The Florida anthropologist

Material Information

The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title:
Fla. anthropol.
Florida Anthropological Society
Place of Publication:
Florida Anthropological Society.
Publication Date:
Quarterly[<Mar. 1975- >]
Two no. a year[ FORMER 1948-]
Physical Description:
v. : ill. ; 24 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida ( lcsh )
Periodicals ( lcsh )
serial ( sobekcm )
periodical ( marcgt )


Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
v. 1- May 1948-

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [Florida Anthropologist Society, Inc.] Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
01569447 ( oclc )
56028409 ( lccn )
0015-3893 ( issn )
AAA9403 ( notis )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text


2000 Florida Anthropological Society Inc.

The Florida Anthropological Society Inc. holds
source text of the Florida Anthropologist
considered the copyright holder for the text
these publications.

all rights to the
and shall be
and images of

The Florida Anthropological Society has made this publication
available to the University of Florida, for purposes of
digitization and Internet distribution.

The Florida Anthropological Society reserves all rights to this
publication. All uses, excluding those made under "fair use"
provisions of U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107 are restricted.

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.



Volume 52 Number 3
September 1999



Editor's Page. Robert J. Austin 130


Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island, Florida:
Ripley P. Bullen's 1961 Excavation at the Harris Creek Site. Lawrence E. Aten 131


Inconsequent Thoughts and Other Reflections on Florida Archaeology. Gordon R. Willey 201


Florida Heritage Driving Tours: Joint Venture Takes Heritage Tourism
to the Market. Harry M. Piper and Jacquelyn G. Piper 205




Larson: Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behaviorfrom the Human Skeleton. Dale L. Hutchinson 217
Milanich: Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. Tanya M. Peres 217
Hann: A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions. Myles C. P. Bland 219

About the Authors 224

Cover: Calusa Secrets by Dean Quigley

Copyright 1999 by the
ISSN 0015-3893


Although arguably one of the most important archaeo-
logical sites in Florida, the published record of Tick Island
is embarrassingly slim. Its prominence in Florida archae-
ology rests on the scattered (and often confusing) descrip-
tions ofC. B. Moore, a briefarticle by Frank Bushnell in The
Florida Anthropologist (Vol. 13, No. 1), and a short,
descriptive report by Otto Jahn and Ripley Bullen, published
after Bullen's death (FASP No. 10).
Ravaged by shell mining during the first half of the
twentieth century, Tick Island nonetheless produced some
extraordinary artifacts, catching the attention of Bullen who
conducted salvage excavations at the site in 1961. His
planned report was never completed but the artifacts, and
more importantly his field notes, have remained in the
Florida Museum of Natural History since then.
Larry Aten, who worked with Bullen on the 1961 excava-
tion, has tackled the daunting task of compiling, reviewing,
and synthesizing all previous descriptions of Tick Island,
including Bullen's field notes and unpublished manuscripts.
Since a thorough analysis of the artifacts and their associa-
tions with human remains and strata at Tick Island has never
been accomplished, Larry took that job on as well. The
result is published in this issue of the FA and it represents a
major contribution to Florida archaeology.
The focus of the paper is Bullen's excavation of the human
remains first encountered by Bushnell, and in particular,
their stratigraphic relationships and artifact associations. As
Larry writes in his article, Bullen was uncertain at first
whether or not the burials he excavated were Archaic in age,
although he suspected as much. Radiocarbon dates from the
site eventually proved him correct, but because Bullen never
correlated his stratigraphic data with the burial locations and
dates, he did not realize that the remains had been buried in
a mound. Aten's reconstruction demonstrates this in some
detail and clarifies Tick Island's position in new interpreta-
tions of Archaic-period mound construction and mortuary
The level of detail, the exhaustive summaries, the exquisite
maps and profiles, and Aten's insightful interpretations
make this report destined to become a classic of Florida
This issue of the journal also presents a variety of features
on the recent FAS annual meeting in Fort Walton Beach. Of
special interest is the printed remarks ofGordon Willey, who
presented this year's banquet address. Willey's reminis-
cences and comments about archaeology past and present are
both humorous and thought provoking. Also included are
the abstracts of papers presented at the meeting. This is the
second year that this feature has been included in the journal
and I hope to see it continued in the future, since it provides

those who could not attend a handy reference to current
research in the state. Finally, the recipients of this year's
FAS Awards are presented. Although no nominations for
the Bullen and Lazarus awards were received, Chapter
awards were presented along with special recognition of the
fiftieth anniversary of Gordon Willey's landmark publica-
tion, Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast.
In our Report section, Harry and Jackie Piper describe a
recent grant-funded Heritage Tourism project that was
developed in conjunction with the American Automobile
Association. The project created driving tours that direct
visitors to archaeological and historical sites in various parts
of the state. Such projects are important, they note, because
of the need to present the results of our research to the public
in ways that they can understand and appreciate.
Book reviews by Dale Hutchinson, Tanya Perez, and Myles
Bland also are included.
On a more personal note, this issue is my last as editor of
the FA. Ryan Wheeler will be taking over the job beginning
with the December issue, and I know he will do an excellent
job. In the four years that I have been editor I have accom-
plished just about everything I set out to do. Foremost was
to continue the excellence in published articles and reviews
that was established by my predecessors, particularly Louis
Tesar and Brent Weisman. I also wanted to standardize the
format and style of the journal in order to give it a recogniz-
able "look" that was both aesthetically polished and interest-
ing to read. Finally, I wanted to increase the number of non-
professional contributions. Although non-professionals have
been and continue to be important contributors, this is an
area that can always stand improvement. By instituting
Reports and Comments sections, I hoped to inspire non-
professionals to send in short pieces that might not normally
be considered appropriate for the journal. While this has
helped somewhat, I feel that more could be done. For
example, the Chapter Spotlight has not been published since
my first year (1996) simply because no chapter has submitted
material. This is another way for non-professionals to
contribute and I encourage all chapters to send material to
Ryan for his consideration.
I have certainly enjoyed the past four years and, while the
job of putting the journal together every three months is a lot
of work, I will miss it. I especially want to thank the
journal's Review Board, Book Review Editor, and technical
staff who provided me with invaluable assistance. The job
would have been much harder without their help.




VOL. 52 No. 3



2845 Arizona Terrace NW, Washington, DC 20016
E-mail: LEAten@(

In March 1961, Ripley P. Bullen, then Curator of Social
Sciences at the Florida State Museum (now the Florida
Museum of Natural History), excavated part of a prehis-
toric mortuary contained within a large, multicomponent,
freshwater snail shell site variously known as the Tick Island
site, Tick Island Midden, Bennett's Landing site, or, as is
preferred here, the Harris Creek site (8V024).' This well-
known Mt. Taylor-to-St. Johns II site was located on the
southeast side of Tick Island (Figure 1) in the St. Johns River
Valley near De Leon Springs (Goggin 1952:89). Prior to his
death in 1976, Bullen was able to prepare for publication
only brief descriptions of C.B. Moore's and Francis Bush-
nell's Tick Island investigations and captions for a large
number of artifact photographs from various private collec-
tions made at the Harris Creek site (Jahn and Bullen 1978).
Since then, new evidence and questions have accumulated
about Archaic mortuary ceremonialism and mound con-
struction in Florida (e.g., Milanich 1994:75-84; Milanich
and Fairbanks 1980:151-52; Purdy 1988:330; Russo 1994;
Sassaman and Anderson 1996). Elsewhere in the Southeast,
these matters are even being addressed in popular literature
(e.g., Kennedy 1994). So there is a growing need to report
what actually was found in the Tick Island excavations.
There also has been commentary as to what Bullen might
have been thinking about the significance of Tick Island
(Russo 1994), and so what follows is a history of his work at
the site as well as a site report on the 1961 excavation. All
of Bullen's field notes, comments, drawings, and photo-
graphs on file at the Florida Museum of Natural History
(FLMNH) have been used. However, even this report is
incomplete because the human biology of the Harris Creek
skeletal collection has never been studied, although Ade-
laide Bullen did use some of the material in a study of
prehistoric syphilis (A. Bullen 1972).

The 1961 Excavation

While Bullen must have been aware of Tick Island as a
consequence of his work at nearby Bluffton and elsewhere in
the area, it was brought to his attention again in late 1960 by
Mrs. G. G. Maguire of Astor who learned of shell mining at
Harris Creek and the exposure of numerous burials. On
December 8, 1960, Bullen visited the site with the Maguires
and recorded finding burials extending over a minimum

area of 10 by 50 feet (about 3 by 15.2 m)2 at a location about
200 m northwest of the barge landing (Figure 2). On the
same trip, he met with Wester W. Branton of De Leon
Springs, who held the lease to remove shell from the prop-
erty, and obtained his permission to conduct an excavation.3
Soon after, Bullen applied to the American Philosophical
Society for an emergency grant to finance approximately 30
days of field work for the purpose of salvaging some of the
burial information. After noting that the site was being
destroyed and that numerous burials in a good state of
preservation had been exposed, he went on to say in his
application that careful inspection of the burial area did not
produce any ceramics and concluded: "Pending excavation
it is very likely these burials are preceramic in date, i.e., were
interred prior to 2000 B.C. If so, they represent the only
known good-sized series of Archaic human skeletal material
other than the comparable material from the Tennessee River
shell heaps..." (Dickinson and Bullen n.d.).
The grant request was approved by the beginning of
February, 1961, and Bullen made plans to begin work in
early March. Using Burt's Park at De Leon Springs as the
base of operations, two small boats were rented for the
duration, and work was begun at the site on March 6 contin-
uing through March 29. The crew consisted of Bullen,
myself, and from 3 to 6 laborers depending on who showed
up each morning; occasionally we were assisted by Adelaide
Bullen and Douglas Anderson from the Florida State

Environmental Setting

The St. Johns River is nearly 440 km long over which
distance it falls only 8 m resulting in the formation of many
shallow lakes along its course (DeMort 1991:99). Tick
Island is bounded by three such lakes Dexter, Woodruff
and Mud lakes located well out into a 16-km-wide expanse
of languid streams, shallow lakes, and vast marshes,
swamps, and hammocks (Figure 1). The Harris Creek site
(8V024) was located on the southeast side of the island,
facing on Harris Creek between Lake Woodruff and Tick
Island Mud Lake. With very little current flow this probably
was a location well-suited for Viviparus habitat, the small
freshwater snail that provided the majority of the site's shell
(Cumbaa 1976:51; Miller and Griffin 1978:26-28).



VOL. 52 No. 3


1. Harris Creek - 8VO24 (southern site)
2. Tick Island (northern site)
3. Hardscrabble (western site)


1999 VoL. 52 (3

DeLeon Springs

L. Woodruff

a. Tick Island
area map.

0 1 2
— ke) Smiles

2 4


b. Principal localities


— =

. Tomoka Mounds and midden
. Tick Island

. Groves’ Orange Midden
. Orange Mound

. Windover Pond

Republic Grove

Warm Mineral Spring
Little Salt Spring

Bay West

. Horr's Island

Figure 1. Tick Island area map and principal archaeological localities mentioned in the text.

The St. Johns River Valley began to be drowned about the
time sea level had reached approximately -5 meters, or
sometime around 5000 B.P. (Miller 1992).* The floodplain
aggraded as sea level continued to rise during the Holocene,
and habitat for extensive Viviparus colonies began to spread.
Simultaneously, the oak/herb vegetation then dominant over
much of the southeast’s coastal plain was being replaced by
pine/swamp vegetation (Watts et al. 1996:37).

Although there are no specific measurements, the basal
deposits of the Harris Creek site where it fronted on the creek
were at a substantial depth below today’s water level; from
personal observation of the dragline digging that area in
1961, I would estimate at least 3 m. In the rear of the site,
the area most distant from Harris Creek, near the burial
excavation, it appeared the basal deposits were not so deep
below the marsh level (also see Jahn and Bullen 1978:10 for
a similar observation). Apparently as the marsh level
aggraded, archaeological shell deposits not only increased in
thickness but were extended upslope from the creek; also see
the discussion in Miller and Griffin (1978:24-25).

The predominant soil across the floodplain in the region

of Tick Island at elevations generally below about 1.5 m is
Terra Ceia muck, a highly organic and water-logged sedi-
ment. This soil completely surrounds not only the Harris
Creek site (8VO24), but also the much younger burial mound
(8VO25) and the adjacent shell features of uncertain age
located .4 km distant on the north side of the island. Vegeta-
tion on the Terra Ceia soils is diverse, ranging from deep
sawgrass marshes to shallow cordgrass marshes to swamps
and hammocks with numerous hardwood tree species
(Baldwin et al. 1980:44-45; also see Miller and Griffin 1978
and their sources).

In the center of Tick Island, where a maximum elevation
of about 3.3 m above sea level is reached, the soil is the
nearly level, poorly drained, Farmton fine sand. The Farmton
is developed on clayey and silty marine sands that presum-
ably underlie the aggrading floodplain deposits around the
island’s periphery as well as nearby landforms. Between the
Farmton fine sand and the Terra Ceia muck is found Tusca-
willa fine sand, presumably a mixture of Farmton sand,
moving downslope, and organic sediment from the agegrad-
ing marshland (i.e., the Terra Ceia). Vegetation of the


: Shell quarry ponds

Mt. Taylor mound

0 100

0 30



S excavation


-/ J,




" Edge of shell deposit

Figure 2. Base map of the Harris Creek site (8V024) in its 1942 and 1961 configurations.


Farmton typically is open forest (slash pine with an under-
story such as saw palmetto); on the Tuscawilla, lowland
hardwood hammock vegetation would be more typical (Bald-
win et al. 1980:23-24, 46-47).
The vegetation ofthe island in the 1890s was described by
Moore (1892a:130) as having in part a "... wild appearance,
covered as it is with gnarled live oak and towering palmetto,
with trailing vine and tangled undergrowth...." Also, at that
time, the large sand burial mound (8VO25) was under
management as an orange grove as were other nearby areas
on the island. More than a half century later, Francis
Bushnell (1960: Figure 1) prepared a sketch map from which
it is noted that the island's major vegetation zones at the
time of Bullen's excavation still were generally reminiscent
of Moore's description.

Other Archaeological Work at Tick Island

Clarence B. Moore, the first archaeologist to investigate
sites at Tick Island, did not believe they had been examined
by any other researchers prior to himself(Moore 1892a: 129,
1893:605, 1894a:158). Principally this meant Jeffries
Wyman, whom Moore held in high regard (e.g., Moore
1892c:912). Equally significant to Moore, the all-important
sand burial mound "In swampy ground, hidden by towering
palmettos...miles from every line of travel..." remained
unmolested by the relic and treasure hunters (Moore
1894a: 158) known to have been active on the river as early
as 1834 (Miller and Griffin 1978:29). Particularly notable to
archaeology today is the fact that the work at Tick Island was
the first major and extended excavation of the archaeological
career Moore began in 1891.
Moore visited and excavated at Tick Island several times
from 1891 to 1894 during which he identified numerous
archaeological features, large and small, but he spoke of
them all collectively as "the Tick Island Site." However,
careful reading of Moore's published texts (1892a, b, c,
1893, 1894a, b, c) as well as his field notes (Moore 1987a,
b), usually makes clear which feature he is referring to at any
given place. Despite this, there have been several published
interpretations ofC. B. Moore's work on Tick Island, not all
of which are consistent. For example, while Bullen related
Moore's activities accurately in his report to the American
Philosophical Society (Bullen 1962), by 1976 he wrote that
Moore actually had excavated a mortuary mound at the
Harris Creek site and had found essentially the same stratifi-
cation that he Bullen had documented in 1961 (Jahn and
Bullen 1978:3-4). Russo (1994) has previously pointed out
this error. To clarify site and excavation relationships, a
detailed review of Moore's activities based on unpublished
and published sources is given in Appendix A.
In contemporary survey parlance, three major "sites" can
be recognized on Tick Island that were examined or investi-
gated by Clarence Moore (Figure 1; Appendix A). Other
sites newly discovered on Tick Island during the Lake
Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge reconnaissance survey
by Miller and Griffin (1978) are not discussed here.

The Northern Site

This site (Figure 1) is a multicomponent complex of
structural features including the large "bean-shaped shell
heap" (8VO221), the "small shell heap" (8V0222), two shell
causeways, and the "great sand mound" (8V025). Bullen
visited the northern site in 1961 while excavating at Harris
Creek and recorded in his field notes that he observed the
two causeways, a large pile of sand with small snail shells
(possibly Moore's "small shell heap"), a small shell mound
(that may be the shell base of the "great sand mound" that
Moore left unexcavated), and shell deposits around the
water-filled area where the bean-shaped shell heap once
existed. During the 1978 Miller and Griffin survey, the site
was again visited confirming the continued existence of some
of the burial mound, the small shell mound, and remnants of
the bean-shaped shell heap (Miller and Griffin 1978:100).
After his on-site examination, Bullen (1962:477) consid-
ered the large shell midden at the northern site to be a
deposit around the periphery of a spring with a short outlet
to Tick Island Creek. This probably was not the case since it
is totally contrary to Moore's written description as well as
his sketch map of part of the site (Moore 1892a:135, 140).
While this location, in 1961, superficially resembled a small
spring and its outlet, more likely the present form is the
result of shell mining at the"bean-shaped shell heap" in the
early twentieth century (cf. Miller and Griffin 1978:79-80).
Although Moore referred to all the archaeological locations
on the island as the Tick Island site, nearly all of his work
was at the northern site. Because of this, and because of its
great size and complexity, it is recommended that the name
"Tick Island site" be applied only to the northern location.

The Southern Site

The site on Harris Creek (Figure 1) called by Moore the
"acres of shell ridges," and located by him at a quarter of a
mile (.4 km) south of the bean-shaped shell heap, later was
called by Goggin the "Tick Island Midden," the "Tick Island
Site" by J. B. Griffin (1945), by F. Bushnell (1960) the
"Harris Creek Site," and by Miller and Griffin the "Bennett
Landing or Harrys Creek" site. Harris Creek site (8V024)
was the usage originally adopted by Bullen and is continued
in this report to avoid further confusion with the northern
site. It is this site, .4 km to the south of Moore's "great sand
mound," that contained the mortuary Bullen excavated in
On one of the site's ridges Moore made an excavation 7 x
4 ft (2.1 x 1.2 m) converging to a depth of 9 ft (2.7 m)
(1893:606). The upper 1.5 ft (.4 m) penetrated humus; the
remaining 7.5 ft (2.3 m) was in shell containing abundant
plain and decorated fiber-tempered pottery. This is all Moore
ever published about the contents of the southern site.
However, his field notes (see Appendix A) documented
additional excavations in the shell ridges site which recorded
"ornamented pottery," bone tools, and projectile points to a
depth of at least 8 to 10 ft (2.4 to 3 m). Another pit at the

.T. FLORIDA ANTHR)PO-1 1009 V-tC2 "

9 991 VOL 52 3


shell ridges site produced at least four burials; one was
described as flexed and directly over a "fire place but gave no
evidence of contact with the flames." This description is
consistent with some of the burials that Bullen found, but
easily could be from other culture-historical contexts as well.
Moore's interpretation of these burials, apparently based on
their placement near the surface of the site, was that they
were interred after the final additions to the shell deposit. All
the other descriptions and investigations Moore reported,
including burials, were at the shell mounds and sand mound
comprising the northern site (8V025) and have no relevance
to Bullen's 1961 excavation.
In addition to preparing a sketch map of the island and its
major cultural and natural features, Francis Bushnell (1960)
made controlled surface collections and other observations at
the Harris Creek site in 1959 that help us understand its
layout and use. For convenience and consistency, his area
designations (A, B, C, and D) for sections of the Harris
Creek site are retained in this report (Figure 2). Most
relevant for this study, Bushnell removed some shell from
the north side of the large Area D mound. At what I inter-
pret him to mean was about 5 ft (1.5 m) above the surround-
ing ground level, he reported finding a white sand "strip"
surrounded by dense shells and containing 15 to 20 burials
(Bushnell 1960:27). One burial contained several projectile
points within the skeleton. He also believed several of the
skulls had been crushed by violent action causing death. This
may be, but the skulls later excavated by Bullen were
typically flattened by the weight of overlying sediment, so
this seems a more likely explanation. Bushnell's description
nevertheless is reminiscent of part of the structure of the
mortuary area Bullen excavated.
Throughout the 1950s and '60s, many people visited
Branton's shell landing at De Leon Springs amassing what
aggregate to a very large collection of artifacts from the
Harris Creek site (cf. Jahn and Bullen 1978:Figures 4-60).
Otto Jahn made site observations and systematic collections
at the Harris Creek site from 1964 to 1968 during the closing
phases of the site's destruction (Jahn and Bullen 1978:7-20).
The last field investigation known was in the 1980s when
two cores were taken along the submerged margin of the
shell quarry along Harris Creek. These showed in situ
archaeological deposits that include well-preserved organic
materials (Purdy 1991:230; personal communication 1998),
and this may be the situation elsewhere around the periphery
of the now-gutted site (cf., Jahn and Bullen 1978:7-20).

The Western Site

The Hardscrabble site (8V0223) of Bushnell, also called
the "Hard Scramble" Mound by Miller and Griffin, was
briefly described as a "low, flat shell heap" by Moore in his
field notes (1987b: 15) and he placed it on his published map
(1894a:133). Long before 1958, the Hardscrabble site had
been quarried (Bushnell 1960:29), although Miller and
Griffin found a sizable shell deposit remaining (Figure 1).
They also found sherds ranging in age from the Orange

through the St. Johns II periods (Miller and Griffin

Original Configuration of the Harris Creek Site

Shell mining had been underway along the river prior to
the 1890s (Moore 1893:9), but Moore, who was sensitive to
such things, made no mention of shell removal having yet
occurred at Tick Island. Thus the appearance of the sites
when he saw them may have been substantially original (also
see Appendix A). Unfortunately, Moore's only description of
the Harris Creek site was as "acres of shell ridges" (Moore
Shell mining finally did begin on the island sometime
after Moore's last visit in 1894 but prior to 1942. For this
latter year, there are aerial photographs on which removal of
the northern site's "bean-shaped" midden (8V0221) and
disturbance of some of the Harris Creek site are evident
(National Archives 1942). Bullen (1962:468) speculatedthat
this may have occurred in or around the 1920s (also see
Miller and Griffin 1978:95), but judging from evidence on
the 1942 photographs, there probably were multiple periods
of shell removal. The mining at the Tick Island site
(8VO221) had been completed long enough for all vegetation
around the bean-shaped shell deposit to have grown back to
the extent that it was similar to the undisturbed vegetation in
the surrounding area. On the other hand, Bushnell's Area C
at the Harris Creek site (Figure 2) evidently had been cleared
of trees and brush more recently. By 1942, Area C was again
completely covered with vegetation, although this was still
considerably shorter than the surrounding undisturbed
vegetation leaving a distinct depression in the woodland
canopy when observed through a stereoscopic viewer. It was
not possible to determine from the aerial photography
whether any shell had been removed from the Area C lobe,
but the tree-clearing several years prior to 1942 was probably
for this purpose. Although there is no sign on the aerial
photographs of the tram rail track that was laid from the
landing on Tick Island Creek southeastward across the island
to the Harris Creek site (Bushnell 1960:28),5 it seems most
likely that this was built when Area C was cleared, as the
latter is the only part of the Harris Creek site likely to have
been damaged in the years prior to 1942.
Unlike other parts of the site, Areas B and D at Harris
Creek were almost completely clear of vegetation in 1942,
presumably in preparation for a new period of shell mining.
It is possible to discern the elevation of the Area D mound
with a stereoscopic viewer and there is no indication of major
shell removal having occurred. Area A, the part of the site
along Harris Creek, remained substantially vegetated,
although some shell surfaces were visible and showed no
sign of prior disturbance. Thus, between 1894 and 1942, the
commercial shell deposits at the northern and probably the
western sites (i.e., the Tick Island site and the Hardscrabble
site) were removed, and possibly some of the Area C lobe at
Harris Creek as well. Of particular interest though is that the
"footprints" of the Area B, C, and D lobes of the Harris




THE- Ywiu flUDA ANnmunpouLw 1999 Vr..52

Creek site appear on the 1942 aerials to be similar to their
configuration and dimensions as mapped on the ground in
1961 (see Figure 2 inset). Unfortunately, the complete
outline of Area A is not observable on the photographs. The
principal differences are that the 1961 map distances are
foreshortened somewhat, probably due to inaccuracy in pace
computations and to the map being based on exposed shell in
quarry pits while the photo tracing was based on cleared
vegetation. Also there are differences in the stream line in
Area A, probably due to the above reasons and to the
extensive shell quarrying that had occurred along Harris
Creek by 1961.
The Harris Creek site was next described as it existed
around 1959 (F. Bushnell 1960), soon after the final episode
ofcommercial shell removal had begun in 1958. Bushnell's
sketch map (1960:Figure 1) clearly displays the lobed and
mounded nature of the site, features that probably gave rise
to Moore's "acres of shell ridges" description. The topogra-
phy of the shell deposit along Harris Creek (Bushnell's Area
A) is not mentioned, presumably as this area already was
heavily damaged by the latest period of shell removal.
However, it was in this area that Bushnell found the greatest
variety of pottery including Orange, St. Johns I, and St.
Johns II-period sherds.
Bushnell described the southwest lobe (his Area C) in the
inland part of the site as having three small shell mounds
each containing one burial. Although not specifically
mentioned, these small mounds must have been on and along
an extensive, low, shell deposit forming the base of this lobe,
as much of the periphery of this section still remained in
1961 during Bullen's field work (cf. Figure 2). Left unclear
is whether Bushnell saw any evidence of the possible pre-
1942 shell removal described earlier. The northwest lobe
(Bushnell's Area D) is the one in which Bullen excavated,
and Bushnell's(1960:27) description is interesting: "...there
is a striking 'hill' or rise which might at first be mistaken for
a temple mound structure. In this rise, sherds of the St. Johns
period are almost absent, being found only on the direct
surface. Orange Plain appears at a very shallow depth, with
a possible preceramic region showing up at about two feet."6
By March 1961, the time of Bullen's investigations, the
Harris Creek site, once covering about 3 ha (7 ac), had been
substantially obliterated. The only section of the site with
some parts remaining intact was probably in Area D. Even
in those places, a thickness of several meters had been
removed resulting in a highly disturbed surface layer. The
underlying in situ deposit was penetrated in numerous places
as the quarry operator, Wester Branton, had dug pits and
trenches with his dragline to evaluate the extent and com-
mercial quality of the remaining shell. Shell removal at
Harris Creek continued during and after the 1961 excava-
tions until 1968, by which time all the commercial shell
deposits had been removed.
Just how large was the mound comprising all of Bush-
nell's Area D, and how much of this mound was removed
before Bullen's 1961 excavation occurred, has been the
subject of debate (e.g., Russo 1994:94). It was noted earlier

that the length, width, and footprint of Area D are essentially
identical on both the 1942 photographs and the 1961 map
(Figure 2, Table 1). Height is more difficult to ascertain.
Bullen recorded that he had questioned a pair of collectors
who had been digging at Tick Island for some years, and
they estimated that perhaps 4 ft (1.2 m) had been removed
from above the burial excavation area; not an unreasonable
estimate given the proximity of the excavation to the edge of
the shell deposit (cf. Figure 2). Since Bullen's mortuary
excavation penetrated more than 2.1 m (7 ft) of deposit
without reaching the bottom of the site, the total thickness in
this eastern end of Area D would have been in excess of 3.3
m (11 ft). Jahn's observations in 1964-68 that at the most
inland extent of this Area D mound the base of shell ranged
from the water table to perhaps 3 ft (.9 m) below it (Jahn and
Bullen 1978:10) is consistent with my impression from 1961
and suggests an original maximum deposit thickness of not
more than 15 ft (4.6 m) in the area of Bullen's excavation.
The informants also said that the original maximum
elevation of the Area D mound was somewhat to the west in
an area that, by 1961, had been thoroughly dug out with the
quarry pit then filled with water forming the large pond area
adjacent to Bullen's excavation (Figure 2). Here the mound
elevation was said to have reached about 35 ft (10.7 m).
Bullen also recorded querying Branton about this; the latter
said the maximum height, presumably above surrounding
ground level, was about 18 ft (5.5 m), which intuitively
seems a more reliable estimate. During the 1959-1960
period, when shell mining began in earnest, the site was
visited by numerous people some of whom photographed the
area. I can recall viewing one set of 35 mm slides that
showed this northeast mound (Bushnell's Area D) as it was
being removed. While I cannot estimate precisely how high
the cut face of the quarry excavation was in the slides, it
nevertheless was very substantial. This supports the conclu-
sion that somewhere between the 18 and 35 ft (5.5 and 10.7
m) estimates that were given to Bullen would be a reasonable
range for the total thickness of the mound in its central and
highest part. The mortuary excavation, however, was not
under the Area D mound's highest part, but rather was
toward the east side where the mound surface would have
been sloping down to the marsh level (Figure 2).
An approximate reconstruction of how the Harris Creek
site must have appeared before shell mining is presented as
a sketch in Figure 3. This is based on stereoscopic examina-
tion of the 1942 aerial photographs and the various recorded
descriptions of elevations.

Excavation Procedure
In 1961, east of the Area D pond, where burials and
skeletal parts had been seen by Francis Bushnell, Ripley
Bullen, and others during shell mining, was a block of in situ
deposits from which, as noted above, several meters of
overlying shell had been removed. This block had two sides
meeting more or less at a right angle adjacent to previous
dragline excavations (Figure 2). Bullen took advantage of
this configuration to gain access to vertical stratigraphy


9 991 VOL 52 (3)


Arum *vr.v-nre AT Tr ILY -V I

Figure 3. The Harris Creek site (8V024) as it may have appeared before shell quarrying. Letters
identify the four main areas of the site, after F. Bushnell (1960). The large mound in the rear is Area
D that contained the Mt. Taylor mound excavated by Ripley Bullen. The direction of view is toward
the northwest. The drawing is by deTeel Patterson Tiller.

without having to dig quite as much, and a 30 x 60 ft (9.1 x
18.3 m) grid nested in this angle was marked off in 10-ft (3-
m) squares. The grid was labeled with numbers (grid north-
south) and letters (grid east-west); thus a grid stake was
identified as 2A or 4C, etc. A grid square was designated by
the lowest- and highest-numbered, diagonally connected
grid stakes; thus a grid square
bounded by 3A, 4A, 3B, and 4B
grid stakes was labeled Square
3A-4B. By the end of the field
work, 5 grid squares were sub-
stantially excavated (1B-2C,
2A-3B, 2B-3C, 3A-4B, 3B-4C).
The remaining data and burials
came from the extensive profile
A map datum was estab-
lished by driving a nail in a
large hickory tree at the edge of ,
the site near the excavation area -
(Figure 2). This arbitrary eleva-
tion datum was assigned the .
value of zero and was brought
to the excavation grid with a
level line; transits or alidades
were not used. Once the grid
and elevation datum were estab-
lished, work was begun to clear
and somewhat straighten the
two intersecting vertical faces Figure 4. View north ac
around the proposed excavation left. By this time most

area (Figure 4). This operation was interrupted almost
immediately by finding in situ skeletal remains, often
partially disturbed by the dragline when it had excavated the
pond. While the profile trenches eventually were completed,
that turned out to be a long, tedious operation especially for
the pond and trench profiles7 since so many burials had to be

ross the excavation area with the large quarry pond to the
f the Area D mound had been removed



THE ifIOR10A ANnwnopoucI 19419 Vni 2 t3_

excavated. This is the reason the burial plans described later
show many burials outside the established grid.
Once burials were encountered they were cleared, notes
and sketches made, and, when there were too many burials
exposed to work effectively, they were removed and packed
for transport to the Museum. The trench was taken down to
approximately 8-9 ft (2.4-2.7 m) below datum or about 6.5 to
8 ft (2 to 2.4 m) of vertical exposure. The profile stratifica-
tion then was drawn and excavation moved into the grid. In
the upper portions of the deposit, as well as away from dense
burial occurrences, vertical controls were maintained by I-ft
(.3-m) levels below datum. In the mortuary zones, burials
were so numerous that maintaining horizontal levels was not
practical; here all significant features and finds were individ-
ually noted. Skull locations usually were plotted on a plan of
the excavation and depth below datum to the skull was
recorded. If there was no skull, depth was taken to the
principal bones present. Sometimes a burial would also be
noted on nearby vertical profiles. However, detailed sketches
of individual skeletons and graves were not made. Excava-
tion was carried out by shovel, trowel, and brush to remove
archaeological sediment from around skeletons; sediment
screening was not done.
Stratigraphic profiles were drawn along several of the grid
lines as they were cleared. Charcoal was saved whenever
there was thought to be enough for radiocarbon dating.
There were relatively few artifacts found (approximately
190). Usually they were individually labeled with their
provenience when associated with burials, or placed in
general level bags. Other features were plotted, elevations
below datum taken, and described if necessary; post holes
usually were sectioned and their dimensions and fill de-
Because the site at this time was extensively disturbed, no
topographic mapping was attempted, although the previously
mentioned site plan was made. In addition to the excava-
tions of the burial area, an attempt was made to dig a
stratigraphic test that would document a sequence from
preceramic to ceramic deposits and possibly help to date the
strata in the burial excavation. Two adjacent 5-ft (1.5-m)
squares were started near the intersection of Areas B, C, and
D (Figure 2) but the upper few inches proved to be disturbed
(a metal nail was found near the bottom) and the first
apparently undisturbed level was devoid of ceramics. The
test was abandoned and an unsuccessful search was made
over the site for another location.


As noted earlier, Bullen understood before beginning the
excavation that there was a distinct possibility that the
mortuary at this site was very old (i.e., pre-Orange Period)
and that this would have been an unusual finding. Conse-
quently, he used much of his personal time at the site
studying and extending stratigraphic profiles to see if the
mortuary area could be connected to any strata containing
diagnostic artifacts, particularly ceramics, providing un-

equivocal evidence of age. As a result of this search, he
recorded some 240 ft (73 m) of cross-sections.
There is no record that Bullen ever integrated or synthe-
sized his field stratigraphic profiles and so had never reached
the point of recognizing the larger structure that incorpo-
rated the burials. Moreover, nowhere were the cross-sections
connected to the final Area D mound by identifying the
mound base or edge; the stratigraphy of the excavation is
"floating," as it were, deep inside the Area D mound.
Nevertheless, analysis of Bullen's notes on the strata and
their discontinuities indicates that he was indeed in an
earlier, smaller mound, although not one like the 5-m-high,
conical, sand-and-shell, St. Johns I burial mound at the
nearby Tick Island site (8V025). As will be seen, the mound
excavated at Harris Creek apparently was a more or less flat
platform that was enlarged periodically and raised through
at least seven construction phases. Middle Archaic radiocar-
bon dates and preceramic technology were associated with
this construction. Thus, to facilitate subsequent discussion,
this small mound will be called the "Mt. Taylor mound" to
identify it with the Mt. Taylor Period (Milanich 1994:87-
93), and to distinguish it from the much larger Area D
mound. The latter was the final form taken by this lobe of
the Harris Creek site during the St. Johns I Period or later,
and which covered the smaller mound.
Use of the original stratigraphic field documentation
requires some interpretation and educated guessing. No
matrix samples were taken as such. Although some sedi-
ments may exist packed in with burials, at this time there are
no matrix samples of any kind available for study. Litho-
logic terminology was informal; Bullen frequently used the
term "dirt" to describe the non-shell matrix material in the
archaeological deposits. Since we have no means to improve
these descriptions, the usage in this report and on Figures 5
through 10 will stay close to Bullen's terminology, some-
times placed in quotation marks when his usage departs
significantly from that of today. Some profiles were not
completed; for example, the 4A to 4C, 3A to 3B, and IF to
OG profiles appear to be unfinished.
Despite the absence of detailed lithologic descriptions,
Bullen drew depositional discontinuities or interfaces on his
cross-sections that reflected important and relatively abrupt
color and textural variations. When synthesizing his profiles
for the present study it was found that the interfaces often
could be traced through all or most of the areas investigated,
usually being interrupted by pinch-out at the edge of deposi-
tion, by prehistoric excavations, or by modern shell-quarry-
ing pits that often were refilled.
The lithostratigraphic terminology used in this report
generally is consistent with current geoarchaeological
practice (e.g., Stein 1990; Waters 1992). Layer is used for
the sediments between interfaces when the units could be
mapped across all or much of the excavated area, or that
have implications for the whole area; they are based largely
on continuity, geometry, superposition and, to some extent,
lithologic unity. The term deposit is used for local features
and lithologic variations of limited extent.


194" Vol Q2 13l


- Horizontal and vertical scales are the same.
- L-2, etc. indicates layer numbers.
- See text for further description and explanation
of stratigraphic cross-sections.



mussel, Ig snail o . .-.- ..-... .

Ss L-2 sd, ashes, charcoal ch
arcal, dark bn, small snail white sa

N (mag) E
A' E A

E' F' D'

B' Index m

Figure 5. Index map to stratigraphic cross-sections; section A-A' (the "Trench" profile), Harris Creek site (8V024).




rco -1.8

ap to

A B C D E F G 5

E (-08)

(-2.4) L-2 L-6 sd &L-2
clean shell w/interbedded sm snail & mussel

5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 75
m d-7 b sandy, shell, charcoal
L- LgL -0 di &sm

L w -1.8)c d snajs k m '' ys b7me clean shell (-1.2) a
charL & ah sandy, Osh el
IV charc. & ash ite -3

'8 snail San!d
Scwhite sd sm snail

(unid entitled pits from lh.( n r (-2.4)
See Figure 5 for index to profile locations.
10 20 30 40 50 0 70 75

0br0n Vrc exaggeration = 2x.
L 1ee
hori-ontan shellcl oei r
(unidentified pits from(
L-3 into L-2) (lithol. not recorded)
See Figure 5 for index to profile locations.

f e et
(horzontal scale only)

Figure 6. Stratigraphic cross-section B-B' (the "Pond" profile).

FlvrAvAlltur AT TRlrW I1 ANl

Figure 7. Stratigraphic cross-section C-C'.

Figure 8. Stratigraphic cross-section D-D'.

C C'
4C 3C 2C

-2 -20.
shell& (-0.6)
L-7 L-6 r:e aI '
shellshell & dir"dirt"t"
L-7e// & "dirt" L s_- 64
-4 c = -4
L-5 small snail &'dark dirt" '-1.21
L-4 sandy zone
Layer matrix '
not described L-3 -.)
See Figure 5 for index to profile locations. clean
Horizontal and vertical scales are the same. L sm snai
L-2, etc. indicates layer numbers. (-2.4)

D (Wall collapse prevented completion of the '
S center section of this profile)
4A 4B 4C
br 'dirt '::i~jI 4
& shell .brown "dirt" & shell .
-2 "- d clayeyd -2

l h hell S she ll
1/-l^ s" ?- d Ldirt" (-0.6)
_z- ("Some contacts se ir .
sand shel missing here) ? L-5 dark sandy shell (1.2)
sand L-4 --- "- sandy
- Bottom of excavation not plotted 1.81

Descriptions & See Fgure 5 for index to profile locations. .esc &
correlations from Des ons
intersection with Horizontal and vertical scales are the same. correlations from
4A-1A pro file, intersection with
L-2, etc. indicates layer numbers. 4C-2C profile.

_L__ IYW-I~LII~YCA Lic Y !-AN-

A rwa

Tr- 9% nnir- -: Ar-14,0nnfN0 ,c i VE l- 52

Figure 9. Stratigraphic cross-section E-E'.

Figure 10. Stratigraphic cross-section F-F'.

E E'

2A 2B E
excavated before &
clean shall profile was drawn)
L-8 dark
S- clean sm snail -4 ~, :
zo*ne (-1.2)
brn & sandy -on L -3
Bloc L

-6 L sr "'al L-2b sedy L-2b -0oo,,, 4a-
- - - - -_ 0-1.8)
v. dk bm "dirt" & sm snail L-2a /
(pit from L-3 See Figure 5 for index to profile locations.
(pit from L-3
into L-2) Horizontal and vertical scales are the same.
L-2, etc. indicates layer numbers.


F 3B 3C

-2- (Wt recorded) "drt & se -2 --
lshed shell (-0.6)
2 "dirt" & shell she2
rs-4 Thth L-=7 = = -== Z :- - - 1 -0.6)

L-4 correlations are from profile C-C' I zone
-6 s &"dt"
Bottom of excavation
-6 -6
6(Bottom of excavation 1-1.8)
not recorded)

See Figure 5 for index to profile locations.
Horizontal and vertical scales are the same.
L-2, etc. indicates layer numbers.

1000 Vni 0j < >

TaE> Eln ana A rrmjomnM nIs-r


Table 1. Estimated original dimensions of mound construction features, Harris Creek site (8V024).
Construction Approximate Dimensions (meters)
Length Width Height

Area D mound' 134 67 6-11
Layer 7 ? ? 2.0+

Mt. Layer 6 40+ 26+ 2.0
Taylor Layer 5 40+ 24 1.5
Layer 4 (Mortuary B) 40 21 1.5
Layer 3 (Mortuary A) 34 20 1.2
_Layer 2 32 15 0.9

" Area D mound estimate based on exposed shell mapped in Figure 2; undetermined amounts buried below marsh
level would slightly increase these numbers.

The interfaces recorded on stratigraphic cross-sections are
assumed to mark unconformities or significant breaks in
deposition due either to erosion or, more likely in the present
instance, to extended non-deposition and stability of the
ground surface. Even when Bullen used identical descrip-
tions for matrix material from one layer to the next higher
layer, he still was able to record an observable interface,
presumably due to the effects of incipient soil development
and use of the mound during the time that the layer interface
was the ground surface. Other stratigraphic interruptions of
minimal extent were noted. These were due to limited
sediment removal or disturbance; for example, a tree root,
tree throw, animal burrow, or post hole. These discon-
formities are seen in several locations on the Harris Creek
cross-sections. Finally, removal of substantial underlying
material cutting across the principal planes of deposition
followed by placement of new material bedded or oriented in
another direction is referred to as an angular unconformity.
This kind of interface marks a substantially modified surface,
an example of which occurs under Layer 8 as is described
In addition to major breaks in deposition shown by
interfaces or unconformities, there is evidence given by the
successive levels of post holes in Layer 3 that at least this
layer also incorporated brief depositional interruptions of
insufficient duration to cause a visually observable interface.
This may have occurred in other layers as well and seems
analogous to the diastem or brief depositional hiatus com-
monly found in conformable sequences. This is of impor-
tance because the bulk of elapsed time in such archaeological
sequences is more likely to be represented by the gaps (i.e.,
the diastems and unconformable interfaces) than by physical
deposition (cf. Waters 1992:70).
The layer identifications and descriptions that follow were
not assigned in the field but are based on evaluation and
interpretation of Bullen's notes and field profiles for the
present study. This led to identification often stratigraphic
layers in the excavation (Figures 5-10), not including the
deposits disturbed by the dragline. Two layers, I and 10, are

merely "place-holders" for deposition occurring prior and
subsequent to those that were excavated. The reasons for
doing this are to make clear that Bullen's data were from
neither the bottom nor the top of the Area D mound, and
because there may be a possibility someday of filling out
some of these unknowns from the in situ shell deposits that
still remain around the edge of the shell quarry buried under
a veneer of marsh deposits and submerged underwater
(Barbara Purdy, personal communication, 1996).
Unfortunately, the depositional nature of the sediments
comprising the multiple building phases can only be guessed
at. Some, such as the white sand deposits, clearly originated
with mortuary ritual, but the bulk of the site is snail shell
often accompanied by vertebrate food remains. Commonly
these were in a matrix of brown sandy sediment that sounds
similar to and may have been derived from the Tuscawilla
soil described earlier. The question remains about how this
preceramic fill originated. Was it a true midden or dump?
Was it prehistorically redeposited from elsewhere at the site?
Or was it an area of domestic habitation and activities that
was periodically used for rituals? Whatever their origin, the
materials apparently were placed so as to maintain the
continuity in mound form that will be discussed later. The
sediment descriptions of the layers that follow necessarily
make use of much of Bullen's informal terminology, but at
a general level it is clear what was meant.
Layer I. This layer includes unexcavated deposits below
and earlier than those exposed in the mortuary area excava-
tion and probably consisted of only 1-1.5 m of archaeological
material. It may be possible in the future to approximate the
age and perhaps other attributes of these earlier deposits
from study of peripheral areas of in situ shell deposits.
Layer 2. This is the basal stratum found in virtually the
entire excavation. Two sequential deposits can be distin-
guished: the earlier, called Layer 2A, is the most extensive
and was composed of small snails and light brown to very
dark brown "dirt" matrix; the later deposit, called Layer 2B,
was described as "clean small snail" probably meaning shell
with little or no plastic or organic sediment matrix. In

.T. ... i. m .. RoP. oL... 1.9. V i... 52 3 l

places, Layer 2B seems piled up to accentuate the ridge-like
topography of this early surface, although in other places the
ridge seems to consist of Layer 2A material (Figures 6, 9).
When the depths below datum of the Layer 2 surface are
plotted on the excavation grid, the ridge appears as a roughly
15-by-30-m structure that rises about 1 m above the general
Layer 2 surface (Table 1; Figure I1 a). There are no mortu-
ary features contemporaneous with Layer 2, although there
are numerous features associated with Layer 3 that rest
directly on or penetrated Layer 2. The interface between
Layers 2 and 3 is unconformable.
Layer 3. This is the famous "white sand" zone and is the
earliest of the major cemetery strata, called here Mortuary A,
from which more than half of all the burials were recovered
(Table 2). Relative to the other layers, Layer 3 had consider-
able lithologic and structural variation including numerous
mortuary-related deposits with 1) localized but relatively
large volumes of white sand into which grave pits were dug;
2) thin lenses of white sand on which fires were built
resulting in charcoal and ash. Occasionally, limited amounts
of small snail were noted within a grave pit and often the
small snail shells underlying these hearths were cemented
together, which Bullen considered to be an indirect effect of
heat from the fires (cf. Palmer and Williams 1977:25-26); 3)
three and probably four levels of post holes reflecting
relatively brief interruptions in accretion of the layer; and 4)
at least one large mortuary pit dug from Layer 3 into the
underlying Layer 2.
The depositional nature of the white sand was two-fold:
1) sand piles that ultimately were covered by shell midden,
and 2) holes (i.e., graves) dug in the shell midden that were
filled and/or covered with white sand. The white sand
deposits in Layer 3 were distinctive and may not have
originated from any of the soil types present on the island.
They were not laterally extensive, however, and consisted
only of deposits within Layer 3 ranging from less than a
meter in diameter and a few centimeters thick, to an esti-
mated 2.5 to 3 m in diameter and up to .6 m thick. The
deposits among and between the mortuary features, the
matrix of the mortuary as it were, included clean snail and
mussel shell deposits and dark brown sand.
In addition, Layer 3 contained the large "Black Zone" that
Bullern thought might be related to a charnel house structure.
The Black Zone was recorded as about 6 in (15 cm) thick
and the part preserved in the excavation was some 1.5 by 3
m in extent, although the original length was greater but had
been truncated at the southern end by a dragline pit. This
deposit was described in the field notes as black, charcoal-
impregnated sand with snail shell and some animal bone
fragments (R. Bullen 1962:479). However, in 1964, the
radiocarbon laboratory reported the two samples from this
deposit as "too small" to measure age, perhaps meaning the
amount of charcoal in this sand was not great or, alterna-
tively, meaning the sample volume collected was insufficient.
The difference is important but cannot be resolved with the
information available. In either event, if any samples of the
Black Zone still exist packed in with the skeletal material,

contemporary AMS techniques might be able to date this
feature. Because of the consistency of the dates Bullen had
obtained, however, the possibility ofmore age determ nations
was not investigated for this present study.
Layer 3 was .3-.6 m thick over the entire excavation area
and was draped completely over the underlying ridge-like
mound of Layer 2. However, the multiple levels ofpost holes
mentioned above provide sure evidence that at least part of
Layer 3 was built up in increments. When the depths below
datum of the final Layer 3 surface are plotted on the excava-
tion grid (Figure I lb), the evident mound structure is
somewhat wider than the Layer 2 mound with about the
same length and height above the Layer 3 grade (Table 1).
The slight depression at the northern end seems to mimic the
depression in the Layer 2 surface directly below and it is
unknown whether this has any structural, ceremonial, or
mortuary significance. The interface with Layer 4 was
unconformable; the interface with Layer 8 was an angular
Layer 4. This is the second cemetery- Mortuary B and
the third construction phase of the mound. It is comprised
almost entirely of dark brown sandy matrix and small snail
shells (Figure 1 lc; Table 1) in contrast to the preceding
Layer 3 which included a much greater variety of deposits.
In at least one area (south side of grid square 3B-4C), the
field notes record much animal bone including deer, bird,
and turtle. The implication is that at least some of the
deposits comprising Layer 4 were subsistence debris but it
cannot be determined whether this was primary or secondary
deposition, or whether the subsistence was domestic or
ceremonial. The only mortuary features are flexed burials in
pits and possibly, but unlikely, the fourth or highest level of
post holes; there are none of the other mortuary features seen
in Layer 3 below. While the matrix of Layer 4 as described
in the field notes is similar to that of Layer 3, the texture and
color of the contact was sufficiently distinctive for Bullen to
note this on his profiles. Although these layers probably are
closely related in time, they nevertheless are sequential
mound accumulation episodes. Not quite half of the exca-
vated burials came from Mortuary B (Table 2). The inter-
face with Layer 5 above was unconformable.
Layer 5. Generally described as dark "dirt" matrix with
small snail shell, this layer, which was confined to enlarging
the east side of the mound, was the fourth construction phase
(Figure lid). The interface of Layer 5 with Layer 6 was
largely a stable surface unconformity, but a local discon-
formity existed between grid stakes 3A and 3B.
Layer 6. In most places this layer was described as "clean
shell" while in one location it was labeled "shell and dirt."
The former suggests that much of the layer may have been
midden refuse and an intentional dumping area since the
dark-colored sediment and decayed organic debris ofdomes-
tic use areas was largely absent. In any event, this is the fifth
construction layer and it also was confined to further elevat-
ing the summit platform and extending it farther to the east
(Figure 1 le; Table 1). Much of this layer's interface with
Layer 7 was unconformable, but local disconformities are

THE FLoana ANTunop ?

9 991 Vot 52 (3)


Base Man

ag) .....:iii :iiiiiiiiiii::i::::
quarry pond .:..........::' excavate.

slope down ::::::::::::: c
to Oi:iri : i::::::::.::^ ^ ; ^: ^
to pond :: : D

top edge Ga l
of quarry pit; 40 20 o0 2 3 4
also "pond" profile
and trench filled draoine I

b. Layer 3
(Mortuary A)

d. Layer 5

..:.:.::.i: .::i

"'..- .:::::: .::- : ::-

Other legend symbols:
,',C' The "Black Zone"
-,* in Layer 3

Location of burials
Sin Layers 3 and 4
S.P. Summit platform

a. Layer 2

c. Laver4
(Mortua, B)

-: :-":': : :::: ':' :'''' :" e. Laver 6
....... .""""""= (shaded)
::::::::.::::::::.. "

p .....

Contours are drawn on the layer surface.
Contour interval is 1 foot (30 cm). Contour
labels are in feet below the site map datum.

0 50
0 15

Figure 11. Reconstructed surface contours of five of the Mt. Taylor mound's building stages.


E.r'wvATwn ArT Tren Is.An r



TuW THE FLtflA Auuow1ovIo 99Vs

Table 2: Summary of burial attributes.
Layer Pet. of
Attributes 47 Totals "Wth Data" o
3 4 5 7 8 Unknown ith Data"

Total Burials b
Interment Type:
No data
On Which Side:
Right or Left
No data
Body Orientation:
No data
Grave Disturbance:
No dist. reported
No data
No data

78 67 8

58 58 7

19 8 1

11 9
4 2 2
5 1
1 1
27 31 5
30 22 1

7 7 1
1 4

4 4
7 6
9 4 3
2 3
47 35 4

27 27 4
46 34 4
2 3
3 3

3 15 4
75 49
3 4

1 4

1 4 18

1 4

1 3

I 3

Probable fire in grave
Cemented shells, bone, sand
Multiple graves

4 3 7 -
2 3 5 -
9 7 1 4 21 -

"Pet. of 'with data' means that burials with no attribute data are excluded from the percentage computations.
b Burial 72 probably was an unused number and is not included; Burial 84 has no notes but is included in Bullen's shipping list and is assumed
to exist.


1999 VOL 52 (

V T.,.., 1. "

tI Ln ~n~~lV1~ *fla OLN

evident due either to erosion or construction irregularities
(Figures 5-7, 10).
Layer 7. This layer consisted of snail shell with brown to
dark brown matrix, local deposits of crushed shell and,
judging from Bullen's profile labels, relatively more sand in
the matrix than in the preceding Layer 6. Fish bones and
several hearths indicated by burned shell and ash were found.
These included a 1-m-in-diameter lens of burned mussel.
Obviously, these are in situ food preparation areas as well as
enlargements of the Mt. Taylor-period mound. Layer 7 was
the sixth construction layer of the mound and, like Layer 6,
it was confined to extending the mound's east side as well as
raising its height (Table 1). At least one grave pit (Burial 1)
originated from within Layer 7, penetrating to Layer 4 and
possibly deeper, although the records are unclear on this (cf.
Figure 5). The interface with Layer 8 may be an angular
unconformity while the interface with Layer 9 is unconform-
able. The upper contacts of Layer 7 were nearly all removed
by dragline operations except for a short section where it was
overlapped by Layer 9, the muck layer, along the pond
profile (Figure 6).
Layer 8. This was a section of steeply tilted deposits seen
only between grid stakes 2A and 3A, and 2A and 2B (Fig-
ures 5, 9). Apparently parts of Layers 3 through 6 and
possibly 7 were removed to shape the northern end of the
mound platform, and subsequently, the Layer 8 deposits were
placed on the sloping platform face to enlarge the surface
area of the summit. Some of these deposits show apparent
gravity sliding (Figure 5). It is not clear if Layer 8 and its
underlying angular unconformity postdate or predate Layer
7. The superposition given here is an interpretation based on
cross-section A-A' (Figure 5). The upper contacts of Layer
8 all were removed by dragline operations and no contact
with Layer 9 was documented.
The basic lithology of Layer 8 is dark brown "dirt" and
small snail shells with a variety of lenticular deposits
including freshwater mussels and large snails, a 1-m-in-
diameter lens of burned mussel shell, white sand sometimes
in lenses, and "clean shell," meaning small snail shells with
little matrix. Occasionally these deposits contained marine
shells including Busycon, Fasciolaria, oyster, and others.
Vertebrate remains were numerous in this layer and included
birds, deer, some fish, and small animals including many
turtle. Whether the Layer 8 materials were redeposited as a
midden dump or were in their primary location cannot be
Layer 9. Described as muck and black to dark brown
"dirt" containing Orange and St. Johns incised sherds (Table
3), this layer's sediment may have originated as a marsh
deposit. It overlapped both Layers 4 and 7, and the interface
with overlying Layer 10 was unconformable (Figure 6). This
layer may have been aggrading marsh (e.g., the Terra Ceia
soil type described earlier), but its relatively elevated position
and the fact that this layer does not "climb" up the edge of
the mound platform at the western end (cf. Figure 6), but
instead rests squarely on the platform surface of Layers 4 and
7, suggests it was a construction phase possibly associated

with the large Area D mound. This would mean that the Mt.
Taylor mound remained in existence at least into the St.
Johns 1 Period, thereby casting doubt on Bushnell's (1960)
conclusion that the Area D mound was completed by the end
of the Orange Period. It may also be of interest to note that
black, mucky, swamp, marsh, or lake-bottom sediments have
been reported as construction material with special signifi-
cance in roughly contemporaneous Hopewell and later burial
mound sites in the Midwest (Hall 1997:18).
Layer 10. This layer consisted of a variety of deposits
superior to the St. Johns I mound construction described by
Layer 9. Since Layer 10 extended beyond the pinch-out of
Layer 9, it is possible some of the deposits pre-date Layer 9,
although a St. Johns Check-Stamped sherd was collected
from the profile of Layer 10 deposits (Table 3) casting yet
more doubt on the Area D mound being completed by the
Orange Period. The only place any Layer 10 deposits
actually were documented was at the extreme western end of
the pond profile (Figure 6); because of the limited amount of
available information, they are not described further.
The length and orientation of the field profiles make it
possible to estimate the shapes and extent of the surfaces of
several of the Mt. Taylor mound's construction levels (Figure
11). These contour maps suggest an orientation to the
mound that was maintained throughout the period of time
represented in Bullen's excavation. The Mt. Taylor mound
was elliptical in plan with its long axis running north-south.
The contours suggest it had a large and flat summit platform,
and that the mound sloped away steeply to the east, where it
was close to the edge of the Area D mound, and relatively
more gently to the west. These differences in slope may
suggest that the east side was the rear of the mound and the
west side the mound'sfront. Subsequent discussion in this
report will occasionally make reference to front, rear, and
sides of the Mt. Taylor mound in the sense just described.
The east side of the Mt. Taylor mound was about 15 to 25
m from the east side of the overlying Area D mound; the
west side of the Mt. Taylor mound was about 75 to 90 m
from the west side of the Area D mound (Figure 2). If the
west side of the Mt. Taylor mound indeed was its front the
direction toward which activities on the summit were
oriented then it is intriguing to speculate on the reason for
this early mound being so far off center with respect to the
final plan of the Area D mound. Perhaps there was a second
mound west of the Mt. Taylor mound, one that originally
faced to the east with a plaza, village, or audience space
between the two mounds. Ultimately, meaning by the St.
Johns II Period, both smaller mounds if there were two -
were filled around and over, with the entire space consoli-
dated into the very large, east-west trending, Area D mound.
Regardless of this speculation, the plans of the Mt. Taylor
mound indicate that it was not principally a burial mound but
was a frequently enlarged platform with interments made
only in certain sections. While a very large number of
interments were found deep within the mound in Layers 3
and 4, even here they appear to have been confined largely
to the north side and east (rear) slope of the mound. Al-


Table 3: Artifact proveniences.
Stratigraphic Layers

Artifact Form 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unk.
(Mortuary A) (Mortuary B)


Form 1 (cf. Culbreath, sub 2) 1

Form 2 (cf. Hillsborough) 1

Form 3 (cf. Newnan) 2
Form 4 (cf. Putnam) I (L4?)

Form 5 (cf. Levy) 1 3

Form 6 (cf. Marion) 1

Form 7 (cf. Alachua) 2

Form 8

Form 9 (beveled) 1 (L4?) 1

Large biface blades 1

Other biface fragments I 1

Preform (?) 1 (L4?)

Lithic flakes 2 (1 to L4?) 2

Core 1
Chert fragments 3 (1 to L4?) 1

Unidentified stemmed points 2
Lithic materials:

Silicified coral 1 (L4?) 9 1

Chert 5 (3 to L4?) 2 1 1 1

Microfossiliferous chert 2(1 to L4?) 1 2
Macrofossiliferous chert 2 1

Chalcedony 1
Peloidal chert

Stratigraphic Layers *
Artifact Form
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unk.
(Mortuary A) (Mortuary B)

Unidentified (no longer in



Fid (?)


Short bipoints

Antler tool handle

Antler flaker

Antler flesher(?)

Antler clasp ornament

Tubular beads

Bone debitage

Unidentified incised bone


Cutting-edge tool, Type X

Hammer, Type X

Type X tool fragments





Incised shell object

Miniature celt

Miniature adze/gouge

I (L3?) 4 (2 to L4?)

3 (1 to L5?)

2(1 to L6-8?)



I (L5?)
1 13(1 toL5-6?)

3(1 to L4?) 1 (L5?)

3 (2 to L4?)

2(1 to L4?)

1 (L7?)

3 (1 to L5-6?) 1 (L6-8?)

1 (Unk)


1 (L6-8?)

2 (L6-8?) 1 (L7?) 2 (L8?)

3 (2 to L8?)

3 (2 to L8?)


Table 3 Continued.

Stratigraphic Layers *
ArtifactForm 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unk.
(Mortuary A) (Mortuary B)

Shell debitage

Shell resource materials

Unidentified gorget


St. Johns Check Stamped

St. Johns Plain

St. Johns Incised

Orange Incised

Miscellaneous items:

Sandstone abrader

Ferruginous sandstone ochre?

Limestone hammerstone

Fired clay lump

Unidentified limestone fragment

Layer totals:

1 (LA?) 2 1 (L7?) 1

I (L3?) 3 (1 to L4?) 4 (2 to L5-8?) I (L6-8?) 5 (2 to L7?) 3 (1 to L8?)

I 1

6 3 2

2 10 5 56

I Some artifacts either were from disturbed deposits or their provenience was not recorded; these are all listed under "Unk." Some other artifacts could not be ascribed with cer-
tainty to a layer; the alternative possibilities are indicated in parentheses.


though the discontinuity of burial distribution from the north
side around to the east slope may only be due to the interven-
ing dragline pit, the absence of burials in the western leg of
the pond trench suggests they never were present on the
mound's summit and west (front) slope.

Dating the Layers

Ten radiocarbon samples were taken from the 1961
excavation; six were charcoal from various stratigraphic
contexts and four were Busycon shell tools from what, in
1961, was presumed to be midden above the burials. Of
these samples, only four were dated. The samples from the
"Black Zone" that Bullen believed might be associated with
a charnel house were returned by the radiocarbon laboratory
as "too small." The final dating results were reported to
Bullen by the University of Michigan laboratory on June 10,

sand and the charcoal/ash) were interpreted by Bullen as
being at the base of the "burial-sand zone" (Crane and
Griffin 1965:134); in the terminology of this paper that
association is with basal Layer 3 and dates among the early
uses of Mortuary A.
Sample Number 2 (M-1265). The association of this
sample is less clear. Bullen's field drawing of the profile
between grid stakes 2A and 2B shows the sample location as
part of the "Black Zone." However, his listing of
proveniences for radiocarbon samples says Sample Number
2 was from a "horizontal charcoal zone above the burial
zone" (Crane and Griffin 1965:135) and also gives the depth
below datum as 3.5 ft (1.1 m). Because his written data
precisely indicate an elevation higher than the "Black Zone,"
and because the latter was not above the burials, this sample
is interpreted as associated with Layer 8, or 3.5 ft (1.1 m)
below datum near the 2A-2B profile. Bullen's observation

Table 4: Radiocarbon dates and calibrations.'
Field Sample Number b
Sample Data
1 5 2 7

Lab Number M-1264 M-1268 M-1265 M-1270
Material charcoal charcoal charcoal Busycon shell
Stratigraphic Association Layer 3 base Layer 3 Layer 8 Layer 7 or 8
Cultural Association Bottom of Bottom of burial 12 Above mortuary Above mortuary
Mortuary A grave zones zones
Measured 'C Age B.P. 5450 300 5450 180 5320 200 5030 + 200
Del 'C %o (est.) -25.0 b -25.0 -25.0 0.0
Conventional '"C Age B.P. (est.) 5450 303 5450 184 5320 204 5432 + 204
Calibrated Intercepts cal BC 4310 cal BC 4310 cal BC 4180,4150, cal BC 3880
Calibrated One Sigma Date Range cal BC 4580 3960 cal BC 4470 4050 cal BC 4360 3940 cal BC 4070 3640

8 Charcoal samples were calibrated for this study using CALIB, ver. 3.0.3, the bidecadal tree ring data set, the intercepts method, and a 100-
year moving average; the Busycon sample was calibrated with the marine data set (Stuiver and Reimer 1993). Because of the close agreement
of all four dates, only one sigma calibrated ranges are used, and all calibrated dates are rounded to the nearest decade. For del 1C corrections
on charcoal samples, standard measurements for recent wood charcoal were used (Stuiver and Polach 1977:358). Adjustment for '12C
fractionation of the Busycon sample was approximated by estimating del '"C correction at 0.0 ppm (Stuiver and Polach 1977). A reservoir
correction factor (A R) of-5 20.0 was obtained from Walker et al. 1994:170, the geographically nearest available data.
b Samples were measured by the University of Michigan Memorial Phoenix Project (Crane and Griffin 1964:10, 1965:134-135).

1963 and March 2, 1964 and were published soon after
(Crane and Griffin 1964, 1965). Both uncalibrated and
calibrated dates are presented here (Table 4), but only the
uncalibrated dates are used for later discussion because many
of the published dates used for comparison likewise are
Sample Number 1 (M-1264). Stratigraphically the lowest
and earliest, this sample was collected from charcoal and ash
directly on top of Layer 2 and immediately under a white
sand deposit truncated by a dragline pit along the "A" grid
line in square IA-2B (see Figure 5). Both deposits (i.e., the

that this sample was from above the burial zone is consistent
with the stratigraphic analysis of layers and their associations
described in the previous section.
Sample Number 5 (M-1268). This sample was charcoal
collected from the bottom of a relatively well-defined burial
pit containing Burial 12 (see Appendix B, Table B-I for
grave coordinates). Although the burial was among the
deepest found, it was within Layer 3; the top of the grave pit
was not specifically identified but was believed by Bullen to
be in the large sand deposit visible on cross-section A-A'
between stakes 3A and 4A (Figure 5).


V qrT%- 1

9 991 Vot 52 (3)

152 THEF~oo 190 Vt- 2

Sample Number 7 (M-1270). This is a Busycon shell tool
found when excavating grid square 2A-3B. There is some
confusion about the depth at which this specimen was
recovered. The provenience accompanying documentation
to the radiocarbon laboratory indicates that it was found from
6 to 7.5 ft (1.8 to 2.3 m) below datum (Crane and Griffin
1965:135). However, Bullen's notes are fairly clear in
indicating that '4C Sample 7 was from between 0 to I ft (.3
m) below the surface and, in one place, he wrote a marginal
notation that "probably" it was the dated shell and that it was
from above the burials. While this leaves things a bit
muddled, in this report Sample 7 is taken to be as Bullen
noted: from the top of square 2A-3B. This means the shell
could be associated with either Layer 7 or 8, both of which
are above and later than the two cemetery zones.
Despite the various problems described above, the dates
are tightly clustered (Table 4) when placed in ascending
stratigraphic order. All four dates and their one-sigma
ranges were tested for significant differences, using the chi-
square-test utility of CALIB 3.0.3 (Stuiver and Reimer
1993:227), which indicated, unsurprisingly, that all were
statistically identical at the 95 percent level. Thus, there are
at least two alternative interpretations of these dates. Using
their one-sigma ranges, they could describe a time range for
Layers 3 through 8 of some 950 years. Or they could all be
treated as dating the same population of samples (i.e.,
essentially contemporaneous) and, using the one-sigma range
of the average date, they would describe a time range for
Layers 3 through 8 of some 250 years. Either way, when
calibrated they date much of the Mt. Taylor mound construc-
tion, and all of the mortuary it contained, to the late fifth or
early fourth millennium B.C., or approximately 6000 B.P.
Although he used uncalibrated dates, Bullen reached a
similar conclusion. In his published comments on the Tick
Island radiocarbon dates, he noted that they were internally
consistent as well as in agreement with the presence of
Newnan projectile points found with some burials. Based on
this he concluded that "Ceremonial burial practices had an
extremely early beginning in the Southeast" (Crane and
Griffin 1965:135).


The excavation at Harris Creek, apart from the burials,
was controlled by horizontal levels parallel to the datum
plane. This engenders obvious difficulties of correlation
when the interpretation of the site is according to non-
horizontal mound construction phases. Some of the proce-
dures used here for determining provenience are arbitrary
and may have led to incorrect linkages. Artifact associations
with the stratigraphic layers (Table 3) are estimations drawn
from comparison of the profiles (Figures 5-10) with grid
square and depth notations accompanying the artifacts or, for
possible grave goods, drawn from the estimated layer
association of burials. Artifacts found in the profile trenches
were either unlocated with respect to layers or occasionally
were plotted on the field profiles.

Detailed field records showing the relation of artifacts to
skeletons often were not made, and given the extensiveness
of prehistoric grave disturbances, such documentation
probably could not have determined association. Conse-
quently, it is necessary to reduce artifact proximity to burials
to three categories: associated, possibly associated, and near
(cf. Table 5). These are based on the nature of the artifacts
and their physical relation to a grave. For example, projec-
tile points found within skeletons are assumed associated;
other points in the immediate proximity of burials are
considered possible associations. The miniature shell celt
and gouge are assumed to be associated with a burial
because of their unusual size and pairing. Likewise, the 11
tubular bone beads found together are assumed to be associ-
ated because their number suggests limited disturbance.
Bone pins in proximity to burials are considered possible
associations. Bone awls and antler tools occasionally were
found in proximity to burials and might or might not be
associated; these are recorded as "near" a particular burial.
Items such as lithic flakes are assumed to be unassociated
with specific burials because they usually are not thought of
as curated technology and so are not included in Table 5.
Whenever feasible, the artifact categories follow estab-
lished usage. The projectile points generally follow R.
Bullen (1975), although some ofthe distinctions applied here
seem very slight. In the absence of a comparative collection
to use as a complement to literature sources, the several
distinctive biface classes are numbered rather than named,
but the possible type correlation is noted in the description.
The bone and shell artifact categories generally follow those
used by Wheeler and McGee (1994) in their analysis of
artifacts from the relatively nearby Groves' Orange Midden,
another Mt. Taylor site. In addition, observation of wear
patterns on bone and shell usually was limited to striations
because many of the specimens had been coated with
preservative. Heat treatment was commonly seen in the
lithic collection from the Mt. Taylor mound; the presence of
two or more of the following criteria were used for its
identification: reddish-purplish hues, rippled flake scars,
pronounced luster or sheen, and distinctive flake scar
textures suggesting pre- and post-heat treatment flaking
(Collins and Fenwick 1974; Purdy and Brooks 1971).
Additional metric, color, and material data for lithic artifacts
may be found in Tables 6 and 7. No attempt was made to
associate chert materials with specific source formations. All
specimens were examined with the aid of a 10x to 20x
binocular microscope. References to grain size are in terms
of the Wentworth scale; color terminology is from the
Munsell system.


Form 1. Figure 12a; cf. Culbreath, subtype 2 (R. Bullen
1975:28). The suggestion of Culbreath subtype 2 is based on
the prominent rounded stem and diminutive, rounded,
downturned barbs. The reddish color, lustrous sheen and
rippled flake scars suggest heat treatment earlier in the

I~.~~~r~r I-~rmmm ~n


A I BLL *vrunnrcA Tr CIA 1

Table 5: Artifact/burial associations.

Layer/Burial No. Spec. No. AssottioArtifact Description

Layer 3 (Mortuary A)

Burial 26
Burial 73
Burial 165
Layer 4 (Mortuary B)
Burial 16, 23
Burial 25/

Burial 65
Burial 87
Burial 90, 91
Burial 94

Burial 110
Burial 120

Burial 126
Burial 130
Burial 147

Burial 166, 167
Layer 5
Burial 25

Burial 86
Burial 93
Burial 148
Layer 8?
Burial 51
Layer unknown
Burial 101A
Burial 125










Bone pin/fastener (medium length)
Tubular bone bead
Bone pin/fastener (medium length)

Tubular bone beads (11)
Antler clasp ornament (with B-25 or 25/2)
Bone needle (broken)
Form 2 projectile point (cf. Hillsborough)
Form 3 projectile point (cf. Newnan)
Biface distal tip fragment
Projectile point (missing)
Form I projectile point (cf. Culbreath)
Form 3 projectile point (cf. Newnan)
Bone pin/fastener (medium length)
Bone needle
Antler flesher (?)
Form 7 projectile point (cf. Alachua)
Shell cutting-edge tool, Type X
Ferruginous sandstone ochre (with B-147 or 148)
Bone needle (broken) (with B-147 or 148)
Bone pin/fastener (medium length)

See burial 25V2 above
Large biface blade
Form 5 projectile point (cf. Levy)
Ferruginous sandstone ochre(?)
See Burial 147 above

Possible antler headgear (not recovered)

Form 3 projectile point (cf. Newnan)
Miniature celt and adze/gouge

reduction sequence. There is significant edge wear on the
lower one-fourth of the blade and noticeable edge resharpen-
ing on the upper three-fourths that has created a slight bevel
principally along one edge. This more extensive resharpen-
ing also has created a stronger in-curving of that edge as it
approaches the distal tip. Generally, the straighter, less-
beveled edge shows more edge wear. These characteristics
suggest the biface hating was wrapped around the lower
blade and that this artifact was used as a knife rather than, or
in addition to, use as a projectile point.

Form 2. Figure 12b; cf. Hillsborough (R. Bullen
1975:30). This point conforms closely to the type descrip-
tion. There is a very small impact flake scar at the distal tip
and some erosion or smoothing of the blade edges; previous
sharpening emphasized alternate sides of the blade causing
a slight beveling of the blade. The projectile point may have
been heat-treated during the preform stage since there is a
slight purplish tinge to the color and a slight tendency for
flake scars to possess rippling marks.
Form 3. Figure 12c-e; cf. Newnan (R. Bullen 1975:31).




Stems are missing on two of these specimens and partly
missing on the third, but the latter seems very similar to stem
forms on Newnan points. In addition, their form, relative
thinness, and overall excellent flintknapping suggest these
are Newnan points. Specimens 96772 (Figure 12c) and
96778 (Figure 12e) seem likely to have been heat-treated
given their red color, rippled flake scars, and lustrous sheen.
Specimen 96776 (Figure 12d) was possibly heat-treated
although a slight lustrous sheen is the only indication.
Specimens 96772 and 96778 (Figures 12c and 12e) have
symmetrical blades and retain sharp blade edges. Specimen
96776 (Figure 12d) has a slightly in-curving distal blade
edge, with heavy wear on the lower blade edges just above
the barbs, as well as on the straighter blade edge. All wear
traces are similar to the Form 1 specimen, suggesting that
this point also functioned as a knife. It was recorded by
Bullen as found between the femur, left shoulder, and lower
ribs within the skeleton of Burial 101A in a position he
believed was originally inside the body. Alternatively, it may
be that this point was placed on or with the body in its grave
and later migrated into the body cavity during or after
decomposition. Specimen 96778 (Figure 12e) was found
within the skeleton of Burial 110, and specimen 96772
(Figure 12c) was reported as near to Burial 87.
Form 4. Figure 12f-g and g'; cf. Putnam (R. Bullen
1975:32). These points are distinguished by contracting
stems with an upward sweeping curve of the stems and
shoulders; neither specimen seems heat-treated. The blade
of 96766 (Figure 12f) is asymmetrical like the possible
knives in Forms I and 3, but it does not show the wear
patterns that suggest such use. Specimen 96803 (Figure 12g)
is unique in the Harris Creek assemblage in that it is made
on a relatively thin flake and is primarily a unifacial tool.
The stem is bifacially flaked, but the blade edges are worked
largely on the convex side of the flake. Too, the stem is
much smaller than on any of the other Archaic stemmed
points save Form 2. The blade is asymmetrical like the
possible knife forms, but no characteristic wear patterns were
Form 5. Figure 12h-j; cf. Levy (R. Bullen 1975:32). This
Archaic stemmed group is distinguished by the diminutive
downturned barbs and basal thinning. Specimen 96800
(Figure 12i) is heat-treated while the other specimens are
ambiguous, although all are partially reddish-colored to
greater or lesser degrees. The unnumbered specimen (Table
6) was recovered by Bullen embedded in a block of shell
deposit that had been hardened with preservative. Although
that point's outline and one side are observable, it is not
possible to measure thickness or examine the edges closely
for wear. On all other specimens, there is no unusual edge
wear suggesting use as knives, nor is there any hint of
beveling due to resharpening.
Form 6. Figure 12k; cf. Marion (R. Bullen 1975:32).
This specimen has a contracting stem and upward sloping
shoulders with a pronounced angle of intersection between
the two. One blade edge has been more consistently
resharpened than the other and turns slightly inward as it

approaches the distal tip. The opposite edge is straighter, not
as well-sharpened, and the lower third of the edge is well-
worn, suggesting this biface may have functioned as a knife.
This projectile point/knife does not appear heat-treated.
Form 7. Figure 121-m; cf Alachua (R. Bullen 1975:32).
These two points have straight stems meeting the blade
shoulders at right angles; chipping is crude and irregular.
The blades show wear and rounding at the barbs but not
along the edges. One of the artifacts (96810) may have been
heat-treated (Table 6).
Form 8. Figure 12n; no type name. Prominent straight
stem with downturned shoulders and a wide rounded barb;
part of the blade and one barb are lost. This artifact appar-
ently was heat-treated.
Form 9. Figure 12q-r; no type name. These points are
distinguished by large straight stems, short blades and
straight to slightly downturned shoulders. Both have been
extensively resharpened causing slight but distinct beveling
due to heavy flaking on alternate blade faces. Blade edges at
the barb on 96803 (Figure 12q) are worn and rounded.
These points may have functioned as knives, although
neither shows the blade asymmetry described above for other
possible knives.
Large biface blades. Figure 12o-p; these are large,
symmetrical blades. The entire blade is present on 96814
(Figure 12p), although the entire stem is lost. On 96768
(Figure 12o), the lower blade is broken offand only the distal
end remains. No asymmetric resharpening or edge wear
were noted. Both blades are convex-convex in cross-section
and could be either core tools or made on very large flakes;
one (96768, Figure 12o) probably is heat-treated.
Other biface fragments. Two distal tips were broken from
thin, well-made bifaces. One (96816, Table 7) was reused as
a convenience tool as one of the covers where blade edge
meets the break has been heavily worn and has obvious
striations from rotational movement. The original biface
may have been heat-treated. Specimen 96773 (Table 7) had
been burned and may have shattered in a fire rather than
breaking from use. Both blade edges are sharp and have no
signs of wear. In addition, there was a large contracting
stem (96821, Table 7) possibly with a flat or rounded base;
the only distinguishing features are that it probably had been
heat-treated and both edges of the stem are heavily worn, a
condition not seen on the other biface stems in this collec-
Lithic flakes. Two preform reduction flakes are large,
thin flakes with striking platforms that were shattered off
when the flakes were removed. One (96810, Table 7) was
among the first post-heat-treatment flakes removed from the
preform since the dorsal flake surface is largely covered with
rougher-textured flake scars than the ventral flake surface.
In addition, three biface-thinning (lipped) flakes were
recovered. These are smaller flakes with their striking
platforms intact that appear to have heat-treated flake scars
on both dorsal and ventral surfaces.
Chert fragments. These are four irregular fragments
resulting from initial reduction of blanks or, in some in-

.r EL --A 19" Voi52 13

9 991 VoL 52 (3)

Table 6: Lithic artifact attributes, projectile points.a

Proj. Pt. Fig. Spec. T L BL BW SL MSW Munsell Color Color Name Heat Material
Forms No. Treated

Form 1 12a 96775 10.0

Form 2 12b 96769 6.9

Form 3 12c 96772 8.3

12d 96776 7.9

12e 96778 7.1

Form 4 12f 96766 10.2

12g 96803 6.3

Form 5 12h 96771 12.7

12i 96800 8.4

12j 96810 9.3

96810 10.9

no# --

Form 6 12k 96801 10.5

Form 7 121 96781 8.6

12m 96810 10.0

Form 8 12n 96826 9.5

Form 9 12q 96803 12.8

12r 96810 9.2

67.8 53.7 37.6 14.1 18.1 1OR 6/2 6/3

47.5b 38.3b 31.4

S 56.1 38.5

54.7 37.0

52.2 37.3

57.3 46.7 39.3

pale red

yes microfossiliferous.

9.2 10.6 2.5YR 5/1 dark reddish-gray poss.

19.1 1OR 5/3 5/4 weak red yes

-- 18.2 5R 4/4 & 10YR reddish-brown & poss.
6/3 pale brown

19.5 2.5YR 5/8 red yes

10.6 16.5 5YR 3/2 4/4 dark reddish- no
brown & reddish-

62.6b 51.9" 29.6 10.7 12.5 10YR 5/6 yellowish-brown no

85.9b 68.2b 38.8 17.7 22.8 2.5YR 5/6 & red & very pale poss.
IOYR 7/4 brown

50.0 38.0 36.5 12.0 18.5 7.5 YR 7/3. pink, brownish- yes
IOYR 6/6 7/2 gray. & light gray

72.9 57.9 39.9 15.0 17.4 2.5YR 5/6 8/1 red to white poss.

36.9b 12.3 18.5 2.5YR 5/2 to weak red to poss.
5YR 5/6 yellowish-red

43.5b 30. Ib 37.2 13.4 17.2 2.5YR 3/2 4/2 dusky red poss.

81.3 67.8 38.6 13.5 22.5 2.5YR 4/3 to dusky red to light no
7.5YR 6/3 brown

58.2 46.9 34.2 11.3 13.5 2.5YR 4/4 to dusky red to pink no?
7.5YR 7/3

61.3 46.9 31.8 14.4

S 13.2

41.5 27.6 35.5b 13.9

51.0" 35.4b 40.4 15.6

15.4 2.5YR 5/4 weak red yes

20.1 2.5YR 3/2 3/6 dusky to dk red yes

17.0 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish- no
17.6 2.5YR 7/1 8/1 light gray to white no

silicified coral

silicified coral


silicified coral





silicified coral

silicified coral

silicified coral






silicified coral

* All measurements in mm; T = maximum thickness; L = maximum length; BL blade length; BW = blade width; SL = stem length; MSW = maximum stem width.
b Measurement is a very close estimate due to slight breakage.


\ I

a b

e f


0 5 10
^^^^^ ^^*1-S-l

Figure 12. Lithic artifacts: a) Form 1; b) Form 2; c-e) Form 3;f-g) Form 4; h-j) Form 5; k) Form 6; I-m) Form 7; n)
Form 8; o-p) large bifaces; q-r) Form 9.

T-- WW Nv mo-momq-- 1 .V-51

9 991 Vol 52 (3)

% I



Table 7: Lithic artifact attributes, other than for projectile points.
Artifact CategoriFigure Specimen Mnsel Color Color Name Heat Material
Artifact Categories No.Musll Color Color Name Treated

Large biface blades 12o 96768 10R 4/3 5/6 weak red to red yes peloidal chert
12p 96814 2.5YR 4/4 to dusky red to light possible microfossiliferous
7.5YR 6/3 brown chert

Other biface fragments tips 96773 burned n/a possible silicified coral
96816 10YR 7/4 very pale brown yes chert

Other biface fragments 96821 2.5YR 4/4 dusky red yes chert
Lithic flakes 96783 2.5YR 4/4 dusky red yes chert
96803 2.5YR 4/4 dusky red yes silicified coral?
96806 5YR 6/1 gray possible silicified coral?

96810 10R 4/4 to 5YR weak red to light yes silicified coral
6/3 reddish-brown
96810 2.5YR 5/6 red possible silicified coral?
Chert fragments 96802 1OR 6/4 pale red yes chert
96810 10R 4/6 4/8 red yes chert
96811 10YR 5/2 grayish-brown possible macrofossiliferous

96812 SYR 5/6 to yellowish red to yes microfossiliferous
10YR 6/2 light brownish-gray chert

Preform (?) 96802 IOYR 7/3 7/4 very pale brown no microfossiliferous

Core 96806 10YR 7/1 light gray no macrofossiliferous

stances, possibly from the shattering of reforms.
Preform(?). This is an elongate piece (60.1 x 26 x 16.2
mm), plano-convex in cross-section with the rudimentary
outline of a possible stem. The material is a microfossil-
iferous chert with numerous small vugs lined with quartz
Core. This is the largest piece of chert found in the
excavation (111.3 x 78.2 x 36.2 mm). There is no indication
of heat treatment. The material is chert with moderately
large vugs lined with quartz crystals and containing occa-
sional molds of gastropods.
Unidentifiedstemmedpoints. Twootherwiseunidentified
points were recorded in accession records but are no longer
with the collection. These are noted on Table 3 to round out
the artifact distribution information.


Pins/Fasteners. Figure 13d-h; cf. Wheeler and McGee
(1994:354); eight whole and five fragmentary bone pins
probably made from deer metapodial splinters. All of the

pins have a point at one end only with the opposite end
apparently a remnant of the proximal metapodial articula-
tion. All of the pins are more or less triangular in cross-
section having been fashioned from splinters taken from one
of the longitudinal angles of the metapodial bone (cf Figure
13a-h). All of the distal tips were abraded to a point with
little evidence of subsequent use wear, although three have
small chips splintered from their tips. The most notable
feature of this collection of pins is that while they have
similar-sized cross-sections (generally 7 to 12 mm), they
appear to represent different, possibly standardized, lengths
which may reflect different uses. The short pin is 83.9 mm
in length; the medium-length group of six pins have an
average length of 130.4 mm with very little variation
between individual specimens; and the single long pin has a
length of 160.9 mm.
Fid(?). Cf Wheeler and McGee (1994:352-353); a single
complete specimen, 89.6 mm long, is similar to the bone pins
except it is more flat in cross-section and has a broader distal
tip. Striations generally are longitudinal reflecting the
original shaping procedure. There are no indications of


Tu FlnnmAu AIrMgnPnIn2Iqr 1"9 VnI. 52 CAI

I I g

ai k

m m'

0 5 10


Figure 13. Bone artifacts: a) debitage metapodial with the distal articulation (bottom) grooved and snapped off; b)
debitage a distal articulation that was grooved and snapped off a metapodial; c) debitage longitudinal splinter from
a metapodial with part of the proximal end remaining (top); d) long style pin/fastener; e-g) medium- length pin/fasteners;
h) short-length pin/fastener; I) needle;j-k) short bipoints; I) tubular beads; m-m') incised antler clasp ornament; n) antler

T]e' fn A AWlurlnnlrnfm lrwpl

I OOO Vm N2 <


hafting, polish, or patterned use of the proximal end.
Needles. Figure 13i; cf. Wheeler and McGee (1994:352);
one whole and two fragments of long, narrow-diameter bone
needles were recovered. These are similar to the bone pins
described above except they are much smaller in cross-
section (5 to 7 mm in diameter). The one complete specimen
is 109.5 mm long. This functional nomenclature describes
appearance more than any real indication of function. No
wear patterns are evident other than longitudinal striations
associated with the original shaping of the artifact.
Short bipoints. Figure 13j-k; two small bone splinters
abraded and scraped into a roughly bipointed form; they have
diameters of 4.8 to 5.7 mm and lengths of48 and 50.7 mm.
Each has some indication of micro-splintering at one end
and if mounted in an antler handle like that described below,
could have functioned as a perforator or awl.
Antler tool handle. A cut and scraped segment of antler
beam is about 14 mm in diameter and, although now broken,
was originally more than 54 mm long. A hole drilled in one
end is 4.5 to 5 mm in diameter and at least 20 mm deep.
Antlerflaker. Three distal fragments all show striations
and facets on their tips characteristic of use in pressure
flaking chipped-stone tools.
Antlerflesher(?). Figure 13n; the lower, heavier part of
an antler beam with the proximal end beveled and fashioned
into a wedge-shaped bit. Bullen identified this as a flesher.
Antler clasp ornament. Figure 13m-m'; a short (42.5
mm) piece of antler grooved and snapped from a branching
section where the width was 38 mm. A large hole (8 to 8.5
mm in diameter) was drilled through the center. The front,
back, and sides were engraved with an elaborate geometric
design. The piece has a slight concavo-convex cross-section
and the concave side has had much of the design worn away.
Given the wear principally on the concave side, this artifact
may have been an ornamented clasp of some sort, possibly a
hair ornament (cf. the ornament found at the Gauthier site,
a Middle to Late Archaic cemetery, Carr and Jones 1981:87).
Tubular beads. Figure 131; cf. Wheeler and McGee
(1994:358); nine whole and five fragmented tubular bone
beads were recovered, although three are no longer in the
collection and were not examined here. All of the beads
were manufactured by grooving and snapping sections from
bird long bones, including some from large wading birds.
Eleven beads were found with either Burial 16 or Burial 23
and likely were associated; if they had been displaced from
their original location there probably would not have been so
many found together. The complete beads range in length
from 24.9 to 40 mm with a mean of 33.6 mm.
Unidentified incised bone. An otherwise unidentified
incised bone was recorded on accession records but is no
longer with the collection. It is included in Table 3.
Bone debitage. Figure 13a-c; cf. Wheeler and McGee
(1994:360); five fragments of deer metapodial in various
stages of reduction: one grooved and snapped-off distal
articulation, one metapodial with the distal end missing, one
longitudinally split section of a metapodial shaft, and two
longitudinal fragments of metapodial splinters.


Cutting-edge tools, Type X. Figure 14a-c; originally
described by Goggin (1952:115) as made from the right-
handed Busycon carica, having a beveled blade at the end of
the columella, and a single hafting hole through the spire or
shoulder of the shell; also cf. Wheeler and McGee
(1994:365). Twelve expended specimens made of Busycon
carica and one ofB. contrariums were recovered from Harris
Creek. In addition, there is a cutting-edge bit broken away
from what is assumed to have been a Type X cutting-edge
tool. According to Bullen's notes, three of the B. carica and
the B. contrarium tools (described in the notes as "Type X
picks") were sent for radiocarbon dating in 1961. These are
no longer available for description, although it is assumed
they were Type X cutting tools and are included as such in
the artifact proveniences (Table 3). In all cases where the
shoulder hole is preserved, there is heavy exterior wear
between the hole and the spire and wear on the inside of the
hole towards the aperture. Also, the cutting bit was abraded
from right down to left. The bit axis on these tools was
aligned parallel to the hafted handle, as indicated by wear
near the shoulder hole, like an axe or hatchet. The bit angles
range from 52 to 730 with a mean value of 65.60. There
are wide differences in tool sizes and weights suggesting that
there were corresponding varieties of chopping tasks to
perform, some needing small, lightweight choppers and
others needing progressively larger, heavier choppers. While
it would be useful also to weigh the complete specimens,
those present in this collection each had major parts broken
off which apparently terminated their use lives, so weight
data on these specimens would be of no value.
Hammer, Type X. Seven B. carica Type X hammers were
recovered, at least three of which began their use lives with
cutting-edge bits which later were battered to a blunted form.
Some of these were exhausted when the outer whorl shoul-
ders shattered; it is not clear why the others were discarded.
In addition, there is one hammer bit fragment (the lower
columella) that is assumed to be from a Type X tool.
Type X tool fragments. Five fragments apparently of B.
carica were recovered that have remnants of the shoulder
hafting hole but lack evidence ofwhether they were hammers
or cutting-edge tools.
Chisels (or wedges). Figure 14d; two pieces of the lower
columellae of nearly identical length (83.3 and 83.8 mm)
with cutting-edge bits at the distal ends and abrading to
remove sharp edges on the proximal ends where the tools
were broken away from the rest of the columella. One piece
is made from B. carica; the other is made from an unidenti-
fied but large, robust, left-handed whelk. The bit angles are
780 and 500 respectively. These may be fragments of
different tool types.
Adze/gouges. Figure 14j; cf. Wheeler and McGee
(1994:361-363). There are six specimens of triangular
outline fashioned from the lower part of the shoulder and
body whorl of B. carica in the collection. One seems in
pristine condition, three are probably exhausted with the



~c. 2'1


0 5 10

Figure 14. Shell artifacts: a-c) cutting-edge tools, Type X, showing range of sizes; d) columella chisel or wedge; e)
receptacle;j) unfinished incised columella bead(?); g) scraper (bit end at top); h) miniature adzelgouge; i) miniature celt;
j) adze/gouge.


proximal ends broken on two and large chips out ofthe bit in
all three. Two remaining specimens appear to be reforms
that have been trimmed (perhaps with a Type X hammer or
cutting-edge tool) into approximately the right shape. Final
smoothing of rough edges and shaping of the bits with an
abrading stone were started but had not progressed very far
when they were discarded. The four completed tools mea-
sure approximately 80 mm long with an average bit width of
about 61 mm. The bit angles on the completed examples
ranged from 49" to 59" with a mean value of 52.5.
Scraper. Figure 14g; one specimen of the lower body
whorl and columella of a B. carica has been identified as a
scraper. Unlike the adzelgouge tools, the bit of this tool is
strongly curved, and it appears never to have been hafted, but
instead was hand-held. It may have been reworked from a
Type X hammer as the base of the columella is battered and
flattened, but the entire edge around the body whorl has been
abraded into a very low-angle bit (approximately 300).
Considerable use wear is evident on the exterior surface of
the bit.
Receptacles. Figure 14e; cf. Wheeler and McGee
(1994:365). Twelve pieces of B. contrarium receptacles are
in various degrees of fragmentation. Five were large cups
formed from the outer body whorl. These all are scorched on
their undersides indicating use directly over a fire, a use
which ultimately led to the cup bottoms shattering. Six
additional pieces are fragments of large cups, four of which
show evidence of fire scorching. The final piece also is from
a body whorl but it is much shallower and is shaped more
like a dipper or spoon than a cup or bowl. This dipper also
appears to have fire scorching at the large, shattered end.
This piece may possibly be decorated on the interior with
closely spaced, very fine parallel lines crossing the entire
interior surface. Close examination does not confirm that the
lines were created by a tool such as a chert flake, but perhaps
natural weathering of the shell in conjunction with the prior
effects of heating would create such a crazed surface.
Incised shell object. Figure 14f, this may be an uncom-
pleted attempt to fashion an incised columella bead. The
specimen measures 22.6 mm long, and it tapers from a width
of 15.4 mm at one end to 10.3 mm at the other. It has had a
series of relatively wide, U-shaped lines ground or incised
around its circumference. Drilled holes have been started at
both ends, although they do not extend through the full
length of the piece.
Miniature celt. Figure 14i; made from the columella of a
very robust whelk, it is not clear whether this and the
miniature adze/gouge found with it are intended to be
functional or symbolic. The celt is 66 mm long by about 20
mm in diameter. The more pointed end has a bit angle of
approximately 68; the opposite end is more rounded. This
artifact was found with Burial 125.
Miniature adze/gouge. Figure 14h; made from a section
of whelk body whorl, this piece is only 56.3 mm long and
43.9 mm wide at the bit end. This adze/gouge is only about
70% of the length/width of the full-size tools described
above, and the bit angle is about 650. This artifact was

found with Burial 125.
Unidentified gorget. An otherwise unidentified cut and
drilled shell gorget was mentioned in the accession records
but is no longer with the collection. It is included in Table
Shell debitage. Ten fragments appear to be residue from
tool making; seven are from B. carica and two are from B.
Shell resource material. There are 25 whole and frag-
mented marine and estuarine shells that do not show modifi-
cation but which were brought from the coast into the St.
Johns River Valley presumably as material for manufactur-
ing artifacts. In some instances the shells were collected
after they had died as indicated by erosion of shell sculpture
and predator boring holes extending entirely through the
shells. This material included: B. carica; B. contrarium; B.
canaliculatum; Crassostrea virginica; Fasciolaria tulipa;
Mercenaria mercenaria; and Dinocardium robustum. Of
particular note is that some of the Busycon shells are very
small (as little as 6-7 mm long).


Some 17 sherds (Orange Incised and St. Johns Plain,
Incised, and Check Stamped) were collected from the
western end of the pond profile trench. These were from
Layers 9 and 10 and are of later date than both the mortuary
and the Mt. Taylor mound (Table 3).


Sandstone abrader. This is a small piece of fine-grained
to medium-grained ferruginous sandstone measuring about
45 x 63 x 32 mm. There are several U-shaped grooves and
flat abrasion facets that are presumably the result of shaping
bone, shell, and perhaps wood implements.
Limestone hammerstone. This is an elongate block of
light gray, fossiliferous limestone measuring 170 x 73 x 50
mm in size and weighing 817 gm. One end has been
battered from use as a hammerstone. There are no other
battering or abrasion facets on this block, which was dam-
aged in a fire that split it into two pieces.
Ocherous sandstone. One piece, found with Burials 147
and 148, is a red (10R 5/6), highly friable, poorly cemented,
coarse-grained to medium-grained, clayey sandstone. A
second piece, found near Burial 93, is a small, ferruginous,
sandstone concretion with no evidence of use as an abrader.
Apparently fragmented during excavation, the interior is a
fine-grained to medium-grained sandstone impregnated with
an almost yellowish-strong-brown- (7.5YR 5/6) colored iron
Fired clay lump. A small fragment with the general
consistency of early St. Johns ceramic paste, this piece is not
pottery nor a recognizable piece of baked clay artifact such
as a Poverty Point object.
Unidentified limestone fragments. Two otherwise
unidentified limestone fragments were mentioned in the

THE FmamA ArranoP r

accession records but are not now with the collection. These
are included in Table 3.


Over 600/% of the artifacts of known association were
found in the two mortuary zones. Some artifacts could not
be associated unequivocally with only one layer, as noted in
Table 3, and if adjustments in the frequencies are made for
the possible alternatives, the following is the range of total
artifact distributions: Layer 2 (<1% to 2%); Layer 3-Mortu-
ary A (14% to 23%); Layer 4-Mortuary B (41% to 48%);
Layers 5 through 8 (average about 7% per layer); Layers 9
and 10 combined (10%). Most of the artifacts are from
mortuary zones, especially Mortuary B.
Looking more closely at the distribution of technology
resource materials, it is seen that 80% to 90% of the lithic
and bone artifacts were found in the mortuary zones, again
principally Layer 4. The remainder were in the under- and
overlying layers of the Mt. Taylor mound. Shell artifacts
were significantly different in distribution, with only 43% in
the mortuary zones and over half in the other construction
layers of the mound. The ceramics were confined to Layers
9 and 10, confirming the much later date of those strata.
Stepping down yet again to look at the individual technol-
ogies, the lithics were almost exclusively contained in the
mortuary zones, Layers 3 and 4 (Table 3). The majority were
projectile point/knives (PPKs) or were related to biface
maintenance; practically no other lithic tool types were
present. There is a remarkable homogeneity in this collec-
tion of PPKs; nearly all are large-bladed bifaces with either
large rectangular or large rounded stems. Overall this
assemblage is distinctively Middle Archaic. Roughly one-
third of the materials used to make these artifacts was
silicified coral, another third were made of cherts undistin-
guished by fossil or other accessory components, and the
remaining third were made from at least four other chert
materials (see Tables 3, 6, and 7). Three-fourths of the
lithics may be heat-treated, a ratio consistent with other
research (Ste. Claire 1987:204). Four of the PPKs were
associated with burials and, given the nature of the assem-
blage and its concentration in the mortuary zone, it is not
unreasonable to assume that all the PPKs were associated
with burials or related rituals with most scattered from their
original association by later burial excavations. It also may
be notable that of the four projectile points found inside the
body cavities ofburials, the three available to examine are all
thin, well-made, Newnan-like points. Whether these points
were selected to be used in homicide, either as sacrifice or in
primitive warfare, or were simply placed with the bodies in
the graves and accidentally migrated into the body cavities
after decomposition, they were distinct in manufacture from
the other PPKs used for utilitarian tasks.
Bone artifacts, too, were strongly concentrated (about
80%) in the Layers 3 and 4 mortuary zones, with the small
remainder in the other Mt. Taylor construction layers (Table
3). The pins/fasteners, needles, clasp ornament, and tubular

beads, nearly two-thirds of the assemblage, are all likely to
have been associated with burials or ritual. None of the
pointed bone tools show rotational wear, although some show
microflaking on their tips. Polish generally cannot be
observed because most specimens have been coated with a
preservative. Only one ofthe bone "pins" has the flat cross-
section and wear associated with weaving and net-making
tools (fids) that have been described from another Mt. Taylor
site (Wheeler and McGee 1994:352).
Shell artifacts were distributed quite differently, with most
found in Layers 3-7 and with no particular concentration
among them (Table 3). Fewer were found in Layers 2 and 8.
Despite this, shell artifacts were the most abundant items of
the Harris Creek technology, and the great majority of these
were made from left- and right-handed whelks of the genus
Busycon. B. carica is a compact and heavy shell used for
hammers, cutting tools, and chisels. B. contrarium, on the
other hand, is a lighter, less robust shell that was used for
dippers, cups, and ornaments made from outer whorls. The
only hating mode found on any of the many B. carica
cutting and pounding tools at Harris Creek was the Type X,
in which a haft handle would have been inserted through a
single hole in the shoulder of the shell and then bent back
out through the aperture (cf Goggin 1952:115; Wheeler and
McGee 1994:365). Harris Creek confirms findings else-
where that the Type X hafting method is virtually the
exclusive approach for hafting heavy tools in the Middle
Archaic (e.g., Wheeler and McGee 1994:365).
The large cutting-edge tools clearly were used for rough
work requiring the momentum of a heavy tool as well as a
sharp edge. However, some examples were fairly small and
so a range of chopping activities must have been performed
with this style of tool (cf. Figure 14a-c). Functional differ-
ences also are hinted at by differences in bit angles. The
shell cutting-edge tools have high-angle bits (650);
adze/gouge tools have medium-angle bits (520); and the one
scraper has a low-angle bit (30"). These must reflect the
different tasks that were performed with these tools. Finally,
while it is tempting to imagine that the shell dip-
per/receptacles with scorched and broken cup bottoms may
indicate ceremonialism at the mortuaries, only one of these
artifacts was clearly associated with the mortuary zone. They
may, however, point to other non-mortuary ceremonies
performed on the summit platform.
Ceramics were too few (only 17 sherds) to be meaningful
beyond their absence in Mt. Taylor layers and their presence
in overlying layers. They indicate also that Layer 9, the first
layer overlying the Mt. Taylor-period layers, probably dates
to the St. Johns I Period. The occurrence of artifacts with
burials is discussed in more detail later in conjunction with
mortuary ritual.

Mortuary Structures

Mortuary A (Layer 3) contained several small-scale
construction features but very few of these continued to be
used in Mortuary B (Layer 4). Because of their mutual

.. . . ..... f kAI.

1999 Vot52 (3)


proximity and absence in other layers, most, if not all, of the
features may be connected with mortuary ritual. They
include grave pits, white sand deposits, the "Black Zone,"
ritual(?) fire hearths, and structures implied by post-hole
patterns. Documenting the spatial arrangement of these
features was constrained by the limited areas excavated.
However, there were data on parts of the summit platform as
well as the flanks of the Mt. Taylor mound on its north end,
and cross-sections along the east (rear) flank, west (front)
slope, and summit platform on the south end of the mound,
so there is an empirical basis for the pattern of spatial
arrangements being suggested.

White Sand

The matrices of most of the shell deposits in the excavated
area were sandy in texture, and were usually brown to dark
brown in color. The white sand deposits stood out clearly
and evidently were imported to the mound for a purpose.
Nearly all of the white sand deposits were found in Layer 3
with a small amount documented in cross-sections from
Layers 4 and 8 (Figures 5 and 6). Most of the Layer 3 white
sand was in small deposits often associated with small fire
hearths and grave-pit fill. One comparatively large mass of
white sand was found chiefly in grid square 3A-4B, but it
extended somewhat into adjacent grid squares and into the
dragline trench to the north and west (Figure 5). Numerous
burials intruded into this latter sand mass but the principal
spatial relationship seems to be that the mass overlies the
large grave pit described below.

Grave Pits

Most of the burials were found in the north end and the
east (rear) flank of the Mt. Taylor mound (cf. Figure 1 Ib-c),
especially for Mortuaries A and B. Burial into either the
summit platform or west (front) slope was not noted except
for a few interments possibly from later, higher, layers. Two
kinds of grave pits were documented: 1) the normal and
numerous small pit intended to contain usually one but
occasionally two or three flexed bodies, and 2) at least one
large grave containing 11 individuals that was dug deep into
Layer 2 from Layer 3 very early in the use of Mortuary A.
Small Grave Pits. It was unusual for the outline of a
grave pit to be seen during excavation; in most cases, the
recorded pit size was the length and width of the human
bone cluster, and this was noted only in some 20 instances
(Appendix B: Table B-l). All but two of the latter cases
were single-individual graves; both exceptions were thought
to contain three bodies. Upon separating these data into the
respective layers with which they were associated there
seems to be no meaningful difference in grave sizes, with all
single-individual graves averaging about .6 by .4 m. Even
the two three-person graves were not much larger than this.
Only rarely was the surface identified from which the pit was
dug and the depth of the grave estimated. Mortuary A
(Layer 3) graves often were dug into either the white sand or

shell and sometimes were filled with white sand or with a
mixture of white sand and shell. Mortuary B (Layer 4)
graves were dug into shell and brown sand deposits and only
occasionally went deep enough to intrude into the white sand
deposits of Layer 3. Rarely (i.e., only in eight of the small
grave pits four each in Mortuaries A and B), a fire was
made in the grave pit and the flexed body placed over the
flames or hot coals. In at least two instances, some bones
were scorched or lightly burned, and in nearly all, there was
some cementation of bones, sand, and shell possibly encour-
aged by the calcined shell. These small fires were not
functional cremations and, if ethnographic reports are any
guide, they probably were more likely to be symbolic steriliz-
ing of the grave and/or body after a preliminary storage and
decomposition phase (cf. Metcalf and Huntington 1991:99).
Large Grave Pit. This was a classic case of making a
major find on the last day of field work causing the record
keeping to be rushed and incomplete at a site that was soon
to be destroyed. In the last few hours of work, a large ovoid
pit was found that measured some 4.7 by 3.5 ft (1.1 m)
across the top and extending 3 ft (.9 m) down into the shell
and dark brown "dirt" matrix of Layer 2 (Figure 15). It was
found more or less in the center of grid square 3A-4B, at the
bottom of the large mass of white sand comprising Layer 3
fill at that location. In the upper six inches (15 cm) of this
pit were the skeletons of eight individuals; most of the skulls
were crushed horizontally, apparently from the weight of
sediment and shell overburden. The fill among these
skeletons was white sand and contained some charcoal.
Below this was fill consisting of white sand, brown mottled
sand, a few mussel shells and, rarely, snail shells. At one
place in the fill, there was a lens of brown "dirt" and small
snail shells that was 4 in (10 cm) thick and 10 in (25 cm) in
At a depth of 2 ft (.6 m), and extending down several
inches, were skeletal remains of three more individuals: a
child whose bones were recorded as "disturbed," and two
adult skulls with some post-cranial bones placed in a sandy
fill containing some undescribed shells. Whether the adult
skeletons were complete and articulated was not noted, but
the implication seems to be that they were not. The top of
this lower bone-and-shell deposit was a cemented mass,
possibly indicating that a fire may have been placed over
them calcining the shells and encouraging dissolution and
reprecipitation of the carbonate by ground water. Below the
bones in the bottom of the pit was a mixture of sand, small
snail shells, and mussel shells. Left to speculation is whether
the lens of shells at the bottom of the pit is debris from Layer
2, or whether this, and perhaps other pits with small quanti-
ties of shell, may have had food placed in them as part of the
ritual. This large pit was a complex and special feature. It
may be that all or some of the overlying large, white, sand
mass at this place in Layer 3 originated as a small pile or
mound of sand placed over the pit after the interment.
Inspection of Figure 16d further suggests that the pit and
small sand mound may have been surrounded by a rectangu-
lar fence, shelter, or building, and inspection of Figure 17

19t V. -fl.., nf 19.fLc Vl 0- r 52 111

a. Plan view (measured).


= Skull location
& number, see
Fig. 17 for loca-
tion of large
grave pit in grid
square 3A-4B.

b. Profile (schematic;
depths measured).

White sand

^*9.. flexed, articul. skeletons, charcoal, sand
----- -- -- -- -- -- -- --------- ;
bm matrix, snails white sand with .
brn mottles; few .
S mussel & snail k b
ft -c- -r f .,(dk bm mat
,.. wwith smaH
-. -- ----------------- shell
M i chl/d, 2 adult skulls with some post-
-', cranial bones, mixed with small snals *.
M,, and mussels

-To few, kIha

0 1 2 3

(3 ft = 0.9 m)

Figure 15. Large grave pit, base of Layer 3.



s of home sand

& shell cemented into a mass.

I Vn_ n I

Tqr- A --a r~r~

c ;'
A p *

b. Level 3

00'^' A 0

0 P

I i
Figure 16. Plan views of post-hole sets by elevation levels, Layer 3. Solid circles are post holes from the indicated level; open circles are post holes at other levels.
All post holes were at a lower elevation than the Black Zone, which is shown for reference. Post holes shown in the "filled dragline pit" were under, and in some
cases truncated by, the bottom of the pit

Mortuary A (Layer 3)

Filled dragline pit
(see Figure 6)

e = multiple burial &
number of individuals
0 10 20
0 3 6


These burials in profile
trench only: grid units
were not excavated.

Figure 17. Burial locations associated with Mortuary A (Layer 3). The solid dots are the plotted skull locations.



f 4;'n

.vmN. J. AT Tic s m 17

shows that no subsequent Mortuary A burials were placed
above this large pit.

The Black Zone

As noted earlier, this deposit was described as charcoal-
impregnated sand with "...small snails, some mussel, and
bits of animal bone..." about 6 in (15 cm) thick, 5 ft (1.5 m)
wide, and more than 10 ft (3 m) in length (it was cut off by
a dragline pit; see Figure 16). The deposit was found in
Layer 3 at or a little above the elevation of the highest post-
hole level and extended through grid squares IA-2B (not
excavated), IB-2C, 2A-3B, and 2B-3C. Inspection of cross-
sections A-A' and E-E' (Figures 5 and 9) suggests part of the
top of Layer 3 may have been truncated prior to placement of
Layer 8, and that the original position of the Black Zone was
within rather than at the top of Layer 3. The zone clearly
was associated with only one of several brief interruptions
identified during the accumulation of this layer.
The Black Zone apparently was located on what, at the
time, was the summit platform of the Mt. Taylor mound and
was oriented along the same north-south axis. Very few
burials were interred in or through the zone (Figure 17),
compared to the areas around the zone, and there seems to
have been an avoidance of this location for burying. As soon
as the Black Zone was uncovered, Bullen began speculating
aloud on the possibility of a charnel house or platform. Soon
after, when he began finding post holes, he commented in his
field notes that because the post holes seemed to originate
from different levels, all deeper than the Black Zone (Figure
18), they might indicate periodic emptying of a charnel
house and renewal ofthe mortuary area and charnel structure
by the addition of more sediment. This concept was briefly
described later in his report to the American Philosophical
Society (Bullen 1962:479).
While at the site, Bullen considered the possibility that the
Black Zone of Layer 3 might have been the remains of a
special fire underneath a platform holding wrapped, flexed
bodies on which they were smoked or dried. However, no
associated post holes for such a structure were found.
Unfortunately, we cannot clarify the nature of the black
matrix; the ambiguity over whether there was much charcoal
present was noted earlier. It could have been a deposit of
partially decomposed plant or animal tissue rather than very
much charcoal. Because some snail shells at the base of the
Black Zone were recorded as cemented, there probably were
some fires at this location. There may be other possibilities,
but the limited extent of cementation suggests heat broke
down the shell structure locally enhancing the ability of
ground water to dissolve the carbonate and precipitate it
thereby cementing shells lower down at the base of the zone
(cf Palmer and Williams 1977).
The Black Zone is a puzzling feature. The deposit had a
dense black matrix but it seems likely that this was not the
result of a large fire or of repeated small fires. Neither is it
clear whether the midden composition of the zone accumu-
lated in situ, such as during ritual or non-ritual food prepa-

ration on the mound platform, or whether it was domestic
refuse brought in and deposited as fill when elevating the
platform. By the time the radiocarbon analysis had been
completed in 1964, Bullen had begun to lose enthusiasm for
the charnel house idea. On an undated document in his file
that appears to be talking points for a presentation about the
Tick Island dates, he noted the "...posthole arrangement
implies some kind of a structure, possibly only a fence"
(Bullen n.d.). However, in the later "Discussion" section of
the present report, the argument is developed, based on
evidence other than the Black Zone, that there probably were
charnel structures in use at the Mt. Taylor mound.

Post Holes

Post holes were discovered as soon as excavation pro-
ceeded below the Black Zone in grid squares 2A-3B and 2B-
3C, but still within Layer 3; no post holes penetrated the
partially overlying Black Zone. Ultimately 34 such holes
were documented (Figure 16; see Table 8 for dimensions) in
a strip trending more or less north-south, and parallel to the
Black Zone as well as to the axis of the Mt. Taylor mound.
As noted above, there were fewer burials in the Black Zone
or its immediate vicinity. This may be the reason post holes
remained only in that narrow strip because there the holes
were not churned up by repeated grave-pit excavations.
It was realized during fieldwork that not all of the post
holes originated at the same elevation. Guided by these
elevation differences and apparent horizontal locational
differences the post holes were given unique letters and
numbers. Bullen also noted variable distinctions between the
several sets of holes: he described the A01-03 holes as
possible but not as convincing as A1-A3; the B holes were
not as good as the A's; and the C holes were poorly defined
and he only saw the bases, although he felt confident enough
to estimate the elevation below datum of their tops.
The field photographs are convincing in indicating that
there were indeed post holes discovered in the mortuary
excavation (Figure 19). Plotting the post holes according to
their top and bottom elevations below the datum (Figure 18)
indicates that there were at least four separate elevation
levels from which groups of holes were dug, although these
are not always the same as were perceived during the
excavation. Comparing these elevations to the stratigraphic
profiles, it seems likely that all of the post holes, like the
"Black Zone," were confined to Layer 3, the zone containing
the largest masses of sand and numerous grave pits. How-
ever, none of the post holes had a recognizable association
with the Black Zone.
If the post holes are plotted on the excavation plan
according to their elevation levels, distinct arcs and linea-
tions result that strongly suggest segments of structural
features (Figure 16). The post-hole arc in the highest
(fourth) level (Figure 16a) indicates a structure approxi-
mately 3.8 m in diameter covering an area of about 11.3 m2.
The post-hole arc in the third level (Figure 16b) indicates a
structure approximately 3 m in diameter covering an area of

ExcAVATIows AT Ta o


1000 9 LV I2\

ROD &.WFaA ram

Table 8: Post-hole data (in inches)."
Post-hole Top
Designator Diameter
Al 6x8
A2 8
A3 6.5 x 7.5
A4 8 x 12
A6 8.5
A01 4
A02 6
A03 4
A04 5















Depth Top Below

8 64
20 64
24 64
11 64
5 64

ca. 72
73 d


ca. 82
ca. 82
ca. 82'
ca. 82 C




Bottom Below


Comments on
Post-hole Fill

white sand
gray sand
gray sand

brown sand
white sand
gray sand
brown sand encircled by white sand

brown sand encircled by white sand




ca. 90
ca. 90
ca. 90
ca. 90




white sand
brown sand
brown sand
white sand w/occas. small snail


brown "dirt," some small snails

brown sand, some white

brown sand, some white

white sand

white sand

* Inches retained to maintain integrity of primary field documentation.
b A5 and PHI both at the same location and might be the same hole. Bullen noted the PH series were not at higher elevations than 80" below
datum, so it is likely he saw two separate post holes that happened to be at the same horizontal location but different elevations. No data
were noted for A5 other than the "A" series were all about 64" below datum.
C Top of hole removed by dragline.
d The depth ofA06 was noted as 77" but was plotted as 73" on the field profile between grid stakes 2C-3C; the profile was used here.
* This measurement was not labeled in the notes as referring to the top or bottom; from the context it is inferred to be the top.

1~~~,~ I(-~rm~~IY~MCC

Post holes

111 11 111 111111b 31 11 Cc

(Relative elevation
of the Black Zone)

--- ----- I--------- --------- Level 4
S ---- - ----- ----- --- --- --- -- -- ------ Level 3

S1.m) 7 ------- --- --- eve/2
------------ --- -- --------------- Leel

E so90-
UO (Relative elevation range
of the top of the large
grave pit)
110" Post-hole order from left to right
(2.8m) approximates a north-south
transact (see Figure 16).

Figure 18. Post holes by depth level within Layer 3.

1999 VOL 52 (31


7.1 m2. Both of these struc-
tures, as well as the post-hole
dimensions, are similar in size
to the apparent Middle Archaic
domestic structures at Horr's
Island (Russo 1994:98-99, Fig-
ure 4). The shapes and sizes of
structures in the second level
were not able to be determined
(Figure 16c). The lowest post-
hole level contained two recti-
linear structural segments (Fig-
ure 16d), one of which may rep-
resent an enclosure of the large
grave pit by a fence, shelter, or
building. The adjacent legs of
these two segments measure >.3
m by>.9 m and >1.5 m by>1.8
m respectively.

The Burials

The first question to address
is whether there is any likeli-
hood that the Mt. Taylor mound burials were intrusive from
a substantially later time such as the Orange Period or later
preceramic. This seems out of the question for Mortuaries A
and B. For intrusive interments to occur on that scale there
could hardly be any continuous stratification remaining
above Layer 3 in the burial areas. Probably the same
observation applies to the Layer 5 burials. Intrusiveness is
hard to judge for the five burials in Layers 7 and 8 because
the upper part of these layers was removed by the dragline.
The human osteology at the Harris Creek site has never
been studied, and only a few comments about them are
included in the field notes (Appendix B: Table B-2) and in
Adelaide Bullen's paper on treponemiasis (A. Bullen,
1972:166). Taken together, the Bullens observed healed
fractures, bone infections, and dental anomalies. In addition,
Ripley Bullen believed that at least four individuals suffered
apparently fatal projectile wounds. It probably is significant,
also, that among the casual mentioning in Bullen's field
notes of males, females, adults, adolescents, and children,
there is no mention of infant burials. The only infant noted
apparently was unborn as the bones were found within the
pelvic area of the mother (Burial 142). This suggests that
the absence of newborns and infants in the cemetery was not
a preservation problem. In addition to these general consid-
erations, there are data on the spatial arrangement of burials
in the mound, the relative abundance of burials in any single
interment episode, and on the different kinds of graves and
their contents.

Spatial Distribution

Although 184 individuals were documented in the field,
there were a great many more than this originally in the site.

re 19. Examples of bisected postholes.
W. W. Branton, the shell lease operator, estimated that he
had dug out a thousand skeletons from the Area D mound
(Porter 1961), a personal impression that can be translated
safely as "a lot." Francis Bushnell and possibly also Clar-
ence Moore both discovered numerous burials upon superfi-
cial excavation in the Area D mound. In the 1961 Mt.
Taylor mound investigation, innumerable additional skele-
tons were discovered but remained undocumented around
parts of the excavation periphery at the conclusion of
fieldwork. Moreover, because of the extensive prehistoric
disturbances in many areas of the cemetery, the probable
number of individuals excavated based on analysis of the
recovered skeletal parts undoubtedly would be different than
the field count.
Nevertheless, there is sufficient documentation to deter-
mine that in the Mt. Taylor mound, at least, the burials were
not just everywhere; the areas available for burial evidently
were circumscribed. Because it rarely was possible to detect
the tops of grave pits, it often was difficult to determine from
which ground level or construction layer a particular grave
pit originated. Taking account of the limited vertical thick-
ness occupied by most skeletons and the evidence of bone
crushing from sediment loading, the arbitrary rule was
applied in this study that all pits were estimated to originate
6 in (15 cm) higher than the elevation of the highest bones
as reported in the field notes unless they were documented to
the contrary. This arbitrary rule may have created some
incorrect associations.
The majority of graves, nearly 80%, was estimated to
originate in Layers 3 and 4 of the Mt. Taylor mound. The
few originating in Layers 5, 7, and 8 may indicate an
occasional isolated interment. Alternatively, since Layers 5
and 8 immediately overlie Layer 4, and since no burials were


A B C Mortuary B (Layer 4) N
-- e 4 (mag.)

Filled dragline pit
t (see Figure 6)

I .*'.".

Approximate top edge of quarry pit A
I *, *\X

30 = multiple burial & O VAr0- 0
number of individuals ("THE
0 10 20
feet These burials in profile
0 3 6 trench only; grid units

were not excavated.

Figure 20. Burial locations associated with Mortuary B (Layer 4). The solid dots are the plotted skull locations.


Other Burial Locations


Filled dragline pit
(see Figure 6)

Approximate top edge of quarry pit


5,7,8,?* = Grave associated with
Layer 5, 7, or 8; ? = layer
association is unknown;
location of 11 additional graves
is not known.

I \
These burials in profile
trench only; grid units
were not excavated.

Figure 21. Burial locations associated with Layers 5,7, and 8, and burials whose layer associations were unrecorded. The solid dots are the plotted skull locations.

0 10 20
0 3 6


in other layers except for one definitely originating from
within Layer 7, the possibility also may be that the Layer 5
and 8 burials are artifacts of the arbitrary grave-pit associa-
tion rule described above. In any event, the mortuary ritual
associations with Layers 3 and 4 are very strong (78 and 67
burials, respectively), while the associations with the other
layers appear minimal.
Layer 3. The burials of Mortuary A appear to be posi-
tioned on the north and east slopes of the Mt. Taylor mound;
that is, the graves were not on the summit platform or west
(front) slope of the mound and may have been intentionally
placed out of the way of other activities (cf Figure 1 Ib).
Also, the burial plan for Mortuary A (Figure 17) shows fewer
individuals west of the postholes and Black Zone and more
to the north. The reduced density to the east in grid square
3B-4C, was a result of not excavating deeper there than 5 ft
(1.5 m) below datum so that little of Layer 3 was reached.
Within this roughly defined area, the burial density was quite
high, being about one grave per 6.9 ft2 (.6 m2). If there had
been a similar concentration of burials on the south and west
(front) sides of the Mt. Taylor mound as there was on the
north end, some of these should have appeared in the pond
profile trench. This localization as well as the extremely
frequent disruption of early graves by later graves (nearly
40% of Layer 3 graves were prehistorically disturbed)
implies that there was a designated space in which burials
were to be placed. The absence in Layer 3 of any burials
above the large grave pit (cf. Figure 17) that contained 11
individuals, as well as the apparent rectilinear fence or
building around this grave (Figure 16d), further reinforces
the interpretation that prehistoric concepts of spatial struc-

Figure 22. Burial 58 cluster of crowded grave pits with at least
skeleton farthest right is an example of the common "vertic
pushed onto the chest.

ture and boundaries were in use.
Layer 4. The burials of Mortuary B were placed essen-
tially in the same locations as those of Mortuary A; i.e., in
the north slope and the east (rear) slope of the mound (Figure
20). The density was similar to Mortuary A at one grave per
7.6 ft2 (.7 m2). Unlike Mortuary A, there were no unusual
features such as large grave pits, large white sand masses,
black zones, or post-hole structures. For the most part,
Mortuary B consisted of many flexed burials placed in small
grave pits in the Layer 4 fill, the latter being generally a
mixture of small snail shells and brown sandy matrix.
Again, the frequent disturbance of early graves by later
graves (over 40%, see Table 2) implies that space for
interment was limited to a designated area.
Layers 5, 7, and 8. It was noted previously that the
assignment of grave pits to these layers may be an artifact of
the analytical procedure. If the graves are correctly associ-
ated with these layers they still are few (13) in number (cf.
Table 2), although similarly distributed to Mortuaries A and
B (Figure 21). Some possible explanations for this decline
in mortuary use are: 1) most people were buried elsewhere
with only a few entitled to burial in the Mt. Taylor mound;
2) a reduction in population of the group associated with the
mound; or 3) the layers were constructed more frequently
than previously thereby diluting the density of burials in any
one layer.

Interment Frequency

Twenty-one graves were recorded in the field as contain-
ing multiple individuals (see Table 2; Appendix B: Table B-
1); most of these were small,
involving 2 or 3 persons. In
addition, Bullen recorded his
impression that numerous inter-
ments were simultaneous, and
possibly indicated the emptying
of a charnel house (R. Bullen
1962:479), citing the Black
Zone and post-holes as evidence
that there might have been such
a structure. Evidence for a
charnel structure will be re-
viewed further in the following
Undoubtedly some burials
really were multiples; other
groups may not have been since
this association was difficult to
recognize in the field. The de-
termination was based largely
on proximity and whether the
included skeletons were com-
plete and essentially undis-
turbed. The most convincing
six skeletons visible; the
ai" burial with the head pairs were those separated verti-
cally by a thin deposit of sand



IIA L nm AwYruununuV VYurn' 199 V-. 9 2 Eli

(e.g., Burials 17 and 18). Three of the multiple graves were
possible "group interments," as Bullen called them. The
clearest and most unequivocal group interment was the large
grave pit dug from the bottom of Layer 3. This pit contained
11 individuals separated into two groups. Whether all 11
simultaneously died, or whether some were killed to accom-
pany another, or whether they just accumulated and then
were buried together is not known, but they almost certainly
were buried at about the same time.
The Burial 58 group (Appendix B: Tables B-1, B-2)
covered an area about 7.5 by 4 ft (2.3 by 1.2 m). Here Bullen
recorded his impression that there were "two or three tiers"
of graves with no substantial space between them. Fre-
quently the burials were in small pits with the heads pushed
forward, and there was much indication of scattered and
displaced bones indicating interments on different occasions
(Figure 22). We cannot reexamine what Bullen saw, but the
written descriptions and field photos look and read more like
many closely spaced, single-body, grave pits that often
intersected and disturbed similar earlier grave pits, rather
than a single, large, multiple grave.
The third possible group interment, in some ways more
spectacular than the others, was a bone mass some 3 by 3 ft
(.9 by .9 m) and about 1.5 ft (.4 m) in height northwest of
grid stake 3B. This was literally a pile of semi-articulated
body parts of four or more individuals, none complete.
Bullen described this as another mass burial, but it is difficult
to envision burying such a pile of anatomical odds and ends.
On the other hand, it is not difficult to envision a number of
closely spaced individual graves that became disassembled
when intersected by later graves.
Overall, it seems most likely there was one large multiple
interment (the large grave pit with 11 bodies), occasional 2-
to-3-person graves, and many single-person graves, with
later graves often intersecting earlier ones causing single as
well as articulated body parts to be displaced. An idea of
how long it would take bodies to decompose to the point that
this displacement could occur can be had from research in
modern cemeteries in the western Pacific tropics. There,
"...burials in body-wrappers (such as mats...), which are not
watertight would have decomposed and totally skeletonised
within...5 years. Bones, including the vertebral column can
be pulled apart after 40 months, but may need cleaning from
adhering ligaments..." (Spenneman and Franke 1995:71). In
the warm and wet temperate to subtropical St. Johns River
Valley, decomposition might not have been quite so rapid,
but this at least gives an order of magnitude for when new
grave pits intersecting older burials might have displaced
semi-articulated parts. If an interval longer than 3 to 5 years
was more typical, the displacement might tend to be only of
individual bones. Another implication of a relatively short
decomposition period, and the probable surface collapse of
the shallow grave fill, is that the location of many previous
burials would still be evident. Thus, it can be inferred that
it was not a cultural or ritual problem for the living to disturb
graves interred only 3 to 5 years earlier.

Interment Types

Three physical aspects of the interments found at the
Harris Creek site are important to note: the grave-pit type,
the position of the body, and the artifacts placed in the grave.
There were several permutations of grave type varying
primarily in the degree of association with white sand and
fire, as well as the number of individuals.
Large, Multi-person Grave. As described earlier, there
was one large grave containing 11 bodies in two levels
(Figure 15). The lower level contained three possibly
secondary, or at least partly disarticulated, burials and the
upper one had eight tightly flexed bodies. Ritual for the
upper level of skeletons apparently involved fire (the level
was mixed with charcoal). The grave also may have con-
tained food (snail and mussel shells were in the bottom of the
pit). The pit was filled and mounded over with white sand
and it may have been enclosed with a fence or building.
1-, 2-, or 3-Person Graves. Three interment variations
were found among these smaller graves: 1) a fire was built
in the grave bottom followed by interment of the body, and
then the grave was filled completely with white sand; 2) the
body was placed in the grave pit and covered over with a
layer of white sand, including between multiple bodies when
these occurred, with the remainder of the pit filled with
midden material; 3) the body was placed in the grave pit and
the pit then was filled with midden material.
There are no great differences between Mortuaries A and
B in terms of the individual characteristics describing the
position of the body in a grave (Table 2). Mortuary A (Layer
3) burials are slightly more frequent on the right or left side,
are slightly more oriented to the southwest, and have slightly
fewer prehistoric disturbances than burials in Mortuary B
(Layer 4). The data, when grouped for all burials in the
mound, indicate that 98% were flexed, with the remainder
consisting of one extended and two secondary bundle burials.
Of the flexed burials, 60%/ were "vertical" and 38% were on
the right or left side (see Appendix B for an explanation of
burial descriptive terminology).
There may be a relationship between kind of flexing and
pre-burial processing of the body. The fact that some of the
bones in tightly flexed burials placed in grave pits over small
fires or hot coals were lightly burned suggests that these were
individuals that may have been stored above ground for a
sufficient time to dehydrate and partially deflesh the bodies.
Further, it was recorded in the field notes that vertical burials
were tightly to very tightly flexed, while those that were
horizontal on the right or left side tended to be loosely
flexed. This suggests that the horizontally flexed bodies
were buried soon after death, while the vertical burials were
interred after an extended period above ground.
Over half of the recorded bodies were oriented to the
south/southwest/west and a third were oriented to the
north/northeast/east. Overall, 91% of the bodies were
oriented along a more or less northeast-southwest axis,
reflecting the similar orientation of the Mt. Taylor mound
and the Black Zone. "Interment types" of the 13 burials

THE FmamA AKmRovo t

9 991 Va 52 (3)



from Layers 5, 7, and 8 seem similar to those from Layers 3
and 4. Although some grave pits had fire or hot coals in
them and some bones were lightly burned, these fires
probably were not meant for cremation, and, as noted earlier,
they are interpreted here as representing a ritual activity.

Finally, there is the association of artifacts with burials
(Tables 2 and 5). Most of the burials with artifacts were in
Mortuary B (Layer 4). Given the degree of uncertainty in
assigning specific graves to layers, it is possible that the
burials with artifacts in Layers 3, 5, and 8 were actually from
Layer 4. Only 11% of the site’s burials may have had
artifacts placed in the graves, and just a few of these were in
a convincing association with a specific burial. However,
given the crowding and numerous prehistoric disturbances
from digging later grave pits, it is not implausible that most
of the artifacts found in the Mt. Taylor strata, except perhaps
the shell artifacts, originally were placed with graves. There
was little diversity in the kinds of artifacts found with or
near burials. They include bone pins/fasteners, needles, and
tubular beads; an antler clasp ornament and flesher; projec-
tile point/knives; ochre; one of the shell cutting-edge Type X
tools; and finally the miniature shell celt and miniature
adze/gouge. Most of these have a plausible place in the
grave: pins to fasten burial wrappings; needles, antler clasp
hair(?) ornament, and tubular beads for ornamentation; the
miniature celt and adze/gouge as well as ocherous sandstone
for symbolic purposes; and finally the projectile point/knives
either as the cause of death or as tools placed with inter-
ments. The only really ambiguous items are the Busycon
Type X cutting-edge tool and the antler flesher. Also, in
Layer 8, there was one individual with what may have been
deer antlers in front of the forehead; these were too deterio-
rated to recover and positively identify.

In Mortuary B (Layer 4), there were two individuals with
projectile points in the body cavity and Bullen considered
these as probably having been lethal. One of these skeletons,
Burial 94, was headless; this could have been lost as a trophy
head in prehistoric warfare, or it may have been displaced in
the many prehistoric cemetery disturbances. The projectile
point was found jutting out the back over a vertebra at the
bottom of the ribs. The other skeleton, Burial 110, had a
projectile point pointing inward from the front and down-
ward into the pelvic area. Among the burials whose proveni-
ence was not recorded, two individuals had associated
projectile points with the stems broken off; the first was in
the pelvic area of the body cavity (Burial 97), and the other
(Burial 101A) was adjacent to the upper left body which, in
both cases, Bullen also considered to have been lethal.

A drawback to analyzing the burials here is in tracking
single variables, an approach which produces limited results
about the structure of mortuary ritual. But given the abun-
dance of occurrences with “no data” (Table 2), there seems
little point in trying anything complex until there are
demographic data on the burials to provide a more stable
framework for analysis.

Despite the limitations, it is possible to draw some
preliminary conclusions. Recall first that evidence from

radiocarbon dating strongly suggests a relatively short time
period during which Mortuaries A and B were used —
perhaps as little as a century or two. The two mortuary
layers, though quite different in some respects, are alike in
others: both cemeteries were confined to similar places on
the Mt. Taylor mound and it seems likely neither contained
infants or newborns. Mortuary A, though, contains several
different grave types, structures, and the remains of a large
ambiguous feature containing some evidence of fire, mid-
den(?), and partially decomposed organic material — possibly
the remains of a feast (or feasts) for the dead. Mortuary B
contains none of these features except for simple grave pits.
On the other hand, Mortuary A graves contained very few
associated burial artifacts while Mortuary B contained
relatively more (Table 5). Among the few interments in
higher layers there was an individual who may have had
some sort of antler headgear(?) and one with some bone pins
in the head and neck area. The possible antler headgear is
reminiscent of the antler artifact found at the similarly aged
Bay West site (Beriault et al. 1981:47) and of carved wooden
antlers found at the much later Ft. Center site (Sears
1982:55). Taken together, evidence in Mortuary A suggests
a variety of corpse-disposal rituals. In Mortuary B and later,
disposal was simpler, more uniform, and contained preserv-
able grave artifacts more often than in Mortuary A.

Finally, four burials may have contained evidence of
prehistoric warfare. There were two possible homicide
victims associated with Mortuary B (Burials 94 and 110),
both of whom apparently were wounded from the front; one
of these (Burial 94) may have been interred headless.” Two
unprovenienced burials (Burials 97 and 101A) also contained
projectile points within or very close to the upper body and
may have been homicide victims also; one (Burial 97) was
wounded from behind while the wound of the other was not

The Regional Setting

The central St. John’s River Valley of six millennia ago
was a relatively populous quarter. Many large fresh-water
shell sites once existed dating to that time (Goggin 1952:41),
including several in the Tick Island vicinity. Mt. Taylor
Period components in this region have been dated at Ocala
National Forest Midden 2 (4200-5100 B.P. [Bullen and
Bryant 1955:23]),'° Harris Creek (5000-5500 B.P. [Table 4,
this paper]), and Groves’ Orange Midden upriver on Lake
Monroe (4000-6300 B.P. [McGee and Wheeler 1994:342;
Purdy 1994]). At De Leon Springs, only 10 km from the
Harris Creek site, dugout canoes dating to 5140 B.P. and to
about 6000 B.P. (Purdy 1991:267-8; personal communica-
tion, 1998) offer further evidence of Middle Archaic use of
this newly forming and extensively aquatic terrain.

Elsewhere, recently discovered Mt. Taylor sites at the
mouth of the St. Johns River have been dated to 3700-5200
B.P. (Russo 1992:110), and the Tomoka Mounds and

9 991 Vot 52 (3)

176g THE FOEAa _Ur0AGS

Midden northeast of Tick Island on the Atlantic coast are at
least partially dated to the late 5th millennium B.P. (Piatek
1992:333, 1994). These dated sites confirm that the Mt.
Taylor culture was widespread in northeast Florida between
3700 to 6300 B.P. (uncalibrated). This expanse of Mt.
Taylor archaeological sites and their contents reflects use of
coastal and estuarine food and material resources as well as
those of the interior freshwater habitats.
Whether the expanding floodplain environment of this
time enabled absolute increases in the indigenous human
population, or instead concentrated people drawn from
adjacent upland regions, is not known. Nevertheless, this
was a time in which diversification of subsistence was
underway (c Stoltman and Baerreis 1983:255) and substan-
tial numbers of people living in the floodplain seems likely.
Whether this was a seasonal residence (Milanich 1994:82-
92) or year-round (Russo et al. 1992) is an issue currently
under examination. Although the functional relationship of
coastal sites to riverine sites is not yet clear, marine shells of
numerous species are commonly found in the riverine Mt.
Taylor Period sites, including Harris Creek, indicating either
trade or periodic trips to the nearby coast. The 1961 Harris
Creek excavation, however, extends the picture ofMt. Taylor
culture beyond settlement and subsistence activity into the
realms of warfare, mortuary and possibly non-mortuary
ceremonials, and platform-mound construction. A question
that cannot be answered by this investigation is whether
these activities were conducted at the Harris Creek site only
by local residents, or was the site a ceremonial center
drawing people from a larger area.

Other Mt. Taylor-period Mortuary Sites

There are no other recorded sites in the central St. Johns
Valley with clearly similar physical evidence to which Harris
Creek can be compared. However, Ripley Bullen (1962:480)
noted that Clarence Moore's description of the Orange
Mound sounds suspiciously similar. Orange Mound was
located on the St. John's River south of Lake Harney in
Orange County about 95 km upstream from Harris Creek
(Figure 1). It was investigated by Moore in 1892 and 1893
(Moore 1893:615-623), and it is only from his published
work that any information is available.
Orange Mound was crescent-shaped, 560 ft long (171 m),
and a maximum of 260 ft wide (79 m). Like the Mt. Taylor
Period mound at Harris Creek, Orange Mound was oriented
north-south. It had a height of 14 ft (4.3 m) at its highest
point, and it was here that Moore chose to dig. Down to a
depth of 4.5 ft (1.4 m) he dug through large snail shells and
sand that contained many hearths and animal bones. Fiber-
tempered plain and incised pottery were present that "
sembled the pottery of the shell ridges at Tick Island..."
(Moore 1893:616), which was his term for the Harris Creek
Below these apparent midden/domestic activity deposits
containing ceramics Moore passed through a layer about 1.5
ft (.4 m) thick of brown sand and shell. In this deposit, one

skeleton was found in an extended position, on its left side,
and with the head-end of the body oriented south-southwest,
one of the most common orientations at Harris Creek,
although extended burials there were very rare. Close to this
burial Moore found another that was a secondary burial with
skull and vertebrae underneath the bundled long bones. This
is a somewhat unusual bundle arrangement, but again it is
similar to the one unequivocal bundle at Harris Creek (Burial
49, Appendix B: Table B-2).
Continuing down below these bones was a layer of"pure
white sand" also about 1.5 ft (.4 m) thick at maximum but
thinning in some directions and pinching out entirely in
another. Moore did not mention finding any burials in this
layer, but the white sand as reported was of a similar size to
the large white sand mass in Layer 3 at Harris Creek. Below
the white sand deposit were 2 ft (.6 m) more of mixed shell,
crushed shell, and brown sand. Then, at a depth of 8 ft (2.4
m), apparently in the same mixed midden and domestic
activity deposits, additional burials were found. Below these
bones was more midden/domestic debris, but no further
human bones were encountered.
Moore only dug a 12.5 by 8 ft (3.8 by 2.4 m) area that
gradually converged as a depth of 15 ft (4.6 m) was finally
reached. In such a small area evidence of platform-mound
construction, if present, probably would not have been
recognized. This is skimpy evidence for comparative
analysis, and Moore, in fact, reviewed the Orange Mound in
relation to the large sand burial mound (8VO25) at the Tick
Island site now thought to be of St. Johns I Period age. But
since it is unlikely that the Mt. Taylor mound at Harris Creek
would have no similarities to other sites in the St. Johns
Valley, comparisons should be sought. The similarities

1) Both sites were situated in essentially the same natural
landscape, were comprised of shell midden material, and
may have shared similar resource exploitation patterns.
2) Both mounds shared a north-south orientation.
3) The mortuaries in both mounds date prior to Orange
Period fiber-tempered pottery.
4) The unusual bundle burial arrangement at Orange
Mound, as well as an extended burial, also were found at
Harris Creek.
5) The use of white sand to create a small, localized sand
dome at Orange Mound may be similar to the sand area
that was mounded over the large grave pit at Harris
6) At both sites, the white sand layer and burials were
succeeded by a brown sand-and-shell layer that also
contained burials.

The apparent differences between the sites are that no
burials were found in the small area of white sand excavated
at Orange Mound and, unlike Orange Mound, no burials
were found below the white sand (Layer 3) at Harris Creek,
although excavation at the latter did not extend far into
Layer 2. On the whole, this comparison suggests a possibil-



ity that the Harris Creek site and Orange Mound together
may represent parts of an interment procedure in use in the
central St. Johns Valley during some part of the early Mt.
Taylor Period.
Another level of comparison is possible at the apparently
late Mt. Taylor occupation recognized at the Tomoka
Mounds and Midden located about 50 km northeast of Tick
Island on the mainland side of the coastal lagoon (Piatek
1992, 1994). At this site, a Mt. Taylor artifact assemblage
was found in village refuse and in burial mounds. Only one
radiocarbon date has been published (ca. 4000-4100 B.P.)
from a midden underneath one of the burial mounds.
Artifacts (i.e., several bannerstones) from the mounds
indicate that they too are Mt. Taylor constructions. The
significance of this site for Harris Creek is that it may
document a succeeding phase in the changing mortuary
ritual in this region. Although little is known of the mortu-
ary activity at Tomoka Mounds, the following probably can
be presented as elements of a working hypothesis:

1) By a thousand years after cessation in use of the
Harris Creek and possibly the Orange Mound cemeteries,
interment was in sand-and-shell burial mounds ofvarying
2) Although the Tomoka mortuary ritual has not yet been
documented, two caches of bannerstones have been
reported, features not reported at either Harris Creek or
Orange Mound.
3) The Tomoka site consisted of 7 to 9 mounds that are
reported to range from 4 to 14 ft (4.3 m) in height,
indicating the possible existence of a large mortuary or
ceremonial center.

There are few other apparent instances of similarities or
relationships to the Mt. Taylor mound at the Harris Creek
site elsewhere in the region. At the Osceola Mound, not far
upstream from Tick Island, Jeffries Wyman uncovered two
"mingled" skeletons, one with "sawing" on a femur (Goggin
1952:43), possibly indicating pre-burial processing of the
body. At the Republic Groves site, much farther south but
containing artifacts reminiscent of a Mt. Taylor assemblage,
"A thin white-sand lens was uncovered in two separate
locations, and both appeared to cover human interments.
One of these features measured five feet across and appeared
to have covered the remains of two or more individuals. The
other lens..., although only partially uncovered... appeared to
form a mounded contour" (Wharton et al. 1981:76). This
situation is vaguely suggestive of the approximately contem-
poraneous Mortuary A (Layer 3) at Harris Creek.
At the Gauthier site, located in the headwaters of the St.
Johns River Basin, a large cemetery was found there to be in
use during the late Mt. Taylor Period and continuing for
about 3 millennia (Carr and Jones 1981; Sigler-Eisenberg
1988:300; Milanich 1994:83-84). Little information is
available about mortuary ritual, but the artifacts are similar
to the excavated Harris Creek Mt. Taylor assemblage,
including the use of antler as a hair ornament or clasp.

Mound Construction History

The Mt. Taylor mound at Harris Creek now can be added
to this emerging view of the regional distribution and
evolution of Mt. Taylor-period archaeological sites. The
Harris Creek site consisted of four major sections (Figures 2
and 3). Area D, the fourth and largest section, probably was
initiated during the Mt. Taylor Period but continued into the
Orange and St. Johns I and II periods. Ripley Bullen's 1961
excavation in a very small part of the Area D lobe led to the
discovery of the Mt. Taylor mound, a relatively low platform
that ultimately attained a height of more than 2.1 m above
the general surface. A key issue is the implication that this
discovery has regarding the question of ceremonial mound
building; was this a village mound that came to have burials
in it, or was it constructed and periodically enlarged as a
ceremonial mound that incidentally acquired some domestic
refuse? A review of the evidence supports the latter conclu-
Layer 2 probably was the initial phase of mound building.
Layer 3, which included the first burial interment, appears to
have begun ca. 5500 B.P. (uncalibrated). At this time a
variety of archaeologically visible ritual activities were
performed and these apparently were confined to the east
(rear) and north sides of the mound. Layer 4 is similar to
Layer 3; it was draped over the entire mound raising it and
enlarging its length and width slightly. By this time, the
mound summit was a fairly large platform. After at least
some of these deposits had accumulated, the second mortuary
phase began. However, it is notably different from Layer 3
in that it contains fewer ritual features that are archaeologi-
cally visible. The mortuary areas appear still to have been
confined to the slopes on the north end and the east or rear
Layer 5 appears to have been primarily an addition to the
east (rear) side of the Layer 4 mound. It did not raise the
maximum height but it did expand the mound's footprint (in
the architectural sense) so that it was wider with a larger
platform surface. A few burials may have originated from
Layer 5. Layer 6 was primarily an addition to the east side
on top of Layer 5, although this addition did raise the
mound's height again, as well as continuing to enlarge the
width. By this time, the mound platform was 1.8 m above
the off-mound area, and the eastern slope continued to be
steep suggesting that the mound still was a west-facing
structure. No mortuary features were discovered in Layer 6.
Layer 7 raised the platform again and widened the mound
more in the easterly direction. One grave pit may have
originated from this layer.
Sometime after the construction of Layer 7, it appears that
at least the northern end of the west (front) side of the mound
was prehistorically excavated to create a lower platform and
an upper platform separated by an approximately 45-degree
slope. Not much of this feature is preserved, so its nature
can only be speculated about, but it is clear that enlargement
ofthe upper platform subsequently continued with deposition
of Layer 8. Layers 7 and 8 are dated to between 5000 and

17* I F n19"- Vrn 52 Ii

5300 B.P. Four burial pits may have originated from Layer
The Mt. Taylor mound may have existed as a discrete
structure throughout the Orange Period even though no
construction dating that late was recorded. However, during
the St. Johns I Period, Layer 9, a black organic clay called
the "muck" layer, overlapped the southwest end of the
mound up to and including the Layer 7 addition. As noted
earlier, such materials have ritual significance in Middle
Woodland mortuary mounds in the Midwest (Hall 1997:18)
and may be more than mere construction material as used
The mound's form (low, elliptical, flat-topped, steep side
to the east, extended slope to the west) remained consistent
throughout the Mt. Taylor Period (Figure 11). Its long axis
was always oriented very close to north-south, suggesting
that either an east-west or a north-south orientation, or both,
had special significance to the Mt. Taylor people. By the
time of Layer 6, the Mt. Taylor mound had grown to a length
and width of about 43 m by 25 m with a summit platform
area of approximately 265 m2 and a little less than 2 m
elevation. These dimensions are consistent also with the
mound sizes at both Tomoka and Horr's Island. Mortuary
evidence for ranking in the Harris Creek community, to be
discussed shortly, suggests that the social structure may have
been available that would facilitate organizing the commu-
nity to accomplish a collective action, such as building a
mound and using it in a certain way.
Taken together, these construction and use circumstances
suggest that the Mt. Taylor mound was indeed initiated for
the purpose of building a raised platform for communal
activities. This plan may or may not have initially envi-
sioned mortuary use, but once started the interment aspect of
communal activity was kept in the "background," i.e., on the
sides and rear of the mound, not on its summit. While it is
possible the summit platform was used at times for domestic
purposes (possibly only for individuals or families of special
status), reshaping the front slope in the interval between
Layer 7 and Layer 8 reinforces the impression that this
mound was not simply an enlarging heap of Archaic village
refuse, but rather one that was maintained by the community
for certain purposes.
The construction history of the Mt. Taylor mound also
offers hints for the history of the overlying Area D mound.
It seems odd that the small Mt. Taylor mound is so far off
center from the final Area D mound structure (Figure 2),
leading to speculation that there may also have been another
early mound located slightly to the west (cf. the site plan at
Horr's Island in Russo 1994: 98). If there were two concur-
rently existing mounds, these at one time could have served
moieties or other subdivisions of a large residential group.
Subsequently, the intervening space between the two small
mounds was filled and raised until there was a single
mounded surface. Since a St. Johns Check Stamped sherd
was found in Layer 10 deposits, this covering of the early
mound(s) and raising of the large Area D mound may not
have begun until the St. Johns II Period. Of course, there

may have been no such Mt. Taylor mound duality, but the
off-center early mound invites these questions for future

Mortuary Ritual

Evidence of mortuary practices in peninsular Florida
includes a long-persisting tradition to the south involving
submerged interment offlexed bodies in ponds, marshes, and
swamps that has been documented from the Early Archaic to
about 5000 B.P. at Windover, Bay West, Little Salt Springs,
and Republic Groves (Milanich 1994:63-84; Purdy 1991).
Whether this subaqueous practice characterized east central
Florida as well, or was confined to south Florida, is not
known. However, by 5000 B.P. (calibrated dates would place
this closer to 6000 B.P.), with Harris Creek and possibly
Orange Mound as early examples, mortuary ritual in the
central St. Johns Valley was in terrestrial locations, taking
place in specially prepared places (e.g., white sand deposits)
in at least one low platform mound.
If in the larger geographic context, a shift was underway
in peninsular Florida during the Middle Archaic, from
subaqueous burials to interments in terrestrial contexts
(Milanich 1994:84; Purdy 1988:330), the matter of why this
occurred, whether as a response to environmental or to social
stresses, may be the prime mover behind all of the mortuary
ritual variations seen at the Mt. Taylor mound. At its
simplest level, we may assume that the aboriginal test for an
effective mortuary ritual was whether the aspects of life that
were believed to be affected by spirits of the dead were
satisfactory. Taken from this perspective, significant stresses
of some sort may have existed at that time since Mortuary A
(Layer 3) appears to be a time of experimentation and
redefinition of mortuary ritual. This ritual had stabilized
somewhat by and during the time of Mortuary B (Layer 4).
Change happened again, subsequent to Layer 4, since the
major locus of mortuary ritual obviously had moved else-
where. Ultimately, mortuary ritual for the Mt. Taylor culture
reappeared in the burial-mound format seen at Tomoka
Mounds and the non-mound cemetery format seen at the
Gauthier site (Milanich 1994:83).
The reason for this transition is unclear. Evidence has not
yet been found for possible social factors, although the
limited indications of primitive warfare could be one effect
of social stresses. The Middle Archaic transition in mortuary
ritual was approximately contemporaneous with identified
environmental stresses, such as the peak intensity of
hypsithermal conditions (i.e., drier, hotter, oak woodland and
prairie habitats) shifting to more contemporary conditions of
pine woodlands and swamps with more humid and cooler
climate (Watts and Hansen 1988). But currently it cannot be
shown whether this environmental transition created suffi-
ciently unstable living conditions, including uncertainty in
resource extraction, to cause, among other things, a restruc-
turing of the native cognitive and ritual framework.
Whatever the larger constraints and pressures may have
been, adjustment of the local details of mortuary practices


9 991 Vol S2 (3)


ATEN L_.LAVAImanI Al 3nk aAf rw *

involved complex social activities with proportionally few
archaeologically observable elements. This has been cleverly
described as an inverse black-box problem; that is, the corpse
disposal is observable, while the social inputs and outputs to
and from this act are not (Bartel 1982:54). Nevertheless, at
Harris Creek there appears to be archaeological evidence of
some inputs (i.e., community practices) pertaining to: 1)
status and rank, 2) procedures for dealing with spirits, 3)
preparing the body for burial, 4) possible feasts for the dead,
5) selecting the appropriate grave type, and 6) different
perceptions about recently dead versus long dead individuals
(cf Metcalf and Huntington 1991:79ff).
Rank and Status. Ethnographic studies have found that
rituals employed through the entire sequence of mortuary
practice dying, death itself, storing and/or preparing the
body for burial, the burial, and post-burial mourning have
substantial redundancy insofar as indicating social placement
of the deceased individual. Thus, it is reasonable to make
the assumption that archaeologically visible practices may be
sufficient to indicate at least the relative social status of the
buried individual (Bartel 1982:55). Numerous alternative
burial practices were observed within and between Mortuar-
ies A and B, and rank or status presumably has something to
do with some of them. In Mortuary A, there was the large
grave pit with two groups of multiple individuals, smaller
graves with white sand and/or a ritual fire in them, some
individuals apparently buried immediately (i.e., the extended
and the loosely flexed burials), and a similar number of
individuals whose bodies were dried and stored before
interment (i.e., thetightly flexed, vertical burials). The large
grave pit in Mortuary A was so unusual that it also suggests
an important difference in social rank. Likewise using white
sand and ritual fire in graves was relatively uncommon and
suggests that only a few people could qualify for this treat-
ment. Numerous persons received either charnel processing
or immediate burial and those basic differences may indicate
corporate group membership or other common social status.
In Mortuary B, there were not as many apparent alterna-
tives. Charnel processing versus immediate burial continued
as the primary body-disposal choice, although significantly
more individuals were placed in charnel storage than were
buried immediately. If the large grave pit and "white
sand/fire in the grave" practices observed in Mortuary A
marked the burials of individuals who possessed particular
status in life, then there is no indication of what became of
these particular-status individuals or their ritual during the
time encompassed by Mortuary B. The increased number of
artifacts that accompanied some burials in Mortuary B, while
modest, may have substituted as status indicators for some of
the same grave types that were employed in Mortuary A.
Alternatively, either high-status individuals no longer
existed, they were interred elsewhere, or the mortuary-status
indicators were not preservable. Again, there are ethno-
graphic instances in which the status of very important
individuals was indicated by archaeologically invisible
artifacts and ritual (Metcalfand Huntington 1991:16), so this
status "disappearance" in Mortuary B is not necessarily real.

Finally, as noted earlier, there apparently were no infants
or very young children buried in this site; those bodies were
either buried elsewhere or, possibly, were discarded. Burial
in the two mortuary layers evidently was reserved for
individuals of at least a few years into childhood possibly
indicating that ritual was reserved for individuals old enough
to have attained a role and status within the community (cf.
D. Bushnell 1920:113).
There may well be other explanations for the mortuary
practices that were observed at Harris Creek. Unfortunately,
the inconsistency in burial documentation combined with the
absence of demographic information makes dwelling on this
line of analysis highly speculative. Information on the
skeletal sample's age, sex, pathologies, and evidence ofpre-
burial processing (e.g., as seen in bone condition) is essential
as a basis for organizing the ritual data. At this time, we can
only note that upon the death of an adolescent or adult
individual, one of several mortuary practices might be
followed, possibly depending on rank in some instances, and
on other status factors in most instances. Similar kinds of
status indicators were found at the Gauthier site (Widmer
1988:67). However, once a "qualified" individual entered
the mortuary-ritual process, people in the family or commu-
nity group evidently began to implement the sequence of
actions that were appropriate for the soul and spirit of the
particular deceased person (cf. Hall 1997).
Spirits. Correct behavior toward spirits is central to
mortuary ritual, but without access to direct knowledge it is
difficult to see more than vague reflections of probable
responses to the perception of spirits by Middle Archaic
natives 5 to 6000 years ago. This is not a data set suitable
for detailed investigation or reconstruction of the complex
relationship of spirits to behavior (cf. Hall 1997; Metcalfand
Huntington 1991). Here I will just touch on some major
features that seem to be evident in the data from the Mt.
Taylor mound. Spirits seem to be reflected at this site in four
ways: 1) in the general shift that may have occurred in
beliefs relating to the transition from water to land burial; 2)
in the storage of tightly flexed bodies for a time prior to
interment, to be described in the next section on "Body
Preparation;" 3) in the preparation of the grave itself as
described below in the section titled "Burial;" and 4) in the
implications of burial disturbance for "the near dead" versus
"the long dead" described later in the section bearing that
Regarding the first reflection of spirits, if we continue to
accept, as a working hypothesis, that burial underwater was
the principal disposal method for thousands of years on the
Florida peninsula (Milanich 1994:84), it has been suggested
that this was to employ the water barrier to protect against
spirits of the dead (Beriault et al. 1981:55). This is an
interesting interpretation that illustrates the possible explana-
tion of vestigial practices carried on as traditions and that
may have otherwise inexplicable associations (cf Hall 1997).
For example, when describing the placement of the mid-first
millennium A.D. charnel platform over an artificial pond
adjacent to the mortuary-ritual platform mound at Fort

I'.. nun.. Armflnf n10 Vn. 71 l

Center, Sears (1982:165) commented: "The purpose of the
pond was to provide the culturally correct environment for a
charnel platform; evidently the water was a ceremonial
requirement." This relationship to water may have been a
vestige of traditional mortuary behavior retained from the
Early Archaic practice of submerged interments, although it
is an explanation not easily tested. Whatever was the belief
behind subaqueous burial, the terrestrial interments in the
Mt. Taylor mound at Harris Creek may represent an early
phase in the emergence of a very different approach to
coping with spirits of the dead.
Body Preparation. The best field evidence, at Harris
Creek, for above-ground body "processing," or at least
storage for a period of time before interment, is in associa-
tion with Mortuary A (Layer 3). There the few bodies placed
on a fire or bed of hot coals in their individual grave pits
show some scorching of the bone, a difficult matter unless
the body was dehydrated or partly defleshed. In addition,
roughly half of the burials in Layers 3 and 4 were very
tightly flexed and placed vertically in small-diameter holes
which likewise does not seem possible without prior dehydra-
tion and possibly defleshing.
It appears after all that some sort of charnel structure may
have been used at the cemetery for temporary storage of
corpses and possibly to protect them against scavengers. The
principal candidates for such use might be small buildings
like those implied by the post-hole patterns in Layer 3. How
often the structure would be emptied out and the accumulated
corpses buried is not known. Ethnographic studies record
many different ways this was done and, in fact, the commu-
nity could schedule such ritual whenever they believed it was
appropriate. But, as was indicated earlier, the interment of
bodies that were given this particular treatment probably
occurred many months after death (cf Metcalfand Hunting-
ton 1991:97).
The idea of keeping bundles of tightly wrapped, flexed
bodies and even secondary bone bundles in storage for a time
before their placement in graves calls to mind mortuary
ritual structured around the general lines of spirit-keeping
and spirit-release described by Hall (1997:24-31) for later
North American tribes. In these practices, something closely
associated with the deceased such as the tightly-wrapped
flexed bodies at the Mt. Taylor mound was kept as "soul
bundle" for a prescribed time culminated by burial or other
rites to release the deceased's soul for its journey to the spirit
world (Hall 1997:26). At the Mt. Taylor mound, such
treatment was not applied to all individuals, at least not in
the same way. Most burials were not placed on ritual fires
and many were not tightly flexed; these latter may not have
been stored in charnel structures at all, but instead appear to
have been primary interments buried shortly after death, a
practice that may have status implications as described
Feasts The large Black Zone, adjacent to the burial area
and containing shells, animal bone fragments, sand, and
apparently charcoal, or some other black residue, may have
been the location of a feast, possibly one for the dead. Ritual

feasting is another common practice recorded in ethno-
graphic studies (Hall 1997; Metcalf and Huntington
1991:96), and there were many ways in which this was
done, with variation in the timing, location, number of
bodies, significance of the ritual, and so on. Only one
possible feasting location was documented at the Mt. Taylor
mound, but very little of the mound's summit platform was
excavated and perhaps this is part of the answer to the
question "What was happening on the mound platform?"
This interpretation unfortunately will remain weak in the
absence of a sediment sample from the Black Zone to
examine in detail for evidence as to its origin. One possibil-
ity, suggested by Michael Russo (personal communication,
1997), is a ritual feast in which food was offered but little
was eaten. Repeatedly carried out, this might explain the
relative absence of charcoal but the presence of partially
decomposed plant and animal tissue that may be what gave
the deposit its dense, black appearance.
Burial. As described above, several combinations of
grave-pit contents, especially in Mortuary A (Layer 3) imply,
with or without charnel storage and with or without artifacts
in the grave, that there were several social statuses and
perhaps some hierarchy in Mt. Taylor communities. Unfor-
tunately, nothing in the grave contents suggests the identity
of these statuses (e.g., shaman, headman, superior hunter,
In addition to signifying status, the contents of some
graves suggest a transition period when the deceased individ-
ual was interred but their spirit had not yet gone; examples
are: 1) the possible inclusion of food in some graves, as
hinted at by the lenses of snail shells and mussel shells in
some grave pits; and 2) having small fires placed in grave
pits before placement of the body. This practice was done in
some societies as "...a final sterilization after bacterial
decomposition is completed" (Metcalf and Harrington
Near vs. Long Dead. The disturbance of so many graves
by later graves in the Mt. Taylor mound may be yet another
indication that a spiritual transformation was thought to
occur within a period of time after burial; i.e., it was essen-
tial to inter a corpse in the designated burial area and in
properly prepared graves, but it was all right to disrupt,
displace, and discard older skeletons, even ones with soft
tissues still partly intact. This must mean that a transforma-
tion was believed to take place between the time of burial and
some later time, during which the spirit of the dead one was
released and definitively departed from the vicinity (cf Hall
1997:24-31). This casual treatment of bones from earlier
graves is not unusual in ethnographic accounts and indicates
a "...transition from the recently dead to the long dead"
(Metcalf and Harrington 1991:103-106).


Ripley Bullen's excavation at the Harris Creek site
plumbed aspects of Mt. Taylor-period culture not seen before
or since. Although there are relatively few unequivocal

THE Roana ArmaoPo r

9 991 Voo 52 3


findings from his work, there is a stimulating abundance of
implications and questions to be pursued in future studies
even though, at this time, it is necessary to frame many of
them as speculation. While the documentation of 35 years
ago did not anticipate the relatively more complex questions
of today, revisiting the Harris Creek investigation is a
valuable heuristic exercise at identifying questions and
techniques in preparation for the next field opportunity.
What does the Mt. Taylor mound at Harris Creek appear to
tell us?
1) It further strengthens an estimate of the sixth millen-
nium B.P. as the beginning of a thriving and widespread
shell-mound Archaic culture and population in the St. Johns
River Valley.
2) It may record the existence of primitive warfare, with
several possible homicide victims, one of which might also
have been the victim oftrophy-head collection. Archaeologi-
cal evidence of primitive warfare usually appears most
unequivocally in burials. At the same time, a recent review
of such warfare has observed that it is most often rooted in
economic competition (Keeley 1996:176-177). Similarly,
recent studies note that primitive cemeteries very often are
symbols of claim to territory and resources (e.g., Pardoe
1988). And so a strong linkage likely binds together mortu-
ary ritual, cemeteries, economics, and primitive warfare that
may be exploited in future research opportunities.
3) The Middle Archaic may have been a time of mortuary
practice reorientation from subaqueous to terrestrial; there is
a need to identify the locus of mortuary ritual and corpse
disposal in the central St. Johns Valley before the time of
Mortuary A, after Mortuary B, and in the period up to the
practice of using true burial mounds, as may be the case at
the Tomoka Mounds, and of non-mound cemeteries like
4) The Middle Archaic also was a time of rapidly evolving
mortuary ritual with several burial modes evident in Mortu-
ary A: the large grave pit with small sand dome and sur-
rounding structure; possible charnel structures; ritually
sterilized(?) grave pits for some people; simple, tightly flexed
interments after a period in above-ground storage for many
people, but direct burial upon death for others; and a possible
feasting area at the cemetery. These had changed by the
succeeding Mortuary Bto simple interments, sometimes after
above-ground storage and other times directly after death.
These distinctions may indicate that Mortuary A was a
product of a ranked society and that ritual used in both
mortuaries reflected statuses or corporate group membership.
If Mortuary A was a product of a ranked society, then what
does the absence of similar specialized burials in Mortuary
B mean? Had ranking been dispensed with, or had ritual
changed so that the material and contextual signs of ranking
were no longer archaeologically visible?
5) The Mt. Taylor mound appears to have been built
initially as a ceremonial mound, and was maintained as such
and enlarged throughout its history. This is suggested by the
continuity in form, evidence that at least one layer (Layer
3/Mortuary A) was built through a complex sequence of

vertical increments rather than just an accumulation of
midden debris, segmentation of space (e.g., burials only in
certain areas; distinct front and rear sides), and the possible
reshaping/terracing of the front of the mound at one time in
its history. While some in situ domestic refuse may be
present, it could be related to occupants of particular status,
or be incidental to the primary ceremonial purpose. From
this perspective, the Harris Creek site's Mt. Taylor mound is
more similar to Horr's Island and possibly Tomoka than to
village refuse mounds into which a cemetery was placed.
6) If the interpretation is incorrect that the Mt. Taylor
mound was, from its inception, a ceremonial structure, then
the mound structure alternatively may reflect possible Middle
Archaic village organization in the central St. Johns River
Valley. For example, low platform mounds, maintaining a
relatively confined periphery and possibly built in pairs
facing on a plaza or common area, perhaps were used for
both ceremonial and domiciliary purposes, with the mortuar-
ies possibly attributable to specific residential social groups.
It may be that the north end and east (rear) side burial areas
were separate for a social reason, such as traditional use by
different lineages, clans, or other such groups in the Mt.
Taylor/Harris Creek village. On the other hand, the cemeter-
ies may just have been placed out of the way of domestic
areas, although the summit platform was relatively small to
accommodate a village of any appreciable size.
7) Finally, and recalling the observations of many skele-
tons being exposed after relatively superficial disturbance of
the surface of the final Area D mound (Bushnell 1960;
Miller and Griffin 1978:33; Porter 1961), as well as Clarence
B. Moore's unreported discovery of burials near the surface
of some part of the "shell ridges" site (Appendix A), it is also
possible that later in the history of the Area D mound (i.e.,
during the St. Johns II Period), Area D became a true
mortuary and perhaps ceremonial mound. The reconstructed
site appearance (Figure 3) suggests how Area D towered over
the other lobes which were quite thick and extensive in their
own right.
While most of these features cannot be interpreted
unequivocally, such plausible and internally consistent
suggestions do, however, define relationships that may be
investigated elsewhere. The Harris Creek site mortuary
cannot be examined further, but with forewarning of the
possibilities, future encounters with this kind of site may be
profitable. Finally, all is not necessarily over and done at the
Harris Creek site. There are still the skeletal remains and
the wealth of information they contain. And, despite the
extensive site destruction, there probably still remain
significant opportunities to add to the structural, culture-
historical, settlement-subsistence, and paleoenvironmental
data through coring and excavating in marginal deposits as
was done, for example, at the Groves' Orange Midden
(Purdy 1994).


Ripley Bullen had foreseen, based on his December, 1960,

IDA nnn Amrrnonnfl* WI1 O

reconnaissance, that the basic significance of part of the
Harris Creek site might be as a preceramic Archaic mortu-
ary. He noted this in his application for emergency grant
assistance (Dickinson and Bullen 1961), and because of that
implication, he devoted much effort to finding field evidence
for "conventional" explanations before discarding them.
Profile trenches were extended to try to find unequivocal
evidence of how or whether the burials stratigraphically
related to pottery. He commented in his notes very early in
the fieldwork that there seemed to be pits extending down
through later strata, suggesting the burials might be later
than the preceramic strata in which they were found, and
made a further note to check this when profiles were drawn.
This may have been the origin of the "tremendous hole"
hypothesis he held awhile after returning from the field (R.
Bullen 1962:479) and that has been critiqued by Russo
(1994:95)." Even then, Bullen always held out the possibil-
ity that the cemetery was preceramic and that final interpre-
tation would have to await radiocarbon dates.
Nearly two years later, upon receipt of the radiocarbon
results, he unequivocally concluded that the cemetery was,
indeed, preceramic (R. Bullen n.d.; Crane and Griffin
1965:135). And there the matter rested. He published no
further interpretations before his death, although an indica-
tion that he continued to hold those views may be found in
Adelaide Bullen's description of the site as a preceramic
Archaic cemetery in her 1972 paper on treponemiasis. The
1978 Tick Island monograph (Jahn and Bullen 1978)
reprinted much of Bullen's 1962 report to the American
Philosophical Society which, insofar as interpreting a
Woodland age for the cemetery was concerned, was an idea
he had discarded a dozen years earlier. After seriously
considering or even adopting other hypotheses during and
shortly after the fieldwork, by 1965 Bullen had finally
resolved the question for himself in favor of having truly
documented a preceramic Archaic mortuary. Unfortunately,
this conclusion never was widely disseminated.


The name "Harris Creek site" is preferred to maintain continuity with
Bullen's and Francis Bushnell's usage and to minimize confusion with the
principal location of Clarence B. Moore's work at 8V025. Often rendered on
maps as "Harrys" Creek, "Harris" Creek is what generally has been used in the
archaeological literature and is the spelling retained in this report.
2 Bullen used feet/inches for all his field data; rather than convert primary data
to odd numbers in the metric system the approximate conversion is given in
parentheses. For all measurements new to this report, such as those used in
artifct descriptions, the metric system is used.
3 The lessee, Mr. Branton, always believed permission to excavate was his to
give, a viewpoint the owner, J. M. Ripley of Jacksonville, seems not to have
shared but never really challenged Bullen kept both men informed of his work
(see correspondence in Tick Island file, Florida Museum of Natural History).
4 A prehistoric dugout canoe was recovered from just above the basal peat at
De Leon Springs (Purdy 1991:270, 279) and radiocarbon dated at 5140 100
B.P. This date is within the range of measured (i.e., not conventional or
calibrated) dates from the nearby Mt. Taylor excavation at Harris Creek. The
canoe's position just above the basal peat provides confirmation that expansion
of the St. Johns River floodplain in this mid-valley region had begun not much
earlier than this date.
5 The Tick Island Creek (or Run) terminus of the 1942 path/tram track is

nearly .8 km from the large sand burial mound (8V025) dug by C. B. Moore.
Because Moore reported a similar distance from the sand mound to the landing,
it likely is the same place Moore used to tie up his steamer (Moore 1892a:130).
This suggests the landing and paths on the island in 1961 had been there at least
since the late nineteenth century (also see comments in F. Bushnell [1960:28]).
6 The greater depth at which fiber-tempered pottery was found in C. B.
Moore's excavation further indicates that Moore did not dig in Area D but
elsewhere in Bushnell's Areas A, B, or C.
7 The vertical face parallel to the "A" line was the "Trench" profile. Themuch
longer vertical cut roughly parallel to the "1" line, and curving around the
southerly margin of the water-filled quarry known as the Area D pond, was
called the "Pond" profile.
8 Busycon taxonomy has been refined substantially in recent years, but rather
than inexpertly introduce new terminology, the more or less traditional usage
of B. carica and B. contrarium for the right- and left-handed whelks, respec-
tively, is retained.
9 Bullen thought it was possible that the missing skull might have been
recovered with an adjacent burial; in time, this probably can be clarified after
study of the human remains.
10 Many of the published dates that are cited have not been calibrated, so all
references to dates in this concluding section are summarized from the measured
dates, uncalibrated and uncorrected for '"2C fractionation, and usually are
rounded to the nearest century.
1' Apparently Bullen never prepared an analysis of his profiles. In the profiles
offered in Figures 3 through 8, there are occasional small pits that extend into
earlier deposits, but no stratification disruptions that would support the
conclusion of a "tremendous pit."


This analysis of the Harris Creek site excavations would not have been
possible without the assistance and encouragement of Jerald T. Milanich,
Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH), who provided access to the
specimens, field records, and Bullen files, not to mention making many helpful
comments on the manuscript. Michael Russo, of the National Park Service's
Southeast Archeological Center (NPS-SEAC), and Dee Ann Story, of the
University of Texas at Austin, generously read earlier versions of the manu-
script and provided invaluable comments and suggestions. Indeed, Russo's
thoughtful 1994 paper stimulated me to take on this project. I am indebted,
also, to Barbara A. Purdy, to anonymous reviewers, and to editor Bob Austin
for their careful and very helpful examination of the manuscript. Elise
LeCompte (FLMNH) assisted by shipping materials to Washington and
administering loan agreements. John Ehrenhard, Chief of NPS-SEAC, and
James J. Miller, Florida State Archaeologist, assisted by providing a copy of the
1978 survey report on the Lake WoodruffNational Wildlife Refuge. Mayda
Riopedre, anthropology librarian at the National Museum of Natural History,
provided invaluable assistance in locating sources in the Smithsonian libraries.
The sketch ofthe probable original appearance ofthe Harris Creek site, used as
Figure 3, was drawn by deTeel Patterson Tiller of the National Park Service.
Finally, Ripley Bullen must be acknowledged for having the energy, interest,
and insight to tackle this difficult field investigation under unpromising
circumstances. I am grateful for having shared the fieldwork with him, and for
the opportunity to pick up the threads he started to weave over 35 years ago.

References Cited

Baldwin, Robert, C.L. Bush, R.B. Hinton, H.F. Huckle, P. Nichols, F.C. Watts,
and J.A. Wolfe
1980 Soil Survey of Volusia County, Florida. United States Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
Bartel, Brad
1982 A Historical Review of Ethnological and Archaeological Analyses of
Mortuary Practice. Journal ofAnthropologicalArchaeology 1:32-
Beriault, John, Robert Cart, Jerry Stipp, Richard Johnson, and Jack Meeder
1981 The Archeological Salvage of the Bay West Site, Collier County,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34:38-58.
Bullen, Adelaide K.
1972 Paleoepidemiology and Distribution of Prehistoric Treponemiasis
(Syphilis) in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25:133-174.

1999 Vot. 52 (3

V...V -. ra nl m'n T e r


Fvr%1v uIavae AT Jic, kIsA 183

Bullen, Ripley P.
1962 Indian Burials at Tick Island. Year Book of The American Philo-
sophical Society, 1961:477-480. Philadelphia.
1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points (Revised
edition). Kendall Books, Gainesville.
n.d. Tick Island (Harrys Creek Midden) Radiocarbon Dates. Undated
single page of talking points, Tick Island file, Department of Anthro-
pology, Florida Museum ofNatural History, Gainesville.
Bullen, Ripley P., and William J. Bryant
1955 Three Archaic Sites in the Ocala National Forest, Florida. The
William L. Bryant Foundation, American Studies Report No. 6.
Bushnell, David I., Jr.
1920 Native Cemeteries and Forms of Burial East of the Mississippi.
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 71, Washington, D.C.
Bushnell, Francis F.
1960 The Harris Creek Site, Tick Island, Volusia County. The Florida
Anthropologist 13:25-31.
Carr, Robert S., and B. Calvin Jones
1981 Florida Anthropologist Interview with Calvin Jones, Pt. 11: Excava-
tions ofan Archaic Cemetery in Cocoa Beach, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 34:81-89.
Collins, Michael B., and Jason M. Fenwick
1974 Heat Treating of Chert Methods of Interpretation and Their Applica-
tion. Plains Anthropologist 19:134-145.
Crane, H.R, and James B. Griffin
1964 University ofMichigan RadiocarbonDatesIX Radiocarbon6:l-24.
1965 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates X Radiocarbon 7:123-
Cumbaa, Stephen L.
1976 AReconsideration ofFreshwater Shellfish Exploitation in the Florida
Archaic. The Florida Anthropologist 29:49-59.
DeMort, Carole L.
1991 The St. Johns River System. In The Rivers of Florida, edited by
Robert J. Livingston, pp. 97-120. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Dickinson, J.C., and Ripley P. Bullen
n.d. Emergency at Tick Island, Florida. Funding proposal to American
Philosophical Society. Undated (probably January, 1961) copy in
Tick Island site file, Florida Museum ofNatural History, Gainesville.
Goggin, John M.
1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology,
Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No. 47, New
Griffin, James B.
1945 The Significance of the Fiber-Tempered Pottery of the St. Johns Area
in Florida. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science
Hall, Robert L.
1997 An Archaeology of the Soul: North American Indian Belief and
Ritual. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Jahn, Otto L., and Ripley P. Bullen
1978 The nTckslandSite, St. Johns River, Florida. Florida Anthropologi-
cal Society Publications No. 10, edited by A.K. Bullen and J.T.
Milanich. Gainesville.
Keeley, Lawrence H.
1996 War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Kennedy, Roger G.
1994 Hidden Cities: The Discovery and Loss ofAncient North American
Civilization. The Free Press, New York.
McGee, Ray M., and Ryan J. Wheeler
1994 Stratigraphic Excavations at Groves' Orange Midden, Lake Monroe,
Volusia County, Florida: Methodology and Results. The Florida
Anthropologist 47(4):333-349.
Metcalf Peter, and Richard Huntington
1991 Celebrations ofDeath: The Anthropology ofMortuary Ritual (2nd
edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology ofPrecolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida,
Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Miller, James J.
1992 Eff&cts of Environmental Changes on Late Archaic People of North-
east Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45(2):100-106.

Miller, James J., and John W. Griffin
1978 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of Lake Woodruff National
Wildlife Refuge. Report prepared by Cultural Resource Management,
Inc., Tallahassee. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources,
Moore, Clarence B.
t892a A Burial Mound of Florida. American Naturalist 26:128-143.
1892b Supplementary Investigations at Tick Island. American Naturalist
1892c Certain Shell Heaps of the St. John's River, Florida, Hitherto
Unexplored. American Naturalist 6:912-922.
1893 Certain Shell Heaps of the St John's River, Florida, Hitherto
Unexplored. American Naturalist 27:8-13, 113-117,605-624,708-
1894a Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part II.
JournaloftheAcademyofNaturalSciencesofPhiladelphia 10:129-
1894b Certain Shell Heaps of the St John's River, Florida, Hitherto
Unexplored. American Naturalist 28:15-26.
1894c Certain Sand Mounds ofthe St. John's River, Florida, Part I. Journal
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:5-105.
1987a [1891-94] Field Notes of Clarence B. Moore's Southeastern
Archaeological Expeditions, 1891-1918. Microfilm Roll #1, Note-
books 1 through 7. Compiled by Mary B. Davis, Huntington Free
Library and Museum of the American Indian Library, Bronx, New
1987b [1891] "CriseoftheOsceola, January-February, 1891"and "Cruise
of the Alligator, March-April, 1891," Field Notes of Clarence B.
Moore's Southeastern Archaeological Expeditions, 1891-1918.
Microfilm Roll #6, Unnumbered notebook, 99 pp. Compiled by Mary
B. Davis, Huntington Free Library and Museum of the American
Indian Library, Bronx, New York.
National Archives
1942 Photograph numbers CZC-IC-82, 83, and 84. Records of the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, USDA, Record
Group 145, Can 1495; National Archives and Records Administra-
tion, Washington, DC.
Palmer, Jay, and J. Raymond Williams
1977 The Formation of Goethite and Calcareous Lenses in Shell Middens
in Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 30(1):24-27.
Pardoe, Colin
1988 The Cemetery as Symbol: The Distribution of Prehistoric Aboriginal
Burial Grounds in Southeastern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania
Piatek, Bruce John
1992 Tomoka State Park survey and Preliminary Excavation Results. The
Florida Anthropologist 45:326-335.
1994 The Tomoka Mound Complex in Northeast Florida. Southeastern
Archaeology 13(2):109-118.
Porter, Sid
1961 Tick Island Indian Skeletons Not Too Old, But Still Significant.
Orlando Sentinel, March 14.
Purdy, Barbara A.
1988 Archaeological Wet Sites: Untapped Archives of Prehistoric Docu-
ments. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp.
325-335. The Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ.
1991 The Art and Archaeology ofFlorida's Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca
1994 Excavations in Water-Saturated Deposits at Lake Monroe, Volusia
County, Florida: An Overview. The Florida Anthropologist
Purdy, Barbara A., and H.K. Brooks
1971 Thermal Alteration of Silica Minerals: An Archeological Approach.
Science 173:322-325.
Russo, Michael
1992 Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Marys Region of Northeast
Florida and Southeastern Georgia. The Florida Anthropologist
1994 Why We Don't Believe in Archaic Ceremonial Mounds and Why We
Should: The Case from Florida. Southeastern Archaeology
Russo, Michael, Barbara A. Purdy, Lee A. Newsom, and Ray M. McGee
1992 A Reinterpretation of Late Archaic Adaptations in Central-East
Florida: Groves' Orange Midden (8-Vo-2601). Southeastern

FV/AvATiviuc AT Tin IfI .An



TrFm mnrnrA AiTnrtnsjunnmer

Archaeology 11(2):95-108.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G. Anderson (editors)
1996 Archaeology ofthe Md-Holocene Southeast. University Presses of
Florida, Gainesville.
Sears, William H.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin.
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Sigler-Eisenberg, Brenda
1988 Settlement, Subsistence, and Environment: Aspects of Cultural
Developmentwithin the Wetlands ofEast-Central Florida. In WetSite
Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 291-306. The Telford
Press, Caldwell, NJ.
Spennenan, Dirk H.R, and Bernard Franke
1995 Decomposition of Human Bodies and the Interpretation of Burials in
the Tropical Pacific. Archaeology in Oceania 30:66-73.
Ste. Claire, Dana
1987 The Development of Thermal Alteration Technologies in Florida:
Implications for the Study of Prehistoric Adaptation. The Florida
Anthropologist 40(3):203-208.
Stein, J.K.
1990 Archaeological Stratigraphy. In Archaeological Geology of North
America, edited by N. Lasca and J. Donahue, pp. 513-523. Geologi-
cal Society of America, Centennial Special Volume 4, Boulder.
Stoltman, James B., and David A. Baerreis
1983 The Evolution of Human Ecosystems in the Eastern United States. In
Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 2: The
Holocene, edited by H.E. Wright, Jr., pp. 252-268. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer
1993 Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Calibra-
tion Program. Radiocarbon 35(1):215-230.
Stuiver, Minze, and Henry A. Polach
1977 Reporting of 14C Data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355-363.
Walker, Karen J., Frank W. Stapor, Jr., and William H. Marquardt
1994 Episodic Sea Levels and Human Occupation at Southwest Florida's
Wightman Site. The Florida Anthropologist 47(2):161-179.
Waters, Michael R.
1992 Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Watts, William A., Eric C. Grimm, and T.C. Hussey
1996 Mid-Holocene Forest History of Florida and the Coastal Plain of
Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene
Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson,
pp. 28-38. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Watts, William A., and Barbara C.S. Hansen
1988 Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet
Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 307-323. The
Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ.
Wharton, Barry R., George R. Ballo, and Mitchell E. Hope
1981 The Republic Groves Site, Hardee County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 34(2):59-80.
Wheeler, Ryan J., and Ray M. McGee
1994 Technology of Mount Taylor Period Occupation, Groves' Orange
Midden (8V02601), Volusia County, Florida. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 47(4):350-379.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the
Southwest Florida Coast. The University of Alabama Press,

Appendix A: Clarence B. Moore at Tick Island

Clarence B. Moore visited Florida and the St. Johns River
many times prior to starting his archaeological career in
1891 (Moore 1987b). As far as is known, however, he first
trod upon Tick Island on the 24th of January, 1891, while
seeking shelter from high winds and a mooring for the night
for his chartered Ocklawaha river boat, the Osceola. In his
journal he wrote that "The night was as cold as Greenland."
The following day he and his party "Investigated the mound
on Tick's [sic] Island. A low flat shell heap offering few

inducements. As no one could be found to give permission
to dig we got up steam at 11 A.M. ..." (Moore 1987b:15).
Some three weeks later (February 17) he returned to the
island accompanied by its owner, Mr. Underhill, who guided
Moore to sites and apparently gave permission to begin
excavating (Moore 1987b:59-61; also see Miller and Griffin

Upon our previous visit here we had unsuccessfully sought
for the mounds which lie about half a mile from the water.
A very large settlement must have occupied Tick Island in
the past and the remains are quite remarkable. A large
burial mound of sand...with bones and pottery scattered over
its surface presents a striking appearance. From this mound
run two breastworks...Both these breastwork[s] or causeways
end at an enormous shell heap...At a distance of 30 ft. to the
So. of the large burial mound is a small one... About a
quarter of a mile distant from these curious remains are a
series of low shell heaps covering several acres and upon one
of the heaps stands a live oak 23' 5" in circumference [Moore

These journal entries describe all of the features Moore ever
wrote about on Tick Island and provide the clearest identity
of the sites he visited. All of his later records and publica-
tions only elaborate details of work at these same places.
The following narrative of dates, places, and activities
was compiled by deconstructing all of Moore's Tick Island
reports and field notes (see Table A-1). This organization of
information clarified the geographic relationships between
shell mounds and the sand mound and was correlated with
Bushnell's and Bullen's work as well as with Goggin's 1952
site survey. It is not intended as a narrative of Moore's
findings from excavations. However, it is notable that Tick
Island was the location of the first extensive site investiga-
tions of Moore's newly begun archaeological career.

Tick Island Geography

Moore's usual approach to Tick Island was described as
via the St. John's River, east through Lake Dexter, and
continuing east along Spring Garden Creek,' which borders
the island on the north side (Moore 1892a:130; the same
description is repeated in several later papers). Moore
describes landing on Tick Island only at a "tumble-down
wharf of palmetto logs" on the south side of Spring Garden
Creek and proceeding from there along a path for halfa mile
(.8 km) to the sand burial mound (Moore 1892a:130,
1894c:48). The island is "separated from the mainland by a
narrow waterway, its other boundaries being Lake Woodruff
and Spring Garden Creek" (Moore 1892a: 130). The "narrow
waterway" is not described further but may have been his
understanding of the island's southern boundary. Moore was
always vague about the east and south sides of the island.
Nowhere does he mention Harris Creek and Mud Lake as
routes of access to the south side of the island; apparently we
must infer that he always entered the island from the
"tumble-down wharf' and proceeded on foot from that place.

Tim F Y o-wA AN7=opoYI ocasV r 19 VoL 52131

1400 Vm st) I


Table A-I. Chronology of C.B. Moore's operations at Tick Island. *

1894 Mar. 17
Mar. 19-23

Began final excavation in burial mound.
Continued final excavation in burial mound. Left the island "... after total demolition of mound..." at
mid-day on March 23.

* From Moore's daily journals and field notes (Moore 1987a, b).

Moore evidently did not explore the island thoroughly,
otherwise it is hard to imagine how he could have missed the
large burial mound or other large shell mounds on his initial
visit, or never have seen the enormous Area D mound at the
"acres of shell ridges" site. Indeed, from reviewing his St.
Johns River journals it appears that Moore seldom explored
inland for sites; rather he visited those that were seen from
the river or to which he was led by a guide.

How Many "Sites" on the Island Were Seen by Moore?

In the second part of "Certain Sand Mounds..." Moore
provided a map of the middle St. John's River Valley,
including Tick Island (1894a: 131-135). On it he illustrates
four features: three "shell heaps" and one sand mound. The
map is not to scale, but the relationships seem to show one
shell heap in approximately the location of the "Hard-
scrabble" site (Bushnell 1960:26); the sand burial mound,
also approximately in the location shown on Bushnell's map;

a shell heap immediately north of the sand mound that
apparently is what Moore called the bean-shaped shell heap
(see below); another shell heap plotted immediately south of
the sand mound probably was intended to represent the small
shell heap (1893:605). Finally, there is a fourth shell heap,
shown as being on the southwest side of the island, that must
be intended to represent the large "acres of shell ridges"
(Harris Creek site) a quarter of a mile (.4 km) south of the
sand mound. This plotting is a little ambiguous but given
the absence of any mention of other sites in Moore's field
notes and journals, the crude scaling on his sketch map, and
his apparent limited knowledge of geography away from the
river, there probably is no point in reading more into this.
Goggin (1952:89-90) assigned site numbers to Moore's
localities in such a way that 8V024 was labeled the "Tick
Island Midden." Since there were several middens described
by Moore, this might have been ambiguous except that the
only literature citation Goggin gives is Moore (1893), which
is primarily devoted to the Harris Creek site. Therefore, I

Jan. 25 Walked over the large, low shell heap (probably the Hardscrabble site, 8V0223). No mention of the
burial mound site.
Feb. 17 Walked over the burial mound (8V025), large shell heap and adjacent causeways (8V0221), and
small shell mound (8V0222) 30 feet south of the burial mound. Also visited "a series of low shell
heaps covering several acres" (8V024) about a quarter mile south of the burial mound.

Feb. 18 "Commenced operations" on the large burial mound.
Feb. 19 Continued on the large burial mound. Later excavated a single pit in the small mound (8V0222).
Feb. 20 Resumed work on the large burial mound. Also dug in causeway that leaves the north side of the
mound. Tick Island operations closed.
Mar. 27 Resumed work on the burial mound.
Mar. 28 Burial mound work continued. In daily journal, C. B. Moore lists artifacts found during the day
including "Rough arrow head picked up on top of shell heap quarter of mile distant" (i.e., 8V024).
Mar. 29 to Except for Sunday, burial mound work continued. Backfilled main trench. Completed work on April
Apr. 3 3.
Jan. 13-14 Arrived at Tick Island evening of 13th; rain on 14th.
Jan. 15-18 Except for Sunday, excavated at the burial mound.
Jan. 19 Finished at the burial mound. Excavated at the bean-shaped shell heap.
Jan. 20 Continued excavating at the bean-shaped shell heap and began at shell ridges south of burial mound
(8V024). Left Tick Island.

Nov. 20-21 Made several small excavations in shell ridges (8VO24?) including one with burials near surface.
Jan. 18-19 Both days at Tick Island; no records of any excavating.
Mar. 13-15 Resumed work in burial mound.
Mar. 17-20 Excavated in burial mound.


take the number to refer to that site, as was assumed also by
Bushnell (1960), Bullen (Jahn and Bullen 1978:iv), and
Miller and Griffin (1978). “Tick Island Mound,” the sand
burial mound, was assigned 8VO25. Goggin then assigned
8VO26, 27, and 28 to “Three other shell middens on Tick
Island.” These had to mean the “Hardscrabble” site, the
large bean-shaped shell heap near the sand mound, and the
small shell heap south of the sand mound, the only other
sites mentioned by Moore. However, all of these last four
features have been given new site numbers in recent years
(Miller and Griffin 1978), and it is the latter numbers that
are employed here.

Moore’s Fieldwork

The northern site (8VO25, 221, 222). During parts of 10
days in February through April, 1891 (see Table A-1), Moore
worked on the sand burial mound (Moore 1892a:129). This
mound was measured to be 17 ft (5.2 m) in height, 468 ft
(43.5 m) in circumference’, and was conical in shape except
to the east. There a slope extended from the mound summit
downward to a “winding causeway” 392 ft (119.5 m) long.
The causeway averaged 4 ft (1.2 m) high and 25 ft (7.6 m)
wide at the base (1892a:130), 15 ft (4.6 m) wide at the top
(1894c:50), and was constructed of shell (1894a:157).

The winding causeway at its other end “terminates at a
large bean-shaped shell or refuse heap, upon which and the
adjacent acres of shell-fields the Indians doubtless lived”
(1892a:140, 1894c:49). A close reading of the field notes
and journals (Moore 1987a, b) indicates almost certainly that
Moore did not mean that sheet refuse was physically contigu-
ous to the bean-shaped shell heap, but rather was indicating
the shell-fields of the southern site (see below). Moreover,
any such shell fields contiguous to the bean-shaped shell
heap were not noted by either Bullen or by Miller and Griffin
when they visited the site in 1961 and 1978, respectively.
Likewise, [ accompanied Bullen to the site in 1961 and have
no recollection of such a feature either.

A second causeway extended in a direct line from “the
great shell heap,” skirting by the burial mound and towards
the “solid hammock land” (1892a:140). This feature was
reported as 228 ft (69.5 m) long (1894c:50), a measurement
obtained by pacing. Subsequently the paced measurements
were re-taken with a tape line and the following notation is
made in the daily journal for February 20, 1891: “The
causeway running from south end of shell heap and skirting
the edge of the mound is 200 ft. in length until it comes
abreast of the mound and continues about 118 ft. farther
where it is lost although traces of it are apparently discern-
able [sic] at a greater distance” (Moore 1987b:75).

During the 1891 season, Moore and his crew excavated
eight “shafts and trenches” in the burial mound. The base
upon which the sand mound was built was composed of large
snail shells which Moore speculated might have been
brought from the “neighboring shell fields” to serve as a
foundation because the lateral extent of the shell coincided
closely with the overlying sand (1892a:130-131).

1999 VoL. 52 (3)

Moore revisited the sand burial mound for four days in
January, 1892 to extend the excavations. The report on this
work (Moore 1892b) deals only with the structure and
contents of the sand mound and its shell base. He describes
the sand mound as built on “a circular heap of shell...”
Again, he offers the interpretation that the shell was brought
to this location from neighboring deposits and did not
represent a pre-existing midden because the shell did not.
extend beyond the margin of the mound “as is so often the
case where sand mounds have been piled upon previously
existing shell heaps” (1892b:568; also see 1894a:157). In
this same season he began exploratory pits in the bean-
shaped shell heap (Moore 1987b:20-23).

Moore returned in January and March 1893 and further
described the northern site. “In connection with many acres
of shell deposit [i.e., the bean-shaped mound] is an interest~
ing burial mound of sand...;” 30 ft (9.1 m) south of the great
burial mound? was a small mound 6 ft (1.8 m) high and 180
ft (54.9 m) in circumference; this was composed of shell and
sand very tightly compacted and with dense palmetto roots.
Digging in this mound was difficult; he does not mention
whether any specimens were found but he does say that he
was uncertain of the nature of this small mound (1893:605).
There are more details in his field journal, however. He
described the small mound as proving “to be an ordinary
shell heap covered on every side with a mixture of sand and
decayed matter.” He dug a small pit 4 by 3 ft (1.2 by .9 m)
to a depth of 3 ft 9 in (1.1 m). In this pit was found “unorna-
mented pottery,” small fragments of bone, a lithic core, and
a projectile point (Moore 1987b:71).

Continuing, he writes , “Somewhat over 100 yards distant
from the great burial mound in a northeasterly direction is a
crescentic, or rather a bean-shaped, shell heap...” 573 ft
(174.6 m) long, 233 ft (71 m) maximum width, and of
irregular height but averaging about 8 ft (2.4 m) above the
surrounding ground level. Here he notes that the shell
deposit continued deep below this ground level but does not
give a measurement (1893:605-606). In his field notes he
records the test excavations extending to depths of 8 and 11
ft (2.4 and 3.3 m), respectively, without reaching the bottom
of the deposit (Moore 1987a, notebook 1:20-23). Work at
the northern site came to an end in the following year, 1894,
when he wrote,

The large [sand] mound on Tick Island had been investigated
by us upon so many occasions...that farther exploration was
impossible without disturbance to the score of large bearing
orange trees, and to dozens of smaller [ones]...growing upon
it. Finally,...permission was obtained, and the mound,
surrounded on all sides by a party of twenty-two men to
dig...was completely leveled during five days of March, 1894
[Moore 1894a:148].

The southern site (8VO24). On February 17, 1891, Moore
wrote in his daily journal that “About a quarter of a mile
distant...[from the bean-shaped shell heap] are a series of low
shell heaps covering several acres and upon one of the heaps
stands a live oak 23’5" in circumference” (1987b: Unnum-


bered notebook, Osceola:63; also see 1893:606). This
estimate is in reasonably close agreement with a map
measurement of the distance between the water-filled pond
where the bean-shaped shell heap once existed, and the
Harris Creek site, location of Bullen's excavation. Most
significant in Moore's description were direction (south),
distance (a quarter mile), and configuration (low ridges).
While this leaves little doubt that he was familiar with some
parts of the Harris Creek site (8V024), it also suggests he
explored the site and the south and east sides of the island
very little, and never saw either the large Area D shell
mound where Bullen excavated, or the proximity of the site
to Harris Creek.
In January, 1892, Moore excavated a pit on one of the
ridges near the large live oak tree mentioned above, finding
fiber-tempered pottery but no burials or strata resembling
those documented by Bullen (Moore 1893:606-608). This
test pit was the only work at the southern, Harris Creek, site
that Moore ever reported in print. However, his field notes
for the beginning of his next season (November, 1892) carry
the descriptions of additional excavations at least one of
which encountered burials (1987a, notebook 4:11; notebook
7:5). At least two of these pits produced pottery to their
maximum depths. Another pit, whose dimensions are not
given, produced at least four burials near the surface.
Although not of great significance, description of these latter
excavations apparently never found their way into published
The western site (8V0223). Given Moore's site survey
modus operandi and his journal notation that they had not
seen the large burial mound site prior to February 17, the
large, low shell heap "offering few inducements" visited on
January 25, 1891, very likely was 8V0223, today known by
Bushnell's name of the Hardscrabble site, and possibly
known in the 19th century as Audubon's Isle after a visit by
the famous naturalist in the 1830s (Miller and Griffin
1978:70-72). This identity seems likely because the site
would have been visible as the Osceola steamed past from
Lake Dexter to Lake Woodruff, and was not far from the
landing on Tick Island Run. The 8V0223 site location is
plotted on Moore's published map (1894a).

Final Note

In some respects, Moore must have been a remarkably
uncurious person; otherwise he could hardly have missed the
enormous shell mound that comprised Area D at 8V024.
Through many comments and asides in his journals (for
example, the "few inducements" comment above), Moore
makes clear that shell mounds were not his primary interest.
Scrutiny ofa chronology ofhis Tick Island work (Table A-1)
makes clear that less than 15% of the work days were
devoted to the several shell deposits. His major effort (85%)
was focused on the large sand burial mound. Even the
Orange Mound, visited several times from 1891-93, was
excavated very little and this at a site whose mortuary
evidence Moore compared favorably to his findings at the

large Tick Island burial mound (Moore 1893:615-623). The
conclusion is clear that notwithstanding whatever informa-
tion of substance can be gleaned from Moore's excavation of
the large sand burial mound, his digging in shell deposits at
Tick Island, including the Harris Creek "acres of shell
ridges" site (8V024) contributes little to an understanding of
the latter or of the location excavated in 1961 by Ripley


SOccasionally he recorded traveling down river through Dead River to Lake
Woodruff; going past the island on Spring Garden Creek (i.e., Tick Island Run),
and out to the main river through Lake Dexter. Moore visited nearby sites
including a shell heap on Spring Garden Creek, east of Lake Woodruff
(1892c:918). This indicates that, to Moore, the stream flowing out from De
Leon Springs to Lake Woodruf was known as Spring Garden Creek, as it is
known today. Continuing west across the north shore of Lake Woodruff to the
stream that borders Tick Island on its north side, he continues to use the name
Spring Garden Creek, although today this is called Tick Island Creek or Run.
These and several other name variations for lakes and streams near Tick Island
were common in the nineteenth century (Miller and Griffin 1978:55, 57).
2 Moore's daily journal for February 17, 1891, records measuring the
circumference with a tape as 468 ft this apparently was misprinted in the
published report as 478 ft.
3 Miller and Griffin (1978:102) reported the distance as twice that reported by

Appendix B: Burial Attributes

The following two tables record nearly all the attribute
information for each burial gleaned from the field notes and
drawings. Because of inconsistencies in the field documenta-
tion of burials at the Harris Creek site it was necessary to
adopt several conventions. All primary field measurements
were retained in the original feet and inches to avoid the
possibility of transcription and rounding errors; metric
equivalents are given in parentheses when appropriate.
Burial no.: Field number assigned by Bullen.
Skull grid coordinates: Coordinates measured from west
corer of grid unit; T=north trench, PT=pond trench. Bullen
plotted burials by skull location on a plan map of the excava-
tion. If the skull was missing, he plotted the location of
whatever principal bones were present. To express these
locations as grid coordinates, the following regrettably
complex notation was devised that retains Bullen's alphanu-
meric grid plan but provides an algebraic reference to the
map view. Skull locations were measured from the lowest
numbered grid stake for the grid unit along both grid
directions. For example, a skull in the precise center of grid
unit 2A-3B would have coordinates of 2.5/A+0.50 (i.e., +25
feet [7.6 m] from the "0" line and +5 feet [1.5 m] from the
"A" line). A skull in the center of unit 3B-4C would be
3.5/B+0.5 (i.e., +35 feet [10.7 m] from the "0" line and +5
feet [1.5 m] from the "B" line). Burials in the profile
trenches were indicated by "P" or "PT" and were given
coordinates based on an extension of the grid; south of the
"0" line or north of the "A" line, distances were subtracted
(e.g., 3.5/A-0.50).
Skull depth below datum (inches): Self explanatory.

Burial type: E=extended; F=flexed; C=cremated;
S=secondary or bundle burial.
Side in grave: Side of body placed on bottom of grave
pit. R=right, L=left, B=back, F=front, V=vertical. Bullen
often described flexed burials as "sitting" or "vertical,"
apparently interchangeably, although "vertical" was used
most often. This terminology seems to refer to burials that
ranged from occasional sitting positions with the spine
vertical, to those placed with anterior-posterior plane of
bilateral symmetry through the midline of the body in a
roughly vertical orientation, with the sacrum or lumbar
vertebrae lowermost in the grave and the rest of the spine
tilted or curved upward and very often with the head pushed
or folded forward onto the chest. Because of ambiguities in
the descriptions these all are described here as "vertical"
Body orientation: Compass direction of body along the
spinal axis and looking toward the skull. Bullen often
recorded the head direction as it would have been before
being folded or pushed into the grave pit, while in some
cases he recorded the attitude in which the skull was found.

The following tables attempt to be consistent in recording the
inferred original orientation of the body and head direction
had the latter not been forced down into the chest area.
Grave size (LxWxH, inches): Ifrecorded in the notes, this
usually was the dimensions of the bone cluster.
Associated other burials: Presumed association by
Bullen of a burial with other identified burials.
Layer: Estimate of the layer from which the burial pit
originated. If not documented (usually this was not observ-
able in the field), the surface of origin was assumed to be 6
inches (15 cm) higher than the skull depth.
Artifacts: P=projectile point; PS=projectile point within
a skeleton; S=shell; B=bone; M=miscellaneous as noted in
the accompanying comment. The likelihood of artifacts
being associated with a burial: A=associated; O=possible
association; N=near skeleton but uncertain association.
Distrb.: Type of disturbance. A=aboriginal disturbance;
D=dragline; IE=intersects earlier grave; IL=intersected by
later grave pit; N=no disturbance reported.
Comments: Additional descriptive information usually
excerpted or paraphrased from the field records.

Table B-I. Grave location and attributes.
Skull Depth Grave Size Associated
Burial Skull Grid ll t Burial Side in Body ( Othe
Below Datum (LaWxH, Other
No. Coordinate Type Grave Orientation h
(inches) Burials

1 3.84/A-0.15T
2 2.2/A-0.15T
3 2.37/A-0.28T
4 2.48/A-0.30T
5 2.6/A-0.40T
6 3.6/A-0.20T
7 3.68/A-0.40T
8 1.92/A-0.39T
9 0.97/B+0.03 est PT
10 2.5/A-0.50T
11 2.15/A-0.35T
12 3.4/A-0.40T
13 0.80/E+0.75PT
14 0.50/F+0.25PT
15 0.50/F+0.16PT
16 0.60/E+0.70PT
17 3.75/A-0.20T
18 3.69/A-0.20T
19 3.75/A-0.28T
20 T or PT
21 T or PT
22 T or PT
23 0.75/E+0.67PT
24 T or PT

65 est

F? R

76 F R SW
? ? ? ?
86 F,C R W
77 F? ? NE
86 F V N
86 F ? NW
89 F R S
75 ? ? ?
90 F ? N
93 E B SE?
91.5 F R N
94 F R N
96 F R ?
86 est F ? NE
? F R W










TF_ n __ A ____ -

9 991 V 52 3



Table B-1 (Continued).

Burial Skull Grid eee in, ‘Burial Sidetn Body, nee —

0. Coordinate (inches) Type Grave Orientation aches) Burials
25 0.67/F+0.30PT 69 F Vv ? 2 =
25% near #25 84 F 2 iz 2. _
26 0.72/F+0.55PT 84 est ? ? ? ? _
27 2.98/A+0.70 51 2 ? 2 20x18x5 ---
28 3.23/A+0.48 54 F L ? 32x24x? ---
29 3.47/A+0.40 54 F Vv ? 19x14x12 _
30 2.90/A+0.53 61 ? 2 ? ? —
31 2.05/A+0.62 63 F L Ss 2 --
32 2.33/A+0.55 65 F L? i. 14x12x? --
33 2.10/A+0.89 60 F 2 E ? _
34 2.50/A+0.35 66 F ? ? 24x20x? ---
35 3.32/A-0.01T 65 F Vv ? 18x12x12 ---
36 3.65/A+0.00 70 F R E 20x 18x? --
37 1.60/B+0.30 57.5 F R Ss ? _-
38 2.22/A+0.16 69 F R S 2 _
39 2.26/A-0.02T 68 F R SW 2 _
40 probably 73 F B SW ? ---


41 2.85/A+0.25 74 ? ? ? ? —
42 2.73/A+0.02 72 F? 7 ? 2 43
43 2.80/A+0.00 76 ? ? ? ? 42
44 3.79/A+0.15 62-65 2 uf ? q -_
45 3.63/A+0.25 63 ? ? ? y —
46 3.65/A+0.11 67 F Vv N ? --
47 2.50/A+0.30 ? ? is ? -_
48 2.12/A+0.08 57 F R Ss ? -
49 3.80/A+0.24 ? Ss ? ? ? _
50 3.69/A+0.36 74 F Vv ? ? 58,59,60
51 1.30/B+0.00 65 F R? SW 2 _
52 1.24/B+0.00 67 F R? N ? -
53 3.43/A+0.06 65 F? ? ? ? _
54 2.08/A-0.06 72 F R SW 2 _
55 3.28/A+0.19 70 F? 2 2? ? 56
56 3.19/A+0.18 72 F? ? ? 4 55
57 3.24/A+0.38 2 ? ? ? ? -
58 3.69/A+0.42 75 F Vv 2 90x48x? Table B-2
59 3.75/A+0.55 75 F v ? see #58 see #58
60 3.86/A+0.34 75 F Vv ? see #58 see #58
61 2.89/A+0.10 74 F? Vv? N 16x14x? ---
62 2.63/A+0.26 71 F,C F NE 25x 16x? --
63 3.76/A+0.39 75 est ? T ? see #58 see #58

64 3.38/A+0.25 75 est ? ? ? see #58 see #58

Table B-1 (Continued).

ril Grid Skull Depth Burial Side in Body Grave Size Associated
Burial kull Grid Below Datum l (LxWxH, Other
No. Coordinate (h) Type Grave Orientation ihes) Bur
(inches) inches) Burials

number not used?
(approx. location)

same as #82

near #101
probably near
#101 in PT

75 est
75 est
75 est
75 est
75 est


see #58

see #58

see #58
see #58
see #74
see #74
see #58
see #58

Table B-2
see #65

see #65
see #65
see #65

see #58
see #58

see #58

see #58
see #58



63 est
75 est







THE litoman4 AMrun r

9 991 Vol 52 (3)

Table B-1 (Continued).
Burial Skull Grid Skull Depth Burial Side in Bdy Grave Size Associated
Burial Skull Grid Be3ow tatum Burial Side in Body (LWXH Other
Below Datn m (LTWxH, Other
No. Coordinate owType Grave Orientation (LIWXHe Other
(inches) Inches) Burials




76 est
68 est

see #102
see #102
near #105/106
same as #109

2.42/B+0.73 est.

same as #126








AN nu

ETVj fC * TViCl *&m


Table B-I (Continued).
Skull Depth Grave Size Associated
Burial Skull Grid elow Datum Burial Side in Body (LxWG H, Other
No. Coordinate Type Grave Orientation B r
(inches) inches) Burials

Large grave


V W 9 -

3.85/B+0.24 69 F
2.54/B+0.23 70 est F?
? 76 F
2.81/B+0.80 63 S?
2.51/B+0.41 58 F
2.46/B+0.44 63 F
Same as #56 87 F
Same as #56 92 F
2.77/B+0.69 71 F
3.94/A+0.70 64 F
3.23/B+0.71 71 ?
3.42/A+0.69 76 F
3.48/A+0.72 83 F
3.47/A+0.67 80 F
3.50/A+0.63 81 F
2.75/B+0.11 59 F
2.69/B+0.26 60 F
? 70 F
? 68 F
2.99/B+0.70 62 ?
2.00/A+0.10 68 F
2.54/B+0.31 74 ?
2.55/B+0.54 70 F
2.49/B+0.55 68 F
2.42/B+0.56 66 F
? 68 F
? 73 F
2.57/B+0.47 70 F
pit (not numbered in sequence with other burials)
3.32/A+0.65 90 F?
3.37/A+0.57 90 F?
3.34/A+0.45 90 F?
3.26/A+0.64 90 F?
3.21/A+0.46 90 F?
3.27/A+0.41 90 F?
3.17/A+0.39 90 F?
3.18/A+0.33 90 F?
In bottom of pit; 114 est ?
location not plotted

same as #9 114 est ?
same as #9 114 est



same as #1
same as #1
same as #1
same as #1
same as #1
same as #1
same as #1



see comments
see #154
see #154
see #154


1-2, 4-8
1-3, 5-8
1-4, 6-8
1-5, 7-8

9, 11

R or L
R or L
Ror L

R or L


9 991 VOL 52 (3



Table B-2. Additional grave attributes.
Burial # Layer Artifacts

1 7





Comments from, and about, field notes

Hands between knees and face; feet 6-12" higher than skull; hip is
lowest; knees at same elevation as top of skull. Young person;
burial 18" above sand zone.

Bones are above #3; partly on sand, partly not.

Young female adult.

Immediately below left elbow of #3; legs, pelvis, skull taken by
dragline. In sand zone.

Difficult to sort bones from #10.

Hips down, knees up, lumbar vert. vertical, cervical vert. horizon-
tal; head bent to left side; arms down between legs.

Knees 8" higher than skull; head forward and down.

D Badly broken by dragline and pick.

A Face downward; knees below forehead.

? Plotted on burial plan but not mentioned in notes.

N Burial pit in sandy zone; fire placed in bottom of pit with body
placed over the fire; parts of skull, jaw, and pelvis were charred.
Charcoal collected as C14 sample #5.

D Partly disturbed by dragline. Ribs? fused together, i.e., cemented
by CaCO3?

N Pelvis lowest, left knee high, shoulders high, skull pushed down-
ward. Originally head to N but pushed downward between knees
to S.

A,L Some charcoal at base of bones in pit; "rich" midden deposit under

N,IE Interred after #23; 11 tubular beads assoc. with #16 or 23.

N Adult. Badly decayed.

N,IE Interred after #19. Sand extends downward among bones of#18
but burial is in or on [shell] midden.

A,IL Not associated with sand layer; may be older than #18.
A Bur.#'s 20, 21, 22 all interlocked in area 2-ft. square.

A See above.

A See above.

A,IL Probably very young; grave disturbed by #16. Top of #23 only 3"
below top of #16; see #16 about beads.

D Torso rotated clockwise, chest down; head taken by dragline.

N Complete skel., both knees left of head. Poss. broken bone pin
vertical in ground below/behind skull at left ear. Another bone pt,
horiz, 6-7" below right hip; blade of g proj. pt. behind scapula.
Also cut, perforated and incised antler frag. near #25 or #25'2.

D Only artic. lower limbs. Rest prob removed by dragline or
pothunters. Bone pin frag. poss. assoc. See #25.


TuE 5, IRA A.mitonwn nYasT 19" VoI 5 111

Table B-2 (Continued).
Burial # Layer

26 3



Disturbance Comments from, and about, field notes

? In Pond Trench 3-4' S ofstake IF; 6' below surf; bone pin near long
bones and ribs.

A,IL At same elevation as Black Zone; young person.
A No skull; legs at rt angle to vert. col; one arm tightly flexed, the
other lower at rt angle. Body pushed into grave so that back
(dorsal side) of scapulae and vertebrae face upwards. Heels and
ankles are 6-7" higher than pelvis.

N Extremely tightly flexed; knees in front of and below face. Spare
femur and fibula found-prob part of a burial destroyed where #29
was interred.

N Knees at shoulder; tibia and f [femur or fibula?] beside skull;
elbow at hip.

N Child; interred tied up on shins but head flopped backwards.
Bones in Black Zone but leading down to shell.

N Head [end of body] to E but pushed down to W; knees above skull,
hands underneath head as positioned in grave. In NW edge of
Black Zone.

N Obviously in a pit; prox. humeri are higher than skull.

N All articulated; sitting; head pushed down between thighs.

N Face to N, one knee high, left elbow beyond pelvis.

D Dragline disturbed; partially articulated; no skull; originally tightly
flexed; knees up, left elbow forms rt angle.

N Knees to chin; one arm with hand over skull and other hand below

N Tightly flexed; knees 6" in front of head; elbow under knees; hands
under or beside skull.

N Face to E; elbows bent up and hands near head; knees 6" in front
of face. Two locations for #40 were plotted on field maps; because
of sequence in notes, the location plotted on "A" line is probable
location, but may be an error.

Skull inverted among long bones; apparently a flexed pit burial.
Directly over chest of #43.

Directly below #42. Could not separate bones [from #42?].

Badly disturbed by interment of #45 or #46; scapula and humerus
articulated; skull and some ribs found.

Only a skull and some ribs.

Head pushed forward to S, face down.
No notes.

Face to NE; long bones 6" lower than top of skull.

Bundle burial; skull with disarticulated long bones on top.

Vertical flexed burials all intermingled; see #58, 59, 60.


9 991 Vol 52 (3)


Table B-2 (Continued).
Burial # Layer Artifacts Disturbance Comments from, and about, field notes
51 8? B,A? N In front of forehead were deer antlers; soft and flattened, and mixed
with human bone including left humerus. Antler poss. part of
interment, but not recovered.

52 8? N

53 4 A,IL Apparently buried in pit with head pushed in, face up. Only short
frags of long bones under chin; no other long bones.

54 3 -N Knees up towards chin, left elbow in abdominal area, left hand at

55 4 -- N Intermingled with #56.

56 4? -- N See above.

57 ? -- A Isolated skull misplaced from a burial.

58 3 A A mass burial including at least #'s 58, 59, 63, 64, 69, 71, 73, 81,
and 82; probably also includes #'s 50 and 60 and maybe others
around periphery of group. These bones are at the same eleva-
tion [depth below datum only recorded for #'s 50, 58, 59, and 60 at
75"]. All were once articulated and tightly flexed; still partly so,
but badly intermingled. Burials cover an oval area about 7'6" by 4.
Much black dirt on #71 and to E.

59 4? A See #58.

60 4? A See #58.

61 3 N Oval pit; knees 6" higher than skull; head pushed into pit and
facing to E.

62 4 N Buried front (ventral) side down in pit; bones somewhat blackened;
fire in pit cemented shells and foot bones.

63 3 -A See #58.

64 3 A See #58.

65 4 P.N N.D Burial #'s 65. 66. 67/2, and 68 were cleared and partially docu-
mented, then disturbed by collapse of filled dragline pit. All were
flexed, vertical with knees high. pelvises down and head bent over.
Small projectile point below #65.

66 3 N.D See #65.

67 4? ? ? No notes.

67'/2 3 -- N.D See #65.

68 4 N.D See #65.

69 3 A See #58.

70 4 N Tightly flexed, head pushed over and down into chest area: elbow
between right innominate and skull. Young person; partly in black
matrix and cemented shells, and partly in sand.

71 3 A See #58.

72 ? ? ? No notes.

73 3 B.O A See #58. Single tubular bone bead possibly associated.

A #'s 74. 75. and 76 are a group of vertical flexed burials. Legs \er-

74 4 P.N


Table B-2 (Continued).

Burial #
















Layer Artifacts

3 on

4 PS.A.P.N



Comments from, and about, field notes

tical, skulls on sides and badly broken, hands by skulls; intermin-
gled bones.

See #74.
See #74.

Flexed in tight ball; on thighs, back to W, upper torso pushed to E;
head down and on left side; knees up so one was over skull.

Same as #77; knees over forehead.

May have been displaced by #'s 77/78. Skull lost to dragline or

Buried in obvious pit leading down from white sand and containing
some pit material. Head lower than legs.

See #58.
See #58.

Young adult female; pit burial apparently down from the sand zone
but some shell between top of pit and sand zone.

No notes.

Group burial of #'s 85, 86, 87. All tightly flexed; backs to W;
heads pushed inwards; arm of #85 points upward and was at edge
of pit.

See #85. Skull broken post-mortem. Proj. Pt. 1" below skull,
possibly associated.

See #85. Proj. pt. somewhere in proximity.

Double burial; both buried on sacrum; knees and head high; heads
twisted to SE. Charcoal impregnated small snails for about a foot
below burials.

See #88.

On sacrum; back to N; head forward and down near knees. Proj.
pt. near #90 and 91.

See #90.

Partly disturbed by #’s 90-91. Back to N; head pushed forward and
down; mandible present but skull was inverted with face upward.

Head pushed or dropped off cervical vertebra. Limonite concretion
near burial, may not be associated.

Headless; skull may be included with #75. Tightly wrapped; pelvis
to north; knees up and to S; vertebrae twisted upward to rib cage
and scapula; skull should have been over knees; hands and artifact
under where chin should have been. Artifacts: (1) proj. pt. jutting
outward from base of ribs and over a vertebra; the point entered
from front and nearly exited from rear; (2) another proj. pt. 4.5
inches NE of NE edge of pelvis; may not be associated.

Knees in front of face.

One ft SW of #71 and at same elevation. May have been numbered
previously but not recorded.


Table B-2 (Continued).
Burial # Layer
97 ?























turbance Comments from, and about, field notes

D Young person; partly disturbed by dragline. Had proj. pt. and
broken stem lying inside left innominate between sacrum and
sacrosciatic opening. Unless point was accidentally moved it
indicates projectile entered back below ribs and went downward to

N Tightly flexed; head between shoulders and knees; small person.

A? Somewhat disturbed; skull and arms are displaced.

N #'s 100/101 buried facing each other.

N See #100.

? Not removed from ground; had proj. pt. with stem broken lying
between femur, left shoulder, and lower ribs.

N Probably flexed and vertical; original head direction to N, then
pushed forward and down on chest, or to S.

N See #102.

N Large person; face to E; hands by head and knee.

N,IE Buried with #106; back to W; knees pulled back to W; head pushed
forward and down.

N,IE See #105.

A,IL This number used for legs of a burial displaced when grave for
#105/106 was dug.

N Tightly flexed body; head to SW but twisted so face is to W. This
is second of 2 burials given #107 in the field. The other one above,
apparently only included lower limbs.

N Hands under skull.

A,IL Disturbed by #110; smaller than #110; see #113 comments.

N Large person; proj. pt. lying on right innominate just below ribs
pointing inward and down just to right of lumbar region.

N Very narrowly compressed in burial pit; on sacrum, back to W;
head pushed to east and 6 inches below knees.

N Young adult; head to SW; face down.

A Completely mixed with #109; skull flattened in vertical plane;
skull of#109 flattened in horizontal plane.

A Completely mixed with #117; depth below datum assumed to be
same as #117.

N Sitting; back to SW; head and shoulder forward to E.

A No skull; # 116 was plotted twice on field map; because ofsequenc-
ing in notes, location is assumed to be near #114 and 115, but this
might not be correct.

A See #114.

A Intermixed with #119.

A See#118.

N V. tightly flexed; head on top of knees and scapula. Antler
flesher(?) to N from between face and left shoulder; bone pt. lay

Table B-2 (Continued).
Burial # Layer Artifacts Disturbance Comments from, and about, field notes
horizontal approx. over antler and large bone pt or pin horizontal
to NE from behind bottom of skull.

121 3 A V. tightly flexed; hand under skull; knees high.

122 ? A? Vertical, tightly flexed; partly destroyed [prehistoric dist?].

123 3 N Tightly flexed.

124 4 N Back toN; head forward on legs to S.

125 ? S,O A? Young person; badly dist. [prehist?]; possibly associated with
miniature shell celt and gouge.

126 4 P,O N Back to NW and upper torso pushed forward; skull displaced 8"
behind upper ribs [to NW]; skull nearly flat. Piece of antler beside
rt humerus [not collected so is assumed not associated]; proj. pt
touching upper part ofrt femur, radius, and hand; unclear whether
this was in the body, placed in grave or just in fill.

127 ? A Partial skull to NNW of#126; recorded as #127 at same location
as #126.


A Somewhat disturbed; arms on each side of head.

N Young person; part of skull. Busycon pick found just below skull.

A Tightly flexed; skull previously removed.

N Loosely flexed; back to NW; head and neck pushed forward and
down to SE; skull resting over pelvis and proximal femur.

A Multiple burial; parts of 3 or 4 skulls; assorted long bones; skulls
to NNW; long bones to SSE.

N Head pushed forward and down to S.

A Young person; all bones not present but apparently was flexed as
head is between vertical long bones.

N Knees 12" in front of skull; elbows flexed.

N Young person; semi-vertical; back to N; head forward and down to

A Young person; bones somewhat disturbed.

A Apparently disturbed vertical flexed burials (#139, 140) with
touching skulls and long bones.

A See #139.

N Child.

A Pelvis with unborn infant bones within; skull not found but due to
mixed situation may have been previously removed.

N Tightly flexed; back to W; head forward and down beside leg bones
to E.

A? Just SE of #139, 140; pelvis to NW; skull pushed over; some bones
of #144, 139 & 140 probably mixed. [Depth below datum was not
recorded but since some intermingling with #139 & 140, their
depth (70") is used as approximation.]


9 991 Voo 52 (3)


Table B-2 (Continued).
Burial # Layer

145 ?

146 4




164 3 N

165 3? B.O N

166 4? A

167 4 N

168 ? A

169 ? N

170 3? N

Large grave pit (not numbered in sequence with other burials).

1 3 N

2 3 N

3 3 -- N

4 3 N

irbance Comments from, and about, field notes

N Back to W; head inside body cavity; face up.

A Large adult; completely mixed; no skull; almost a bundle burial;
not articulated; bones in ground at an angle.

A Ribs indicate vertical flexed position; back to W with head pushed
forward and down. Small amount of red ochre and a bone pin frag
in proximity to #147 & 148.

A Skull 6" lower and centerline [of body] 12" S of#147; see #147 for

N Not tightly flexed.

N Adjacent to #149; in pit; head pushed forward off of ribs.



N Long bones from two bodies.

A # 154, 155, 156 interlocked and semi-disturbed; all were apparently
originally tightly flexed with some long bones horizontal and some
at 45 degree angle.

A See #154.

A See #154.

N Extends under #156.

N Tightly flexed; back to N; head forward to SE on femur.


N Youth; very tightly flexed; laid on side; head to N.


A Burial in top of sandy zone NW of stake 3C.

N I ft NE of stake 2A in grid IA-2B; grid not excavated but burial
was partly retrieved from profile on last day of work.

Bone pin/fastener possibly associated.

Some disturbance; see #165 for artifact.

See #165 for artifact.

Head forward and down.

Semi-vertical: back to NW: head to NE.

The surface of this pit must have been mounded up at one time
with 11 burials inside. The skulls of the upper group of 8 burials
nearly touch each other: skulls are crushed horizontally from
loading. Charcoal found between #1 and 2; numerous apparently
articulated bones oriented horizontally in space outlined by skulls
(Figure 15). Much unidentified black material with bones.


Ev.rnr rTR Ir u

1 Q


1999 VOL 52 3)

Table B-2 (Continued).
Burial # Layer Artifacts Disturbance Comments from, and about, field notes

6 3 N

7 3 -- N

8 3 -- N

9 3 A Child, bones disturbed. These bones, and those for #10 and I I,
were incorporated in cemented small snail shell that formed a
complete seal across the lower pit. Bones were partly articulated.
Underneath the bones of the three individuals were small snail and
mussel shells (Figure 15).

? See #9.

? See #9.



Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138-2019

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following comments were made by Gordon Willey at the Florida Anthropological Society Banquet, April
24, 1999. The banquet, held in conjunction with the society's 51st annual meeting, also honored Dr. Willey on the 50th
anniversary of his influential book, Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast, which was recently reprinted by University Press of

As my title implies, I lay no great claim to ordered
logic or great significance for the remarks I will
make this evening. This in no way is meant as a
slight to Florida archaeology, in which I spent many happy
hours in years past, nor to the Florida Anthropological
Society, of which I was one of the founders. If you don't
believe this last, I can attest to it by a photograph of the
founders' meeting in which I appear, although, to be sure,
you may not now recognize me in it. Rather, my inability to
say anything of much consequence on the subject of Florida
archaeology derives from the fact that I have been away from
it for a half-century.
Only a dozen or so years ago, Nancy White gave me the
opportunity to offer some opinions on what was then recent
Florida research. I did so and undoubtedly revealed my
ignorance, and it is likely that some of my remarks tonight
will continue in that vein. So, when I conclude, if you feel
like it, do not hesitate to speak up and set me straight
wherever I have been off-base on serious matters. I have
never had much sense of infallibility, and in my old age have
even less than I might have had in my youth.
Not unnaturally, the recent republication by the University
Press of Florida of my old tome, Archeology of the Florida
Gulf Coast, has turned my mind back to my Florida past.
Like some of you, I am intrigued by the e spelling of"arche-
ology," in place of the more conventional ae ligature. As I
recall, that was a dictum handed down by the United States
Government Printing Office, perhaps as a gesture towards
modernism, or possibly even economy. I can remember
other problems with the "GPO," as we used to call it around
the Smithsonian back then. At that time, I had also been
helping with the Handbook of South American Indians,
which was under the editorship of my senior colleague,
Julian Steward. Steward was quite taken aback when we
received the first galleys on the "Tropical Forest" volume.
Frequent references to "pubic hair" or "pubic coverings" in
articles dealing with these noble but half-naked savages had
all been changed by the GPO to "public hair" or "public
coverings." Steward had to make a special trip over to the
GPO to get them to take out the 1.

Figure 1. Gordon R. Willey speaking at the FAS ban-
quet, Ft. Walton Beach. Photo by Steve Koski.

I have been told by some that my Archeology of the
Florida Gulf Coast, even with the e spelling, was sometimes
referred to as "The Bible." I trust this sacrilegious designa-
tion refers to its length and weight and not its contents.
Actually, as I remember when it first came out, it was
frequently called by the more mundane name "The Young
Pothunter's Friend and Guide." Owning a copy was recom-
mended as preferable to carrying all ofC. B. Moore's Florida
volumes around with you.
Moore, when you come right down to it, should have been
a coauthor of my book, despite the fact that I never gave him
credit on the title page. I have read somewhere that Moore,



VOL. 52 No. 3

lal Imu a" %1-. 4

in being born into a wealthy family, had originally wanted to
become an Egyptologist; however, this same account went on
to say that an accident in his youth had damaged his eyesight
and this prevented him from entering on this desired career.
In thinking about it, I don't know how well this reflects on
Florida archaeology, but I suppose one's appreciation of
stamped pottery- check-stamped and complicated could be
achieved in a tactile manner if not visually. Moore, though,
never seemed to like stamped pottery very much. In his own
words, in one of his Florida publications, he remarked "that
it showed very little originality." That is, the maker just
pressed the same old design onto the wet pot, over and over.
Now I agree that check-stamping is pretty repetitious -
scarcely enough to keep the mind alive as far as design
layout is concerned. On the other hand, complicated-
stamped, especially some ofthat nice curvilinear Swift Creek
stuff seems difficult and original, especially in the carving
of the paddle. Of course, once you've got the paddle carved,
I suppose its manufacture could have become pretty hum-
drum too.
When Dick Woodbury and I were down in Florida that
summer of 1940 now, God help us, nearer 60 years ago
than 50 we often ran across oldsters who well-remembered
Moore, as well as the old stem-wheeler steamer, The Gopher,
and one, Captain J. S. Rayborn, who commanded the craft.
According to one informant, the Captain would often
position the ship in some riverine bayou so that it was
immediately adjacent to a nice sand burial mound. Moore
and a medical doctor friend of his, who frequently traveled
with him, would then sit on a deck where they could have a
good view of the proceedings while the boat crew, who also
doubled as excavators, went at it on shore. Whenever a pot
was discovered, Moore and the doctor, so the story went,
would hoist a glass and toast the event a short one, presum-
ably, when it was check-stamped or Swift Creek, but a long
one in the event ofa nice Weeden Island Punctated or effigy
But enough of running my distinguished predecessor
down. He was an archaeologist of his time and, while hardly
on the level of Sir Flinders Petrie- and neither am I, for that
matter he left us an important heritage. He published, and
he published promptly, and with lots of good illustrations.
What he had to say, his pictures, and many of the specimens
themselves, which are now in museums, are all that we will
ever have of much of Gulf Florida's aboriginal record. Even
way back in 1940, that record had been sadly depleted. True,
Moore had been responsible for some of this devastation,
especially the sand burial mounds for which he had a
penchant; but the equally valuable shell middens were
largely destroyed after his time, with the building ofautomo-
bile highways all along the coast. I don't know how things
stand now, but I can only hope that someone has convinced
the Florida highway department to find something else for
road beds instead of the shells from archaeological sites.
But let me go back again to the matter of publishing.
Failure to publish is, to my way of thinking, the greatest
weakness or sin in archaeology. Americanists have been

especially bad about this. Sure, it's fun to dig, to find things,
to develop your own ideas about these, and to exchange
information with a small coterie of colleagues. Your field
techniques may be impeccable; you might excavate the whole
mound ever so carefully with orange-wood sticks and cam-
el's hair brushes; but if you leave no published records, your
efforts have been in vain. You may think I am being too old-
fashioned about this. I know that there is talk now of
"putting everything on the internet" where it
will be available to all who are interested. Maybe so, but I
still think the primary excavator has the obligation to put
down not only his record but his thoughts about it, and
publish them as promptly as possible.
Enough, however, of an old man's scolding. Things are
now in yours, the younger generation's, hands. Work and
enjoy. Florida archaeology, when you come down to it,
certainly offers one of the juiciest parts of North American
prehistory. You can't find fancier, more exotic-looking,
precolumbian pottery anywhere in the United States than you
can down here on the Florida Gulf Coast. To be sure, some
of it is related to what was going on in neighboring areas, but
the Florida Indians appear to have had more verve. Consider
Weeden Island pottery. It can be linked to that of Louisiana
and Mississippi and maybe was in part inspired by what went
on over there; but, for whatever reasons, the Florida natives
ran wild with those ceramic traditions once they got them
over here. While the Troyville and Coles Creek incised and
punctated designs conform nicely to neat bands encircling
standard bowl forms, the Gulf Florida ones are expressed in
all sorts of design arrangements, as well as being displayed
on an endless variety of vessel forms. Think of those
Weeden Island effigies, especially the ones with the graceful
"pre-fired" triangles cut out ofbird-form bodies. To my way
ofthinking, Weeden Islanders had a positive fascination with
the outre and the bizarre. Where else would you find
anything like that crazy-looking little incised-and-painted
man effigy that came from a Weeden Island burial mound
right here in Ft. Walton?
What were the liberating, energizing factors that operated
here for Weeden Island Gulf Florida potters? This is one of
those questions that archaeology spelled either with the
single e or ae ligature can't give a really scientific answer
to; at the same time, it's a question that intrigues us. Maybe
it had something to do with the soft life the climate, the
abundant provender from the sea, a little fooling around with
food plants, not too much, not really organized agriculture.
Social and political organization was kept to a small scale.
A head man had his own little community where he was
surrounded by his retainers. One would include among these
last all those shapely ladies dressed only in Spanish moss
that the early French artists have passed down to us. At his
death, or perhaps after an appropriate stay in a well-ap-
pointed charnel house, he was interred in his own comfort-
able little burial mound, accompanied by the bones of his kin
and friends, and surrounded with those pleasing ceramic
forms that he had enjoyed during his lifetime. All in all, I
think the Florida Gulf Coast during the Weeden Island I


?'I MI. ---. A - -

9 991 V 52 3


Period would have been the best place and time to be a
precolumbian Indian.
Later, things changed. With the Mississippian cultural
impingements from the north there must have been a more
extensive, and for many a more restrictive, political organi-
zation. This probably came with a more intensive agricul-
tural subsistence. Life along the shore, with its benefits and
indolent pleasures, began to be replaced by an adaptation to
inland farming and a grimmer existence, at least for most
people. Whether related to this or not, the old free-flowing
originality ofthe Weeden island ceramic arts was replaced by
the more standardized Ft. Walton- period pottery. To be
sure, in the principal Ft. Walton centers of power, such as
the inland Lake Jackson site, they created some very exotic
paraphernalia; but even in such capitals these were scarce
goods, restricted for the use of the territorial rulers and
agricultural autocrats who resided in such places.
I know that many of you are on the front lines of Florida
research, and I envy you. Regrettably, as I have admitted, I
have not kept up with what you have been doing; but, to get
a little closer to archaeological arguments and discussion, let
me return once more to that recent edition of my old book.
I was asked by the University Press of Florida to write a new
Preface for it. I did so, and I must admit, I could not resist
pointing out that when Archeology ofthe Florida GulfCoast
first appeared in 1949, a distinguished senior colleague had
remarked: "That book has set Florida archaeology back fifty
years." I noted, parenthetically, that such was a fairly
frequent form of criticism in those days. For some reason it
was always fifty years, never one hundred, seventy-five, nor
more leniently, twenty-five. I suppose it was a little mean-
spirited of me to bring this up, and in thinking about it since,
I take a more tolerant view of my former critic. For what he
had to say was, in one sense, a quite legitimate criticism of
that era. Of course, it depended upon your point of view and
your attitude as to the proper way to proceed with the
archaeology of Florida and, more broadly speaking, that of
eastern North America; but, for 1949, my critic was indeed
marching with the majority.
Remember that eastern United States archaeology, in any
organized academic way, had had its beginnings in the
Middle West, especially in the Ohio Valley and neighboring
regions. For the most part, it was a "mound-digging"
archaeology. Refuse deposits were either scarce, hard to
identify, or not very interesting to those early investigators.
There was, nevertheless, a commendable desire to put order
into things, to arrange or classify sites and the objects found
in them into cultural categories and types. The result was
the Midwestern Taxonomic System, or, as it was more
frequently called, the "McKern Classification," after one of
its principal proponents, the late W. C. McKern. The system
began with archaeological "site components," which were
grouped into focii" on the basis of close similarities of
content. Closely related foci were then grouped into "as-
pects;" aspects, in turn, made up the more general category
of "phases;"and, finally, phases were placed into the very
broadly defined divisions of major "patterns." Now in my

Gulf Florida book I had not done this. I did not explain why
I had not, but as I think back about it now, I had not used
such an approach because it seemed tome to be "running too
far ahead of the data." After all, such taxonomic assign-
ments made some rather far-reaching interpretations as to
cultural affiliations and linkages, and it seemed to me that
we did not yet know enough about the particulars with which
we were dealing right here in Gulf Florida to leap ahead in
such a fashion. I thought that we had better settle down to a
definition of local ceramic, artifact, and earthwork com-
plexes and get a better grip on these, especially from the
standpoint of their relative chronology, before we leaped
ahead to Eastern United States-wide affiliations.
Admittedly, such area-wide connections, such as those
implied in the Midwestern Taxonomic scheme, were of great
interest to all of us then involved in Florida archaeology, as
they continue to be today. I did not completely ignore them,
discussing such affiliations or possible affiliations in a
concluding section of the book; but I did not structure my
data into such a classificatory scheme. By not doing so, I
had, in the opinion of my critic, "set things back;" or, if that
is too extreme a criticism, I had not advanced matters. I
suppose the main reason I performed the way that I did was
because I had been brought up in archaeology as a student at
the University of Arizona and in a Southwestern archaeologi-
cal tradition that was different from that of the midwestern
United States. While there were some taxonomic culture
classification schemes for Southwestern archaeological
cultures both Harold Gladwin and H. S. Colton had devised
such they were never paramount in archaeological opera-
tions out there. Instead, in the Southwest there was always
great emphasis on chronology, relative at first and then
strengthened by dendrochronology. Perhaps one of the
reasons matters had moved in this direction was the obvious-
ness of refuse dumps near many of the ancient pueblo living
sites. These prompted stratigraphic analysis. Nelson,
Kidder, and others had been doing this sort of research in the
Southwest since the second decade of the twentieth century.
In the East, such obvious stratigraphic situations were rarer
and, I think as a consequence, relative chronological order-
ing advanced more slowly.
One of the perils of turning too swiftly to taxonomic
classification in the initial archaeological ordering of a
region or area can be questionable assignments of the data.
As a case in point, where did the Gulf Florida Weeden Island
culture fit into the Midwestern Taxonomic System? Those
ofyou who have followed Florida archaeology for awhile will
know what I am talking about. Did Weeden Island belong in
the Woodland pattern? Its emphasis on burial mounds and
even some of its artifacts suggested this. On the other hand,
that flamboyance in effigy-modeled ceramics could suggest
some kind of a Middle Mississippian affiliation or admix-
ture. Such a Middle Mississippian alliance could be further
argued when a very typical Weeden Island I burial mound
and its ceramic assemblage is located at a site where, not
more than a couple of hundred yards away, there is a large,
imposing pyramid or temple mound. In such a circumstance,

nl-.~~---.\-~-.~~~lmr ~~r~r~Mu

Il ....

TLw F.umA Aymwnpowiv'., 19. Yn. 52 13)

as at the major site of Kolomoki in southwest Georgia, the
temptation to classify the site and its culture as Middle
Mississippian seems reasonable. Is the Kolomoki pyramid
mound one of the steepest, most nicely shaped earth
pyramids in the southeastern United States contemporane-
ous with the nearby burial mound? Maybe it isn't. If not,
this would let us out of our classificatory dilemma: the burial
mound could belong to one pattern and the temple mound to
a different but later one at a multiple-occupation site. But
maybe we shouldn't go too fast in this direction either.
Remember that Weeden Island has those strong ceramic
links to Lower Mississippi Valley Troyville and Coles Creek
cultures, cultures which do have pyramid mounds. Do other
Weeden Island sites have pyramid or temple mounds? Now
I am beginning to ask questions that many of you must have
ideas about. As I recall, many ofMoore's accounts describe
mounds that sound like flat-topped pyramid-platforms with
ramps, and these occur at sites which also have Weeden
Island burial mounds. Think, for instance, of the peninsula
on the Gulf Coast side. As you know, there is a substantial
pyramid mound there, as well as a burial mound. As you
also know, Crystal River is a mess ceramically, and what
belonged with what may never be sorted out now.
I raise these issues. I am not up on things enough to know
all your current ideas about them; I do know, however, that
Jerald Milanich and his colleagues explored and published
on a site called McKeithen and that McKeithen, while being
ceramically very much in the Weeden Island tradition, also
has a substantial temple-type mound, much as Kolomoki
does. McKeithen is not in the Ft. Walton, Lake Jackson, or
Mississippian tradition, but it certainly shows differences
from most of those Weeden Island sites right down on the
beach. I am not current enough on Florida archaeology to
know just what your thinking is on these matters; but back in
the 1940s they presented questions, and they were some of
the reasons for not structuring the archaeology of Gulf
Florida into the Midwestern Taxonomic System.
But let me close. Again, I thank you for inviting me and
listening to me. The real intellectual excitements in Florida
archaeology are still ahead, and you will enjoy them. I am
glad that I had the opportunity to be one of those who began
the task of sorting and ordering the data that you, I trust, will
be interpreting in ever more adventurous ways.


9 991 Vol 52 (3)


Florida Heritage Driving Tours: Joint Venture
Takes Heritage Tourism to the Market

P.O. Box 608, St. Petersburg, Florida 33731

Six years ago we noted (Piper and Piper 1993) that finding
new and innovative ways to encourage people to care
about our nation's archaeological and historical resources is
challenging, especially in view of the competition for
discretionary time and funds in today's high-tech age of
packaged access to entertainment. Therefore, when planning
programs to expand public interest in the patronage and
preservation of cultural resources, it is helpful to remember
the related propositions that maximizing public benefit
maximizes public support and that public benefit derives
from public satisfaction. If the essence of public benefit is
public satisfaction, then the general public should be pro-
vided with something that makes them feel good about the
past and its relevance to the present. Consequently, when
possible, energies and finances should be employed to carry
interesting research results beyond traditional goals of
interpretation to a product sufficiently appealing to the
general public to be marketable by private industry.
Two of the common impediments to expanded public
appeal are an audience that is too narrow and marketing that
is inadequate. Thus we suggested (Piper and Piper
1993:201) that one way to access an extensive marketing
system is through joint ventures, wherein research results are
provided to a private industry that funds the marketing to a
broad group of prospects through an infrastructure already in
place. In other words, utilize the archaeological and histori-
cal record and provide private industry with incentives to
promote cultural heritage to the general public. The Florida
Heritage Driving Tour project is a working example of this

Linking Site Research to the Marketplace

In 1993, we initiated a joint venture of the sort envisioned
above by reaching agreements on behalf of non-profit
organizations with what were then the two Florida affiliates
of the American Automobile Association (AAA). The
qualified non-profit organizations, which were funded by
grants awarded by the Florida Division of Historical Re-
sources, retained us to design a set of heritage driving tours
of the state to be offered by the Florida AAA affiliates as a
free service to their members (Figure 1). Under the terms of
the agreements, we conducted the research, field evaluation,
routing, site selection, and writing for the tours. The AAA

affiliates, specifically the AAA Auto Club South and the East
Florida Division of AAA, printed, marketed, and distributed
the tour booklets through their branch networks. Thus the
availability of the funded professional research and field
work provided the incentive for the AAA affiliates to
underwrite the cost of promotion to their extensive and
diverse memberships. This project was completed for Auto
Club South in the summer of 1995 and for the East Florida
Division in the fall of 1996.
The AAA Auto Club South had in excess of 1.5 million
members including the western two-thirds of Florida, all of
Georgia, and the western two-thirds of Tennessee. AAA
East Florida also had more than 1.5 million members
including east Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Thus the
archaeological and historical site marketing effort in 1995-
1996 potentially reached a market approaching 3.1 million
people. In addition, the AAA affiliates have the information
should they choose to use it in other ways, such as new
listings in the Attractions section of the AAA Florida Tour
Book or as background information for their syndicated
newspaper columns.
There were many realities which affected the design of the
tours, for which useful information was readily available
from existing AAA membership surveys. Among these
considerations were the optimum length of a total tour in
terms of days, and the suitable pace and driving time for any
single leg between sites. These parameters had to be inte-
grated with the geographic relationship of the sites them-
selves. Prior to conducting the field tours, documentary
research was carried out for many sites that were not selected
for field evaluation, owing either to their lack of public
access or their lack of historical integrity. Once in the field,
326 sites were visited and evaluated throughout the state, of
which 192 were selected for inclusion in the tours.

Marketing and Distribution

The first six Florida Heritage Driving Tours were com-
pleted within the Florida territory of AAA Auto Club South.
Following an article to promote the tours in its membership
magazine, Going Places (Wuckovich 1994:39-40), the Club
retained an outside marketing firm to survey the level of
interest and probable use of the tours by its members, with
the survey results statistically projectable at two standard
deviations (a 95% confidence level). Of those members
contacted, 78% were aware of the article, 53% had read it,
60% were either very interested or somewhat interested in
the tours, and 47% were very likely or likely to obtain a tour
guide booklet (Market Enhancement Group, Inc. 1994).
Prior to publishing the magazine article and ordering the
survey, Auto Club South had printed 12,000 tour booklets

206 TIMi Frven -A -
19 o-5 3

Figure 1. The Tallahassee Hub booklet, one example of
the AAA Florida Heritage Driving Tours guide books.

(2000 of each of the six tours) and distributed them through-
out its branch network. The strong survey results enabled
the Club to anticipate latent demand and consequently
18,000 additional copies were printed. As a nice enhance-
ment, the Florida Division of Historical Resources supplied
photographs of pertinent historic properties for use on the
covers. The most recent printing, 3000 additional copies of
each tour, took place in November 1998. The Auto Club
South magazine periodically promotes the tour booklets (e.g.,
American Automobile Association 1994:51, 1996:46) and
membership demand in continuing.
Our work for the AAA East Florida Division resulted in
five driving tours, four of which have been published with an
initial printing of 3000 for each tour. Publication of the fifth
tour, running from east of Orlando to Flagler County, was
deferred until a later fiscal year due to organizational

restructuring. An article describing and promoting the
Florida tours appeared in the East Florida Division member-
ship magazine, Car & Travel (American Automobile
Association 1997:5). The tour booklets are now available in
the East Florida branches of AAA, and the east and west
regions will carry each other's tour booklets. The level of
membership interest and market penetration was anticipated
to be approximately as strong for east Florida as it was for
the west.
In January 1998, AAA Auto Club South acquired the East
Florida Division of AAA (except for Louisiana and Missis-
sippi), thereby bringing the marketing and distribution of the
driving tours under a single administration. As of September
1998, the consolidated entity had 3,063,870 members.

Expanded Awareness and Convenient Access

In addition to the 3 million plus members who were
exposed to the articles in the Club publications cited above,
public attention was drawn to Florida's heritage when the
popular media became interested in the driving tours. In
1994 and 1996, extensive articles appeared in newspapers
with major circulations (e.g., Klinkenberg 1994; Wright
1996) and notable commentary was included in articles
appearing in a state university newsletter (Fernandez 1995)
and in a real estate magazine of statewide circulation (Mad-
dux Report 1994:5).
This joint undertaking by a state agency, grantees, private
consultants, and a private, not-for-profit travel organization
has served to heighten the appeal of Florida's archaeological
and historical sites to a large, multi-state market of the
touring public. Heightened appeal and packaging the
information in an easily accessible format are both proven
criteria for gaining public support for cultural resources in
today's society.

References Cited

American Automobile Association
1994 News and Notes: Historic Treasures. Going Places 12(5):51.
1996 News and Notes: State Heritage Tours. Going Places 14(3):46.
1997 Update: AAA's "Florida Heritage" Guides Now Available. Car &
Travel September/October, p. 5.
Fernandez, Susan
1995 Pipers Bring Archaeology Home. Bayboro Briefing 8(12):3.
Klinkenberg, Jeff
1994 This Road Trip Takes Us Back. St. Petersburg Times, July 10, pp. 1F
Maddux Report
1994 A Cultural Roadtrip. Maddux Report 11(2):5.
Market Enhancement Group, Inc.
1994 AAA Auto Club South Florida Heritage Driving Tours Study. Market
enhancement Group, Inc., Richmond, Virginia.
Piper, Harry M. and Jacquelyn G. Piper
1993 ImprovingArchaeology'sPublicAppeal. TheFloridaAnthropologist
Wright, Fred W., Jr.
1996 Couple Records Florida History by the Book. The Tampa Tribune,
Baylife section, April 16, p. 1 ff
Wuckovich, Tom
1994 Florida's Historic Treasures: State's Heritage Comes Alive in "Florida
Heritage Driving Tours." Going Places 13(4):39-40.

9 991 Vot 52 (3)

- ___ A _



EDITOR'S NOTE: Abstracts of papers presented at this year's annual meeting in Fort Walton Beach are being published in The
Florida Anthropologist so that those members who could not attend, as well as other interested readers of the journal, will have
access to the research that is being conducted in Florida.

Archaeological Collections at the Florida Museum of
Natural History: A Behind-the-Exhibits Tour
Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida
This paper is presented as a slide tour ofthe archaeological
and comparative collections at the Florida Museum of
Natural History in Gainesville. Archaeological collections
from prehistoric and historic sites in Florida, the Caribbean
basin, and objects in the ethnographic collections are
discussed. In addition, contributions of the museum's
Ceramic Technology Laboratory, the Environmental Archae-
ology Laboratory (animals, plants, and soils), and the
comparative collections lithicc, ceramic, faunal, and botani-
cal) to archaeological research are examined. The research
value of the collections housed at the museum and the
benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to archaeology are

New Information about Clarence B. Moore's Expeditions
to Peninsular Florida
Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin,
Arkansas 72373-02413
The indefatigableClarenceBloomfield Moore (1852-1936)
carried out more excavations in Florida than any other state.
Although some archaeologists have complained about his
field methods, all are impressed by the large, well-illustrated
publications that he turned out with amazing rapidity. In
recent years he has gained more respect as we have come to
realize that his publications and field notes are often the only
records we have of sites that have been destroyed by develop-
ment, erosion, and careless digging. All ofMoore's publica-
tions are being reprinted, and his Florida papers fill three
thick volumes. In doing research while editing two of these
volumes, I have come across a number of new facts, anec-
dotes, and documents relating to Moore's work in the
peninsular part of the state. These help us to learn more
about the man, as well as his work in Florida.

Clarence B. Moore, Mt. Royal, and Crystal River: Early
Archaeology in Florida
Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida
Maps of important archaeological sites in the southeastern
United States always include Mt. Royal on the St. Johns

River and Crystal River on the Gulf coast. Both were first
excavated nearly a century or more ago by Philadelphia
archaeologist Clarence B. Moore. The artifacts he collected,
as well as his original field notes, still exist today, providing
modern researchers informed access to the collections and
their intrinsic data. In this paper, Moore's work at Mt. Royal
and Crystal River is revisited and both sites are reexamined
within the context of modern archaeology.

B. Calvin Jones at Mount Royal
Louis D. TESAR
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, 500 South
Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Calvin Jones viewed the Mount Royal site (8PU35) as a
special place. He worked on several projects with the
property owner and volunteer assistants, primarily members
of the Northeast Florida Anthropological Society chapter of
the FAS. He focused his efforts on investigating the village
area surrounding the main mound. His work has furthered
our understanding of the site's Native American, Spanish,
and British inhabitants. A number of Calvin's project
reports, including his Mount Royal research, remained
unfinished at the time of his untimely passing in February,
1998. Louis Tesar has been working to complete these

The Halifax-Mosquitoes Plantation Corridor
St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine, Florida
This paper examines the plantation/agricultural complex
developed between Matanzas Inlet and Cape Canaveral
during five political regimes in Florida. Using documentary
and archaeological data, 28 plantations, established from
1763 to 1845 during the three middle periods, were chosen
for closer analysis of location, settlement model, entrepre-
neurial pattern, labor, cropping, and political and social
context. Dramatic changes, especially in plantation size,
principal crops, and technology, were evident during this
golden age of plantation agriculture on Florida's east coast.

Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Properties of the
Naval Live Oaks Reservation
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750
The information presented in this paper is a summary of


29 sites contained in the National Register of Historic Places
Multiple Properties Nomination for the Naval Live Oaks
Reservation located in Gulf Breeze, Florida. Prehistoric
archaeological sites on the National Park Service property
range in date from the Early Woodland to the Protohistoric
periods and include accretionary middens, cemeteries,
mounds, and a Santa Rosa-Swift Creek shell ring. Historic
sites are represented by a First Spanish Period component, a
preserved section of the first American road in Florida, and
antebellum remains associated with the Naval Live Oaks
Plantation. Funding for nomination research was provided
by the National Park Service through the University of West
Florida Archaeology Institute.

Sarabay by the Sea: A Historic Timucua Village and
Mission Visita
‘Department of Political Science and Sociology, University
of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida 32224-2645
? Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, Florida 32611

Cartographic and documentary evidence from French and
Spanish sources has long suggested that the contact-era
maritime Timucua village and later vista of Sarabay was
located on a barrier island, immediately north of the St.
Johns River. In the early 1960s, the recovery of limited
amounts of Mission-period pottery led local archaeologist
William Jones to speculate that Sarabay was located on Big
Talbot Island. This paper reviews the results of a recent
survey and testing project conducted by the University of
North Florida that adds support to Jones’s claim that Sarabay
was situated on the southern end of Big Talbot Island.

Fiesta Underground: Art and Archaeology in Pensacola
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750

A recent exhibit at the Pensacola Museum of Art focused
on the role of art in archaeology, pairing artifact assemblages
recovered from specific precolumbian, colonial, and post-
colonial sites in Pensacola with the art mediums of painting,
cartography, glass blowing, ceramics, engraving, photogra-
phy, architecture, sculpture, and computer art. The exhibit
offered comprehensive insights on the role of art as ex-
pressed in the everyday lives of inhabitants along the F lorida
Gulf Coast frontier. This talk gives an overview of the
mounted exhibit.

Archaeological Investigations at the Cedar Point Ruins,
Duval County, Florida
Department of Anthropology, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Proposed as Duval County’s oldest structure, dating to
1795, the Cedar Point Ruins are unique architecturally in

that they are constructed of tabby blocks mortared in the
fashion of brick walls. The Cedar Point Ruins today consist
of the above-ground remains of three structures that have
long been referred to by area historians as the plantation of
William Fitzpatrick. In 1985, Calvin Jones investigated the
site and proposed an 1830 to 1860 construction date for
structure A based on mean ceramic data and nail chronology.
Jones’s date is much later than the Fitzpatrick occupation of
the site (1795-1830); therefore he attributed these ruins to
John Broward who purchased the property in 1830. Unfortu-
nately the Jones data were limited and have subsequently
been lost. During the summer of 1998, the remains of three
tabby structures and one archaeological site, which may
represent the remains of another structure, were investigated
in order to solve the mystery of who built the tabby planta-
tion complex.

Public Archaeology and the 300th Anniversary of the
First Pensacola Site: Presidio Santa Maria de Galvé
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750

Extensive archaeological and historic investigations have
been conducted at the site of the “First Pensacola,” named
the Presidio Santa Maria de Galvé. This project has com-
bined the traditional research activities of student field
schools, conference papers, and reports, with large-scale
public archaeology. While Pensacolians planned to celebrate
the 300th anniversary of the city in 1998,the location of the
site had been lost and there was very little known about it.
Archaeologists and historians at the University of West
Florida launched an investigation to find the remains of this
settlement and share the search and finds with the public
through a high-profile, public-friendly archaeology project.
The site was found and studied, and the 300th anniversary
celebration was held on the site, which has been partially
rebuilt and interpreted for the public.

Calusa Survival
Linacre College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX23J-A

The Calusa Indians of the southwest Florida coast survived
as a distinct culture for nearly two centuries following
official European contact in 1566. This cultural continuity
contrasts with the native cultures in North Florida, which
crumbled under the Spanish mission system. Factors
involved in maintaining Calusa cultural continuity are
examined. Beginning with the open hostility of the Calusa
towards the Spanish, a portrait is presented of a culture that,
through Spanish policy, the Calusa power structure, isola-
tion, and perhaps a trade relationship, continued to assert
itself as an independent nation. The end of the Calusa
culture occurs with the extinction of a people in the mid-
eighteenth century.


The Cannons of Presidio Santa Maria de Galv6
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750
Another chapter in the history of Presidio Santa Maria de
Galv6 unfolded with the discovery of three cannon tubes
found buried in a pit within the northwest bastion. Follow-
ing in situ recording in July 1998, the tubes were transported
to the University of West Florida for conservation and
analysis. The cannons were cleaned of nearly 300 years of
rust by a year-long electrolysis treatment, remounted on
replica carriages, and placed on display in Pensacola. This
paper will discuss the conservation treatment given to the
weapons and their historical analysis.

More than We Ever Would have Thought: The C.A.R.L.
Survey of the Wacissa River, Jefferson County, Florida
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, 500 South
Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
While the rest of the state has undergone profound devel-
opment and transformation, Florida's Wacissa River has
remained largely unchanged; a window on wild and untamed
Florida as it once was. While the ecological wonders of the
rivershed have long been celebrated, the cultural significance
of the area is only now being realized. A survey of the river
corridor by the C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, Florida
Bureau ofArchaeological Research, has revealed an amazing
quantity and quality of sites which had been largely over-
looked by professional archaeologists. This paper presents a
progress report of this ongoing survey.

Burial Beads: A Preliminary Study of Glass Beads
Recovered Under the Church at the Presidio Santa Maria
de Galve in Pensacola, Florida.
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750
During the 1998 field season at Spanish presidio Santa
Maria de Galvd (1698-1719) in Pensacola, Florida, burials
were encountered under the scant remains of the church
floor. Several rare beads were found in this context. This
paper describes the nature of the burials and the materials
recovered from each interment, and offers a preliminary
interpretation based on the remains of these settlers on the
fringe of the Spanish empire.

C.A.R.L. Assessments in the "Devil's Paradise" of
Franklin, Gulf, and Liberty Counties, Florida
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, 500 South
Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
"Devil's Paradise" is one of the many names given to the
enigmatic area around Tate's Hell Swamp in northwest
Florida. The C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey recently

completed assessments of the cultural resources within the
Tate's Hell State Forest and the adjacent Apalachicola River
Wildlife and Environmental Area. Numerous sites, both
prehistoric and historic, were found and offer a glimpse of
what the landscape was like prior to widespread, intensive
siviculture. The two tracts, recognized as vital to the
maintenance of water quality in Apalachicola Bay, comprise
nearly 75,000 hectares (185,000 acres).

The Santa Rosa Island Wreck: Archaeological Investiga-
tions of an Early Eighteenth-Century Sailing Vessel
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750
Rediscovered during a remote-sensing survey ofPensacola
Bay in 1998, the Santa Rosa Island Wreck (8ES1905) was
investigated by the University of West Florida during a
maritime archaeology field school. Preliminary investiga-
tion of the site during the field school revealed a ballast pile,
substantial lower hull remains, and a small artifact assem-
blage. Although the function, nationality, and identity of the
shipwreck has not yet been positively ascertained, the site is
believed to represent the remains of an early eighteenth-
century merchant vessel associated with either of the first
two permanent colonial Spanish settlements in Pensacola -
Presidio Santa Maria de Galv6 (1698-1722) or Presidio Isla
de Santa Rosa (1723-1752). This paper presents the results
of the 1998 field investigations.

Developing Criteria for Evaluating Archaeological Site
Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation, 500 South Bro-
nough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Florida Department. of Transportation currently uses
the National Register of Historic Places criteria for evaluat-
ing archaeological site significance to comply with the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These methods
are reassessed through a detailed analysis of the Florida Site
File database in the Florida Department of Transportation's
District 5 and a new method of site evaluation based on
general categories of significance is developed. This method
utilizes an evaluation matrix that ranks sites in a non-
hierarchical manner to identify significant sites.

The Deadman's Island Shipwreck: A British Warship in
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750
Discovered in 1988 during an archaeological survey of a
small island off Gulf Breeze, Florida, the Deadman's Island
Shipwreck (8SR782) became the focus of the University of
West Florida's first underwater archaeological field school.
Lying in the shallows of an historic careening ground, this
small wooden sailing vessel produced artifacts that detailed
British military life and offered tantalizing clues to the ship's

saw~~~on THlFtmAra-

identity. This paper describes the first excavation of a
warship in Pensacola, as well as the knowledge gained about
colonial British maritime lifeways revealed by artifacts and
naval architecture.

What Do the Plant Remains from Remnant Mound at
DeSoto National Memorial Reveal About South Florida
Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida
Recently, selected samples from the Remnant Mound in
Manatee County were analyzed in anticipation of revealing
bountiful botanical remains associated with the estuarine
habitat where the site is located. Interestingly, these samples
did not produce the expected amount of remains. These
limited data forced us to consider why this site was seem-
ingly different from the Pineland sites to the south in
Charlotte Harbor, where botanical remains were numerous.
This study reveals the results of archaeobotanical compari-
sons from available South Florida sites based upon the
methods used, samples studied, and specimens analyzed and

The Life and Times of a Merchant Sailor: History and
Archaeology of the Norwegian Ship Catharine
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750
Merchant sailing ships often had short working careers
during the nineteenth century. The Catharine, however,
survived 24 years, finally wrecking off of Santa Rosa Island
(Pensacola), Florida on August 7, 1894. Recent hurricanes
and harsh winter storms uncovered the vessel and exposed
several highly significant artifacts. Alerted by conscientious
sport divers, the National Park Service contracted the
Archaeology Institute at the University of West Florida to
map and record the exposed hull remains and associated
debris field. This paper presents the history of the vessel and
the results of the 1998 maritime archaeology field season.

Architectural Archaeology: Using Interdisciplinary
Methods to Interpret Archaeological Sites with Architec-
tural Components
AAC/EMSH, 501 DeLeon Street, Suite 101, Eglin AFB,
Florida 32542-5101
Archaeologists are uncovering many significant sites with
architectural components. Whether these are prehistoric,
contact period, or colonial period, the methods of social
science and architectural specialists should be utilized in
tandem with standard archaeological practices to produce
accurate depictions of habitation and ceremonial architec-
ture. This is not a new approach but there are many un-
tapped sources of information that have not been used by
archaeologists to round out their interpretation of architec-
tural sites. Architectural historians, anthropologists, tradi-

tional historians, geographers, and urban planners can be
useful sources for the interpretation of archaeological sites
which include dwellings, temple complexes, and settlement
clusters. A creative approach for the fullest analysis of
structural remains should utilize experts in a variety of fields
who have access to a wide variety of analogies to use for
comparison of sites that include a built environment.
Comparisons of a variety of archaeological sites with
architectural components in the United States and the
Caribbean are included in this paper and presentation.
Methods to identify useful alternate sources of information
for interpreting architectural sites are addressed.

The Americanization of the West Florida Interior and the
Making of an Archaeological Predictive Model
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750
Historical surveys of the Escambia River drainage afford
valuable clues pertaining to the spread and impetus of
American encroachment into Spanish West Florida from
1783 to 1821. This paper emphasizes the potential of
Spanish colonial and American territorial surveys as archae-
ological resources in developing predictive models concern-
ing American settlement and land use during this important
phase in West Florida development.

A Norwood Simple Stamped Vessel from the Apalachicola
National Forest, Florida
U.S. Forest Service, 325 John Knox Road Suite F-100,
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
A Norwood Simple Stamped vessel was excavated from a
small site in the Apalachicola National Forest on the
Sopchoppy River in 1990, providing a vessel form for this
ceramic type. Recent analysis of 1990 data has provided
additional archaeobotanical information and yielded associ-
ated radiocarbon dates. The vessel's decoration bears some
resemblance to Deptford Simple Stamped. Radiocarbon
dates and similar vessel decoration supports Norwood Simple
Stamped as a prototype for Deptford Simple Stamped. The
dispersed nature of Norwood sites in the Apalachicola
National Forest and the sparse scattering of associated
artifacts are relevant to Late Archaic site location patterns.

Preliminary Results of8SR1251: A British Colonial Site
on Eglin Air Force Base, Florida
AAC/EMSH, 501 DeLeon Street, Suite 101, Eglin AFB,
Florida 32542-5101
8SR1251 is a British Colonial-period site on Eglin Air
Force Base. This talk gives a general overview of the
ongoing excavations at the site and discusses some of the
preliminary findings. This is the only site of its kind on
Eglin and one of the few British Colonial-period homesteads
found in Florida. Evidence points to at lease two structures
that employed brick, tabby, and cedar posts as construction

A - _

9 991 V 52 3

n~oLs V. fo jut 1117 1 fl

materials. Research has also revealed the probable owner of
the property.

An Overview of Volunteer Excavation at 8WL61
333 Persimmon Street, Freeport, Florida 32439
8WL61 is a 2-hectare (5-acre) Weeden Island and Fort
Walton shell midden in a dry, dense hardwood hammock on
the south shore of Choctawhatchee Bay, 2.4 km (1.5 mi) west
of the SR 331 bridge. Excavation began to salvage archaeo-
logical data prior to construction of a seawall and family
home. Fifty-seven shovel tests at 20-m intervals revealed
archaeological materials non-uniformly distributed across the
site, with several individual concentrations of 15+ m2. The
waterfront, house, and interior areas were intensively
sampled. All yielded oyster shell midden, pottery, bone,
shell and bone tools, and a few lithic artifacts. Features
included pits and post molds in the waterfront area; a
remarkable array of40 post molds in 10 m2 at the house area;
and another 50+ post molds, pits, and a possible wall trench
in a 24 m2 block at the interior area.

Historic Ceramics from a British Colonial Site (8SR1251)
on Eglin Air Force Base
Prentice Thomas Associates, Inc., 124 SE ShellAvenue, Fort
Walton Beach, Florida 32549
This paper discusses the array of historic ceramics recov-
ered as a result of testing and excavations at 8SR1251,
located on Eglin Air Force Base, on East Bay near Rolly,
Florida. Preliminary historical research indicates that the
site is within a parcel once owned by Valens Stephen
Comyn, a Pensacola merchant and member of the West
Florida Colonial Assembly. Investigations have identified
evidence of two structures, several features, and over 2000
historic ceramics. Judging from artifact seriation and
historic sources, the estimated range ofoccupation is between
1765 and 1780. The ceramic assemblage is notable for the
wide array of types present as well as for those types not
found. Just under half of the ceramic sample is composed of
blue-on-white delft, while significant minorities of white
salt-glazed stonewares and creamwares were also recovered.
Smaller samples of lead-glazed earthenwares, Westerwald
and scratch-blue stonewares, oriental porcelain, and bone
china were also found at the site. Notably rare or absent are
pearlwares and trade wares such as faience and majolica.

Late Archaic Sites on the Lower Choctawhatchee
4430 Yarmouth Place, Pensacola, Florida 32514-8222
There is a group of Late Archaic sites located in south-
central Walton County that have proved to be both interest-
ing and extremely informative. The five sites, 8WL1278,
8WL1289-1290, and 8WL1293-1294 are located along the
first terrace on the northern edge of the lower Chocta-
whatchee River Basin. The sites consist of one base camp,
which may prove to be a permanent settlement, and tempo-

rally related smaller sites. Radiocarbon dates obtained from
the sites range between 5030 and 4140 radiocarbon years

Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Settlement on
the "Inner Frontier" of What Is Now Eglin Air Force
Base, Florida
Prentice Thomas Associates, Inc., 124 SE Shell Avenue, Fort
Walton Beach, Florida 32549
This paper discusses European settlement patterns on the
lands currently comprising Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
Despite its proximity to Pensacola, the project area was
generally poorly suited for agriculture and there was very
little interest in settlement until the turpentine and timber
boom of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Though there were scattered settlements in colonial and
antebellum times, the great majority of claims were made
between 1890, when the timber companies moved in, and
1908, when the area was closed to homesteading and became
part of the Choctawhatchee National Forest. At this time
125,455 ha (310,000 ac) of the 184,945 ha (457,000 ac) of
the forest area was in private hands, including 68,393 ha
(169,000 ac) of Railroad Grant Land (most purchased by
turpentine timber companies), 22,194 ha (54,841 ac) of State
swamp land, 4512 ha (11,148 ac) of State school land,
26,915 ha (66,507 ac) of homestead land, and 3092 ha (7640
ac) of timber and stone claims. Most of the population of
3041 lived or worked at the turpentine communities of
Gamier, New Home, Metts, Howell, Alaqua, or the quarters
of the 20 or so smaller turpentine stills spread through the
forest. According to contemporary sources, the majority of
homestead claims were made for the forest value and the
claimants sold their land to the forest products companies
after making their five-year proof of residence. The National
Forest tenure lasted until 1940 when it was transferred to the
War Department and became Eglin Air Force Base. Shortly
after this, all of the private claims were acquired by Eglin,
the area was depopulated, and military installations were
constructed in preparation for the upcoming war.

Science and Adventure in a Wild Mound Chase in
Northwest Florida
Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida,
Tampa, Florida 33620
The story of the Jones-Daniel mounds in the Apalachicola
Delta demonstrates again the importance of primary field
data combined with archival research, interviews with
informants who know the land and its history, and good
maps to interpret archaeological sites. Though no cultural
materials were known from it, the mound was published as
a Fort Walton center. Investigation with Calvin Jones
throughout the 1980s and '90s produced historic artifacts
and demonstrated there were actually two mounds.
Geomorphological investigations and oral history gave us
more leads, and historian Joe Knetsch located documents

Taric FiestroA Aw T

proving the mounds were Confederate gun batteries. USF's technology, briefly describes the UWF GIS projects, and
1998 fieldwork, supported by a historic preservation grant demonstrates the utility of this technology as a cultural
from the Division of Historical Resources, completed resource management tool.
mapping of Batteries Cobb and Gilmer and located the
channel obstructions placed by the confederates that changed
the entire course of the big river and left the mounds back in
the remote swamp.

Those Elliots Point Folks: New Insights into their Pat-
terns of Land Use
Prentice Thomas Associates, Inc., 124 SE ShellAvenue, Fort
Walton Beach, Florida 32549
Radiocarbon dates roughly bracket the Elliots Point
Complex between 2000 B.C. and 600 B.C. During this time
the Eglin region witnessed what appears to have been a
three-part development of the Gulf Formational traditions -
all related to the Elliots Point Complex and fluorescing
sometime after its initial appearance and before 1100 B.C.
The classic form of Elliott's Point is marked by a distinctive
artifact inventory that includes well-formed baked clay
objects, known as Elliots Point Objects for their similarity to
Poverty Point Objects. Other artifacts typical of this assem-
blage include a distinctive projectile point, microliths, fiber-
tempered pottery, stone vessels, pipes, boatstones and
ornaments, and other exotic items indicative of participation
in the Poverty Point trade network. Previous interpretations
of Elliots Point land-use patters indicated that the sites
cluster in ecotones, an environmental setting that Webb and
Gibson closely associated with the distribution of Poverty
Point sites in the Lower Mississippi Valley. The majority of
sites appear to be camps, although an accretional shell
mound with associated activity areas was identified at Four
Mile Point on the east end of Choctawhatchee Bay. This
mound, 8WL90, and associated sites are believed to represent
a redistribution center for the exchange of goods. This paper
reviews the patterns of Elliots Point land use. Ongoing
investigations at Eglin Air Force Base have identified a
number of new components that add insight into the distribu-
tion of Elliots Point sites and the associated material goods
in that portion of northwest Florida from East Bay to Chocta-
whatchee Bay.

Geographic Information System Technology: Examples
from West Florida
Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensa-
cola, Florida 32514-5750
With the advent of inexpensive, powerful, and user-
friendly computers and software, Geographic Information
System (GIS) technology is accessible, with far-reaching
potential as a tool for cultural resource managers and
planners. The University of West Florida (UWF) Archae-
ology Institute has developed cultural resource management
projects for the Naval Live Oaks Reservation, the University
of West Florida, the City of Pensacola, and several large
developments. This paper presents an overview of GIS

1." 41 .

9 991 Vol 52 3


EDITOR'S NOTE: This year, there were no nominations for the Ripley P. Bullen and William C. Lazarus awards. However, 1999
was the first year of the new Florida Anthropological Society Chapter Award. In addition, the FAS Board voted to give special
recognition to Gordon R. Willey.


Retired archaeologist Gordon R. Willey was given special
recognition at the FAS annual banquet in Fort Walton
Beach. He was presented with a plaque inscribed: "The
Florida Anthropological Society honors Gordon R. Willey on
the 50th Anniversary of the Archeology of the Florida Gulf
Coast, April 24, 1999."
Dr. Willey, who for many years was Bowditch Professor of
Mexican and Central American Archaeology and Ethnology
at Harvard University, has conducted archaeological work in
Peru, Central America, and the southwestern and southeast-
ern United States. In 1940, he did field work in the Florida
panhandle which led to a number of articles in scholarly
journals during the 1940s and, ultimately, to a landmark
book, Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast (1949).
Dr. Willey completed the book while working at the
Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of American Ethnology.
In the book, he described excavations made by federal and
state relief projects during the 1930s, and he defined and
categorized many ceramic types. In addition, Dr. Willey
used a cultural-historical framework to define a number of
archaeological cultures, such as Fort Walton, Safety Harbor,
Englewood, Weeden Island I and II, and Santa Rosa-Swift
Creek. The book became a standard reference for archaeolo-
gists working along the Florida Gulf Coast, and continues to
be consulted today. It has been reprinted several times, most Figure 1. Gordon Willey receives a special award from
recently in 1998 by the University Press of Florida. FAS President Cindi Cerrato. Photo by Steve Koski



The Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society (CGCAS)
was honored as the first recipient of the new FAS Chapter
Award. At the annual banquet, the chapter was presented
with a plaque acknowledging "outstanding achievements in
site preservation and public outreach, including educational
events, tours, lectures, and exhibits." A letter from the
Awards Committee to the FAS President, enumerating the
chapter's achievements, was given with the plaque.
CGCAS has participated in every Florida Archaeology
Week and Florida Archaeology Month since the events began
in 1993. The chapter has emphasized preservation, using
information booths, reenactors, artists, primitive technolo-

gists, and storytellers. Members have helped organize
exhibits at a number of museums, including "Twelve-
Thousand Years of Gulf Coast Prehistory" (1994) and "The
Curse of the Black Legend, the Explorations ofNarvaez and
DeSoto" (1999) at the St. Petersburg Museum of History.
Throughout the year, CGCAS members routinely present
lectures at schools, libraries, and museums.
The chapter's activities at the Narvaez/Anderson site were
outstanding. CGCAS adopted the site as part of the City of
St. Petersburg's Adopt-a-Park Program, and the chapter
conducted formal, professionally supervised test excavations
at the site, leading to detailed analyses and a report.

'Inu 12. --- Arn newer 1"9 Vol- O2R3l

Figure 2. FAS President Cindi Cerrato presents the FAS
Chapter Award to Linda Allred, who accepted on behalf
of the Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society. Photo
by Steve Koski.


Individual FAS chapters honor their members for outstand-
ing service in furthering archaeology and preservation.
President Cindi Cerrato presented the certificates.

Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and
Historical Conservancy


Anne Reynolds was involved in archaeological pursuits in
Highlands County long before there was an organization
dedicated to the cause. When the Kissimmee Valley Archae-
ological and Historical Conservancy (KVAHC) was formed,
Anne was appointed Field Director and has held that position
ever since. She has served as KVAHC President, as Chapter
Representative to FAS, and as a member of the Archaeology
Month Committee.
Anne is always available to schools and civic organizations
as a lecturer-instructor of Kissimmee Valley archaeology.
She is an advocate for supervised, professional investigation
of sites, and has developed a positive relationship with
agricultural interests that allows admission to properties that
otherwise would be unavailable for investigation.
Anne, with her own resources, has purchased property that
was subject to development in order to preserve the archaeo-
logical record it contained. She has made available family-
owned business property for archaeological investigation,
such as land containing the Blueberry site. Elder hostel

groups have worked at the Blueberry site, and it has served
as the impetus for a local private academy to involve students
in the study of Florida's ancient people. Anne's good
relationship with local landowners has made possible the
investigation of another key archaeological site, the Royce

Broward County Archaeological Society


Gypsy Graves is so well-known in archaeological circles
that little elaboration is needed. However, some of her
numerous achievements include B.A. and M.A. degrees in
Anthropology and Archaeology from Florida Atlantic
University and a B.S. degree in Geology from the University
of Transylvania in Kentucky. In 1968, Gypsy joinedthe
Broward County Archaeological Society (BCAS) and she
also is a member of the International Society of Women
Geographers and a Fellow of the International Explorers
In 1985, Gypsy was honored by the United Nations as the
first woman to be granted a permit to lead an excavation in
Egypt. She is the founder of the Graves Museum of Archae-
ology and Natural History in Dania, Florida. In 1996, she
was voted Woman of the Year by the American Cancer
Society. Gypsy sits on the Boards of the Broward County
Historical Commission and BCAS.
In a paleontological excavation sponsored by the Graves
Museum in 1997, Gypsy homed in on an unpromising butte
that produced the complete fossilized remains of an Oreo-
dont. One of her most fondly remembered moments,
attesting to her wide reputation, was when she was on an
excavation in Egypt. A jeep pulled up and the occupants
asked for Gypsy. "Why?" she asked. "You're wanted at the
Antiquities Headquarters in Saqqara! We need your exper-
tise to help identify a bone." She identified it as the distal
end of a right femur of an elephant. They thanked her and
said, "We needed your confirmation."

Time Sifters Archeology Society


Jack Brown became a member of Time Sifters in Novem-
ber 1989. Since then, he has generously given the chapter
his time, effort, and money. As First Vice President, he
became President in September 1993 after the elected
President had to resign. As President, he conducted excel-
lent chapter meetings through the Spring of 1994. While
President and as a member of the Time Sifters Board of
Directors, Jack arrived early to bring necessities such as
projectors, screens, and audio equipment. He gave the
services of his company and financed for several years the
mailing of the Time Sifters newsletter. Jack remained on the
Board as an advisor until April 1995 when he was elected
Treasurer of the chapter, serving for a year. It is a great

9 991 Vot 52(3)


1999 AwARD RECrNWs 215

pleasure for Time Sifters to acknowledge Jack.


Jack Jetton, an architect in Sarasota, has an intense interest
in Mayan archaeology. He has made several trips to Mexico
and Yucatan and has become a very proficient photographer.
As a result of his trips, photography, and research, Jack has
presented programs on the history, hieroglyphics, and
architecture of the Maya and allied cultures to Time Sifters,
schools, and local organizations.
When Jack heard of Time Sifters, he joined in June 1990.
He became an active member and developed an interest in
Florida archaeology. Jack served as a Director ofthe chapter
for several years until April 1994 when he was elected
President. He remained President through the Spring of
1996 when he helped organize the FAS annual meeting held
in Sarasota on May 10-12, 1996, for which he and Time
Sifters received many compliments. Jack has served as a
Chapter Representative to FAS, and also has served as an
FAS Director.
Today, Jack is still a Director of Time Sifters and always
is willing to help in any way he can. He has even developed
a computer program to simplify the chapter's membership
list procedures. It is with great pleasure that Time Sifters
acknowledges Jack.

Archaeological Society of Southern Florida


Lisa Weier has been a member of the Archaeological
Society of Southern Florida (ASSF) for several years. She is
always the first to help in ASSF activities. Recently, ASSF
lost its Newsletter Editor and Secretary, and Lisa now holds
both positions. Lisa also has helped with festivals, fairs, and
excavations while holding ajob and attending the University
of Miami. The task that seems to be the most difficult is
enlisting speakers, but Lisa keeps finding good ones.

Pensacola Archaeological Society


Jim Coleman is a long-time member and board member of
the Pensacola Archaeological Society(PAS). He participates
in all PAS field projects and is especially active in planning
and setting up meetings and special activities. Jim currently
is handling public relations for PAS and serves as the
chapter's Corresponding Secretary.


Harv Dickey has been a strong and dependable leader in
PAS for a number of years. He volunteers many hours to
University of West Florida archaeology field projects as well
as working in the lab, especially on the computer. Harv is a

past-president of PAS and currently is the much-appreciated
and creative editor of the PAS Newsletter.

Florida Anthropological Society Board of Directors


Eileen Aist is recognized by the FAS Board for her service
to the Society. For many years, Eileen has been an active
member of FAS and the Central Florida Anthropological
Society (CFAS). For more than a decade, she has served as
CFAS Chapter Representative to the FAS Board. During
that time, Eileen has faithfully hosted FAS Board Meetings
held at Rollins College and the Winter Park Towers. She
books the room, brings drinks and snacks, and cleans up
when we are done. It may seem like a small task to some
but, for FAS Board members from widespread points
throughout the state, it is very important that we meet at a
central location. We can always depend on Eileen for that
meeting place.


Nancy VanEpps is recognized by the FAS Board for her
service to the Pensacola Archaeological Society (PAS). She
is a long-time member and past-president of PAS, and
currently is PAS Treasurer. Nancy is 80+ years of age and
continues to be active mentally and physically. She currently
is an archaeology student at the University of West Florida,
and is a wonderful role model for all ages.

A new vibeo on Floriba's native peoples

Florida's Lost People"
Produced by the Florida
Funded by the
Florida Department
of State

Produced and Directed by Chaos Productions
Executive Producer: Brent Weisman
Written by Marshall Riggan
Artwork by Theodore Morris

1998 Florida Anthropological Society and the Florida Department of State
To obtain copies send $19.95 plus $3.50 for shipping and handling to:
Terry Simpson, 7751 Avocet Drive, Wesley Chapel, FL 33544


Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human
Skeleton. Clark Spencer Larsen, Cambridge Studies in
Biological Anthropology 21, Cambridge University Press,
1997. 461 pp., illustrations, bibliography, index, $85.00

Department of Anthropology, East Carolina University,
Greenville, North Carolina 27858

Bioarchaeology has emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as
one of the most influential fields contributing to the recon-
struction of human lifeways in the past. Bioarchaeology:
Interpreting Behavior from the Human Skeleton by Clark
Larsen marks the publication of the first integrative text on
the subject. In this major contribution, Larsen describes the
bioarchaeological approach as one that stresses the interac-
tion of human biology and behavior, and he draws together
the diverse specialized research endeavors and scientific
technologies that are woven together to decipher the life
experience as recorded in the dynamic osseous tissue of the
human skeleton.
For those familiar with Larsen's earlier chapter on recon-
structing behavior from the human skeleton, published
originally in Volume 10 of Michael Schiffer's Advances in
Archaeological Methodand Theory, the major orientation of
the book will be no surprise. This book goes far beyond
Larsen's earlier chapter, however. Ten years have elapsed
since that chapter was written and the accumulation of data,
the integration of new technologies, and the growth of the
scholar himself are all clearly reflected in the synthetic
coverage of the book topically as well as globally. Bioarch-
aeology is a rich exploration of the process of scholastic
inquiry which follows the accumulation of data, insights
gained from those data, and the final synthesis of the data,
including variations and departures from the general pat-
Eight chapters of the book focus on major topical areas of
human skeletal and dental analysis and interpretation:
growth disruption, infection, trauma, activity patterns, diet
and nutrition, craniofacial adaptation, and biological dis-
tance. Two other chapters open and close the book, the first
an overview of the field of bioarchaeology, the last an
interpretation of the challenges facing bioarchaeology in
contemporary studies of human skeletal remains. Each
chapter includes ample black-and-white photographs and
charts that serve to illustrate case studies discussed in the
The presentation of the material is systematic and the book
is organized into sections and subsections within a general
topical overlay. As an example, the third chapter of the book

is titled "Exposure to Infectious Pathogens." After a short
introduction, sections of the chapter focus on dental caries,
periodontal disease and tooth loss, periostitis and osteo-
myelitis, treponematosis, tuberculosis, and leprosy. Many
sections have subsections that address description and
etiology of the infection, temporal trends foragerss, farmers,
industrialists), sex differences, and status differences.
Although methodology is occasionally presented in Larsen's
discussions, his emphasis is on presenting numerous studies
of human populations from diverse global contexts, subsis-
tence regimes, and levels of sociopolitical complexity.
Among the contributions of these studies are insights about
nutrition and nutritional quality, infection and pathology,
physiological stress, trauma, and physical activity that have
been used to reconstruct and interpret the quality of life in
the human past. The insights are then integrated into
synthetic, albeit limited, discussions of behavioral ecology
and adaptation. Throughout the book, Larsen is careful to
point out that broad labels such as foragerr" and "food
producer," which often are used to categorize human
populations based on their subsistence regime, likely over-
simplify the dynamic nature of human adaptation.
Bioarchaeology is a crucial text for anyone interested in
the human skeleton and what information the skeleton can
provide toward interpreting human health, disease, and
behavior in the past. It covers the basic theoretical contribu-
tions of human skeletal analysis and is richly embellished
with citations from many case studies that have included
human skeletal and dental remains in an effort to reconstruct
the lifeways of past human populations. It should grace the
bookshelf of any scholar interested in the subject and it
would serve well as a course text for advanced undergraduate
and graduate students in biological anthropology, bioarchae-
ology, or economic history.

Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. Jerald T.
Milanich, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, 1995. xix
+ 290 pp., illustrations, epilogue, notes, references, index.
$29.95 (cloth), $19.95 (paper)

Department ofAnthropology, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, Florida 32611

Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe, recently
released in paperback, is the companion to Jerald Milanich's
earlier volume (1994), Archaeology of Precolumbian
Florida. The book is intended to be a synthesis of evidence
gleaned from both archaeological excavations and historical
documents, regarding the interactions of the native Florid-


ians and explorers from Spain and France. Milanich states
that his main objectives are, "... [to] trace the histories of the
indigenous groups from their Precolumbian roots into the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries while providing
insights into the impact of colonialism." Milanich seeks as
his audience, not only those intimately involved in the pre-
colonial and colonial history of Florida, but also students, lay
people, and Florida history enthusiasts.
The book begins by introducing the reader to a brief
overview of the data sources, both artifacts and documents.
This is followed by a summary of Florida's precolumbian
culture-history as reconstructed from archaeological evi-
dence. Milanich then divides the book into three parts: Part
I Indigenous People; Part II The Invasion; Part III The
Part I is subdivided into three chapters (3, 4, and 5), each
dealing with native peoples in southern Florida, central
Florida, and northern Florida, respectively. Milanich weaves
a narrative of the lives of the natives living in each of these
regions, based on archaeological evidence and historical
documents. He intertwines the different lines of evidence to
present a smooth, although not complete, picture of the
people that lived here before the Spaniards arrived. Milanich
emphasizes throughout the book that ifthe historical records
did not exist, then we never would have known that many of
these Indian groups ever existed, as their identities regarding
group identifications are invisible, even in the most carefully
planned excavations. Throughout these chapters, Milanich
explains how modern Florida is closely tied to its history, as
numerous place-names today are derived from indigenous
words and names.
In Part II The Invasion, Milanich outlines three differing
points of view on why Europeans traveled to the New World.
The first is of the Spaniards they felt they were following
the directions of their rulers by initiating colonies in the New
World. The second is of the native Floridians they felt that
the Spanish were invading their lands. The third point of
view is of the scholar. Milanich notes that this view has
changed over time. In the late 1800s, those first explorers
who came to colonize Florida were regarded as heroes
bringing civilization to the New World. Today, most would
agree with the title of this section, that the events that took
place were truly an invasion. This second part of the book is
also subdivided into three chapters (6, 7,and 8).
Chapter 6 describes the first voyages to Florida, and the
first attempts and failures at colonization. Columbus's 1492
voyage to the New World is briefly described. The first
official voyage from Spain following Columbus was in 1513,
and was led by Juan Ponce de Le6n. This expedition was
exploratory in nature. During this voyage, Ponce spotted the
land that would become La Florida, naming it after the Holy
Week, Pascua Florida, the Feast ofFlowers. Ponce de Le6n's
voyage was followed by many others, all in search of riches
or slaves. The most notable in that period was the voyage of
Narviez in 1528, who was sent to the Gulf Coast to colonize
and christianize the natives. His voyage came to an end six
years later, when the last four survivors were rescued in

Mexico by Spanish slave traders.
Chapter 7 begins with the voyage of Hernando de Soto in
1539 and his attempts to establish a Spanish colony. The
reader travels with de Soto and his crew as they march from
the southwest Gulf coast, through the interior of Florida, and
finally into Apalachee. Apalachee was chosen because it was
rumored to have large amounts of surplus food that the
Spanish army could survive on during the winter. Although
de Soto and his group made it to Apalachee, they did not
establish any permanent residence, and instead spent the
better part of three years trekking across parts of the South-
east in search of the elusive wealth that was rumored to be
there. During his third year in the United States, de Soto
died bringing his colonization attempt to an end.
Chapter 8 discusses the attempts by the French to colonize
the New World, their interactions with the natives, and their
mishaps with the Spanish. Notable from this period in
Florida's history are Ribault's short-lived Charlesfort, and
the cartographer that he brought with him. The cartogra-
pher, Jacques Le Moyne, painted numerous pictures of life in
Florida upon returning to France. One set ofthese still exists
and it gives researchers a small pictorial clue to the daily and
ritual lives of the natives. This chapter also details Menen-
dez's attack on the French and the executions held at
Matanzas Inlet, south of St. Augustine.
Part III The Aftermath, the last section of the book, also
is divided into three chapters (9,10, and 11). Chapter 9
chronicles the arrival of the Franciscan priests to Florida,
and their attempts to christianize the natives. The priests
met with both success and failure. It is from on-going
excavations at these mission sites that new information is
adding to documentary knowledge of spatial arrangement,
available food resources, ethnicity, and Spanish-native
Chapter 10 continues the story of the Spanish missions and
how the religious conversion of the Indians affected their
everyday lives. Milanich draws upon historical records to
describe the organization of the mission compounds and the
religious materials present. The archaeology of the mission
sites has helped to flesh out the documentary evidence.
Chapter 11 is aptly titled "The End of Time." The colonial
powers' arrival into the New World would prove to be the
end of the natives. Diseases, slave raids, hard labor, subsis-
tence change, and population movements all sped up the
demise of the large native populations in this region. The
natives of Florida not only were under attack directly and
indirectly by the Europeans, but they were being attacked by
native peoples from the north. These northern natives
looted, enslaved, and killed the dwindling populations of
Milanich's approach to the colonial history of Florida is
interesting. He uses multidisciplinary lines of evidence to
give a voice to the indigenous peoples that once populated
the Florida landscape. In a prose that is clear, direct, and
easy to follow, the history of this state is recounted. I
especially found it interesting that throughout the book,
Milanich related past to present, explaining how modern

TM. .1XVl2

9 991 Vot 52 (3)


places received their names from native and Spanish words
for people and places. This book is highly recommended to
anyone interested in the history of Florida, as it combines
archaeological data, historical documents, photos, and maps
to paint the most complete picture ofprecolonial and colonial
Florida available.

A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions. John H.
Hann, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, 1996. 328
pp., maps, notes, glossary, list ofabbreviations, bibliography,
index. $49.95 (cloth).

Environmental Services, Inc., 8711 Perimeter Park Boule-
vard Suite 11, Jacksonville, Florida 32216

A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions by John H.
Hann is another sterling edition (number 16) to the Ripley P.
Bullen Monograph Series. This volume complements two
noteworthy volumes by the prolific author: Apalachee: The
Land Between the Rivers (1988) and Missions to the Calusa
(1991), both published by the University Press ofFlorida. In
the words of the author, this book is intended as "a general
in-depth study of the Timucua of the historic era." Hann is
quick to point out that while he reviews the archaeological
evidence ofthe Timucua, especially that which is contradic-
tory to the written record, the work "is principally historical
in approach."
The main body of the text is divided into 16 chapters
spanning a total of 328 pages. The book is arranged in a
chronological framework, with the first chapters describing
the initial contact between the Timucua and the Europeans,
the middle chapters describing the establishment of the
mission system, and the final chapters detailing the demise
of the Timucua. The final chapter is followed by a short
Notes section; the need for a longer notes section is obviated
by the depth of the documentary review Hann provides with
each chapter. A useful and much-needed glossary of Castil-
lian Spanish and Timucuan terms also is provided; Native
American and Spanish terms and their functional equivalents
are used interchangeably throughout the text. The book ends
with a list of commonly used abbreviations, a bibliography,
and finally an index. The index is noteworthy in its scope
(28 pages) and organization; it is very well referenced and
contains the place and person names, as well as the topics,
covered in the text.
The historiography and archival work is very thorough; in
many cases Hann provides complete translations of entire
documents. Each document with relevance to a particular
person or event is reviewed and all are carefully referenced.
The author is careful to elucidate his interpretations of the
text, the interpretations of previous researchers, and the
possible shades, nuances, and connotations that each docu-
ment brings to an event. While the reader is fully informed
of the primary interpretation of the author, he/she can still
formulate their own opinions. The casual reader may be
somewhat put off by the depth and scope of the historical

research, but he/she can easily scan forward to a new section
within a chapter. Each chapter is subdivided into approx-
imately a dozen subsections, and the reader can use the index
to navigate between these sections.
In general, the chronological framework of the text is
pleasantly flexible. The author devotes one chapter to the
relatively brief episode of the Timucua revolt of 1656, and he
readily digresses into subjects brought out during the course
of each chapter. Occasionally the sections do overlap, such
as when a very short section titled "Nature of the Indian
War" in Chapter 2 is mirrored by a similar section titled
"Practices Associated with Warfare" in Chapter 7. I found
myself thinking that there had to be more to Timucuan
warfare while reading Chapter 2, and later received the
additional information in Chapter 7.
For the more in-depth reader, this text poses answers to
several questions that are germane to current issues in
northeast Florida. Hann asserts that the Ocone were proba-
bly a tenth eastern Timucuan tribe (p. 5); he conducts a
serious reexamination of the account of Lamhatty (p. 133)
and Timucuan linguistic evidence overall; and he provides
the most comprehensive examination of Timucuan social
customs to date (pp. 103-121). As an archaeologist, I also
found his geographical delineation of the territories of each
individual tribe especially useful, although I desired to see
more primary archaeological data. The direct role friars
played in subjugating the Timucuans is also displayed with
remarkable clarity throughout the text. The book details the
individual acts and policies of friars who were implementing
a local system of subordination that emanated from Havana
and ultimately Spain. The breadth and scope of this system
is made abundantly clear by the sheer number of specific
events that Hann recounts.
My only criticism is that the reader might find additional
graphics to accompany the text useful. While the standard
Le Moyne figures are not included, this does not represent a
great loss. Indeed, with the exception of plate 15 (p. 103),
Hann discounts the veracity of these figures. However, the
figures within the text consist of a total of six maps. The
lack of additional maps makes it difficult for the reader to
juxtapose the locations ofTimucuan and Spanish settlements
with modern place names. Not being a native of north
Florida, I found myself frequently consulting an atlas to
determine what stream the friars had crossed on their journey
to an island, river crossing, or mission. While the author is
indeed careful to give all distances in leagues, he generally
can not give bearings since the original Spanish documents
lack this information. It should be noted that Hann does
carefully analyze any differences in these distances between
the various documents. However, from a locational stand-
point, it was occasionally difficult to follow the friars on their
Overall, A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions is
an excellent synthesis of historical records concerning the
Timucua. Simply put, this book is an invaluable research
tool for any archaeologist or historian working in north
Florida or southern Georgia. Its specific and detailed text


provides the necessary background that will allow the pursuit
of archaeological questions. Likewise the book is perfect for
the curious reader who wants to look up specific information
about a mission or monument near his/her home. | strongly
recommend this text to anyone interested in a scholarly
account of the vanquished Timucua and the history of post-
contact north Florida.


The Florida Archaeological Council is making available a maximum of $500.00 per year to
be awarded to archaeology graduate students (M.A. or Ph.D.) who are currently enrolled
in a Florida university. The grant money will assist students conducting archaeological
research in Florida. Grant funds can be used to cover the costs associated with
archaeological field work, special analyses (e.g., radiocarbon dates, faunal or botanical
analyses, soils analysis, etc.), or travel expenses associated with presenting a paper based
on the student's research at a professional meeting. The entire amount may be given to a
single individual or it may be divided up among several applicants at the discretion of the
FAC's Grant Committee.
Students who are interested in applying for the grant should submit a 2-page letter
describing the project for which the funds are being requested; what research questions)
or problems) are being addressed; how the funds will be applied to these problems; what,
if any, additional funds will be used to accomplish the research; and how the research will
contribute to Florida archaeology. Accompanying the letter should be a budget indicating
the amount requested and describing how the money will be spent along with a letter of
Applications for 2000 are now being accepted and can be sent to: Robert Austin, FAC
Griffin Student Grant, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818. The deadline for
applications is January 15, 2000.


A professional organization for the benefit and advancement of archaeology, especially in Florida.


Donate a minimum of $100 to The
Florida Anthropologist Endowment and
receive a signed, limited edition print
by renowned artist, Dean Quigley,

Choose from one of the following
prints in Quigley's Lost Florida series.

HOLOPAW depicts a middle Archaic campsite in north
Florida. Hunters are returning fro V asiccessful bear hunt; a
woman grinds tubers to ; a small child is in awe
Sof a giant alligator;, d an converses with traders from a
.. distant place. ie foreground, a flintknapper works on
finishing his finely made proje point.

THE HUNTERS jJ ~t t a Paleoindian hunting party in
combat wit ni e mastodon.

THE KILL depicts two Archaic period hunters preparing to
spear a large alligator in the depths of a southern cypress

The Kill CLOSING IN depicts a group of Paleoindian hunters closing
in on a mastodon and her calf.

CALUSA depicts the large village site at Pineland, Florida ca.
A.D. 900-1100. Featured on the cover of Florida's First

TATAMAHO depicts an Indian gigging a garfish while his son i r
playfully loads the catch in a basket. Nearby, a panther waits
for a free meal and a raccoon eagerly awaits leftovers.

THE RETURN depicts two tattooed 4ans returning from a
day of fishing. Their canoe ib* Q, with fish and shellfish.
In the distance, sm e(1&s orm a campsite hidden amidst
the mangroves3 haaed by cedar trees.

BOSKITA depicts the Green Corn Ceremony, one of the most
important rituals of many southeastern Indian cultures. Boskita

SOLITUDE is based on t l O of early European Also available: Florida Indian Artifacts, a 16 x 20 inch poster
explorers and dep~s Qpit D l hunter returning to his canoe showing the wide range of artifacts made and used by the
loaded with fig[U native peoples of Florida.

Mail yourdonation to: The Florida Anlropologist, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568. Only a limited number of prints are available. Please specify first and
second choices.

You and

Florida's Past

Florida's history is long: it goes back 10,000
years to people who hunted mammoth with
stone-tipped spears.
It is colorful: 7,000 years ago, Florida's Native
Americans wove cloth as fine as a T-shirt.
It is unique in the world: around 800 years
ago, some Floridians had a civilization so
complex that they built long canoe-canals and
huge pyramid-shaped mounds of shells and
You can be part of it! New pages of this story
are being written every week. Teams of
amateur and professional archaeologists
together are making fascinating discoveries in
the field and in the lab.
You can help save it! Florida's rapid develop-
ment puts many valuable sites in jeopardy.
Amateur and professional archaeologists,
elected officials and planners, and just plain
concerned citizens are working together to
save this history in the soil.
How do you put yourself into this picture? By
joining the Florida Anthropological Society
(FAS) or one of its chapters, or both, as many
interested citizens do!


Each spring, an FAS chapter hosts a state-
wide meeting attended by members of FAS
and its chapters, and the public. Both pro-
fessionals and amateurs deliver papers about
their activities and investigations. A banquet
features a guest speaker who is usually
nationally-known in the field of archaeology
or anthropology. FAS elected officers are
instated at a business session.
During the year, the FAS Executive Board
holds several meetings. FAS chapters have
monthly meetings, field trips, and other


1. FAS publishes a scientific journal, THE
year. Both professionals and amateurs con-
tribute articles about investigations in Florida
and nearby areas. These articles keep FAS
members up-to-date on many aspects of
Florida archaeology, history, folklore, and pre-
servation. Many libraries around the nation
and world subscribe to the journal.

2. FAS publishes a newsletter four times a
year which keeps FAS members abreast of
FAS chapter activities and of pertinent events
and news around the state and wider region.


FAS has chapters throughout Florida
which are open to the interested public. By
joining FAS and one of its chapters, citizens
can take an active part in helping to study and
preserve Florida's heritage. Activities include
meetings, field trips, and archaeological digs
supervised by professionals.

FAS Chapters
Archaeological Society of Southern Florida
2495 NW 35th Ave., Miami, FL 33142
Broward County Archaeological Society
6820 Nova Dr. #6-201, Davie, FL 33317
Central Florida Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 261, Orlando, FL 32801-0261
Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society
7701 22nd Ave. N, St. Petersburg, FL 33710
Indian River Anthropological Society
272 Terrace Shores Dr., Indialantic, FL 32903
Kissimmee Valley Archaeological & Historical
80 Bear Point Lane, Lake Placid, FL 33852
Northeast Florida Anthropological Society
4144 Tarino Place, Jacksonville, FL 32244
Pensacola Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 13251, Pensacola, FL 32591
St. Augustine Archaeological Association
P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine, FL 32085
Southeast Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 2875, Stuart, FL 34995-2875
Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101
Time Sifters Archaeology Society
P.O. Box 25642, Sarasota, FL 34277
Volusia Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32175

About the Authors:

Lawrence E. Aten is retired from the National Park Service. He began his career on Ripley Bullen's field
crews at Castle Windy and Tick Island. A graduate of the University of Houston and the University of Texas
at Austin, most of his archaeological research has been in Texas. There, among other works, he authored the
book Indians of the Upper Texas Coast and currently is a Research Associate at the University of Texas at

Gordon R. Willey is Bowditch Lecturer in anthropology at the Peabody Museum at Harvard University.
Among his many books are Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast, which has been reprinted several times,
Excavations in Southeast Florida, and An Introduction to American Archaeology.

Harry M. Piper recently retired after a 23-year career as an archaeological and historical consultant in private
practice. He has been a member of the Society of Professional Archaeologists since 1980 and was president
of the Florida Archaeological Council from 1994-1996.

Jacquelyn G. Piper recently retired after a 23-year career as an archaeological and historical consultant in
private practice. A member of the Society of Professional Archaeologists since 1980, she has served on the
Florida Review Board of the National Register of Historic Places and is past-president of the Florida
Anthropological Society (1995-1996).

Dale L. Hutchinson is an associate professor of anthropology at East Carolina University specializing in
bioarchaeology, human osteology, paleopathology, and paleonutrition. His current research is focused on
coastal adaptation and the role of maritime resources in the transition to agriculture in the estuarine coastal
regions of eastern North America.

Tanya M. Peres received her M.A. in anthropology from Florida State University in 1997. She is currently
working on her Ph.D. at the University of Florida. Her dissertation work will center around the Zapotal site
in Panama. She will analyze faunal remains to reconstruct the paleoenvironment of the site at the time of
occupation and to determine the subsistence base for its inhabitants. Her research interests are prehistoric
subsistence and paleoenvironments of the southeastern United States and lower Central America, and public

Myles C. P. Bland is an archaeologist with Environmental Services, Inc. in Jacksonville. He holds a M.A.
in anthropology from the University of South Carolina and has conducted field work throughout the
southeastern United States.



9 991 Vot 52 (3)

Full Text
xml record header identifier 2009-02-07setSpec [UFDC_OAI_SET]metadata oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc http:www.openarchives.orgOAI2.0oai_dc xmlns:dc http:purl.orgdcelements1.1 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.openarchives.orgOAI2.0oai_dc.xsd dc:title The Florida anthropologistFla. anthropol.dc:creator Florida Anthropological SocietyConference on Historic Site Archaeologydc:subject Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida ( lcsh )Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida ( lcsh )dc:description b Dates or Sequential Designation v. 1- May 1948-dc:publisher Florida Anthropological Society.dc:type Serialdc:format v. : ill. ; 24 cm.dc:identifier (OCLC) 56028409 (LCCN)0015-3893 (ISSN)AAA9403 (notis)dc:source University of Floridadc:language English