
12 individuals in a flock
Mergus serrator
red-breasted merganser
shallow water of estuaries,
gregarious
Cathartes aura
turkey vulture
ubiquitous, attracted to carrion
and garbage
Coraq.yps atratus
black vulture
ubiquitous, attracted to carrion
and garbage
Colinus virqinianus
bob-white
fields, prairies, open pinelands,
"convoys" of 24 birds in winter
Meleaqris qallopavo
turkey
wooded swamps, pinelands, prairies,
flocks
Grus americana
whooping crane
coastal prairies, extirpated from
range
Grus canadensis
sandhill crane
pine flat woods and prairies, grain-
fields
Rallus lonqirostris
clapper rail
salt marshes
Charadrius vociferus
ki11 deer
shore bird, cultivated fields,
prairies
Capella gallinago
Wilson's snipe
prairies, more common in freshwater,
small flocks or solitary

185
Table 3.--continued
Species
Habitat
Numenius americanus
long-billed curlew
marsh, sandbars, mud flats,
gregarious
Catoptrophorus semi palmatus
willet
shorebird, salt marshes, prairies,
gregarious
Limnodromus griseus
dowitcher
tidal flats, mud bars, salt marsh,
tidal creeks, gregarious
Himantopus mexicanus
black-necked stilt
beaches of fresh and saltwater,
marshes, gregarious
Burhinus bistriatus
two-striped thick-knee
not a native of this region--from
Mexico
Larus sp.
gulls
coastal, trash piles, garbage
Alca torda
razor-billed auk
coastal, maritime, arctic
Columbia 1 i v\i a
rock dove 1
urban areas, once domestic
Zenaidura macroura
mourning dove
open parks, fields, sea dunes
Strix varia
barred owl
edges of towns, river swamps,
prairies
Corvus ossifragus
fish crow
communal roosts, lakes, coastlines,
rivers
Quiscalus quiscula
common grackle
gardens, open woodland, marshes
Alligator mississippiensis
al1igator
fresh and brackish streams and
sloughs
Chelydra serpentina
snapping turtle
any aquatic situation with soft mud
Kinosternon sp.
mud turtle
fresh and brackish water, small,
shallow ponds
Terrapene Carolina
box turtle
open woodlands near water

186
Table 3.continued
Species
Habitat
Malaclemys terrapin
diamondback terrapin
salt marshes
Chrysemys floridana
coastal plains turtle
ubiquitous around water, basks on
logs
Chrysemys scripta
yellow-bellied turtle
ponds, streams, sloughs, basks on
logs
Deirochelys reticularia
chicken turtle
quiet water, ponds, sloughs, basks
on logs
Gopherus polyphemus
gopher tortoise
dry, sandy ridges and dunes, high
pinewoods
Chelonia mydas
green turtle
plant beds over shallow water,
beaches
Caretta caretta
loggerhead turtle
coastal bay, streams, beaches
Lepidochelys kempi
Atlantic ridley
red mangrove shorelines, beaches
Natrix sp.
water snakes
semi-aquatic
Coluber constricta
racer
brush and trees
Masticophis flagellum
coachwhip
dry, sandy flatwoods and swamps
Agkistrodon piscivorous
cottonmouth
in thickets near water, semi-aquatic
Rana sp.
pig or leopard frog
aquatic and terrestrial
Bufo terrestris
southern toad
terrestrial
Ginql.ymostoma cirratum
nurse shark
offshore reefs, breeds in shallow
Odontaspis taurus
sand tiger shark
bottom-dweller, shallow water,
estuaries and some freshwater
streams

187
Table 3.continued
Species
Habitat
Carcharhinus leucas
bull shark
shallow water estuaries, brackish
areas frequently inshore
Carcharhinus milberti
sandbar shark
common inshore bottom dweller,
3-10 fathoms
Galeocerdo cuvieri
tiger shark
inshore frequently
Sph.yrna mokorran
great hammerhead
offshore generally, occasionally
inshore
Sph.yrna tiburo
bonnethead
shoreline, occasionally estuarine
Sph.yrna z.yqaena
smooth hammerhead
uncommon inshore
Pristis pectinata
small tooth sawfish
will go into freshwater streams and
sloughs, not common, shallow water
Rhinobatos lentinginosus
Atlantic guitarfish
shallow water, quiet or moderate
surf
Rhinoptera bonasus
cownose ray
inshore over mud flats and sand flats
in warm months
Lepisosteus sp.
gar
freshwater and brackish streams,
carnivorous
Elops saurus
lady fish
estuarine waters with moderate surf,
carnivorous
Clupeidae
herring
ana dromous--also part of the salted
fish trade, vegetarians
letaluridae
freshwater catfish
bottom-dweller of freshwater,
scavenger
Arius felis
sea catfish
bottom-dweller, beaches, estuaries,
tidal creeks, scavenger
Bagre marinus
gafftopsail catfish
beaches and estuaries, coastal,
scavenger, bottom-dweller
Opsanus tau
oyster toadfish
invertebrates--debris and pilings,
oyster bars

188
Table 3.continued
Species
Habitat
Centropomus cf. undecimal is
snook
shallow water, tidal pools, ditches,
carnivorous
Centropristis sp.
sea bass
reef fish, young in estuaries;
bottom-dweller
cf. Epinephalus sp.
grouper
reef fish; sometimes in estuaries
Micropterus salmoides
largemouth bass
freshwater; carnivorous
Pomatomus saltatrix
bluefish
carnivorous; beaches, sounds,
estuaries
Caranx hippos
crevalle jack
carnivorous; coastal; smaller fish
in estuaries
Lutjanus sp.
snapper
offshore; smaller fish in bays;
carnivorous
Pomadasyidae
grunt
offshore; carnivorous; sometimes
around jetties
Archosargus probatocephalus
sheepshead
invertebrates; bottom-dweller around
jetties and pilings; gregarious
C.ynoscion noth us
silver sea trout
invertebrates and other fish; small
individuals in brackish water
Cynoscion nebulosis
spotted sea trout
invertebrates and other fish;
estuaries; winter in rivers;
beaches, coastal
Cynoscion regal is
weakfish
beaches, coastal, estuaries; surf to
tidal creek
Leiostomus xanthurus
spot
bottom omnivore, gregarious
Menticirrhus littoral is
Gulf kingfish
bottom-dweller; invertebrates;
beaches
Menticirrhus americanus
southern kingfish
bottom-dweller; mouth of bays,
beaches, estuaries
Micropoqonias undulatus
Atlantic croaker
bottom-dweller; invertebrates;
estuary; beaches

189
Table 3.continued
Species
Habitat
Pogonias cromis
black drum
bottom-dweller near clam beds,
jetties; invertebrates, gregarious;
large ones in surf; beaches, bays
Scianops ocellata
red drum
shoals, oyster beds; surf, coastal
invertebrates
Mugil sp.
mullet
brackish and salt water; estuaries
and beaches, vegetarian
Sph.yraena barracuda
great barracuda
carnivorous; inshore as young;
adults offshore
Paral ichth.yes lethostigma
southern flounder
over mud flats at night; carnivorous
Diodon histrix
porcupine fish
estuaries and beaches--rare

Table 4
Commensal Species (bone count/MNI*)
First Spanish Period
British Sites
Species
1 VO
C\J
. <
GO
16th Century 17th
CM
r-
CO
CT
Cj-
vo
VO
CM
OO
CO
CO
00
eC
<
<
oo
GO
GO
GO
GO
18th Century
VO
LO
1
00
CM
1
C\J
1
1
1
CO
VO
VO
r^.
r*
r-
00
oo
<
=C
<
<
<
GO
GO
GO
GO
GO
Frederica St. Augustine
+-> I
o
-J
c
r
3*
VO
M
CO
O
i
1
N
2
r^.
fd
r
rd
<
r
rc
nr
GO
GO
Q
Scalopus aquaticus
Rodent 1/1
Cricitidae
Perom.yscus sp.
Siqmodon hispidus 2/2
Rattus sp.
R_. norvegicus
R. rattus 2/2 1/1
Mus musculus
Snake
1/1 0/1 6/1
2/1
1/1
7/1
1/1
0/2
0/1 0/1
3/1
4/1
1/1
0/1
0/1
1/0
1/1
Colubridae
1/0
VO
o

Table 4.--continued
Species
First Spanish Period British Sites
16th Century 17th 18th Century Frederica St. Augustine
!
C\J
1
1
co
1
to
to
1
CO
CM
1
CM
1
-p
o
_J
C/>
c
r
to
HH
l-H
tt5
lO
CT
t-
to
to
1
co
to
to
T3
1
1
N
C\J
CVl
CO
CO
co
CO
r
r-
CO
co
S-
2
e£
<
<
<
<
<
<
c
<
<
r*
cC
a:
r*
co
CO
to
to
to
CO
CO
oo
to
co
CO
nr
nr
to
CO
Q
Natrix sp.
1/1
Coluber constricta
52/0
Masticophis flaqellum
0/1
Viparidae
2/1
Agkistrodon piscivorous
2/1
Amphibian
1/0
6/0
Rana or Bufo sp.
38/0
4/0
9/1
7/1
6/0
Rana sp.
1/1
0/1 2/1
cf. Bufo sp.
19/0
Bufo sp.
7/4
2/1
1/1
/l
38/2
B. terrestris
0/2
1/0
1/1
13/1 1/1
1/1
*Minimum Number of Individuals

Table 5
Sites Discussed in Text, Listed by Cultural/Temporal Division
Site Name
Number Excavator and Date Reference Faunal Analyst
16th Century, St. Augustine, 1565-1600
Lorenzo Joseph de Leon
SA26-1
Deagan 1977
Braly
Singleton
1977
1977
Reitz
this MS
Lester's Gallery
SA29-2
Deagan 1977 (Survey)
Deagan
1978 a
Reitz
this MS
Episcopal Church
SA34-1
Deagan 1977 (Survey)
Deagan
1978 a
Reitz
this MS
Public Library
SA34-3
Deagan 1977 (Survey)
Deagan
1978 a
Reitz
this MS
Francisco Ponce de Leon
SA36-4
Deagan 1978
Deagan
in
prep
Reitz
this MS
17th Century, St. Augustine,
1600-1700
Francisco Ponce de Leon
SA36-4
Deagan 1978
Deagan
in
prep
Reitz
this MS
18th Century Spanish, St. Augustine, 1700-
1763
Antonio de Mesa
SA 7-6
Deagan 1977
Jones
Deagan
in
prep
1978 b
Reitz
this MS
Acosta/Pasqua
SA13-5
Deagan 1974
Deagan
1975
Cumbaa
1975
Maria de la Cruz
SA16-23
Deagan 1973
Fairbanks 1972
Deagan
MacMurray
1974
1975
Cumbaa
1975

Table 5.--continued
Site Name
Number
Excavator and Date
Reference
Faunal Analyst
Contreras/Ximenez-Fatio
SA34-2
Clauser
1974-73
Clauser
Beidleman
MacMurray
1974
1976
1972
Cumbaa 1975
Francisco Ponce de Leon
SA36-4
Deagan
1978
Deagan in
Poe i n
prep
prep
Reitz this MS
Matanzas North
Deagan
1976
Deagan
1976
Johnson 1976
British, Frederica, 1736-1748
Thomas Hird Lot
L 12-N
Honerkamp
1975
Honerkamp
1975
Reitz this MS
Hawkins-Davison
/
L 12-S
Fairbanks
1952
Deagan
1972
Cumbaa 1972
British Period, St. Augustine,
1763-1783
Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar
SA 7-4
Bostwick
1978
Bostwick
1978
Reitz this MS
Plaza II Well
Bostwick
1977
Bostwick
1975
Wing and Simons 1977
Mantanzas West
Deagan
1975
Deagan
1976
Johnson 1976
Antonio de Mesa
SA 7-6
Deagan
1977
Jones in
Deagan
prep
1978 b
Reitz this MS

Table 6
Regression Formulae Used in Estimating Biomass of Animals Represented in Study
Animal
Number
Formulae (Y = aX*3)
r
Measurement
Mammal1
Birds1
49
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.061 (X)1'09
= 0.065 (X)1'071
0.99
Skeletal Weight (Y)
Body Weight (X)
311
Y,
Kgs.
0.99
II
Turtles
19
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.2482(X)*8984
0.91
II
Snakes2
17
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0727(X)*9357
0.98
II
Chondrichthyes
9
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0116(X)*9786
0.91
II
Osteichthyes
486
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0438(X)9528
0.92
II
non-Perciformes
81
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0468(X)1-021
0.95
Siluriformes
13
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0433(X)0-887
0.96
it
PIeuronectiformes
20
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.053 (X)1*081
0.97
Perciformes
406
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0401(X)-9061
0.89
II
Serranidae
33
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0364(X)0-9374
0.96
Centrachidae
29
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0759(X)*9749
0.83
II
Carangidae
11
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0241(X)0*9228
0.90
II
Pomadasyidae
52
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.032 3(X)0 *7464
0.86
Sparidae
22
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0803(X)1*055
0.99
II
Sciaenidae
63
Y,
Kgs.
= 0.0380(X)1-012
0.93
lPrange et al.(1979)
2Fradkin personal communication

195
Table 7
Diversity and Equitability Values Based on MNI*
Sites
MNI #
of laxa
Diversity
Equitability
16th Century Spanish
SA26-1
453
66
2.8579
0.6821
SA29-2
29
18
2.7753
0.9601
SA34-1
22
17
2.7522
0.9714
SA34-3
15
13
2.5229
0.9836
SA36-4
119
30
2.5929
0.7623
17th Century Spanish
SA36-4
47
26
2.8341
0.8698
18th Century Spanish
SA 7-6
87
30
2.8393
0.8347
SA13-5
50
25
2.79
0.87 **
SA16-23
101
41
3.03
0.82 **
SA34-2
154
39
2.86
0.78 **
SA36-4
229
54
3.2034
0.8030
British Frederica
Hird Lot
230
70
3.6052
0.8485
Hawkins/Davison
45
22
2.72
0.87
British St. Augustine
SA 7-4
no
34
2.6706
0.7573
SA 7-6
23
20
2.9543
0.9861
Plaza II
32
16
2.6019
0.9384
* Minimum Number of
Individuals
** Cumbaa 1975

196
Table 8
Diversity and Equitability Values Based on Total Biomass
Biomass
Sites (Kgs) # of Taxa Diversity Equitability
16th Century Spanish
SA26-1
149.17
93
2.4500
0.5405
SA29-2
12.12
27
1.7492
0.5307
SA34-1
7.60
25
1.4439'-
0.4485
SA34-3
2.38
21
1.9200
0.6306
SA36-4
44.01
45
2.3609
0.6202
17th Century Spanish
SA36-4
18.34
36
2.0903
0.5833
18th Century Spanish
SA 7-6
82.47
47
1.6238
0.4217
SA13-5
26.45
29
1.1412
0.3389
SA16-23
53.59
46
1.6374
0.4276
SA34-2
228.45
43
1.8157
0.4827
SA36-4
257.84
74
1.8963
0.4405
British Frederica
Hird Lot
411.85
89
1.9059
0.4246
Hawkins/Davison
97.78
29
1.3050
0.3875
British St. Augustine
SA 7-4
61.68
45
2.1488
0.5644
SA 7-6
8.22
25
1.5355
0.4770
Plaza II
107.46
22
1.2487
0.4039

Table 9
Summary of Species Lists (Appendix B)
Site
Date
Ct.*
#MNI
Bone Weight (gm)
Biomass (kg)
SA26-1
16th Cent. Spanish
24238
453
8631.0
149.17
SA29-2
16th Cent. Spanish
843
29
808.8
12.12
SA34-1
16th Cent. Spanish
192
22
533.2
7.60
SA34-3
16th Cent. Spanish
228
15
157.3
2.38
SA36-4
16th Cent. Spanish
. 3745
119
3023.4
44.01
SA36-4
17th Cent. Spanish
2275
47
1176.7
18.34
SA 7-6
18th Cent. Spanish
4751
87
6321.6
82.47
SA13-5
18th Cent. Spanish
2546
50
1957.0
26.45
SA16-23
18th Cent. Spanish
4940
101
2864.0
53.59
SA34-2
18th Cent. Spanish
4443
154
19730.5
228.45
SA36-4
18th Cent. Spanish
18853
227
21872.0
257.84
Hird Lot
Frederica, British
25266
230
33517.0
411.85
Hawkins-Davison
Frederica, British
530
45
2502.6
97.78
SA 7-4
British Period
3310
no
3887.8
61.68
SA 7-6
British Period
170
23
530.2
8.22
Plaza II Well
British Period
833
32
9171.8
107.46
Unidentified Bone category not included
197

Table 10
Summary of Faunal Categories (Appendix C): MNI, Totals, and Percentages
FIRST SPANISH PERIOD
16th Centurv
17th Centurv
18th Centurv
SA 26-1 29-2 34-1 34-3 36-4
SA 36-4
SA 7-6 13-5 16-23 34-2 36-4
Total MNI
453
29
22
15
119 47
87
50
101
154
227
Faunal Cateqories/Percentaqes
Domestic Animals
8.0
17.2
27.3
13.3
15.1 14.9
17.2
14.0
8.9
17.5
19.8
Terrestrial Animals
8.2
17.2
22.7
13.3
12.6 10.6
9.2
8.0
5.0
16.9
10.1
Wild Birds
6.2
3.5
9.1
0
6.7 6.4
6.6
2.0
6.9
4.6
11.0
Aquatic Reptiles
1.6
3.5
4.6
6.7
0.8 4.3
0
6.0
4.0
5.2
1.3
Fish
73.5
55.2
31.8
60.0
63.9 61.7
64.4
62.0
68.3
55.2
54.6
Commensals
2.7
3.5
4.6
6.7
0.8 2.1
3.5
8.0
6.9
0.7
3.1
Frederica
BRITISH COLLECTIONS
British Period. St.
Auaustine
Hird Lot
Hawkins-Davison
SA 7-4
7-6
Plaza II
Total MNI
230
45
110
23
32
Faunal Cateqories/Percentaqes
Domestic Animals
20.4
42.2
9.0
26.1
50.0
00

Table 10.--continued
BRITISH COLLECTIONS
Frederica
British Period, St. Augustine
Hird Lot
Hawkins-Davison
SA 7-4
7-6
Plaza II
Terrestrial Animals
17.0
24.4
1.8
3.7
3.1
Wild Birds
20.9
15.6
8.2
8.7
6.3
Aquatic Reptiles
3.0
4.4
0
0
3.1
Fish
37.0
n.i
78.2
47.8
34.0
Commensals
1.7
2.2
2.7
8.7
3.1
SUMMARY OF PERCENTAGES
First Spanish Period
British Collections
16th Cent.
17th Cent. 18th Cent.
Frederica
British Period
Domestic Species
16.2
14.9 15.5
31.8
28.4
Wild Species
83.9
85.1 84.7
68.7
71.6
VO
VO

Table 11
Summary of Faunal Categories (Appendix C): Biomass, Totals, and Percentages
'.. FIRST SPANISH PERIOD
16th Centurv
17th Centurv
18th Centurv
SA 26-1 29-2 34-1 34-3
36-4 SA 36-4
SA 7-6 13-5 16-23 34-2
36-4
Total biomass, Kgs.
149.17
12.12
7.60
2.38
44.01 18.34 82.47
26.45
53.59
228.45
257.84
Faunal Cateqory/Percentaqes
Domestic Animals
32.1
85.2
71.4
39.4
68.7 27.4
85.7
94.4
74.0
73.2
80.3
Terrestrial Animals
19.3
6.1
24.1
28.8
11.4 28.1
7.0
1.7
1.6
16.5
11.4
Wild Birds
2.2
0.3
0.8
0
2.7 0.9
0.1
0.06
1.3
0.3
0.02
Aquatic Reptiles
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.008 0.3
0
0.6
5.1
0.4
0.8
Fish
46.0
7.3
3.2
30.3
17.2 43.9
7.1
3.3
17.7
9.6
7.4
Commensals
0.2
0.04
0.06
1.5
0.01 0.1
0.04
0.2
0.3
0.005
0.08
Frederica
BRITISH COLLECTIONS
British Period. St.
. Auaustine
Hird Lot
Hawkins-Davison
SA 7-4
7-6
Plaza II
Total biomass, Kgs.
411.85
97.78
61.68
8.22
107.46
Faunal Cateqory/Percentaqes
Domestic Animals
72.8
82.5
63.6
80.9
97.7
ro
o
o

Table 11.--continued
BRITISH COLLECTIONS
Frederica British Period, St. Augustine
Hird Lot Hawkins-Davison SA 7-4 7-6 Plaza II
Terrestrial Animals
17.6
15.5
1.7
7.8
1.0
Wild Birds
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.2
Aquatic Reptiles
0.07
0.02
0
0
0.5
Fish
8.6
1.1
34.3
10.5
0.6
Commensals
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.1
0.001
First
Spanish Period
SUMMARY OF PERCENTAGES
British
Collections
16th Cent.
17th Cent.
18th Cent.
Frederica
British Period
Domestic Species
59.4
27.4
81.5
77.6
80.7
Wild Species
40.8
73.3
18.5
22.6
19.3
ro
o


203

204
Figure 3. The Environs of St. Augustine, Florida (after
Palmer 1862).

205

206
SA 7-4
SA 7-6
SA 13-5
SA 16-23
SA 26-1
SA 29-2
SA 34-1
SA 34-2
SA 34-3
SA 36-4
PLAZA II WELL
Figure 5. The Town of St. Augustine, Florida (after Puente
1764).

207

Figure 7. MNI and Biomass Diversity and Equitability Ranges, Means, and Standard
Deviations for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. ¡

3
If
16th 17th 18th Fred. St. Aug.
First Spanish British Sites
DIVERSITY MNI
DIVERSITY BIOMASS
1.0
EQUITABILITY MNI
EQUITABILITY BIOMASS to

Figure 8. Comparison of Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations
for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections
for Three Faunal Categories, Biomass and MNI.

DOMESTIC BIOMASS TERRESTRIAL BIOMASS FISH AND SHARKS BIOMASS
DOMESTIC MNI TERRESTRIAL MNI FISH AND SHARKS MNI

Figure 9. Percentage Distribution of MNI from Six Faunal
Categories for Each Site.

FIRST SPANISH PERIOD
BRITISH COLLECTIONS
DOMESTIC ANIMALS
TERRESTRIAL ANIMALS
o FISH AND SHARKS
s WILD BIRDS
03 AQUATIC REPTILES
^ OTHER
ro
mmJ
CO

Figure 10. Percentage Distribution of Biomass from Six Faunal
Categories for Each Site.

0 DOMESTIC ANIMALS ^ WILD BIRDS
[v] TERRESTRIAL ANIMALS @ AQUATIC REPTILES
[JJ] FISH AND SHARKS ^ OTHER

BIOMASS
Spanish Period British Sites
MNI
Figure 11. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Pig (Sus scrofa)
Biomass and MNI for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow.
216

BIOMASS
16th 17th 18th Fred. St. Aug.
Spanish Period British Sites
MNI
Figure 12. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) Biomass and MNI for the First Spanish Period and 18th
Century British Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow.

% 12
BIOMASS
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

-L 16th 17th 18th Fred. St. Aug.
Spanish Period British Sites
MNI
Figure 13. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Cow (Bos taurus)
Biomass and MNI for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow.
218

Spanish Period British Sites Spanish Period British Sites
BIOMASS MNI
Figure 14. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Chicken (Gallus
gall us) Biomass and MNI for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century
British Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow.

Figure 15. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of
Sea Catfish (Ariidae) Biomass and MNI for the First
Spanish Period and 18th Century British Collections.
SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow.

% 22
BIOMASS
/o 46
MNI

Figure 16. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Drum
(Sciaenidae) Biomass and MNI for the First Spanish Period
and 18th Century British Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by
Arrow.

/o 21
20
19
18
17
% 21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7 .1 *
6 -
5 f]
4
3
2
1 X
16th 17th 18th Fred. St. Aug.
First Spanish British Sites
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
BIOMASS
16th 17th 18th Fred. St. Aug.
First Spanish British Sites
MNI

BIOMASS MNI
Figure 17. Percentile Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations of Mullet (Mugil sp.)
Biomass and MNI for the First Spanish Period and 18th Century British
Collections. SA26-1 Indicated by Arrow.
224

Appendix A. LIST OF FIELD SPECIMENS ANALYZED FROM EACH SITE
The sites are listed in the following order:
SA 7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar Site
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, British Period
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, First Spanish Period
SA26-1, Lorenzo Josef de Leon Site, First Spanish Period
SA29-2, Lester's Gallery Site, First Spanish Period
SA34-1, Trinity Episcopal Church Site, First Spanish Period
SA34-3, Public Library Site, First Spanish Period
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon, First Spanish Period,
16th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon, First Spanish Period,
17th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon, First Spanish Period,
18th Century
Thomas Hird Lot, Fort Frederica, Georgia
225

226
Field Specimens from SA7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar Site
British Period, St. Augustine
FS#
592
Field Specimens from SA7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site
British Period, St. Augustine
FS#
69*
196
241
259
268
*Indicates a Feature

227
Field Specimens from SA7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site
First Spanish Period, St. Augustine
FS#
FS#
45
153*
no
155*
116*
157
118*
159*
119
162
120*
164
122*
176*
124*
177
127*
182
130*
183
131
193
133*
226
134
227
136*
231
137
234
139*
243
140
249
142*
267
143
270
145*
271
149*
274
152*
indicates a Feature

228
Field Specimens from SA26-1, Lorenzo Josef de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
FS#
FS#
10
15
16*
17*
18
22
25
26
30
31
33
35
36
37
46
50
53*
55
57
58
62
69
75
76*
77
78
84
87*
96
98
100
102
103
105*
108
115
120
121*
123*
125*
126
127

229
FS#
FS#
128*
170*
129
171*
131*
172*
134
173*
137*
174*
138*
202
141
233*
142*
253*
143
157*
158*
159*
160*
161*
162*
165*
166*
167*
168*
169*
*Indicates a Feature

230
Field Specimens from SA29-2, Lester's Gallery Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
FS#
FS#
20*
24
21
25
22
26
23
*Indicates a Feature
Field Specimens from SA34-1, Trinity Episcopal Church Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
FS#
FS#
9
36*
10
39*
14
43*
15
68*
22
71
26*
73
30*
46
*Indicates material analyzed separately for MNI

231
Field Specimens from SA34-3, Public Library Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
FS#
11
15
16
17
18
19

232
Field Specimens from SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
FS#
FS#
41
210*
78
211*
108
214*
149*
333
151*
335*
156
348*
179*
355*
185
368*
188*
369*
190
390*
193*
391*
196*
392*
199*
393*
200*
394*
201*
397*
203*
400*
204*
402*
207*
403*
208*
indicates a Feature

233
Field Specimens from SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 17th Century, St. Augustine
FS#
FS#
20
225
21
229
22
235
23
277
25
281
60
287
64
319
70
321
89
327
90
331
92
339
144
345
145
357
173
361
174
364
175
372
189

234
Field Specimens from SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
FS#
FS#
6
172
11
221
12
226
18
230*
37
232
38
238*
48
241
49
250
57
251
82
252*
93
253*
99
254*
101
255
112
257
113
258*
125
271
126
272*
165
273
169
278*
170
279*
171

235
FS#
FS#
282
363*
283*
366
284
370*
285*
371*
288*
373*
293*
374*
294
375*
297*
376*
300*
377*
301*
378*
317*
379
337*
380*
340
381*
342*
382*
344*
383*
347*
384*
349*
385*
350*
386*
351*
387*
356*
388*
*Indicates a Feature

236
Field Specimens from the Thomas Hird Lot
Fort Frederica, Georgia
FS# FS#
2
45
3
47
5
49
8
50
10
52
13
53
14
54
16
56
17*
57
18*
58
22
60*
25
61
29
63
30
64*
31
65
33
67
36
68*
37
69
38
70
41
71
42
74
43

237
FS#
FS#
77
no
78
112
82
113
84
114
86
117
87
118
89
120
91
122*
92
123
94
124*
95*
125
99*
126
100*
128
102*
132
103
134*
104
135
105
137
106
138
107
139*
108
140*
109
141

238
FS#
FS#
142
167
143*
169
144*
170
145
171
146*
175
147
176
149*
177
152*
178
153*
179
154
181
155
182*
159*
183
161
184
162
185
164
186
165*
187*
166
*Indicates a Feature

Appendix B. SPECIES LIST FOR EACH SITE
Following a composite species list including scientific
names and common names for the species identified, the
sites are presented in the following order:
SA26-1, Lorenzo Joseph de Leon Site, 16th Century
SA29-2, Lester's Gallery Site, 16th Century
SA34-1, Episcopal Church Site, 16th Century
SA34-3, Public Library Site, 16th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site, 16th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site, 17th Century
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, 18th Century
SA13-5, Acosta/Pasqua Site, 18th Century
SA16-23, Maria de la Cruz Site, 18th Century
SA34-2, Contreras/Ximenez-Fatio Site, 18th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site, 18th Century
Thomas Hird Lot, Fort Frederica
Hawkins-Davison Lot, Fort Frederica
SA 7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar Site, British Period
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, British Period
Plaza II Well, British Period
239

Scientific and Common Names Used in Appendix B
Unidentified Mammal
Pi del phis virqiniana
Seal opus aquaticus
Sylvilagus sp.
Sylvi 1aqus cf. palustris
Unidentified rodent
Sciurus sp.
Sciurus carolinensis
Sciurus cf. niger
Cricitidae
Perom.yscus sp.
Sigmodon hispidus
Rattus sp.
Rattus norvegicus
Rattus rattus
Mus musculus
Carnivora
Canidae
cf. Cam's sp.
Cam's fami 1 iaris
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Ursus americanus
Procyon lotor
Felidae
Lynx rufus
Opossum
Eastern mole
Rabbit
Marsh rabbit
Squirrel
Gray squirrel
Fox squirrel
New World rats and mice
White-footed mice
Hispid cotton rat
Old World rat
Norway rat
Roof rat
House mouse
Carnivorous mammals
Dog family
Possible dog or wolf
Domestic dog
Gray fox
American black bear
Raccoon
Cat family
Bobcat

241
cf. Felis domesticus
Possible domestic cat
Felis domesticus
Domestic cat
Equus cabellus
Domestic horse
Artiodactyl
Even-toed ungulates
cf. Sus scrofa
Possible pig
Sus scrofa
Domestic and feral pig
Odocoileus virqinianus
White-tailed deer
cf. Bos taurus
Possible domestic cow
Bos taurus
Domestic cow
Capra or Ovis sp.
Goat or sheep
Capra hi reus
Domestic goat
Ovis aries
Domestic sheep
Unidentified bird
Moris bassana
Gannet
Phalacrocorax auritus
Cormorant
Ardeidae
Herons and bitterns
Ardea herodias
Great blue heron
Casmerodius albus
American egret
H.ydranassa tricolor
Louisiana heron
Florida coerulea
Little blue heron
N.ycti corax n.ycti corax
Black-crowned night heron
Eudocimus albus
White ibis
Branta canadensis
Canada goose
Anser anser
Domestic goose
Anatidae
Ducks
Anas sp.
Surface feeding ducks

242
Anas cf. platyrhynchos
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas cf. rubripes
Anas rubripes
Anas cf. ful vi gula
Anas strepera
Anas caro!inensis
Anas discors
cf. Spatula clypeata
Aix sponsa
A.ythya sp.
Aythya americana
A.ythya collaris
Aythya mari11 a
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus serrator
Accipitriformes
Cathartes aura
Coragyps atratus
Accipitrinidae
cf. Gal!i formes
Col i us virginianus
cf. Gall us gal!us
Gall us gal!us
Meleagris gall opavo
Grus americana
Possible mallard
Mallard, domestic and wild
Possible black duck
Black duck
Florida duck
Gadwall
Green-winged teal
Blue-winged teal
Shoveller
Wood duck
Diving ducks
Redhead
Ring-necked duck
Greater scaup duck
Hooded merganser
Red-breasted merganser
Birds of prey
Turkey vulture
Black vulture
Hawks, eagles, and kites
Possible gallinaceous bird
Bob-white
Possible domestic chicken
Domestic chicken
Turkey
Whooping crane

Grus canadensis
Sandhill crane
Rallidae
Rails and coots
Rail us lonqirostris
Clapper rail
Charadrius vociferus
Kill deer
Scolopacidae
Snipes and sandpipers
cf. Capella qallinaqo
Possible Wilson's snipe
Capel la qallinaqo
Wilson's snipe
Numenius americanus
Long-billed curlew
Catoptrophorus semi palmatus
Willet
Limnodromus qriseus
Dowitcher
Himantopus mexicanos
Black-necked stilt
Burhinus bistriatus
Two-striped thick-knee
Laridae
Gulls and terns
Larus sp.
Gulls
Alca torda
Razor-billed auk
Columbia livia
Rock dove
Zenaidura macroura
Mourning dove
Strix varia
Barred owl
Passeriformes
Perching birds
Corvidae
Jays and crows
Corvus ossifraqus
Fish crow
Turdidae
Thrushes and bluebirds
Quiscalus quiscula
Common grackle
Unidentified reptile
Alligator mississippiensis
American alligator
Unidentified turtle

Chelydra sepentina
Kinosternon sp.
Etnydi dae
Terrapene carolina
Malaclemys terrapin
Chrysemys sp.
Chrysemys floridana
Chrysemys scripta
Deirochelys reticularia
cf. Gopherus polyphemus
Gopherus polyphemus
Cheloniidae
Chelonia mydas
Caretta caretta
Lepidochelys kempi
Unidentified snake
Colubridae
Natrix sp.
Coluber constricta
Masticophis flaqellus
Vi paridae
Agkistrodon piscivorous
Unidentified amphibian
Rana/Bufo sp.
Rana sp.
Snapping turtle
Mud turtle
Box and water turtles
Box turtle
Diamondback terrapin
Cooters and sliders
Cooter
Yellow-bellied turtle
Chicken turtle
Possible gopher tortoise
Gopher tortoise
Sea turtles
Atlantic green turtle
Atlantic loggerhead turtl
Atlantic ridley
Colubrids
Water snakes
Racer
Eastern coach whip
Pit vipers
Cottonmouth
Frog or toad
Pig or leopard frog
cf. Bufo sp.
Possible toad

245
Bufo sp.
Toad
Bufo cf. terrestris
Southern toad
Chondrichthyes
Cartilagenous fish
Squaliformes
Sharks
Ginglymostoma cirratum
Nurse shark
Odontaspis taurus
Sand tiger shark
Carcharhinidae
Requiem sharks
Carcharhinus sp.
Requiem shark
Carcharhinus leucas
Bull shark
Carcharhinus milberti
Sandbar shark
Galeocerdo cuvieri
Tiger shark
Sphyrnidae
Hammerhead sharks
Sphyrna sp.
Hammerhead shark
Sphyrna mokorran
Great hammerhead shark
Sphyrna tiburo
Bonnethead shark
Sphyrna zygaena
Smooth hammerhead shark
Rajiformes
Skates and rays
Pristis pectinata
Small tooth sawfish
Rhinobatos lentinginosus
Atlantic guitarfish
Das.yatis sp.
Sting ray
Rhinoptera bonasus
Cownose ray
Unidentified fish
Lepisosteus sp.
Gar
El ops saurus
Ladyfish
Clupeidae
Herrings
Siluriformes
Catfishes

letaluridae
Freshwater catfishes
Ariidae
Arius felis
Bagre marinus
Opsanus tau
Centropomus sp.
Centropomus cf. undecimal is
Centropristis sp.
cf. Epinephalus sp.
Micropterus salmoides
Pomatomus saltatrix
Carangidae
Caranx hippos
Lutjanus sp.
Pomadasyidae
Sparidae
Archosargus probatocephalus
Sciaenidae
Cynoscion nothus
Cynoscion regal is
Leiostomus xanthurus
cf. Menticirrhus sp.
Menticirrhus 1ittoralis
Menticirrhus americanus
Micropogonias undulatus
Pogonias cromis
Sea catfishes
Sea catfish
Gafftopsail catfish
Oyster toadfish
Snook
Snook
Sea bass
Possible grouper
Largemouth bass
B1uefish
Jacks
Crevalle jack
Snapper
Grunts
Porgies
Sheepshead
Drums
Silver seatrout
Weakfish
Spot
Possible kingfish
Gulf kingfish
Southern kingfish
Atlantic croaker
Black drum

Scianops ocellata
Red drum
Mugi1 sp.
Sphyraena barracuda
Paralichthyes lethostigma
Diodontidae
Diodon histrix
Mullet
Great barracuda
Southern flounder
Porcupine fishes
Porcupine fish
Unidentified bone

248
Species List, SA26-1, Lorenzo ,Joseph de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
4290
2866.4
34.19
22.92
Didel phis virginiana
1
1
0.2
1.1
0.03
0.02
Sylvilagus sp.
48
7
1.6
32.0
0.55
0.4
Sciurus sp.
2
1
0.2
0.5
0.01
0.007
Siqmodon hispidus
2
2
0.4
1.0
0.02
0.01
Rattus rattus
2
2
0.4
1.1
0.03
0.02
Carnivora
1
0.7
0.02
0.01
Canidae
1
6.2
0.12
0.08
cf. Cam's sp.
1
2.3
0.05
0.03
Cam's familiaris
2
1
0.2
1.0
0.02
0.01
Proc.yon lotor
6
5
1.1
11.1
0.21
0.1
Felidae
2
1.0
0.02
0.01
Felis domesticus
3
3
0.7
8.3
0.16
0.1
Artiodactyl
40
88.2
1.40
0.9
Sus scrofa
152
14
3.1
982.3
12.80
8.6
Odocoileus virqinianus
73
10
2.2
600.7
8.15
5.5
Bos taurus
7
2
0.4
145.5
2.22
1.5
Capra/Ovis sp.
2
1
0.2
3.1
0.07
0.05
Unidentified Bird
339
112.7
1.67
1.1
Branta canadensis
1
1
0.2
2.9
0.06
0.04
Anatidae
2
1.8
0.04
0.03
Anas cf. platyrhincos
2
2.8
0.05
0.03
Anas platyrhincos
7
3
0.7
12.2
0.21
0.1

249
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kg
%
Anas rubripes
1
1
0.2
1.1
0.02
0.01
Anas cf. ful vi quia
1
1
0.2
2.3
0.04
0.03
Anas strepera
1
1
0.2
2.9
0.06
0.04
Anas carolinensis
12
3
0.7
5.8
0.11
0.07
Anas discors
3
1
0.2
1.5
0.03
0.02
Coragyps atratus
1
1
0.2
0.9
0.2
.01
Accipitriidae
1
1
0.2
0.5
0.01
0.006
Colinus virqinianus
4
3
0.7
1.7
0.03
0.02
Gall us gallus
157
15
3.3
134.1
1.97
1.3
Meleagris gall opavo
6
2
0.4
20.5
0.34
0.2
Grus canadensis
2
2
0.4
7.5
0.13
0.09
Railidae
1
0.5
0.01
0.007
Gharadrius vociferus
1
1
0.2
0.4
0.009
0.006
Capella qallinaqo
3
2
0.4
2.1
0.04
0.03
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
3
2
0.4
1.2
0.02
0.01
Zenaidura macroura
1
1
0.2
0.7
0.02
0.01
Passeriformes
7
1.9
0.04
0.03
Corvidae
1
0.5
0.01
0.007
Corvus ossifraqus
1
1
0.2
0.6
0.01
0.007
Turdidae
1
1
0.2
0.7
0.02
0.01
Unidentified Turtle
485
243.3
0.98
0.7
Kinosternon sp.
2
1
0.2
0.9
0.002
0.001
Emydidae
1
2.5
0.01
0.007

250
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kg
%
Terrapene Carolina
2
1
0.2
3.0
0.02
0.01
Malaclemys terrapin
20
3
0.7
14.6
0.07
0.05
Chrysemys cf. scripta
1
1
0.2
1.2
0.007
0.005
cf. Gopherus polyphemus
11
23.7
0.16
0.1
Gopherus polyphemus
190
12
2.7
257.0
1.42
1.0
Cheloniidae
3
2
0.4
3.5
0.009
0.006
Colubridae
1
0.6
0.008
0.005
Natrix sp.
1
1
0.2
0.1
0.001
0.001
Coluber constricta
52
1
0.2
3.7
0.05
0.03
Aqkistrodon piscivorous
2
1
0.2
1.4
0.02
0.01
Unidentified Amphibian
1
0.4
0.003
0.002
Rana/Bufo sp.
38
5.8
0.04
0.03
Rana sp.
1
1
0.2
0.5
0.003
0.002
Bufo sp.
7
4
0.9
1.8
0.01
0.007
Chondrichthyes
3
1.2
0.10
0.07
Carcharhinidae
6
2.0
0.17
0.1
Carcharhinus sp.
38
53.7
4.79
3.2
Carcharhinus leucas
2
2
0.4
0.3
0.02
0.01
Carcharhinus milberti
5
3
0.7
6.7
0.57
0.4
Galeocerdo cuvieri
4
4
0.9
7.0
0.60
0.4
Sphyrna sp.
19
14.0
1.21
0.8
Sph.yrna mokorran
1
1
0.2
0.7
0.06
0.04
Sphyrna tiburo
15
2
0.4
7.4
0.63
0.4

251
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Sph.yrna zyqaena
2
2
0.4
1.1
0.09
0.06
Pristis cf. pectinata
1
1
0.2
7.3
0.62
0.4
Unidentified Fish
7268
1636.6
44.7
29.96
letaluridae
4
2
0.4
1.8
0.03
0.02
Ariidae
391
76.4
1.90
1.3
Arius felis
621
39
8.6
179.0
4.95
3.3
Baqre marinus
33
5
1.1
13.4
0.27
0.18
Opsanus tau
1
1
0.2
0.4
0.009
0.006
Centropomus sp.
3
1
0.2
2.8
0.05
0.03
Centropristis sp.
1
1
0.2
0.4
0.008
0.005
Micropterus salmoides
1
1
0.2
0.6
0.007
0.005
Pomatomus saltatrix
4
2
0.4
1.4
0.03
0.02
Sparidae
1
0.4
0.007
0.005
Archosarqus probatocephalus
3
22
4.9
47.8
0.61
0.4
Sciaenidae
707
140.6
3.64
2.4
C.ynoscion sp.
63
12
2.7
15.0
0.40
0.3
C.ynoscion nebulosis
15
2.2
0.06
0.04
Leiostomus xanthurus
2
2
0.4
0.8
0.02
0.01
Menticirrhus sp.
14
6
1.3
4.9
0.13
0.09
Micropogonias undulatus
27
8
1.8
8.7
0.23
0.15
Poqonias cromis
94
16
3.5
84.5
2.20
1.5
Scianops ocellata
176
23
5.1
170.4
4.41
3.0
Muqil sp.
2001
168
37.3
269.0
8.17
5.5

252
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
6ms
Biomass, Kq
# %
Paralichthyes lethostiqma
113
9 2.0
32.2
0.63 0.4
Unidentified Bone
2040.0
Totals
24238
453
8631.0
149.17

253
Species List, SA29-2, Lester's Gallery Site
First.Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
491
216.7
3.2
26.4
Sylvilagus sp.
4
2
6.9
1.9
0.04
0.3
Unidentified Rodent
1
1
3.4
0.1
0.003
0.02
Artiodactyl
6
11.1
0.21
1.7
Sus scrofa
4
2
6.9
110.9
1.73
14.3
Odocoileus virginianus
2
2
6.9
24.5
0.43
3.5
Bos taurus
n
2
6.9
347.8
4.94
40.6
Unidentified Bird
i
0.2
0.005
0.04
Branta canadensis
i
1
3.4
1.0
0.02
0.2
Gall us gall us
i
1
3.4
0.3
0.007
0.06
Unidentified Turtle
22
16.7
0.05
0.4
Chrysemys sp.
1
1
3.4
19.8
0.09
0.7
Gopherus pol.yphemus
1
1
3.4
1.6
0.01
0.08
Chondrichthyes
1
0.3
0.02
0.2
Carcharhinidae
1
1
3.4
0.5
0.04
0.3
Sphyrna tiburo
5
1
3.4
2.6
0.22
1.8
Unidentified Fish
174
28.1
0.63
5.2
Ariidae
6
2.2
0.04
0.3
Arius felis
23
3
10.3
7.4
0.12
1.0
Carangidae
1
1
3.4
0.4
0.01
0.08
Sparidae
3
1.3
0.02
0.2
Archosargus probatocephalus
1
1
3.4
0.7
0.01
0.08
Sciaenidae
24
4.1
0.11
0.9

254
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass,
#
Kq
%
Poqonias cranis
4
2
6.9
1.1
0.03
0.3
Scianops ocellata
2
2
6.9
0.9
0.03
0.3
Muqil sp.
29
4
13.8
4.8
0.10
0.8
Paral ichth.yes lethostiqma
4
1
3.4
0.5
0.01
0.1
Unidentified Bone
19
1.3
Totals
843
29
808.8
12.12

255
Species List, SA34-1, Episcopal Church Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kg
%
Unidentified Mammal
93
50.6
0 .84
11.0
Procyon lotor
1
1
4.5
0.5
0 .01
0.1
Artiodactyl
2
2.3
0 .05
0.7
Sus scrofa
3
3
13.6
315.4
4.52
59.5
Odocoileus virginianus
2
2
9.1
75.4
1.22
16.1
Bos taurus
1
1
4.5
2.8
0.06
0.8
Unidentified Bird
1
0.4
0.009
0.1
Anas sp.
1
1
4.5
1.0
0.02
0.3
Gall us gall us
6
2
9.1
4.4
0.08
1.1
Strix varia
1
1
4.5
1.4
0.03
0.4
Unidentified Turtle
6
3.7
0.009
0.1
Malaclem.ys terrapin
4
1
4.5
5.6
0.03
0.4
Gopherus pol.yphemus
5
2
9.1
54.9
0.34
4.5
cf. Bufo sp.
19
0.6
0.004
0.05
Bufo sp.
2
1
4.5
0.6
0.004
0.05
Carcharhinus sp.
1
1
4.5
1.1
0.09
1.2
Pristis cf. pectinata
1
1
4.5
0.6
0.05
0.7
Unidentified Fish
21
3.8
0.08
1.1
Ari i dae
4
1.9
0.03
0.4
Arius felis
4
1
4.5
1.4
0.02
0.3
Archosargus probatocephalus
2
1
4.5
0.6
0.01
0.1
Sciaenidae
6
2.3
0.06
0.8

256
MNI
Weight
Biomass,
Kq
Species
Ct
#
%
Gms
#
%
Poqonias cromis
1
1
4.5
0.5
0.01
0.1
Mugil sp.
2
1
4.5
0.4
0.006
0.08
Paral ichth.yes lethostigma
3
1
4.5
0.7
0.02
0.3
Unidentified Bone

... Q., .3
Totals
192
22
533.2
7.60

257
Species List, SA34-3, Public Library Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
118
76.9
1.24
52.1
Rattus rattus
1
1
6.7
0.4
0.01
0.4
Sylvilaqus sp.
5
1
6.7
2.3
0.05
2.1
Artiodactyl
3
11.0
0.21
8.8
Sus scrofa
5
1
6.7
7.2
0.14
5.9
Bos taurus
1
1
6.7
6.0
0.12
5.0
Unidentified Bird
4
1.9
0.04
1.7
Unidentified Turtle
30
12.6
0.04
1.7
Malaclemys terrapin
1
1
6.7
0.5
0 .003
0.1
Gopherus polyphemus
10
1
6.7
21.0
0.14
5.9
Sph.yrna tiburo
1
1
6.7
0.4
0 .03
1.3
Unidentified Fish
19
6.2
0 .13
5.5
Ari i dae
1
0.5
0 .007
0.3
Arius felis
4
2
13.3
2.1
0 .03
1.3
Sparidae
1
0.4
0.007
0.3
Archosarqus probatocephalus
2
1
6.7
0.6
0.01
0.4
Sciaenidae
6
1.7
0.05
2.1
Pogonias cromis
1
1
6.7
0.6
0.02
0.8
Scianops ocellata
4
1
6.7
1.5
0.04
1.7
Muqil sp.
9
2
13.3
2.9
0.06
2.5
Diodon histrix
2
L
6.7
0.6
0.01
0.4
Totals
228
15
157.3
2.38

258
Species List, SA 36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
i
M
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
j_Kg_
%
Unidentified Mammal
1412
730.3
9.75
22.2
Sylvilaqus sp.
15
5
4.2
13.2
0.25
0.7
Sciurus cf. niqer
1
1
0.8
0.9
0.02
0.05
Proc.yon lotor
1
1
0.8
0.1
0.003
0.007
Felis domesticus
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.02
0.05
Artiodactyl
20
60.4
0.99
2.3
Sus scrofa
26
8
6.8
271.2
3.93
8.9
Odocoileus virqinianus
9
4
3.4
83.6
1.34
3.1
cf. Bos taurus
2
70.5
1.14
2.6
Bos taurus
11
2
1.7
924.5
12.11
27.5
Unidentified Bird
40
25.5
0.42
1.0
Casmerodeus albus
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.02
0.05
Anas sp.
1
1.1
0.02
0.05
Anas cf. platyrhynchos
1
1
0.8
0.2
0.005
0.01
Anas platyrhynchos
2
1
0.8
1.6
0.03
0.07
Anas cf. carolinensis
1
1
0.8
1.3
0.03
0.07
cf. Gall us gall us
3
3.2
0.06
0.14
Gall us qallus
28
7
5.9
29.3
0.48
1.1
Meleaqris gallopavo
5
3
2.5
34.2
0.55
1.2
Laridae
1
1
0.8
0.1
0.002
0.005
Unidentified Turtle
12
6.7
0.02
0.05
cf. Gopherus polyphemus
34
13.4
0.09
0.2

259
Species
Ct
T
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass,
#
Kg
%
Gopherus polyphemus
82
4
3.4
202.2
1.14
2.6
Cheloniidae
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.002
0.005
Rana/Bufo sp.
4
0.8
0.005
0.01
Bufo sp.
1
1
0.8
0.4
0.003
0.007
Chondrichthyes
3
0.3
0.02
0.05
Carcharhinidae
9
11.0
0.95
2.2
Carcharhinus sp.
1
1
0.8
0.3
0.02
0.05
Sphyrnidae
2
0.9
0.07
0.2
Sph.yrna sp.
9
2
1.7
3.3
0.28
0.6
Unidentified Fish
1552
178.1
4.36
9.9
Clupeidae
1
1
0.8
0.3
0.007
0.02
Ariidae
10
2.4
0.04
0.09
Arius felis
37
6
5.0
15.5
0.31
0.7
Bagre marinus
2
2
1.7
0.3
0.004
0.009
Pomadasyidae
2
1
0.8
0.2
0.001
0.002
Archosarqus probatocephalus
9
3
2.5
3.6
0.05
0.11
Sciaenidae
45
76.3
1.99
4.5
Cynoscion sp.
7
2
1.7
2.3
0.06
0.1
Micropogonias undulatus
4
1
0.8
0.3
0.008
0.02
Poqonias cromis
18
4
3.4
18.7
0.50
1.1
Scianops ocellata
59
4
3.4
71.5
1.87
4.3
Mugil sp.
250
45
38.1
38.3
0.95
2.2

2 60
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass. Ka
# %
Paralichth.yes lethostigma
10
4 3.4
3.8
0.09 0.2
Unidentified Bone
118.9
Totals
3745
119
3023.4
44.01

261
Species List, SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 17th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
. Kg
%
Unidentified Mammal
890
607.70
8.24
45.0
Sylvilaqus sp.
3
1
2.1
4.10
0.08
0.4
Uroc.yon cinereoarqenteus
1
1
2.1
0.2
0.005
0.03
Equus cabal!us
1
1
2.1
19.5
0.35
1.9
Artiodactyl
2
1.0
0.02
0.1
Sus scrofa
9
2
4.3
19.2
0.35
1.9
Odocoileus virqinianus
12
2
4.3
110.5
1.72
9.4
Bos taurus
3
1
2.1
67.2
1.09
6.0
Unidentified Bird
25
9.1
0.16
0.9
Ardea herodius
1
1
2.1
1.6
0.03
0.2
Gall us qallus
6
3
6.4
5.9
0.11
0.6
Scolopacidae
1
1
2.1
0.8
0.02
0.1
Passeriformes
1
1
2.1
0.2
0.005
0.03
Unidentified Turtle
59
57.1
0.20
1.1
Emydidae
6
0.9
0.005
0.03
Malaclem.ys terrapin
1
1
2.1
2.7
0.01
0.06
Gopherus polyphemus
13
1
2.1
21.2
0.14
0.8
Lepidochel.ys kempi
1
1
2.1
2.2
0.005
0.03
Unidentified Amphibian
6
0.3
0.002
0.01
Rana/Bufo sp.
9
1
2.1
1.1
0.007
0.04
Chondrichthyes
2
1.0
0.08
0.4
Carcharhinus sp.
2
1
2.1
7.1
0.61
3.3
Galeocerdo cuvieri
3
1
2.1
2.3
0.19
1.0

262
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Sphyrna sp.
7
1
2.1
7.6
0.65
3.5
Unidentified Fish
857
100.0
2.38
13.0
Ariidae
39
7.6
0.14
0.8
Arius felis
31
4
8.5
8.7
0.16
0.9
Baqre marinus
4
1
2.1
1.2
0.02
0.1
Archosarqus probatocephalus
5
1
2.1
1.5
0.02
0.1
Sciaenidae
47
6.4
0.17
0.9
C.ynoscion sp.
2
1
2.1
0.7
0.02
0.1
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
1
2.1
0.2
0.006
0.03
Poqonias cromis
_ 11
2
4.3
14.8
0.39
2.1
Scianops ocellata
5
2
4.3
2.8
0.08
0.4
Muqil sp.
208
13
27.7
34.2
0.84
4.6
Paralichthyes lethostiqma
1
1
2.1
0.5
0.01
0.06
Unidentified Bone
_
47.6
Totals
2275
47
1176.7
18.34

263
Species List, S/V7-6* Antonio de Mesa Site
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass, Kq
# %
Unidentified Mammal
2691
2045.5
25.09
30.4
Didel phis virginiana
4
1
1.1
6.5
0.13
0.16
Seal opus aquaticus
1
1
1.1
0.2
0.005
0.006
Siqmodon hispidus
3
1
1.1
0.3
0.008
0.01
Carnivora
1
0.9
0.02
0.02
Canidae
1
0.4
0.01
0.01
Cam's familiaris
23
2
2.3
21.0
0.38
0.46
Proc.yon lotor
1
1
1.1
1.1
0.03
0.04
Felis domesticus
1
1
1.1
0.2
0.005
0.006
Artiodactyl
9
94.6
1.50
1.8
Sus scrofa
41
4
4.6
195.5
2.91
3.5
Odocoileus virqinianus
18
4
4.6
226.2
3.32
4.0
Bos taurus
127
2
2.3
3229.1
38.14
46.2
Capra/Ovis sp.
7
2
2.3
76.5
1.23
1.5
Unidentified Bird
68
19.2
0.32
0.39
Anatidae
4
1.7
0.03
0.04
Anas sp.
4
0.5
0.01
0.01
Anas discors
4
2
2.3
2.2
0.04
0.05
Merqus serrator
3
2
2.3
1.5
0.03
0.04
cf. Galliformes
1
0.7
0.02
0.02
Gall us qallus
28
4
4.6
25.0
0.41
0.50
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
1
1
1.1
0.1
0.002
0.002

264
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass,
#
Kg
%
Unidentified Turtle
14
6.9
0.02
0.02
cf. Gopherus polyphemus
6
7.0
0.05
0.06
Gopherus polyphemus
5
2
2.3
6.4
0.05
0.06
Rana/Bufo sp.
7
1
1.1
0.7
0.005
0.006
Squaliformes
1
0.1
0.008
0.01
Ginglymostoma cirratum
2
1
1.1
0.6
0.05
0.06
Carcharhinidae
2
0.8
0.07
0.08
Carcharhinus sp.
7
3
3.4
3.0
0.25
0.3
Rajiformes
1
0.3
0.02
0.02
Unidentified Fish
1207
188.3
4.62
5.6
Ari i dae
27
5.0
0.09
0.11
Arius felis
55
6
6.9
13.8
0.28
0.34
Bagre marinus
7
2
2.3
1.9
0.03
0.03
cf. Centropomus undecimal is
1
1
1.1
0.6
0.01
0.01
Pomatomus saltatrix
1
1
1.1
0.2
0.003
0.003
Sparidae
1
0.6
0.01
0.01
Archosargus probatocephalus
11
2
2.3
3.7
0.05
0.06
Sciaenidae
10
12.3
0.33
0.4
C.ynoscion nebulosus
2
2
2.3
0.8
0.02
0.02
Micropogonias undulatus
1
1
1.1
0.2
0.006
0.007
Pogonias cromis
26
4
4.6
32.8
0.86
1.0
Scianops ocellata
30
5
5.7
54.2
1.42
1.7

265
Species
Ct
z.
ii
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
Muqil sp.
203
26
30.0
23.7
0.56
0.68
Sph.yraena barracuda
3
1
1.1
0.4
0.006
0.007
Paralichthyes lethostiqma
1
1
1.1
0.2
0.006
0.007
Unidentified Bone
79
8.2
Totals
4751
87
6321.6
82.47

266
Species List, SAI3-5, Acosta/Pasqua Site (Cumbaa 1975)
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Species
MNI
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kg
%
Unidentified Mammal
579.5
7.89
29.8
Rattus rattus
2
1.0
0.02
0.08
Mus musculus
1
0.5
o.oi
0.04
Canis familiaris
1
0.5
0.01
0.04
Proc.yon lotor
1
2.0
0.04
0.2
Sus scrofa
2
43.0
0.73
2.8
Odocoileus virginianus
1
13.0
0.24
0.9
Bos taurus
2
1225.0
15.68
59.3
Unidentified Bird
4.5
0.08
0.3
Gall us gall us
2
3.0
0.06
0.2
Passeriformes
1
0.5
0.01
0.04
Alligator mississippiensis
1
6.5
0.09
0.3
Unidentified Turtle
2.0
0.005
0.02
Malaclem.ys terrapin
1
2.5
0.006
0.02
Dei rochel.ys reticularia
1
0.5
0.001
0.003
Gopherus pol.yphemus
2
7.0
0.02
0.08
Bufo sp.
1
0.5
0.003
0.01
Unidentified Fish
43.0
0.98
3.7
Galeocerdo cuvieri
1
0.5
0.04
0.2
Carcharhinidae
1
1.0
0.08
0.3
Arius felis
2
3.5
0.06
0.2
Archosargus probatocephalus
2
1.0
0.02
0.08

267
Species
MNI
Weight
Gms
Biomass,
#
Kg
%
Cynoscion sp.
1
0.5
0.01
0.04
Cynoscion regal is
1
0.5
o.oi
0.04
Menticirrhus sp.
1
0.5
o.oi
0.04
Menticirrhus americanus
5
1.5
0.04
0.2
Micropogonias undulatus
2
0.5
0.01
0.04
Mugil sp.
14
12.0
0.26
1.0
Paralichthyes lethostigma
j.
1.0
0.03
0.1
Totals
50
1957.0
26.45

268
Species List, SA16-23, Maria de la Cruz Site (Cumbaa 1975)
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Species
MNI
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
. Kg
%
Unidentified Mammal
2109.5
25.81
48.2
Scalopus aquaticus
1
1.0
0.02
0.04
Sciurus carolinensis
1
0.5
0.01
0.02
Mus musculus
1
0.5
0.01
0.02
Rattus rattus
1
0.5
0.01
0.02
Uroc.yon cinereoarqenteus
1
1.0
0.02
0.04
Proc.yon lotor
1
3.0
0.06
0.10
Felis domesti cus
1
1.5
0.03
0.06
Sus scrofa
3
142.0
2.17
4.1
Odocoileus virginianus
1
11.0
.21
0.4
Bos taurus
3
978.5
12.76
23.8
Unidentified Bird
9.5
0.17
0.3
Anas discors
1
0.5
0.01
0.02
Lophodytes cucullatus
1
0.5
0.01
0.02
Gall us gall us
2
6.5
0.12
0.2
Meleagris gallopavo
1
11.0
0.19
0.4
Capel!a qallinaqo
1
0.5
0.01
0.02
Numenius americanus
1
0.5
0.01
0.02
Limnodromus griseus
1
0.5
0.01
0.02
Burhinus bistriatus
1
1.0
0.02
0.04
Galeocerdo cuvieri
1
0.5
0.04
0.07
Carcharhinidae
1 .
1.0
0.08
0.2
Sph.yrna cf. tiburo
1
0.5
0.04
0.07

269
Species
MNI
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Pristis sp.
1
0.5
0.04
0.07
Unidentified Fish
267.5
6.68
12.47
Ariidae
25.5
0.55
1.0
Arius felis
22
49.0
1.15
2.2
Baqre marinus
5
11.0
0.21
0.4
Pomatomus saltatrix
1
0.5
0.008
0.02
Archosarqus probatocephalus
6
35.0
0.46
0.9
Cynoscion sp.
1
1.5
0.04
0.07
Cynoscion nebulosus
1
1.0
0.03
0.06
Menticirrhus cf. americanus
2
1.5
0.04
0.07
Poqonias cromis
2
6.0
0.16
0.3
Scianops ocellata
3
36.5
0.96
1.8
Muqil sp.
17
12.0
0.26
0.5
Paral ichth.yes lethostigma
2
1.5
0.05
0.09
Opsanus tau
3
2.0
0.04
0.07
Totals
101
2864.0
53.59

270
Species List, SA34-2, Contreras/Ximenez-Fatio Site (Cumbaa 1975)
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Species
MNI
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
5808.5
65.37
28.6
Didel phis virginiana
1
4.5
0.09
0.04
S.ylvilagus sp.
2
10.5
0.20
0.09
Rattus rattus
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Ursus americanus
1
60.5
0.99
0.4
Proc.yon lotor
1
13.0
0.24
0.1
Felis domesticus
1
28.5
0.50
0.2
Sus s ero fa
7
1720.5
21.40
9.4
Odocoileus Virginianus
6
1283.0
16.36
7.2
Bos taurus
7
8128.5
88.97
39.0
Ovis aries
2
15.5
0.29
0.1
Unidentified Bird
4.0
0.07
0.03
Morus bassanus
1
3.5
0.07
0.03
Cathartes aura
1
3.0
0.06
0.03
Anser anser
1
4.0
0.07
0.03
Gall us gall us
10
141.5
2.07
0.9
Meleagris gallopavo
2
18.0
0.30
0.1
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Columba livia
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Alligator mississippiensis
1
27.0
0.35
0.2
Unidentified Turtle
0.5
0.001
0.0004
Terrapene Carolina
1
0.5
0.001
0.0004
Malaclemys terrapin
2
9.0
0.02
0.009

271
Species
MNI
Weight
Gms
Biomass,
#
J<9
%
Chrysemys scripta
1
18.0
0.05
0.02
Deirochel.ys reticularia
1
1.0
0.002
0.0009
Gopherus pol.yphemus
14
1529.0
7.57
3.3
Cheloniidae
2
49.5
0.17
0.07
Caretta caretta
1
9.5
0.03
0.01
Carcharhinidae
2
14.0
1.21
0.5
Galeocerdo cuvieri
1
7.5
0.64
0.3
Sphyrnidae
1
2.5
0.21
0.09
Sphyrna tiburo
1
9.5
0.82
0.4
Unidentified Fish
329.5
8.31
3.6
Arius felis
13
71.5
1.76
0.8
Baqre marinus
1
4.5
0.08
0.04
Archosarqus probatocephalus
2
10.0
0.14
0.06
C.ynoscion sp.
2
3.5
0.09
0.04
Menticirrhus sp.
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Poqonias cromis
6
174.5
4.50
2.0
Scianops ocellata
10
143.0
3.70
1.6
Muqil sp.
42
58.5
1.52
0.7
Paralichthyes lethostiqma
2
8.5
0.18
0.08
Totals
154
19730.5
228.45

272
Species List, SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
13079
7945.5
87.13
33.8
Seal opus aquaticus
6
1
0.4
1.0
0.02
0.008
Sylvilagus sp.
14
4
1.7
12.7
0.24
0.09
Sylvilaqus cf. palustris
1
1.9
0.04
0.02
Cricitidae
2
1
0.4
0.4
0.01
0.004
Rattus norveqicus
1
1
0.4
0.2
0.005
0.002
Rattus rattus
3
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.004
Carnivora
1
0.5
0.01
0.004
Proc.yon lotor
8
3
1.3
6.2
0.12
0.05
cf. Felis domesticus
1
0.7
0.02
0.008
Felis domesticus
21
5
2.2
41.6
0.70
0.03
Artiodactyl
333
2023.6
24.84
9.6
cf. Sus scrofa
3
encrusted
Sus scrofa
194
14
6.1
1441.7
18.20
7.1
Odocoileus virqinianus
80
11
4.8
1076.4
13.92
5.4
Bos taurus
202
13
5.7
7309.9
80.72
31.3
Capra/Ovis sp.
18
3
1.3
312.3
4.47
1.7
Unidentified Bird
145
67.2
1.03
0.4
Ardea herodias
1
1
0.4
encrusted
N.ycti corax nycti corax
1
1
0.4
0.2
0.005
0.002
Eudocimus albus
5
4
1.7
9.9
0.17
0.07
Branta canadensis
1
1
0.4
encrusted
Anatidae
4
2.4
0.05
0.02

273
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kg
%
Anas sp.
3
1.1
0.02
0.008
Anas platyrhinchos
. 4
1
0.4
3.6
0.05
0.02
Anas cf. ful vi gula
1
1
0.4
0.2
0.005
0.002
Anas cf. carolinensis
1
1
0.4
0.6
0.01
0.004
Anas discors
2
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.004
Aix sponsa
3
1
0.4
1.6
0.03
0.01
A.yth.ya sp.
1
0.7
0.02
0.008
Ayth.ya americana
1
1
0.4
1.2
0.02
0.008
Mergus serrator
1
1
0.4
0.6
0.01
0.004
Accipteridae
1
1
0.4
0.4
0.009
0.003
Col i us virginianus
4
3
1.3
1.7
0.03
0.01
Gall us gallus
62
10
4.4
76.5
1.16
0.5
Meleagris gall opavo
11
4
1.7
43.8
0.69
0.3
Scolopacidae
1
0.4
0.009
0.003
cf. Capel!a gallinago
1
0.1
0.002
0.001
Capel!a gallinago
1
1
0.4
0.1
0.002
0.001
Himantopus mexicanus
2
1
0.4
1.0
0.020
0.008
Larus sp.
1
1
0.4
0.7
0.02
0.008
Passeriformes
4
1.3
0.03
0.01
Corvus ossifragus
1
1
0.4
0.3
0.007
0.003
Turdidae
1
0.4
0.009
0.003
Quiscalus quiscula
1
1
0.4
0.1
0.002
0.001
Unidentified Turtle
84
48.9
0.16
0.06
Emydidae
8
4.8
0.02
0.008

274
MNI
Weiqht
Biomass, Kq
Species
Ct
# %
Gms
# %
Malaclemys terrapin 2
Gopherus polyphemus 47
Cheloniidae 1
Unidentified Snake 1
Viparidae 2
Unidentified Amphibian 4
Rana/Bufo sp. 6
Bufo sp. 38
Carcharhinidae 6
Carcharhinus sp. 5
Galeocerdo cuvieri 2
Sph.yrna sp. 26
Unidentified Fish 1345
Elops saurus 1
Ariidae 217
Arius felis 249
Bagre marinus 11
Centropristis sp. 1
cf. Epinephalus sp. 1
Lut.janus sp. 1
Archosargus probatocephal us 6
Sciaenidae 395
Cynoscion sp. 6
Leiostomus xanthurus 1
2
0.9
3.0
0.02
0.008
5
2.2
116.8
0.69
0.3
1
0.4
1.2
0.003
0.001
0.2
0.003
0.001
1
0.4
1.0
0.01
0.004
0.4
0.003
0.001
1.1
0.007
0.003
2
0.9
6.2
0.04
0.02
3.2
0.27
0.1
1
0.4
6.7
0.57
0.2
1
0.4
0.6
0.05
0.02
6
2.6
16.7
1.45
0.6
381.0
9.68
3.8
1
0.4
0.2
0.003
0.001
41.8
0.96
0.4
19
8.3
74.9
1.85
0.7
5
2.2
3.5
0.06
0.02
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.004
1
0.4
2.8
0.07
0.03
1
0.4
0.1
0.001
0.0004
1
0.4
1.2
0.02
0.008
93.6
2.44
1.0
4
1.7
2.0
0.06
0.02
1
0.4
0.3
0.008
0.003

275
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Mentcirrhus sp.
81
3
1.3
7.1
0.19
0.07
Micropoqonias undulatus
. 4
4
1.7
1.0
0.03
0.01
Poqonias cromis
26
5
2.2
40.5
1.07
0.4
Scianops ocellata
40
12
5.2
36.2
0.95
0.4
Muqil sp.
981
53
23.1
111.6
3.09
1.2
Paral ichth.yes lethostiqma
23
5
2.2
8.3
0.18
0.07
Unidentified Bone
462.9
Totals
18853 229
21872.0 257.84

276
Species List, Fort Frederica, Thomas Hird Lot
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
6ms
Biomass
#
Kg
%
Unidentified Mammal
18572
13580.1
142.47
34.6
Didel phis virginiana
48
6
2.6
58.6
0.96
0.2
S.ylvilagus sp.
2
1
0.4
1.3
0.03
0.007
Sciurus carolinensis
6
2
0.9
2.1
0.05
0.01
Rattus sp.
1
0.5
0.01
0.002
Rattus norveqicus
7
1
0.4
3.4
0.07
0.02
Rattus rattus
4
1
0.4
1.3
0.03
0.007
Ursus americanus
3
1
0.4
82.6
1.32
0.3
Proc.yon lotor
70
8
3.5
92.3
1.46
0.4
Lynx rufus
10
2
0.9
16.2
0.30
0.07
Felis domesticus
36
3
1.3
39.8
0.68
0.2
Artiodactyl
272
1702.1
21.20
5.1
Sus scrofa
299
14
6.1
1645.2
20.55
5.0
Odocoileus virginianus
412
18
7.8
2642.7
31.74
7.7
Bos taurus
442
15
6.5
11898.0
126.20
30.6
Capra/Ovis sp.
3
1
0.4
24.7
0.44
0.1
Unidentified Bird
234
78.2
1.19
0.3
Phalacrocorax auritus
1
1
0.4
1.0
0.002
0.0005
Ardeidae
1
0.7
0.02
0.005
Ardea herodias
1
1
0.4
1.6
0.03
0.007
Casmerodius albus
3
2
0.9
2.7
0.05
0.01
H.ydranassa tricolor
6
2
0.9
2.3
0.04
0.01
Florida coerulea
1
1
0.4
0.9
0.02
0.005

277
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Eudocimus albus
11
3
1.3
8.0
0.14
0.03
Branta canadensis
9
2
0.9
3.6
0.07
0.02
Anatidae
5
2.5
0.05
0.01
Anas plat.yrh.ynchos
11
4
1.7
8.0
0.14
0.03
Anas carolinensis
3
1
0.4
1.5
0.03
0.007
Anas discors
5
3
1.3
2.3
0.04
0.01
Aix sponsa
3
1
0.4
2.2
0.04
0.01
Aythya sp.
2
0.8
0.02
0.005
Aythya americana
2
1
0.4
0.6
0.01
0.002
Ayth.ya col laris
1
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Aythya marilla
1
1
0.4
0.9
0.02
0.005
Lophodytes cuculatus
3
2
0.9
4.0
0.07
0.02
Merqus serrator
1
1
0.4
0.8
0.02
0.005
Coraq.yps atratus
1
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Falcaniformes
2
1
0.4
1.6
0.03
0.007
Colinus virqinianus
1
1
0.4
0.1
0.002
0.0005
cf. Gall us qallus
1
0.5
0.01
0.002
Gall us qallus
280
14
6.1
35.2
0.56
0.1
Meleaqris qallopavo
6
2
0.9
32.5
0.52
0.1
Grus americana
5
3
1.3
26.3
0.43
0.1
Rail us lonqirostris
2
1
0.4
0.9
0.02
0.005
Charadrius vociferus
2
1
0.4
0.6
0.01
0.002
Scolopacidae
2
0.9
0.02
0.005
Capel!a gallinaqo
1
1
0.4
0.4
0.008
0.002

278
Species
Ct
1
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
>. KJ_._-
%
Numenius americanus
10
4
1.7
4.2
0.08
0.02
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
3
1
0.4
1.4
0.03
0.007
Limnodromus qriseus
2
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Laridae
2
0.8
0.02
0.005
Larus sp.
1
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Columba livia
2
1
0.4
0.7
0.02
0.005
Zenaidura macroura
1
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Passeriformes
1
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Unidentified Reptile
1
0.5
0.001
0.0002
Unidentified Turtle
67
30.0
0.20
0.05
Kinosternon sp.
2
1
0.4
1.0
0.002
0.0004
Emydidae
2
1.5
0.008
0.002
Malaclemys terrapin
27
2
0.9
18.5
0.08
0.02
Chrysem.ys sp.
1
1
0.4
1.2
0.007
0.002
Deirochel.ys reticularia
9
3
1.3
12.8
0.06
0.02
Gopherus polyphemus
12
1
0.4
11.4
0.08
0.02
Rana/Bufo sp.
36
1.9
0.01
0.002
Bufo sp.
1
1
0.4
0.3
0.002
0.0005
Rana sp.
1
1
0.4
0.3
0.002
0.0005
Squaliformes
1
0.8
0.07
0.02
Odontaspis taurus
1
1
0.4
0.7
0.06
0.02
Carcharhinidae
FOSSIL
TOOTH
Sphyrna sp.
1
1
0.4
1.3
0.11
0.03
Rhinobatos lentiqinosus
1
1
0.4
0.3
0.02
0.005

279
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass, Kq
# %
Dasyatis sp.
27
3
1.3
7.4
0.63
0.2
Rhinoptera bonasus
1
1
0.4
0.7
0.06
0.02
Unidentified Fish
2807
957.5
25.47
6.1
Lepiosteus sp.
11
1
0.4
2.6
0.06
0.02
Siluriformes
100
15.9
0.32
0.06
letaluridae
7
2
0.9
2.6
0.04
0.01
Ariidae
228
55.8
1.33
0.3
Arius felis
332
25
10.9
101.6
2.62
0.6
Bqre marinus
114
6
2.6
43.5
1.01
0.3
Opsanus tau
1
1
0.4
0.5
0.01
0.002
Pomatomus saltatrix
3
1
0.4
1.0
0.02
0.005
Archosarqus probatocephalus
11
4
1.7
7.3
0.10
0.02
Sciaenidae
217
604.6
15.40
3.7
Cynoscion sp.
3
2
0.9
1.4
0.04
0.01
Micropoqonias undulatus
5
2
0.9
1.3
0.04
0.01
Poqonias cromis
223
7
3.0
241.7
6.22
1.5
Scianops ocellata
164
21
9.1
242.6
6.25
1.5
Muqil sp.
28
4
1.7
6.2
0.13
0.03
Paral ichth.yes lethostiqma
5
2
0.9
2.5
0.06
0.02
Unidentified Bone
1115.2
Totals
25266
230
33517.0
411.85

280
Species List, Hawkins-Davison Lot
Ft. Frederica, Georgia (Cumbaa in Deagan 1972)
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kq
%
Unidentified Mammal
4
11.6
0.22
0.2
Didel phis virgianiana
1
1
2.2
0.2
0.005
0.005
S.ylvilaqus sp.
1
1
2.2
1.2
0.03
0.03
Cam's familiaris
12
1
2.2
68.1
1.11
1.13
Proc.yon lotor
5
1
2.2
23.5
0.42
0.4
Felis domesticus
1
1
2.2
2.5
0.05
0.05
Artiodactyl
4
22.3
0.4
0.4
Sus scrofa
88
6
13.3
741.0
9.88
10.1
Odocoileus virginianus
82
8
17.8
1097.17
14.17
14.80
Bos taurus
184
5
11.1
5524.8
62.43
63.9
Capra/Ovis sp.
30
3
6.7
266.5
3.87
4.0
Unidentified Bird
26
27.6
0.45
0.5
Eudocimus albus
1
1
2.2
2.2
0.04
0.04
Branta canadensis
10
2
4.4
34.6
0.56
0.6
Anas sp.
6
6.1
0.11
0.1
Anas plat.yrh.ynchos
9
2
4.4
10.8
0.19
0.2
Gall us gall us
24
3
6.7
48.8
0.77
0.8
Meleagris qallopavo
2
1
2.2
6.8
0.12
0.1
Rallidae
1
1
2.2
1.0
0.02
o
o
r\>
Unidentified Turtle
1
4.6
0.01
0.01
Malaclem.ys terrapin
1
1
2.2
3.1
0.008
0.008
Deirochel.ys reticularia
1
1
2.2
2.9
0.007
0.007
Agkistrodon piscivorus
1
1
2.2
0.7
0.009
0.009

281
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
6ms
Biomass
#
, Kg
%
Unidentified Fish
24
79.6
1.87
0.2
Ariidae
1
1.6
0.02
0.02
Baqre marinus
2
1
2.2
1.8
0.03
0.03
Poqonias cromis
2
2
4.4
23.0
0.61
0.6
Scianops ocellata
5
1
2.2
12.2
0.33
0.3
Paral ichth.yes lethostiqma
1
J_
2.2
1.1
0.03
0.03
Totals
530
45
2502.57
97.78

282
Species List, SA7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar Site
British
Period, St.
Augustine
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass, Kq
# %
Unidentified Mammal
584
1295.5
16.5
26.8
Rattus norveqicus
1
1
0.9
0.1
0.003
0.005
Rattus rattus
1
1
0.9
0.1
0.003
0.005
Canis familiaris
1
1
0.9
1.8
0.04
0.07
Equus cab all us
1
1
0.9
22.9
0.06
0.10
Artiodactyl
82
58.3
1.97
3.20
cf. Sus scrofa
1
6.8
0.13
0.20
Sus scrofa
39
3
2.7
230.0
3.48
5.6
Odocoileus virqinianus
7
1
0.9
29.4
0.51
0.80
Bos taurus
59
4
3.6
1290.0
16.43
26.6
Unidentified Bird
44
7.0
0.13
0.20
Eudocimus albus
1
1
0.9
1.1
0.02
0.03
Anas cf. rubripes
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.02
0.03
cf. Spatula clypeata
2
1
0.9
0.3
0.007
0.01
Ay thy a sp.
1
1
0.9
0.2
0.005
0.008
Merqus serrator
6
2
1.8
1.8
0.04
0.07
Gall us qallus
7
1
0.9
3.8
0.07
0.10
Scolopacidae
1
0.1
0.002
0.003
Catoptrophorus semi palmatus
4
2
1.8
0.6
0.01
0.02
Alca torda
4
1
0.9
1.4
0.03
0.05
Unidentified Turtle
5
7.6
0.02
0.03
Gopherus polyphemus
1
1
0.9
2.5
0.02
0.03
Unidentified Amphibian
1
0.1
0.001
0.002

283
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass
#
, Kg
%
Bufo sp.
1
1
0.9
0.1
0.001
0.002
Carcharhinus sp.
FOSSIL TOOTH
Galeocerdo cuvieri
3
1
0.9
1.0
0.08
0.13
Sph.yrna sp.
1
1
0.9
0.3
0.02
0.03
Unidentified Fish
791
217.9
5.39
8.8
Clupeidae
1
1
0.9
0.1
0.002
0.003
Ariidae
321
50.6
1.19
1.9
Arius felis
571
33
30.0
184.5
5.13
8.3
Bagre marinus
186
16
14.5
60.0
1.45
2.4
Opsanus tau
2
1
0.9
0.1
0.002
0.003
Centropristis sp.
1
1
0.9
0.1
0.002
0.003
Pomatomus saltatrix
1
1
0.9
0.1
0.001
0.002
Archosarqus probatocephalus
34
3
2.7
14.3
0.20
3.2
Sciaenidae
35
184.9
4.78
7.8
Cynoscion sp.
30
1
0.9
1.6
0.04
0.07
Menticirrhus sp.
11
0.4
0.01
0.02
Menticirrhus americanus
4
3
2.7
0.2
0.006
0.01
Micropogonias undulatus
4
2
1.8
0.1
0.003
0.005
Pogonias cromis
113
2
1.8
68.6
1.79
2.9
Scianops ocellata
29
4
3.6
44.0
1.16
1.9
Mugil sp.
307
14
12.7
36.4
0.40
1.5
Paralichthyes lethostigma
9
1
0.9
0.8
0.02
0.03

284
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass, Kq
# %
Diodon histrix
1
1
0.9
0.1
0.002 0.003
Unidentified Bone
59.3
Totals
3310
no
3887.8
61.68

285
Species List, SA7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site
British Period, St. Augustine
MNI
Weight
Biomass, Kg
Species
Ct
# %
Gms
# l
Unidentified Mammal
Pi del phis virginiana 2
Peromyscus sp. 1
Cam's familiaris 2
Sus scrofa 8
Odocoileus virginianus 1
Bos taurus 16
Unidentified Bird 7
Ardea herodias 1
Anas sp. 2
Gal 1 us gal 1 us 4
Rana/Bufo sp. 1
Rhinobatus lentiginosus 1
Unidentified Fish 64
Clupeidae 1
Ariidae 1
Arius felis 6
Bagre marinus 7
Archosargus probatocephalus 4
Sciaenidae 7
cf. Menticirrhus sp. 1
Pogonias cromis 2
Scianops ocellata 5
264.6
3.84
46.7
1
4.3
1.1
0.03
0.4
1
4.3
0.1
0.003
0.04
1
4.3
2.8
0.06
0.7
2
8.7
36.8
0.63
7.7
1
4.3
15.5
0.29
3.5
2
8.7
170.7
2.57
31.3
2.1
0.04
0.5
1
4.3
1.1
0.02
0.2
1
4.3
0.4
0.008
0.1
1
4.3
2.8
0.05
0.6
1
4.3
0.1
0.001
0.01
1
4.3
0.3
0.02
0.2
10.3
0.22
2.7
1
4.3
0.1
0.002
0.02
0.1
0.001
0.01
2
8.7
1.5
0.02
0.2
1
4.3
3.5
0.06
0.7
1
4.3
5.4
0.08
1.0
1.0
0.03
0.4
1
4.3
0.2
0.006
0.07
1
4.3
0.9
0.03
0.4
1
4.3
6.8
0.18
2.2

286
Species
Ct
MNI
# %
Weight
Gms
Biomass, Kq
# %
Mugil sp.
24
1
4.3
1.5
0.02
0.2
Paral ichth.yes lethostigma
2
L
4.3
0.5
0.01
. ,?0
Totals
170 23
530.2
8.22

287
Species List, Plaza II Well (Wing and Simons 1977)
British Period, St. Augustine
Species
Ct
#
MNI
%
Weight
Gms
Biomass, Kg
# %
Unidentified Mammal
357
1972.6
24.89
23.2
Cam's familiaris
35
3
9.4
150.3
2.29
2.1
Artiodactyl
41
129.4
1.99
1.9
Sus scrofa
9
3
9.4
118.7
1.84
1.7
Bos taurus
99
3
9.4
5805.0
65.33
60.8
Capra or Ovis sp.
75
4
12.5
520.7
7.15
6.7
Capra hi reus
2
2
6.3
76.4
1.23
1.2
Unidentified Bird
4
2.6
0.05
0.05
Casmerodeus albus
72
1
3.1
4.2
0.08
0.08
Branta canadensis
10
1
3.1
5.2
0.10
0.09
Gall us gall us
2
1
3.1
21.9
0.36
0.3
Unidentified Turtle
5
15.8
0.05
0.05
Gopherus polyphemus
4
1
3.1
194.0
0.76
0.7
Caretta caretta
1
1
3.1
114.2
0.42
0.4
Rana/Bufo sp.
13
1
3.1
0.1
0.001
0.001
Sphyrna tiburo
1
1
3.1
0.2
0.02
0.02
Unidentified Fish
33
6.1
0.13
0.1
Ariidae
28
2
6.3
6.1
0.11
0.1
Arius felis
24
5
15.6
9.7
0.19
0.2
Bagre marinus
5
2
6.3
2.5
0.04
0.04
Sciaenidae
10
11.5
0.31
0.3
Scianops ocellata
3
J,
3.1
4.6
0.12
0-1
Totals
833
32
9171.8
107.46

Appendix C. SUMMARY OF FAUNAL CATEGORIES
The sites are presented in the following order:
SA26-1, Lorenzo Joseph de Leon Site, 16th Century
SA29-2, Lester's Gallery Site, 16th Century
SA34-1, Episcopal Church Site, 16th Century
SA34-3, Public Library Site, 16th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site, 16th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site, 17th Century
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, 18th Century
SA13-5, Acosta/Pasqua Site, 18th Century
SA16-23, Maria de la Cruz Site, 18th Century
SA34-2, Contreras/Ximenez-Fatio Site, 18th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site, 18th Century
Thomas Hird Lot, Fort Frederica
Hawkins-Davison Lot, Fort Frederica
SA 7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar Site, British Period
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, British Period
Plaza II Well, British Period
288

289
SA26-1, LORENZO JOSEPH DE LEON SITE
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
36
8.0
17.24
32.1
Wild Terrestrial
37
8.2
10.39
19.3
Wild Birds
28
6.2
1.18
2.2
Aquatic Reptiles
7
1.6
0.09
0.2
Fish and Sharks
333
73.5
24.74
46.0
Commensals
12
2.7
0.13
0.2
Totals
453
53.77
Biomass of Taxa
for which MNI
was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
35.80
37.5
Birds
1.82
1.9
Reptiles
1.16
1.2
Amphibians
0.04
0.04
Fish and Sharks
56.58
59.3
Total
95.40

290
SA29-2, LESTER'S GALLERY SITE
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
5
17.2
6.68
85.2
Wild Terrestrial
5
17.2
0.48
6.1
Wild Birds
1
3.5
0.02
0.3
Aquatic Reptiles
1
3.5
0.09
1.2
Fish and Sharks
16
55.2
0.57
7.3
Commensals
L
3.5
0.003
0.04
Totals
29
7.84
Biomass of Taxa
for which
MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
3.4
79.4
Birds
0.005
0.1
Reptiles
0.05
1.2
Fish and Sharks
0.82
19.2
Total
4.28

291
SA34-1, EPISCOPAL CHURCH SITE
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
6
27.3
4.66
71.4
Wild Terrestrial
5
22.7
1.57
24.1
Wild Birds
2
9.1
0.05
0.8
Aquatic Reptiles
1
4.6
0.03
0.5
Fish and Sharks
7
31.8
0.21
3.2
Commensals
L
4.6
0.004
0.06
Totals
22
6.52
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa Kg %
Mammals
0.89
82.3
Birds
0.009
0.8
Reptiles
0.009
0.8
Amphibians
0.004
0.4
Fish and Sharks
0.17
15.7
Total
1.08

292
SA34-3, PUBLIC LIBRARY SITE
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
2
13.3
0.26
39.4
Wild Terrestrial
2
13.3
0.19
28.8
Wild Birds
0
0
0
0
Aquatic Reptiles
1
6.7
0.003
0.5
Fish and Sharks
9
60.0
0.20
30.3
Commensals
J_
6.7
0.01
1.5
Totals
15
0.66
Biomass of Taxa
for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg %
Mammals
1.45
84.3
Birds
0.04
2.3
Reptiles
0.04
2.3
Fish and Sharks
0.19
11.0
Total
1.72

293
SA36-4, FRANCISCO PONCE DE LEON SITE
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
18
15.1
16.54
68.7
Wild Terrestrial
15
12.6
2.75
11.4
Wild Birds
8
6.7
0.64
2.7
Aquatic Reptiles
1
0.8
0.002
0.008
Fish and Sharks
76
63.9
4,15
17.2
Commensals
1
0.8
0.003
0.01
Totals
119
24.09
Biomass
for Taxa for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg %
Mammals
11.88
59.6
Bi rds
0.50
2.5
Reptiles
0.11
0.6
Amphibians
0.005
0.03
Fish and Sharks
7.43
37.3
Total
19.93

294
SA36-4, FRANCISCO PONCE DE LEON SITE
First Spanish Period, 17th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
l
Domestic Animals
7
14.9
1.9
21A
Wild Terrestrial
5
10.6
1.95
28.1
Wild Birds
3
6.4
0.06
0.9
Aquatic Reptiles
2
4.3
0.02
0.3
Fish and Sharks
29
61.7
3.05
43.9
Commensals
J_
2.1
0.007
0.1
Totals
47
6.94
Biomass of Taxa
for which MNI
was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
8.26
72.5
Birds
0.16
1.4
Reptiles
0.21
1.8
Amphibians
0.002
0.02
Fish and Sharks
2.77
24.3
Total
11.40

295
SA7-6, ANTONIO DE MESA SITE
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
MNI Biomass
Taxa
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
15
17.2
43.08
85.7
Wild Terrestrial
8
9.2
3.53
7.0
Wild Birds
5
6.6
0.07
0.1
Aquatic Reptiles
0
0
0
0
Fish and Sharks
56
64.4
3.55
7.1
Commensals
3
3.5
0.02
0.04
Totals
87
50.25
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
26.62
82.6
Birds
0.38
1.2
Reptiles
0.07
0.2
Fish and Sharks
5.15
16.0
Total
32.22

296
)
SAI3-5, ACOSTA/PASQUA SITE (Cumbaa 1975)
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
7
14.0
16.48
94.4
Wild Terrestrial
4
8.0
0.3
1.7
Wild Birds
1
2.0
0.01
0.006
Aquatic Reptiles
3
6.0
0.1
0.6
Fish and Sharks
31
62.0
0.57
3.3
Commensals
4
8.0
0.03
0.2
Totals
50
17.49
Biomass of Taxa
for which MNI
was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
7.89
88.1
Birds
0.08
0.9
Reptiles
0.005
0.0006
Fish and Sharks
0.98
10.9
Total
8.96

297
SAI6-23, MARIA DE LA CRUZ SITE (Cumbaa 1975)
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
9
8.9
15.08
74.0
Wild Terrestrial
5
5.0
0.32
1.6
Wild Birds
7
6.9
0.26
1.3
Aquatic Reptiles
4
4.0
1.04
5.1
Fish and Sharks
69
68.3
3.61
17.7
Commensals
7
6.9
0.06
0.3
Totals
101
20.37
Biomass of Taxa
for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg %
Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Fish and Sharks
25.81 77.7
0.17 0.51
0.009 0.03
7.23 21.8
Total
33.22

298
SA34-2, CONTRERAS/XIMENEZ-FAT10 SITE (Cumbaa 1975)
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
MNI
Biomass
Taxa
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
27
17.5
113.23
73.2
Wild Terrestrial
26
16.9
25.45
16.5
Wild Birds
7
4.6
0.52
0.3
Aquatic Reptiles
8
5.2
0.62
0.4
Fish and Sharks
85
55.2
14.87
9.6
Commensals
1
0.7
0.01
0.005
Totals
154
154.70
Biomass of Taxa
for which
MNI was
Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
65.37
88.6
Bi rds
0.07
0.09
Reptiles
0.001
0.001
Fish and Sharks
8.31
11.3
Total
73.75

299
SA36-4, FRANCISCO PONCE DE LEON SITE
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa
for which MNI was
Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
!
Domestic Animals
45
19.8
105.25
80.3
Wild Terrestrial
23
10.1
14.97
11.4
Wild Birds*
25
11.0
1.09
0.8
Aquatic Reptiles
3
1.3
0.02
0.02
Fish and Sharks
124
54.6
9.66
7.4
Commensals
7
3.1
0.1
0.08
Totals
227
131.09
*Branta canadensis and Ardea herodias were omitted because of
heavy encrustations that affected their weight
Biomass of Taxa
for which MNI was
Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
112.04
88.4
Bi rds
1.17
0.9
Reptiles
0.18
0.1
Amphibians
0.01
0.008
Fish and Sharks
13.35
10.5
Total
126.75

300
THOMAS HIRD LOT, FORT FREDERICA
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
47
20.4
148.43
72.8
Wild Terrestrial
39
17.0
35.94
17.6
Wild Birds
48
20.9
1.93
1.0
Aquatic Reptiles
7
3.0
0.15
0.07
Fish and Sharks
85
37.0
17.48
8.6
Commensals
4
1.7
0.10
0.05
Totals
230
204.03
Biomass for Taxa
for which MNI was
Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
163.68
78.8
Birds
1.33
0.6
Reptiles
0.21
0.1
Amphibians
0.01
0.005
Fish and Sharks
42.59
20.5
Total
207.82

301
HAWKINS-DAVISON LOT, FORT FREDERICA (Cumbaa in Deagan 1972)
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
19
42.2
78.11
82.5
Wild Terrestrial
11
24.4
14.63
15.5
Wild Birds
7
15.6
0.93
1.0
Aquatic Reptiles
2
4.4
0.02
0.02
Fish and Sharks
5
11.1
1.0
1.1
Commensals
L
2.2
0.009
0.01
Totals
45
94.70
Biomass of Taxa
for which
MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
0.62
20.1
Birds
0.56
18.2
Reptiles
0.01
0.3
Fish and Sharks
1.89
61.4
Total
3.08

302
SA7-4, GERONIMO JOSE DE HITA Y SALAZAR SITE
British Period, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
10
9.0
20.08
63.6
Wild Terrestrial
2
1.8
0.53
1.7
Wild Birds
9
8.2
0.13
0.4
Aquatic Reptiles
0
0
0
0
Fish and Sharks
86
78.2
10.81
34.3
Commensals
3
2.7
0.007
0.02
Totals
110
31.56
Biomass of Taxa
for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg %
Mammals
18.60
61.8
Birds
0.13
0.4
Reptiles
0.02
0.07
Amphibians
0.001
0.003
Fish and Sharks
11.37
37.7
Total
30.12

303
SA7-6, ANTONIO DE MESA SITE
British Period, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
6
26.1
3.31
80.9
Wild Terrestrial
2
8.7
0.32
7.8
Wild Birds
2
8.7
0.3
0.7
Aquatic Reptiles
0
0
0
0
Fish and Sharks
11
47.8
0.43
10.5
Commensals
2
8.7
0.004
0.1
Totals
23
4.09
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Not Determined
Biomass
Taxa
Kg
%
Mammals
3.84
93.0
Bi rds
0.04
1.0
Fish and Sharks
0.25
6.1
Total
4.13

304
PLAZA II WELL
British Period, St. Augustine
Biomass of Taxa for which MNI was Determined
Taxa
MNI
Biomass
#
%
Kg
%
Domestic Animals
16
50.0
78.2
97.7
Wild Terrestrial
1
3.1
0.76
1.0
Wild Birds
2
6.3
0.18
0.2
Aquatic Reptiles
1
3.1
0.42
0.5
Fish and Sharks
11
34.4
0.48
0.6
Commensals
J_
3.1
0.001
0.001
Totals
32
80.04
Biomass
of Taxa for which MNI was Not Determined
Taxa
Biomass
Kg %
Mammals
26.88
98.0
Birds
0.05
0.2
Reptiles
0.05
0.2
Fish and Sharks
0.44
1.6
Total
27.42

Appendix D. FREQUENCY OF BONE ELEMENTS FOR EACH SITE
Please note that the categories Fish Skull #1 and Fish Skull #2 include
the following elements:
Fish Skull #1: Maxilla, Premaxilla, Dentary, Quadrate, Articular, Vomer,
Palatine, Frontal, Opercular, Preopercular, Hyomandibular,
Hyoid Bones, Post-temporal, and Grinding Platforms.
Fish Skull #2: Cleithrum, Coracoid, Scapula, Pectoral Spine, Otolith,
Basioocipitals, and Dorsal Spine.
These two categories are exclusive of the list "Skull/Teeth," which
includes miscellaneous fish skull bones not contained in the other two
categories, or in the "Vertebra" column.
The sites are presented in the following order:
SA26-1, Lorenzo Josef de Leon Site, 16th Century
SA29-2, Lester's Gallery Site, 16th Century
SA34-1, Episcopal Church Site, 16th Century
SA34-3, Public Library Site, 16th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site, 16th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site, 17th Century
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, 18th Century
SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site, 18th Century
Thomas Hird Lot, Fort Frederica
Hawkins-Davison Lot, Fort Frederica
SA 7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar, British Period
SA 7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site, British Period
Plaza II Well, British Period
305

306
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA26-1, Lorenzo Josef de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
rt3
r-
fO
s-
-Q
1 -C
OJ
r
4-> 4J
3 O)
S-
0)
CU fO
00 f
U.O.
>
to
+>
"e e
c
Z3i
1
- E
C 3
r
e 3
i- CL
a;
0 s-
s-
c 0
4-> U
0
C ra
LOCO
Ll.
M C/0
,.
C\J
=**=
=*=
,
1
CO
r
r
.0
3
3
E
r
OO
OO
I
"O
JC
-C
c
CO
to
I
p-
u.
Ll.
Didel phis virginiana
1
S.ylvilagus sp.
11
8
8
2
7
4
9
Sciurus sp.
1
1
Canis familiaris
2
Proc.yon lotor
2
2
2
Felis domesticus
1
1
1
Sus scrofa
52
69
2
9
1
12
Odocoileus virqinianus
8
29
11
9
1 ~
6
Bos taurus
2
3
1
1
Capra/Ovis sp.
2
Gall us gall us
3
15
5
19
39
6
44
Other Birds*
3
2
6
61
14
Ariidae
292
259
134
268
Sciaenidae
3
675
317
53
Muqil sp.
4
1265
632
43
identified to family
J

Frequency of Bone Elements, SA29-2, Lester's Gallery Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
r
C\J
=tfc
CD
r
r
l/>
+J
c/>
r
r
ro
_Q
fd
X5
=5
Z3
fd
t.
E re
£
c
£
r
131
r- £
r
OO
OO
1X:
C =3
r
£ =3
r
i M
-P 4->
S- Q.
cu
O S-
"O
jC
x:
3 CU
s-
. S-
c o
c
CO
CO
^ cu
C fO
cu
+J u
o
c fd
r
r*
001
U.D.
>
oooo
LU
l-H 00
=C
ll.
U-.
Sylvilagus sp.
Sus scrofa
Odocoileus virqinianus
Bos taurus
Gall us gall us
Other Birds*
Ariidae
Sciaenidae
Muqil sp.
1 1
1
1 1
1 3 2
1
16 1
24
16
2
1 2
111
1
2 9
5
8 5
identified to family

308
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA34-1, Episcopal Church Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species

ra
fO
S-
1_c
r
r+->
4-> CD
4->
3 O)
0) +->
S-
^ CL)
OO 1
Uu O.
>*
tO
+->
-O
fO
E
E
c
3
f
r
r
E
C
3
i
E
3
S-
CL
cu
o
£-
O)
fO
S-
c:
O
+->
U
o
c
n3
CO
00
U_
h-H
OO
r*
C\J
r-**
r*
CO
_o
3
3
E
r-
00
oo
r
O
.c
J3
c
to
to
r
i
r*
3:
Ll
U.
Procyon lotor 1
Sus scrofa 1
Odocoileus virqinianus
Bos taurus
Gall us gall us
Other Birds*
Ariidae 2
Sciaenidae
Muqil sp.
1 1
1 1
1
5 1
1 1
6
6 1
2
identified to family

309
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA34-3, Public Library Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
fO
s-
-Q
1 _e
*s%s,r
1 -p
-P CU -
P
3 CU -P
s-
CU
CD CO
CD
00 h-
-Q,
>
CU
to
-P
J=i
<13
£
<0
£
c
3
r
r*
r
£
c
3
i
£
3
s-
Q_
CD
o
CD
fO
S-
c
u
P
O
o
c
CO
00
00
Ll.
h1
oo
r
CM
=#=
=tt=
r
r
to
r
r
jQ
3
3
s
r
00
00
r*
-o
.c
je
c
to
to
1
r-
r*
re
Lu
U-
Sylvilagus sp. 4
Sus scrofa 4 1
Bos taurus 1
1
Ariidae
7
4'
Sciaenidae
Mugil sp.
1
7
2
4

310
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 16th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
Sylvilagus sp.
Sciurus cf. niger
Procyon lotor
Felis domesti cus
Sus scrofa
Odocoileus virginianus
Bos taurus
Gall us gall us
Other Birds*
ra
03
S-
1= ra
*'*sSk
r
_Q
3<
--C
r
CU
E =3
1+->
+J <1)
S- Q.
3 CD

S-
a> ra
CU
CU <0
CU
4-> O
ooi
Li- D-
>
OOCQ
6 1 3
1
1
13 4
1 5 1
3 4
2 3
1 3
r CM
tn
t/*>
r
JD
fO
3
3
E
c
£
r
r- E
r*
00
00
a;
IS
£
_c
.e
c o
c
00
o
E 03
r
r
U-
<00
3:
Lu
Lu
2 4
1
3 4
1 1
4 1
14 10
5 3
Ariidae
25
4
4
12
Sciaenidae
16
44
61
Mugil sp.
33
89
92
identified to family

311
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon Site
First Spanish Period, 17th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
fO
i.
ja
1= CO
3r-
>Sss.r
Q)
C 3
i 4-5
4-> CD
S- Q_
3 <1) 4->
s-
CD H3
CD
<1) fC
4-5 O
COJ
Ll. Cu
>
CO 00
i CM
n
r
to
4-5
to
r
_Q
fO
-Q
3
3
E
C
E
i
*r
E
r
00
oo
E
3
CD
O
S-
D
J3
jC
c
u
C
CO
to
o
c:
rd
r-
r-
r
Lu
ii
00
zn
Lu
Lu
Sylvilagus sp. 1
Urocyon cinereoargenteus 1
Equus cab al 1 us 1
Sus scrofa 5 3
Odocoileus virqinianus 2 7
Bos taurus 2
Gall us gall us
Other Birds*
Ariidae 41
Sciaenidae 1
Mugil sp.
1
1 2
1
15
1
1
27
6 22
49
13 1
170
37
identified to family

312
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
fO
(0
i.
"e fO
r
J2
3 r
r JZ
'V>s. f
ai
C 3
i -P
p a>
+->
S- CL
=3 CD
cu -p
s-
a; to
0)
0) fO

+J u
00 1
Lu D.
>
oo is)
r CNJ
CD
r
r
P
tA
r
i
JD
JD
3
3
E
£
£
r
E
*r
00
OO
r
E
3
r
CD
o
S-
*o
J£
_£
S-
£
a
c.
CO
to
o
£
fO
f
i
r
Lu
h1
00
:c
LU
LU
Didel phis virginiana
2
2
Cam's familiaris
16
3
1
2
1
Proc.yon lotor
1
Felis domesticus
1
Sus scrofa
25
8
2
3
1
Odocoileus virginianus
1
6
1
2
2
5
Bos taurus
15
14
23
4
7
4
- n
Capra/Ovis sp.
1
3
1
2
Gall us gall us
4
2
3
12
1
Other Birds*
3
10
1
4
Ariidae
32
8
14
Sciaenidae
13
34
Mugil sp.
128
72
^Identified to family

313
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA36-4, Francisco Ponce de Leon
First Spanish Period, 18th Century, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
S.ylvilaqus sp.
Procyon lotor
Felis domesticus
Sus scrofa
Odocoileus virginianus
Bos taurus
Capra/Ovis sp.
Gall us gall us
Other Birds*
05
05
C
E 03
r
jd
3 f
r
-C
C 3
r
4->
4-> CU
+->
£- Q.
3
Q)

CU 03
4-> O
00
1
Ll. d_
>
00 00
4
6
1
1
3
2
8
6
4
106
21
3
5
7
27
4
5
24 27 45 14
3 7 1
2 1 17
7 8
r
CM
==
=tfc
05
i
i
to
4->
to
_Q
03
3
3
£
C
£
r-e
r
OO
00
r
E3
r
0)
OS-
.C
-C
S-
CO
c
to
to
o
C03
r
r
LL.
HOO
zc
LU
U.
1
2
2
2
2 1
32 7 19
26 7 16
13 30 25
3 4 2
28 3 17
34 10
Ariidae
134 231
73 101
Sciaenidae
174
70 5
Mugil sp.
808
160 6
identified to family

314
Frequency of Bone Elements, Thomas Hird Lot
Fort Frederica, Georgia
Element
Group
Species
Skull/
Teeth
Feet/
Patella
Vertebra
Sternum/
j Scapula
Forelimbs
Innominate/
Sacrum
Hindiimbs
Fish Skull #1
Fish Skull #2
Didelphis virginiana
7
2
28
2
4
2
3
Sylvilagus sp.
1
1
Sciurus carolinensis
1
1
2
2
Ursus americanus
1
1
1
Proc.yon lotor
28
13
4
3
13
1
7
Lynx rufus
5
4
1
Felis domesticus
5
8
12
4
3 '
4
Sus scrofa
197
44
3
4
35
5
17
Odocoileus virginianus
185
149
10
8
36
13
22
Bos taurus
53
54
122
11
22
29
44
Capra/Ovis sp.
1
1
1
Gall us gall us
24
4
55
14
37
10
30
Other Birds*
2
8
9
67
27
Ariidae
236
148
84
187
Sciaenidae
84
211
9
Mugil sp.
27
1
*Identified to family

315
Frequency of Bone Elements, Hawkins-Davison Lot
Ft. Frederica, Georgia (Cumbaa in Deagan 1972)
Element
Group
Species
fO
fO
S.
E fO
r
-Q
3 i
1 JZ
^ r-
0)
C 3
r -M
4J +*
S. O.
3 0) +->
S-
0) fO
CD
CL) iO
CD
+j u
001
Li. D_
>
oo 00
r
=**=
CU
,
r
+->
to
r--
r
fO
_Q
3
3
£
C
E
r
r
E
n
oo
00
r
E
3
cu
o
S-
O
J3
.c
c
o
c
l/)
to
o
c
ro
r*
r-
i
Lu
1
c/>
in
LU
Lil.
Didel phis virginiana
1
S.ylvilagus sp.
1
Cam's familiaris
3
3
1
1
2
2
Proc.yon lotor
1
3
1
Felis domesticus
1
Sus scrofa
44
15
5
1
6
5
6
Odocoileus virginianus
11
21
11
3
11
5
24
Bos taurus
42
55
32
4
14
12
9
Capra/Ovis sp.
8
5
2
2
1
3
4
Gall us gall us
3
1
8
11
Other Birds*
3
12
9
Ariidae
-
1
Sciaenidae
4
identified to family

316
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA7-4, Gernimo Jose de Hita y Salazar
British Period, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
fd
S-
"s' fO
_Q
C3 i
1
r
(1)
C 3
1 -M
4-> +->
S- Q.
3
S-
O)
CD
O)
+-> u
co 1
LU CL.
>
CO CO
r
C\J
=5
=*=
r
r
CO
4->
CO
p
i
_Q
fO
.Q
3
Z3
e
C
E
r
E
i
CO
CO
E
Z3
r
03
o
S-
o
-C
_c
U
c
u
c
CO .
CO
o
C
id
r-
r
r~
Lu
l-H
CO
ZT .
LU
Lu
Canis familiaris
1
Equus cabal 1 us
1
Sus scrofa
4
6
1
4
1
3
Odocoileus virqinianus
1
Bos taurus
10 22
2
6
1
7
Gall us gall us
1
2
2
1
Other Birds*
1
4
9
5
Ariidae
332
117
252
376
Sciaenidae
32
73
7
Mugil sp.
6
230
50
21
identified to family

317
Frequency of Bone Elements, SA7-6, Antonio de Mesa Site
British Period, St. Augustine
Element
Group
Species
r C\J
site
r
r
tS)
-p
(/)
i
r
fO
,-nSi
X)
rt3
X)
3
3
ra
S-
£ cO
£
C
E
r
Xi
3 r
r-
r
E
CO
CO
r JZ
^1
a>
C 3
r
E
3
t -p
P p
s- a.
o
£-
*o
-C
-C
=3 CD
Q) +->
CD (O
C-
c
U
c
(/)
to
CD
CU CO
-P O
o
c
fO
p-
r-
CO
Ll_ Q-
>
CO CO
u_
l
CO
rc
Ll,
u.
Didel phis virginiana
1
Cams familiaris
1
1
Sus scrofa
7
1
Odocoileus virginianus
1
Bos taurus
2
1
1
1
Gall us gall us
1
1
Other Birds*
3
Ariidae
9
1
Sciaenidae
1
12
Mugil sp.
23
identified to family

318
Frequency of Bone Elements, Plaza II Well
British Period, St. Augustine (Wing and Simons 1977)
Element
Group
Species
fO
rt)
s-
E <0
r
jQ
3r
r- _C
r
a;
C =s
r +->
+-> CD
4->
i- CL
3 CD
CD
s~
cu ns
CD
CD fO
CU
+-> o
00 1
u- a.
>
oooo
r CM
CD
r
r
00
+J
to
r
-Q
fO
jQ
3
3
£
C
E
n*
r
E
00
00
r
E
3
r
CD
O
t-
O
_c
_d
S-
c
U
c
to
to
o
c
fO
1
1
r
Li-
11
oo
in
u.
Lu
Cam's familiaris
6
17
9
.
1
1
1
Sus scrofa
6
2
1
Bos taurus
13
31
13
5
16
2
17
Capra/Ovis sp.
9
44
4
5
5
10
Gall us gall us
5
1
4
1
2
Other Birds*
5
Ariidae
14
7
3
31
Sciaenidae
10
3
*Identified to family

Appendix E. REGRESSION DATA
Body and Skeletal Masses are presented in the following
order:
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
or
Turtles
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Snakes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of Chondrichthyes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Non-Perciformes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Siluriformes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
PIeuronectiformes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Perciformes
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Serranidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Centrachidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of Carangidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Pomadasyidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Sparidae
Body
and
Skeletal
Masses
of
Sciaenidae
319

320
Body and Skeletal Mass for Turtles
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1672
Chrysemys concinna
1
2.70
0.78
1674
Chrysemys concinna
1
1.89
0.52
1527
Chrysemys floridana
1
5.89
1.81
1537a
Chrysemys floridana
1
0.65
0.14
1537b
Chrysemys floridana.
1
0.74
0.13
1574c
Chrysemys floridana
1
0.86
0.17
1641
Chrysemys scripta
1
1.56
0.63
1646
Chrysemys scripta
1
1.33
0.51
2235
Chrysemys scripta
1
0.44
0.17
43501
Gopherus polyphemus
(RT 247)
1
2.8433
0.595
43502
Gopherus polyphemus
(RT 147)
1
4.4375
0.0805
RT12*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
1.81
0.367
RT27*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
2.95
0.45
RT36*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
4.19
0.8932
RT46*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
2.664
0.3904
RT48*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
3.04
0.6952
RT248*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
6.123
1.291
RT257*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
3.288
0.843
RT368*
Gopherus polyphemus
1
2.438
0.567
# of entries 19 *in collection of Robert Taylor
# of individuals 19
r = 0.91
b = 0.8984
a = 0.2482

321
Body and Skeletal Mass for Snakes1
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1578A
Liodytes alleni
1
0.030
0.0025
1578B
Liod.ytes alleni
1
0.050
0.0043
1578C
Liodytes alleni
1
0.045
0.0040
1582A
Liodytes alleni
1
0.065
0.0047
1582B
Liodytes alleni
1
0.040
0.0035
1582C
Liodytes alleni
1
0.020
0.0017
1582D
Liodytes alleni
1
0.0150
0.0008
1781A
Micrurus fulvius
1
0.015
0.0011
1718B
Micrurus fulvius
1
0.020
0.0015
1577B
Natrix fasciata
1
0.060
0.0041
1583
Natrix taxispilota
1
0.140
0.0122
1606
Pituophis melanoleucus
1
1.085
0.0957
1816
Pituophis melanoleucus
1
0.780
0.0492
1584
Reqina septemuittata
1
0.035
0.0037
1780
Sistrurus miliarius
1
0.028
0.0021
1558
Thamnophis sirtalis
1
0.170
0.0098
1682
Thamnophis sirtalis
1
0.125
0.0071
# of entries 17
# of individuals 17
r = 0.98
b = 0.9857
a = 0.0727
1 after Fradkin, personal communication

322
Body and Skeletal Masses of Chondrichthyes
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2410
Carcharhinus falciformis
1
3.090
0.0426
1576
Carcharinus maculipinnis
1
36.500
0.4378
1654A
Mustelus cf. cam's
1
0.770
0.0092
1654B
Mustelus cf. canis
1
0.730
0.0057
1653A
Sph.yrna tiburo
1
1.020
0.0032
1653B
Sph.yrna tiburo
1
0.750
0.0092
1653C
Sphyrna tiburo
1
0.700
0.0085
1665
Dasyatis sabina
1
0.520
0.0126
1604
Dasyatis sabina
1
0.680
0.0139
# of entries 9
# of individuals 9
r = 0.91
b = 0.9786
a = 0.0116

323
Body and Skeletal Masses for Non-Perciformes
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1609a
Lepisosteus osseus
1
4.710
0.3024
1609b
Lepisosteus osseus
1
2.390
0.105
1656
Lepisosteus oculatus
1
5.900
0.359
1599
Amia calva
1
3.830
0.144
1815
Amia calva
1
0.535
0.0287
21406
Al bul a vulpes
1
0.2718
0.0079
21452
Al bul a vulpes
1
0.3171
0.00565
21453
Al bul a vulpes
1
0.227
0.004125
1798
Anguilla rostrata
1
0.297
0.0034
2215
Brevoortia tyrannus
1
0.0923
0.0045
1713a
Synodus foetens
1
0.1188
0.0042
1736
S.ynodus foetens
1
0.1469
0.0085
1819
Synodus foetens
1
0.0294
0.0026
21464
Synodus scituliceps
1
0.3171
0.0064
1799a
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.3894
0.0154
1799c
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.2426
0.018
2522
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.0389
0.00105
2523
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.0302
0.00175
2524
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.0341
0.00175
2525
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.031
0.00165
2526
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.0385
0.0021
2527
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.0334
0.00125
2528
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.0288
0.00135
2529
Notemigonus crysoleucas
1
0.0254
0.00165

324
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2530
Notemigonus cr.ysoleucas
1
0.0205
0.00155
2531
Notemigonus cr.ysoleucas
1
0.0221
0.0009
SC*5
Notemigonus cr.ysoleucas
1
0.0339
0.00155
SC*6
Notemigonus cr.ysoleucas
1
0.0339
0.00195
1824
Phractocephalus sp.
1
2.0000
0.2013
1788
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.0617
0.0032
1801a
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.580
0.0413
1801b
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.382
0.0418
1801c
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.0883
0.0050
1801 d
Erim.yzon sucetta
1
0.0566
0.0034
1801e
Erimyzon sucetta
1
0.0233
0.0009
1814c
Min.ytrema melanops
1
0.6100
0.0355
21407
Batrachoides pacificus
1
0.7701
0.06125
1593a
Opsanus beta
1
0.205
0.0122
1593b
Opsanus beta
1
0.250
0.01477
1593c
Opsanus beta
1
0.250
0.0128
1593d
Opsanus beta
1
0.230
0.0143
1717a
Porichth.ys plectorodon
1
0.0173
0.0002
1762a
Brotula clarkae
1
0.2786
0.0134
1754
Gen.ypterus maculatus
1
0.3052
0.0175
1718
Ophidion holbrooki
2
0.0323
0.0012
1734
Ophidion holbrooki
1
0.1602
0.0083
1800
Fundulus simi no!us
1
0.0221
0.0008

325
*in collection of Stephen L. Cumbaa
Also includes Siluriformes and PIeuronectiformes, below.
# of entries 80
# of individuals 81
r = 0.95
b =1.021
a = 0.0468

326
Body and Skeletal
Mass
of Siluriformes
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1557
letalurus natal is
1
0.210
0.0082
2044
P.ylodictis olivaris
1
0.7975
0.0347
*
Arius felis
1
0.477
0.026
1531a
Arius felis
1
0.477
0.021
1531b
Arius felis
1
0.323
0.019
1532
Arius felis
1
0.863
0.0185
2081
Arius felis
1
0.1626
0.0134
*
Bagre marinus
1
0.288
0.011
1588
Bagre marinus
1
1.0352
0.0547
2079
Bagre marinus
1
0.028
0.0018
2080
Bagre marinus
1
0.0232
0.0014
2413
Bagre marinus
1
0.7945
0.0449
1758
Selenaspis dowi
1
0.550
0.0323
*in collection of Stephen L. Cumbaa
# of entries 13
# of individuals 13
r = 0.96
b = 0.0887
a = 0.0433

327
Body and Skeletal Mass of PIeuronectiformes
UF#
Specimen Name
Samle
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2082
Citharichth.ys spilopterus
1
0.0176
0.0007
1664a
Paral ichth.ys albigutta
1
0.875
0.0436
1664b
Paralichthys albigutta
1
0.170
0.0081
1664c
Paral ichth.ys albigutta
1
0.175
0.0095
2403
Paralichthys albigutta
1 .
0.3337
0.0142
2404
Paralichthys albigutta
1
0.4499
0.0182
2405
Paralichthys albigutta
1
0.5049
0.0194
2086
Paralichthys lethostigma
1
0.0538
0.0024
1727a
Syacium papillosum
1
0.166
0.0067
1727b
Syacium papillosum
1
0.0378
0.0059
1727c
Syacium papillosum
1
0.0614
0.0025
1727d
Syacium papillosum
1
0.057
0.0021
1727e
Syacium papillosum
1
0.0308
0.0014
1727f
Syacium papillosum
1
0.014
0.0005
1727g
Syacium papillosum
1
0.0058
0.0001
2091
Trinectes maculatus
1
0.0272
0.0011
2092
Trinectes maculatus
1
0.0368
0.0019
1741a
S.ymphurus plagiusa
1
0.019
0.0007
1741b
S.ymphurus plagiusa
1
0.0142
0.0005
2097
Symphurus plagiusa
1
0.0163
0.0005
# of entries 20
# of individuals 20
r = 0.97
b = 1.081
a = 0.053

328
Body and Skeletal Mass of Perciformes
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
21467
Caulolatilus affinis
1
0.9513
0.0375
21468
Caulolatilus affinis
1
0.4994
0.02517
2454
Pomatomus saltatrix
1
0.2409
0.0070
2455
Pomatomus saltatrix
1
0.2990
0.0098
2457
Pomatomus saltatrix
1
0.1431
0.0054
2459
Pomatomus saltatrix
1
0.3200
0.0097
21466
Coryphaena hippurus
1
2.0385
0.0821
21472
Coryphaena hippurus
1
0.56625
0.0174
2417
Lutjanus qriseus
1
0.221
0.0171
2437
Lutjanus qriseus
1
0.1936
0.0129
1712a
Lutjanus synaqris
10
0.0491
0.00405
1712b
Lutjanus synaqris
3
0.0570
0.0055
1712c
Lutjanus synaqris
2
0.0688
0.0039
1744a
Lutjanus synaqris
1
0.0235
0.0062
1744b
Lutjanus synaqris
1
0.0235
0.0018
21410
Diapterus aureolus
1
0.2265
0.00695
21413
Diapterus aureolus
1
0.2265
0.0074
21420
Diapterus aureolus
1
0.2265
0.0069
1713a
Eucinostomus quia
8
0.0538
0.0026
1713b
Eucinostomus quia
3
0.0270
0.0010
1713c
Eucinostomus quia
2
0.0305
0.0020
1739
Eucinostomus quia
6
0.0167
0.0005
21395
Pseudupeneus qrandisquamis
1
0.2265
0.0036

329
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
21414
Pseudupeneus qrandisquamis
1
0.1359
0.002
21469
Kyphosus analoqus
1
3.2915
0.0876
1726a
Chaetodipterus faber
1
0.0909
0.0073
1726b
Chaetodipterus faber
1
0.0617
0.0044
1726c
Chaetodipterus faber
1
0.0493
0.0029
2085
Chaetodipterus faber
T
0.0288
0.0010
21448
Chaetodipterus zonatus
1
0.4540
0.0171
21449
Chaetodipterus zonatus
1
0.33975
0.0127
21450
Chaetodipterus zonatus
1
0.3859
0.015
21463
Bodianus diplotaenia
1
0.908
0.0642
2256
Muqil cephalus
1
0.800
0.031
2259
Muqil cephalus
1
0.0660
0.022
1761a
Odontesthes reqia
1
0.031
0.0002
21400
Polydactyl us opercularis
1
0.11325
0.0012
21402
Polydactyl us opercularis
1
0.11325
0.009
21465
Polydactyl us opercularis
1
0.2265
0.00495
1766a
Scartichthys qiqas
1
0.0631
0.00445
2088
Peprilus alepidotus
1
0.0218
0.0012
1720a
Scorpaena brasiliensis
1
0.180
0.0139
1720b
Scorpaena brasiliensis
1
0.0737
0.0066
1735
Prionotus roseus
1
0.0496
0.0029
1818a
Prionotus scitulus
1
0.0421
0.0044
1818b
Prionotus scitulus
1
0.0256
0.0017
1820b
Prionotus scitulus
1
0.0199
0.0018

330
also includes: Serranidae, Centrachidae, Carangidae, Pomadasyidae,
Sparidae, and Sciaenidae
# of entries 207
# of individuals 406
r = 0.89
b = 0.90613
a = 0.0401

331
Body and Skeletal Mass of Serranidae
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2094
Centropristis philade!phica
1
0.091
0.0066
2462
Centropristis striata
1
0.1887
0.0103
2464
Centropristis striata
1
0.1548
0.0071
1716a
Diplectrum formosum
1
0.0732
0.0047
1716b
Diplectrum formosum
1
0.0410
0.0021
1738a
Diplectrum formosum
1
0.0206
0.0013
1738b
Diplectrum formosum
1
0.0335
0.0018
1738c
Diplectrum formosum
2
0.070
0.0057
1745a
Diplectrum formosum
6
0.0940
0.0065
1745b
Diplectrum formosum
8
0.0520
0.0017
1745c
Diplectrum formosum
4
0.0395
0.0022
21443
Diplectrum maximum
1
0.33975
0.00855
21444
Diplectrum maximum
1
0.2718
0.00585
21445
Diplectrum maximum
1
0.2718
0.00465
21394
Diplectrum rostrum
1
0.2265
0.0031
21418
Diplectrum rostrum
1
0.1812
0.0037
1808
Epinephelus itajara
1
118.00000
5.8400
# of entries 17
# of individuals 33
r = 0.96
b = 0.9374
a = 0.0364

332
Body and Skeletal Mass of Centrarchidae
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1805a
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.2112
0.026
1805b
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.0986
0.0080
1805c
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.0446
0.0030
1805d
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.0386
0.0023
1805e
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.0356
0.0020
1805f
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.0272
0.0014
1805g
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.0209
0.0010
2051a
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.059
0.0038
2051b
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.0310
0.0029
2051c
Lepomis
auritus
1
0.0537
0.0025
1803b
Lepomis
qulosus
1
0.0904
0.0076
2049a
Lepomis
macrochi rus
1
0.1100
0.0071
2514
Lepomis
macrochi rus
1
0.2158
0.0143
2515
Lepomis
macrochi rus
1
0.0608
0.0044
2516
Lepomis
macrochi rus
1
0.05068
0.00445
2517
Lepomis
macrochi rus
1
0.0377
0.00325
SC*1
Lepomis
macrochi rus
1
0.0385
0.00285
SC*3
Lepomis
macrochi rus
1
0.0385
0.0028
SC*4
Lepomis
macrochi rus
1
0.0381
0.0026
1804a
Lepomis
punctatus
1
0.0805
0.0065
1804c
Lepomis
punctatus
1
0.0368
0.0023
1804d
Lepomis
punctatus
1
0.0158
0.0045

333
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total
Mass,
Body
X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2050b
Lepomis punctatus
1
0.0488
0.0030
2050c
Lepomis punctatus
1
0.0377
0.0030
1802a
Micropterus salmoides
1
0.4782
0.0305
1802b
Micropterus salmoides
1
0.1417
0.0100
2519
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
1
0.1857
0.0143
2520
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
1
0.0919
0.0695
2521
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
1
0.0104
0.00135
*in collection of Stephen L. Cumbaa
# of entries 29
# of individuals 29
r = 0.83
b = 0.9749
a = 0.0759

334
Body and Skeletal
Hass
of Carangidae
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2090
Cholorscombrua chrysurus
1
0.0032
0.0002
21408
Chloroscombrus orqueta
1
0.1812
0,0025
21460
Chloroscombrus orqueta
1
0.2265
0.00235
21474
Oligoplites altus
1
0.454
0.0194
21475
Oliqoplites altus
1
0.3405
0.0152
21462
Selene brevoortii
1
0.8172
0.0588
21412
Selene peruvianus
1
0.2265
0.0038
21457
Selene peruvianus
1
0.2265
0.0039
21458
Selene peruvianus
1
0.2268
0.00475
2451
Trachinotus carolinus
1
0.1475
0.0039
2452
Trachinotus carolinus
1
0.259
0.0090
# of entries 11
# of individuals 11
r = 0.90
b = 0.9228
a = 0.0241

335
Body and Skeletal
Mass of Pomadasyidae
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1714a
Haemulon aurolineatum
8
0.0392
0.00345
1714b
Haemulon aurolineatum
2
0.0230
0.0016
1730b
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.0845
0.0065
1730c
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.0918
0.0072
1730d
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.1028
0.0076
1730e
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.1085
0.0083
1730f
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.0865
0.0068
1730g
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.0849
0.0051
1730h
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.0727
0.0054
17301
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.0589
0.005
1730j
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.0468
0.003
1730k
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.0474
0.0033
1743
Haemulon aurolineatum
1
0.0269
0.0023
1721a
Orthopristis chrysoptera
1
0.2820
0.0266
1721b
Orthopristis chrysoptera
1
0.1226
0.0060
1721c
Orthopristis chrysoptera
1
0.0556
0.0028
1728a
Orthopristis chrysoptera
1
0.1352
0.0064
1728b
Orthopristis chrysoptera
1
0.0561
0.0034
1740a
Orthopristis chrysoptera
9
0.0993
0.0066
1740b
Orthopristis chrysoptera
12
0.070
0.0034
1740c
Orthopristis chrysoptera
1
0.4230
0.0026
1740d
Orthopristis chrysoptera
1
0.0250
0.0019

336
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total
Mass,
Body
X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
21415
Xenichthyes
xanti
1
0.2265
0.0050
21419
Xenichthyes
xanti
1
0.1812
0.0062
21421
Xenichthyes
xanti
1
0.2265
0.0075
# of entries 25
# of individuals 52
r = 0.86
b = 0.7464
a = 0.0323

337
Body and Skeletal Mass of Sparidae
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2354
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
0.5147
0.038
2356
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
0.5509
0.031
2358
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
0.2079
0.0164
2389
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
1.430
0.1148
2390
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
1.030
0.0931
2391
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
1.051
0.082
2392
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
1.140
0.0865
2393
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
1.130
0.0984
2394
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
0.790
0.0692
2395
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
0.620
0.0595
2406
Archosarqus probatocephalus
1
0.840
0.0629
1719a
Laqodon rhomboides
1
0.0703
0.0050
1719b
Laqodon rhomboides
2
0.0544
0.0038
1719c
Laqodon rhomboides
1
0.0492
0.003
1719d
Laqodon rhomboides
2
0.0367
0.003
1719e
Laqodon rhomboides
2
0.0292
0.002
1737
Laqodon rhomboides
3
0.0428
0.0024
# of entries 17
# of individuals 22
r = 0.0996
b = 1.055
a = 0.0803

338
Body and Skeletal
Mass
for Sciaenidae
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
2078
Bairdiella chrysura
1
0.0546
0.0038
2261
Cynosion nebulosus
1
1.350
0.0562
2264
C.ynosion nebulosus
1
1.049
0.0397
2265
Cynosion nebulosus
1
0.350
0.0142
2266
Cynosion nebulosus
1
0.720
0.023
2087
Cynosion regales
1
0.1592
0.0066
2093
Cynosion regales
1
0.0417
0.0016
21404
Elattarchus archidium
1
0.2265
0.0055
21440
Elattarchus archidium
1
0.2265
0.00445
1733a
Equetes lanceolatus
1
0.0739
0.0058
1733b
Equetes lanceolatus
1
0.0623
0.0038
21417
Larimus acclivis
1
0.2265
0.0089
21454
Larimus acclivis
1
0.227
0.0082
2096
Larimus fasciatus
1
0.0024
0.00005
21411
Larimus qulosus
1
0.2265
0.0071
21441
Larimus qulosus
1
0.2724
0.00725
21442
Larimus qulosus
1
0.227
0.0074
2084
Leiostomus xanthurus
1
0.0384
0.0020
2446
Leiostomus xanthurus
1
0.0838
0.0041
2447
Leiostomus xanthurus
1
0.1151
0.0051
1724
Menticirrhus americanus
3
0.1612
0.0095
1742a
Menticirrhus americanus
1
0.182
0.0094

339
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
1742b
Menticirrhus americanus
1
0.112
0.0068
2083
Mentidrrhus americanus
1
0.0394
0.0015
2468
Menticirrhus littoralis
1
0.3246
0.0151
2470
Menticirrhus littoral is
1
0.2644
0.0131
2471
Menticirrhus littoral is
1
0.1431
0.0065
21405
Menticirrhus rostratus
1
0.1812
0.0018
21422
Menticirrhus rostratus
1
0.1812
0.0021
2396
Menticirrhus saxatilis
1
0.3209
0.0119
2397
Menticirrhus saxatilis
1
0.3264
0.0141
2398
Menticirrhus saxatilis
1
0.4882
0.0165
2399
Menticirrhus saxatilis
1
0.2052
0.0007
21423
Micropoqonias altipinnis
1
0.5436
0.0301
21424
Micropoqonias altipinnis
1
0.5889
0.03705
2089
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.0625
0.0032
2351
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.2114
0.0116
2352
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.1412
0.0070
2353
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.1665
0.0007
2362
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.1586
0.0087
2430
Micropoqonias undulatus
1
0.3095
0.0255
21399
Odontoscion xanthops
1
0.1359
0.0021
21409
Odontoscion xanthops
1
0.1359
0.0032
21451
Odontoscion xanthops
1
0.2265
0.00385
21447
Paralonchurus dumerili
1
0.453
0.0196

340
UF#
Specimen Name
Sample
#
Total Body
Mass, X, kg
Total Skeletal
Mass, Y, kg
21396
Paralonchurus peruanus
1
0.2265
0.0037
21398
Paralonchurus peruanus
1
0.2718
0.0040
21403
Paralonchurus peruanus
1
0.2265
0.0056.
1729a
Pareques umbrosus
1
0.072
0.0034
1729b
Pareques umbrosus
1
0.0421
0.0020
1729c
Pareques umbrosus
1
0.0308
0.0011
2350
Poqonias cromis
1
0.1389
0.0079
2359
Pogonias cromis
1
0.2426
0.0124
2360
Poqonias cromis
1
0.1262
0.0079
2361
Poqonias cromis
1
0.1538
0.008
1765b
Sciaena deliciosa
1
0.1348
0.0044
1589
Scianops ocellata
1
7.945
0.4523
2095
Stellifer lanceolatus
1
0.0024
0.0001
21397
Umbrina xanti
1
0.11325
0.0011
21401
Umbrina xanti
1
0.3171
0.01215
21425
Umbrina xanti
1
0.1359
0.0039
# of entries 61
# of individuals 63
r = 0.93
b = 1.012
a = 0.0380

BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Poultry Association
1874 American Standard of Excellence.
Anderson, Jay Allan
1971 'A Solid Sufficiency1: An Ethnography of Yeoman Foodways in
Stuart England. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Arana, Luis R.
1960 The Spanish Infantry: The Queen of Battles in Florida, 1671-
1702. MA Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Archivo General de las Indias (A.G.I.)
A.G.I. 54-4-15/89, Santo Domingo Legajo 230, April 18, 1692.
A.G.I. 87-3-12, Santo Domingo Legajo 2658, June, 1740.
A.G.I. Contraduria 962A, 1751.
A.G.I. Santo Domingo Legajo 2659, December 18, 1758.
Photostats in P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Arnade, Charles W.
1959 "Florida on Trial: 1593-1602." University of Miami Hispanic
American Studies 16. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.
1962 "The English Invasion of Spanish Florida, 1700-1706." Florida
Historical Quarterly 41:1:29-37.
1965 "Cattle Raising in Spanish Florida." St. Augustine Historical
Society Publication 21 (1961).
Barber, Michael
1976 "The Vertebrate Fauna from a Late Eighteenth Century Well:
The Bray Plantation, Kingsmill, Virginia." Historical
Archaeology 10:68-72.
Bartram, William
1955 Travels of William Bartram, edited by Mark Van Doren.
Dover, New York (1791).
Beidleman, K. Dona
1976 Ceramic Remains as Indicators of Socio-Economic Status in
Colonial St. Augustine. MA Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesvill
Benavides, Antonio de
1738 Governor Antonio de Benavides to the Spanish Crown.
A.G.I. 58-2-16-45. April 24, 1738. Photostat in P.K. Yonge
Library, University of Florida, Gainesville.

342
Bent, Arthur Cleveland
1962a Life Histories of North American Shore Birds, Vols.l and 2.
Dover, New York (1927,1929).
1962b Life Histories of North American Wild Fowl, Vols.l and 2.
Dover, New York (1923,1925).
1963 Life Histories of North American Marsh Birds. Dover, New
York (1926).
Binford, Lewis R.
1972 "Archaeology as Anthropology." In Contemporary Archaeology,
edited by M. P. Leone, pp. 93-102. Southern Illinois University
Press, Carbondale .
Binford, Lewis R.,and Jack B. Bertram
1977 "Bone FrequenciesAnd Attritional Processes." In
For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L. R. Binford,
pp.77-156. Academic Press, New'York.
Bishko, Charles J.
1952 "The Peninsular Background of Latin American Cattle
Ranching." Hispanic American Historical Review 32:4:491-515.
Bolton, Herbert,and Mary Ross
1968 The Debatable Land. Russell and Russell, New York (1925).
Boniface, Grian George
1971 A Historical Geography of Spanish Florida, Circa 1700.
MA Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.
Bonner, James C.
1964 A History of Georgia Agriculture, 1732-1860. University
of Georgia Press, Athens.
Booth, Sally S.
1971 Hung, Strung, and Potted: A History of Eating in Colonial
America. Clarkson N. Potter, New York.
Bostwick, John A.
1975 "A Preliminary Report on the Completion of the Plaza II
Salvage Project." MS on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation
Board, St. Augustine.
1978 "Further Excavations at the de Hita Site, SA 7-4, 1977-1978."
MS on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, St.
Augustine.
Bowen, Joanne
1975 "Probate Inventories: An Evaluation from the Perspective
of Zooarchaeology and Agricultural History at Mott Farm."
Historical Archaeology 9:11-25.
1976 "Zooarchaeology and Military Foodways: An Example from
Fort Pelham." Paper presented to the Society for American
Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri.

343
Boyd, Mark F., Hale G. Smith, and John W. Griffin
1951 Here They Once Stood: The Tragic End of the Apalachee
Missions. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Braley, Chad 0.
1977 "Excavations at the Joseph de Leon Site, 1977 Season."
MS on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board,
St. Augustine.
Braudel, Fernand
1967 Capitalism and Material Life, 1400-1800. Harper and Row,
New York.
Bruce, Philip Alexander
1895 Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.
Macmillan, New York.
Bull, John, and John Farrand
1977 The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds.
Knopf, New York.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1978 "Tocobaga Indians and the Safety Harbor Culture."
In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southeastern
Georgia during the Historic Period, edited by J.T.
Millanich and S. Proctor, pp. 50-58. University Presses
of Florida, Gainesville.
Burt, William H., and Richard P. Grossenheider
1964 A Field Guide to the Mammals. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Bushnell, Amy
1978a "The Expenses of Hidalguia in Seventeenth-Century
St. Augustine." El Escribano 15:23-36.
1978b "The Menendez Marquez Cattle Barony at La Chua and the
Determinants of Economic Expansion in Seventeenth Century Florida."
Florida Historical Quarterly:56:4:407-431.
1978c Privilege and Obligation: The Officials of the Florida
Caja Real, 1565-1702. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Butler, Gould T.
1922 Map of the City of St. Augustine, Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board Map # 24.
Caceres, Alonso de
1574 Manuscript. 1-1-1/19 R33. J.T.Conner Papers, Reel 2.
P.K. Yonge Library, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Caldwell, David K., Archie Carr, and Larry H. Ogren
1959 "Nesting and Migration of the Atlantic Loggerhead
Turtle." Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological
Series 4:10.

344
Carr, Archie
1952 Handbook of Turtles. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Casteel, Richard W.
1974 "A Method for Estimation of Live Weight of Fish from
the Size of Skeletal Remains." American Antiquity 39:1:94-97
1978 "Faunal Assemblages and the 'Wiegemethode' or Weight
Method." Journal of Field Archaeology 5:72-77.
Cate, Margaret Davis
1956 "The Original Houses of Frederica, Georgia: The
Hawkins-Davison Houses." Fort Frederica Association
Pub!ication 2.
Chatelain, Verne E.
1941 "The Defenses of Spanish Florida: 1565-1763." Carnegie
Institution Publication 511.
Childe, V. Gordon
1958 The Prehistory of European Society. Cassell, London.
Clark, Grahame
1972 "The Economic Approach to Prehistory." In
Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M.P. Leone, pp. 62-78.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Clarke, David L.
1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London.
Clauser, John
1974 "Report on the Excavation at the Ximenez-Fatio House."
MS on file, Colonial Dames of America in the State of
Florida, St. Augustine.
Cleland, Charles E.
1970 "Comparison of the Faunal Remains from French and British
Refuse Pits at Fort Michilimackinac: A Study in Changing
Subsistence Patterns." Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional
Papers in Archaeology and History 3:8-23.
Conant, Roger
1975 A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Conner, Jeannette T., trans. and ed.
1927- Colonial Records of Spanish Florida, 2 vols. Vol 1, 1570
1930 1577; Vol. 2, 1577-1580. Florida State Historical
Society, Deland.
Corbett, Theodore G.
1974 "Migration to a Spanish Imperial Fronteir in the 17th
and 18th Centuries." Hispanic American Historical Review
54:3:414-430.

345
Corbett, Theodore G.
1976 "Population Structure in Hispanic St. Augustine, 1629-
1763." Florida Historical Quarterly 54:3:263-284.
Covington, James W.
1961 "The British Meet the Seminles." Contributions of the
Florida State Museum, Social Sciences 7.
Cruickshank, Allan D.
1967 "First Razorbill for Florida." Florida Naturalist 40:2:48-49.
Cumbaa, Stephen L.
1975 Patterns of Resource Use and Cross-Cultural Dietary Change
in the Spanish Colonial Period. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Dahlberg, Michael E.
1975 Guide to Coastal Fishes of Georgia and Nearby States.
University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Deagan, Kathleen A.
1972 "Pipestems and Drug Jars: The Colonial Middle Class in
18th Century Georgia." MS on file, Department of Anthropology,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
1974 Sex, Status, and Role in the Mestizaje of Spanish Colonial
Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville.
1975 "Field Report on Excavations at SA 13-5; the Acosta Site."
MS on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, St.
Augustine.
1976a Archaeology at the National Greek Orthodox Shrine, St.
Augustine, Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
1976b "Archaeological Investigations at Fort Matanzas National
Monument." Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1978a "Archeological Strategy in the Investigation of an Unknown
Era: Sixteenth Century St. Augustine." Project Report to
St. Augustine Restoration Foundation, St. Augustine.
1978b "Archeological and Architectural Investigations in the
De Mesa-Sanchez House Interior, 1977." MS on file, Historic
St. Augustine Preservation Board, St. Augustine.
Deetz, James F.
1972 "Archaeology as a Social Science." In Contemporary Archaeology,
edited by M.P. Leone, pp. 108-118. Southern Illinois University
Press, Carbondale.
Department of Agriculture
1844 Commissioner of Patents Report. Washington, D. C.

346
Dickinson, Jonathan
1975 Jonathan Dickinson's Journal, or, God's Protecting Providence,
edited by E. W. Andrews and C. Me. Andrews. Valentine Books, Stuart
(1699).
Dubois, Arthur B.
1977 "The Biological Basis for Development of Scaling Factors in
Animal Locomotion." In Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion,
edited by T. J. Pedley, pp. 83-92. Academic Press, New York.
Dunkel, John Robert
1955 St. Augustine, Florida: A Study in Historical Geography.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Emerson, Thomas E.
1978 "New Method for Calculating the Live Weight of the
Northern White-tailed Deer from Osteoarchaeological Material."
Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 3:1:35-44.
Fairbanks, Charles H.
1956 "The Excavation of the Hawkins-Davison Houses, Frederica
National Monument, St. Simons Island, Georgia." Fort Frederica
Association Publication 2.
Flannery, Kent V.
1972a "Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica."
In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M.P. Leone, pp. 222-235.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
1972b "Culture History v. Cultural Process: A Debate in American
Archaeology." In Contemporary Archaeology, edited by M.P. Leone,
pp. 102-108. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
FogeT, Robert W.
1965 "A New Provisional View of the 'New Economic History'."
In New Views on American Economic Development, edited by
R. L. Andreano, pp. 201-212. Schenkman, Cambridge.
Fradkin, Arlene
1978 "Bird Remains in South Florida Prehistoric Aboriginal Sites."
Paper presented to the Florida Anthropology Society, Ft. Walton
Beach, Florida.
Freeman, Bruce, and Lionel A. Walford
1976 Angler's Guide to the United States Atlantic Coast.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
Fried, Morton H.
1974 "On the Evolution of Social Stratification and the State."
In The Rise and Fall of Civilization, edited by J. A. Sabi off
and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 26-41. Cummings, Menlo Park.
Fussell, G. E.
1929 "The Size of English Cattle in the Eighteenth Century."
Agricultural History 3:160-181.

347
Fussell, G. E.
1937a "Animal Husbandry in Eighteenth Century England, Part I:
Cattle." Agricultural History 11:96-116.
1937b "Animal Husbandry in Eighteenth Century England, Part II:
Sheep, Swine, Horses, and Poultry." Agricultural History
11:189-214.
Gannon, Michael V.
1965 The Cross in the Sand. University of Florida Press,
Gainesville.
Garcia, Genaro
1902 Dos Antiguas Relaciones de la Florida. J. Aguilar Vera y
Comp., Mexico City.
Geiger, Maynard
1937 The Franciscan Conquest of Florida (1573-1618). Ph.D.
Dissertation, Catholic University, Washington, D. C.
Gillaspie, William Roscoe
1961 Juan de Ayala y Escobar, Procurador and Entrepreneur:
A Case Study of the Provisioning of Florida, 1687-1716.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Gilmore, R. Grant
1977 "Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and Adjacent Waters,
Florida." Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological
Series 22: 3.
Gold, R. L.
1969 Borderland Empires in Transition: The Triple Nation Transfer
of Florida. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Goldschmidt, Walter
1968 "Anthropology: A Study of Modern Society." International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 1:330.
Golley, Frank B.
1962 Mammals of Georgia. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Gray, Lewis
1933 History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to
1860. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.
Grayson, Donald K.
1973 "On the Methodology of Faunal Analysis." American
Antiquity 38:4:432-438.
Griffin, John W.
1978 "End Products of Historic Sites Archaeology." In Historical
Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive Theory and Theoretical
Contributions, edited by R. L. Schuyler, pp. 20-22.
Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, New York.

348
Grinan, Pedro Sanchez
1757 "Relacin MSS 11.265: 1725,1750,1792,1800. "trans. by
Jesus Maria Belmonte. MS on file, Historic St. Augustine
Preservation Board, St. Augustine.
Guilday, John E.
1970 "Animal Remains from Archaeological Excavations at
Fort Ligonier." Annals of the Carnegie Museum 42:177-186.
Haggett, P.
1965 Locational Analysis in Human Geography. Edward Arnold,
London.
Hamon, J. Hill
1959 "Northern Birds from a Florida Indian Midden." The Auk:
76:533-534.
Hardesty, Donald L.
1975 "The Niche Concept: Suggestions for Its Use in Human
Ecology." Human Ecology 3:2:71-85.
1977 Ecological Anthropology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Haring, C. H.
1947 The Spanish Empire in America. Harbinger, New York.
1966 The Buccaneers in the West Indies in the XVII Century.
Archon Books, Hamden, Conn.
Harman, Joyce Elizabeth
1969 Trade and Privateering in Spanish Florida, 1732-1763.
St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine.
Higgs, E. S.,and C. Vita-Finzi
1972 "Prehistoric Economies: A Territorial Approach" In
Papers in Economic Prehistory, edited by E. S. Higgs, pp. 27-36.
University Press, Cambridge.
Hilliard, Sam B.
1972 Hogmeat and Hoecake: Food Supply in the Old South, 1840-1860
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Hoese, H. Dickson, and Richard H. Moore
1977 Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A and M University
Press, College Station.
Hoffman, Paul E.
1977 "St.Augustine 1580, the Research Project." El Escribano:
14:5-19.
Homans, George C.
1950 The Human Group. Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York.
Honerkamp, Nicholas
1975 The Material Culture of Fort Frederica, the Thomas Hird Lot.
MA Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville.

349
Howell, Arthur H.
1932 Florida Bird Life. Coward-McCann, New York.
Iverson, John B.
1977 "Reproduction in Freshwater and Terrestrial Turtles of
North Florida." Herpetoloqica 33:2:205-212.
Jeffrerys, Thomas
1762 "Plan of the Town and Harbour of St. Augustine."
Map on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board Map
# 11, St. Augustine.
Jennings, Robert
nd Sheep, Swine, and Poultry. International Book Company,
New York.
Jochim, Michael A.
1976 Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement. Academic Press,
, New York.
Johnson, A. Sidney, Hilburn 0. Hillestad, S. F. Shanholtzer, and
G. F. Shanholtzer
1974 An Ecological Survey of the Coastal Region of Georgia.
National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series #3, Washington,
D.C.
Johnson, Kathleen F.
1976 untitled manuscript on faunal analysis of SA 26-1.
MS on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board,
St. Augustine.
Johnson, Willis G., and G. 0. Brown, eds.
1903 The Poultry Book. Doubleday, Page, and Co., New York.
Jones, James R.
in prep The Archaeology of a Middle Income Criollo Household:
The De Mesa Site. MA Thesis. Florida State University,
Tallahassee.
Jordon, David Starr, and Barton Warren Evermann
1969 American Food and Game Fish. Dover, New York.
Kale, Herbert W.
1976 "Regional Reports, Florida Region, Spring Season."
American Birds 30:4:830.
Kirkland, Turner
ca. 1967 Dixie Gunworks Inc. Catalogue #126A. Dixie Gunworks.
Kortright, Francis H.
1943 The Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. American
Wildlife Institute, Washington, D.C.
Lanning, John Tate
1935 The Spanish Missions of Georgia. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.

350
Larson, Lewis
1970 Aboriginal Subsistence Technology on the Southeastern
Coastal Plain during the Late Prehistoric Period.
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Lee, Richard B.
1968 "What Hunters Do For a Living, or, How to Make Out
on Scarce Resources." In Man the Hunter, edited by
R.B. Lee and I. DeVore,pp. 30-49. Aldine, Chicago.
Lee, Richard B., and Irven DeVore
1968 "Problems in the Study of Hunters and Gatherers."
In Man the Hunter, edited by R, B. Lee and I. DeVore,
pp. 3-13. Aldine, Chicago.
Leechman, Douglas
1951 "Bone Grease." American Antiguity 16:4:355-356.
Linares, Olga
1976 'Garden Hunting1 in the American Tropics."
Human Ecology 4:4:331-349.
Lipset, Seymour M.
1968 "Social Stratification and Social Class." International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 15:296-316.
Loucks, L. Jill
1977 "A Preliminary Statement on Faunal Remains from the
17th Century De Leon Site." MS on file, Zooarchaeology
Laboratory, Florida State Museum, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Lowery, George H.
1974 The Mammals of Louisiana and Its Adjacent Waters. Louisiana
State University Press, Baton Rouge.
Lyell, Charles
1850 Principles of Geology. J. Murray, London (1830).
Lyon, Eugene
1977a The Enterprise of Florida. University of Florida Press,
Gainesville.
1977b "St. Augustine 1580: The Living Community." El Escribano
14:20-33.
Lyon, Patricia J., ed.
1974 Native South Americans. Little, Brown, and Co., Boston.
Manucy, Albert
1962 The Houses of St. Augustine. The St. Augustine Historical
Society, St. Augustine.

351
MacMurray, Carl D.
1972 "Excavations at the Ximenez-Fatio House, St. Augustine,
Florida." Historical Archaeology 6:57-64.
1975 The Archaeology of a Mestizo House. MA Thesis. University
of Florida, Gainesville.
Marshall, L.
1968 "Discussions, Part II." In Man the Hunter, edited by
R. B. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 83-95. Aldine, Chicago.
McClane, A. J.
1974a Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America.
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
1974b Field Guide to Saltwater Fishes of North America.
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
McIlHenny, E. A.
1935 The Alligator's Life History. Christopher Publishing
House, Boston.
McLane, William McNair
1955 The Fishes of the St. Johns River System. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Mehta, A. J., and C. P. Jones
1977 "Matanzas Inlet, Glossery of Inlets Report #5." Florida
Sea Grant Program, Report #21.
Meighan, E. W., D. M. Pendergast, B., K. Swartz, and M.D. Wissler
1958 "Ecological Interpretation in Archaeology." Part One,
American Antiquity 24:1:1-23. Part Two, American Antiquity
24:2:131-195. ^
Miller, Henry M.
1978 "Pettus and Utopia." Paper presented