Table of Contents
 Editor's Page
 Obituary of J. Raymond William...
 The Deltona Project: Cultural Resource...
 A Technological and Functional...
 Prehistoric Land Use in West-Central...
 Preshitoric Chert Procurement and...
 The Old Okahumpka Site (8LA57):...
 Occupational Nexus Modeling in...
 A Belle Glade Earthwork Topology...
 C.B. Moore on the Ocklawaha River:...
 The Dunford Collection
 A Century of Burial Removals at...
 About the Authors

Group Title: Florida anthropologist
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027829/00099
 Material Information
Title: The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title: Fla. anthropol.
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Anthropological Society
Conference on Historic Site Archaeology
Publisher: Florida Anthropological Society.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Frequency: quarterly[]
two no. a year[ former 1948-]
Subject: Indians of North America -- Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Antiquities -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
Summary: Contains papers of the Annual Conference on Historic Site Archeology.
Dates or Sequential Designation: v. 1- May 1948-
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027829
Volume ID: VID00099
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01569447
lccn - 56028409
issn - 0015-3893

Table of Contents
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Editor's Page
        Page 172
        Page 173
    Obituary of J. Raymond Williams
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
    The Deltona Project: Cultural Resource Management In the Hillsborough River Basin
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
    A Technological and Functional Analysis of Hernando Projectile Points
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
    Prehistoric Land Use in West-Central Peninsular Florida: A Vew from the South Prong I Site (8HI418)
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
    Preshitoric Chert Procurement and Mobility Strategies on the Lake Wales Ridge
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
    The Old Okahumpka Site (8LA57): Late Prehistoric Iconography and Mississippian Influence in Peninsular Florida
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
    Occupational Nexus Modeling in the Interior Central Gulf Coast of Florida
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
    A Belle Glade Earthwork Topology and Chronology
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
    C.B. Moore on the Ocklawaha River: No Place for a Gopher
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
    The Dunford Collection
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
    A Century of Burial Removals at the U.S. Military Cemeteryat Fort Meyers (8LL1758): Historical and Archaelogical Perspectives
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
    About the Authors
        Page 292
        Page 293
        Page 294
        Page 295
        Page 296
        Page 297
        Page 298
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 49 Number 4
December 1996



Editor's Page. Robert J. Austin 172


J. Raymond Williams. Dana Ste. Claire 174


The Deltona Project: Cultural Resource Management in the Hillsborough
River Basin. Richard W. Estabrook and Christine L. Newman 179
A Technological and Functional Analysis of Hernando Projectile Points. Dana Ste. Claire 189
Prehistoric Land Use in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast:
A View from South Prong I (8111418). James M. Welch and William C. Prentiss 201
Prehistoric Chert Procurement and Mobility Strategies on the Lake Wales Ridge. Robert J. Austin 211
The Old Okahumpka Site (8LA57): Late Prehistoric Iconography and
Mississippian Influence in Peninsular Florida. Jeffrey M. Mitchem 225
Occupational Nexus Modeling in the Interior Central Gulf Coast of Florida. Heather Lea Clagett 239
A Belle Glade Earthwork Typology and Chronology. William Gray Johnson 249
C.B. Moore on the Ocklawaha River: No Place for a Gopher. Cynthia L. Cerrato 261
The Durnford Collection. Annette L. Snapp 267
A Century of Burial Removals at the U.S. Military Cemetery at Fort Myers (8LL1758): Historical and
Archaeological Perspectives. Joan Deming, Janet S. Mathews, Marion M. Almy, and Lee Hutchinson-Neff 275


Purdy: How to Do Archaeology the Right Way. Nancy Marie White 289
Safron and Brown: The Domain of the Calusa. Brent R. Weisman 291

About the Authors 292
Acknowledgment of Reviewers 294

Cover: The Malleability of Material Culture by Scott Mitchell

Copyright 1996 by the
ISSN 0015-3893

U f r
Ld 1^-^ y sYn^^


This issue of The Florida Anthropologist is dedicated to the
memory of J. Raymond Williams whose premature passing in
November, 1995 at the age of 59 deeply affected all who
considered him a friend and colleague. The original idea for this
issue was Dana Ste. Claire's. Knowing that Ray's health was
failing, Dana called me in the Spring of 1995 and suggested a
special issue in Ray's honor. I immediately agreed and we
decided that the papers should consist of invited contributions
from Ray's former students at the University of South Florida
(USF). Several factors entered into our decision about who to
invite to contribute. First, we wanted to include former students
from throughout Ray's career. Second, we wanted the papers to
represent a diverse range of topics. And third, we wanted
authors who would be willing to commit to a tight schedule
because we hoped to be able to present the finished product to
Ray in person. While we were unable to achieve this last goal,
I believe we produced a volume of papers that Ray would have
been honored to receive (although, had he known what we were
up to, I am certain he would have protested our effort).
As Dana's obituary, and the dedications and acknowledgments
scattered throughout the following papers, attest, Ray Williams
was loved and respected by all of his students. A truly humble
man, he avoided the limelight, content instead to let his students
take center stage. And while he certainly had his own research
interests, Ray was primarily a teacher, and his greatest lasting
legacy is his students. Many of the papers in this issue are
based on thesis projects conducted by the authors while they
were students at USF. Others are based on research conducted
since the authors graduated. They have all been influenced by
the values and work ethic that Ray instilled in each of us. As
Jim Welch and Bill Prentiss have stated so eloquently in their
acknowledgment to Ray, there is no greater testimony that we
can give than to acknowledge the extent to which Ray continues
to influence our lives and careers.
The first article by Rich Estabrook and Chris Newman
provides a brief history of one the largest and most influential
archaeological projects undertaken at USF during Ray's career.
Conducted in the shadow of the State of Florida's 1-75 Bypass
Project during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Deltona
Project never achieved the professional recognition that the
more highly publicized 1-75 Project did. Nonetheless, it resulted
in several important excavations that contributed significantly to
our understanding of the prehistoric occupation of the Hills-
borough River Basin, and in many ways augmented and built on
the results of its better known counterpart. Rich and Chris
provide a synopsis of the inception and six-year progress of the
project, and candidly discuss its successes as well as its
Dana Ste. Claire's contribution is based on his Master's
research at USF and involves the analysis of Hernando projec-

tile points recovered during excavation of the Rock Hammock
site. This site was one of five that were excavated by USF as
part of the Deltona Project. Dana presents a detailed reconstruc-
tion of Hernando manufacturing behavior based on fine-grained
technological and spatial analyses of manufacturing debris and
production rejects. Using a variety of quantitative techniques,
Dana also attempts to determine if Hernando points were used
to tip arrows or atlatl darts. He concludes by discussing the
chronological position of Hernando points in Florida prehistory.
In their paper on the South Prong I site, Jim Welch and Bill
Prentiss utilize data from Welch's Master's research at USF to
test three competing models of interior land use during the
prehistoric period. The South Prong I site was excavated by
Welch in 1981 as part of the AMAX Project, a large-scale
mitigative excavation of two sites in southeastern Hillsborough
County. If the Deltona Project labored in the shadow of 1-75,
AMAX was similarly overshadowed (albeit unjustly) by
Deltona. Three major archaeological projects occurring in
Hillsborough County at roughly the same time fostered a
climate of healthy competition among the USF students who
worked on them. Located in an area where chert resources are
not abundant, the South Prong I site provides an important
contrast to the dense lithic scatters that characterized the 1-75
and Deltona projects. As Welch and Prentiss's paper demon-
strates, the ability of a site to contribute to our understanding of
prehistory is not necessarily contingent on the number of
artifacts that are present. Instead, it is based on the archae-
ologist's ability to use the data that are available to test hypothe-
ses designed to explain the past.
My own contribution is based on research conducted for my
dissertation. It incorporates data gathered from an analysis of
lithic artifacts from private collections along the Lake Wales
Ridge in south-central Florida. The main goal of the analysis
was to identify the various lithic raw materials that were being
imported into the region. These data were then used to test a
model of decreasing mobility during the post-Archaic Period.
Jeff Mitchem's paper focuses on an analysis of artifacts from
the Old Okahumpka Mound in Lake County, which was
excavated by C.B. Moore in the late 1890s. After briefly
describing the artifacts, Jeff proceeds to compare them to
similar materials from other late prehistoric mounds in Florida
and the greater Southeast. He then goes on to offer some
interpretive comments regarding the site's chronological
placement, the iconography represented by these artifacts, and
the relationship of this site to what has been termed the South-
eastern Ceremonial Complex.
Heather Clagett's Masters research on settlement clustering in
the interior of south Florida is the subject of her contributed
paper. She applies Milanich's occupational nexus model to late
prehistoric sites in Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, and eastern Manatee


County in an effort to identify clusters of sites on the landscape
that might suggest settlement and cultural continuity. Her data
indicate that such clustering does exist for late prehistoric sites
in southern Hardee, eastern Manatee, and DeSoto Counties, in
other words, within the Peace River region, and that these site
clusters are associated with diverse sets of microenvironments.
The types of sites domiciliary mounds, burial mounds,
platform mounds, middens, villages, and campsites argue
strongly for occupation of this interior region by an indigenous
population rather than periodic forays by native peoples from
other regions such as the Gulf coast.
Bill Johnson continues his work on Belle Glade earthworks in
south Florida with his paper. Based on his own research, as
well as the work of Sears, Carr, and others, Bill develops a
typology of earthwork types. Using radiocarbon dates and
ceramic data, primarily from Fort Center, he attempts to
arrange the various earthwork types in a chronological se-
quence. These are then incorporated into a modified Belle Glade
chronology for south Florida.
The next two papers are historical pieces that provide
interesting insights into the early archaeology of Florida.
Cynthia Cerrato's article focuses on Clarence B. Moore and his
explorations along the Ocklawaha River in a shallow-draft
steamboat, the Alligator. While less well-known than the famous
Gopher, Moore used this vessel to navigate the narrow, winding
Ocklawaha in search of mounds to excavate. In addition to a
photograph of the Alligator, Cynthia has unearthed information
from the State archives and Moore's original notes describing
the vessel and its use.
In her article, Annette Snapp discusses the artifacts recovered
by Col. Charles Durnford at Key Marco in 1895, which are
currently housed at the British Museum in Oxford, England.
These are the very artifacts that piqued the interest of Frank
Cushing and resulted in his visiting and excavating a portion of
this famous site in 1896. In addition to describing the artifacts
and providing photographs of some of the pieces, Annette
places Durnford and his collection within a historical context
that examines the nature of archaeology in the late nineteenth
century. She notes that Durnford did not offer wild speculations
about his finds, as was common practice at that time, but
instead presented objective descriptions that were published in
a timely manner. He also donated his collection to the British
Museum so that future scholars would have access to these
remarkable artifacts.
Finally, Joan Deming, Jan Mathews, Marion Almy, and Lee-
Hutchinson-Neff present the results of an excavation of a mid-
nineteenth century military cemetery in Fort Myers that was
conducted to mitigate impact resulting from the construction of
a highway. The Fort Myers cemetery is yet another example of
how historical documents can be misleading. Government
records and newspaper accounts indicated that the skeletal
remains interred in the cemetery had been "moved" to a new
location in the 1880s. However, archaeological evidence of the
cemetery still existed in 1993, including skeletal elements left
behind by the company contracted to disinter the remains.
Detailed historical research by Jan Mathews provides informa-
tion on the demographic composition of those who were buried

in the cemetery and analysis of the remaining skeletal elements
provides limited but potentially useful information that contrib-
utes to a growing body of knowledge regarding mid-nineteenth
century skeletal populations.
In many ways, this article is a fitting conclusion to the
contributed papers because the excavation was done within a
non-academic, cultural resource management (CRM) frame-
work. Ray Williams was instrumental in developing the cultural
resource management program at USF. A philosophical
cornerstone of the program, and of Ray's teaching, was that
CRM can be, indeed must be, more than just the salvaging of
artifacts. He taught us that archaeology done in a CRM context
should be designed in such a way that it can contribute to a
better understanding of our common heritage. While this is
sometimes a difficult challenge, it is not an impossible one as
the Deltona Project, the AMAX project, and the Fort Myers
cemetery excavation amply demonstrate.
Reviews by Nancy White and Brent Weisman, and cover art
by Scott Mitchell, round out this all-USF issue. I hope you
enjoy it.





Those who knew him, and there were many who called him
friend, remember J. Raymond Williams for his kind and gentle
manner, his calm, steady approach to life and discipline, and as
one of Florida's most successful and dedicated archaeologists.
In a profession that passionately consumed him for nearly four
decades, Ray always found the time in his busy schedule to help
others. His colleagues and former students at the University of
South Florida (USF) can relate countless stories of the kindness
he extended them, from the many times he filled in for his
fellow professors to the buying of dinners for graduate students
who were struggling financially. He was an enormously patient
man, too; always ready with a smile and a positive word, even
on the worst of days, seeing the good in the bad when it was
often hard for others to do so. Ray spent innumerable hours of
his personal time coaxing along graduate students who were late
with their theses, carefully nudging them from time to time with
telephone calls and polite written reminders, sometimes tracking
them down across the continent when they seemed to have
disappeared from the face of the earth. More than once he bent
the rules a little to allow some of his lost flock back into the

program after their lengthy episodes of soul-searching. It was
this special devotion to his students that made Ray loved by all
who worked under him.
Ray Williams was a mentor extraordinaire, playing the role
unpretentiously. In each student, no matter how rough the
candidate, Ray saw an aspiring anthropologist, someone that
would one day contribute to the field in his or her own way.
With great personal investment, Ray would guide his students
through the thick of the graduate program, offering encourage-
ment in big and little doses along the way. Term papers were
never returned with red lines marked through them. Instead,
Ray offered detailed written comments on how to improve the
work or the idea, along with a suggestion that the student try
It was evident to all that Ray cared more about the success of
his students than he did his own. Above all else, he encouraged
individuality, forcing his students to think as professionals long
before they were degree. At a time when major professors
were, by protocol, listed as senior authors on papers and
departmental reports, Ray never once insisted that his name be
included on a report that a student had written. This "academic
generosity," as Roger Grange calls it, allowed students to make
great leaps toward professionalism by encouraging them to put
forth their own ideas, ideas for which they knew they would be
held academically and professionally accountable.
Ray was just as interested in the personal growth of his
students as he was in their professional development. For those
who strayed academically or personally, Ray always seemed to
offer the right words to lead them back to the main path. His
open-door policy was widely known and often used because
students were comfortable with Ray's genuine, caring demean-
or. Always a good listener, Ray never refused to lend a sympa-
thetic ear to their problems, or offer good advice when asked.
Ray's enthusiasm for archaeology was contagious and he was
quick to share it with those who desired to know more about the
field. On more than one occasion, he kindled the fires of non-
majoring undergraduates, some of whom had come to know
only the futility of pursuing a career in anthropology no matter
how great their interest. I was one of the fortunate few, rescued
from the waning days of a directionless English degree, that
became convinced during an introductory anthropology class
with Ray that I could make a respectable living doing archaeolo-
gy if my heart desired. Later, he created a special, paid, under-
graduate internship so that I could continue my studies in the
Anthropology Department. The position was virtually paid for
with money out of his own pocket something he thought I
never knew and something I will never forget.
It was important to Ray to encourage students to follow their


hearts into their profession because decades earlier he had been
influenced in the same way by his mentor, the late Dr. Carl
Chapman. Students of Ray will recall the photograph of a
somber Chapman that hung over Ray's desk for years. Ray's
interest in anthropology developed while he was a student at
Kirksville State Teaching College in Missouri in the late 1950s,
but it was not until he enrolled in the graduate program under
Chapman at the University of Missouri that the "archaeology
bug" bit.
Ray was born in Centralia, Missouri, October 30, 1936. He
met the former Myrle Bastian (now Borgers) at Kirksville State
in 1956 and they married in 1959, a year after Ray received his
B.S. in History. After teaching high school history locally, Ray
was accepted in the University of Missouri's graduate program
in Anthropology. Myrle commuted to Columbia during that first
year, then moved there in 1964, the same year that their only
child, Mike, was born. Ray also received his M.A. degree that
year and went on to earn his Ph.D. in Anthropology from the
University of Missouri in 1971. His dissertation on The
Baytown Phases in the Cairo Lowland of Southeast Missouri,
which was eventually published as a monograph, is recognized
as the definitive work on the subject and continues to be
consulted by Midwestern archaeologists studying the late
prehistoric period.
Myrle remembers well the lonesome life of the spouse of a
dedicated graduate student and archaeologist. She made long
treks to visit Ray during the summer field seasons at Van-Meter
and other Osage sites in Missouri. But the distance ultimately
took its toll and the two went their separate ways in the late
1960s. Myrle Borgers still finds archaeology fascinating, and
when I spoke to her recently she had just finished, fittingly
enough, Carl Chapman's classic work on the Indians of
While working on his Ph.D., Ray interviewed with Roger
Grange at an American Anthropological Association meeting for
a newly created position at the University of South Florida,
where Grange practically had operated a one-man department
since 1965. Roger could have hired anyone, but he selected the
scholarly gentleman from Missouri. Roger recalls that he was
most impressed with Ray's easy-going personality, a quality that
he and Roger shared and one that would later characterize
USF's entire anthropology department. That department was
unique in that it was not plagued with the internal conflicts that
typify some larger academic programs. It seems only fitting that
Ray's torch was passed on to yet another gentle, but profession-
ally dedicated scholar, Brent Weisman, who in 1995 became
part of the USF anthropology family.
Ray was officially hired by USF in 1969, two years before he
received his Ph.D. Almost immediately he began running field
schools around Florida while Roger continued his summer
research in Michigan. In 1973, the two developed the Public
Archaeology Track for the Applied Anthropology graduate
program at USF, the first of its kind in the nation. Joan Deming
remembers that during the formative'years of the program, Ray
used university buildings and walls to teach archaeological
methods, troweling down the sides of structures to expose
profiles and teaching students how to use a transit and other

equipment on campus. In his quiet but exacting way, Ray
shaped the lives of his students and sent into the world genera-
tion after generation of adept archaeologists and cultural
resource management professionals. That first wave of graduate
students included Marion Almy, Joan Deming, and Harry and
Jackie Piper, who pioneered a higher level of archaeological
consulting in the state. Later students achieved positions in
federal, state, and local agencies in Florida and elsewhere,
while many others went on to have successful careers in
academia or private consulting.
Beyond a commitment to his students, Ray's career was filled
with contributions to the profession. He served as President
(1977-1978), Secretary (1981-1983), and Director (1989-1992)
of the Florida Anthropological Society; as Chair of the Anthro-
pological Sciences Section of the Florida Academy of Sciences
(1983-1984); as Assistant Secretary-Treasurer (1987-1989) and
Secretary-Treasurer (1989-1991) of the Society of Professional
Archaeologists (SOPA); and as Editor of the SOPA newsletter
(1981-1984). He also was a founding member and officer of the
Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, perhaps the most
effective partnership between professional and avocational
archaeologists in the state. His exceptional efforts to bring
archaeology to the public earned him the Florida Anthropo-
logical Society's Ripley P. Bullen Award in 1995.
Always trying to stay abreast of the profession, Ray spent
1979 through 1980 working with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and at the offices of the National Register
of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. Always a teacher of the
profession and not just a professional teacher, Ray carried his
message to other institutions throughout his career including
California State University during the summer of 1970, as an
American Anthropological Association Visiting Lecturer in
1975, and as a tenured professor at the State University of
London in 1985 and 1992.
Ray's eclectic interests in life reflected the Renaissance man
he really was. He had a fondness for Baroque music, loved the
opera, cherished antique books that chronicled the early years
of anthropological thought, had a keen eye for good art, adored
museums of any kind, and traveled widely to experience the
archaeology of other regions of the world.
Ray died on November 5, 1995 at the age of 59 after a long
illness in Lake St. Louis, Missouri where he had just returned
to be with his family for the final part of his life journey. He is
survived by five sisters, his son, Mike, daughter-in-law,
Michelle, and two grandchildren, Tara and Alex. Ray viewed
his illness as nothing more than an inconvenience, and even in
his final months he continued to read M.A. theses and helped
plan Florida Archaeology Week events. A true gentleman and
scholar, and a friend to all, Ray Williams will remain in the
hearts and minds of all who knew him for a long time to come.

Information used in compiling this obituary was obtained from Myrle Bastian
Borgers, Joan Deming, Roger Grange, and Mike Williams. The photograph of
Ray is from the files of the University of South Florida's Anthropology
Department and was obtained courtesy of Nancy White.


JSF campus, 1974.

A familiar scene: Ray contemplating the cos-
mos, coffee and cigarettes close at hand.
Summer, 1989.

Ray and Roger Grange at Roger's retirement
party, April 1994.

Ray posing on the hood
of a field truck after a
long day of digging
shovel tests in Orange
County, 1983.

Ray and student assistant John Claflin at the
Maximo Beach site, Summer 1973.

Excavating at the South
Prong I site, 1981.

A fine example of early hominid behavior
USF anthropology lab, 1978.

Ray with students, 1979 Summer Field

Ray demonstrating his unique root-cutting technique.
Rock Hammock, 1981 Summer Field School.

Class of 1986. From left to right: Beth Horvath, Bill Johnson, Ray,
Bill Prentiss, Rich Estabrook.

Ray and students excavating at the
Maximo Beach site, 1973 Summer Field

Ray, Penny Seabury, and George Ballo performing in
public somewhere in Tampa, 1987.

I i-I
Urban archaeologists at Fort Brooke, Tampa, 1978 Summer Field
School. Liz Fisher, second from left; Ray in center; Bob Austin, far
right; others unidentified.

Nature Boy cavorting in the woods, time and
place unknown.

Ray becomes aware of unsolicited contribu-
tion of rabbit ears by Dana Ste. Claire. 1978
Summer Field School, Fort Brooke, Tampa.

Photographs courtesy of Robert Austin, Cynthia
Cerrato, Rich Estabrook, Bill Johnson, Dana
Ste. Claire, Penny Seabury, and USF
Anthropology Department. Photo layout and
design by Octavo Design and Production.

One life, a gleam of time between two eternities Carlyle

Marion M. Almy
Robert J. Austin
Cynthia L. Cerrato
Heather Lea Clagett
Joan Deming
Richard W. Estabrook
Lee Hutchinson-Neff
William Gray Johnson
Janet S. Mathews

Scott Mitchell
Jeffrey M. Mitchem
Christine L. Newman
William C. Prentiss
Dana Ste. Claire
Annette L. Snapp
Brent R. Weisman
James M. Welch
Nancy Marie White

The following individuals and organizations donated funds
or services towards the publication of this issue of The Florida Anthropologist.

Joan Deming
The Florida Archaeological Council
Octavo Design and Production



'Janus Research, P.O. Box 919, St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
Email: janusres@ix. netcom. cor
2Florida Bureau ofArchaeological Research, C.A.R.L. Archaeological Survey, 501 Boating Club Road, St. Augustine, Florida 32084

Between the spring of 1979 and the winter of 1984, the
University of South Florida (USF) conducted a cultural resource
assessment of 12,570 hectares (5200 acres) in northeast Tampa
for the Deltona Corporation. The property would eventually
become the location of the Tampa Palms residential devel-
opment, but the project was known to all who worked on it
simply as the Deltona Project. Over a period of six years this
study resulted in the identification of nine archaeological sites,
the excavation of five of these sites, the authorship of five
major reports, five Master's theses, and no less than ten papers
and presentations, and the training of five graduate interns and
scores of undergraduate students.
One common thread bound the project together James
Raymond (Ray) Williams, Professor of Anthropology at USF
(Figure 1). Ray served as the project's Principal Investigator
and as supervisor, teacher, and mentor to those students who
were lucky enough to participate in the investigations. In this
article we chronicle the events of the project and the effect it
has had on the archaeology of west-central Florida. Ray
Williams encouraged his students to use innovative field and
laboratory techniques and many of these have now become
standard practice in cultural resource management. As the last
two graduate students to work on this project, we offer both an
"insider's view" and a historical perspective of the Deltona
This is, of course, the Reader's Digest version of events. It
differs from the collection of scholarly works and reports on the
Deltona Project in two very important ways. First, it is consid-
erably shorter. Second, it is the first time anyone has discussed
in print all of the various components of the project. We did not
intend this as a reevaluation or reinterpretation of the findings
of these studies. We will leave that to the respective research-
ers. Our goal here is merely to tell the tale, as best we remem-
ber it.
The Deltona Project was the University of South Florida's
"other" major archaeological project. During the late 1970s and
early '80s, the Florida Division of Archives, History, and
Records Management (now the Division of Historical Resourc-
es) and the Florida Department of Transportation conducted
archaeological testing and excavations at a number of prehistoric
sites in west-central Florida, mostly within Hillsborough
County. Sites like Harney Flats, Diamond Dairy, Wetherington
Island, and Titus Church, are but a few of the many that were

investigated during this extensive project associated with the
proposed construction of the Interstate 75 Tampa bypass. With
a few notable exceptions (e.g., USF graduates Marion Almy,
Barry Wharton, Elizabeth Fisher, and Ken Hardin), the
Principal Investigators and Project Archaeologists for these
testing and excavation projects were sent down from Tallahassee
to direct the field work. But most of the field and laboratory
crews were USF students. USF also served as a base of
operations for many of these projects. It housed the field
laboratory that was used for the initial washing, processing,
labeling, and analysis of the recovered materials before they
were transported to Tallahassee for further analysis. George
Ballo, now Administrator of the Cultural Resources section of
the Florida Department of Transportation, supervised the lab.
Many of the students who eventually worked on the Deltona
Project gained valuable experience as field and lab technicians
on the 1-75 Bypass Project.
At roughly the same time as the 1-75 Bypass Project was
begun, a second cultural resource management project was
taken on by USF. The Deltona Project did not have what were
considered at the time to be "huge" state and/or federal budgets.
It was performed with what can only be described as much
more modest means. Field school students, typically eager
undergraduates with little or no formal archaeological training,
made up the crews. The Project Archaeologists were graduate
students looking to satisfy the internship portion of their degree
requirements and find a thesis topic. All of the graduate student
supervisors were hired by the Anthropology Department as
graduate assistants. For those of you unfamiliar with the
hierarchy of university departments, graduate assistants are the
underpaid and unappreciated minions that actually do things at
universities. Other USF graduate students helped out, either as
paid assistants or as unpaid volunteers. Interested people from
the University and Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society
members also pitched in. But, by and large, the brunt of the
hardest and most physically demanding work fell to the field
school students. It was these hardy souls who dug the shovel
tests, excavated the units, drew the soil profiles, and braved the
insects, sun, and rain, all in the interest of archaeology (and a
passing grade).
The Deltona Project began simply and ended simply. USF was
first contacted by the Deltona Corporation in the latter part of
1978 and work continued until the last Phase III report was


VOL. 49 NO. 4



Figure 1. Ray Williams in the University of South Florida
Archaeology Lab, circa 1979. Photograph courtesy of
Adrienne Shoffstall.

submitted in December of 1984. The entire project consisted of
a Phase I predictive model, Phase II site testing, and two major
Phase III excavations. The Deltona Project relied on the talents
of a great many people. At first the project was directed jointly
by Roger Grange and Ray Williams. But, as time passed, the
major administrative responsibilities fell to Ray Williams.
Mildred Fryman, currently a historical consultant in Tallahas-
see, wrote and researched the property's historical background.
Lance Rom served as the first graduate intern in 1979 and he
conducted the preliminary testing at many of the sites on the
Deltona property. Lance is now a Forest Service archaeologist
in South Dakota. Dana Ste. Claire, now Director of the
Division of Anthropological Research for the Museum of Arts
and Sciences in Daytona Beach, and Robert Austin, now with
Janus Research in St. Petersburg, oversaw the initial series of
Phase III site excavations during the summer of 1981. The
authors supervised the second series of Phase III excavations
during the summer of 1983. Several other now well-established
archaeologists worked on the project as struggling undergradu-
ate or graduate students. These included William Prentiss, now
with the Cultural Resource Heritage Office at the University of
Montana; Eugene Romanski, now a private consultant in

southern California; William Johnson, now with the Desert
Research Institute in Nevada; John Whitehurst, District Archae-
ologist with the Bureau of Land Management in Wyoming; and
Elizabeth Horvath, now with Archaeological Consultants, Inc.
in Sarasota.
In the following narrative we will touch on three salient
aspects of the Deltona Project. First, we discuss what Tampa
Palms was then and what it has become now. Each of the three
project phases are then briefly described, and short descriptions
of each of the sites are presented. We conclude with some
discussion about where the Deltona Project took us, and where
we still need to go.

Tampa Palms: Then and Now

Tampa Palms is a 12,570 hectare (5200 acre) development
situated in northern Hillsborough County (Figure 1). During the
late 1970s and early 1980s, when the Deltona Project was being
conducted, little development had occurred in this portion of the
county, and zones of longleaf pine forests and xerophytic oaks
interspersed with hardwoods, swamp forests, bayheads, cypress
swamps, marshlands, and prairies could easily be identified.
Today, approximately three thousand homes, two shopping
centers, a professional plaza, and an elementary school stand on
the relatively flat terrain where archaeologists once roamed.
Tampa Palms has become the heart of New Tampa, an upscale
residential and commercial enclave north of the City of Tampa
and west of Interstate 75.
Drainage for the area, although altered by development, is
provided by Cypress Creek to the west, Trout Creek to the east,
and the Hillsborough River to the south. It is likely that these
or similar major drainage systems were present during prehis-
toric times. This portion of the county drains south into the
Hillsborough River. The Hillsborough flows west and then
south to empty into Tampa Bay near downtown Tampa. During
heavy summer rains, run-off from the area is moderate to slow.
Much of the flatwoods can have ankle-deep standing water on
it for several days to several weeks at a time. During the dry
winter months, many of the ephemeral ponds dry up, and water
for people and animals is only available in the major creeks and
The soils in this region formed during stands of higher sea
level, at a time when this portion of Florida was ocean floor.
These broad, flat areas of sandy marine sediments also contain
narrow, relict sand-dune features. Most of the low knolls and
ridges run north-south, parallel to the coastline. These ridges
are composed of better-drained soils. They also contain the
larger live oak hammocks within which many of the sites
discovered on the Deltona Project were discovered. These
hammocks, with their cool, shading canopies provided by
majestic grandfather oaks and relatively sparse understory
vegetation, have provided many millennia of Floridians with
highly desirable places to live.
Outcrops of chert are common to northeastern Hillsborough
County. Exposures can be found along the Hillsborough River
and in the Cow House Creek area. The many quarry and lithic
workshops that have been recorded and investigated in this area


1996 VOL. 49(4)



0 .5 1 2
0 .5km

Figure 2. Map showing the limits of the Deltona Corporation's Tampa Palms development and the locations of archaeological sites discussed in the text.



A 8HI559

A 8HI557


A 8HI556


A 8HI6


attest to the importance of these chert resources throughout

The Deltona Project

The size and scope of the Tampa Palms development required
that the Deltona Corporation apply for a series of special
permits, as the project was considered a Development of
Regional Impact (DRI). This meant that the construction of a
project of such size and complexity would affect the entire
character of the area, including archaeological sites and historic
buildings. Consequently, the Deltona Corporation was required
to submit an Application for Development Approval (ADA) to
regional and state permitting agencies. An archaeological and
historical investigation, or cultural resource assessment, was
performed by USF for the Deltona Corporation as part of the
application process.
The Deltona Project was divided into three basic parts called
"phases." Since the project was a product of the '70s, it used
the federal nomenclature of the time. Phase I was a background
and records study and did not involve any fieldwork. Phase II
included shovel testing and surface inspection to locate sites as
well as some limited testing to determine their importance.
Phase III investigations included excavation and detailed analysis
of the sites that were considered to be of regional significance.
Two separate Phase III excavations were conducted: one during
the summer of 1981 and another during the summer of 1983.

Phase I

In early 1979, Roger Grange, Mildred Fryman, and Ray
Williams began the Phase I investigation of the Tampa Palms
project area. The Phase I study included a historic overview
written by Mildred Fryman, a prehistory synthesized by Ray
Williams, and a predictive model constructed by Roger Grange
(Grange et al. 1979). Fryman's research suggested little historic
use of the area prior to the Civil War. Subsistence farming
during the late nineteenth century was suggested for some parts
of the property, but no individual homesteads could be identi-
fied. By 1906, a road had been established (Grange et al.
1979:11). It entered the property from the west, crossing
Cypress Creek south of where State Road 581 currently crosses,
and extended to the northeast to follow the route now taken by
State Road 581. As late as 1983, this road was still visible as a
line of oak trees that extended behind a 1920s frame-vernacular
structure that was situated near State Road 581 and east of
Cypress Creek. It was after this structure that one of the
prehistoric sites was named (the Ranch House site, 8HI452).

Phase II

The Phase II study began soon after Phase I was completed.
Lance Rom and a hearty group of USF students began the
survey as a field school in the summer of 1979. In July and
August, these students braved the palmettos and ankle-deep
water to discover and access nine archaeological sites. Five sites
(8HI307, 8HI320, 8HI380, 8HI452, and 8HI534) had been

previously recorded. Rom's crew discovered four new sites
(8HI556, 8HI557, 8HI558, and 8HI559) during that hot, wet
field season. Once the digging was complete, the artifacts were
washed, dried, labeled, and sorted at the USF Archaeology
Rom originally evaluated seven of the nine sites as significant,
and therefore eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places (Rom 1979:7). However, after discussing the
importance of these sites with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), it was decided that only four of the sites
contained important information not found at other sites in the
region. Sites 8HI452, 556, 557, and 558 were subsequently
determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. Since preservation of the sites was not possible
within the Deltona Corporation's development plan, excavation
to mitigate the project's impact to these sites was planned. The
Priscilla site (8HI559) had not been adequately tested during the
summer of 1979 due to high water at the site. Limited testing
was recommended to help make a final determination about the
site's National Register eligibility.

Phase III

Excavations at the Rock Hammock site (8HI556) and the
Tampa Palms site (8HI557), and test excavations at the Priscilla
site (8HI559), were conducted as part of the USF 1981 summer
field school. Robert Austin and Dana Ste.Claire served as co-
site supervisors with Ray Williams as the Principal Investigator.
Work began on June 15, 1981. The first week was spent getting
the field equipment ready, setting out the preliminary site grids
and mapping, and finalizing the schedule of the summer's
activities. Four weeks were spent excavating the Rock Ham-
mock site, and the remaining five weeks was spent at both
Tampa Palms and Priscilla. Sixteen full-time students and one
part-time student spent four and a half days a week in the field,
and one-half day attending lectures and classes on Florida
prehistory and archaeological methods. Several nights each
week were devoted to lab work. Rain days also were spent in
the lab. Full-time field work by the students ended on August
21. Bob and Dana, assisted by graduate students Chris Newman
and Beth Horvath, finished the analysis and report writing over
the next nine months, with a final report submitted in June of
1982 (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982).
Federal involvement in the project in 1982 led to the require-
ment that the remaining two sites (8HI452 and 8HI558),
considered significant by the SHPO, be either listed on, or
determined eligible for listing on, the National Register. Official
requests for Determinations of Eligibility were completed by
Ray Williams and Dana Ste. Claire during the summer of 1982.
Both sites were determined eligible for listing later that same
year. A Memorandum of Agreement (a document outlining what
was to be done at each site) between Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the lead agency, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) was completed late in
Work at the Marita (8HI558) and Ranch House (8HI452) sites
began in May of 1983. Richard Estabrook and Chris Newman


1996 VOL. 49(4)


served as co-supervisors for the field school. They were assisted
by graduate students Bill Johnson and Diane Boyle and a crew
of 11 undergraduates. Excavation at the Marita site started first.
Five weeks were spent there before the project focus shifted to
the Ranch House site. Part of the field school stayed behind at
the Marita site, while several "volunteers" spent a week cutting
transects with machetes and axes and setting the grid at the
Ranch House site. The 1983 field school was run in much the
same way as the 1981 field school, with four days a week of
field work and a one day lab and lecture session. The field
work was complete by July 15. The next six weeks were spent
preparing the results of the ceramic and stone tool analyses
from the Marita site materials to complete a preliminary report
(Newman and Estabrook 1983). The analysis and final report on
both sites was completed in December of 1984 (Estabrook and
Newman 1984).

The Deltona Sites

The Deltona Project included many sites. Some were exca-
vated; others were just shovel tested. Still others were visited
briefly with little or no additional work, as they represented
kinds of sites that are common to the area. This section
provides brief descriptions of all the sites and discusses their
importance to our understanding of the prehistory of this area.
Figure 1 shows the locations of the sites discussed below.
The Planted Pine site (8HI307), discovered and recorded in
June of 1966 by Roger Grange, was relocated and assessed by
Lance Rom in 1979. The site is situated in a stand of planted
pine along the west bank of Cypress Creek. It lies between
Cypress Creek and the Marita Site (8HI558), the latter some
250 m (760 feet) distant to the west. The site was tested using
50-cm-in-diameter shovel tests placed at 12.5 m intervals along
transects spaced 25 m apart.
This investigation revealed the site to be a moderately dense
lithic scatter spread along the creek bank a site type that is
the norm, not the exception, in northeastern Hillsborough
County. The only real surprise (to the site's investigators, at
least) was the recovery of a single sand-tempered-plain sherd
during the testing. This find changed everything. Rom's
interpretation of the site changed from that of a common lithic
scatter to an agricultural settlement-base camp, or some sort of
special-use extractive camp (Rom 1979:62). The suggestion also
was made that this site could be a task-specific activity area
associated with the larger Marita site to the west. In his Phase
II survey report, Rom (1979:8) felt the Planted Pine site to be
significant. Since the Deltona Corporation planned to develop
the area, Rom recommended further testing be conducted to
determine the site's specific function and identify its relation-
ship, if any, to the Marita site. This was never done. The State
Historic Preservation Officer decided that this site contained
information that was redundant in the archaeological record.
Since there were better examples of this type of site in the area,
and since this particular site did not contain any special class of
artifact or feature, additional testing or excavation of the site
was not considered necessary.
The Unnamed site (8HI320) was recorded in the late 1970s by

Karlis Karklins, now an archaeologist with Parks Canada, then
a student at USF. Karklins described the site as a lithic work-
shop, but did not assign it to any cultural or temporal period.
Despite an intensive effort to relocate this site, Rom's field
crews could never find it. Rom believed the site to have been
destroyed by road construction and/or drainage ditch mainte-
nance activities.
The Trout Creek Road site (8HI380) was a sparse, highly
disturbed, Archaic Period site, with no known functional
classification. Rom did not test this site because it was outside
the proposed construction limits (Rom 1979:63). The site was
within the right-of-way for the 1-75 Bypass Project, and was
evaluated by Calvin Jones during the cultural resource assess-
ment survey for that project. Jones (1979) determined that the
site was not eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places, and indicated that it did not warrant any further
The Ranch House Site (8HI452) is, or at least was, a large
multi-component site that extended along the eastern bank of
Cypress Creek. Although recorded as a single site, it was, in
reality, a series of several sites that extended roughly north-
south along a relict sand dune that paralleled Cypress Creek.
The Ranch House site was first recorded by Karlis Karklins
during an investigation conducted during the construction of
State Road 581. He called it the Eight Mile Strip site, likely
after the long, straight run made by the newly constructed state
highway. This road cuts diagonally across the northern portion
of the site. Rom's 1979 investigation included shovel testing and
the excavation of 17 1 x 2 m units in three different portions of
the site. From these excavations, Rom recovered several bifacial
tools and several thousand waste flakes. Two of the bifaces are
bases of Florida Archaic Stemmed points, Levy and Newnan
varieties (Rom 1979:Figure 10:D-E). One specimen was
classified as an "Unidentified Projectile Point Tip" (Rom
1979:Figure 10F), but later in the report it is identified as a
Bolen Plain projectile point (Rom 1979:64).
Due to its large size and it geographic position within the
environment, Rom concluded that this site represented a Middle
to Late Archaic base camp (ca. 5,000-2,000 B.C.). The site was
determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places, and Phase III excavation was recommended.
The Phase III excavations were conducted in the summer of
1983. Three concentrations of artifacts were defined south of
State Road 581 and these were designated Areas A, B, and C.
Area A proved to be somewhat of a disappointment. A sparse
artifact scatter dating to the Middle to Late Archaic periods,
with some suggestion of minor use during the Woodland Period,
was identified during testing. Area B contained the most
extensive deposits. Evidence for Early Archaic, Middle
Archaic, Late Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian site uses
were identified. Area C, a dense cluster of sand-tempered
pottery and thermally altered stone, likely resulted from a single
site occupation during the early Woodland Period (Estabrook
The Rogers Hammock site (8HI534) is situated in a small
pine/palmetto rise east of the famous Buck Hammock site
(8HI6). It was first recorded by students from USF during the



1970s. The site lies north of the USF Biology Study Area and
access to the site was made by traveling through this area.
Fifty-centimeter-square shovel tests placed at 50 m intervals
along transects were used to test the site. The recovery of a
single Florida Archaic Stemmed projectile point and numerous
flakes placed this site in the Archaic Period. While lack of time
and resources kept Rom from testing this site further (Rom
1979:66), he believed that its information potential was suffi-
cient enough to warrant its inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places (Rom 1979:8). However, after consultation with
the SHPO, this site was determined to be not eligible for listing
and was never excavated.
The Rock Hammock site (8HI556) was situated in the south-
central portion of the Tampa Palms property. Of the nine sites
investigated during Rom's survey, it is the site that is located
closest to the Hillsborough River. In 1979, Rock Hammock was
tested by using a combination of shovel tests, 1 x 1, 1 x 2, and
2 x 2 m excavation units. A Hernando projectile point, a single
sand-tempered-plain sherd, and several hundred flakes suggested
a Florida Transitional affiliation for the site (Rom 1979:67).
Rom proposed that Rock Hammock functioned as a lithic
reduction workshop or a lithic quarry camp, although it is
unclear what Rom believed the real differences were between
these two site "types."
Obvious outcrops of Tampa Formation limestone at Rock
Hammock differentiate this site from all others identified on the
Tampa Palms property. In the eastern portion of the site,
exposures of poorly silicified limestone were encountered on the
surface and up to 40 cm below surface. The outcrops were
inspected by Sam Upchurch, then a geologist at USF. While
Upchurch believed a chert source was located nearby, no chert
could be located among these exposures (Austin and Ste. Claire
The USF 1981 summer field school focused roughly one-half
of its efforts at Rock Hammock. Dana Ste. Claire discusses
some of the major findings from this site in an article in this
issue. Suffice it to say here that Rom's identification of the site
as a lithic workshop proved accurate. This important site
functioned as a stone-tool manufacturing and hafting location,
used by small work groups to replace worn, broken, or lost
hunting gear (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982:172). However, it
was probably occupied during the early Manasota Period rather
than the Transitional Period (Ste. Claire, this issue).
The Tampa Palms site (8HI557) is situated south of State
Road 581 and east of an extensive wetland that separates this
site from the Ranch House site. Archaeological deposits
extended along both sides of a dirt trail that ran through the
area. When first discovered, the site was covered in saw
palmetto and scrub oaks. Rom's 1979 testing included nine 2 x
2 m test units in addition to the transect shovel tests that first
identified the site. The Phase II testing at Tampa Palms
recovered four Florida Archaic Stemmed points, a scraper, a
knife base, an unidentifiable projectile point tip, and several
hundred waste flakes. Based on these materials, as well as the
size of the deposits, Rom identified the Tampa Palms site as a
base camp possibly occupied on a year-round basis (Rom

Excavations at the Tampa Palms site during the summer of
1981 revealed the site to be a seasonally occupied, residential
base camp. Three subareas, designated A, B, and C, were
investigated. Austin and Ste. Claire (1982:126-127) were able
to further subdivide activities that occurred in Area A. Loci
used for the manufacture of hunting implements (hafted
bifaces), heavy woodworking activities, and expedient flake-tool
manufacturing were identified. These loci followed a U-shaped
pattern across the site, with a central area containing large
quantities of waste flakes, but no tools. The site was apparently
occupied periodically by small groups of foragers throughout the
Early and Middle Archaic periods. Limited use of the loci
during later prehistoric and early historic periods was also
identified (Austin and Ste. Claire 1982:128).
The Marita site (8HI558) encompassed approximately five
hectares (two acres) and was located some 400 m west of
Cypress Creek. Artifacts recovered from the site suggest that
use began during the Late Archaic Period, ca. 2000 to 500
B.C. The primary occupation of the site occurred during the
Manasota and Weeden Island-related periods (500 B.C. to A.D.
1200). Phase III excavation was conducted in 1983 leading to
the conclusion that the site was a temporary, intermittently
occupied, extractive camp. There did not appear to be a
dominant activity occurring at the site, but rather, a variety of
activities such as tool maintenance, perhaps butchering activi-
ties, and food preparation (Estabrook and Newman 1984;
Newman 1985).
The Priscilla site (8HI559) was discovered east of State Road
581 along Trout Creek Road. Apart from the recovery of 30
flakes from a 50-cm-in-diameter shovel test, flooding at the site
prevented Rom's crews from testing the site further or establish-
ing its boundaries. These tasks were left for the 1981 field
school. That summer conditions were dry enough to allow
Austin and Ste. Claire to test the site. They determined it to be
a limited-use camp site. Evidence for the processing of meat,
bone, and wood was identified on many of the flake tools. They
also determined that the site was probably occupied during the
Late Archaic Period, roughly 3000 to 500 B.C. (Austin and Ste.
Claire 1982:67-68).
In addition to these nine sites, 41 non-site loci were identified
during the 1979 field school. These were locations where only
a single waste flake was found on the surface or in a shovel
test, and adjacent tests did not recover any artifacts. The
distribution of non-site loci reflected the distribution of the
larger prehistoric sites. None were found in areas considered to
be of low site potential. Thirteen were discovered in moderate
site potential areas, and twenty-eight were found in areas that
were considered to be of high archaeological site potential (Rom
1979:54). This may be less of a pattern then it seems as just
over two-thirds (87) of the testing transects were placed in high
potential areas and only 43 transects were placed in areas of
moderate site potential. No transects were placed through areas
considered to be of low site potential.
Many other sites surround the Deltona property, and some,
including the USF Village site (Williams and Estabrook 1988;
Williams and Ward 1986) and the Cowhouse East Head and
West Head sites (Torp 1991), have been the focus of recent


1996 VOL. 49(4)


investigations. One site, known as Buck Hammock, stands out
as a premier site of the region. First excavated during the 1930s
as a WPA project, Buck Island contains evidence of occupation
from the Archaic through Contact periods (Bullen 1952:75-79).
Buck Hammock lies just south of the Tampa Palms property on
land now owned by USF. The site itself is a small upland rise
in the middle of an extensive wetland system associated with the
Hillsborough River. The upland areas around the site are
currently being used by USF as a golf course. Access to Buck
Hammock is limited during the wet season, but is possible
during the dry season.

The Things We Did Right (and Where We Went Wrong)

Lithic Studies

Tampa Palms is located in one of the richest chert-bearing
regions of Florida. As a result, the Phase II and Phase III
projects spent an inordinate amount of time and energy on the
study of the production and maintenance of stone tools. These
studies included various production, maintenance, use-wear, and
debitage analyses. It could be said that there are at least 100
pieces of debitage recovered for every pot sherd or chipped-
stone tool recovered in Hillsborough County, and the analysis
of debitage, otherwise known as waste flakes or flaking debris,
became a major focus (read obsession) of these projects.
Stone-tool manufacture is a subtractive process. You envision
the tool you would like to create within the stone, and then
remove all the odd bits from around it. The process of stone-
tool manufacture is often broken down into stages, with names
like blank, preform, and projectile point/knife given to the
useful pieces that are left over. Sometimes a piece broke in
some unexpected way and was cast off. It is the study of these
discarded pieces, especially the investigation of the reasons why
things broke, that provides insight into the range of production
activities undertaken at a particular site or at a specified area
within a site.
Use-wear studies investigate the chips, scratches, and rubbings
along the edges of stone tools in order to determine how the
tools were used. In some cases, even the kinds of materials
worked can be inferred from these microscopic traces. This
technique was employed, to a greater or lesser extent, on all
phases of the Deltona Project. The main technique that was
employed was the low-power approach. Low-power use wear
employs a binocular microscope with a relatively low magnifica-
tion range (10x to 70x), which enables the analyst to observe
and record the various patterns of damage that are present along
the edges and surfaces of a tool. These patterns are then
compared to published descriptions and photographs or to
modern replica stone tools that have documented use traces, and
functional inferences are made.
A low-power approach was adopted mainly due to circum-
stance USF had a low magnification, stereozoom microscope
available. The equipment and expertise necessary to perform
high-power use-wear studies were unavailable at USF at the
time. High-power use-wear analysis uses microscopes with
magnification in the range of 50x to 400x fitted with specially

equipped light sources that transmit light at both 900 and 450
angles, relative to the tool surface. Employing magnification of
this scale allows the analyst to view the most minute traces of
wear on stone tools. Time was another critical factor. High-
power use-wear studies take a great deal more time to conduct
than low-power studies.
Of course the study of stone tool use wear was only one of
several new avenues of study employed during the various
phases of the project. Sam Upchurch's development of the
quarry cluster concept (Upchurch et al. 1982) allowed us for the
first time to be able to address questions concerning the
movement of stone between outcrop/quarry and site, and
between one region within the state and another. Detailed
investigations into the manufacture of stone tools provided us
with the various waste flake (debitage), manufacture failure, and
reduction sequence (continuum) analysis techniques that are now
commonly used on even the smallest archaeological surveys.
Our site descriptions have moved from a simple reporting of a
"large number of chips and some broken, half-finished tools" to
a careful consideration of a large number of prehistoric activi-
ties. It is now possible to tell, with some degree of confidence,
what kinds of stone tools were being made, where the raw
material for those tools was coming from, what the various
stone tools and flakes were being used for, and to what extent
the technique of thermal alteration (heat-treatment) was being
used and where. With the wide-spread use of these kinds of
analyses, we are now beginning to address questions of land-
scape use, settlement mobility, and assemblage variability (e.g.,
Austin, this issue; Estabrook and Williams 1992; Welch and
Prentiss, this issue).

Ceramic Studies

Little pottery was recovered during the Deltona Project. Of
the five sites where Phase III excavation occurred, ceramic
components were present at only two: Rock Hammock and the
Marita site. Several sherds were recovered from the upper
levels at the Ranch House site, and one sherd was recovered
from the unexcavated Planted Pine site. The paucity of pottery
at the Deltona sites left little room for ceramic study other than
typological determination. At Rock Hammock all pottery (85
sherds) was found within the first two levels (0-20 cmbs)
providing little opportunity for analysis of temporal or spatial
The Marita site presented a different situation. Enough pottery
was recovered to actually conduct a detailed study. In addition
to a reasonable number of recovered sherds (366), the pottery
was distributed both vertically and horizontally across the site;
a virtual ceramic bonanza for this part of Hillsborough County.
Typological determinations were made based upon physical
properties, with the dominant ware category being sand-
tempered plain. Other types identified at the site included
Orange Plain, St. Johns Plain, St. Johns Check Stamped, St.
Andrews Complicated Stamped, Pinellas Plain, and a variety of
incised and punctated wares (Estabrook and Newman 1984:105-
108). Analysis of sherd thicknesses indicated a decrease in
vessel-wall thickness through time.



THE FLORIDA ANrsmoPoLoGssr 1996 VOL. 49(4)


Considerable resources, and many, many long Saturday
afternoons, were spent processing samples of sediments from
the Marita and Ranch House sites using a technique called
flotation, or water separation. The process involved placing
samples into a flotation mechanism (a metal barrel) where a
continuous flow of water was introduced into the bottom of the
flotation drum via a water hose and shower head. The agitation
of the water caused the heavier materials and sand to fall to the
bottom of a bucket insert, where the larger fragments were
caught in a screen (297 micron/US Standard Sieve #50) and the
sand passed through to collect on the bottom of the drum.
Countless hours were spent floating, drying, and carefully
weighing and measuring each sample. We even added charred
exotic seeds to selected samples to test our recovery rates.
While the test was deemed successful (a greater than 89%
recovery rate), the recovery of identifiable, prehistoric plant
remains was not as fruitful. The countless hours were in vain.
Only two seed remains were identified and both probably
represent modern floral material deposition.

Soils Analysis

A battery of chemical tests were performed on soil samples
taken from excavation units at the Marita and Ranch House
sites. Excavated soils from all levels were tested for pH range.
The results ranged from 4.0 to 6.5 indicating high to moderate
acidity. Our hopes of finding correlations between pH values
and high concentrations of artifacts were quickly quashed when
the results were tallied. No such correlation existed.
The results for the chemical testing for phosphate content were
a different matter. Tests were conducted on many of the
samples from the Ranch House site and all of the samples from
the Marita site. While no correlation between phosphate content
and artifact recovery was found at the Ranch House site, the
results from the Marita site proved interesting. A total of 96%
of the ceramics and 68% of the utilized stone implements were
recovered from areas with high phosphate content, strongly
suggesting a direct correlation between high phosphate concen-
tration and major activity areas (Estabrook and Newman


In many ways, the Deltona Project was a reflection of Ray
Williams's approach to teaching he led without pulling,
giving students enough "rope" to allow them to be creative and
innovative in binding the elements of their site analyses togeth-
er, but just short of enough with which to hang themselves. Ray
allowed his students to develop their own research interests,
without ever imposing his personal predilection for pottery
analysis. He sometimes provided the direction, often provided
the necessary books and journals, and always provided the
encouragement and guidance each student required to develop
and pursue his or her own goals.
The Deltona Project was not without its difficulties. In

hindsight, there were many things that likely would have been
done differently had we known then what we know now.
Flotation on such a vast scale would have been abandoned in
favor of dry fine screening of selected samples. Chemical
testing of soils would have been included within the context of
a sedimentological study, with a great deal more emphasis
placed on geological site-formation processes. On the other
hand, a great many things would have been done the same.


Funding for all phases of the Deltona Project was provided by the Deltona
Corporation under contract with the University of South Florida, Tampa. The
hard work of a great many people went into making these projects the successes
that they became. The authors would especially like to thank all of the field
crew students from each of the three field seasons who braved the elements to
recover a small, yet irreplaceable part of Florida's heritage. To all of them -
May there always be a moon over the Ranch House!

References Cited

Austin, Robert J., and Dana Ste. Claire
1982 The Deltona Project: Prehistoric Technology in the Hillsborough River
Basin. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology,
Archaeological Report Number 12, Tampa.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County, Florida. Florida
Geological Survey, Report of Investigations Number 8, Tallahassee.
Estabrook, Richard W.
1986 Archaeological Excavations at the Ranch House Site (8-Hi-452),
Hillsborough County, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of An-
thropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Estabrook, Richard W., and Christine Newman
1984 Archaeological Investigations at the Marita and Ranch House Sites,
Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department
of Anthropology, Archaeological Report Number 15, Tampa.
Estabrook, Richard W., and J. Raymond Williams
1992 Analysis of Lithic Materials from the Rattlesnake Midden Site
(8HI981), Tampa Bay, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:39-51.
Grange, Roger T. Jr., Mildred Fryman, and J. Raymond Williams
1979 A Phase I Study of the Deltona Corporation Property on State Road
581 in Hillsborough County, Florida. Report prepared for the Delton
Corporation by the Department of Anthropology, University of South
Florida, Tampa.
Jones, B. Calvin
1979 Recommendations for Archaeological Phase II (Test) and Phase III
(Salvage) Excavations of Sites Located Along Interstate 75 in Hills-
borough County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Florida Division of
Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Newman, Christine Lee
1985 Archaeological Investigations at the Marita Site: A Transitional
Through Historic Period Site. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropolo-
gy, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Newman, Christine L., and Richard W. Estabrook
1983 A Preliminary Report of Archaeological Investigations at the Marita
Site (8-Hi-558) Hillsborough County, Florida. Report prepared for the
Deltona Corporation by the Department of Anthropology, University
of South Florida, Tampa.
Rom, Lance
1979 A Phase 2 Archaeological Assessment Survey of the Deltona Corpora-
tion's Tampa Palms Development. Report prepared for the Deltona
Corporation by the Department of Anthropology, University of South
Florida, Tampa.
Torp, Lyle
1991 Archaeological Investigations at the Cowhouse East Head and
Cowhouse West Head Sites. Report prepared for the Southwest Florida


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Water Management District by the Department of Anthropology,
University of South Florida, Tampa.
Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels
1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Report on
file, Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Williams, J. Raymond, and Dorothy Ward
1986 A Report of Testing for Archaeological Sites at High Probability
Locations on the University of South Florida Campus, South ofFletcher
Avenue. Report on file, Office of the Vice President for Administrative
Affairs, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Williams, J. Raymond, and Richard W. Estabrook
1988 Archaeological Investigations at the USF Village site (8H12187),
Hillsborough County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department
of Anthropology, Archaeological Report Number 16, Tampa.

The Museum


Florida's Art And Culture
A cultural institution dedicated to the artists of Florida
whose work is visually linked to
Florida's history, heritage or environment.

* Museum hours are 9 a.m. 5 p.m. Monday through
* Guided tours of exhibitions are available for groups by
reservation. Call (941) 655-0392.
The Museum is located South of Sebring on Hwy. 98,
2 blocks east of Hwy. 27.
The Old Florida Trading Co. is a source for arts, crafts and
books with a Florida theme. See our Museum Angels.

August September. 1996
The Randle / Sheffield Collection of Seminole photographs
from late 1930.
October November December. 1996
The best of the Florida Masters, work from the permanent
January February 16, 1997
The Highwaymen Revisited. Paintings by black Florida
artists who were the beginning of the Indian River School.
February 21 March, 1997
Vanishing Florida. Photography by Chica Stracener.

13300 U.S. 98, Sebring, FL 33870
PH: (941) 655-0392 FX: (941) 655-3240
Interet: http://www.954.com/AARF/mofac
E Mail: smithb@ct.net



Division of Anthropological and Archaeological Research, The Museum of Arts and Sciences, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114
E-mail: moasq8r@aol.com

During the summer of 1981, the Department of Anthropology,
University of South Florida (USF) conducted excavations to
mitigate impact at three archaeological sites on the Del-
tona/Tampa Palms development property in northern Hills-
borough County (see Estabrook and Newman, this issue, for an
overview of the Deltona project). These investigations, carried
out under the direction of J. Raymond Williams, Robert J.
Austin, and the author, were designed to provide data pertaining
to prehistoric settlement and technology in the Central Peninsu-
lar Gulf Coast archaeological region of Florida and, in particu-
lar, to yield data regarding the prehistoric inland occupation of
the Hillsborough River Basin. One site, Rock Hammock
(8HI556), was the subject of intensive archaeological excavation
(Austin and Ste. Claire 1982:129-193; Ste.Claire 1982).
Cultural deposits at Rock Hammock were characterized by
Hernando projectile points (Bullen 1975:24) and related
production debris. This paper focuses on the technological and
functional analyses of these projectile points. Comparative data
from other Hernando projectile points, mainly specimens from
the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH) and USF's
Department of Anthropology collections, also are presented in
an effort to resolve the question of whether this point type
represents an early use of the bow and arrow in Florida.
Finally, some comments regarding the temporal placement of
Hernando points in Florida prehistory are presented.

Site Location and Description

Located approximately .4 km from the Hillsborough River,
the Rock Hammock site occupies a unique spatial-ecological
position within an environmental transition zone between an oak
hammock and a bordering swamp forest. Earlier archaeological
testing (Rom 1979) indicated that the most dense concentration
of stone implements and associated debitage was confined to a
small area of the site along a sandy apron which bordered the
most extreme southern margin of the hammock. It was in this
lower portion of the hammock that extends into the swamp that
the 1981 excavations were conducted.
The excavation strategy at Rock Hammock focused on the
exposure of large, contiguous areas to determine areal patterns
of flake discard and manufacture debris distribution. In all, 103
m2 were excavated, representing approximately 20% of the total
site area. A total of 13,882 artifacts were recovered including
47 Hernando blanks, reforms, and projectile-point forms, 141
utilized and modified flakes, and over 13,000 pieces of lithic

A relatively small ceramic assemblage (85 sherds) included St.
Johns Plain, sand-tempered plain, and limestone-tempered plain
pottery. The ceramics and Hernando projectile points were used
to assign the site's principal occupation to sometime during the
Transitional through Weeden Island periods (Austin and Ste.
Claire 1982:169), although the absence of sand-and-fiber-
tempered pottery suggests that site occupation may have
occurred no earlier than 500 B.C. or so. Furthermore, it is
unlikely that Rock Hammock was utilized throughout this entire
time period (Austin and Ste.Claire 1982:168-173). A more
plausible scenario is that the site experienced intensive use
during a relatively brief span of time sometime between 500
B.C. and A.D. 800.
Also recovered were one Pinellas projectile point (Bullen
1975:8) and three Pinellas-like blanks that exhibited differential
patination. These implements probably are the result of later
prehistoric groups visiting the site and scavenging previously
discarded flakes for use as Pinellas point blanks (Austin and
Ste.Claire 1982:169-170). A single radiocarbon date of 410
50 B.P. (cal. A.D. 1425-1505) may confirm use or occupation
of Rock Hammock during the late precolumbian phase of the
Safety Harbor Period (Milanich 1994:389; Mitchem 1989:557-
The large amount of debitage, and the high proportion of
cortex material (33.3%), indicated that a chert source was
located nearby. However, examinations of limestone exposures
at the site and in the nearby swamp by USF Geologist Sam
Upchurch proved inconclusive with regard to the availability of
chert at the site due to insufficient silicification of the limestone
(Sam Upchurch, personal communication, 1981). The limestone
is part of the Tampa Member of the Hawthorn Group, which is
a productive chert-bearing deposit exploited heavily during
prehistoric times. Cow House Slough, a dense prehistoric site
where Tampa Limestone chert was quarried, is located less than
3 km away (Chance 1981, 1982; Chance and Misner 1984).
Lithic material from the Rock Hammock assemblage was
identified by Upchurch as having originated in the Tampa
Member of the Hawthorn. Thus, it is likely that a chert source
is, or was, located nearby.

Technological Analysis: Variations in Production
Technique and Manufacturing Behavior

Models of biface reduction have been presented by several
investigators (e.g., Callahan 1979; Collins 1975; Muto 1971)
and are based primarily on experiments in the production of



VOL. 49 No. 4


Figure 1. Hernando projectile points from the Rock Ha

projectile points or generic bifaces. Although terms differ
slightly among investigators, a general model of biface reduc-
tion is apparent and includes several "stages" in the biface-
reduction continuum: procurement of raw material, core
preparation and reduction, primary shaping of blanks, secondary
thinning, final shaping and edge retouch. To this continuum,
some would add use, repair, reuse, and final discard (e.g.,
Collins 1975). While some lithic analysts reject the notion that
flintknappers manufacture stone tools in discrete stages (e.g.,
Shott 1996), the stage concept remains a useful tool for
analyzing lithic assemblages.
Because toql production is a subtractive process wherein stone
is reduced, or "thinned," through the removal of flakes using
percussion or pressure, the stone worker operates within a
relatively fixed technological framework once a specific tool
form has been chosen for production. Within the confines of
this framework, variation is due to differences in manufacturing
technique, raw-material differences, flint-knapping skill, and the
vagaries of individual decision making.

The Hernando Reduction Continuum

Because of its relatively narrow temporal and spatial para-
meters, the Rock Hammock site is significant with regard to the
analysis of cultural materials recovered from a lithic workshop
site. Analysis of data from the site revealed a primary activity
set: the reduction of stone into a single, final product group,
that of Hernando projectile points (Figure 1). Manufacture
debris (i.e., blanks, reforms, and debitage) characteristic of all
but the earliest (procurement) stage of the lithic-reduction
process were almost exclusively associated with the production
of this point type.
The lithic-reduction continuum at Rock Hammock was

determined through a detailed analysis of
rejected lithic debris, mainly discarded
blanks and reforms, and laterally frac-
tured projectile-point forms. In an attempt
to gain insights into the specific lithic-
manufacturing activities which occurred
at Rock Hammock, a reduction-continu-
um model was established through the
use of thinning indices. A thinning index
is derived by dividing the weight of a
biface by its surface area (Johnson 1979).
Thus, an overall measure of thinning is
achieved: the smaller the thinning-index
value, the thinner the artifact. The use of
thinning-index values facilitates the place-
ment of bifaces within a production tra-
jectory and, moreover, provides the
means for controlling intuitive assump-
tions made purely on the basis of form.
The various stages of the lithic-reduc-
tion sequence were represented at Rock
mmock site. Hammock activity areas by an assem-
blage of rejected blanks, reforms, and
projectile-point forms (Appendix I).
Rejection was caused, in large part, by undesired morphology
or the occurrence of an inadvertent production failure. Each
production failure was plotted by its corresponding thinning-
index value. Production stages were then identified by the
clustering of thinning-index values (Figure 2). Through the
identification of principal clusters, a Hernando projectile-point
reduction model was achieved.
Figure 2 reveals a cluster of thinning-index values at four
points which are related to different stages in the lithic-reduction
continuum. Early-stage blanks (large flakes removed from cores
that have undergone little or no modification) are represented by
a mean thinning index of 1.80. Intermediate blanks (large flakes
that exhibit modification through lateral-margin shaping) cluster


X = .69

= 1.39

.75 .95 1.15 1.35 1.55 1.75 1.95 2.15 2.35
Thinning Index Midpoint Values

Figure 2. Distribution of thinning-index values in the
Hernando reduction continuum.


1996 VOL. 49(4)



around a mean value of 1.39. Late-stage
reforms have a mean index of 1.06. The
final product group of this continuum,
that of several late-stage Hernando pro-
jectile-point forms, reveals a mean thin-
ning-index value of .69. This group
includes a high frequency of basally
notched, late-stage reforms with a mean r.
thinning-index value of .74. These late-
stage reforms do not characterize fin-
ished projectile points per se in that
additional work was required for their
completion. They are, however, represen-
tative of the final stages of the Hernando
continuum. The final product group value
of .69 closely approximates a mean thin-
ning-index value of .75 calculated for 34
complete Hernando points from the col-
lections of the Florida Museum of Natu-
ral History in Gainesville and the Univer-
sity of South Florida's Department of
Anthropology (see Appendix II), indicat- Figure 3. Hern
ing that the terminal-continuum group at completed project
Rock Hammock is well within the range
of completed Hernando projectile points.
A tabulation of identifiable portions of completed, but broken,
Hernando projectile points from these same collections shows
similar indices (Appendix II).

Production Technique

Once the various stages of the reduction continuum were
isolated, manufacture rejects were analyzed to determine
specific techniques within each stage. It was postulated that a
deviation from the general continuum model and/or variation in
the specific techniques applied during the reduction sequence
might reflect variation in stone-working behavior which would
distinguish this particular manufacturing tradition as temporally
and geographically unique. In fact, such variation was observed
in the Rock Hammock assemblage.
The following is an overview of the specific manufacturing
techniques that were found to be characteristic of the Hernando
projectile-point production sequence at Rock Hammock.
Comparison of this sequence with those from other sites
dominated by Hernando projectile points and associated
production debris would be useful in determining whether these
techniques represent a set of behaviors associated with a single,
localized group, or a more generalized and wide-spread
Hernando manufacturing tradition.
Raw-Material Acquisition and Core Reduction. As noted
previously, no chert sources were identified in the immediate
vicinity of Rock Hammock, although one is suspected. Similar-
ly, no debitage indicative of quarrying activities was present in
the Rock Hammock assemblage. While no large cores or
hammerstones were recovered, a large proportion of the
debitage consisted of primary and secondary decortication flakes
(33.3% of the total flake assemblage), implying that some core

ando reduction continuum: a) blank; b) preform; c) nearly
:tile point.

reduction may have taken place at the site. The specific
techniques used to accomplish these tasks, however, remain
Primary-Stage Reduction Technique. Preliminary thinning of
Hernando projectile-point blanks (Figure 3a) involved the
technique of alternate-margin unifacial thinning, where one face
of one margin was unifacially thinned, and then the alternate
face of the opposite margin underwent the same process.
Unifacial preparation was a manufacturing step that facilitated
bifacial thinning of the blanks by steepening the margins to
allow subsequent bifacial reduction to occur in a more con-
trolled fashion. This stage involved primarily the use of a hard
Secondary-Stage Technique. Following the initial stages of
blank preparation, a series of successively reduced reforms
(Figures 3b and 4a, b) were manufactured utilizing both hard-
and soft- (bone and antler) hammer techniques. During the later
stages of this intermediate preform-reduction sequence, basal
thinning was performed to facilitate notching.
Basal Notching. Notching occurs symmetrically along the
basal edges of Hernando points and was accomplished by the
use of pressure flaking. Notches were expanded by alternately
turning the preform over and applying pressure to the back of
a previously created notching-flake scar. The flakes that resulted
from this activity are very distinctive and can be used to identify
notching techniques from a general debitage assemblage (see
Austin 1986 for a description and discussion of this debitage
type). Hernando notching occurs almost exclusively in pairs and
was probably accomplished through use of a pointed bone or
antler pressure flaker.
Tertiary Soft-Hammer Technique. Basal notching was not the
final step in the Hernando manufacturing process. Subsequent



Figure 4. Late-stage Hernando reforms: a) notching failure
fracture; c) lateral-snap fracture.

soft-hammer thinning was performed after notching and before
final pressure retouch along the margins. This was indicated by
the predominance of late-stage Hernando points with notches
present which were rejected due to lateral fracture (Figure 1).
Rejection due to a notching failure is also evident on one late-
stage preform (Figure 4a), thus demonstrating at what stage
notching occurred. It is possible that basal notching by pressure
is similar to bifacial fluting in that both are important steps in
a particular manufacturing sequence. Final retouch may have
been impractical in both instances until these critical steps had
been accomplished.
Thermal Alteration. The technology of thermal alteration is
absent in the Rock Hammock lithic assemblage. An analysis of
over 100 Hernando points and point fragments from other sites
in the FLMNH and USF collections showed the occurrence of
only two thermally altered Hernando implements. Heat-treat-
ment technologies, which reached their peak in Florida during
the Archaic Period, decreased significantly during post-Archaic
periods. This decrease in the use of thermal alteration correlates
with an observable reduction in projectile-point size and weight
through time (Ste. Claire 1987). The use of smaller, thinner

blanks, such as those used during the
manufacture of Hernando points, appar-
ently did not necessitate the use of heat
treatment in order to achieve a desired
final product.

Preconceptions of Tool Form Group
Manufacturing Behavior

Hernando projectile-point manufactur-
ing behavior was studied in view of
specific decisions made on the part of the
manufacturers concerning the acceptance
and rejection of potentially salvageable
forms of fractured late-stage Hernando
points. Certain laterally snapped speci-
mens display basal portions, with notch-
ing complete, that have a substantial
amount of their blade portions remaining
which would allow for minimal shaping
into functional, albeit smaller, pointed
e; b) direct corner projectile forms (Figure 1). To determine
if the occurrence of unsalvaged basal
fragments represents preconceptions on
the part of the manufacturers regarding a
desired final tool form, dimensional data from the comparative
Hernando sample were analyzed. It was postulated that if a par-
ticular size, shape, or form was preferred by Hernando projec-
tile-point manufacturers, then minimal variability should be
reflected within this sample. Hence, the standard deviation and
variance should be low, and the coefficient of variation (i.e.,
the standard deviation as a proportion of the mean) also should
be low.
A comparison of length, width, and thinning-index data
compiled for the sample of Hernando projectile points and the
Product Group I rejects from Rock Hammock (Table 1) indicate
that while the mean thinning-index values are nearly identical,
the Rock Hammock implements possess a larger average length
and smaller average width than the combined FLMNH and USF
samples. In other words, the Rock Hammock assemblage is
slightly longer and narrower than the comparative sample.
However, the coefficients of variation are low in both assem-
blages indicating that length and width variations within each
sample are not great.
These data suggest that while a general size-weight
relationship may have been preferred by Hernando projectile-

Table 1. Dimensional and thinning-index data for Hernando projectile points.

Length Width Thinning Index
N Avg. SD CV N Avg. SD CV N Avg. SD CV

Rock Hammock 5 6.13 .92 .15 5 2.38 .33 .14 6 .74 .09 .12
Sample 41 4.50 .63 .14 45 2.94 .36 .12 50 .76 .09 .12


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Figure 5. Horizontal distribution of debitage and manufacturing debris
spatially isolated, single-event, biface reduction episode (Feature 1).

point makers, as evidenced by the similarities in thinning-index
values between Rock Hammock and the comparative sample,
regional variations in size and form did occur. At Rock Ham-
mock, for example, prehistoric flintknappers tried to produce a
particular form longer and thinner while still maintaining
the desired size-weight relationship. It is evident that Hernando
projectile points were manufactured with an overall precon-
ceived shape (and possibly weight) in mind, surely a reflection
of aesthetic expression and/or functional requirements.

Individual Manufacturing Behavior

When it became apparent during field investigations at Rock
Hammock that one of several lithic concentrations was a

representing a

specialized, spatially isolated, chipping station, special excava-
tion methods were applied. A board-and-string grid subdivided
into 10 x 10 cm squares was constructed and laid over the
feature to assist in preserving intra-feature provenience. The
entire feature was mapped and subsequently removed in 10 x 10
cm blocks and the excavated soil was sifted through 3.2 mm
(1/8 in) mesh screen.
The feature (Figure 5), broadly elliptic in shape, measured
approximately 110 cm in length, 70 cm in width, and extended
to a depth of 12 cm below ground surface, with the bulk of the
material occurring between 5 and 10 cm below surface. A total
of 1776 artifacts were recovered from the feature including
1741 pieces of debitage, four blanks, and two reforms, one of
which was found in two matching pieces within the lithic con-




Figure 6. Horizontal distribution of debitage weights in Feature 1.

centration. The feature was located in a remote area of the site
where artifact density was typically low and was, thus, relative-
ly isolated from the other major activity areas. Based on the
condensed and patterned distribution of its contents, it is
believed that the concentration represents the deposition of
material resulting from a single manufacturing episode (Austin
and Ste.Claire 1982:139-143).
In an effort to determine patterns of spatial organization on the
part of the individual flintknapper, an analysis of the spatial
distribution of the flake debris in the feature was conducted
using methods developed by Newcomer and Sieveking (1980).
Based on the analysis of experimentally derived scatters, they
concluded that the most important variable affecting the size and
shape of these scatters is the position of the knapper. In general,
the farther the knapper's body is from the ground, the more
diffuse the scatter of flakes will become. The two extremes are
represented by a seated position on the ground which results in
a concentrated cluster of flakes, and a standing position which
results in a very diffuse flake distribution with large numbers of
flakes which fly forward of the knapper. Furthermore, flake-
scatter patterns which result from sitting on seats of varying
heights are characterized by roughly circular patterns of flake
dispersal. These patterns were delineated through the analysis
of flake-weight distribution and this method was applied to the
Rock Hammock feature (Figure 6).
Application of Newcomer and Sieveking's method shows that
the knapper who produced the lithic debris in the feature was
facing in a southwesterly direction while working, with most of
the flakes traveling in that direction. The knapper was probably
seated on the ground or on a low seat of some sort as evidenced
by the relatively dense concentration of debris. The knapper's
legs and body prevented the flakes from flying in any other

direction. Broken blanks and reforms were dropped in the
center of the cluster or tossed to the south. One preform was
dropped to the north, or to the right side of the knapper, after
fracture occurred.

Behavioral Displacement ofBifaces

An interesting, and very human, form of behavior on the part
of the Rock Hammock flintknappers was revealed by observing
the distribution of matching fragments of nearly completed
projectile points across the site. Matching fragments were
recovered on Rock Hammock several meters from each other,
usually with one fragment found at a defined chipping station.
Excessive bioturbation was ruled out as a possible cause because
of the large distances between fragments and the absence of any
soil discolorations or other evidence of such activity. Fracture
displacement, where flakes or biface fragments are fractured
away at a distance from the source of manufacture upon
percussion, was also considered unlikely because of the amount
of force that would be needed to displace the biface fragments.
Instead, it is suggested that this phenomenon was caused by
what is termed "behavioral displacement," whereby knappers
displayed their frustration at fracturing nearly complete imple-
ments by "excessively" discarding one or more of the remaining
fragments (Austin and Ste.Claire 1982:187).
This phenomenon was recognized in Florida as early as 1959
when Bullen and Dolan, reporting on the Johnson Lake site in
Marion County, noted that "quite obviously the workman,
nearly finished with a fine artifact, had struck a final chip and,
because of a flaw in the chert, broke the blade...the nicely
finished base dropped among the growing pile of debris beside
him while the other part, probably with a few choice words,


1996 VOL. 49(4)


was thrown some distance away...this must have occurred at
least twice" (Bullen and Dolan 1959:80). A similar occurrence
of "tossing behavior" is reported by Daniel and Wisenbaker
(1987:106-107) at Harney Flats, a Paleoindian site in Hills-
borough County.
Another plausible explanation for these displaced bifaces is
that the biface fragments are broken pieces of completed
projectile points that fractured during use, perhaps during
hunting. The tips subsequently were transported back to the site
in animals that were killed, while the remaining broken basal
portions, still hafted to the projectile shaft, would have been
carried back, as well. The tip portions would have been
discarded during on-site butchering activities, while at another
location, the bases were removed from the hafts of the arrows
or darts and discarded in preparation for the attachment of new
projectile points. However, the general absence of use wear,
hafting wear, or impact fractures on Rock Hammock projectile-
point forms seems to argue against this hypothesis.

Functional Analysis: Atlatl Dart or Arrow Point?

The term "projectile point" is a functionally ambiguous term
which subsumes all spear points, atlatl dart tips, and arrow-
heads. Although Hernando projectile points have been referred
to as arrowheads in the archaeological literature (e.g., Milanich
1994:203; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:129; Tesar 1994:75),
systematic testing of Hernando attributes has not been conducted
to determine their intended function. Several investigators have
conducted studies designed to determine whether or not
archaeological or ethnographic specimens were arrows or dart
points. Independent criteria have been used in these tests that
would, theoretically, provide general formulas for determining
projectile function. These include Thomas's (1978) dart point
and arrowhead equations and Shott's (1993) reapplication of
Thomas's classification function, Van Buren's (1974)
weight/length differentiations, Corliss's (1972) projectile-point
neck-width indices, and Fenenga's (1953) weight-distribution
study. These analyses are briefly described here.
Thomas (1978) considered four variables in his analysis:
length, width, thickness, and neck width. These variables were
incorporated into a discriminant analysis which is a statistical
procedure that uses independent variables to assign individual
specimens to one or more previously defined classes which, in
this case, included ethnographically documented dart and arrow
points. If a high proportion of specimens are classified correctly
using these independent criteria, equations are generated that
enable specimens of unknown function to be assigned to one of
the two classes. The raw variable values for an unknown
projectile point are substituted into the two equations and the
one that produces the higher value indicates the appropriate
The application of this method on the sample of known
projectile-point types resulted in an overall accuracy of 86%,
which Thomas felt was satisfactory for an archaeological
application of this method. Thomas (1978:471) states that while
the relatively larger arrows tended to have larger arrowheads,
the correlation is not strong and he urged caution when making

such inferences. He adds that these classifications should be
tested against independent data before the categories are
considered final.
Shott (1993) applied Thomas's classification function to
archaeological materials from eastern North America. His study
demonstrated that Thomas's formulae can be used to distinguish
arrow points from dart and spear points in archaeological
projectile-point assemblages. But he also noted that an inter-
mediate and functionally ambiguous class of projectile points
would be difficult to address analytically using this method.
G. E. Van Buren (1974), in an exhaustive work that describes
and differentiates many projectile-point types, categorized
arrowheads and atlatl darts by their corresponding attributes
with weight as the principal criterion. After an examination of
numerous ethnographic specimens, Van Buren arrived at a basic
weight value for separating the two projectile-point types:
arrowheads, weighing less than 17 gm (with associated varia-
tions for longer points) and dart points, weighing more than 20
gm. Thickness attributes also were coupled with weight for
point-type differentiation. Generally, arrowhead hafting-area
thicknesses did not exceed .48 cm.
Corliss (1972) demonstrated that the change from spear to
bow usage is reflected in the reduction of stem or neck widths
of stone points. His operational model proposed that the
distribution of projectile-point neck widths will be bimodal
based on the assumption that the bimodality is the result of the
introduction of the bow.
Fenenga (1953), expanding on research conducted by Kidder
(1938), used weight as his principal criterion for distinguishing
between dart points and arrowheads. Fenenga contended that
weight is a function of length, width, and thickness, plus form
and the specific gravity of the material used, and that weight
was a desired or required constant which could be achieved by
varying one or more of the other attributes. Samples from
archaeological sites located in the western regions of North
America, as well as ethnographic specimens, were analyzed and
classified by weight. On the basis of the resulting distribution,
Fenenga defined small- and large-point traditions, with weights
of projectile points clustering around one of two modes. The
distribution range for the small-point tradition shows a modal
preference for projectile points weighing between .5 and 1.5 gm
with an upper limit of 3.5 gm. The range for large points was
defined by a minimum weight of 4.5 gm and a modal weight of
9 gm. Fenenga also suggested a functionally ambiguous
intermediate range which was defined by a weight distribution
of 2.1 through 7.4 gm.

Application of Classification Methods to Hernando Projectile

An analysis of Hernando projectile points was conducted using
the classification methods discussed above. In addition to the
projectile points from Rock Hammock (Appendix I), Hernando
points from the FLMNH and USF collections also were
included in the analysis (see Appendix II).
The various classification methods produced conflicting
results. When the projectile data are applied to Thomas's



THE FLORIDA ANrHRoPoLoGISr 1996 VoL. 49(4)

equations, Hernando points emerge as atlatl dart tips. Similarly,
the mean weight value of 5.55 gm for complete Hernando
projectile points falls at the lower end of Fenenga's (1953)
range for what he terms the large-point tradition or the atlatl
dart class. However, the mean weight value is well below the
maximum value of 17 gm proposed by Van Buren (1974:21) for
his arrow-point class threshold. Furthermore, the small Her-
nando stem width (.84 cm) seems to correlate with Corliss's
(1972) assumption that a change from atlatl use to use of the
bow and arrow will be reflected by a reduction in the neck
widths of stone points.
Thomas (1978:471) acknowledged that his classification
system might be subject to temporal and spatial fluctuations, and
while Shott (1993) successfully used Thomas's equations, he
noted that functionally ambiguous implements would be difficult
to classify. Along these same lines, Seeman (1992:42) has
suggested that Thomas's formulae may not have application to
bifaces manufactured during a period of transition from dart to
arrow. Fenenga (1953:321) suggested that implements with
weights that fell into his intermediate weight category might
represent efforts at a compromise between the two traditions.
Thus, the somewhat ambiguous results may indicate that
Hernando projectile points were manufactured as multifunctional
implements, serving as tips for both darts and arrows. This
implies that atlatl and bow use were contemporaneous at one
An explanation also is sought for the sudden decrease of
projectile-point size and weight, the concomitant decrease of
thermal-alteration technologies, and the introduction of the
basal-notching tradition at the end of the Transitional Period. If
a distribution of thermal alteration use is compared with
projectile-point weight and size through time, Hernando points
occur initially at a point of sudden decrease of all of these
attributes (Ste. Claire 1987).
A non-random sample of projectile points chosen to reflect
representative types was analyzed in an effort to examine the
continuum of decreasing projectile-point dimensional attributes
through time (Table 2). A group of Archaic stemmed points
shows a mean thinning index of 1.35, while a sample of
Pinellas points, most often associated with the use of the bow
and arrow (e.g., Milanich 1994:265, 340, 394) possesses a
substantially smaller mean thinning index of .52. The mean
thinning-index value of .76 calculated for the large sample of
Hernando points clearly approaches the lower end of this range.

Table 2. Comparison of mean weight and thinning-index values for
Florida Archaic Stemmed, Hernando, and Pinellas projectile points.

Projectile Weight Thinning
Point Type N (gm) Index

Florida Archaic
Stemmed 10 22.42 1.35
Hernando 51 5.55 a .76
Pinellas 10 1.53 .52

1 Mean weight calculated from 35 complete specimens.

The abrupt decrease in projectile-point weight and thinning
index during the Woodland Period in Florida is demonstrated,
and best characterized, by Hernando projectile-point forms, and
this trend may indeed reflect the introduction of the bow and
arrow. When this introduction occurred in Florida is difficult to
say, but it is generally accepted that the bow and arrow was
adopted in eastern North America as a delivery system for
projectile points sometime during the first millennium A.D.
(Shott 1993:435). Odell (1988) suggests that this introduction
may have occurred earlier, nearer to the turn of the millennium,
or possibly as early as 2000 B.C.
Throughout eastern North America, a shift from notched or
stemmed to triangular projectile points occurred between A.D.
500 and A.D. 800, and this shift is commonly associated with
the use of the bow and arrow in this region (e.g., Blitz
1988:131; Christenson 1986; Griffin 1978:254; Hall 1980;
Justice 1987:224-229; Muller 1986), as well as other areas of
the continent (Patterson 1992; Webster 1980). The Florida
variant of this triangular-point tradition is the Pinellas point
(Bullen 1975:8), a projectile-point type produced during the
latter part of this same period and one which is almost always
associated with a bow-and-arrow technology. But triangular
points in many areas of eastern North America are preceded by
notched projectile points that are smaller than earlier types of
similar form (Shott 1993:425), and these transitional types seem
to suggest that the bow and arrow was introduced earlier than
the production of small, triangular projectile points. It is
possible, as Shott (1993:438) suggests, that hunting tool kits
changed by expansion, rather than replacement, when the bow-
and-arrow technology was made available. That is, existing
forms of projectile-point traditions may have undergone
reduction to accommodate the functional requirements of a new
technology. Hernando points may reflect such an adaptation or,
as Hall (1980:436) explains, a shift of dimensions within an
older pattern. The Hernando projectile-point form could be
interpreted as a translation of atlatl point into arrow point,
emerging as a comparatively smaller point within a well-
established basal- and corner-notched projectile-point tradition
which developed during the Late Archaic through Transitional
periods in Florida, its form reflecting the cultural and techno-
logical constraints imposed by such a tradition. Perhaps, as
Bullen (1975:3) suggested, it is a refinement of the earlier
basally notched (barbed) Culbreath point. This modification
could have taken place rapidly in response to the introduction of
a new technology although the data seem to suggest a gradual
transition from atlatl to arrowhead. Both explanations are
viable, and more data are needed to determine the true function
of Hernando projectile points.

Temporal Placement of Hernando Projectile Points

Hernando points are thought to have first appeared during the
Florida Transitional Period (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:62),
and it is the latter part of this period where they first emerged
based on Bullen's (1975:24) chronological placement of this
point type. Bullen based this assumption in part on Hernando
points found at the Canton Street site in St. Petersburg (Bullen


196 VoL. 49(4)


et al. 1978), where ceramics assignable to the late Transitional
Period (ca. 900-600 B.C.) were recovered. Using Canton Street
and other site data, Bullen (1975:24) suggested that Hernando
points best correlate with the period ca. 500 B.C.-A.D. 200.
Sears (1982), using ceramic inventories, mound and midden
patterning, and in some cases, radiocarbon dates from Fort
Center in south Florida, assigns a Hernando point assemblage
recovered there to a similar period (ca. 450 B.C.-A.D. 200),
although later contexts for Hernando points also are described
for this site (Steinen 1982). Austin (1996:69, Figure 7) reports
that a Hernando point at the Dead Cow site on the Kissimmee
River was found in association with sand-and-fiber-tempered
sherds. A similar sand-and-fiber-tempered component at the
nearby Orange Hammock midden was radiocarbon dated at
2870 50 B.P. (cal. 1170-910 B.C.) (Austin 1996:72). At a
freshwater snail midden in the Ocala National Forest, a single
Hernando point was recovered from a similar sand-and-fiber-
tempered context (Bullen and Bryant 1965:28). Purdy's
(1981:44) assignment of Hernando points as beginning in the
late Preceramic Archaic Period is probably too early.
Almy (1982) correlates Hernando points found at Cypress
Creek in Hillsborough County with the period ca. 500 B.C.-
A.D. 700 based on ceramics recovered from the site, research
in the Central Gulf Coast area, information from other sites in
Florida, and personal communication with Calvin Jones. Her
extension of Bullen's (1975:24) temporal range for Hernando
points from A.D. 200 to A.D. 700 was based on a recognition
that Hernando points had been recovered from later contexts in
Florida. Hernando projectile points have been identified with
Weeden Island and related Woodland Period cultures throughout
Florida (e.g., Luer and Almy 1982; Milanich 1974, 1994;
Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Steinen 1982), and have been
recovered from contexts dating as late as A.D. 860 (Milanich
1974; 1994:202-203). The latest temporal association for this
projectile-point type is reported by Steinen (1982:Table 6.3)
who lists several Hernando points from Midden A at Fort
Center that he believes were deposited during Sears's Period III
(or sometime between A.D. 600-800 and A.D. 1200-1400)
based on ceramic seriation. No radiocarbon dates are associated
with Midden A and no additional information is provided
regarding the exact proveniences of the projectile points within
this feature. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if
Hernando points were being used throughout the entire range of
time encompassed by Sears's Period III. To my knowledge,
there is no firm evidence from any other sites in Florida that
would support a post-A.D. 900 terminal date for the manufac-
ture and use of Hernando projectile points.
Based on the available archaeological literature, it appears that
Hernando points have a broad temporal distribution in Florida,
from the Transitional through the Weeden Island and related
periods (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 900), thus making difficult the
task of isolating a specific culture period for which Hernando
points are diagnostic. This problem was illustrated recently by
Farr (1995) who conducted a comprehensive search of the
Florida Site File in Tallahassee for site-specific information
concerning the correct chronological placement of this distinc-
tive projectile point.

Hemando points are unambiguously associated with sand-and-
fiber-tempered components throughout central and southern
Florida, including sites located in both interior and coastal
regions of the state. This ceramic type is a classic diagnostic
marker for the Transitional Period (Bullen 1959, 1971). It
appears that Hernando points became popular in later times in
north Florida (Milanich 1994:101). Radiocarbon dates from the
Sycamore site (Milanich 1974; 1994:197-204) suggest that the
Hernando projectile-point tradition continued in north Florida
through the Weeden Island period (ca. A.D. 860). It also is
possible that these points were salvaged from earlier contexts by
later cultures, a prehistoric behavior demonstrated for this
region of Florida (Ste. Claire 1987:205). Salvaging might also
explain the presence of Hernando points in relatively late (i.e.,
Period III) contexts at Fort Center.


This paper has described the Hernando projectile-point
manufacturing techniques practiced at a single site, Rock
Hammock, in the Hillsborough River Basin of west-central
Florida. The data suggest that Rock Hammock flintknappers
attempted to produce Hernando projectile points within a
narrowly defined range of length and width parameters while at
the same time maintaining a desired size-weight relationship.
This size-weight relationship is presumed to be related to
implement function. Analysis suggests that Hernando points may
have been used to tip both atlatl darts and arrows, and so may
reflect the technological transition from atlatl to bow and arrow
in Florida. Data presented in this paper also suggest that
Hernando points were manufactured during a lengthy cultural
continuum, from the Transitional through Weeden Island and
related cultural periods (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 900), throughout
north, central, and south Florida. Additional radiocarbon dating
of sites with well defined Hernando projectile-point horizons is
necessary to more closely determine the spatial and temporal
boundaries of the Hernando projectile-point tradition.


The author thanks colleague and friend Robert Austin for his editorial
contributions and discussions related to the development of ideas contained in
this paper; this article reflects many shared ideas. Bob also produced several of
the graphics for this paper. Artifact photos are by George Ballo. Rich Estabrook
read an earlier draft of this paper and provided helpful comments and
references. Thanks are extended to Nancy Marie White and Tim R. Lewis of
the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, for their recent
assistance in processing a Rock Hammock charcoal sample for radiocarbon
dating; USF's Department of Anthropology sponsored the date.
Finally, the author expresses his deepest gratitude to the late J. Raymond
Williams, longtime mentor and friend, for his continuous support and direction
in helping this archaeologist become what he was always meant to be. What
began as an archaeological foray into the backwoods of Hardee County some
twenty years ago with Ray and a barefooted and talkative Barry Wharton has
since become a lifelong passion. A belated thanks, Ray, for this special gift.

References Cited

Almy, Marion M.
1982 Archaeological Excavations at the Cypress Creek Site (8HI471): An




Inland, Short-Term, Multi-Period Aboriginal Occupation in Northern
Hillsborough County, Florida. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeo-
logical Reports, Number 4. Florida Division of Archives, History, and
Records Management, Tallahassee.
Austin, Robert J.
1986 The Experimental Reproduction and Archaeological Occurrence of
Biface Notching Flakes. Lithic Technology 15:96-100.
1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence Data from the
Kissimmee River Valley: Archaeological Evidence for Belle Glade
Occupation. The Florida Anthropologist 49:65-87.
Austin, Robert J., and Dana Ste.Claire
1982 The Deltona Project: Prehistoric Technology in the Hillsborough River
Basin. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology,
Archaeological Report No. 12, Tampa.
Blitz, J. H.
1988 Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America. North American
Archaeologist 9:123-145.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Newsletter 6:43-53.
1971 The Transitional Period of Southern Southeastern United States as
Viewed from Florida, or the Roots of the Gulf Tradition. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference Bulletin 13:63-70.
1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points (Revised
Edition). Kendall Books, Gainesville.
Bullen, Ripley P., and William J. Bryant
1965 Three Archaic Sites in the Ocala National Forest, Florida. The William
L. Bryant Foundation Report No. 6.
Bullen, Ripley P., and E. M. Dolan
1959 The Johnson Lake Site, Marion County, Florida. The Florida Anthro-
pologist 12:77-94.
Bullen, Ripley P., Walter Askew, Lee M. Feder, and Richard L. McDonnell
1978 The Canton Street Site, St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida Anthropological
Society Publications 9, Gainesville.
Callahan, Errett
1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A
Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern
North America 7:1-180.
Chance, Marsha A.
1981 Wetherington Island: An Archaic Lithic Procurement Site in Hills-
borough County. The Florida Anthropologist 34:109-119.
1982 Phase II Investigations at Wetherington Island: A Lithic Procurement
Site in Hillsborough County. Interstate 75 Highway Phase II Archaeo-
logical Reports, No. 3. Florida Division of Archives, History, and
Records Management, Tallahassee.
Chance, Marsha A., and Elizabeth J. Misner
1984 Archaic Lithic Procurement at Wetherington Island, Hillsborough
County, Florida. Report prepared for the Florida Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration by the Florida
Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Bureau of
Historic Sites and Properties, Tallahassee.
Christenson, Andrew L.
1986 Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory
Study. Plains Anthropologist 31:109-128.
Collins, Michael B.
1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic
Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by Earl Swanson,
pp. 15-34. Mouton Publishers, The Hague.
Corliss, David W.
1972 Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of Cultural Continuity and
Change. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, No.
29, Pocatello.
Daniel, I Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker
1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Co.,
Farmingdale, NJ.
Farr, Grayal E.
1995 Hernando: Recent Contributions to the Understanding of a Distinctive
Prehistoric Projectile Point. Graduate student paper on file, Department

of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Fenenga, Franklin
1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to Their Functions.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:309-323.
Griffin, James B.
1978 The Midlands and Northeastern United States. In Ancient Native
Americans, edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 221-279. Freeman, San
Hall, R. L.
1980 An Interpretation of the Two-Climax Model of Illinois Prehistory. In
Early Native Americans: Prehistory, Demography, Economy, and
Technology, edited by D. L. Browman, pp. 401-462. Mouton Publish-
ers, The Hague.
Johnson, Jay K.
1979 Archaic Biface Manufacture: Production Failures, A Chronicle of the
Misbegotten. Lithic Technology 8:25-35.
Justice, N. D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern
United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist
Milanich, Jerald T.
1974 Life in a 9th Century Indian Household, a Weeden Island Fall-Winter
Site on the Upper Apalachicola River, Florida. Florida Bureau of
Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 4:1-44.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida,
Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology
in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Muller, J.
1986 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio Valley. Academic Press, Orlando.
Muto, Guy R.
1971 A Technological Analysis of the Early Stages in the Manufacture of
Lithic Artifacts. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Idaho State
University, Pocatello.
Newcomer, M. H., and G. de G. Sieveking
1980 Experimental Flake Scatter Patterns: A New Interpretive Technique.
Journal of Field Archaeology 7:345-352.
Odell, George H.
1988 Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices Through Stone Tool Analysis.
American Anthropologist 90:335-356.
Patterson, Leland W.
1985 Distinguishing Between Arrow and Spear Points on the Upper Texas
Coast. Lithic Technology 14:81-89.
1992 Current Data on Early Use of the Bow and Arrow in Southern North
America. La Tierra 19:6-15.
Purdy, Barbara A.
1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology: A Study of the Flnworking
Technique of Early Stone Implement Makers. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Rom, Lance
1979 A Phase 2 Archaeological Assessment Survey of the Deltona Corpora-
tion's Tampa Palms Development in Northeastern Hillsborough County,
Florida. Report prepared for the Deltona Corporation, Inc. by the
Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Sears, William H.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Seeman, M. F.
1992 The Bow and Arrow, The Intrusive Mound Complex, and a Late
Woodland Jack's Reef Horizon in the Mid-Ohio Valley. In Cultural

1996 VOL. 49(4)


Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley,
edited by M. Seeman, pp. 41-51. MCJA Special Paper No. 7. Kent,
Shott, Michael J.
1993 Spears, Dart, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the
Upper Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 58:425-443.
1996 Stage Versus Continuum in the Debris Assemblage from Production of
a Fluted Biface. Lithic Technology 21:6-22.
Ste. Claire, Dana
1982 RockHammock: Hernando Projectile PointManufacturing Technologies
in the Hillsborough River Basin. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropol-
ogy, University of South Florida, Tampa.
1987 The Development of Thermal Alteration Technologies in Florida:
Implications for the Study of Prehistoric Adaptation. The Florida
Anthropologist 40:187-208.
Steinen, Karl T.
1982 Other Nonceramic Artifacts. In Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in

the Lake Okeechobee Basin by William H. Sears, pp. 68-110. Universi-
ty Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Tesar, Louis D.
1994 Johnson Sand Pit (8LE73): An Analysis and Comparative Review of a
Paleoindian through Early DeptfordBase Camp in Leon County. Florida
Archaeological Reports 32, Bureau of Archaeological Research,
Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State,
Thomas, David Hurst
1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American
Antiquity 43:461-472.
Van Buren, G. E.
1974 Arrowheads and Projectile Points with a Classification Guidefor Lithic
Artifacts. Arrowhead Publishing Company, California.
Webster, Gary S.
1980 Recent Data Bearing on the Question of the Origins of the Bow and
Arrow in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 45:63-66.

Appendix I. Examples of Hernando reduction continuum.

Specimen No. Product Length Width Stem Width Weight Surface Thimnng
Group (cm) (cm) (cm) (gm) Area Index

8HI556-116-11 IV 7.05 3.55 .. 33.00 19.25 1.71
8HI556-57-1 IV 5.75 3.85 .. 27.10 16.75 1.62
8HI556-65-74 m 7.10 4.10 .. 32.20 24.00 1.34
8HI556-45-1 m 5.10 3.30 .. 17.90 13.50 1.33
8HI556-113-1157 II 7.71 3.85 .. 27.85 21.50 1.30
8HI556-153-1 II 5.75 2.95 .. 11.40 10.65 1.07
8HI556-116-2 II 5.50 2.90 .. 13.25 13.00 1.02
8HI556-63 I 5.72 2.40 .42 9.40 10.50 .90
8HI556-C-2A-2 I 5.10 2.00 .59 4.80 6.50 .74
8HI556-74 I 7.55 2.90 .58 12.70 17.50 .73
8HI556-12-7' I .... .71 2.70 3.75 .72
8HI556-45/56 I 5.90 2.25 .60 6.10 8.63 .71
8H1556-189-190 I 6.40 2.35 .. 5.45 8.75 .62

a Basal fragment.

Appendix II. Hernando projectile point data.

Specimen No. Length Width Stem Width Weight Surface Thinning
(cm) (cm) (cm) (gm) Area Index

Bayshore DPM-B
Becker BD-17 A
Becker BD-17 B
Becker BD-17 C










Appendix H (Continued).

Specimen No. Length Width Stem Width Weight Surface Thining
(cm) (cm) (cm) (gm) Area Index

Becker 382.1-6 4.62 2.90 .70 4.69 6.19 .76
Becker 382.1-7 4.70 2.40 .82 5.19 6.91 .75
Becker 382.1-16 3.82 2.85 .75 3.22 5.50 .59
Becker 382.1-26 3.22 3.05 1.10 3.60 5.00 .72
Becker 382.1-37 5.15 3.55 .. 8.55 9.13 .94
Becker 382.1-42 4.90 3.00 1.05 6.25 8.25 .76
Becker 382.4 4.82 2.72 .75 5.29 7.43 .71
Becker 382.5-A 3.95 2.92 .92 5.19 6.19 .84
GA Flint River 1 4.85 3.30 1.25 7.00 9.38 .75
GA Flint River 2 .. 2.90 1.09 4.29 5.69 .75
Mathews 7572 3.95 3.10 .80 5.29 6.50 .81
Pecan BR A-4541 4.92 2.85 .78 4.69 7.69 .61
Pecan BR 8456 5.35 3.59 1.31 10.52 12.87 .82
Pecan BR 102316 A .. 2.81 .65 4.30 6.63 .65
Pecan BR 102316 B 4.25 .. .85 4.82 6.19 .78
Pecan BR 102316 C 3.75 .. .82 3.30 5.06 .65
Phillipi 11694 .. 3.50 1.09 6.72 7.69 .87
USF A14-12 3.95 2.85 1.05 4.25 5.75 .74
USF C62-8 4.20 2.70 .69 4.85 6.06 .75
USF G15-11 4.75 3.19 .95 7.59 8.50 .89
USF UNLBLD-15 .. 2.40 .85 3.45 4.63 .76
USF ST 2-10 4.95 2.55 .85 5.39 7.19 .75
USF 8HI113-3 5.80 2.62 .85 6.25 8.75 .71
USF-9 4.75 2.92 .92 6.60 8.31 .79
102212-A-4400 .... .85 3.15 4.29 .73
102289-A2992-3 4.22 2.82 .72 4.70 6.38 .74
102289-A954-4 4.12 2.80 .65 3.10 5.50 .56
102289-A958-5 4.65 2.45 .70 4.70 6.44 .73
102421-A-1819 3.50 2.02 .45 2.50 4.06 .62
8-A-414-102312 5.50 3.25 1.00 7.30 10.04 .73
8-HE-6-92611A .. 3.10 .75 8.28 11.06 .75
8-HE-6-92515 .. 2.68 .60 5.01 6.69 .75
8-HE-6-92611B .. 2.28 .61 4.15 4.87 .85
8-MR-57-135 5.62 3.00 .75 8.51 9.69 .88
8-MR-57-104312 4.90 2.92 .95 4.71 7.21 .65

Average 4.49 2.94 .84 5.55 6.95 .76
N 43 47 51 35' 51 51

SComplete specimens only.


19w Vo. 4M4)



Cultural Heritage Resource Office, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812
E-Mail: 'chro@selway.umt.edu; 2Prentiss@selway.umt.edu

In 1949, Gordon Willey described the "flatwoods" of west-
central and northwest Florida as "a rather poor lowland
sustaining pine, palmetto, and wiregrass, and dotted with
cypress ponds." He suggested that this environmental context
likely could not sustain agriculture without modem mechanized
methods. He contrasted the flatwoods with adjacent coastal,
riverine, and upland zones, which he felt offered much higher
potential for production of subsistence resources. Despite this
characterization, recent archaeological research has documented
that this environmental zone was occupied repeatedly by
prehistoric populations. Debate continues, however, regarding
the nature of this occupation. Some favor the coast as the center
of major evolutionary change (Padgett 1976), while others have
argued for independent cultural complexity evolving in the
interior of Florida (Wharton and Williams 1980). Despite the
creation of alternative hypotheses (Johnson 1981), there has
been little resolution of this debate.
Excavation of the South Prong I site (8HI418) in southeastern
Hillsborough County (Welch 1983) provides an opportunity to
test the competing hypotheses from a single-site perspective.
Although a single site cannot provide a complete picture of
regional settlement patterns, it can provide a window into land-
use patterns if the temporal span of site occupation is long
enough. South Prong I features temporally diagnostic artifacts
and radiocarbon dates spanning the Paleoindian through Safety
Harbor periods. It also features a relatively substantial assem-
blage of lithic tools and debitage and ceramics allowing
inferences to be made regarding occupational variation and
The following discussion provides a review of the three
principal hypotheses purported to explain land use in interior
Gulf Coast Florida, as well as the excavation and environmental
context of South Prong I, descriptive results of the artifact
analyses, and an additional test of the original conclusions
utilizing lithic tool assemblage size and diversity relationships.
Implications are drawn regarding the utility of the three
hypotheses for understanding interior Gulf Coast prehistory and
recommendations are made for future research into cultural
evolution and hunter-gatherer foraging strategies.

Land Use in the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast Region:
Multiple Hypotheses

There have been several hypotheses and arguments advanced

concerning settlement patterning within the interior portions of
the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast Archaeological Region. These
include the Hinterland Hypothesis (Padgett 1976), the Heartland
Hypothesis (Wharton and Williams 1980), and the Marginal
Flatwoods Hypothesis (Johnson 1981).
Padgett (1976:41) proposed the existence of three environmen-
tal areas which include Coastal, Riverine, and Hinterland
Zones. A land-use model was presented which suggested that
each of these environmental zones contains archaeological sites
which reflect different socio-economic activities (Padgett
1976:42-43). The South Prong I site is located within the
northeastern reaches of the Hinterland Zone. This zone is
defined as the area drained by the headwaters and tributaries of
the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers. Furthermore, the land is
typically flat and low with soils not conducive to maize agricul-
ture (Padgett 1976:43). Following Padgett (1976), it is proposed
as a working hypothesis that South Prong I reflects a "Hinter-
land Zone...used exclusively as a hunting territory, with
perhaps some minor collecting activities taking place" (Padgett
1976:43). This hypothesis implies that the landscape of the
Interior Peninsular Gulf Coast region was perhaps used system-
atically by coastally based peoples who shifted from an immedi-
ate-return to a delayed-return collecting system during the
period encompassed by the late Pleistocene through the late
Immediate-return hunter-gatherers make frequent residential
moves, consume foods gathered daily, maintain flexible social
groupings, and avoid the binding long-term commitments for
trade that are seen among agriculturalists and more "complex"
hunter-gatherers (Binford 1980; Hayden 1981; Woodburn 1980,
1982). Late Pleistocene and early Holocene hunter-gatherers in
Florida may have been organized in a somewhat similar manner
(Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). Delayed-return
hunter-gatherers make few residential moves, rely on stored
food during some seasons of the year, assert extensive property
rights including ownership of crucial resource-collecting locales,
and enter into various binding commitments for exchange,
marriage, property access, etc. (Hayden 1992, 1995; Price and
Brown 1985; Woodburn 1980, 1982). Middle to late Holocene
peoples of Florida may have fit this pattern to a significant
degree (Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). If this
was the case, then we should expect to see systematic change in
land-use patterns throughout this time reflecting this change.
South Prong I, with its long sequence of occupations, may




VOL. 49 NO. 4


reflect this change in hunting and gathering patterns with
evidence for a shift from highly mobile foraging with an
immediate-return subsistence strategy (cf. Chatters 1995) to one
of specialized group foraging with processing for transport to a
residential base elsewhere as in a delayed-return strategy (cf.
Binford 1980).
The second settlement system and related subsistence technolo-
gy pattern postulated for the area is the Heartland Hypothesis by
Wharton and Williams (1980). The view expressed by these
authors is not a structured hypothesis as such, but rather is a
repudiation of Padgett's (1976) Hinterland Hypothesis. The
basic thrust of their argument is that this inland region was not
a "cultural backwater" used only for hunting purposes, but was
the scene of relatively complex prehistoric lifestyles. It was
suggested "that significant cultural groups were in residence on
a year-round basis, and that they were participating in the same
cultural evolutionary development taking hold elsewhere in the
region such as the emergence of more effective systems of
agricultural production, and the rise of nonegalitarian (or
ranked) social organization" (Wharton and Williams 1980:215).
Under this scenario, and as a second working hypothesis, South
Prong I would reflect more varied utilization perhaps reflecting
systemic change within the region rather than focused usage for
"hinterland" activities such as hunting. If South Prong I is
assumed to be at the center of major cultural changes, then the
pattern of land use reflected at the site should alter significantly
from one of small-band foraging (e.g., Binford 1980), to
collecting (e.g., Price and Brown 1985), and ultimately
sedentary village life (e.g., Widmer 1988).
Based upon extensive research on the physiographic location
and density of archaeological sites in west-central peninsular
Florida, Johnson (1981) advanced the hypothesis that the pine-
flatwoods region was never heavily occupied by aboriginal
populations. Formally stated:

...since the pine flatwoods physiographic region is considered to
have been a marginal environment in terms of exploitation potential,
the exploitation and settlement of this environment by aboriginal
populations would have been likewise marginal...reflecting the
proposition that in any arbitrarily defined tract of land containing
5000 or more acres which occurs in the Peace River Valley or other
inland areas of the region and which also contains pine flatwoods
as the major (by area) ecological community, the prehistoric
archaeological site density will be equivalent to one site per 1380
acres of land [Johnson 1981:11].

Though recent cultural resource management surveys employ-
ing more advanced recovery techniques (i.e., close-interval
shovel tests and sieving through 6.4-mm-mesh screens) have
found higher site densities (Robert Austin, personal communica-
tion, 1996), the idea that site density and by inference, human
occupation, varied with ecological zonation retains some
validity. Johnson (1981:17) argued that the subsistence technolo-
gies known or suspected to have been employed in the area
suggest environmental marginality in terms of utilization and
settlement. Johnson's argument does not negate the possibility
that significant cultural changes occurred in the Interior
Peninsula Gulf Coast region. Rather, it merely suggests that

patches (cf. Smith 1991; Winterhalder 1981) of expected low
energetic return from subsistence foraging in environmental
zones such as the pine flatwoods, merely received less regular
or intense usage throughout the prehistoric period. The conten-
tion that low-return patches will receive less frequent and
intense occupation than those featuring high return is supported
strongly within the field of evolutionary ecology (Charnov 1976;
Smith 1991; Stephens and Krebs 1986).
Under this scenario, and as a third alternative hypothesis,
South Prong I may reflect prehistoric land-use patterns condi-
tioned by local ecological and economic zonation. If, as
suggested by the paleoenvironmental review (below), the Inland
Peninsular Gulf Coast region has been relatively stable, and by
extension, consistently of lower utility in comparison to coastal
and lowland areas since the mid-Holocene, then land-use
patterns also may have remained stable at this site location
despite major cultural changes in nearby coastal or interior

The South Prong I Site

The South Prong I site was excavated in 1981 by a crew of
five individuals under the direction of James M. Welch and the
supervision of J. Raymond Williams (Welch 1983). A total of
113 1 x 1 m square units were excavated.
The South Prong I site is geographically located on the
northern margin of the South Florida Basin (Figure 1). Physio-
graphically, the site lies within the Terraced Coastal Lowlands
Province and is underlain by the clays, limestones, and dolo-
mites of the Hawthorn Group. Chert, or silicified limestone,
that was utilized in lithic tool manufacture was often obtained
from the Hawthorn Group. The South Prong I site lies in a
well-drained location, with at least four separate soil types
present. The dominant soil type, in terms of surface area, is
Pomello fine sand.
The South Prong I site is located on slopes leading down to
the South Prong of the Alafia River (Figure 2). It occurs at an
elevation of 24.6 to 29.2 m (80 to 95 ft) above mean sea level.
The dominant vegetation is pine flatwoods and pasture.
Originally, longleaf and slash pine flatwoods predominated but
logging activity and subsequent conversion to semi-managed
range land have eliminated most of the native overstory species.
Sea level has risen substantially in the past. There was an
average rise of almost 1 m per century from about 15,000 B.P.
to 5000 B.P. (Reading 1978:14). This sea-level rise, which is
associated with glacial retreat, coupled with increased precipita-
tion were perhaps the major factors affecting the environment
of the Tampa Bay area during the Holocene (Daniel and
Wisenbaker 1981:27). A summation of the palynological and
sedimentological data examined by Daniel and Wisenbaker
(1981:35) allowed them to make several conclusions which are
applicable to the South Prong I site. From 5000 B.P. to modem
times, the vegetation slowly evolved into longleaf pine forests,
hammocks, marshes, and cypress swamps which are typical of
present-day peninsular Florida. The oak and herb flora were
gradually displaced by pine and bayhead forest, and as the
climate warmed and moistened, modern forest and swamp

1996 VOL. 49(4)



Figure 1. Location of South Prong I site in Hillsborough
County, Florida.

landscape became prevalent. With this vegetative association
came a faunal community similar to that encountered now in
undisturbed portions of central Florida.

Dating South Prong I

Excavations at South Prong I failed to identify any distinct
sedimentary units that could be linked to specific cultural
components or time periods. Thus, a combination of diagnostic
artifacts and radiocarbon dates were utilized to define the
temporal and cultural parameters of the occupations indicated in
the arbitrarily excavated 10 cm levels at the site (Welch 1983).
The presence of Bolen and Greenbriar projectile points
suggests that the initial occupation of the site may have occurred
during the late Paleoindian Period, dating approximately 8,000
to 7,500 B.C. according to Milanich (1994:53-59). Florida
Archaic Stemmed points indicate occupations during the middle
to late stages of the Archaic Period or about 5000 to 1000 B.C.
(Bullen 1975:6, 32; Milanich 1994:75-104). Bullen (1975:3-4)
also states that this point type may have extended into the later
Florida Transitional Period, or until about 500 B.C. Also
indicative of Late Archaic Period use of the site (3000 to 1000
B.C.) are Culbreath projectile points. Post-Archaic occupations
appear to have occurred during the Florida Transitional,
Weeden Island, and Safety Harbor periods as indicated by
Hernando, O'Leno, Bradford/Westo, and Pinellas projectile


points. Ceramic artifacts from the site suggest continuous
reoccupations from the Orange phase of the late Archaic
through the Safety Harbor Period (Mitchem and Welch 1983).
The vertical distribution of the excavated projectile points
from South Prong I (Table 1) indicates that several may have
been recovered from disturbed contexts since they appear to be
out of place stratigraphically. Welch (1983) notes that pasture
clearing and borrow-pit activities in addition to the effects of
bioturbation have resulted in some degree of lithic mixing at the
site. The recovery of a Bolen point, temporally diagnostic of the
earliest occupation of the site, from the same excavation level
as a Pinellas point, which is diagnostic of the most recent site
occupations, is an example of the degree of disturbance
affecting the site. This type of association also may reflect late
prehistoric scavenging of artifacts from other, much older sites
(cf. Camilli and Ebert 1992). Evidence of root and/or rodent
disturbance has been recorded in the excavation units producing
two Culbreath points and also the Bradford/Westo-like point.
The provenience for the Greenbriar and two of the Archaic
Stemmed points also must be considered suspect in so much as
all were recovered from the borrow-pit area of the site. Thus,
natural and cultural factors influencing the vertical distribution
of the temporally diagnostic projectile points recovered from
South Prong I would appear to place serious limitations on the
potential for recognizing distinct occupation components from
any of the temporal periods suggested by the projectile points.
Radiocarbon dating offers little resolution to the problem of
stratigraphic mixing. Although three radiocarbon dates were
obtained (2150 +/- 90 B.P., 1190 +/- 50 B.P., and 220 +/-
60 B.P.), none could be linked with distinctive cultural occupa-
tion areas or natural soil horizons. Further, the most recent date
appears to be the result of a natural event unrelated to cultural
occupation of the site (Welch 1983).

Lithic Artifact Analysis

The South Prong I lithic artifact analysis attempted to identify
functional and technological variation on a stratigraphic and
inter-unit basis. The overwhelming result of the study was the
recognition of relative homogeneity in the tool and flake types
represented (Ballo and Welch 1983). Most important was the
recognition that lithic reduction was limited primarily to later
stage tool manufacture, modification, and resharpening.
Discarded tools were often heavily retouched and extensively
utilized. Ballo and Welch (1983) argue that the overall homo-
geneity of the site's lithic assemblage in reference to manufac-
ture, resharpening, and tool-use strategies is suggestive of
limited variation in the nature of the occupations of the site.
Thus, despite stratigraphic mixing, it is possible to hypothesize
occupational stability at South Prong I. The following discussion
provides an overview of the lithic artifacts from the site in order
to provide some support for the latter conclusion. As horizontal
spatial analyses have been relatively inconclusive, the discussion
focus is on a description of site assemblage contents.
A total of 3288 flaked-stone artifacts were recovered from 111
of the 113 units excavated at South Prong I. This includes 3113
pieces of debitage and 175 tool forms recovered from excava-




Figure 2. Topographic map of the South Prong I site showing its location in relation to the South
Prong of the Alafia River.

Table 1. Crosstabulation of projectile-point types and excavation levels at South Prong I.

Bolen Greenbriar Archaic Culbreath

Diminutive Bradford/ Pinellas
Stemmed Westo

Florida Spike-ke
Stemmed Biface

12 2 1 1


( 0- 15 cm)
( 15- 30 cm)
(30- 45 cm)
(45- 60 cm)
(60- 75 cm)
(75- 90 cm)
(90-105 cm)
(105-120 cm)

1996 VOL. 49(4)


1 1

Totals 2 1


tion. Additionally, some 50 tool forms recovered by Martin
(1976) during the original site survey also were examined.
Silicified limestone accounts for 80.31% of the total debitage
recovered from the site while silicified coral accounts for the
remaining materials. Thermally altered debitage comprises
49.41% of the total excavated debitage assemblage; 43.08% of
the silicified limestone debitage is thermally altered while
75.02% of the silicified coral debitage is heat treated. A total of
47 primary decortication flakes, 561 secondary decortication
flakes, and 2493 non-decortication flakes was recovered from
the site. Shatter was only minimally represented (N = 12). These
data suggest a reduction focus on later stages of tool production
and resharpening utilizing silicified limestone as the primary
raw-material type. These activities likely involved the produc-
tion of late-stage blanks and reforms, and final modification
and maintenance of completed tool forms. The earlier manufac-
turing stages are postulated to have occurred elsewhere,
possibly at or near a source of raw material. The somewhat
finished tool forms may have been transported from these areas
to the South Prong I site for further finishing work.
Projectile points, utilized flakes, and numerous biface tip,
stem, and midsection fragments are the most common tool
forms recovered. Expedient-use flake tools dominate the
assemblage. Use-wear analysis indicates that these tools were
used in cutting and scraping activities on soft materials such as
meat, skin, or soft wood and also hard materials including bone,
antler, or hard wood. It also was observed that a number of
projectile points at the site functioned as knives, scrapers, and
drills or perforators. In addition, a substantial number of these
points displayed evidence of resharpening which was probably
related to the conservation of lithic resources as might be
expected at a site located some distance from a raw-material
source. Unifacial and bifacial tools other than projectile points
were only minimally represented. No heavy duty cutting,
chopping, or scraping implements were recovered.
In order to better comprehend results of the functional
analysis, these artifacts were grouped into broad functional
categories based on a classification system developed by
Winters (1969) and modified by Austin and Ste. Claire (1982).
General-utility tools comprise 57.71% of the total excavated
tools from the site and consequently represent the largest
functional category. A total of 101 individual tool forms were
assigned to this category which included scraping tools
(60.40%), cutting tools (35.64%), and multi-use cut-
ting/scraping tools (3.96%). Utilized flakes dominate, compris-
ing 77.23% of the total assemblage within this general-utility
tool classification. Projectile points, other bifaces, unifaces,
modified flakes, and various bifacial fragments utilized in
cutting and scraping activities constitute the balance of artifacts
included within this category. The second major functional
category of excavated tools is hunting implements which
accounts for 23.43% of the site total. The third functional
category consists of fabrication and processing implements,
accounting for 5.13% of the tool assemblage. The last category
is miscellaneous tools accounting for 13.71% of the total
excavated tools. Ballo and Welch (1983) do not recognize any
distinct patterning to the vertical distribution of functional tool

types. In other words, the functional tool types appear to be
randomly distributed throughout the excavated levels of the site.
Site activities reflected by debitage and tools are considered to
include hunting, butchering, skinning, and processing of game
animals, maintenance and repair of lithic tools, and the produc-
tion and maintenance of bone, wood, or antler tools. Based
upon these results, Ballo and Welch (1983) argue that the South
Prong I site functioned primarily as a hunting camp throughout
its occupation. However, it must be recognized that activities
conducted at the site do not always accurately reflect primary
site function. For example, Nunamiut Eskimo (Alaska) hunters
will play cards, work on tools and art objects, and prepare food
while occupying sites that function as caribou-intercept hunting
stands (Binford 1978a, 1978b). The archaeological record
resulting from these activities may not directly reflect the
primary activity conducted that of gathering information on
caribou herd movements prior to actual kill events. Similarly,
Lillooet and Shuswap (British Columbia) deer-hunting camps
typically contain intense root-processing and roasting refuse, as
camas and spring beauty roots gathered by women sustained the
hunting families during their spring alpine hunting trips. As the
same groups shifted to canyon bottoms for intensive mid-
summer salmon fishing, deer, acquired during alpine hunting
trips, were transported and processed for consumption at these
sites leaving an archaeological record of intensive deer process-
ing at sites that functioned primarily as fishing camps (Diana
Alexander, personal communication, 1989; Hayden 1992).
These examples suggest that caution must be used when
inferring site function from archaeological remains.
A complete understanding of any site's function may require
not only a comprehensive perspective on local site-formation
processes, but also on the role of that site within a regional
system. Returning to South Prong I, whether hunting was the
primary activity undertaken or not, an important conclusion
from the lithic analysis is that of occupational stability as
suggested by the low variation in debitage, use wear, and
retouch on stone implements. Further, despite stability, it would
appear that no single occupation of South Prong I was of any
extended duration or featured any sizable population given the
low ratio of artifacts to both site size and time depth of potential
occupations (compare to the Harney Flats site, for example
[Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987]).

Assemblage Size and Diversity

The analyses of Ballo and Welch (1983) and Mitchem and
Welch (1983) suggest a pattern of occupation at South Prong I
associated with repeated, short-term use by small groups
possibly focused on activities associated with hunting. Thus,
Welch (1983) concluded that the site functioned primarily as a
hunting camp, perhaps not unlike the logistical hunting camps
documented by Binford (1978a, 1980). These conclusions were
based on a reconstruction of activity types from the analysis of
individual artifacts. They can be further tested through an
analysis of assemblage size and diversity relationships.
Thomas (1988, 1989) and others (cf. Bobrowski and Ball
1989; Grayson 1985; Jones et al. 1983; Leonard and Jones



THE FLORIDA A!wrimol'oLoGIsr 1996 VOL. 49(4)

1989) have commented on the importance of recognizing the
effects of sample size on assemblage diversity. These research-
ers document that as assemblage sizes increase so too will
assemblage diversity. Thomas (1988, 1989) argues that rates of
accumulation will affect patterns of assemblage diversity. Thus,
residential occupations featuring lengthier stays at a single place
and higher populations will produce a pattern of higher diversity
at lower assemblage sizes than will a pattern of diurnal use, as
might be expected at a single-incident animal butchery or plant-
procurement site. Thomas predicts an intermediate pattern for
logistical camps focused on specific activities. The relationships
between assemblage sizes and artifact diversity for the three
types of occupations are illustrated in Figure 3.
The predictions of Thomas's model assume an important "all
things equal" caveat. Certainly there are many factors which
could cause deviations from these predictions: short-term activ-
ities could be more diverse than expected; residential camps
could have been reused as logistical camps or hunting locations;
artifacts may have been scavenged by later occupants; to name
just a few. However, if we view the model predictions as a
continuum of variation, then it may be possible to recognize
some general patterns (Thomas 1989).
In reference to the occupations at South Prong I and the three
land-use hypotheses presented previously, repeated occupation
featuring a combination of logistical use and long-term residen-
tial occupation, as might be expected under the Wharton and
Williams (1980) scenario, should produce an assemblage
size/diversity pattern lying between logistical and residential.
Conversely, under Padgett's (1976) model, we might expect a
pattern of shifting use ranging between diurnal and logistical,
but perhaps most strongly oriented towards diurnal usage.
Finally, under Johnson's (1981) hypothesis, we might expect a
consistent pattern of reoccupation either associated with diurnal

Figure 3. Assemblage size and diverstiy model (after
Thomas 1989).

or logistical occupation. Given the presence of a point resource,
or key resource procurement locale (Wandsnider 1992) such as
the Alafia River, and local well-drained sandy soils, it is
perhaps most likely that occupations at this place should be
focused resource-procurement camps as might be expected
under the logistical occupation scenario. Thus, assemblage
size/diversity relationships should most closely fit the logistical
A test of these predictions was conducted by collecting
assemblage size and diversity data from individual excavation
units at South Prong I. Ideally, the data-collection units would
have been further divided by stratigraphic zones. However, the
lack of definable stratigraphy and mixing of temporal diagnos-
tics at the site prohibits this more fine-grained approach.
Therefore, each excavation unit was viewed as a sample of the
full range of occupations at South Prong I. Sample size and
diversity data were derived from the lithic tool (not debitage)
assemblages in each excavation unit (raw data presented in Ballo
and Welch 1983:122-125). Functional tool types were defined
on the basis of tool form and use-wear characterization (Ballo
and Welch 1983:125). The Ballo and Welch (1983:125)
classification employs both tool form bifacee, uniface, projectile
point, etc.) and use-wear-based functional characterization
(knife, scraper, etc.) in order to produce composite descriptions
for each type (projectile point/scraper, modified flake/knife,
etc.). Variation in ceramic types was excluded in order to avoid
mixing functional and stylistic variables (Dunnell 1978, 1995;
Neiman 1995). Diversity was calculated using the Shannon-
Weaver Index (Shannon and Weaver 1949; see also Bobrowski
and Ball 1989). The index combines measures of evenness and
richness in a single measure of heterogeneity in samples and has
been criticized for its problem of sample-size dependence
(Pielou 1975, 1977). As our analysis focuses on distribution
slope rather than absolute variation between individual scores,
the index is considered an acceptably valid measure of diversity.
The resulting data were plotted and tested for statistical signifi-
cance (Table 2, Figure 4).
The correlation between sample size and diversity is statistical-
ly significant (r = .86822, p = .00001). The plotted regression
line indicates a pattern closely approximating Thomas's
(1989:86) logistic profile in Figure 3. This suggests that lithic
tools accumulated at a rate consistent with the prediction of the
logistical occupation model. Assuming all things equal, this adds
further support to the conclusions drawn by Welch (1983) that
the site was formed through a pattern of consistent reoccupation
by small groups of people with specific task orientations. Most
critically, this analysis provides tentative confirmation of a
pattern of site occupational history, independent of methods
requiring stratigraphically defined "components" (Camilli 1983;
Ebert 1992).


The analysis of lithic debitage and tools indicates that South
Prong I may have functioned primarily as a logistical hunting
camp throughout its occupation. It appears that the uses of the
site included aspects of hunting such as the butchering, skin-


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Table 2. Excavation unit tool data. Total number of tools (N) and
diversity (D) calculated utilizing a typology incorporating functional
and morphological variation (see Ballo and Welch 1983:125).

Excavation Unit N D Excavation Unit N D

S20/El 1


ning, and processing of game animals, along with the produc-
tion and maintenance of bifacially worked stone tools and also
non-stone tools such as bone, antler, and/or wood.
This conclusion supports Johnson's (1981) Marginal Flatwoods
Hypothesis regarding prehistoric land-use patterns in the Central
Peninsular Gulf Coast region. The site's cultural assemblage
indicates a pattern of numerous occupations for short periods of
duriation by small populations who deposited an artifact
assemblage that reflects a hunting economy. Though it is
currently impossible to recognize temporally specific compo-
nents, the homogeneous nature of the overall assemblage may
reflect the same general pattern of site use from the late
Paleoindian through Safety Harbor periods. The conclusion
regarding stability of land use at South Prong I does not mean

that other places in the interior Gulf Coast region were not
being utilized differently as evidenced by various mounds,
earthworks, and small habitation sites featuring middens, post
molds, and features (Robert Austin, personal communication,
1996; Clagett, this issue).
If the South Prong I site was most intensely occupied from the
Middle Archaic through Safety Harbor periods, and if it indeed
did serve as some form of logistical camp, this may suggest that
some form(s) of delayed-return hunting and gathering may have
been important in Gulf Coast Florida beginning at a relatively
early time. As already noted, delayed-return subsistence
strategies are often typical of so-called "complex" hunter-
gatherers. Hayden (1995) has argued that complex hunter-
gatherers provide the logical place to look for origins of
domestication and the evolution of more complex societies as
represented, for example, in the southeastern United States by
the various Mississippian cultures (including the Safety Harbor
culture of Gulf Coast Florida). Florida archaeologists might
wish to reexamine the Central Gulf Coast region Middle
Archaic as a critical time period associated with the rapid
evolution of a socio-politically heterogeneous hunter-gatherer
culture relying at least partially on a delayed-return subsistence
strategy (see also Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:57).
These conclusions have a number of implications for Florida
archaeology. First, they provide little resolution for the hinter-
land-heartland debate. If anything, they add complexity as it
would appear that some places may have been consistently
utilized for the same activities despite change in the role of
those activities within cultural systems (cf. Binford 1978a:496).
In other words, it is clear that major cultural changes occurred
in central Florida during the Holocene (cf. Marquardt 1992;
Milanich 1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980; Widmer 1988)
which may have affected the roles of different foraging strate-
gies within overall cultural systems. However, the actual
activities conducted at places such as South Prong I may have
changed little and thus may or may not be directly informative
of changes occurring elsewhere.
Does this mean that places such as South Prong I are of lower
utility than others, perhaps in coastal or riverine contexts?
Absolutely not. Recent research (cf. Chatters 1995; Chatters
and Prentiss n.d.; Cobb and Garrow 1996; Prentiss 1996)
suggests that culture change cannot be studied in isolated
geographic contexts. For example, Chatters (1995) argues that
the logistically organized collector settlement/subsistence
strategy (delayed-return) recognized from Nevada to Alaska
spread from isolated experimental contexts following the
extinction of immediate-return systems between 4000 and 3500
B.P. Prentiss (1996) and Prentiss and Welch (n.d.) argue that
the abandonment of intermontane-basin plant-resource subsis-
tence strategies at 1200 B.P. on the northwestern Plains was not
due to local changes, but to the relatively sudden appearance of
village-based horticulture in the Middle Missouri region to the
east and the spread of bow-and-arrow technology into the region
from the north. Cobb and Garrow (1996) point out the impor-
tance of considering the effects of regional variation on local
Woodland and Mississippian cultures in northwest Georgia.
These are only a few examples of the many which support the



THE FLORIDA ANrssRoPoLoGIsr 1996 VoL 49(4)

Figure 4.
I excavation

without refer
wide geogr
if not imp
(Chatters 19
forms of ec
on the coas
where. In o
ignore any
A second
models der
explaining f
region. Tho
1977), evol
during cultu

16 t-
Y 0.8

(1981) Marginal Flatwoods Hypothesis can be restated as the
Marginal Value Theorem (Charnov 1976) which predicts "that
a forager should remain in a patch as long as the expected
returns from the next unit of foraging time in the patch are
higher than expected returns from searching for and exploiting
other patches" (Kaplan and Hill 1992:180). Patches are spatially
restricted foraging locales containing key resources under the
more broad umbrella of habitat. All environments can be
characterized by degrees of patchiness in reference to specific
resources. A patchy environment contains a high degree of
geographic variation in quantity and quality of various resourc-
es. Definition of patch size and structure may vary with
resources exploited, landscape ecology, and predator type.
Smith (1991), for example, defines two habitats (marine and
terrestrial) and four patches (sea ice, saltwater, freshwater, and
terrestrial) for the Inujjuamiut of Hudson Bay. Winterhalder


We would like to express our gratitude to a number of persons for their
contributions to this article.
We thank Kelly Ehrmantraut, Karma Cochran, and Christine McGoohan for
their assistance in the preparation of text and figures. We thank Bob Austin,
Rich Estabrook, and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on the
manuscript. We appreciate Bob Austin's infinite patience in waiting for this
Finally, while this short article is by no means an adequate tribute, the
contributions of Ray Williams to our personal and professional growth and
development cannot be overstated. He variously served as our professor,
supervisor, mentor, guide, and above all, friend during the nearly 20 years that
we had the privilege and pleasure of his acquaintance. Ray continuously
encouraged us to gain experience and pursue research interests both within and
outside of Florida. He knew that it was vital for students to be as well prepared
as possible, both in terms of education and experience, in order to contribute in

(1981) defines ten patch types (closed black spruce
forest, muskeg, peat bog, etc.) within the boreal
forest habitat of the northern Ontario Cree. If we
could define the pine flatwoods as one of a num-
1 ber of patch types in the Gulf Coast region (per-
haps also including riverine lowlands, freshwater,
1 saltwater, and mangrove swamps as other patch-
3 es), we might eventually create hypothetical
rankings for net return per patch and thereby make
9 general predictions regarding expected use intensi-
ty. If the pine flatwoods represent a relatively low-
ranking patch, then we might expect fewer visits
and shorter stays than in other more highly ranked
patches, all things being equal. Florida archaeolo-
gists may wish to test the Marginal Value Theo-
34 4 rem as a precise means of predicting prehistoric
I i_ I __ __ land-use decisions; and the possibility that patch-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 use decisions varied depending upon context and
time period.
Number The South Prong I site provides an important
Lithic tool diversity and number relationship from South Prong window into long-term land-use practices in the
n units. interior Central Peninsular Gulf Coast region. The
research conducted at this site strongly suggests a
stable pattern of land use in portions of this region
that change cannot be understood or explained throughout much of the Holocene period. Though faunal and
erence to the effects of variation viewed across a floral data are not present to allow the study of subsistence
aphic scale. Though sources of change are difficult resource procurement, processing, and transport decisions, lithic
possible to identify in the archaeological record artifacts imply a pattern of logistical organization and hunting
>95), we must recognize that the exploration of new activities. This means that larger base camps and villages
onomic organization could have occurred first either undoubtedly existed in other areas, either coastal or interior. It
t or the interior of Florida and then spread else- also means that while populations grew, base camps became
order to understand this process, we cannot afford to permanent villages, and subsistence production intensified
geographic component of the archaeological record, between the early and late Holocene, activities at certain key
important implication concerns the success of places, such as South Prong I, changed little. We do not know,
ived from evolutionary ecology in predicting and however, whether the role of the subsistence strategies repre-
'oraging behavior in the Central Peninsular Florida sented at South Prong I within larger socio-economic systems
ugh partially at theoretical odds with the macro- was stable or whether it varied as a consequence of changes
ly inspired comments above (cf. Gould and Eldredge occurring elsewhere in the region. Understanding of variation
utionary ecology may be useful for predicting and in local subsistence strategies as a component of broader scale
ng land-use decisions made by human foragers organizational change is critical for developing accurate
rally stable periods in Florida prehistory. Johnson's explanatory models of long-term culture change.


1996 VOL. 49(4)


their chosen discipline.
A wise person once said that the greatest legacy we can leave behind is not
one of granite markers or bronze plaques or statues; it is the effect and influence
that we have on other people's lives, who will always carry a little bit of us
forward in time through their actions, deeds, words, and memories. As such,
the greatest testimony we can give to Ray Williams is the fact that he still
guides us everyday, and that the lessons we have learned from him will always
be with us.

References Cited

Austin, Robert J., and Dana Ste. Claire
1982 The Deltona Project: Prehistoric Technology in the Hillsborough River
Basin. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropology,
Archaeological Report No. 12, Tampa.
Ballo, George R., and James M. Welch
1983 Lithics. In Mitigative Excavations of the South Prong I Site, 8-Hi-418,
and the Cates Site, 8-Hi-425, Hillsborough County, Florida, by James
M. Welch, pp. 54-140. University of South Florida, Department of
Anthropology Archaeological Report No. 13, Tampa.
Binford, Lewis R.
1978a Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1978b Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from
an Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43:330-361.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems
and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.
Bobrowski, Peter T., and Bruce F. Ball
1989 The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In
Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and
George T. Jones, pp. 4-12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points (Second
Edition). Kendall Books, Gainesville.
Camilli, Eileen L.
1983 Site Occupational History andLithic Assemblage Structure:An Example
from Southeastern Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropolo-
gy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Camilli, Eileen L., and James I. Ebert
1992 Artifact Reuse and Recycling in Continuous Surface Distributions and
Implications for Interpreting Land Use Patterns. In Space, Time and
ArchaeologicalLandscapes, edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn
Wandsnider, pp. 113-136. Plenum Press, New York.
Charnov, Eric L.
1976 Optimal Foraging: The Marginal Value Theorem. Theoretical Popula-
tion Biology 9:129-136.
Chatters, James C.
1995 Population Growth, Climatic Cooling, and the Development of
Collector Strategies on the Southern Plateau, Western North America.
Journal of World Prehistory 9:341-400.
Chatters, James C. and William C. Prentiss (Editors)
n.d. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Intensification. Volume in preparation.
Cobb, Charles R., and Patrick H. Garrow
1996 Woodstock Culture and the Question of Mississippian Emergence.
American Antiquity 61:21-38.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker
1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-lndian Site. Baywood Publishing
Company, Inc., Farmingdale, New York.
Daniel, Randy, and Michael Wisenbaker
1981 Test Excavations at 8-Hi-450D: An Inland Archaic Occupation in
Hillsborough County, Florida. Florida Division of Historical Resourc-
es, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Interstate 75 Highway
Phase I Archaeological Reports No. 1, Tallahassee.
Dunnell, Robert C.
1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity
1995 Comments. Current Anthropology 36:777-778.

Ebert, James I.
1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press,
Gould, Stephen J., and Niles Eldredge
1977 Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsid-
ered. Paleobiology 3:115-151.
Grayson, Donald K.
1985 The Paleontology of Hidden Cave: Birds and Mammals. In The
Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2. Gatecliff Shelter, edited by David
Hurst Thomas, pp. 99-126. Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History 59(1), New York.
Hayden, Brian
1981 Research and Development in the Stone Age: Technological Transitions
Among Hunter-Gatherers. Current Anthropology 22:519-548.
1992 Conclusions: Ecology and Complex Hunter-Gatherers. In A Complex
Culture of the British Columbia Plateau, edited by Brian Hayden, pp.
525-564. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
1995 A New Overview of Domestication. In Last Hunters First Farmers,
edited by T. Douglas Price and Anne Birgitte Gebauer, pp. 273-300.
School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, School of
American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Johnson, Robert E.
1981 Archaeological Site Density within the Peace River Valley, Florida.
M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Jones, George T., Donald K. Grayson, and Charlotte Beck
1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Assemblag-
es. In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving
Quimby, edited by Robert C. Dunnell and Donald K. Grayson, pp. 55-
73. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Anthropological
Papers Number 72.
Kaplan, Hillard, and Kim Hill
1992 The Evolutionary Ecology of Food Acquisition. In Evolutionary
Ecology and Human Behavior, edited by E.A. Smith and B. Winter-
halder, pp. 167-202. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Leonard, Robert D., and George T. Jones (Editors)
1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. University of Cambridge Press,
Marquardt, William H. (Editor)
1992 Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa. Institute of
Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies Monograph Number 1.
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Martin, John D.
1976 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Borden Big Four Mine
Properties in Southeastern Hillsborough County, Florida. University of
South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report
No. 3, Tampa.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 The Archaeology ofPrecolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida,
Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M., and James M. Welch
1983 Ceramics. In Mitigative Excavations of the South Prong I Site, 8-Hi-
418, and the Cates Site, 8-Hi-425, Hillsborough County, Florida by
James M. Welch, pp. 141-167. University of South Florida, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Archaeological Report No. 13, Tampa.
Neiman, Fraser J.
1995 Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: Inferences from
Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland
Ceramics. American Antiquity 60:7-36.
Padgett, Thomas J.
1976 Hinterland Exploitation in the Central Gulf Coast-Manatee Region
During the Safety Harbor Period. The FloridaAnthropologist29:39-48.
Pielou, E.C.
1975 Ecological Diversity. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
1977 Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.




Prentiss, William C.
1996 Variation in Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies During Long Term
Cultural Stasis: A Test Using Northwestern Plains Data. Paper
presented at the 61st annual meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, New Orleans.
Prentiss, William C., and James M. Welch
n.d. Late Prehistoric Resource Intensification on the Northwestern Plains:
An Evolutionary Perspective. In Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Intensifi-
cation, edited by James C. Chatters and William C. Prentiss. Volume
in preparation.
Price, T. Douglas, and James A. Brown (Editors)
1985 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. Academic Press, New York.
Purdy, Barbara A.
1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology: A Study of the Flintknapping
Technique ofEarly Florida Stone Implement Makers. University Presses
of Florida, Gainesville.
Reading, H.G.
1978 Facies. In Sedimentary Environments and Facies, edited by H.G.
Reading. Elsevier North-Holland, Inc., New York.
Shannon, C.E., and W. Weaver
1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana.
Smith, Eric A.
1991 Inujjuamiut Foraging Strategies. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Stephens, David W., and John R. Krebs
1986 Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Thomas, David H.
1988 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 3. Survey and Additional Excava-
tions. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History 66(2), New York.
1989 Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Cultural Geography. In Quantifying
Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T.
Jones, pp. 85-91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wandsnider, LuAnn
1992 The Spatial Dimension of Time. In Space, Time, and Archaeological
Landscapes, edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider,
pp. 257-284. Plenum Press, New York.
Welch, James M.
1983 Mitigative Excavations of the South Prong I Site, 8-Hi-418, and the
Cates Site, 8-Hi-425, Hillsborough County, Florida. University of
South Florida, Department of Anthropology, Archaeological Report
No. 13, Tampa.
Wharton, Barry R., and J. Raymond Williams
1980 An Appraisal of Hardee County Archaeology: Hinterland or Heartland?
Florida Scientist 43:215-220.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the
Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections Volume 113, Washington D.C.
Winterhalder, Bruce
1981 Foraging Strategies in the Boreal Forest: An Analysis of Cree Hunting
and Gathering. In Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies, edited by B.
Winterhalder and E.A. Smith, pp. 66-98. University of Chicago Press,
Winters, Howard D.
1969 The Riverton Culture: A Second Millennium Occupation of the Wabash
Valley. Illinois Archaeological Survey Monograph No. 1 and Illinois
State Museum Reports of Investigations No. 13. Springfield, Illinois.
Woodburn, James
1980 Hunter-Gatherers Today and Reconstruction of the Past. In Soviet and
Western Anthropology, edited by E. Gellner, pp. 95-117. Duckworth,
1982 Egalitarian Societies. Man 17:431-451.

1996 VOL. 49(4)




Janus Research, P.O. Box 919, St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
E-mail: janusres@ix. netcom. com

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of an
analysis of lithic artifacts from a poorly studied region of south-
central Florida the Lake Wales Ridge of Polk and Highlands
Counties. The archaeological data base for this study consists of
lithic artifacts derived exclusively from private collections. This
was necessary, in part, because of the relative absence of
controlled archaeological excavations by professionals in the
study area. What these collections lack in the way of precise
stratigraphic controls is compensated for by the quantity of
artifacts available for study and the geographic range of sites
represented by the collections. Distributional studies of projec-
tile points in Florida and elsewhere have demonstrated the
utility of using private collections to arrive at patterns of
prehistoric land use and chert procurement (e.g., Dunbar and
Waller 1983; Goodyear et al. 1983; Waller and Dunbar 1977),
as well as the testing of specific hypotheses (e.g., Luchterhand
1970; Sassaman et al. 1988). In this paper I present a descrip-
tive summary of spatial and temporal patterns of raw-material
use, and then use these data to test a hypothesis of changing
settlement mobility.

The Study Area

The archaeological collections analyzed for this study all come
from sites that are located on a physiographic feature known as
the Lake Wales Ridge (Figure 1), an extension of the Central
Highlands (White 1970). The ridge begins near the common
comer of Polk, Osceola, Orange, and Lake Counties and
extends south for a distance of about 137 km, ending a few
kilometers north of Venus in Highlands County. The maximum
elevation is approximately 91 m (300 ft) above mean sea level
(AMSL) near the town of Lake Wales. The ground surface is
irregular and relief is the result of three influences: solution of
the underlying limestone by ground water, aeolian reworking of
surface sand, and stream erosion (White 1970:120-121).
Environmentally, the area is relatively xeric with moderately
well- to excessively well-drained sands supporting sand pine and
scrub forest communities (Abrahamson et al. 1984; Carter et al.
1989). Water resources consist primarily of large, circular lakes
and wetlands most of which are believed to be the result of
sinkhole activity (Bishop 1956:6, 32; Stewart 1966:65; White
1970:118-120) that predates by many thousands of years the
first arrival of humans to the area. The sinkholes eventually
became "plugged" with silt and sand and so are characterized as

surface-water lakes that are dependent on rainfall to maintain
their levels (Adams and Stoker 1985; Belles and Martin 1984;
Hammett 1981; Stewart 1966:72-76). For the most part, the
lakes are geographically confined to the Intraridge Valley, a
narrow, steep-walled lowland that extends from the north shore
of Lake Livingston near Frostproof south to Lake Placid. No
large rivers or streams exist on the ridge although some smaller
drainages such as Josephine Creek are present. Seep springs
occur along both flanks of the ridge and are the result of lateral
movement of groundwater from areas of higher to lower
elevation (Bishop 1956:47-48; Carter et al. 1989:12).

Chert Resources

Distribution of Chert in Florida

Most of the chert that was exploited by prehistoric native
peoples in Florida is restricted in its areal extent to the Ocala
Uplift and the Chattahoochee Incline, geomorphic features that
encompass much of the central peninsula of the state and
portions of the Big Bend area of the panhandle, respectively.
Silicified limestone deposits tend to be discontinuous and
localized, with exposures occurring in stream channels or in
coastal areas where water action has removed overlying
sediments, in sinkholes that have breached chert-bearing
limestones, and on hills and ridges where erosion of the
overlying sandy sediments have exposed near-surface limestone.
Several aboriginal quarry sites are known to be present in
inundated contexts in the Gulf of Mexico (Goodyear et al. 1980,
1983; Upchurch et al. 1982a; Warren 1968) providing indirect
evidence of offshore chert outcrops. No major chert exposures
are known for the area south of a line running through central
Manatee, central Hardee, and northwest Polk Counties (Lane et
al. 1980; Tom Scott, personal communication, 1993; Upchurch
et al. 1982a), although small, isolated exposures may be present
(E.C. Pirkle, personal communication, 1993).
According to Upchurch et al. (1982b), this restricted range is
the result of three factors: 1) the distribution of silicious
Hawthorn clays, 2) the juxtaposition of suitable limestone
deposits with the Hawthorn, and 3) conditions of geological
uplift. Since most of the chert in Florida appears to be the result
of silica replacement of limestone, the limestone must be in
close stratigraphic proximity to the source of silica (i.e., the
Hawthorn clays) for this replacement to occur. Thus, the



VOL. 49 NO. 4



0 5 10 Km

0 5 10 Mi

Polk Upland

r ll


t .-J

9 1'
/l t-'

-Lake Wales Ridge

Figure 1. Map showing the Lake Wales Ridge in south-central Florida and the locations of sites represented in the study
collection. Key to site names: LL=Lake Livingston, BBL=Big Blade, APE=Avon Park Estates, L=Lockaby, J=Javelin
Creek, EP=Edgewater Point, M=Moiser, CP=Coral Point, C=Christensen, B=Beck, BB=Blueberry, BP=Bear Point,
SLP=South Lake Placid, BH=Bear Hollow, HW70=Highway 70, RR=Rozier Road.


\ p



1996 VOL. 49(4)


geographic distribution of the Hawthorn, and the juxtaposi-
tion of suitable limestone deposits beneath it, are both
necessary for chert to form. Uplift of the strata is also
necessary to accelerate weathering of the Hawthorn clays,
increase the potential for vertical precipitation of silica-
enriched ground water, and expose the underlying lime-
stones to the effects of replacement. These factors coincide
and achieve their maximum expression along the Ocala
Uplift and Chattahoochee Incline and tend to be absent

Potential for Chert in the Study Area

Both geological and archaeological investigations indicate
that surface exposures of chert are nonexistent along the
southern Lake Wales Ridge. In his study of the ground-
water resources of Highlands County, Bishop (1956)
provides geological data derived from over 400 well
borings conducted along the ridge. The published boring
logs indicate the presence of chert at depths ranging from
ca. 90-180 m (300-600 ft) below ground surface (Bishop
1956:15, 79-113). The extreme depth of the overlying
sands, clays, and gravels on the Lake Wales Ridge makes
it highly unlikely that these cherts were ever exploited by
prehistoric native peoples. The shallowest occurrence of
chert in any of the boring logs (5.5-7.6 m) is at a well
located 7.5 kms west of Lake Annie, which is located near
the southern terminus of the ridge (Bishop 1956:106).
Although relatively shallow from a geological perspective,
this depth would still have been prohibitive for prehistoric
peoples using primitive digging tools.
Over the past few years, several individuals have in- Fi
formed me of possible limestone outcrops along the re
margins of some of the lakes located on the ridge. I visited U1
two of these outcrops in order to verify whether or not As
limestone, and perhaps chert, was indeed present. In both
cases, the outcrops turned out to be poorly consolidated
deposits of sandstone with no evidence of silicification. During
a recent survey of Highlands County (Janus Research 1995),
nodules of what appeared to be a sandy, siliceous stone were
observed in roadside cut banks in two locations. Samples of this
material were collected, subjected to acid and scratch tests, and
examined microscopically. The samples turned out to be
silicified sandstone and/or sandy dolostone.

Materials and Methods

The study collections includes formal tools (hafted bifaces,
biface fragments, small unifaces), flake tools, cores and core
fragments, and a small amount of lithic debitage. All artifacts
were collected from the surface of 16 sites located on the Lake
Wales Ridge in Highlands County and southern Polk County.
The locations of these sites are shown in Figure 1. Although the
geographic provenience of most of the surface-collected artifacts
is good, the exact proveniences of individual items in two of the
collections was not always present. For this reason, the artifacts
from four sites located near to one another (Big Blade, Avon

gure 2. Map showing the geographic location of the study area in
nation to chert quarry clusters in Florida (modified from
church et al. 1982a:Figure 1 and Goodyear et al. 1983:Figure 8).
sterisks indicate quarry clusters discussed in the text.

Park Estates, Lockaby, and Javelin Creek) have been combined
into a single assemblage (Avon Park Estates). Similarly, the
artifacts from two sites on Lake Jackson (Edgewater Point and
Mosier) also have been combined into a single Lake Jackson
Identification of the source locations of the raw materials used
to manufacture the artifacts found at these sites was accom-
plished using a method developed by geologist Sam Upchurch.
The method uses rock fabric, fossil content, and the presence of
secondary inclusions such as quartz sand, pyrite, or calcite
crystals to assign individual specimens to one of several "quarry
clusters." These quarry clusters represent geographic areas
where chert outcrops share similar characteristics related to their
environment of deposition (see Upchurch et al. 1982a for a
complete discussion of the quarry-cluster method). The geo-
graphic distribution of the major chert quarry clusters are shown
in Figure 2. Table 1 lists the quarry-cluster cherts identified
during this project, the geological formations with which they
are associated, and the criteria used to distinguish between

gg Chert Quarry Clusters

1 Turtlecrawl Point
2 Hillsborough River*
3 Peace River*
4 Caladesi*
5 Upper Withlacoochee*
6 Brooksville*
7 Lake Panasoffkee*
8 Inverness
9 Ocala*
10 Gainesville*
11 Lower Suwannee*
12 Santa Fe*
13 Wacissa
14 Upper Suwannee
15 Alapaha River
16 Swift Creek Swamp
17 Marianna
18 Wrights Creek



,, J

THE FLORIDA ANrimoPoLOGiSr 1996 VoL 49(4)

Table 1. Chert types in the study collection and criteria used in their identification.


Peace River Quarry Cluster (PR)

Opal-rich chert, dark gray to brown in color with abundant phosphate pellets and quartz sand. Very
fine grained and brittle. Opal content gives this chert a natural luster. Corticates easily.


Caladesi Quarry Cluster (C)

Hillsborough River Quarry Cluster (HR)

Cow House Creek Chert (CHC)

Type 3 Chert (T3)

Type 4 Chert (T4)

Type 5 or Bay Bottom Chert (BB)

Typically dark gray, black, or brown, some cherts are light gray. Usually a wackestone fabric,
some packstones. Often contains abundant peloids and quartz sand. Fossils (Peneropolids, Sorites)
present in some samples. Void filling with chalcedony is also common.

Color is variable, but tends towards browns, tans, and medium to dark grays. Banding beneath the
outer cortex is common. Usually a wackestone or mudstone fabric with a relatively fine-grained
texture. Fossil content is variable but appears to be more abundant in outcrops around Tampa Bay.
Voids and burrows filled with chalcedony and quartz crystals are common. Several subtypes have
been identified and these are described below.

Contains common to abundant charophyte oogonia. May be fine or coarse grained. Quartz sand
is not common. Restricted to outcrops in the Cow House Creek, Flint Creek, and Harney Flats
areas of northeastern Hillsborough County.

A peloidal wackestone or packstone; gray, brown, or tan in color. Translucent, fine-grained texture
with few fossils. Quartz sand may or may not be present. Common around Tampa Bay and along
the lower Hillsborough River.

A fossiliferous packstone or grainstone. Peneropolids are abundant, quartz sand may or may not
be present. Opaque, relatively coarse-textured material, gray, brown, or tan in color. Very
common around Tampa Bay and along the lower Hillsborough and Alafia rivers.

A peloidal packstone with large areas of chalcedenous void filling. Sometimes chalcedony is clear
and translucent giving the chert a clotted or splotchy appearance. Occasional fossils including
Peneropolids and Sorites. Sand is present in varying amounts ranging from rare to abundant. Color
is variable and can be white, brown, light gray to dark gray.


Brooksville Quarry Cluster (B)

Withlacoochee Quarry Cluster (W)

Ocala/Gainesville/Lake Panasoffkee
Quarry Clusters (O/G/LP)

Lower Suwannee Quarry Cluster (LS)

Relatively light colored, light gray, pale tan, or pink. Vuggy, grainstone or packstone fabric.
Abundant, very small fossils; Miliolids, Dichtochonus, and Echinoids are diagnostic. Quartz sand
is common to abundant.

Color tends to be darker than Brooksville Quarry Cluster, dark gray to reddish-brown. Grainstone
fabric with abundant Miliolids, Echinoids, and occasional Orbitoid foraminifera. Quartz sand is
not common. Calcite crystals in some samples.


Packstone or grainstone fabric. Presence of large Orbitoid foraminifera, particularly Lepidocyclina,
is diagnostic. Pectin molds are also common. No quartz sand. Difficult to distinguish between the
three quarry-cluster cherts with a small sample, although variation in the abundance of Orbitoids
has been suggested as a defining criterion by Upchurch et al. (1982a:122, 124).

Defined by Upchurch et al. (1982a:116-118) as having a packstone fabric with small, widely
spaced Orbitoid foraminifera and minor secondary porosity. Samples collected from outcrops near
Lake Pannasoffkee are similar in fabric and fossil content (Rich Estabrook, personal communica-
tion, 1993).

1996 VOL. 49(4)



Archaeological specimens were examined under a Bausch and
Lomb Stereo-Zoom Seven binocular microscope with a magnifi-
cation range of 10x-70x. Specimens were compared to geo-
logical samples in the master chert type collection at the
University of South Florida's Geology Department.2 Additional
chert samples from known source locations available at the
laboratory of Janus Research and in the personal possession of
the author also were used as references. Specific artifacts that
proved particularly difficult to identify were submitted to
Upchurch for verification of chert type/quarry cluster origin. In
cases where there was indecision regarding the accurate
assignment of a specimen, it was classified as "unidentified."
Approximately one-third of the artifacts were hafted bifaces
that could be assigned to standard normative types that have
broad cultural/temporal associations. Type identifications were
accomplished using standard reference works (e.g., Bullen
1975; Powell 1990; Purdy 1981; Robinson 1979). These type
identifications provided the basis for the analysis of temporal
patterns although a cautionary note is necessary. Many of the
examined bifaces exhibit evidence of edge modification and
resharpening sometimes bordering on the extreme. This made
the accurate identification of conventional projectile-point types
a difficult process since these modifications had in many cases
altered the diagnostic characteristics on which such an identifi-
cation is based. In addition, there appears to have been a high
degree of recycling of lithic materials within presumed contem-
poraneous assemblages as well as diachronically. For example,
broken biface fragments often were reworked into functional
hafted implements that resemble Middle Archaic types except
for their reduced size. Some of these recycled implements also
exhibit evidence of resharpening. The end result is a hafted
biface that may exhibit none, or at best only some, of the
characteristic traits used to define traditional projectile-point
types (cf. Tesar 1994). Some specimens simply defy any
attempt to place them in any projectile-point classification
system currently in use in Florida. As with the raw-material
identifications, uncertain specimens were assigned to an
"unidentified" category.

Analysis Results

Raw-Material Provenience

The number of artifacts that were assigned to the various
chert-bearing formations is shown in Table 2 which is arranged
by site. As this table shows, Tampa Limestone cherts have the
greatest representation at just over 42%. Silicified coral also is
relatively common with nearly 23 % of all artifacts manufactured
from this material. Although some of the largest and best known
coral quarries are found in the Withlacoochee Quarry Cluster
(Suwannee Formation), silicified coral also is common through-
out the Hillsborough River Quarry Cluster (Tampa Limestone).
Since currently there is no way to distinguish between corals
derived from these two geological formations, artifacts manufac-
tured from silicified coral have been assigned to a separate
category. Next in abundance are the Suwannee cherts at almost
19%, followed by the Crystal River (Ocala Formation) cherts

Table 2. Number of artifacts assigned to major chert- bearing
formations. Site data are arranged geographically from north to

Site' PR T SU CR SC UIDC Totals

LL 1 18 22 3 17 7 68
APEd 0 11 14 0 14 12 48
M' 0 10 6 0 4 5 25
f' 0 29 8 5 25 5 72
CP 0 14 4 2 5 4 29
C 1 1 0 0 1 0 3
B 0 32 9 2 13 13 69
BB 4 0 1 0 3 0 8
BP 0 40 7 1 14 6 68
SLP 0 8 4 0 4 7 23
BH 0 19 3 0 4 2 28
HW70 0 28 17 0 13 3 61
RR 1 4 0 0 2 0 7

Totals 7 214 95 13 116 64 509
Percent 1.38 42.04 18.66 2.55 22.79 12.57 100.00

SSee Figure 1 for key to abbreviations.
b See Table 1 for key to abbreviations.
d Includes artifacts from four sites (BBL, APE, L, and JC)
SExact proveniences for these artifacts are not known, although all
come from the Lake Wales Ridge.
f Includes artifacts from two sites (EP and M).

at about 2.5%, and finally the phosphatic, opaline Hawthorn
cherts at about 1.4%. Sixty-four specimens (12.57%) could not
be identified as to source.
Table 3 provides a more detailed breakdown by quarry
cluster, and for the Hillsborough River cherts, by type or
subcluster. Bay Bottom chert (also known as Type 5 chert),
Type 3 and 4 cherts, and cherts from the Caladesi Quarry
Cluster together represent a Tampa Bay procurement zone since
most of the known outcrops of these cherts occur around Tampa
Bay and along the lower reaches of the Hillsborough and Alafia
Rivers (Goodyear et al. 1983:Figures 11-13). Cow House Creek
chert is restricted in its geographic distribution to the upper
Hillsborough River region with outcrops occurring at Cow
House Creek, Flint Creek, and Harney Flats (Upchurch et al.
1982a:74, 141). The remainder of the artifacts cannot at present
be assigned to any specific chert type or subcluster, and are
hereafter referred to as "generic" Hillsborough River chert.
What is immediately obvious from this new arrangement of
the data is that a large geographic range of chert sources was
exploited, from the Gulf coast and Tampa Bay north and east to
Pasco, Hernando, and Polk Counties. A second observation is
that no single source area dominates these assemblages. There
is a relatively even distribution of artifacts between the lower
and upper Hillsborough River subareas, Brooksville and Withla-
coochee Quarry Clusters, and Silicified Coral categories. Of
particular interest, given its relatively close geographic associa-
tion with the ridge, is the near absence in the study collection



Table 3. Number of artifacts assigned to chert quarry clusters and subtypes.

Quarry Clusters/Chert Types'

Sitesb PR HR' T3 T4 BB CHC C W B O/G/LP LS SC UID Totals

LL 1 11 1 1 1 3 1 16 6 3 17 7 68
APEd 6 1 2 1 1 12 2 11 12 48
Me 7 1 2 4 2 4 5 25
L' 17 8 4 1 7 3 2 25 5 72
CP 6 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 5 4 29
HPE 1 1 1 3
B 15 2 7 0 7 4 5 1 1 13 13 69
BB 4 1 3 8
BP 22 2 7 4 5 4 3 1 14 6 68
SLP 6 1 1 2 2 4 7 23
BH 13 1 2 3 3 4 2 28
HW70 16 1 1 6 4 12 5 13 3 61
RR 1 2 1 1 2 7

Totals 7 122 3 9 38 20 22 62 33 10 3 116 64 509
Percent 1.38 23.97 .59 1.77 7.47 3.93 4.32 12.18 6.48 1.96 .59 22.79 12.57 100.00

a See Table 1 for key to abbreviations.
b See Figure 1 for key to site abbreviations.
c "Generic" Hillsborough River Quarry Cluster chert; cannot be assigned to a specific subtype.
d Includes artifacts from four sites (BBL, APE, L, and JC)
SExact proveniences for these artifacts are not known, although all come from the Lake Wales Ridge.
f Includes artifacts from two sites (EP and M).

of the opal-rich cherts from the Peace River Quarry Cluster.
Also of interest is the comparatively high representation of Bay
Bottom chert. Of the identifiable types of Tampa Limestone
chert (exclusive of the generic Hillsborough River specimens),
Bay Bottom is the most common, and in fact is present in small
but consistent amounts in all but four of the analyzed collec-
The low proportion of cherts derived from the Crystal River
biozone of the Ocala Formation indicates that source areas to
the north of Pasco, Hernando, and Polk Counties were exploited
only minimally. Small outcrops of Crystal River limestone are
present in the Rock Ridge region of northwestern Polk County
(Stewart 1966:36; Upchurch et al. 1982a:Figure 14), and
Stewart (1966:36-37) reports that chert lying at the interface
between the Crystal River and overlying Suwannee limestones
contains fossils diagnostic of both formations. These isolated
occurrences of Crystal River cherts within the Withlacoochee
Quarry Cluster suggest that cherts in the study collection
containing diagnostic Crystal River fossils may have been
quarried from more nearby sources. However, only one
specimen in the study collection contains fossils diagnostic of
both the Crystal River and Suwannee formations. I conclude
from this that other Crystal River cherts in the collection were
not obtained from these source areas but were instead imported
from more distant locales, probably the Ocala, Gainesville, or
Lake Panasofkee Quarry Clusters.
When the sites are arranged in geographic order from north to
south, there is a predictable pattern of decreasing occurrence of
Suwannee Formation cherts in the collections from more

southerly locations (Figure 3). Artifacts from Avon Park Estates
(APE) and the Livingston Lake (LL) sites exhibit high propor-
tions of Suwannee Formation cherts (32.35% and 27.4%,
respectively), which is understandable since they are located
much closer to the source locations for these cherts than are the
sites farther south. With one exception, Suwannee cherts occur
at the intervening sites in proportions ranging between 10-17%
of the site totals.
The pattern is almost exactly the reverse for Tampa Limestone
cherts, with increasing representation of these materials at the
more southerly sites. This is due, in part, to the nature of a
closed number system that must by definition sum to 100% so
that as the proportion of one type decreases, the others must
increase. However, given that both chert types are non-local, it
is interesting that it is the Suwannee cherts that decrease with
distance and not the Tampa Limestone cherts. Silicified coral
appears to vary randomly between the sites.

Temporal Patterning

Using only temporally diagnostic hafted bifaces, the study
collection was partitioned by cultural/temporal period in order
to observe any patterning in chert procurement through time.
The various diagnostic bifaces identified in the study collection,
and their cultural/temporal assignments, are shown in Table 4.
Raw data are presented in Table 5. When these data are
examined several interesting patterns emerge. The first and most
obvious is the virtual dominance of Tampa Limestone cherts
among the Early Archaic side-notched artifacts.' More specifi-




0 20 40 60 80 10
Percent of Total

S Tampa M Suwannee I Sil. Coral M Other

Figure 3. Proportional representation of raw-material types between sites. Sites are
arranged geographically from north (top) to south (bottom). Three sites (BB, C, and
RR) are not included because of small sample sizes.

Table 4. Hafted-biface types identified in the study collection and
their cultural/temporal associations.

Culture Period Time Period Hafted Biface Types

Early Archaic, 10,000-9000 B.P. Bolen Plain
Bolen Horizon Bolen Beveled
Early Archaic, 9000-7000 B.P. Kirk
Kirk Horizon Sumter
Hardee Beveled
Middle-Late Archaic 7000-3000 B.P. Newnan
Post-Archaic 3000-250 B.P. Hernando

cally, of ten specimens identified as either Bolen Plain, Bolen
Beveled, or Greenbrier, seven (70%) were manufactured from
Bay Bottom (Type 5) chert and two were manufactured from
generic Hillsborough River chert. The high incidence of Bay
Bottom chert in Paleoindian assemblages has been noted by
Goodyear et al. (1983), and its presence in the Early Archaic
collection from the Lake Wales Ridge indicates that rising sea
levels had not yet inundated all of these outcrops.
While the temporal placement of Sumter and Hardee Beveled
points is somewhat problematic because of limited stratigraphic
data, Bullen (1975:33, 36) and Milanich (1994:64) assign them

to the Early Archaic. The Kirk point,
however, is a well documented, Early
Archaic type throughout the southeastern
U. S. (Walthall 1980:52-54). At Harney
Flats in Hillsborough County, Kirk pro-
jectile points were found in an intermedi-
ate stratigraphic position above the side-
notched Bolen points and below the more
common stemmed Archaic forms such as
Newnan, Marion, and Putnam (Daniel
and Wisenbaker 1987:35-36). What is
noticeable in the study collection is that
there was a shift away from the Tampa
Bay area as a primary source location as
indicated by the decline in frequency of
Tampa Limestone cherts and an increase
in the proportions of Suwannee Forma-
tion cherts and silicified coral among the
Early Archaic stemmed forms.
The Middle Archaic assemblage is
notable for the wide range of raw-materi-
al types represented, and particularly the
high proportion of silicified coral. Nearly
27% of the Middle Archaic projectile
points were manufactured from this mat-
erial, accounting for 60% of all silicified

coral projectile points in the study collection. The pattern for
the post-Archaic remains one of rather even distribution
between Tampa and Suwannee cherts, but the use of silicified
coral drops to only 16.7%. Peace River cherts do not make an
appearance before the Middle Archaic and are only minimally
represented from then on.

Mobility and Lithic Procurement

Several archaeologists have suggested that high residential
mobility should be recognizable in the archaeological record by
an increase in raw-material diversity under the assumption that
mobile populations would have had access to a wider range of
raw-material source areas (Amick 1984; Binford 1979; Good-
year 1979; Sassaman et al. 1988; Shott 1986; Vierra 1982).
Conversely, less mobile populations would have had more
restricted access to a variety of raw-material sources and,
therefore, raw-material diversity should be comparatively low
with an increased emphasis on local resources. The data
resulting from the raw-materials analysis of temporally diagnos-
tic hafted bifaces were used to test these propositions for the
Lake Wales Ridge.

Measuring Assemblage Diversity

Measuring diversity is a tricky exercise, although numerous
quantitative techniques have been developed to do so (see
review in Bobrowsky and Ball 1989). When archaeologists
discuss diversity they are usually referring to a dual concept that
incorporates measures of both richness and evenness (Peet
1974). Richness refers to the number of taxa, species, or types



Table 5. Number of temporally diagnostic hafted bifaces assigned to major chert-bearing formations by culture period.

Culture Period PR T SU O SC UID TOT

Early Archaic,
Bolen Horizon 0 9 0 0 0 1 10
Early Archaic,
Kirk Horizon 0 1 6 1 3 1 12
Middle Archaic 2 25 25 6 24 7 89
Late Archaic 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Post-Archaic 1 4 6 0 4 3 18
Unidentified 1 12 3 0 9 3 28

Totals 4 52 41 7 40 15 159
Percent 2.52 32.70 25.79 4.40 25.16 9.43 100.00

SSee Table 1 for key to abbreviations.

Assemblage A

Raw Material Types

Assemblage B


so ~ i __
100 --- ------ ------------------


Figure 4. Hypothetical artifact distributions illustrating the
concepts of richness (R) and evenness (E). Assemblage A
contains more raw-material types than assemblage B and so
is considered "richer," but individual specimens in assem-
blage B are more equally distributed between types than in
assemblage A where one type dominates; thus, assemblage
B is considered more "even" than assemblage A.

that are present in the population (or archaeological assemblage)
of interest, and so is essentially a measure of variety. In Figure
4, assemblage A is "richer" than assemblage B because it
contains more raw-material types (5 as compared to 4 in
assemblage B). Evenness refers to the proportional distribution
of individuals between the taxa, species, or types represented
within a population or assemblage. Referring again to Figure 4,
the proportional abundance of the various raw-material types
differs dramatically between the two assemblages. In assem-
blage B individual specimens (artifacts) are equally distributed
between the four raw-material types, while in assemblage A
60% of all specimens have been assigned to a single type. Thus,
despite the fact that assemblage B contains fewer raw-material
types than assemblage A, B is considered more "even" than A.
A single measurement that attempts to take into account both
richness and evenness is referred to as heterogeneity (Peet
1974:287-288). A number of different formulae have been
developed to quantify heterogeneity, but despite the appeal of
representing a bivariate relationship with a single quantitative
measure, Bobrowsky and Ball (1989:7) caution against the use
of heterogeneity measures since they tend to mask the important
individual properties of richness and evenness. Therefore, in
this study I have chosen to use relatively simple, intuitively
understandable, and analytically independent measures of both
richness and evenness. Interpretation of assemblage diversity is
achieved by plotting the resulting values on a bivariate graph.
Using this approach, it is possible to preserve the individual
properties of richness and evenness while simultaneously
observing how both contribute to overall assemblage diversity.
Two assumptions underlie analyses of assemblage diversity: 1)
that the individual specimens have all been classified to the
same taxonomic level, and 2) that the categories (taxa or types)
are mutually exclusive (Peet 1974:286). In order to meet these
assumptions, I have chosen to compare cultural/temporal
assemblages on the basis of quarry-cluster assignments since
this is the lowest taxonomic level to which all specimens can be
unambiguously assigned. The "unidentified category" is not
used since it is not possible to know if the individual specimens
assigned to this category represent as yet unidentified chert


60 ---

20 *--------

0 -_- --
o mr

Raw Material Types

1996 VOL. 49(4)



types, or are perhaps atypical examples of chert types from
quarry clusters already represented in the study collection.
Similarly, all hafted bifaces that could not be assigned to a
specific cultural/temporal period were eliminated from this
I have chosen to calculate richness (R) as a simple proportion:
R = (n, + N) 10, where ni = the number of raw-material
types (quarry clusters) present in an assemblage, and N = the
maximum number of raw-material types identified in the study
collection. A simple estimate of evenness (E) is the standard
deviation of the proportional abundance of types within an
assemblage (Fager 1972). The standard deviation is a measure
of the dispersion of values around the mean of a population; the
larger the standard deviation, the greater the spread of values
around the mean. A small standard deviation indicates that
population values closely approximate the mean. In the case of
raw-material types, the mean value calculated for each assem-
blage provides an estimate of an even distribution of individual
specimens between all eight raw-material types. The degree to
which the actual distribution of individual specimens differs
from this theoretically even distribution is expressed by the
standard deviation.
Because the raw data consist of counts of specimens assigned
to each raw-material type (i.e., nominal data), the absolute
values of the mean and standard deviation of each assemblage
are directly affected by the sizes of the samples making it
difficult to make direct comparisons between assemblages of
different sizes. A standardized measure of dispersion, known as
the Coefficient of Variation (CV), can be used to represent
evenness in place of the standard deviation. It is calculated by
dividing the standard deviation by the assemblage mean
(Shennan 1990:44-45); the lower the CV, the closer the
proportional abundance of types in an assemblage approximates
the mean and the more even the distribution. The CV is
subtracted from a constant (10) to create a measure of evenness
that increases as the distribution of raw-material types in an
assemblage becomes more even. Thus, the formula for evenness
is E = 10 (s +- a,), where s, = the standard deviation of the
absolute abundance of raw-material types in an assemblage and
a, = the mean. To illustrate the application of these formulae,
richness and evenness measures have been calculated for the
hypothetical assemblages in Figure 5, assuming a sample size
of 100 specimens for each assemblage. For assemblage A: R =
10, E = 8.84; for assemblage B: R = 8, E = 9.44.

Temporal Variation in Raw-Material Diversity

In Table 6, calculated measures of richness and evenness are
presented for four cultural/temporal periods. Because the Late
Archaic Period is represented by only two specimens, these
have been combined with the Middle Archaic specimens to
create a Middle-Late Archaic assemblage. A bivariate plot of
these data is presented in Figure 5.
As examination of the data and figure demonstrates, the
Middle-Late Archaic projectile-point assemblage is the most
diverse since it contains more raw-material types (high richness)
and individual specimens are more evenly distributed between

Table 6. Richness and evenness values for temporally diagnostic
hafted bifaces.

Culture Period N QC' R Mean Std. E

Early Archaic,
Bolen Horizon 9 1 1.30 1.13 2.98 7.35
Early Archaic,
Kirk Horizon 11 5 6.30 1.38 1.41 8.98
Mid-Late Archaic 84 8 10.00 10.50 9.57 9.09
Post-Archaic 15 4 5.00 1.88 2.26 8.79

' Quarry clusters represented in the assemblage.

the eight raw-material types. On the other hand, the Early
Archaic, side-notched assemblage is the least diverse, with all
of the specimens coming from a single quarry cluster, the
Hillsborough River. The Early Archaic, stemmed-point assem-
blage displays an increase in raw-material diversity, but it is
still less diverse than the Middle-Late Archaic group. The post-
Archaic assemblage is positioned near the middle of the graph.
Only 4 of the 8 quarry clusters are represented in this assem-
blage, which results in a moderately low richness measure (.5),
but the distribution of specimens between these four types is
relatively even with 14 of the 15 specimens assigned to 3 of the
quarry clusters. This results in a moderately high evenness
measure of 8.79.
While these data seem to indicate an increase in raw-material
diversity during the Middle-Late Archaic Period and a subse-
quent decrease during the post-Archaic, several researchers have
indicated that sample size can affect class richness (e.g., Jones
et al. 1983; Kintigh 1984, 1989), with larger samples having a
greater chance of containing more classes. One way to approach
this problem is to develop an expectation for richness based on
sample size. Kintigh (1984, 1989) has developed a method for
doing this by generating simulated assemblages of various
sample sizes. The aggregate information obtained from these
multiple simulations yields a statistical estimate (i.e., a mean or
average value) of richness for specific sample sizes. These are
then plotted on a log-linear graph and the actual richness values


10 Mid-Late Archaic


SI- I i

0 2 4 6

8 10 12

Figure 5. Bivariate plot of richness (R) and evenness (E)
measures for hafted biface assemblages representing four
cultural/temporal periods.


THE FLORIDA ANruRoroLoGisT 1996 VoL. ~(4)

for the archaeological samples are com-
pared to the expected richness values.
The method is operationalized using the
DIVERS program (Kintigh 1994). Two
hundred simulated samples were random-
ly generated for sample sizes ranging
from 1 to 100. The resulting mean (ex-
pected) values are indicated by the center
line in Figure 6. The dashed lines indi-
cate the 90% confidence interval around
the means of the simulated samples, i.e.,
the range within which 90% of all the
random simulations fell. The actual rich-
ness values for each cultural-temporal
assemblage of projectile points also are
shown (richness in this figure is repre-
sented simply by the number of raw-
material types present in a sam-
ple/assemblage). Data points that are
located above the confidence band are in
the upper 5% of the random simulations
and can be said to have higher than ex-
pected richness, while those that are
below the band are in the lower 5% and
can be said to have lower than expected
richness (see Kintigh 1989 for a full
explanation of the method and its use).
As Figure 6 demonstrates, the Middle-
Late Archaic assemblage is above the
90% confidence band indicating that raw-
material richness is greater than would be

Figure 6. Relationship between number of raw-material types (richness) and sample
size for the four cultural/temporal assemblages of projectile points. Sample sizes
have been plotted on a logarithmic scale to produce a more interpretable plot. Note
than the Middle-Late Archaic assemblage lives above the 90% confidence interval
for the simulated assemblage mean and that the Early Archaic, Bolen Horizon
assemblage lies well below the confidence band indicating higher and lower than
expected richness values for these two assemblages, respectively.

expected given its sample size. On the other hand, the Early
Archaic side-notched assemblage is well below the richness
value that would be expected for its sample size. Both the Early
Archaic stemmed-point and the post-Archaic assemblages lie
within the 90% confidence band, although the post-Archaic
assemblage is below the mean value for its sample size and is
very near the lower limit of the confidence band. This suggests
that richness for this assemblage is somewhat lower than
expected for its sample size.


In general, these results support a hypothesis of residential
mobility during the Middle to Late Archaic Period. The low
diversity of raw-material types in the Early Archaic side-
notched artifacts may reflect the effect of exploratory visits to
the interior from the Central Gulf Coast region. Initial forays
into the interior would probably have been limited, with early
groups remaining "tethered" to lithic and other resources within
their home range. Eventually, as use of the interior intensified,
a new catchment area would have been established and new
chert resources would have been exploited. This apparently
occurred relatively early in the Archaic Period as indicated by
the more diverse array of chert types among the Early Archaic
stemmed-point group.
The data also support (albeit tentatively) the hypothesis of

reduced access to chert sources during the Post-Archaic Period,
presumably as a result of increased sedentism. Further support
for this conclusion is provided by controlled test excavations at
several post-Archaic Belle Glade sites on the Lake Wales Ridge
and along the Kissimmee River which indicate a reduced
reliance on stone as a raw material for tool production (Austin
n.d.). This is not surprising given the added cost of procuring
a distant resource within a sedentary or semi-sedentary settle-
ment system.

Further Thoughts on Lithic Procurement
and Settlement Patterns

The data presented here provide a basis for considering
several other aspects of the prehistory of this little known part
of the state. One of the first questions that can be addressed
with these data is related to the temporal and geographic origins
of the Native Americans who first occupied the Lake Wales
Ridge. The archaeological evidence indicates that people were
occupying the region during the Early Archaic Period as
evidenced by the presence of Bolen and Greenbrier projectile
points in the study collection. Recent radiocarbon dates from the
Page/Ladson site in north Florida indicate a date range of
10,200-9700 B.P. (8250-7850 B.C.) for Bolen points there
(Dunbar et al. 1988:444, 449). This corresponds well with the
evidence from Warm Mineral Springs in Sarasota County and

. Bolen

20 50 100

5 10
Sample Size

90% Interval Plotted

1996 Vol. 49(4)



the Cutler Fossil site in Dade County where radiocarbon dates
on the order of 10,300 and 9300 B.P. were obtained from
cultural strata believed to be associated with Greenbrier and
Bolen projectile points, respectively (Carr 1986; Cockrell and
Murphy 1978). The fact that many of the early side-notched
points in the study collection (as well as many of the Middle
Archaic projectile points) have been found by collectors beneath
existing lake waters implies that lake levels were lower during
these early periods. Sediment cores from several lakes located
in the Central Highlands, including some along the Lake Wales
Ridge, indicate that organic sedimentation was not occurring in
many of these lakes prior to 8500 B.P. Instead, deep deposits
of aeolian sand are present that are assumed to have drifted into
the dry lake bottoms during periods of increased aridity, with
surface water apparently limited to shallow grassy marshes
(Watts 1971, 1975; Watts and Hansen 1988). This relative
scarcity of surface water prior to 8500 B.P. no doubt limited
the attractiveness of the area for human habitation. Significant-
ly, no Suwannee, Simpson, or related lanceolate-shaped points
assignable to the Paleoindian Period have yet been reported for
the ridge area. If such sites do exist, they are probably limited
in number and restricted to locations around these former marsh
shorelines, well below modem lake levels.
Regarding the geographic origin of the earliest inhabitants of
south Florida, several theories have been advanced. Some
archaeologists have suggested north Florida as a likely source
of population influx (e.g., Clausen et al. 1979:612-613) while
others have pointed to the southwest coast (e.g., Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980:184). The chert provenience data tend to
support a Central Gulf Coast origin as nearly all of the side-
notched, Early Archaic hafted bifaces were manufactured from
Bay Bottom chert from the Tampa Bay region.
By the time of the Middle Archaic, a wide range of chert
types and chert source locations were being exploited by the
native people inhabiting the ridge. The procurement range that
is implied by the chert types present in the study collection is
quite large, on the order of 80-100 km at a minimum. Archaic
projectile points also exhibit a high degree of resharpening and
recycling (Austin n.d.), and overall tool size is relatively small
for the types represented, with mean size values generally
falling at the low end of the size ranges provided for these types
by Bullen (1975; cf. Austin n.d.). There also is evidence of
scavenging of broken tool forms and waste flakes from previ-
ously occupied sites. Scavenging, recycling, excessive tool
maintenance, and overall small tool size are characteristic
elements of raw-material conservation. Taken together, these
data indicate a technology that was organized to adapt to
conditions of low lithic resource availability, high transport
costs, and limited site duration (Kuhn 1991).
Later, post-Archaic, Belle Glade populations are assumed to
have practiced a more sedentary lifestyle resulting in larger sites
that exhibit greater artifact density, midden formation, and the
use of burial mounds (Austin 1987, 1992, 1996). The south-
central interior of Florida is one of the few regions of the state
without direct access to durable raw materials of any kind. The
trade-off for adopting a more sedentary lifestyle would have
been a reduction in direct access to chert, shell, or shark teeth.

Indirect access via exchange would have been the only other
procurement alternative. The combination of reduced raw-
material diversity exhibited by the data presented here, in
combination with the documented presence of items such as
marine shell and shark teeth at interior sites (e.g., Austin 1996;
Steinen 1982), suggest that exchange systems functioned, in
part, to supply the raw materials necessary to compensate for
reduced access to stone.


It must be stressed that the results of this study are prelimi-
nary in nature due to small sample sizes. Additional tests using
larger samples that include lithic debitage from controlled
contexts are required before the conclusions can be fully
accepted. Nonetheless, the study has resulted in the identifica-
tion of several significant patterns of prehistoric chert procure-
ment that have the potential to contribute to a better understand-
ing of prehistoric adaptation to the xeric upland environment of
the Lake Wales Ridge. To summarize briefly, the results
indicate that 1) the earliest occupation of the Lake Wales Ridge
probably occurred during the Early Archaic Period; 2) the
region's earliest inhabitants may have originated in the Tampa
Bay area; 3) use of the ridge area intensified during the Middle
Archaic Period, with highly mobile groups of hunter-gatherers
ranging over a sizeable geographic area; and 4) sedentary or
semi-sedentary occupation of the ridge during the post-Archaic,
Belle Glade Period reduced access to lithic resources farther
north creating an opportunity for the development of exchange


SThe use of the term "formation" in the context of this paper is based on
biostratigraphic distinctions rather than lithostratigraphic ones since, for the
most part, it is fossil content that enables one to associate a particular chert
sample with a source location. Geologically, however, the two types of
stratigraphic separation are distinct and mutually exclusive. For example, the
Ocala Formation of Eocene limestones (a lithostratigraphic unit) is separated
into three biostratigraphic units (or biozones) on the basis of differing fossil
content, of which only the most recent, Crystal River biozone contains
significant chert deposits. Similarly, the Tampa Limestone is separated from the
phosphatic sands and clays of the upper Hawthorn for the purposes of
distinguishing the cherts associated with each unit, although geologists include
it lithologically as a basal "member" of the Miocene age Hawthorn Group (cf.
Scott 1992).
2 This collection is now housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History in
3 Some archaeologists (e.g., Milanich 1994:53-59; Purdy 1981:24-26) assign
side-notched projectile points to the late Paleoindian Period while others (e.g.,
Goodyear 1982; Tuck 1974; Widmer 1988.62-63) assign them to the Early
Archaic. Although stratigraphic data from Harney Flats seem to suggest that
Bolen projectile points were used contemporaneously with lanceolate-shaped
Suwannee and Simpson points (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:33-35), Dunbar
and his colleagues have yet to find such an association in their excavations on
the Aucilla River (e.g., Dunbar et al. 1988). Moreover, no Pleistocene fauna
have been recovered in association with the Aucilla Bolen Horizon despite the
fact that faunal preservation appears to be quite good at this site. Therefore, in
spite of the early dates associated with side-notched projectile points in Florida,
they appear to represent an early Holocene adaptation. Consequently, I have
assigned them to the Early Archaic Period.

Lrrmc ftocultEmENT AND MOBnxry




My interest in lithic scatter sites was developed during my undergraduate and
graduate studies at the University of South Florida in the late 1970s and early
1980s. Ray Williams was my advisor during that time. More than that, he was
a confidant and friend. While I doubt that Ray ever shared my intense interest
in lithic scatters, he gave me the opportunity to pursue my passion, overlooked
my headstrong (some might say "stubborn") tendencies, and offered constant
encouragement and support. His patience and guidance turned an inveterate
artifact collector into a committed archaeologist. I will be forever grateful.
The artifacts used in this study came from the collections of Anne Reynolds,
Don McClure, Mike Mosier, Philip Beck, and April Felt. The interest and
generosity of these individuals is greatly appreciated. Sam Upchurch provided
me with guidance, advice, and encouragement throughout this study. Figure 1
was drafted by Dawn Van De Putte.

References Cited

Abrahamson, Warren G., Ann F. Johnson, James N. Layne, and Patricia A.
1984 Vegetation of the Archbold Biological Station, Florida: An Example of
the Southern Lake Wales Ridge. Florida Scientist 47:209-250.
Adams, D. Briane, and Yvonne E. Stoker
1985 Hydrology of Lake Placid and Adjacent Areas, Highlands County,
Florida. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investiga-
tion Report 84-4149, Washington, D.C.
Amick, Daniel S.
1984 Designing and Testing a Model of Raw Material Variability for the
Central Duck River Basin, Tennessee. In Prehistoric Chert Exploita-
tion: Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by Brian M. Butler and
Ernest E. May, pp. 167-184. Occasional Paper No. 2, Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbon-
Austin, Robert J.
1987 Prehistoric and Early Historic Settlement in the Kissimmee River
Valley: An Archaeological Survey of the Avon Park Air Force Range.
The Florida Anthropologist 40:297-300.
1992 A Review of Archaeological Research in the Kissimmee Region of
Florida. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida
Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.
1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence Data from the
Kissimmee River Valley: Archaeological Evidence for Belle Glade
Occupation. The Florida Anthropologist 49:65-87.
n.d. Organizational Responses to Resource Scarcity: An Economic Analysis
ofLithic Resource Use in South-Central Florida. Ph.D. dissertation in
Belles, Roger G., and Edward G. Martin
1985 Hydrology of Lake June-in-Winter, Highlands County, South Central
Florida. United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investiga-
tion, Open File Report 84-4303, Washington, D.C.
Binford, Lewis R.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technol-
ogies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255-273.
Bishop, Ernest W.
1956 Geology and Ground Water Resources of Highlands County, Florida.
Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 15, Talla-
Bobrowsky, Peter D., and Bruce F. Ball
1989 The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In
Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and
George T. Jones, pp. 4-12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1975 A Guide to the Identification of Florida Projectile Points (Second
Edition). Kendall Books, Gainesville.
Carr, Robert S.
1986 Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Cutler Fossil Site (8Da2001)

in Southern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 39:231-232.
Carter, Lewis J., Douglas Lewis, LeRoy Crockwell, and Juan Vega
1989 Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida. United States Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Clausen, C.J., A.D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J.A. Holman, and J.J. Stipp
1979 Little Salt Springs, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science
Cockrell. W.A., and Larry Murphy
1978 Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Michael Wisenbaker
1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Co.,
Dunbar, James S., Michael K. Faught, and S. David Webb
1988 Page/Ladson (8Je591): An Underwater Paleo-Indian Site in Northwest-
ern Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 41:442-453.
Dunbar James S., and Ben I. Waller
1983 A Distribution Analysis of Clovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites of
Florida A Geographic Approach. The Florida Anthropologist 36:18-
Fager, E.W.
1972 Diversity: A Sampling Study. American Naturalist 106:293-310.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among
Paleoindian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series
156. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern
United States. American Antiquity 47:382-395.
Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, and Mark J. Brooks
1980 Turtlecrawl Point: An Inundated Early Holocene Archaeological Site
on the West Coast of Florida. In Holocene Geology and Man in
Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, Florida, edited by Sam B.
Upchurch, pp. 24-33. Southeastern Geological Society Guidebook No.
22, Tallahassee.
Goodyear, Albert C., Sam B. Upchurch, Mark J. Brooks, and Nancy N.
1983 Paleo-Indian Manifestations in the Tampa Bay Region, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 36:40-66.
Hammett, K. M.
1981 Hydrologic Description of Lake Jackson, Sebring, Florida. United
States Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation. Open File
Report 81-494, Washington, D.C.
Janus Research
1995 The Archaeological Resources of Highlands County. Florida. Report
prepared for the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners by
Janus Research, St. Petersburg.
Jones, George T., Donald K. Grayson, and Charlotte Beck
1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Surface
Assemblages. In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George
Irving Quimby, edited by Robert C. Dunnell and Donald K. Grayson,
pp. 55-73. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Anthro-
pological Papers 72.
Kintigh, Keith W.
1984 Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Sinmulated
Assemblages. American Antiquity 49:44-54.
1989 Sample size, Significance, and Measures of Diversity. In Quanifying
Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T.
Jones, pp. 25-36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1994 Toolsfor QuantitativeArchaeology: Programsfor QuantitativeAnalysis
in Archaeology. Computer software and documentation privately
published and distributed by Keith W. Kintigh, Tempe, AZ.
Kuhn, Steven L.
1991 "Unpacking" Reduction: Lithic Raw Material Economy in the Mouster-
ian of West-Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Lane, Ed, Michael S. Knapp, and Tom Scott
1980 Environmental Geology Series Fort Pierce Sheet. Florida Department

THE noREDA ANTH~opouo~tsT

1996 VOL. 49(4)


of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Map Series No. 80,
Luchterhand, Kubet
1970 Early Archaic Projectile Points and Hunting Patterns in the Lower
Illinois Valley. Illinois State Museum, Reports of Investigation No. 19,
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida,
Milanich Jerald T. and Charles Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Peet, Robert K.
1974 The Measurement of Species Diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 5:285-307.
Powell, John
1990 Points and Blades of the Coastal Plain. American Systems of the
Carolinas, Inc., West Columbia, S.C.
Purdy, Barbara A.
1981 Florida's Prehistoric Stone Technology. University Presses of Florida,
Robinson, George D.
1979 Outlines and Other Data on West Central Florida Projectile Points.
Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society, St. Petersburg.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Glen T. Hanson, and Tommy Charles
1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter-Gatherer
Range in the Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7:79-
Scott, Thomas M.
1992 A Geological Overview of Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Open
File Report No. 50, Tallahassee.
Shennan, Stephen
1990 Quantifying Archaeology (Second printing). Academic Press, San
Shott, Michael
1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic
Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15-51.
Steinen, Karl T.
1982 Other Nonceramic Artifacts. In Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in
the Lake Okeechobee Basin, by William H. Sears, pp. 68-110.
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Stewart, Herbert G.
1966 Ground Water Resources of Polk County. Florida Geological Survey
Report of Investigations No. 44, Tallahassee.
Tesar, Louis D.
1994 What Do You Call This Point? The Florida Anthropologist 47:287-294.
Tuck, James A.
1974 Early Archaic Horizons in Eastern North America. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 2:72-80.
Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels
1982a Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Report on
file, Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
1982b Silicification ofMiocene Rocks from Central Florida. In Symposium on
the Miocene of the Southeastern United States, edited by Thomas M.
Scott and Sam B. Upchurch, pp. 251-284. Florida Bureau of Geology,
Special Publication No. 25, Tallahassee.
Vierra, Robert K.
1982 Typology, Classification, and Theory Building. In Essays on Archaeo-
logical Typology, edited by Robert Whallon and James A. Brown, pp.
162-175. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston, Illinois.
Waller, Ben I. and James Dunbar
1977 Distribution of Paleo-Indian Projectiles in Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 30:79-80.
Walthall, John A.
1980 Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast. University of Alabama Press,
Warren, Lyman O.
1968 Caladesi Causeway: A Possible Inundated Paleo-Indian Workshop. The
Florida Anthropologist 21:92-94.

Watts, William A.
1971 Postglacial and Interglacial Vegetation History of Southern Georgia and
Central Florida. Ecology 52:676-690.
1975 A Late Quaternary Record of Vegetation from Lake Annie, South
Central Florida. Geology 3:344-346.
Watts, W. 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. 307-324. Telford
Press, New Jersey.
White, William A.
1970 The Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Florida Geological
Survey Bulletin No. 51, Tallahassee.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on the
Southwest Florida Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.



Barbara A. Purdy
"Provides a sense of what it really
means to be a professional archaeolo-
gist, how we go about doing that which
we do, and the benefit to the broader
public from our doing what we do in
the manner in which we do it.... Will
help improve the public's understand-
ing of the fragile nature of archaeologi-
cal resources."-Louis D. Tesar, Bureau
of Archaeological Research, Florida
Department of State
68 b&w photographs, 10 drawings, 4
maps, I diagram. Cloth, $29.95

Barbara A. Purdy
Photographs by Roy C. Craven, Jr.
"A superb book-and one that is long
overdue.... A fine sampling of a
unique native American artistic heri-
tage is laid out before you, in text and
in pictures, in this exciting book."
-Gordon R. Willey, Peabody Museum,
Harvard University
8 1/2 X 11. 116 color photographs,
9 figures. Cloth, $34.95

Edited by Patricia C. Griffin
"This volume of essays not only charts
the trajectory of a distinguished
Floridian's remarkable career, it also
chronicles much that has happened in
North American archaeology over the
past sixty years.... No practitioner of
American archaeology has influenced
the directions and content of re-
search in Florida more than lohn
Griffin. His work not only shaped ar-
chaeology in Florida, it also influ-
enced the development of the field
of historical archaeology in gen-
eral."-Kathleen Deagan,
Curator of Anthropology,
Florida Museum of Natural History
14 b&w photographs, 14 figures,
7 tables. Cloth, $39.95

Illustrations from How to Do
Archaeology the Right Way.

lerald T. Milanich
"An exciting book... combining ar-
chaeology and history to reconstruct
events and lifeways of ethnic groups so
quickly devastated by the European
presence."-Nancy White.
University of South Florida
29 b&w photographs, 10 drawings,
35 maps. Cloth, $29.95

Kathleen Deagan
and Darcie MacMahon
"An excellent publication.... In clear
and simple language the authors show
how the people of Fort Mose were in-
strumental in shaping Spanish interna-
tional policy on slavery and providing
inspiration for slaves throughout the
New World."-Mark R. Barnes, Senior
Archaeologist, National Park Service
11 X 8 1/2. 125 color. 84 b&w photo-
graphs. Cloth, $24.95 Paper, $9.95

From the Ripley P. Bullen Series-
John H. Hann
"An extraordinary scholarly work...
Ithatl will immediately make every-
thing else written about the Timucua
and the Spanish mission system in La
Florida out-of-date. This will be the ba-
sic scholarly reference for students of
Florida history and historical archaeol-
ogy."-lerald T. Milanich, Florida
Museum of Natural History
5 maps. Cloth. $49.95

Edited by Brenda I. Baker and
Lisa Kealhofer
"An important addition to the growing
literature on American Indian-Euro-
pean contact in North America. offer-
ing fresh perspectives on the variability
of native societies' responses to con-
tact.'-from the Foreword by
Jerald T. Milanich. Florida Museum
of Natural History
22 figures, 29 tables. Cloth. $49.95

Edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman
and David G. Anderson
"With this important volume, the edi-
tors serve notice that old characteriza-
tions of the cultures of the Archaic pe-
riod have been buried under the back
dirt of new excavations and new inter-
pretations ... It places the Archaic
cultures squarely at the forefront of ar-
chaeological theory.-from the
Foreword by lerald T. Milanich.
Florida Museum of Natural History
10 b&w photographs. 79 drawings.
tables, maps. Cloth. $60.00

Edited by lohn F. Scarry
"We now realize that to understand the
origin of the state, we must first under-
stand the development of the chief-
dom. And nowhere in the world is the
study of chiefdoms being pursued as
vigorously as in the Southeast. Com-
bining tantalizing bits of ethnohistory
with painstaking archaeology, the
scholars of this region are adding
greatly to our understanding of the
chiefdom as a political form. The
present volume, which is the work of
outstanding specialists in the region.
is a striking example of the rich fruit
being yielded by this research."
-Robert L. Cameiro. Curator of
Anthropology. American Museum
of Natural History
42 figures, I tables. Cloth. $49.95

Coming this Spring--
Albert Manucy
"Greatly enriches our knowledge of
Spanish Florida.... Describes the six-
teenth century Native American and
European occupants of St Augustine.
the circumstances which brought them
together, and the city, fortifications and
houses in which they dwelt. Nothing
else like this has been written ... en-
larges substantially upon the cultural
meaning of people, place, and
hearth."-Eugene Lyon. Director.
Center for Historic Research.
Fagler College. St Augustine
SIThel first and only comprehensive
historical and anthropological synthe-
sis of America's first European colony
... landl a great story. Thereae very
few scholars who can achieve this kind
of precisely accurate, broadly syn-
thetic. and wonderfully readable
book---Kathleen Deagan. Curator of
Anthropology Florida Museum of
Natural History
80 line drawings. 5 maps. I table.
Cloth, $24.95




Arkansas Archeological Survey, P. O. Box 241, Parkin, Arkansas 72373-0241
E-mail: jmitchem@comp. uark. edu

The Old Okahumpka Site (8LA57) was a sand burial mound
excavated by Clarence B. Moore in the 1890s, during one of his
frequent digging forays into Florida (Moore 1895:542-543)'.
Referring to it as "Mound Near Old Okahumpka, Lake Coun-
ty," he described it as a low mound whose height had been
reduced by cultivation (1895:542). The mound was one of
several similar ones investigated by Moore in the area, all of
which were low mounds containing secondary burials (Moore
1895; Willey 1949:557). Artifacts included stone, shell, copper,
and ceramic objects.
Moore (1895:542) stated that the mound was located in an
orange grove about one half-mile (.8 km) northwest of Old
Okahumpka (Figure 1), and that it was totally demolished by his
crew. When the site was recorded in the Florida Site File by
John M. Goggin in 1951, only a general vicinity location could
be plotted.
The modern town of Old Okahumpka was established on the
site of a Seminole Indian village of the same name (variously
spelled Okeehumkee, Okehumpkee, or Okihumpky), which was
reportedly the home of Micanopy (chief of the Alachua band of
Seminoles) when the Second Seminole War broke out in 1835
(Allen 1936:2, 14; Covington 1993:33). Troops under General
Abraham Eustis engaged in a skirmish with Seminoles near
there on March 30, 1836 (Mahon 1967:156).
When Henry B. Plant built his Jacksonville-to-Tampa railroad
line through the area in the late nineteenth century, a railway
station was located at Okahumpka (Gannon 1993:55-56;
Williamson 1939:5). It was also the last landing place for
steamboats traveling up the Oklawaha River (Brinton 1978:92;
Kennedy et al. 1929:45; Kramer 1959; Williamson 1939:4-5).
Although his usual steamboat was the Gopher, Moore used a
special shallow-draft boat, the Alligator, for his work on the
Oklawaha (Cerrato, this issue). A local history book made
reference to Moore's work in the area, somewhat inaccurately:
"Thirty-two years ago the Smithsonian Institute sent the
steamboat Alligator with Professor Moore, Doctors Miller and
Walker, and a crew of men to open the Indian mounds in that
vicinity. They spent six weeks at the work and found many
different kinds of valuable Indian relics" (Kennedy et al.
1929:46). Moore was not affiliated with the Smithsonian, nor
was he a professor.

Moore's Excavation of Old Okahumpka

Moore noted that the mound was about 40 ft (12.2 m) in
diameter, with a height of no more than 2 ft (.6 m), but the
majority of human bones (all apparently secondary burials) and
artifacts were located at a depth of 3-4.5 ft (.9-1.4 m) below the
highest part of the mound. It was unstratified, composed of
brownish sand, with some "scattered bits of charcoal and fire-
places" (Moore 1895:542).
The number of individuals buried in the mound was not
recorded, and Moore made no mention of keeping any of the
human remains. All of the excavated artifacts were in direct
contact with human bones, with some probably worn as
personal adornment when the corpses were bundled or stored
prior to burial (Moore 1895:542-543).


A relatively small number of artifacts were recovered during
Moore's excavations. In addition to many chert debitage
fragments, a single chert projectile point, nine stone celts, an
unrecorded number of pottery sherds, three copper objects,
some preserved bark and fiber, and fewer than 100 marine shell
beads were mentioned by Moore (1895:542-543). Most of the
artifacts ended up at the Museum of the American Indian, Heye
Foundation in New York City (which is now part of the
National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institu-
tion). A few objects are curated at the Springfield Science
Museum in Springfield, Massachusetts. Records at the Florida
Site File in Tallahassee indicate that the artifacts in Springfield
were accessioned on July 13, 1912. Table 1 lists the artifacts
and their present repository (when known).
Moore provided some information about associations of
artifacts with individual burials. Of the stone celts, seven were
among the general mass of human bones, with two of these
apparently associated with a single individual (Moore
1895:542). An eighth celt, made of sandstone, was found
accompanying another individual, who also had a copper
ornament in association. The final celt, described by Moore
(1895:543) as "a polished stone hatchet," was with a single
individual who also was accompanied by shell beads.
The sherds that Moore recovered were both plain and red-




VOL. 49 No. 4


Figure 1. Locations of the main sites discussed in the text. Map drawn by Charles B.

painted or slipped. The red sherds may have been St. Johns Red
on Buff or Dunns Creek Red. Both of these types are composed
of the characteristic chalky St. Johns paste typical of the St.
Johns River basin, but which is also found in other parts of
Florida (Goggin 1948b:7,1952:102-103; Mitchem 1986:69-70).
Moore (1895:Figure 91; reproduced as Figure 2 here)
illustrated only one artifact from Old Okahumpka, a rim sherd
with incised decoration and a human-head adorno. He received
this object from a man who had plowed it up from the surface
of the mound (Moore 1895:543). John Goggin (1949) examined
this sherd, noting that it was not of the chalky St. Johns paste,
but was sand tempered. He classified it as Weeden Island
Incised, but noted that other researchers had considered it Fort
Walton Incised. This sherd and its decoration are discussed
more thoroughly later in this paper.
Moore (1895:543) noted that the shell beads he found were all
of marine gastropods. Most were probably made from the
columellae of whelks (Busycon sp.). Fifty-six beads accompa-
nied a single individual (who also had a polished stone celt in
association). Moore (1895:543) also pointed out that a few small
beads were found with a copper-covered wooden cylinder and
bones stained green from contact with the copper. These are
probably the 14 shell beads and 6 stained human bones (Table

1) in the Springfield Science Museum in Springfield, Massachu-
The copper objects are of special interest. Moore (1895:543)
reported three copper artifacts from the site, all of which were
in direct association with human bones. First was the copper-
covered piece of wood found with stained bones and the small
shell beads mentioned previously. Goodman (1984:42) identified
this object as a copper-covered reed bead, although there is no
indication that she actually saw the artifact. Unfortunately, it is
not recorded in the collections of either the National Museum
of the American Indian or the Springfield Science Museum.
Moore described the second object as "...a heavy bead of
copper .7 of one inch by .6 of one inch, in contact with a
human lower jaw which formed part of a bunched burial"
(Moore 1895:543). The burial was 18 inches (45.7 cm) beneath
the surface. The bead is probably what is described as a large,
spiral, copper bead (Catalog No. 17/144) in the collections of
the National Museum of the American Indian.
The third copper artifact Moore found was part of a sheet
copper ornament with repouss6 decoration (Figure 3). This
object was illustrated and described in an article by Goggin
(1949). The embossed design depicts portions of the lower half
of the body of a dancing person. Moore did not illustrate or



0 100


19 VoL. a4)


Table 1. Artifacts from the Old Okahumpka site (8LA57) and
their present repositories.

Figure 2. Vessel fragment from the Old Okahumpka site
(from Moore 1895:Figure 91). Length between farthest left
and right points is approximately 8 cm. Courtesy of Library,
The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

describe the decoration on the plate, but did provide some other
information. It was found associated with a burial, and was
accompanied by some bark and fibrous material, a sandstone
celt, and a chert core (Moore 1895:543). The catalog card
(Catalog No. 17/145) from the National Museum of the
American Indian indicates that the fibrous material still exists,
and is described as braided fiber. Moore noted that the copper
sheet was bent and crumpled at one end, and he believed that it
was already incomplete when buried, but two edges were intact.
He gave measurements of 2.8 inches (7.1 cm) by 6 inches (15.2
cm) for the artifact (Moore 1895:543).

Dating the Site

The final sentence in Moore's description of the Old Oka-
humpka site noted that the mound was probably prehistoric in
age (Moore 1895:543). Although the mound did not yield many
artifacts, those that were recovered can be used to arrive at a
rough date of construction, and also can be used to identify
some broader cultural connections of the people interred there.
Of the artifacts excavated by Moore, the most useful for
chronological purposes is the decorated copper plate (Figure 3).
There is no doubt that the figure depicted on this artifact is what
has been variously termed an "eagle being" (Waring and Holder
1945:Figure 6), "kilted dancer" (Phillips and Brown 1978:207),
or "winged being" (Brown 1982; Waring 1977b:40-47). This
motif is characteristic of the Mississippian-period family
of religious iconography collectively referred to as the
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (Galloway 1989). Southeastern


Numerous chert flakes

1 Projectile point
1 Chert core

8 Ground and polished stone celts
(Catalog #17/1816)

1 Sandstone celt
(Catalog #17/1563)

Numerous plain and red-painted/slipped
pottery sherds

2 Pottery sherds, vessel rim with
incised decoration and human-head adorno
(Catalog #17/285)

Small shell disc beads
(Catalog #17/1112)

Cylindrical shell beads
(Catalog #17/1113)

Large cylindrical shell beads
(Catalog #17/1114)

14 Shell beads
(Accession #746, Catalog #18155.2)

1 Large spiral copper bead
(Catalog #17/144)

1 Long tubular copper-covered wooden
1 Sheet-copper ornament with embossed
design, preserved braided fiber
(Catalog #17/145)

6 Copper-stained human bone fragments
(Accession #746, Catalog #18155.1)
















1 National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian
b Springfield Science Museum

Ceremonial Complex iconography first appeared in the southern
United States at the beginning of the Mississippian period (ca.
A.D. 900), but reached a peak of popularity between about
A.D. 1200 and 1450 (Bense 1994:195-197; Muller 1989:13-18).
Estimating a date for the Old Okahumpka mound can be
accomplished by comparing it to other Florida sites that have
yielded copper objects with Southeastern Ceremonial Complex
designs, including Lake Jackson (8LE1), Grant Mound
(8DU14), Mount Royal (8PU35), and the Tatham Mound
(8CI203) (Figure 1). Mound 3 at Lake Jackson, which con-
tained a number of copper plates depicting dancing figures along




Figure 3. Embossed copper plate fragment from the Old
Okahumpka site. Approximately 7.1 cm wide by 15.2 cm long.
Courtesy of the National Museum of the American Indian,
Smithsonian Institution (Negative number 38435). Photograph
by Carmelo Guadagno.

with other Southeastern Ceremonial Complex artifacts, was
radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1240-1476 (Jones 1982:20-21;
Milanich 1994:372-373). Grant Mound apparently dates to the
period A.D. 800-1300 (Thunen and Ashley 1995:6). Based on
dates from sites outside of Florida with identical artifacts,
Milanich (1994:269) suggests a date range of A.D. 1050-1150
for Mount Royal. Thunen and Ashley (1995:7) note that a
Mount Royal projectile point, probably from Cahokia (Illinois),
would imply a date of approximately A.D. 1050, based on
identical points from Mound 72 at Cahokia (Fowler 1991:14).
The lower stratum of the Tatham Mound, dated by four
radiocarbon samples, including an AMS date on a copper-
covered wooden object (Figure 4) obtained after the completion

of Mitchem's (1989:523-527) dissertation, most likely dates
to the period A.D. 900-1150.
Three of the four dates from Tatham are calibrated
(Stuiver and Pearson 1993), while the fourth was uncali-
brated because the sample consisted of marine-shell beads
(the other three were of charred wood). The dates from
Lake Jackson, Grant, and Mount Royal are apparently
uncalibrated, so comparison between these sites and the
precontact stratum at Tatham is suspect. Nevertheless, it is
probably safe to say that a range of A.D. 900-1300 is a
reasonable estimate for the age of the copper plate from
Old Okahumpka.
Another artifact from the site aids in establishing a time
period for the site. It is the rim sherd with incised decora-
tion and an applied human-head adorno (Figures 2 and 5).
Goggin (1949) classified this as Weeden Island Incised, but
the incised and punctated decoration is too sloppily execut-
ed in comparison to typical Weeden Island Incised (Willey
1949:411-419). Goggin (1949:36) noted that other research-
ers had identified the sherd as Fort Walton Incised, and it
could indeed be considered to fall within the range of John
Scarry's (1985:219, Figure 7c) Fort Walton Incised, var.
Safety Harbor.
The sherd would more accurately be described as Safety
Harbor Incised. Willey (1949:557), in discussing probable
cultural affiliations of the Lake County area, noted that the
archaeological data from the region reveal Gulf Coast influ-
ences. He pointed out that Goggin (1947b:124, Figure 11)
initially included the county as part of the central Florida
area, but later decided that it was better considered a
subdivision of the Gulf Coastal area (Goggin 1948a).
Willey (1949:557) considered it as a transitional area
between the St. Johns and Gulf Coast areas. The sherd is
probably from a vessel obtained by exchange with Safety
Harbor groups to the west.
The identification of the sherd as Safety Harbor Incised
is supported by a nearly identical vessel fragment (Figures
6 and 7) from the Briarwoods site (8PA66) in Pasco
County (Mitchem 1985). The Briarwoods site (Figure 1)
was a small, sand, Safety Harbor burial mound that was
disturbed by pothunting and construction activity in 1980.
Salvage excavations by the University of South Florida
recovered remains of approximately 82 individuals and a
small number of artifacts (Mitchem 1985). The vessel
fragment is a rim sherd with a burnished surface and a human-
head adorno on the exterior. Traces of black paint or sooting
are present on the adorno. There also are two concentric,
curved, roughened or abraded areas to the left of the adorno.
The positioning of these abraded areas is similar to that of the
incised bands filled with punctations on the Old Okahumpka
sherd. While the similarity may be coincidence, the geographic-
al proximity of the Old Okahumpka site to the Safety Harbor
culture area supports the argument that the sherd from Old
Okahumpka was from a vessel obtained from Safety Harbor
The Briarwoods site dates from the Pinellas Phase (A.D.
1100-1500) of the Safety Harbor culture (Milanich 1994:389;


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Mitchem 1989:561-563). The reader should note that I
changed my estimation of the ending date for the Engle-
wood Phase and the beginning date for the subsequent
Pinellas Phase from A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1100 after comple-
tion of my dissertation (Mitchem 1989). This was based on
the radiocarbon date of the copper-covered wooden baton
from Tatham and a reconsideration of the scant evidence
from other sites with Englewood components (Mitchem
If the sherd with adorno from Old Okahumpka is accepted
as Safety Harbor Incised, it allows us to propose a slightly
more restricted date range for the site. Combining the
Pinellas Phase date range with that proposed for the copper
plate suggests a range of A.D. 1100-1300 for the construc-
tion of the Old Okahumpka mound.

Mississippian Iconography and Influence
in Peninsular Florida

The foregoing discussion of the Old Okahumpka site sets
the stage for a more general discussion of Mississippian
influence in the peninsular portion of Florida. Old Okahum-
pka is a good example of a small, seemingly insignificant
site that yielded information of importance for interpreting
aboriginal cultural relations in late prehistoric Florida. We
are indeed fortunate that Clarence B. Moore chose to report
and publish his findings, and that the artifacts were curated
in museum collections.
The Old Okahumpka copper plate, although incomplete,
exhibits a number of recognizable traits. The figure appears
to be dancing, is wearing a "fringed kilt," a double belt or
sash, and cuffed moccasins, and is holding what may be a
knife or blade in its right hand (Hamilton et al. 1974:157-
159, Figure 97; Phillips and Brown 1978:207). Phillips and
Brown (1978:Figure 217) and Hamilton et al. (1974:157-
159) note the remarkable similarity of the Old Okahumpka
specimen to two other copper plates, one from the Spiro
site in Oklahoma, and the other from an unidentified site in
Jackson County, Alabama. They are all oblong-shaped,
they depict kilted dancers facing the right side of the plates,
and all are wearing double belts or sashes and cuffed mocca-
sins. However, the Old Okahumpka plate is the only one of the
three where the dancer holds a knife.
The fact that the Old Okahumpka plate is very similar to one
from the Spiro site is interesting because of the great similarity
of one of the plates from Mount Royal to one from Spiro.
Excavated and illustrated by Moore (1894a:32, Figure 1), the
Mount Royal specimen is square, and depicts four "forked eyes"
and blades, alternating around a central boss of concentric
circles. Hamilton et al. (1974:Figure 54c) and Phillips and
Brown (1978:Figure 270) illustrate an almost identical specimen
from Spiro. There is virtually no doubt that they were manufac-
tured by the same person, or that the second one was made by
someone who had seen the plate that was produced first.
Hamilton et al. (1974:Figure 53a) also illustrate another square
plate from Spiro that has a similar arrangement of elements.
The possible Spiro connection also is evident at the Tatham

Figure 4. Radiograph of copper-covered wooden baton from
Burial 109 at the Tatham Mound. The flaring end with the
peg carved in the wood is at the lower left in this photograph.
The object near the middle of the baton is an attached rib
fragment. Length of baton is 19 cm. Photograph by William
R. Maples.

Mound in Citrus County. The Tatham Mound consisted of two
strata, with the upper stratum containing a minimum of 338
individuals (Hutchinson 1991, personal communication, 1995)
dating to the period A.D. 1525-1550, based on associated
European artifacts (Mitchem and Leader 1988). The lower
stratum contained a minimum of only 28 individuals (Hutchin-
son 1991, personal communication, 1995), dating from the
period A.D. 900-1150. It is this precontact stratum which is of
concern here.
Four copper objects were excavated from the lower stratum of
the Tatham Mound, all in direct association with primary
burials (Mitchem 1989:419-433). One adult (Burial 105), of
indeterminate sex, was wearing a simple, copper ear spool on
the right ear, with a convex central portion and a row of raised,
embossed dots around the edge (Mitchem 1989:428, Figure 19).
An almost exact duplicate was found by Moore (1894b:142,
Figure 7) at the Mount Royal site.



Figure 5. Photograph of vessel fragment from the Old Okahumpka site. Length between
farthest left and right points is approximately 8 cm. Courtesy of the National Museum of the
American Indian, Smithsonian Institution (Specimen number 17/285). Photograph by David

Approximately 2.4 gm of galena were found near the cranium
of Burial 105, and there were about 330 shell beads on the right
wrist and legs. There also was a second, isolated cranium
lyingin the chest area. Burial 105 also had a mass of embossed
copper and organic material (possibly including textile pseudo-
morphs and cordage) in the shoulder area. A radiograph of this
object (Figure 8) revealed that it was an embossed copper plume
ornament (Milanich 1994:404-406; Mitchem 1989:420-428,
Figures 19 and 20). Both ends and parts of the edges were
missing, with the remaining portion measuring about 23 cm
long. It was curved, and had a "notch" or sudden narrowing of

width a few centimeters from the base. The location of the
ornament suggests that it was worn in the hair, probably in a
bun at the back of the head as depicted on copper plates and
cutouts from Spiro (Brown 1996:Figure 2-109; Hamilton
1952:Plate 73; Hamilton et al. 1974:150, Figures 50 and 88;
Phillips and Brown 1978:191, Figures 249 and 250). Similar
copper plume ornaments have come from Spiro (Brown
1996:Figure 2-117, Table 2-166; Burnett 1945:Plate 73;
Hamilton 1952:52-53, Plates 71, 74, 75, and 77; Hamilton et
al. 1974:150, Figures 91 and 92), the Etowah site in Georgia
(Moorehead 1979:68; Thomas 1985:306, Figure 188; Waring

1996 VOL. 49(4)



0 1 2 3 4 5cm

Figure 6. Vessel fragment from the Briarwoods site.
Drawing by Mary Lee Eggart, Louisiana State University.

and Holder 1945:17; Willoughby 1979:43-44, Figure 19), and
Lake Jackson (Jones 1982:18).
Less than 5 cm to the immediate east of Burial 105, a circular
copper plate was recovered (Milanich 1994:404-405; Mitchem
1989:419-420, Figure 18). Measuring 23 cm in diameter, it had
a small (ca. .5 cm diameter) hole in the center, and had a mass
of organic material preserved on its upper surface. One edge
was bent, but the plate was otherwise intact. A radiograph of
the plate (Milanich 1994:405) revealed that it had been repaired
in two places by attaching patches of sheet copper using rivets
of rolled sheet copper. The radiograph also revealed a row of
small, raised, embossed dots around the edge. The complete
skeleton of a human infant (Burial 133) was beneath the plate.
Bones of a juvenile were also found in the immediate vicinity,
but it was not possible to determine whether they were associat-
ed with the plate (Mitchem 1989:479-483).
It should be mentioned that the skeleton of an adult female
(Burial 102) was lying parallel to Burial 105, with the copper
plate between the two. Burial 102 was oriented with her head
to the north, while Burial 105 was oriented opposite, with the
head to the south. Accompanying Burial 102 were two almost
identical ground and polished stone celts. A third celt, 177 shell
beads, and 24.2 gm of galena also may have been associated
with Burial 102. The uncertainty was due to the presence of the
burial of a juvenile (Burial 93) 10 cm above Burial 102
(Mitchem 1989:474-475).
Nearby, the primary interment of an adult female (Burial 109)
had a copper-covered wooden baton in the chest area. Based on
examination of preserved wood cells, Lee A. Newsom (personal
communication, 1988) was able to identify the wood as cypress
(Taxodium sp.). A radiograph (Figure 4) of the object revealed
that one end was intact, while the other was largely destroyed.
It was 19 cm long, symmetrical, and had a peg carved from the
wood at the flared end. Preserved fibrous material may have
originally been tied to this peg. Most of the wood was removed
and used for an AMS radiocarbon date (2a range of cal AD
992-1228 [Beta-30452]). The shape of the object resembles
batons or maces depicted in shell engravings (Phillips and
Brown 1978:153), sheet-copper plates (Hamilton et al.
1974:Figure 93; Waring and Holder 1945:Figure 31-w), and,

most interesting, on Safety Harbor pottery vessels (Luer
1993:Figures 2 and 5; Mitchem 1989:Figure 5; Mitchem et al.
1985:190, Figures 7 and 8). The shape is reminiscent of a
wooden celt handle and (less convincingly) a mace-shaped club
from Key Marco (Gilliland 1975:Plates 81b and 86), as well as
the handle ends of some monolithic axes (Brehm and Smother-
man 1989; Waring 1977a; Waring and Holder 1945:Figure 3f-
The size of the Tatham specimen precludes its use as a mace,
club, or celt handle. It was undoubtedly a symbolic (or socio-
technic) artifact, and probably included hair or some other
fibrous material tied to the peg on the end for a streamer effect,
as depicted in some copper plates (Thomas 1985:Plate 17;
Waring and Holder 1945:Figure 31, p). It is noteworthy that the
person accompanied by the baton was female, perhaps support-
ing the hypothesis that at least some of the beings depicted in
Mississippian copper and shell art were female (Brown 1982;
Thomas 1995).
The copper material from Old Okahumpka, Mount Royal, and
Tatham would fall into what Knight (1986:677-678) termed the
"warfare/cosmogony complex" Mississippian iconic family. The
"long nosed god" masks from the Grant Mound would also fall
within this category (Goggin 1952:Plate 9a-b; Williams and
Goggin 1956). As defined by Knight (1986:675), these artifacts
and the particular artwork on them would have denoted specific
supernatural meanings to the people who possessed them, in the
contexts of rituals or on occasions when they were displayed.
But the question arises whether any of the late prehistoric
cultures in peninsular Florida (the Fort Walton and Pensacola
regions of northwest Florida are not included in this discussion)
were truly Mississippian, and if not, why. To address these
questions, it is first necessary to define the term "Mississippi-
an." Knight (1986:677) prefers the generalized definition by
Griffin (1985:63), which is broader and more inclusive than
another widely cited definition by Smith (1978:486). It is
appropriate to reproduce Griffin's definition in its entirety.

The Mississippian societies of the Eastern United States may be
identified as those which:
[1] Developed many cultural innovations over much of the cultural-
ly defined Southeast between A.D. 700 and 900.
[2] Added these disparate innovations to local cultural inventories
by contact between neighboring and distant groups.
[3] Increased in population, resulting from an augmented energy
input from a more effective agronomy.
[4] Constructed planned permanent towns and ceremonial centers,
villages and subsidiary support hamlets, farmsteads, and other
extractive camps.
[5] Had regional and temporal variations of a hierarchical social,
political, and religious structure.
[6] Participated in an area-wide belief system that integrated and
emphasized the complex interaction of the spirit world and man,
and ritualized these concepts in an elaborate symbolic iconography
on marine shells, copper, ceramics, and stone.
[7] Had an extensive trade network, of rivers and trails, over which
manufactured symbolic and mundane items and raw materials were
moved either to neighboring or distant societies.
[8] Reached an area-wide cultural crest between A.D. 1200 and



~... 4

Figure 7. Photograph of vessel fragment from the Briarwoods site. Photograph by the author.


1500, and slowly receded to less formally organized and con-
trolled groups of the post-A.D. 1700 colonial period [Griffin
1985:63; numbers added for emphasis].

It is beyond the scope of this paper to present a complete
examination of this issue. Instead, the bulk of the following
discussion will pertain to a consideration of the participa-
tion of peninsular Florida populations in the "area-wide
belief system" described in [6] above.
Widmer (1989) described what he termed the South
Florida Ceremonial Complex for the Calusa-dominated area
of south Florida. He noted certain striking differences
between the iconography of south Florida and what is
commonly considered typical of the Southeastern Ceremo-
nial Complex (1989:172). He highlighted the probable
Hopewellian origin of many of the portrayals of animals,
while acknowledging some attenuated Mississippian
influences. Much the same can probably be said for the
Safety Harbor culture area north of the Calusa-controlled
region (Milanich 1994:390).
Mount Royal, Old Okahumpka, and Tatham are the
southernmost sites in Florida that contain copper artifacts
bearing Southeastern Ceremonial Complex iconography.
Farther south in the St. Johns drainage, central Florida, and
in the Gulf Coastal Plain, these objects are absent. Widmer
(1989:169) notes that, with the exception of copper ear-
spools, native copper artifacts are generally lacking in south
The Safety Harbor culture can be used as an example for
interpreting the sparse distribution of Southeastern Ceremo-
nial Complex artifacts in peninsular Florida. When Safety
Harbor decorated pottery is examined, it will be noted that
human and animal representations are rare. In addition to
the occasional human-head adorno (discussed above), there
are two general naturalistic motifs that occur fairly often:
human hands and birds. Human hands have been noted on
vessels from one of the Wilson Mounds (8SO70 or 8SO77)
(Luer 1993:Figure 3), Aqui Esta (8CH68) (Luer 1985:Fig-
ure 3c), Tierra Verde (8PI51) (Sears 1967:Figure 8:1; Warren
et al. 1965), Tatham (8CI203) (Mitchem 1989:Figure 5), Picnic
(8HI3) (Milanich 1994:408), and other Safety Harbor sites,
exclusively from burial contexts. At Tatham and Tierra Verde,
the hands were combined with depictions of maces or batons.
Bird symbolism on Safety Harbor pottery most often consists
of bird feet (Luer 1993:Figures 3 and 5; Willey 1949:Figure
63e), with occasional adorno heads (Mitchem 1989:Figure 7) or
stylized feather depictions (Willey 1949:Figure 64). The vessel
from Wilson exhibits both bird feet and human hand appliques
(Luer 1993:Figure 3).
Willey (1949:479-482), Luer (1985:Figures 1-3, 1993:Figure
2), and Luer and Almy (1987:311-315) discuss decorative traits
of Safety Harbor Incised and related Safety Harbor pottery
types, noting the Mississippian influence that is evident. Rands
(1957) has noted that the hand-and-eye motif is widespread in
the New World, from Peru to the Northwest Coast, though not
in continuous distribution. The hand symbol in Florida may be
indigenous rather than derived from Mississippian origins. Even

Figure 8. Radiograph of embossed copper plume ornament
from Burial 105 at the Tatham Mound. Length of ornament
when bent end is straightened is approximately 23 cm.
Radiograph by William R. Maples.

though the hand motif occurs in association with the mace or
baton symbol in at least two cases (Tatham and Tierra Verde),
this does not support the argument that all aboriginal depictions
of hands in Florida are evidence of Mississippian influence. In
addition, most (but not all) "typical" Southeastern Ceremonial
Complex hand depictions include an eye, either on the hand or
nearby (Fundaburk and Foreman 1985:Plates 38 and 113).
The late prehistoric bird symbolism in peninsular Florida is
quite different from "typical" Southeastern Ceremonial Complex
portrayals, and appears to be more of an indigenous develop-
ment out of Weeden Island (Milanich et al. 1984:163-184) and
even earlier, Hopewell-related motifs (Webb and Baby
1957:102-108; Widmer 1989:172; Willey 1948). The difference
is highlighted in the south Florida crested-bird ornaments, many
made of European-derived metal, and the painted and carved
depictions of birds from Key Marco (Gilliland 1975:Plates 34,
61, and 127, 1989:Plate 20; Goggin 1947a; Rau 1878). Most of
these depictions portray Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Gore 1995).
While woodpeckers are common motifs in Southeastern




Ceremonial Complex artwork (Waring and Holder 1945:Figure
5), the Florida depictions are executed in a unique style. A
south Florida style, carved woodpecker pin from the Etowah
site in Georgia is made from marine turtle shell and had shark
teeth accompanying it (Larson 1993), supporting its coastal
Florida origin. Although Etowah is considered a center of
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex art objects, other bird and
woodpecker depictions on artifacts from the site (in marine shell
and copper) are stylistically distinct from the south Florida
depictions (Brain and Phillips 1996:132-175).
Clearly, Safety Harbor pottery shows Mississippian influence,
but it is attenuated or "watered-down." The extreme paucity of
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex iconography on items of
marine shell, copper, and stone from peninsular Florida is also
noteworthy, although it is possible that additional artwork was
on wood that has not survived.

The Lack of True Mississippian Cultures
in Peninsular Florida

The Safety Harbor culture serves as an example to illustrate
how cultural groups in peninsular Florida interacted with
Mississippian cultures to the north and west, while also
presenting the opportunity to offer an interpretive hypothesis
about why the peninsular Florida groups did not become fully
The Safety Harbor culture area extends from roughly Char-
lotte Harbor on the south to the Withlacoochee River in Citrus
County on the north (Milanich 1994:390). There is some
evidence that the eastern boundary should be extended farther
east than it is in the map published by Milanich (but see article
by Clagett, this issue).
Prior to the development of the Safety Harbor culture, the
entire region was occupied by Weeden Island-related groups. In
fact, many Safety Harbor sites have Weeden Island components
underlying the Safety Harbor occupations (Milanich 1994:227).
There is little doubt that Safety Harbor groups were direct
descendants of Weeden Island-related populations. There is no
evidence of an influx of immigrant populations nor is there any
indication of depopulation of the region at the end of the late
Weeden Island Period.
Weeden Island-related cultures in the North Peninsular Coast
and Manasota regions (as defined by Milanich 1994:206) were
spread over diverse habitats, with the largest settlements along
the Gulf coast. But riverine areas and interior wetlands also
supported sizable populations (Milanich 1994:205-227).
Weisman (1986:20) has noted that around A.D. 600 some
Weeden Island-related habitation sites in the Cove of the
Withlacoochee area (at the northern end of the Safety Harbor
culture area) began to shift away from purely riverine adapta-
tions to drier locations. He postulated that this shift may have
been related to the development or increased reliance on
horticulture, but there is as yet no archaeological evidence for
Sometime around A.D. 900, the Weeden Island cultural
system changed, and the people began producing Englewood
and related pottery types, followed by the more typical Safety

Harbor types (Willey 1949:472-486). These cultural changes
were undoubtedly the result of Mississippian influences,
possibly coupled with general climatic and environmental
changes. But what was the nature of the influences, and why
didn't the Weeden Island cultures become fully Mississippian?
Phillips and Brown (1978:206-208) suggested that the Mount
Royal site might have served as "a center of dispersal in the
marine shell trade" (1978:207). To support their contention,
they note the huge number of "killed" Busycon shells recovered
by Moore from the mound, many of which came from the same
individuals who were buried with copper objects. They go on
to speculate that the richly accompanied burials may have been
entrepreneurs in the shell trade who were exchanging marine
shells for finished copper objects (Phillips and Brown 1978:207-
Large numbers of Busycon and other marine whelk shells are
often recovered from Safety Harbor burial contexts as well
(Mitchem 1989), and many of these also may have been
destined for exchange with Mississippian groups in the interior
Southeast. The people buried at the Tatham Mound and other
Safety Harbor sites in the area between Tampa Bay and the
Withlacoochee River were probably heavily involved in the shell
trade, and they may have been dealing directly with the St.
Johns people at Mount Royal. The copper objects at both
Tatham and the Old Okahumpka site may have been obtained
from entrepreneurs at Mount Royal, who had received the
finished copper objects in exchange for shells they had shipped
north or west. The ultimate destination may have been the Spiro
site, although a number of intermediaries were probably
involved. In fact, it is likely that the many elaborate engraved
shells and copper artifacts found at Spiro were manufactured
elsewhere (Schambach 1988:8, 1993). The Lake Jackson site
(Jones 1982) also may have been part of this long-distance
network. The proximity of Mount Royal to both Tatham and
Old Okahumpka argues for that route of shipment, rather than
direct contact of Safety Harbor and Oklawaha River peoples
with Lake Jackson. The lack of Southeastern Ceremonial
Complex artifacts from the region north of the Withlacoochee
River supports this hypothesis.
But if the Safety Harbor groups (and the St. Johns drainage
groups as well) were directly involved in a Mississippian trade
network, why were the effects on artifact styles and other
aspects of their culture so attenuated? The answer may lie in
environmental factors, specifically rivers.
Rivers in peninsular Florida tend to be of either the spring-fed
or blackwater types, which do not flood and deposit alluvium
(Estevez et al. 1984). In contrast, rivers in the interior South-
east and the Mississippi Valley tend to flood seasonally, creating
alluvial floodplains which are prized as cropland to this day
(Foti 1993j Saucier 1974). Mississippian groups sought such
areas, which were well-suited for intensive maize agriculture.
In fact, Larson (1972) suggested that some of the widespread
warfare among Mississippian groups was due to competition for
prime alluvial bottomlands.
Gary Shapiro (1986) observed that rivers in Florida tended to
be used as sociopolitical boundaries during Mississippian time,
whereas rivers in the interior Southeast and Mississippi Valley


1996 VOL. 49(4)


were generally centers of Mississippian polities. He found that
this model was supported by site distributions in the Apalachee
area in northern Florida, as well as by subsequent historical and
archaeological research (Hann 1988). The model is apparently
valid for at least the northern Safety Harbor area as well, where
the Withlacoochee River forms the northern boundary of the
Safety Harbor culture area (Mitchem 1989:571-572).
When Mississippian influences reached west peninsular Florida
around A.D. 900, it was ecologically impossible for the proto-
Safety Harbor groups (or very late Weeden Island peoples) to
adopt intensive maize agriculture. Suitable expanses of alluvial
soils did not exist in the area. Recent stable isotope research on
skeletal remains from several Safety Harbor populations has
confirmed that these people were not eating large quantities of
maize (Dale L. Hutchinson, personal communication, 1996).
The predominant settlement pattern of Safety Harbor groups
north of Tampa Bay was one of very small settlements scattered
throughout the swamps and along rivers. This dispersed
settlement pattern was well-adapted to exploit efficiently the
various botanical and faunal resources in the region. So in
addition to the lack of alluvial soils for intensive maize agricul-
ture, the populations were well-adapted to their environment
with its abundant wild resources, leaving no reason to resettle
in nucleated settlements. The only communal earthwork
structures in the region were isolated burial mounds (Mitchem
1988), probably used by kin-based groups.
The lack of a nucleated or hierarchical settlement system in
the northern Safety Harbor area makes it unlikely that a
chiefdom level of social organization was operating in this
region. But alternatively, the presence of large settlements with
platform mounds (Luer and Almy 1981) in the Circum-Tampa
Bay and South-Central subareas (Milanich 1994:394-400) of the
Safety Harbor culture area does indicate that chiefdoms were
present in these coastal regions. Historical accounts of the 1567
visit of Pedro Menendez de Avil6s to Tocobaga (Solis de Meris
1964:223-229) strongly support the existence of a hierarchical
chiefdom sociopolitical system in the Tampa Bay area during
the Bayview phase (A.D. 1567-1725), although it is difficult to
determine how long such chiefdoms had been in existence.
When Griffin's (1985:63) definition of Mississippian society
is examined in light of what is known about the Safety Harbor
culture, the first two and last two points (numbers 1, 2, 7, and
8) are indeed seen as characteristic. But the other four (numbers
3, 4, 5, and 6) are not demonstrable using currently available
archaeological data, with the possible exception of number 5 for
the Bayview Phase.
The reasons discussed for the failure of Mississippian culture
to influence Safety Harbor culture more thoroughly are probably
also valid for the upper St. Johns River basin and other parts of
peninsular Florida. The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex
artifacts from Tatham, Old Okahumpka, Mount Royal, and
other sites in northern peninsular Florida are the result of
exchange, probably associated with the marine-shell trade. At
this point, we can only speculate about whether the Mississippi-
an religious meanings and ritual significance of these items
traveled to Florida with them, or whether they were viewed
instead as symbols of status or wealth. The artifacts from the

Old Okahumpka site reveal that Safety Harbor groups and those
in the St. Johns basin were involved in the same long-distance
exchange networks.


There is some disagreement about the date of publication of this work and
others by Moore. The date often cited for the Oklawaha paper is 1896.
However, a list of his publications compiled by Moore cites itas 1895, and that
date is used in this paper.


The evolution of this paper began in the 1980s, while I was conducting my
doctoral research and writing my dissertation at the University of Florida.
Although I had received my Master's degree (based on research in Idaho) from
the University of South Florida under Ray Williams' direction, he was also very
helpful and supportive of me during my dissertation-writing period. Ray read
and commented on several chapters, and also provided some hard-to-get
information and access to collections. This paper is intended as a tribute to that
spirit of mentoring.
Many others deserve thanks for help. From the Museum of the American
Indian, Heye Foundation (before it became part of the Smithsonian Institution),
Ellen Jamieson and Ruth S. Taylor were helpful in obtaining photographs and
collection information. From the National Museum of the American Indian,
Smithsonian Institution, Shilice Clinkscales granted permission to publish two
photographs. Carol Spawn of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia
granted permission to publish an illustration from one of Clarence Moore's
figures from the Academy's journal. Charles B. Poe prepared Figure 1. Mary
Lee Eggart of Louisiana State University did the drawing in Figure 6. William
R. Maples of the Florida Museum of Natural History kindly took the radio-
graphs in Figures 4 and 8. Portions of the research reported here were
supported by grants to Jerald T. Milanich from the Division of Parks and
Recreation, Florida Department of Natural Resources. Piers Anthony also
supported the Tatham Mound research and some of the related background
research. Robert H. Gore and Bob Austin helped in various ways. I am grateful
to all of these individuals. This paper was improved by discussions with my
colleague Frank F. Schambach, and by the comments and suggestions of several
anonymous reviewers.

References Cited

Allen, L.
1936 History of Lake County. Russell L. Fuller, editor. Federal Writers'
Project, American Guide, Orlando.
Bense, Judith A.
1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World
War I. Academic Press, San Diego.
Brain, Jeffrey P., and Philip Phillips
1996 Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric South-
east. Peabody Museum Press, Cambridge.
Brehm, H. C., and Travis Smotherman
1989 Tennessee's Aboriginal Art: The Monolithic Axe. Mini-Histories, Nash-
Brinton, Daniel G.
1978 A Guide-book of Florida and the South, for Tourists, Invalids and
Emigrants. 1978 facsimile edition. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville. Originally published 1869. G. Maclean, Philadelphia.
Brown, Catherine
1982 On the Gender of the Winged Being on Mississippian Period Copper
Plates. Tennessee Anthropologist 7:1-8.
Brown, James A.
1996 The Spiro Ceremonial Center: The Archaeology of Arkansas Valley
Caddoan Culture in Eastern Oklahoma. Memoirs of the Museum of
Anthropology No. 29. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.



THE FLORIDA Ar.mmoPoLoGisT 1996 VOL 49(4)

Burnett, E. K.
1945 The Spiro Mound Collection in the Museum. Contributions from the
Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation Vol. 14. New York.
Covington, James W.
1993 The Seminoles of Florida. University Press of Florida,
Estevez, Ernest D., Bradley J. Hartman, Randy Kautz, and Elizabeth D.
1984 Ecosystems of Surface Waters. In Water Resources Atlas of Florida,
edited by Edward A. Fernald and Donald J. Patton, pp. 92-107.
Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University,
Foti, Thomas
1993 The River's Gifts and Curses. In The Arkansas Delta: Land of Paradox,
edited by Jeannie Whayne and Willard B. Gatewood, pp. 30-57.
University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville.
Fowler, Melvin L.
1991 Mound 72 and Early Mississippian at Cahokia. In New Perspectives on
Cahokia: Views from the Periphery, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp.
1-28. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 2. Prehistory Press,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Fundaburk, Emma Lila, and Mary Douglass Foreman (editors)
1985 Sun Circles and Human Hands: The Southeastern Indians Art and
Industry. Reprinted. Southern Publications, Fairhope, Alabama.
Originally published 1957, Emma Lila Fundaburk, Luverne, Alabama.
Galloway, Patricia (editor)
1989 The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Gannon, Michael
1993 Florida: A Short History. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Gilliland, Marion Spjut
1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida. University Presses of
Florida, Gainesville.
1989 Key Marco's Buried Treasure: Archaeology and Adventure in the Nine-
teenth Century. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Goggin, John M.
1947a Manifestations of a South Florida Cult in Northwestern Florida. Ameri-
can Antiquity 12:273-276.
1947b A Preliminary Definition of Archaeological Areas and Periods in Flori-
da. American Antiquity 13:114-127.
1948a Culture and Geography in Florida Prehistory. Ph.D. dissertation, De-
partment of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven.
1948b Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Bulletin No. 1. Gainesville
Anthropological Association, Gainesville.
1949 A Southern Cult Specimen from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns Archeology, Florida.
Publications in Anthropology No. 47. Yale University, New Haven.
Goodman, Claire Garber
1984 Copper Artifacts in Late Eastern Woodlands Prehistory. Edited by
Anne-Marie Cantwell. Center for American Archeology, Evanston,
Gore, Robert H.
1995 Cushing's "Bird God of War" Solving a Key Marco Mystery. The
Florida Anthropologist 48:194-199.
Griffin, James B.
1985 Changing Concepts of the Prehistoric Mississippian Cultures of the
Eastern United States. In Alabama and the Borderlands from Prehistory
to Statehood, edited by R. Reid Badger and Lawrence A. Clayton, pp.
40-63. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Hamilton, Henry W.
1952 The Spiro Mound. The Missouri Archaeologist 14:1-88.
Hamilton, Henry W., Jean Tyree Hamilton, and Eleanor F. Chapman
1974 Spiro Mound Copper. Memoir No. 11. Missouri Archaeological
Society, Columbia.
Hann, John H.
1988 Apalachee: TheLand Between the Rivers. University Presses of Florida,

Hutchinson, Dale L.
1991 Postcontact Native American Health and Adaptation: Assessing the
Impact of Introduced Diseases in Sixteenth-Centuy Gulf Coast Florida.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois,
Jones, B. Calvin
1982 Southern Cult Manifestations at the Lake Jackson Site, Leon County,
Florida: Salvage Excavation of Mound 3. Midcontinetal Journal of
Archaeology 7:3-44.
Kennedy, Willian T., Lillian D. Vickers-Smith, Elizabeth Rock Quirk, and
Arthur H. Cawston (Editors)
1929 History of Lake County, Florida: Narrative and Biographical. The
Record Company, St. Augustine.
Knight, Vernon James, Jr.
1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion. American
Antiquity 51:675-687.
Kramer, F. C. W., Jr.
1959 Memories of Passenger and Cargo Boats on the Inland Lakes. Lake
County Then and Now 2(3):5.
Larson, Lewis H.
1972 Functional Considerations of Warfare in the Southeast During the
Mississippi Period. American Antiquity 37:383-392.
1993 An Examination of the Significance of a Tortoise-Shell Pin from the
Etowah Site. In Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in
Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 169-185.
Archaeological Report No. 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and
History, Jackson.
Luer, George M.
1985 Some Comments on Englewood Incised, Safety Harbor Incised, and
Scarry's Proposed Ceramic Changes. The Florida Anthropologist
1993 A Safety Harbor Incised Bottle with Effigy Bird Feet and Human Hands
from a Possible Headman Burial, Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 46:238-250.
Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
1981 Temple Mounds of the Tampa Bay Area. The Florida Anthropologist
1987 The Laurel Mound (8So98) and Radial Burials with Comments on the
Safety Harbor Period. The Florida Anthropologist 40:301-320.
Mahon, John K.
1967 History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842. University of Florida
Press, Gainesville.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida,
Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight, Jr., Timothy A.
Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle
1984 McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of Northern Florida, A.D. 200-
900. Academic Press, Orlando.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1985 Excavation of the Briarwoods Site (8-PA-66), Pasco County, Florida.
Florida Scientist 48:161-165.
1986 Comments on Some Ceramic Pastes of the Central Peninsular Gulf
Coast. The Florida Anthropologist 39:68-74.
1988 Some Alternative Interpretations of Safety Harbor Burial Mounds.
Florida Scientist 51:100-107.
1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Arhaeology
in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M., and Jonathan M. Leader
1988 Early Sixteenth Century Beads from the Tatham Mound, Citrus County,
Florida: Data and Interpretations. The Florida Anthropologist41:42-60.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M., Marvin T. Smith, Albert C. Goodyear, and Robert R.
1985 Early Spanish Contact on the Florida Gulf Coast: The Weeki Wachee
and Ruth Smith Mounds. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: Essays in
Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks, edited by Kenneth W. Johnson,
Jonathan M. Leader, and Robert C. Wilson, pp. 179-219. Florida

1996 Vo. 49(4)



Journal of Anthropology Special Publication No. 4. Florida Anthropolo-
gy Student Association, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Moore, Clarence B.
1894a Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part I. Journal
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:5-128.
1894b Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part II. Journal
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:129-246.
1895 Certain Sand Mounds of the Ocklawaha River, Florida. Journal of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:517-543.
Moorehead, Warren King
1979 Exploration of the Etowah Site in Georgia. In Etowah Papers, edited
by Warren King Moorehead, pp. 1-6, 68-106, 151-178. Reprinted.
Charley G. Drake, Union City, Georgia. Originally published 1932,
Yale University Press, New Haven.
Muller, Jon
1989 The Southern Cult. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts
and Analysis, edited by Patricia Galloway, pp. 11-26. University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Phillips, Philip, and James A. Brown
1978 Pre-Columbian Shell Engravings from the Craig Mound at Spiro,
Oklahoma, Part 1. Paperback edition. Peabody Museum Press,
Rands, Robert L.
1957 Comparative Notes on the Hand-Eye and Related Motifs. American
Antiquity 22:247-257.
Rau, Charles
1878 Observations on a Gold Ornament from a Mound in Florida. Annual
Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1877:298-302. Washington,
Saucier, Roger T.
1974 Quaternary Geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Arkansas
Archeological Survey Research Series No. 6. Fayetteville.
Scarry, John F.
1985 A Proposed Revision of the Fort Walton Ceramic Typology: A Type-
Variety System. The Florida Anthropologist 38:199-233.
Schambach, Frank F.
1988 The Archaeology of Oklahoma. The Quarterly Review ofArchaeology
1993 Some New Interpretations of Spiroan Culture History. In Archaeology
of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited
by James B. Stoltman, pp. 187-230. Archaeological Report No. 25.
Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.
Sears, William H.
1967 The Tierra Verde Burial Mound. The Florida Anthropologist 20:25-73.
Shapiro, Gary
1986 Rivers as Centers, Rivers as Boundaries: Florida Variations on a
Mississippian Theme. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of
the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
Smith, Bruce D.
1978 Variation in Mississippian Settlement Patterns. In Mississippian
Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce D. Smith, pp. 479-503. Academic
Press, New York.
Soils de Meras, Gonzalo
1964 PedroMenindezdeAvilis, Adelantado, Governor and Captain-General
of Florida. Memorial. Translated by Jeannette Thurber Connor.
Reprinted. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Originally
published 1923, Florida State Historical Society, DeLand.
Stuiver, Minze, and Gordon W. Pearson
1993 High-Precision Bidecadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale,
AD 1950-500 BC and 2500-6000 BC. Radiocarbon 35:1-23.
Thomas, Cyrus
1985 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology.
Reprinted. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Originally
published 1894, Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
1890-91, pp. 3-742, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Thomas, Larissa
1995 Women in Mississippian Iconography. Abstract. SoutheasternArchaeo-
logical Conference Bulletin 38:39. Knoxville, Tennessee.

Thunen, Robert L., and Keith H. Ashley
1995 Mortuary Behavior Along the Lower St. Johns: An Overview. The
Florida Anthropologist 48:3-12.
Waring, Antonio J., Jr.
1977a Monolithic Axes. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works ofAnto-
nio J. Waring, Jr. (revised edition), edited by Stephen Williams, pp.
78-86. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
Vol. 58. Harvard University, Cambridge.
1977b The Southern Cult and Muskhogean Ceremonial. In The Waring Pa-
pers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr. (revised edition),
edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 30-69. Papers of the Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 58. Harvard University, Cam-
Waring, Antonio J., Jr., and Preston Holder
1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States.
American Anthropologist 47:1-34.
Warren, Lyman O., Francis Bushnell, and Gerard Spence
1965 Six Contributions to the Hand Motif from the Safety Harbor Burial
Mound on Cabbage Key, Pinellas County, Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 18:235-238.
Webb, William S., and Raymond S. Baby
1957 The Adena People No. 2. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.
Weisman, Brent
1986 The Cove of the Withlacoochee: A First Look at the Archaeology of an
Interior Florida Wetland. The Florida Anthropologist 39:4-23.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1989 The Relationship of Ceremonial Artifacts from South Florida with the
Southeastern Ceremonial Complex. In The Southeastern Ceremonial
Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by Patricia Galloway, pp. 166-
180. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Willey, Gordon R.
1948 A Prototype for the Southern Cult. American Antiquity 13:328-330.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections 113, Washington, D.C.
Williams, Stephen, and John M. Goggin
1956 The Long Nosed God Mask in Eastern United States. The Missouri
Archaeologist 18(3):1-72.
Williamson, ----- (No first name given)
1939 Excerpts from Florida 7Tmes Union and Citizen, Special Edition,
February 1898. P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History, University of
Florida, Gainesville.
Willoughby, Charles C.
1979 Notes on the History and Symbolism of the Muskhogeans and the
People of Etowah. In Etowah Papers, edited by Warren King Moore-
head, pp. 7-66. Reprinted. Charley G. Drake, Union City, Georgia.
Originally published 1932, Yale University Press, New Haven.





Six Thousand Years of fishing Tradition

The story begins where land meets sea. From
the Calusa Indians to modern fisherfolk, explore
our Gulf Coast fishing heritage.

A traveling exhibit from The Florida Museum of Natural History

Witness A Legend

SApalachicola National Estuarine
Research Reserve
Apalachicola, FL
September 10-October 3, 1996

Cedar Key State Museum
Cedar Key, FL
October 15-November 7, 1996

St. Petersburg Museum
of History
St. Petersburg, FL
November 19-December 12, 1996

Florida Adventure Museum
Punta Gorda, FL
December 23, 1996-February 28, 1997

Museum of the Islands
Pine Island, FL
March 11-April 3, 1997


Smallwood Store Museum
Chokoloskee, FL
April 15-May 9, 1997

Illustrations by Merald Clark

With the Calusa as the
inspiration,The Florida Museum of
Natural History proudly offers an
exhibit that travels through Florida's
exciting past.

For more information,
please contact the
Traveling Exhibits Office at


l5-' 2E Eyr.
T- R 33e9S-3



Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901
E-mail: hclagett@siu.edu

The number of archaeological investigations undertaken in the
interior region of Florida's Central Gulf Coast is much less than
in other areas of the state. The majority of work done in this
region is the result of cultural resource management surveys and
excavations, many involving the counsel and advice of Ray
Williams. During the 1980s and '90s, this region was interpret-
ed as the heartland of a variant to the archaeological culture
known as Safety Harbor (Deming and Williams 1994; Wharton
and Williams 1980; Willis and Johnson 1980). Moreover, it was
observed that sites identified as Safety Harbor appear to cluster
on the landscape (Deming and Williams 1994; Willis and
Johnson 1980). Williams believed the area to have been
inhabited by an extension of the Safety Harbor culture, based on
the presence of diagnostic ceramic types (Wharton and Williams
1980). In Jeffrey Mitchem's 1989 dissertation, the area was
described as a regional variant of Safety Harbor. Mitchem
asserted that the existing data were insufficient to truly define
this interior variant (Mitchem 1989).
An extensive literature review undertaken for the present study
has shown that the data are still insufficient for these purposes
(Clagett 1995). However, despite the lack of evidence necessary
to assign a specific cultural affiliation to sites located in the
interior Central Gulf Coast region, the existing database does
lend itself to testing the hypothesis that sites in the interior
Central Gulf Coast region dating from A.D. 800 to A.D. 1725
form settlement clusters on the landscape (Clagett 1995).
The current study seeks not to define the culture or cultures
manifest in the interior, but instead attempts to reveal and
quantify observable settlement patterns present in the region. In
order to provide a measure of temporal control, the sampling of
sites was limited to those that may have been occupied during
the Safety Harbor Period, A.D. 800-1725. This sample consists
of sites identified on Florida Site File forms and in cultural
resource management reports as being of the Safety Harbor
culture or period. These cultural-temporal assignments are based
on the presence of diagnostic artifacts at individual sites,
primarily ceramics, and occasionally radiocarbon dates. An
underlying assumption is that the sites included in this study
have been accurately identified with regard to their cultural-
temporal placement.
Within the framework of the current study, it is important to
note that archaeology undertaken anywhere must be built upon
prior investigation and interpretation. This study is an attempt
to build on a limited data set and interpretations provided in

earlier works. By quantifying these data and subjecting them to
a statistical test based on the relative distance between each site,
it may be possible to support an argument that a cultural
relationship exists between sites.
The results of this study demonstrate that sites dating from
A.D. 800 to A.D. 1725 in the interior Central Gulf Coast
region do form settlement clusters and that these clusters are
associated with specific microenvironments. Once again,
questions concerning cultural affiliation still exist and cannot be
addressed through the current data base. However, at the very
least, if cultural interpretations for the sites in the sample are
correct, characteristics of both the Safety Harbor and Glades
cultures appear at sites in this region.

The Model

To test Deming and Williams's (1994) hypothesis of settlement
clustering, an occupational nexus model developed by Jerald
Milanich (1978) was employed. The occupational nexus model
was developed utilizing five types of Cades Pond archaeological
sites. These are: 1) mound with semicircular earthwork and
adjacent village; 2) mound with adjacent village located within
.5 km; 3) mound with associated village within .5 to 1.5 km; 4)
specialized site with dense but localized midden accumulations
not indicative of the full range of site activities; and 5) camp
sites represented by a diffuse midden (Milanich 1978:166).
Milanich (1978) noted that the geographical locations of Cades
Pond sites appear to lie in clusters or groups, each of which
contain one or more Type 2 or 3 sites. The earlier clusters also
contain at least one Type 1 site, and Type 5 sites occur in all
clusters. It was suggested that nearest-neighbor analysis could
be used to quantify these clusters (Milanich 1978:167).
The pattern formed by these clusters is one of related or
connected sites occupying a restricted geographic locale, which
is relevant to both the social and natural environments (Milanich
1978:167). For example, villages always bordered lakes, ponds,
swamps, or marshes, allowing for maximum accessibility to
aquatic flora and fauna. This pattern is almost identical to that
which exists in the interior Central Gulf Coast region (Clagett
1995:2). Milanich's model resulted in the definition of six
Cades Pond occupational nexuses, each of which he believed
functioned as separate political units, but which were bound
together by social organization, shared beliefs, and economic
ties (Milanich 1978:170). Milanich believed the nexus model




VOL. 49 No. 4


Figure 1. Locational map of the study area.

could be tested quantitatively for the Cades Pond region and
applied to other areas of the state, such as the Lake Okeechobee
Basin between ca. 500 B.C. and A.D. 1000 or later.

The Study Area

The definition of the study area is derived from Mitchem's
(1989) description of the Interior Variant of Safety Harbor.
Mitchem originally described the inland area as consisting of
Polk and Hardee counties, the eastern half of DeSoto County,
and possibly portions of Highlands County. As shown in Figure
1, the study area for the current research includes all of Polk,
Hardee, and DeSoto counties. A small section of eastern

Manatee County also was included because the sites in this area
resemble sites in the interior more closely than contemporane-
ous sites on the coast (Clagett 1995:27-29). Highlands County
was not included as it was determined that the sites in this
county are related to the Belle Glade culture, as opposed to
Safety Harbor (Austin 1996).
A number of microenvironments exist within this broad study
area. These are presented in Table 1. Each of the generalized
microenvironments lie within all four counties which comprise
the study area. Inhabitants of this interior region would have
had access to diverse resources contained within all of these
microenvironments. Upland areas would have provided deer,
raccoon, rabbit, opossum, skunk, bobcat, foxes, and rodents.

0 150 300




19 VOL. 49(4)


Table 1. Microenvironments and resources within the study area
(United States Department of Agriculture 1983a, 1983b, 1984,

Microenvironment Floral, Faunal, and Potable Water

Uplands Turkey oak, live oak, longleaf pine,
slash pine, saw palmetto, prickly pear,
White-tailed deer, squirrel, turkey, bob-
white quail, raccoon, rabbit, opossum,
skunk, bobcat, gray and red foxes.
Flatwoods Slash pine, longleafpine, water oak, saw
palmetto, wax myrtle, bay, cypress,
maple and gum, with sawgrass and fern
as ground cover.
Same faunal inhabitants as in the uplands
with the addition of wading birds in low
Potable water available from small
streams passing through these areas.
Freshwater Marsh/River Water oak, cypress, cabbage palm, sweet
gum, hickory, red maple, sawgrass,
sedges and other water-tolerant plants.
Waterfowl such as cranes, herons, and
ducks, reptiles, amphibians, otter.
Potable water year round.
Cypress Swamp Sweet bay, sweet gum, cypress, various
pines, hickory, water oak, magnolia,
cedar, an understory of cattail, royal and
cinnamon fern, and a variety of aquatic
Numerous species of waterfowl, wood-
pecker, otter, alligator and other reptiles,
Potable water year round.

Wild herbaceous plants, grasses, legumes, and hardwood trees
yielding nuts, fruit, buds, bark, and foliage provided floral
resources. Rivers, swamps, and wetland areas provided a wealth
of wading birds, reptiles, otter, and freshwater fishes, as well
as sedges, rushes, and reeds. It is important to note that the
majority of sites in the sample are located along the conver-
gences of at least two different microenvironments. Surely these
locations were intentional.
Chert outcrops within the study area are relatively rare, as
most deposits are deeply buried. However, lithic resources were
available at Peace River, Hillsborough River, and Withla-
coochee River outcrops. Peace River chert does not appear to
have been utilized much outside the Peace River Valley. This
phenomenon is likely a result of the poor flaking ability of this
chert (Upchurch et al. 1982). Peace River chert often contains
large earthy inclusions and has a high opal content which makes
it brittle (Robert Austin, personal communication, 1996).

The Research Design

The data set of 28 sites was compiled from the extant litera-
ture as well as the Florida Site File. Before sites could be

included in the data set, two specific criteria had to be met: 1)
sites must be located in either Hardee, Polk, DeSoto, or eastern
Manatee counties; and 2) sites must exhibit an occupation which
dates somewhere between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1725. These
dates represent the time span for the late prehistoric and
protohistoric periods in the cultural chronology for the Central
Gulf Coast region as defined by Willey (1949) and correspond
to the Safety Harbor culture period as defined by Mitchem
(1989). Each recorded site within the study area which has been
assigned to this time period was included in the sample to
increase statistical confidence. Many of the sites also contain
evidence for earlier occupation and thus may have earlier
inception dates. Table 2 provides an inventory of each site in
the data set (see also Clagett 1995).
The majority of sites in the data set were surveyed and
excavated as a result of cultural resource management projects.
The AMAX Chemical Corporation Pine Level Mine project,
phases one and two, and the CF Industries Property project,
phases one and two, accounted for the excavation of many of
the sites in the data set. A large number of sites dating from the
Paleoindian through Weeden Island periods lie within the study
atea. Because these sites do not exhibit occupations between
A.D. 800-1725, they were not included in the data set and thus
do not appear on the map of the study area. Further, a number
of sites dating to this period have been recorded since the
conclusion of this research. This study is meant only as a
preliminary investigation into the region during the chosen time
period. There is no magic number of discovered sites which
guarantee an accurate occupational history for a study area
(Schiffer 1987:341). Thus, archaeologists are limited, yet
obligated to working with the data at hand.
Although not as intensively surveyed as the coast, large
expanses of land within the study area boundaries, i.e., the
corporate properties mentioned previously, have been subjected
to pedestrian survey, subsurface testing, and excavation. It is
believed that a sufficient percentage of land has been investigat-
ed to mitigate any biases related to area and sample size which
may impact this study (Clagett 1995:37).
UTM coordinates for each site were entered into the Geo-
graphic Information System, MapInfo. Maps of the study area
were produced depicting the locations of all 28 sites. Based on
the requirement of a square study area for use of the nearest-
neighbor statistic, two equilateral quadrats measuring 4900 km2
were defined (Figure 2). The use of a square increases statistical
confidence by assuring more accurate coverage of the study area
(Clark and Evans 1954). The northern quadrat consists of seven
sites lying within Polk County. These sites include: the Lake
Marion I site (8P02), a sand burial mound; the Frostproof
Mound (8P07), also a sand burial mound; the Singletary site
(8P013), a sand burial site; the Nalcrest site (8P015), a short-
term campsite; the Raulerson Mound (8P0123), a sand mound;
the Philip Mound (8PO446), a ramped sand mound; and the
Haines City River site (8P01036), a midden.
The southern quadrat consists of 21 sites in Hardee, DeSoto,
and Manatee counties. Site types represented within this quadrat
include: eight domiciliary mounds, five sand burial mounds, one
temple mound, one site with erected earthworks, two village




Table 2. Archaeological sites included in the data set.

Site Name

Northern Quadrat

Raulerson Mound
Haines City River
Frostproof Mound
Phillip Mound

Lake Marion I

Southern Quadrat

Bostwick Mound

Airstrip Village 4a

Airstrip Village 4b

Mizell Mound "A"

Mizell Mound "B"

Mizell Mound "C"

Cunningham Mound

Keen Mound Complex

Sugarbowl Mound
Brandy Branch Village

No Name
Carlton Ranch No. 1

Cowboy Mound

Ona Road Mound

Breton Mound

Little Mound

Welch Mound

Davis Mound
Pine Level
Pine Level 2

Site Number Date Site Type Reference



















500 B.C.-A.D. 1500
500 B.C.-A.D. 1500
A.D. 500-1567
A.D. 800-1600

A.D. 900-1725
A.D. 1500-1567
A.D. 1500-1567

5000 B.C.-A.D.1600

5000 B.C.-A.D. 1500

5000 B.C.-A.D. 1500

1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500

1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500

1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500

1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500

1000 B.C.-A.D. 1600

1000 B.C.-A.D. 1500
500 B.C.-A.D. 1500
100 B.C.-A.D. 1500

100 B.C.-A.D. 1700
A.D. 200-1500

A.D. 800-1500

A.D. 800-1500

A.D. 800-1500

A.D. 800-1600

A.D. 900-1500

A.D. 1400
A.D. 1450-1700
A.D. 1500

sand mound
sand burial mound
sand mound with ramp

sand burial mound
sand burial site

temple mound with
associated village


sand domiciliary mound

sand domiciliary mound

linear sand domiciliary
sand burial/domiciliary
mound complex and
linear sand mound

2 sand burial mounds
mound and midden

sand domiciliary mound

sand domiciliary mound

sand domiciliary mound

sand domiciliary mound

sand domiciliary mound

sand burial mound
sand burial mound
sand burial mound

Mitchem 1989:140
Florida Site File
Goggin 1948:7-8; Mitchem 1989:139
Benson 1967; Karklins 1974; Mitchem
Bullen and Beilman 1973; Mitchem 1989:140
Allerton et al. 1984; Mitchem 1989:138
Mitchem 1989:137

Cordell 1992; Wharton and Williams
Piper and Piper 1981; Willis and Johnson
1980, 1985; Willis and Milanich 1977
Piper and Piper 1981; Willis and Johnson
1980, 1985; Willis and Milanich 1977
Piper and Piper 1981; Willis and Johnson
1980, 1985
Mitchem 1989:211; Piper and Piper 1981;
Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985
Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985

Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985

Janus Research/Piper Archaeology 1994

Willis and Johnson 1985
Wharton 1977
Piper and Piper 1981; Willis and Johnson
1980, 1985
Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985
Milanich and Martinez 1975; Piper et al.
Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and
Williams 1976
Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and
Williams 1976
Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and
Williams 1976
Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and
Williams 1976
Deming and Williams 1994; Wood and
Williams 1976
Bullen 1954
Willis and Johnson 1980, 1985
Florida Site File


1996 VOL. 49(4)

Site Types Located in Study Area
* Domiciliary Mounds
* Sand Burial Mounds
* Temple Mounds
A Village Sites
0 Sites with Earthworks
' Linear Sand Mounds
* Campsite
X Sand Burial Site
m Midden

Figure 2. Map depicting the locations and types of sites within the study area. The large squares
represent quadrats subjected to nearest-neighbor analysis.

sites, two linear sand mounds, and one short-term campsite
(Clagett 1995).
Euclidean distances from each site to its nearest neighbor were
obtained employing MapInfo tools. Utilizing the nearest-
neighbor method, the distances obtained via MapInfo were
subjected to nearest-neighbor analysis which is defined below.
Only one tie to a nearest neighbor was severed between
quadrats: 8PO13 in the northern quadrat and 8HR11 in the
southern quadrat. The site distributions in both quadrats were
used to test the null hypothesis that site locations are randomly
distributed across the landscape.

The Nearest-Neighbor Statistic

The nearest-neighbor statistic measures only the amount of
departure from randomness. The technique was developed by
ecologists to describe the distributions exhibited by populations
of organisms in their natural environments, which occur in an
infinite variety of patterns (Clark and Evans 1954:445). Use of
the statistic gained widespread attention in ecology and gradual-
ly its usage spread to other disciplines. In archaeology, nearest-
neighbor analysis has been applied to describe site distributions
(Plog 1974; Washburn 1974; Zubrow 1971), as a means of




THE FLORIDA ANrmioPoLoGIsr 1996 VoL 49(4)

quantifying artifact distributions on living floors (Whallon
1974), and as a means of evaluating burial patterns within an
archaeological site (Pinder et al. 1979; Stickel 1968). Upham
(1982) used the technique in a study of regional organization of
fourteenth-century western pueblo societies.
The procedure for nearest-neighbor analysis consists of obtain-
ing the distance, irrespective of direction, from each individual
to its nearest neighbor. The mean distance to nearest neighbors
which would be expected in a random distribution is then
calculated. The resulting ratio of observed mean distance to
expected mean distance equals the measure of departure from
randomness, the Rn statistic (Clark and Evans 1954:447). The
Rn statistic will fall within a range of values from 0 to 2.1491.
In a completely random distribution, R = 1. Ideally, values
between 1 and 0 indicate a clustered distribution, and values
ranging from 1 to 2.1491 denote a uniform distribution.


The computed Rn value for the northern quadrat of 1.08 falls
within the range of random matching. The range of random
matching is that range which hovers around 1.0 and decreases
inversely with sample size. An Rn value which falls within this
range cannot be interpreted as indicating significant clustering
or regularity because, if large numbers of truly random distribu-
tions were analyzed, 90% of their Rn values would lie within
this range. Thus, an Rn value of 1.08 for a sample size of seven
would seem to indicate a random distribution (Figure 3).
However, it is important to consider the fact that any random
location pattern is the product of a complex interaction of a
variety of forces. The combination of these forces has arranged
the points (sites) in such a way as to match those on a randomly
generated map. To assume that the locations of these sites are
entirely random is to reject the idea that there are more subtle
explanations (Pinder et al. 1979).
All but one of the seven sites are located within close proximi-
ty to water. Further, all of these sites typically lie at the
intersection of at least two of the previously defined micro-
environments. These locations would have provided access to a
wide variety of both terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.
Although the same types of microenvironments are present in
both quadrats, it is possible that the natural environment in the
northern quadrat is sufficiently different from the southern
quadrat so as to affect the results of the nearest-neighbor
The Rn value for the southern quadrat differed considerably
from that of the northern quadrat. The Rn value of .4 for the
southern quadrat indicates a high degree of clustering and is
significant at the 99.5% confidence interval. As with sites in the
northern quadrat, sites in the southern quadrat are all located in
close proximity to a water source and straddle the intersections
of at least two different microenvironments. However, environ-
ment and resource availability are not the only forces that
influence site location. Any number of social, symbolic, and
economic factors may contribute to where people choose to
camp and/or live.
The difference in sample sizes between the two quadrats may

1 reg iarit


S1.23 ---

t Range
S10- random
S 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8 90 match
0 9- Number of points __

z Increasingly significant

0.4 -- --

0.3- --- -- -- -

Figure 3. Significance graph for testing Rn values (from
Pinder et al. 1979:439).

account for some of the differences between Rn values. Since
clustering appeared to be present in the southern quadrat, some
measure of clustering also was expected for the northern
quadrat. The fact that such clustering was not revealed by the
nearest-neighbor analysis may be due to the small number of
sites contained in the northern quadrat. Undoubtedly, as more
sites are discovered and recorded in this interior region,
distance between sites will change, prompting a shift in Rn
values. It is important to remember that nearest-neighbor
analysis represents an initial step from which cautious interpre-
tations can be made (Pinder et al. 1979).


The results of this study indicate that significant site clustering
is present in at least the southern half of the region during the
time frame A.D. 800 to A.D. 1725. One or more settlement
systems, influenced in part by access to specific resources, were
at work. As evidenced by the ceramic assemblages recorded for
these sites, the area was utilized extensively by people whose
cultural remains indicate influences from the Safety Harbor
culture and possibly the Glades culture. Long-term occupation


1996 VOL. 49(4)


is evidenced by the fact that most sites in the sample also
contain components dating back to the preceramic Archaic (see
Table 2). Occupation intensity also is evidenced by the sites
themselves. Temple mounds and earthwork construction are
indicative of more than just short-term site usage.
It is possible that some of the domiciliary mounds were
constructed for seasonal use, as they usually occur in areas
where seasonal flooding is common. Burial mound location does
not seem to subscribe to any detectable pattern. These mounds
are located in association with site clusters as well as at some
distance from any one site cluster. However, as more sites are
discovered in this region, a detectable pattern may emerge. It
may be the case that specific kin groups utilized certain burial
All of the sites in the data set are located in close proximity
to water and are situated at the intersection of at least two
different ecological zones, or microenvironments. Thus, site
locations allowed for the exploitation of a broad range of
terrestrial as well as aquatic flora and fauna. Potential year-
round availability of these resources and evidence of long-term
occupation indicate that people may have occupied the region
throughout the year. That is not to say that people were com-
pletely sedentary within this interior region. On the contrary, it
is more likely that while some structures were permanent, many
people moved around the landscape in response to any number
of social, ideological, economic, and/or resource procurement
needs. This movement about the landscape could be another
contributing factor to the presence of Glades ceramics at sites
included in the sample.

Culture Area Boundaries

There has long been an attempt in Florida archaeology to draw
boundary lines marking the geographic extent of particular
prehistoric cultures. Most often, ceramic type frequencies have
been utilized to demarcate these cultural boundaries. It is
obvious, by examining the site distribution in the interior, that
the drawing of such lines is not possible. Although the majority
of the sites within the sample were defined as Safety Harbor by
the archaeologists who recorded them, at least nine sites in the
sample are possibly affiliated with other cultures. There is
ceramic evidence for influence from surrounding regions within
the artifact assemblages of all sites in the sample (Clagett 1995).
It is difficult to determine whether the presence of specific
ceramic types indicates occupation, interaction, or trade.
Milanich (1994; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980) has suggested
that small amounts of non-local ceramics in burial or other
ceremonial contexts are more likely to indicate trade. Problems
in addressing this in the present study include the size and
limitations of the data base. A larger sample is necessary in
order to more clearly define aboriginal settlement and cultural
affiliation in this area.
Moreover, it is clear that the second phase of the occupational
nexus model is not applicable at present. In the Cades Pond
region, Milanich was able to make statements about specific
clusters because each site within each cluster represented the
same culture. This may or may not be the case in the interior

region of the Central Gulf Coast. However, the fact that
significant clustering of sites that are roughly contemporaneous
with one another was revealed in the southern quadrat suggests
that some similarities to the Cades Pond region may exist.
These clusters of sites may have been bound together by social
and economic ties while at the same time functioning as separate
political units. Further research is necessary to test this hy-


The purpose of this study was to test a hypothesis regarding
the nonrandom distribution of late prehistoric and protohistoric
archaeological sites in the interior Central Gulf Coast region
through the application of nearest-neighbor analysis. The
research hypothesis was confirmed for the southern study
quadrat where significant clustering was demonstrated; howev-
er, the null hypothesis of random site distribution could not be
rejected for the northern quadrat. The small number of sites
included in this quadrat is suspected to be a factor in the
inability of the nearest-neighbor analysis to identify site clusters
there. Another may be the presence of sites from two adjacent
culture areas.
From what is known thus far, no grand cultural scheme can
be constructed for the interior region of the Central Gulf Coast.
What is apparent is that the sites in this region form clusters on
the landscape and can be linked to specific microenvironments.
The data and the results of this study do support Ray Williams's
basic hypothesis: People were not venturing into the area
sporadically for specific goods. They were inhabiting the area,
utilizing its rich resources, constructing temple mounds and
other earthworks, and burying their dead.
The results have not ruled out the possibility that Safety
Harbor peoples were the primary inhabitants of this region.
Therefore, it may be possible that this interior region is a
variant of Safety Harbor as originally proposed by Wharton and
Williams (1980) and reinforced by Mitchem (1989). It has been
suggested that the presence of Glade ceramics at some sites is
the result of social, political, or economic interaction with this
nearby culture area rather than occupation by Glade peoples. It
is unrealistic to believe that inhabitants of this region did not
share economic and perhaps social and symbolic links with their
neighbors. However, the cultural affiliations of the sites in this
region, and the degree to which their inhabitants interacted with
other culture areas, can only be confirmed or refuted by further
There may exist unrecorded burial and temple mounds in the
region, as well as a host of village and camp sites, the addition
of which will undoubtedly alter the results presented here. It is
hoped that this study will ignite a resurgence in the use of
settlement pattern studies in Florida archaeology, as well as new
methods for addressing questions about the past.


Sincere gratitude is extended to the spirit of J. Raymond Williams, without
whose guidance and patience this research could not have evolved. Thanks also



THE FLORIDA AwrrntoPOwGxsr 1~6 VOL. 4~(4)

go out to Bob Austin and anonymous reviewers for needed constructive
criticism. A special thank you is extended to Richard Meadows for his tireless
editing, constructive comments, and heartfelt support.

References Cited

Allerton, D., George M. Luer, and Robert S. Carr
1984 Ceremonial Tablets and Related Objects from Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 37:5-54.
Austin, Robert J.
1996 Ceramic Seriation, Radiocarbon Dates, and Subsistence Data from the
Kissimmee River Valley: Archaeological Evidence for Belle Glade
Occupation. The Florida Anthropologist 49:65-87.
Benson, Carl A.
1967 The Philip Mound: A Historic Site. The Florida Anthropologist 20:118-
Bullen, Ripley P.
1954 The Davis Mound, Hardee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
Bullen, Ripley P., and Lawrence E. Beilman
1973 The Nalcrest Site, Lake Weohyakapka, Florida. The Florida Anthropol-
ogist 26:1-22.
Clagett, Heather
1995 New Interpretations on Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Occupation
in the Interior ofFlorida's Central Gulf Coast. M.A. thesis, Department
of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Clark, P.J., and F.C. Evans
1954 Distance to Nearest Neighbor as a Measure of Spatial Relationships in
Populations. Ecology 45:445-452.
Cordell, Ann
1992 Technological Investigation of Pottery Variability in Southwest Florida.
In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by
William H. Marquardt, pp. 105-189. Institute of Archaeology and
Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Deming, Joan, and J. Raymond Williams
1994 Phase II Test Excavations at Six Prehistoric Archaeological Sites
Located on the CF Industries Property, Hardee County, Florida.
Reported submitted to C.F. Industries by Archaeological Consultants
Inc., Sarasota.
Goggin, John M.
1948 Some Pottery Types from Central Florida. Bulletin No. 1, Gainesville
Anthropological Association, Gainesville.
Janus Research/Piper Archaeology
1994 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for Goose Pond Road (County
Road 663A) Bridge Replacement over Horse Creek, Hardee County,
Florida. Report prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation,
District 1 by Janus Research, St. Petersburg.
Karklins, Karlis
1974 Additional Notes on the Philip Mound, Polk County, Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 35:34-58.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1978 Two Cades Pond Sites in North-central Florida: The Occupational
Nexus as a Model of Settlement. The Florida Anthropologist
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida,
Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks
1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Milanich, Jerald T., and Carlos A. Martinez
1975 Archaeological and HistoricalResources ofthe Carlton Ranch Property,
Hardee County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 1,
Department of Social Sciences, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric Archaeology
in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida,

Gainesville. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Pinder, D.A., I. Shimada, and D. Gregory
1979 The Nearest-Neighbor Statistic: Archaeological Application and New
Developments. American Antiquity 44:430-445.
Piper, Harry M., and Jacquelyn G. Piper
1981 Archaeological Testing and Evaluation of Seven Sites Located on AMAX
Properties, Manatee and DeSoto Counties, Florida. Report prepared for
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. by Piper Archaeological
Research, St. Petersburg.
Piper, Harry M., Kenneth W. Hardin, and Jacquelyn G. Piper
1982 Limited Excavations at 8Hr5, An Archaeological Site Located on
Mississippi Chemical Corporation Property in Hardee County, Florida.
Report prepared for the Mississippi Chemical Corporation by Piper
Archaeological Research, Inc., St. Petersburg.
Plog, Frederick
1974 Settlement Patterns and Social History. In Frontiers in Anthropology,
edited by M.J. Leaf, pp. 68-91. Van Nostrand, New York.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Stickel, E.G.
1968 Status Differentiation at the Rincon Site. In University of Calrfornia
Archaeological Survey, Annual Report, 1968, pp. 209-261.
United States Department of Agriculture
1983a Soil Survey of Manatee County, Florida. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C.
1983b Soil Survey of Polk County, Florida. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C.
1984 Soil Survey of Hardee County, Florida. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C.
1989 Soil Survey of DeSoto County, Florida. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington D.C.
Upchurch, Sam B., Richard N. Strom, and Mark G. Nuckels
1982 Methods of Provenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Report on
file, Department of Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Upham, S.
1982 Polities and Power. Academic Press, New York.
Washburn, D.K.
1974 Nearest Neighbor Analysis of Pueblo I-II Settlement Patterns Along the
Rio Puerco of the East, New Mexico. American Antiquity 39:315-335.
Whallon, Robert
1974 Spatial Analysis of Occupation Floors II: the Application of Nearest
Neighbor Analysis. American Antiquity 39:16-34.
Wharton, Barry R.
1977 Salvage Investigations at the Orchard Fenceline Site, 8Hrll, Hardee
County, Florida. University of South Florida, Department of Anthropol-
ogy, Archaeological Report No. 5, Tampa.
Wharton, Barry R., and J. Raymond Williams
1980 An Appraisal of Hardee County Archaeology: Hinterland orHeardand?
Florida Scientist 43:215-220.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Col-
lections 113. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Willis, Raymond F., and Robert E. Johnson
1980 AMAXPine Level Survey: An Archaeological and Historical Survey of
Properties in Manatee and DeSoto Counties, Florida. Report submitted
to Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. by the Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
1985 Draft Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IV-Supplemental Information Document Section 11.
Archaeological/Historical Resources. Submitted to AMAX Chemical
Corporation by Environmental Service and Engineering, Inc., Gaines-
Willis, Raymond F., and Jerald T. Milanich
1977 Archaeological and Historical Resources of the Farmland Industries,
Inc. Properties, Hardee County, Florida. Florida Division of Archives,
History, and Records Management, Bureau of Archaeological Research,
Miscellaneous Project Report Series 10, Tallahassee.


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Wood, Lewis N., and J. Raymond Williams
1976 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the CF Mining Corporation
Property in Northwestern Hardee County, Florida. Report submitted to
the CF Mining Corporation by the Department of Anthropology,
University of South Florida, Tampa.
Zubrow, Ezra
1971 Carrying Capacity and Dynamic Equilibrium in the Prehistoric
Southwest. American Antiquity 36:127-138.

S. .. yes, but what was the

The exact, full wording of that reference is as close
as your phone:

Back issues of The F1ondra AnthiApoloSst -- going
back close to a half century are available at the

Graves Museum of Archaeology
and Natural History

481 South Federal Highway
Dania, FL 33004

Phone (305)925-7770
FAX (305)925-7064

Sole agents for back issues of The Florida Anthropologist



Desert Research Institute, P.O. Box 19040, Las Vegas, Nevada 89132
E-mail: billj@snsc.dri.edu

Florida's Belle Glade archaeological culture occupied the Lake
Okeechobee and Kissimmee River regions from as early as 1000
B.C. to sometime in the 1700s. Large, impressive earthworks
are Belle Glade hallmarks. William Sears's (1971, 1974, 1982)
archaeological investigations at Fort Center (Figure 1) serve as
the most comprehensive research of a Belle Glade earthwork
site. He documented a complex of mounds, ditches, borrows,
and embankments that form the basic elements of all Belle
Glade earthworks. Generally speaking, these earthwork ele-
ments occur in combination forming a sort of earthwork
architecture, but sometimes an element is found in isolation.
The various forms and combinations have been grouped by Carr
(1985) into three types: circular earthworks, circular-linear
earthworks, and linear ridges. Three additional types, square-
rectangular earthworks, borrows, and mound groups, are added
here. In addition, I have modified Carr's (1985) terminology by
referring to "circular earthworks" as "circular ditches" and by
replacing the term "embankment" with "ridge." I also recognize
two types of circular-linear earthworks, types A and B. Five of
the seven types discussed in this paper can be temporally
ordered based on chronological information from Fort Center
and other Belle Glade sites. An examination of the elements that
make up the various Belle Glade earthworks provides a back-
drop for discussing earthwork types.

Elements of Belle Glade Earthworks


Mounds are certainly ubiquitous features in the Belle Glade
culture area. They are found singly, in groups, and in combina-
tion with other elements. Mounds have been identified as
habitation sites, burial sites, and architectural elements.
Habitation loci are easily identified because their content
consists almost entirely of accumulated midden materials. Burial
mounds and architectural elements, on the other hand, are
intentional earthen constructions that can prove difficult for
archaeologists to identify. For instance, Carr (1973:14) identi-
fied a sand mound in Martin County, 8MT29, as a likely burial
mound. Subsequent excavations by Williams (1975:35) revealed
only a single sherd associated with the mound; he concluded it
was not utilized for burial purposes. However, burial mounds
are known from Willey's (1949) research at the Belle Glade
type site (8PB40) and Big Mound City (8PB48), Sears's (1982)
excavations at Fort Center (8GL13), and Williams's (1975)
fieldwork at Barley Barber II (8MT28), as well as other sites

listed in the Florida Site File. The mounds vary in content, size,
and shape. Associated materials range from mostly pottery (at
Barley Barber II) to an incredible array of artifacts including
nested shells, shell dippers, concentrations of scattered human
teeth, projectile points, trade ceramic wares and, in later
mounds (such as Fort Center's Mound B), objects made from
gold, silver, copper, and brass.
Mounds that are considered to be architectural elements
include the crescent-shaped mound and mound/pond at the
Circle Canal site (8GL33; also called the Caloosahatchee
Circle), and the small sand mound located inside the "Great
Circle" at Fort Center (Carr 1985:299). The crescent-shaped
mound at the Circle Canal site is probably the most obvious of
these architectural elements (Figure 2a). Its shape, coupled with
its presence within a circular ditch, suggests that this feature
was purposely fashioned as part of the overall site rather than
as a haphazard addition.


Ditches are obvious features on aerial photographs. Some are
associated with a berm on one or both sides; others have no
discernible berm. They have been typed by form as circular
(Figure 2) and square-rectangular (Figure 3). Most of the
circular ditches have small unexcavated sections that Sears
(1982:175) refers to as "causeways." He postulates that they
functioned as access points across the ditches to their interiors
(Sears 1982:186). One such causeway is visible at the Circle
Canal (Figure 2a). The West Okeechobee Circle, 8GL57, may
have modified causeways attached to long, linear embankments
(Figure 2b). However, the North Fisheating Creek Circle,
8GL75, appears to lack causeways (Figure 2c).
Johnson (1994) identified one square and two rectangular
ditches on the east side of the Kissimmee River in Okeechobee
County (80B28-30). Each displays ditch-and-berm construction
with unexcavated segments, or causeways, similar to the
circular ditches described above. The rectangular ditches have
linear embankments leading to their centers (Figure 3a-b). The
square one (Figure 3c) is near a mound that contained only
Belle Glade Plain sherds. If the mound is coeval with the square
ditch, then this type of earthwork was developed after circular
A third type of ditch has been recognized in south Florida by
function. These are canals and they were documented as early
as the nineteenth century (Kenworthy 1883). A summation of
these features is provided by Luer (1989). His work reveals that


VOL. 49 NO. 4



11. .

M ound u 500

1500 1000 500 -. -

Figure 1. Diagram (from Sears 1982:Figure 1.1) and aerial photograph (CJF-12-42, 4-23-40) of Fort Center


I.R ; I"

1isa? "

Figure 2. Examples of Belle Glade circular ditches: a) Circle Canal (8GL33), BUO-3D-152, 3-8-49; b) West Okeechobee Circle
(8GL57), BUO-2T-109, 3-2-57; c) North Fisheating Creek Circle (8GL75), BUO-2T-150, 3-2-57.


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Figure 3. Square-rectangular earthworks located along the Kissimmee River: a) Ft. Kissimmee Earthwork (80B28), CYW-4H-
178, 1-26-53; b) Fulford Earthworks (80B29), CYW-3C-23, 2-27-44; c) Clemens Square (80B30), CYW-5C-7, 4-13-44.

canals vary in length and depth, but all appear to have func-
tioned for facilitating canoe travel (Luer 1989:126). Wheeler
(1995:278) concurs with this interpretation based on his analysis
of the canals at Ortona. s


Borrows are not well documented in the Belle Glade culture _
area. Two types are recognized: geometric-shaped (Figure 4)
and effigy (Figure 5). Many of the geometric-shaped borrows
are circular such as the round feature at 8GL50, the Lakeport
Circle Ditch (Figure 4, top). These round borrows are found in
association with at least three other sites: Fort Center, Daugher-
ty (8HG3), and the Maple Mound (8HN5). In addition, Carr
(1985:300) notes their presence in conjunction with two circle
ditches near Fisheating Creek (8GL12 and 8GL38). Although it 'd
is not possible to verify one at South Lake Mounds (8HN33)
because modem land-use practices have obliterated most of the
site, a round borrow appears on the 1957 aerial photograph
(Figure 4, bottom). At this same site, a crescent-shaped feature
also is evident. At Fort Center, Sears (1982:131,133) document-
ed crescent-shaped borrows around Mounds 1 and 2. Their
shapes are recognizable on aerial photographs of Tony's Mound
(8HN3), but whether they are borrows or embankments is not
Two effigy borrows have been documented in the region: the
Pestle Earthwork (Figure 5, top) and the Oxer Borrow (Figure
5, bottom). Available data preclude dating either. Buchner's
(1992) research at the Oxer Borrow has found no cultural
materials to date; however, morphological characteristics
suggest Belle Glade origins.

Figure 4. Geometric-shaped borrows in association with
Embankments are one of the most common types of Belle earthwork sites: top) Lakeport Circle Ditch (8GL50), BUO-
Glade earthworks. Most are linear, but curved embankments are 1D-73, 1-2-49; bottom) South Lake Mounds (8HN33), BUO-
common as well. They rarely occur in isolation. Most often 2T-65, 3-2-57.




Figure 5. Effigy-shaped borrows: top) Pestle Earthwork
(8GL43), BUO-1T-195, 3-2-57; bottom) Oxer Borrow
(8GL79), BUO-1D-41, 12-5-48.

they connect the other elements into their various architectural
forms (Figure 6). Linear embankments usually terminate in
mounds. Carr (1975:15) indicates that the Lakeport Earthworks
(8GL26) consist of two parallel linear embankments extending
from a sand mound (Figure 6a). These meet a curved embank-
ment that forms a "nearly perfect half circle" which surrounds
a habitation mound (Carr 1975:15-18). At Tony's Mound, Allen
(1948) documented nine linear embankments attached to a
curved embankment. All appear to have mounds at their
terminal ends (Figure 6b). At the Lonesome Island Group
(Figure 6c), a pair of parallel linear embankments lead to a
mound (8HG634).
Linear embankments that do not terminate in mounds include
the Highlands Linear Ridge (8HG13), Highlands Parallel Ridges
(8HG636), and the Whitehurst Mound (80B32). No artifacts
were found at any of these sites. I have suggested a riverine
function for these embankments for they seem to be associated
with the Kissimmee River (Johnson 1991:102).
Curved embankments are not known to occur in isolation.
They form enclosures around other mounds, such as is found at
the Ortona site (8GL4) where a curved embankment forms an
enclosure for the largest mound (Carr et al. 1995:235). They
also serve to connect linear embankments, such as those
described above.
Sears (1982:200) believes that the linear embankments at Fort
Center served as planting surfaces for maize crops. However,
Johnson and Collins (1993) have argued that the soils at this site
are too poor for annual production of maize. If viewed as
architectural elements, linear and curved embankments are
connectors much like hallways serve to connect rooms.

Definitions of Earthwork Types

Seven earthwork types are recognized in this study: circular
ditches, circular-linear earthworks (types A and B), linear
embankments, square-rectangular earthworks, borrows, and
mound groups. Each type is defined on the basis of the elements
discussed above.

Figure 6. Examples of linear and curved embankments: a) Lakeport Earthworks (8GL26), BUO-2T-150, 3-2-57; b) Tony's
Mound (8HN3), BUN-5D-133, 2-23-49; c) Lonesome Island (8HG634), CYW-3C-95, 2-27-44.


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Circular Ditches


This type of earthwork is composed of a ditch in a circular
shape. It is usually accompanied by at least one mound located
in its interior. Circular ditches vary in size, shape, and associat-
ed elements (Figure 7). The smallest is 61 m in diameter and
the largest is 366 m in diameter (Carr 1985:289). Their shape
is almost a complete circle. Exceptions include the two small
overlapping circles within the "Great Circle" at Fort Center.
Associated elements vary widely. Some, such as Fort Center's
"Great Circle" (Figure 7a) and the nearby Lakeport Circle
(Figure 7b), have circular borrows associated with the outside
rims of the circles. These elements appear to be additions. Only
one, the West Okeechobee Circle, has linear features attached
directly to it (Figure 7c). It may be a form that is transitional
between the circular ditches and the circular-linear earthworks.
Still other circular ditches have interior features such as the
crescent-shaped mound and mound/pond at the Circle Canal
(Figure 7d).

Circular-Linear Earthworks (Types A and B)

Mounds, embankments, borrows, and ditches can all be found
at these types of earthworks. Mounds are located at the terminal
ends of linear and curved embankments. Geometric-shaped
borrows can be found enclosing mounds and attached to the
rims of curved embankments. Ditches connect borrows and may
help to define embankments.
Two types of circular-linear earthworks are recognized for
chronology building. Type A consists of a curved embankment
with a linear embankment attached. The linear embankment
terminates in a habitation mound. Another mound, usually a
dense midden mound that is oblong in shape, is located opposite
the curved embankment (Figure 8). Type B is the same as Type
A with additional linear embankments attached to the curved
embankment, forming spokes (Figure 9).

Linear Embankments

These earthworks generally terminate in a mound, but some
(e.g., Highlands Linear Ridge, Highlands Parallel Ridges, and
the Whitehurst Mound) are known to occur alone without other
associated elements. These latter embankments are not used for
chronology building. Linear embankments that terminate in
mounds that are not part of circular-linear earthworks are found
at Fort Center and Big Mound City. Similar structures occur at
the Palmdale Earthworks, the South Lake Mounds, the Lone-
some Island Group, and Ortona (Figure 10).

Square-Rectangular Earthworks

This earthwork type is composed of ditches arranged in the
shape of a square or rectangle. Linear embankments are present
in the interiors of the two rectangular-shaped earthworks that
have been recorded.

Borrows are excavated areas that have geometric or effigy
shapes. The former occur in association with other earthworks
while the latter occur alone.

Mound Groups

This is an association of mounds within a circumscribed area.
The mounds can occur with or without other earthwork
elements. When accompanied by other elements, such as the
canals and linear and curved embankments at Ortona, the
mound group is obscured.
Only one mound group, Buck Island, is without other associat-
ed earthworks. The group consists of at least ten mounds within
a 1.6 km (1 mi) radius. This same spatial pattern is repeated at
the Lonesome Island Group, Ortona, and Fort Center. Howev-
er, canals and large linear and curved embankments at Ortona
obscure the spatial distribution of mounds that otherwise appear
so similar to the Buck Island and Lonesome Island groups. Fort
Center can be considered a mound group that is similarly
obscured by all the datable earthworks.

Chronological Placement of Earthwork Types

Five of the seven earthwork types are used for chronology
building: the mound group, circular ditches, the two types of
circular-linear earthworks, and linear embankments that
terminate in mounds. Chronological placement of square-
rectangular earthworks and borrows has not been determined at
this time. The only temporally diagnostic artifacts that can be
remotely associated with either of these earthwork types are the
Belle Glade Plain sherds from a mound near Clemens Square
Mound groups such as Buck Island (8HG613-622) and
Lonesome Island (8HG623-634) initially consisted of one or two
mounds as evidenced by semi-fiber-tempered ceramics. More
mounds were added through time, eventually forming the
mound group. At Fort Center, ditches, embankments, and
borrows accompanied the developing mound group. Sears
(1982:193) indicates that the circular ditches were coeval with
the earliest mounds. His excavation data also indicate that the
two types of circular-linear earthworks developed next, while
linear embankments that terminate in mounds and are not part
of circular-linear earthworks were created last.

Mound Groups

Mound groups span the entire Belle Glade cultural sequence
and some acquired other diagnostic earthwork elements.
Habitation mounds are among the earliest, if not the earliest,
earthworks known in the Okeechobee Basin. Johnson (1990)
located two such early mounds in Highlands County at the
Lonesome Island Group (8HG625 and 8HG631) and Sears
(1982:140) identified three at the Fort Center site (Mound 3,





b. Lakeport Circle

a. rort Center


c. West Okeechobee Circle

d. Circle Canal

0 122

Figure 7. Scaled drawings of circular ditches: a) Fort Center, 8GL13; b) Lakeport Circle, 8GL50; c) West
Okeechobee Circle, 8GL57; d) Circle Canal, 8GL33.


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Figure 8. Scaled drawings of Type A circular-linear earthworks: a) Summer Earthworks, 8HN26; b) Kissimmee
Circle, 80B31; c) Lakeport Earthworks, 8GL26; d) Nicodemous Earthworks, 8GL9.

Mound 12, and Midden B; see Figure 1). All are associated
with semi-fiber-tempered ceramics indicating a Transitional
Period occupation.
At Fort Center's Mound 3, measuring 60 x 20 m, at least
three temporally distinct ceramic assemblages were documented.
The earliest, the third oldest on the entire site (Sears 1982:136),
places its initial use in the Transitional Period, or Sears's Period
I. The latest represents the most intensive use of the mound
with "about a foot of midden over the entire mound; it con-
tained several thousand sherds in the portions excavated" (Sears
1982:136). A radiocarbon date provides evidence of its use into
the seventeenth century (Sears 1982:116). The mid-period of
Mound 3 use is thought to be coeval with the main occupation
of the mound-pond ceremonial complex (Sears 1982:136) which

dates from A.D. 200 to about A.D. 600-800 (Sears 1982:186).

Circular Ditches

The earliest radiocarbon date associated with a circular ditch
is from the "Great Circle" at Fort Center (Figure 1). Sears
(1982:116) obtained a date of 450 B.C. 105 years (1-3556)
from midden fill within the circle near its junction with a
midden beside Fisheating Creek. He concluded that the ditch
was built prior to this date. Earlier construction of two other
circular ditches at Fort Center are indicated by Fairbanks's
excavations that showed that the "Great Circle" overlies two
smaller, overlapping circular ditches (Sears 1982:177-178).
Stratigraphic evidence shows clearly that these smaller ditches





- 0


o8,6 ONo CTY

a. Big Mound City (after Willey 1949)

0 122

c. Maple Mound

b.Tony's Mound

Figure 9. Scaled drawings of Type B circular-linear earthworks: a) Big Mound City, 8PB48 (after Willey 1949); b)
Tony's Mound, 8HN3; c) Maple Mound, 8HN5.

were built prior to the "Great Circle," thus indicating an
estimated age "not later than 500 B.C." (Sears 1982:178). Sears
(1982:185) suggests the earliest date for these structures could
be 800 to 1000 B.C.

Circular-Linear Earthworks

At the Fort Center site (Figure 1), Mound 2 and its associated

linear embankment, the curved embankment (NOTE: shown
only in the photograph, not shown in the accompanying
illustration), and Mound 3 together form the Type A circular-
linear earthwork (see Figures 6a and 8c for another example of
the Type A earthwork). Mounds 1 and 5, and their associated
linear embankments were added to the Type A form to create
the Type B circular-linear earthwork (see Figure 7a). Sears's
(1982:133-137) excavations at Fort Center provide information


1996 VOL. 49(4)




b. South Lake Mounds

a. Palmdale Earthworks

0 122

c. Lonesome Island Group



I -- ------ i


d. Ortona

Figure 10. Scaled drawings of linear embankment sites: a) Palmdale Earthworks, 8GL76; b) South Lake Mounds,
8HN33; c) Lonesome Island Group (partial), 8HG634; d) Ortona (partial), 8GL4.




that can be used to generalize to other such structures in the
Sears's data from Mounds 2 and 3 at Fort Center indicate that
the Type A circular-linear earthwork is apparently a habitation
structure. These data suggest that the mound with the linear
embankment (Mound 2) served as a habitation site while the
oblong mound (Mound 3) was used for refuse disposal. The
linear embankment attached to Mound 2 was bisected near its
midpoint by a tractor-cut that exposed strata which demonstrated
that the embankment consists of a single structure rather than
two parallel ones. It connects to a curved embankment that was
interpreted by Sears (1982:132) to be a modem cattle path;
however, when this circular feature is compared to other
circular-linear earthworks in the Basin, its prehistoric origin
seems clear (cf. Figures 1 and 7a).
The Type B circular-linear earthwork was apparently meant to
accommodate additional habitation spaces for the people
occupying this structure. At Fort Center, the additions of
Mounds 1 and 5, and their associated linear embankments, to
the curved embankment created the Type B circular-linear
Excavations at Mound 1 revealed that it was a habitation site.
Based on the thinness and uniformity of the midden deposit,
Sears (1982:132-133) concluded that the mound was used for "a
single structure for a relatively short period of time in the late
sixteenth or early seventeenth century." Mound 5 was not
excavated because it was mostly destroyed by a modem dirt
road, but Sears's (1982:136-137) observation of St. Johns
Check Stamped pottery from the surface allowed him to date its
use to sometime after A.D. 1000. Its similarity to Mounds 1
and 2 led him to believe that it also served as a single-house
platform (Sears 1982:137).
Based on Sears's (1982) chronological information obtained
from the mounds that I have identified as being associated with
Types A and B of the circular-linear earthwork form, the Type
A earthwork's origins can be traced to the Transitional Period
as indicated by semi-fiber-tempered sherds from the lowest
levels of Mound 3. The curved embankment, the linear embank-
ment, and Mound 2 (i.e., the most distinctive elements of the
Type A circular-linear earthwork) date later. An accumulation
of material in Mound 3 during Sears's Period II (A.D. 200-
600/800), provides evidence that the Type A circular-linear
earthwork was fully formed sometime after A.D. 200. The
addition of Mounds 1 and 5 and their associated linear embank-
ments form the Type B circular-linear earthwork and were
established sometime after A.D. 1000 (Sears 1982:130-133,

Linear Embankments Terminating in Mounds

The two examples of this earthwork type at Fort Center are
Mound 8 and the UF Mound (Figure 1). Mound 8 apparently
was not excavated (Sears 1982:137). The UF Mound, on the
other hand, was excavated over parts of two seasons (Sears
1982:142). Sears (1982:143-145) indicates that construction of
the mound and linear embankment took place during his Period
IV (A.D. 1200-1400 to A.D. 1700). Materials found in them,

including a pipe fragment and a semi-fiber-tempered sherd, are
attributed by Sears to mound fill. He does not consider them to
be appropriate temporal markers. Instead, a drilled gold nugget
bead and a blue glass bead found in the topsoil are considered
by him to be good indicators of the mound's chronological
position (Sears 1982:144).

A Proposed Belle Glade Chronology

Using the radiocarbon dates and ceramic data discussed above,
the five earthwork types can be arranged in a chronological
sequence. Mound groups contain the earliest materials (semi-
fiber-tempered ceramics) and they continued to be occupied
throughout the history of the Belle Glade culture. Circular
ditches appear at some sites in association with the earliest
mounds. At Fort Center, the circular ditches are older than 450
B.C. and may be as old as 1000 B.C. Type A circular-linear
earthworks were fully formed before A.D. 1000 and Type B
circular-linear earthworks date after A.D. 1000. Linear embank-
ments that terminate in mounds and are not part of circular-
linear earthworks are apparently later still and could represent
earthwork activities dating strictly to the historic period. Table
1 presents a modification of Willey's (1949) Belle Glade I and
II cultural chronology and Widmer's (1988) definition of the
Transitional Period.
Sites containing semi-fiber-tempered ceramics diagnostic of the
Transitional Period, include two mounds in the Lonesome Island
Group. Based on mound group similarities, the Buck Island
Ranch Group, the Palmdale Earthworks, and Ortona are likely
to have Transitional Period components as well. Sears
(1982:185) provides evidence that the early mounds are coeval
with circular ditches at Fort Center. However, rather than using
the term "Transitional Period," which would suggest continuity
with occupations in the St. Johns region, he formulated his own
chronology that placed them in his Period I. By doing so, Sears
aided his efforts to establish a non-Florida population as the
base of cultural developments within the Basin.
I believe that the crux of Sears's argument for distinguishing
early Belle Glade settlement from the Transitional Period
occupation of the St. Johns region is the presence of circular
ditches (an earthwork feature not found in the St. Johns area).
However, the Lonesome Island investigations document early
mounds containing semi-fiber-tempered wares without circular
ditches (Johnson 1990, 1991). Thus, I have argued that Transi-
tional Period populations from the St. Johns region expanded
into the previously uninhabited Belle Glade region rather than
invoking migratory populations from South America (Johnson
1991:187-188; cf. Sears 1974, 1982).
According to Widmer (1988:73), the end of the Transitional
Period is marked by the replacement of semi-fiber-tempered
wares by exclusively sand-tempered-plain ceramics. Bullen
(1959:44) correlates the close of the Transitional Period in the
Okeechobee Basin with the appearance of Belle Glade ceramics.
However, diagnostic Belle Glade earthworks appear earlier than
Belle Glade ceramics. Thus, a Belle Glade-Transitional Period
is proposed for those sites that have circular ditches and
habitation mounds with semi-fiber-tempered ceramics.


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Table 1. Proposed Belle Glade chronology.

Year Culture Period Temporal Markers

1700 Linear embankments
terminating in mounds;
Belle Glade IIb European materials
Type B circular-linear earth-
works; St. Johns Check-
Stamped ceramics; Belle
1000 Belle Glade Plain Ha Glade Plain dominant

500 Type A circular-linear
earthworks; Belle Glade
A.D. 200 Belle Glade Ib Plain ceramics

B.C. 100

500 Belle Glade Ia Sand-tempered ceramics

Transitional/ Mounds; circular ditches;
1000 Belle Glade-Transitional semi-fiber-tempered ceramics

Willey's (1949) Belle Glade I Period encompasses the use of
Glades Plain and Belle Glade Plain ceramics with a minority of
Glades decorated wares. This definition is modified to begin
with the change in technology from semi-fiber-tempered
ceramics to the first fully sand-tempered ceramics at ca. 500
B.C. The appearance of the distinctive Belle Glade Plain
ceramics at ca. A.D. 200 provides a temporal distinction that
probably coincides with the development of a new form of Belle
Glade earthwork: the Type A circular-linear earthwork. As
such, Belle Glade I is divided into Belle Glade Ia and Belle
Glade Ib. The former is marked by the technological change
from semi-fiber-tempered ware to sand-tempered plain and the
continued use of circular ditches. The latter is identified by the
appearance of Belle Glade Plain ceramics and Type A circular-
linear earthworks.
Willey's (1949:125) identification of the Belle Glade II Period
is based on a decrease in Glades decorated wares, the continued
use of Glades Plain and Belle Glade Plain ceramics, and the
introduction of St. Johns Check Stamped (which he refers to as
Biscayne Check Stamped). The distribution of Glades decorated
wares in the region is limited to the Belle Glade type site.
However, the presence of St. Johns Check Stamped serves as
an excellent chronological marker with wide applicability to the
Okeechobee Basin region. Sears's (1982:136) use of St. Johns
Check Stamped for dating Mound 5 after A.D. 1000 provides
the basis for dating the Type B circular-linear earthworks. In
addition, Belle Glade Plain ceramics began to dominate the

ceramic assemblage at Fort Center at this time. Thus, the
transition from Belle Glade Ib to Belle Glade II is marked by
the appearance of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery, Type B
circular-linear earthworks, and the predominance of Belle Glade
Plain ceramics.
The appearance of linear embankments terminating in mounds
and not associated with circular-linear earthworks indicates
another fundamental change in Belle Glade settlements. These
are associated with the appearance of artifacts made from
European-derived materials. Belle Glade Plain ceramics
continued to gain in popularity over sand-tempered-plain wares
during this time. Thus, Belle Glade II can be divided into sub-
periods. Belle Glade IIa represents the period of introduction of
St. Johns Check Stamped ceramics, the development of Type B
circular-linear earthworks, and the relative increase in Belle
Glade Plain ceramics at the expense of sand-tempered-plain
wares. The Belle Glade lib Period is associated with linear
embankments that are not associated with circular-linear
earthworks, the continued increase in Belle Glade ceramics, and
the introduction of European materials.
Based on the data presented here, the dates for these periods
follow: the Transitional and Belle Glade-Transitional periods
run from approximately 1000 B.C. to 500 B.C.; Belle Glade Ia
encompasses the period from 500 B.C to approximately A.D.
200; Belle Glade Ib covers the time from A.D 200 to ca. A.D.
1000; Belle Glade IIa from ca. A.D. 1000 to sometime in the
early Colonial Period; and Belle Glade IIb is limited to the later
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.


This study has identified seven Belle Glade earthwork types
which are defined by their associated earthwork elements:
circular ditches, circular-linear earthworks (types A and B),
linear embankments, square-rectangular earthworks, borrows,
and mound groups. Five of these earthwork types are used for
distinguishing periods and subperiods within the Belle Glade
cultural sequence. The mound groups span the entire chronolog-
ical sequence. Circular ditches help define the beginning of the
sequence while linear embankments are associated with the
latest manifestations of Belle Glade culture. The A and B forms
of the circular-linear earthwork type are used to distinguish
between two major subdivisions within the post-Transitional
Belle Glade Period.


Data for this article were derived from the West Okeechobee Basin Project
which was funded by a grant from the Florida Department of State, Division of
Historical Resources, Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid Program. The Desert
Research Institute funded some of my time spent preparing this manuscript as
well as the costs of the photographs.

References Cited

Allen, Ross
1948 The Big Circle Mounds. The Florida Anthropologist 1:17-21.




Buchner, C. Andrew
1992 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey at the Proposed Glades County
Landfill Site, Florida. Garrow and Associates, Inc., Memphis.
Bullen, Ripley P.
1959 The Transitional Period of Florida. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Newsletter 6:43-53.
Carr, Robert S.
1973 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Martin Plant Site in
Martin County, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 9,
Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Florida Division of Archives,
History, and Records Management, Tallahassee.
1975 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Lake Okeechobee.
Miscellaneous Project Report Series No. 22, Bureau of Historic Sites
and Properties, Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records
Management, Tallahassee.
1985 Prehistoric Circular Earthworks in South Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 38:288-301.
Carr, Robert S., David Dickel, and Marilyn Masson
1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Ortona Earthworks and Mounds.
The Florida Anthropologist 48:227-263.
Johnson, William G.
1990 A Report of Investigations on the West Okeechobee Basin Archaeologi-
cal Survey. Ms on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida Museum
of Natural History, Gainesville.
1991 Remote Sensing and Soil Science Applications to Understanding Belle
Glade Cultural Adaptations in the Lake Okeechobee Basin, Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1994 Early Aerial Photography: A Remote Sensing Technique used to Detect
Prehistoric Earthworks in the Kissimmee River Basin. The Florida
Anthropologist 47:269-279.
Johnson, William Gray, and Mary E. Collins
1993 Can Soil Evidence Prove that Prehistoric Maize was not the Basis for
Complex Cultural Developments in the Lake Okeechobee Basin? In
Proceedings of the First International Pedo-Archaeology Conference,
February 16-20, 1992, edited by J.E. Foss, M.E. Timpson, and M.W.
Morris, pp. 157-160. Special Publication 93-04, Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Kenworthy, Charles J.
1883 Ancient Canals in Florida. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for
Luer, George M.
1989 Calusa Canals in Southwestern Florida: Routes of Tribute and
Exchange. The Florida Anthropologist 42:89-130.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Precolumbian Archaeology of Florida. University Press of Florida,
Sears, William H.
1971 Food Production and Village Life in Prehistoric Southeastern United
States. Archaeology 24:322-329.
1974 Archaeological Perspectives on Prehistoric Environments in the
Okeechobee Basin Savannah. In Environments of South Florida:
Present and Past, edited by Patrick J. Gleason, pp. 347-351. Miami
Geological Society, Memoir 2, Miami.
1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin.
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Wheeler, Ryan J.
1995 The Ortona Canals: Aboriginal Canal Hydraulics and Engineering. The
Florida Anthropologist 48:265-281.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1988 The Evolution of the Calusa: A Nonagricultural Chiefdom on Florida's
Southwest Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Willey, Gordon R.
1949 Excavations in Southeast Florida. Yale University Publications in
Anthropology No. 42, New Haven.
Williams, J. Raymond
1975 Excavations at Two Small Mounds in Martin County, Florida.
Miscellaneous Report Series Number 21, Bureau of Historic Sites and

Properties, Florida Division of Archives, History, and Records
Management, Tallahassee.


1996 VOL. 49(4)



Osceola National Forest, P.O. Box 70, Olustee, Florida 32072

In 1992, I conducted an archaeological research project at
Davenport Landing in the Ocala National Forest (ONF). This
small, high bluff is in the northernmost part of the forest, on the
southern bank of the Ocklawaha River. Since preliminary testing
in 1991 yielded prehistoric ceramics and lithics, the goals of the
project's first phase were to determine the site's time period,
function, and significance in American prehistory and to
delineate the site's boundaries. The second phase of this project
was to investigate an earthwork on the bluff. The earthwork
resembled a small volcano and was approximately 12 m in
diameter. The central "pit" was at least 1 m deep with ridges 1-
2 m high. The ONF Archeologist, Ray Willis, and I believed
this earthwork was C.B. Moore's Davenport Mound. Although
the Davenport Mound was recorded on the Florida Site File as
being 3.2 km west of this bluff, Moore's maps and notes
showed the mound to be at Davenport Landing. Traveling by
boat, I surveyed the river for 6.4 km west of Davenport
Landing and found no additional bluffs, only inundated swamps.
The earthwork excavation did reveal small fragments of human
remains, a few exotic goods, and hematite-impregnated sand
(Cerrato 1994).
Prior to the fieldwork, I spent several weeks researching the
prehistory and history of Davenport Landing and the sur-
rounding 8 km. This work included an intensive study of the
Ocklawaha River. While I was collecting data at the Department
of Environmental Protection in Tallahassee, Joe Knetsch, Senior
Management Analyst II with the Division of State Lands, told
me about the Alligator, the subject of this paper.

Clarence B. Moore

Clarence B. (C.B.) Moore is a well-known name to both
professional and avocational Southeastern archaeologists (Figure
1). Born in 1852, to a wealthy Philadelphia family, Moore
began excavating mounds and middens in the southeastern
United States in 1891. He continued this work for over 20
years. Although lacking by today's standards, Moore's archaeo-
logical work was "state of the art" for the 1890s. He took
detailed notes, recording strata, the positions of interments, and
providing descriptions of artifacts. Most important, Moore
shared his artifacts and information with the general public. He
donated most of his collection to museums, and quickly
published his excavation reports (Milanich 1994:6). His biggest
collection was given to the Academy of Natural Sciences in
Philadelphia. In 1929, against Moore's personal choice, the
collection was sold to the Museum of the American Indian,
Heye Foundation in New York (Wardle 1987:119 [1956]).

Some of the collection, along with Moore's original field notes,
remains there today (Davis 1987).
Considering the era in which Moore worked, there was a
limited choice of transportation modes. Since most of Moore's
"excavations were at coastal or riverine sites, he traveled by
water. To reach his destinations, Moore employed the Gopher,
a ster-wheel steamboat (Figure 2). The Gopher was 30.5 m
(100 ft) long, about 6 m (20 ft) wide, and normally "carried a
captain, a pilot, an engineer, a crew of five men, six men to
dig, and special guests" (Morse and Morse 1983:21).
Moore's Southeastern excavations began in Florida. From
1891 to 1895, he excavated sites along the St. Johns and
Ocklawaha Rivers (Moore 1894a, 1894b, 1896, 1987a [1891],
1987b [1894], 1987c [1895]). While working in eastern Florida,
Moore used the city of Palatka as a home base. There he
supplied his boat, hired workers to dig, and gathered informa-
tion about possible sites to excavate. Although Moore's highest
education level was a B.A. from Harvard University (Williams
1991:76), he was known as "Doctor" Moore to Florida locals
(Swift 1903:48). With a steamboat, Moore had a home and
laboratory that he could take with him to all the sites "that were
within reach of water navigable by the Gopher (Milanich
1994:5). But one place the Gopher could not reach was the
Ocklawaha River. For this unique waterway, a special boat was

The Ocklawaha River

The Ocklawaha is one of Florida's major rivers. It is a
tributary of the St. Johns River and, like the St. Johns, flows
northward. Currently, it serves as the northern and western
borders of the Ocala National Forest (Dorian 1984:1). There are
many variations of the spelling of the river's name including
"Oclawaha," "Oklawaha," "Ocklewaha," "Ochlawaha," and
"Okalewaha." Although modern maps use "Oklawaha," the
preferred spelling by the local population is "Ocklawaha." The
name is supposedly derived from the Timucuan Indian word
"Ockli-Waha," meaning either "great river" (Livingston
1991:85) or "crooked/tortuous" (Dowda 1939:87). The second
meaning seems more appropriate when looking at the river's
shape. The Ocklawaha is 121 km in length and consists of
"hairpin bends," "rapid flows" and "frequent narrow passage-
ways between walls of massive cypress trunk" (Mitchell
1947:129). Its width varies from 6.7-53 m and it is only .6 m
deep in some places (Mueller 1983:7). The Ocklawaha's shape
was best described in 1947 by C. Bradford Mitchell: "the
Ocklawaha is the dark jugular vein but a vein so weirdly



VOL. 49 No. 4



Figure 1. Clarence B. Moore's Harvard Graduation Portrait, Class of 1873.
Photograph courtesy of the Harvard University Archives.

contorted and looped that distance doubles and redoubles itself
for any navigator who takes a boat on it" (Mitchell 1947:118).
The Ocklawaha's headwaters are in Lake County at a chain of
lakes composed of Lake Apopka, Lake Griffin, Lake Dora,
Lake Eustis, and Lake Yale. From there it flows north through
Lake County, into Marion county, and ends in Putnam County
at the St. Johns River (Figure 3). The Ocklawaha gets half its
upstream flow from the lake chain and the other half from
Silver Springs Run (Carr 1965:1; Livingston 1991:10). It is a
blackwater, flowing river and, although its water is clear of
sediment, it is stained with tannic acid from leaves and other
organic matter (Ewel 1990:3). The Ocklawaha River is almost

bankless. Its swift current meanders between tree-lined swamps
that are usually inundated. Natural bluffs, such as Davenport
Landing, are few and far between.
Though these descriptions paint a dreary picture of the
Ocklawaha, it also has been described as the "sweetest water-
lane in the world" (Lanier 1973:20). At the turn of the century,
tourists flocked to see this dark, contorted river and the interior
swamps of Florida. Traveling from Palatka to Silver Springs via
the Ocklawaha was considered a must to make one's vacation
complete (Mitchell 1947). Yet, a jaunt down this unusual river,
for tourists and archaeologists, had to be on a specially designed
riverboat an "Ocklawaha Steamer."


1996 VOL. 49(4)


* -1

Figure 2. The Gopher, Moore's stern-wheel steamboat. Photograph courtesy of Ray Willis and Sam Brookes, United
States Forest Service.

Ocklawaha Steamboats

An Ocklawaha steamer "looked like a not-yet completed
houseboat erected on a rowboat shaped hull" (Mueller 1983:7).
The boats had a blunt bow and a small, low pilot house towards
the front. To avoid hitting low-hanging limbs, the smokestack
was short and squat, and it "looked like a rather deep bucket
sitting on the roof" (Mitchell 1947:126). Since the boats
traveled the Ocklawaha at night transporting tourists and goods
from Palatka to Silver Springs, a brazier or iron pot was
mounted on the pilot house roof. Using pitch-pine or "lighter
wood" for fuel, these "searchlights" cast an eerie red glare on
the dark river throughout the night (Mitchell 1947:145-146;
Mueller 1983:9). The Ocklawaha steamers had two decks: the
lower for freight and machinery and the upper for passengers.
The most unique feature of these riverboats was the method of
propulsion a recessed stern paddlewheel. Measuring "about
one fourth of the width of the vessel, it [the paddlewheel] was
almost completely enclosed in the center of the hull and
superstructure" (Mueller 1983:7). With the Ocklawaha's narrow
passageways and sharp bends, the steamers were restricted in
size. The maximum size for these vessels was just over 7 m
wide (23.5 ft) and 27 m (89 ft) long. The Ocklawaha steamers
carried passengers and freight from Palatka to Silver Springs

from 1868 to the 1920s, until the railroads and newly designed
water vessels led to their demise (Mitchell 1947; Mueller 1983).

The Alligator

Since C.B. Moore's Gopher could not travel the waters of the
Ocklawaha, he needed a "recessed sternwheeler" to pursue his
excavations. That boat was the Alligator (Figure 4). It was
constructed in Norwalk, Florida, by Captain Howard in 1888.
Originally, the Alligator (registration number 106613) was 17.4
m (57 ft) long, 5.7 m (18.7 ft) wide with a 1.1 m (3.5 ft) draft.
The original tonnage was 22.42 metric tons (24.71 gross tons).
The length of the steamer was increased twice: in 1890 to 21.6
m (71 ft) and in 1897 to 24.8 m (81.4 ft). Its maximum tonnage
went to 62.59 metric tons (69 gross tons) (Mueller 1983:14). A
second listing for the Alligator shows the year it was built as
1893 (Mueller 1983:33). In an unnumbered notebook, C.B.
Moore wrote the "Cruise of the Alligator" in which he chron-
icled his survey of the Ocklawaha for possible excavation sites
from March 5 to April 7, 1891 (Moore 1987a [1891]). Based
on Moore's notes, the earlier date is assumed to be correct.
In a 1903 narrative, F.R. Swift describes the Alligator as a
small version of an Ocklawaha steamer that was "built expressly
for the Doctor and only draws a foot and a half of water,




Silver SIts.




X IadiclefSon.d Mound.
Sc.l Jr..
181 5

Figure 3. C.B. Moore's 1895 map of the Ocklawaha River (from Moore 1896).

1996 VOL. 49(4)



Figure 4. C.B. Moore's Alligator on the Ocklawaha River circa 1900. Photograph courtesy of the Florida State


loaded" (Swift 1903:48). The lower hull was designed for
artifact analysis and storage, and also contained a photographic
laboratory. Moore would come to Florida with his crew: a
captain, an engineer, a steward, and a cook. His waiters and
field diggers were hired in Palatka. Moore also kept two dogs
with him (Swift 1903:48-49).
Just how long Moore owned the Alligator is not known. He
used the boat for "several years" to "pursue his hobby of
excavating all the Indian shell mounds he could find on the
Ocklawaha and the St. Johns" (Mueller 1983:14). Florida state
records have the ship registered to a "Doctor Clarence B.
Moore" but no dates are given (Mueller 1983:35). In 1910, the
Alligator "disappears from the records. This means that she was
abandoned or lost...or is no longer listed under that name"
(Edward Mueller, personal communication, 1993).
Currently, the Florida State Archives has photographs of two
different Ocklawaha steamers called the Alligator. Edward A.
Mueller, author of Ocklawaha River Steamboats, verified that
the steamboat pictured in this paper is Moore's Alligator. The
other boat was most likely a different vessel (versus an altered
variation of the same vessel) and probably "was never docu-
mented or registered" (Edward Mueller, personal communica-
tion, 1993).
There is one small piece of additional information about C.B.

Moore, the Ocklawaha River, and the Alligator. Since Moore
was such a prolific researcher and writer, and since he traveled
on a floating research center, one might think that Moore's life
was all work and no play. According to F.R. Swift, that is not
the case. One afternoon Swift rescued the Alligator, which was
wedged between two banks, with his boat, the Lela Bell. He
then "joined hands" with Moore for two weeks and enjoyed
playing the "usual Philadelphia game of poker" with the
"Doctor" and some "friends" (Swift 1903:49).


Although C.B. Moore wrote copious volumes on his archae-
ological excavations, there seems to be a paucity of information
about him or his personal life. While working in eastern
Florida, Moore used the City of Palatka as a home base for
several years, yet research of historic documents and 1890s
newspapers failed to produce records that the noted archaeol-
ogist was ever there (Cerrato 1994:46-47).
The information about C.B. Moore and the Alligator in this
paper is not meant to add to our archaeological knowledge of
Florida. It is, however, meant to provide some insight into the
man who contributed so much to our knowledge of Florida's
prehistory. Like many other archaeologists who are indebted to




C.B. Moore, I would like to know more about C.B., the man.
Any additional, obscure information about C.B. Moore would
be greatly appreciated by this author.


The data used for this paper was originally collected while I worked on my
M.A. thesis. Therefore, I would like to thank those individuals who provided
information and support for the Davenport Archaeological Project. First, I am
indebted to Ranger Jim Thorsen, Seminole Ranger District, and Ranger Jerry
Clutts, Lake George Ranger District, for allowing this project to become a
reality and for allowing me to utilize their staff and equipment. I wish to thank
Ray Willis, Principal Investigator for the project, for entrusting Davenport to
me and for his guidance and support. The seed from which this paper developed
was provided by Joe Knetsch, who casually mentioned to me that C.B. Moore
had an Ocklawaha riverboat. I thank Edward Mueller for his research and
verification of Moore's Alligator. Foremost, I wish to thank Ray Williams for
his constant guidance and support in my education, this paper, and my career.
Ray unselfishly spent many hours assisting me with this and several other
projects and helped me to reach my goals. He will always be cherished as my
mentor and dear friend.

References Cited

Carr, Marjorie Harris
1965 The Ocklawaha River Wilderness. The Florida Naturalist 38:1-3.
Cerrato, Cynthia L.
1994 Davenport: A Prehistoric Village and Mound Site in the Ocala National
Forest. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South
Florida, Tampa.
Davis, Mary B., compiler
1987 Field Notes of Clarence B. Moore's Southeastern Archaeological
Expeditions, 1891-1918: A Guide to the Microfilm Edition. Huntington
Free Library, Museum of the American Indian, New York.
Dorian, Allen W.
1984 Cultural Resources Overview Ocala National Forest, Florida. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee.
Dowda, R.B.
1939 The History of Palatka and Putnam County. R.B. Dowda, Palatka,
Ewel, Katherine C.
1990 Swamps. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L. Myers and
John J. Ewel, pp. 281-323. University of Central Florida Press,
Lanier, Sidney
1973 Florida: Its Scenery, Climate, and History. 1973 facsimile of 1875
edition. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Livingston, Robert J.
1991 Introduction. In The Rivers of Florida, edited by Robert J. Livingston,
pp. 1-16. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida,
Mitchell, C. Bradford
1947 Paddle-Wheel Inboard: Some of the History of Ocklawaha River
Steamboating and of the Hart Line. American Neptune 7:115-166.
Moore, Clarence B.
1894a Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part I. Journal
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:5-128.
1894b Certain Sand Mounds of the St. John's River, Florida, Part I. Journal
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:129-246.
1896 Certain Sand Mounds of the Ocklawaha River, Florida. Journal of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 10:518-543.
1987a [1891] Field notes, unnumbered notebook, "The Cruise of the Alli-
gator." Compiled by Mary B. Davis, Huntington Free Library,
Museum of the American Indian, New York.
1987b [1894] Field notes, notebook #6, roll #1. Compiled by Mary B.

Davis. Huntington Free Library, Museum of the American Indian, New
1987c [1895] Field notes, notebook #8, roll #2. Compiled by Mary B.
Davis. Huntington Free Library, Museum of the American Indian, New
Morse, Dan F. and Phyllis A. Morse
1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New
Mueller, Edward A.
1983 Ocklawaha River Steamboats. Mendelson Printing Company. Jack-
sonville, Florida.
Swift, F.R.
1903 Florida Fancies. G.P. Putnam and Sons, New York.
Wardle, H. Newell
1987 [1956] Clarence Bloomfield Moore (1852-1936). Reprinted in Field
Notes of Clarence B. Moore's Southeastern Archaeological Expeditions
1891-1918: A Guide to the Microfilm Edition, compiled by Mary B.
Davis, pp. 11-15. Huntington Free Library, Museum of the American
Indian, New York.
Williams, Stephen
1991 Fantastic Archaeology. University Press of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.


1996 VOL. 49(4)



Linacre College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX13JA, England
E-mail: annette. snapp@linacre. oxford. ac. uk

I was in Florida, last April, tarpon fishing, and had been drawn
down in the course of this pursuit to the neighborhood of the
settlement of Marco a few frame houses on the south-east coast
[of Key Marco], collected near the pass of the same name through
the reef [Durnford 1895:1032].

With these words, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Day Durnford,
a retired British military officer, began his article for the
November 1895 issue of The American Naturalist. Entitled,
"The Discovery of Aboriginal Netting Rope and Wood Imple-
ments in a Mud Deposit in Western Florida," Durnford's article
includes a description of the location, environment, recovery,
types of materials, and artifacts he found at what is now known
as the Key Marco site at present day Marco Island, Florida
(Figure 1). Within a few short months, on July 17, 1895, Lt.
Col. Durnford donated this collection of unusual artifacts from
southwest Florida to the British Museum in London, England.
Thanks to Jonathan King, current Curator of the North Ameri-
can Collections at the British Museum's Museum of Mankind,
I had the opportunity in 1993 and 1994 to study the Durnford
Collection from the Key Marco site. Still in amazingly pristine
condition, the Durnford collection provides information not only
on an early Florida culture, but also on the development of
Florida archaeology.

The State of Archaeological Theory in the 1890s

Archaeology in the United States near the turn-of-the-century
was not much past its infancy. The many mounds located in
Ohio and throughout the Mississippi River Valley, as well as
Florida, were explained through the knowledge of existing
North American cultures. Armchair speculation about Native
American cultures was fueled by the ethnocentric descriptions
of the various cultures provided by early European explorers.
This resulted in "Interpretations of the mounds [which] varied
from sober discourse to bizarre speculation" (Willey and Sabloff
It was during this period of archaeology that the Myth of the
Moundbuilders of North America took shape. This myth

...held that the multitude of mounds or ruins, which were constantly
being discovered in Ohio and other frontier areas as the colonists
pushed to the west, could not have been built by the savages who
were residing in these areas. Instead, they must have been erected
by a civilized race that had disappeared a long time ago [Willey and
Sabloff 1980:20].

Those who held this viewpoint generally asserted that the
missing Moundbuilders had emigrated to Mexico to explain
their disappearance (Silverberg 1970:63). By 1840, "There was
no shortage of philosophers trying to prove that the Mound
Builders had been Israelites, Phoenicians, Malays, Irishmen, or
members of some other immigrant group" (Silverberg 1970:74).
The source of the theory of the Moundbuilders can be under-
stood partially by reviewing the early history of the United
States. In 1539, Hernando de Soto explored the southeastern
United States, including Florida. Few explorers followed
immediately and it was over 100 years before Europeans
returned to locations originally visited by de Soto (Milanich and
Milbrath 1989:77-78). During the time between de Soto's
travels and the next European explorers, repercussions from the
contact of de Soto caused a great decline in population and a
resulting social collapse:

...they found far fewer Indians than de Soto had reported, and
nowhere did they find the large, bellicose chiefdoms that de Soto
had encountered. In some cases the Indians had forgotten a level of
social complexity that their ancestors had attained...Since the Indi-
ans themselves had no memory of their ancestors' attainments, it is
little wonder that the nineteenth-century American intellectuals
created an elaborate mound-builder myth to explain the existence of
the great earthen mounds that dot the southern landscape mounds
and artifacts manufactured by the people of the southern chiefdoms
[Milanich and Milbrath 1989:78].

The creators of this myth asserted that the Moundbuilders
were a great, knowledgeable people who emigrated to Mexico
for one reason or another, and they considered the extant North
American people incapable of having constructed the mounds.
By creating the Myth of the Moundbuilders, Europeans could
more freely substantiate their view that the Native Americans
were "children" or "child-like," requiring European guidance
and counsel, and allowing Europeans to take control over the
land and people of North America.
It was not until the Classificatory-Descriptive Period in Ameri-
can archaeology (1840-1914) that the Myth of the Mound-
builders was successfully challenged (Willey and Sabloff
1980:35). Dominated by descriptions of archaeological materials
and the development of rudimentary classification systems, this
period also focused much interest on the people who constructed
the prehistoric mounds. "Were they a 'lost race' of Mound-
builders or simply the ancestors of the Indians?" (Willey and
Sabloff 1980:35).
In 1894, Cyrus Thomas published Report of the Mound




VOL. 49 No. 4


Tamp Ocean
S Tampa \ A"""i

Gulf of
Mexico Lak

\0 Fort
0' Myers

Key Marco --- ,

0 30 60 /
km o

Figure 1. Location of Key Marco in southern peninsular

Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. This report helped to
lead the way to a definitive understanding of the Moundbuilders
as ancestors of the Native American Indians rather than a lost
race of peoples (Willey and Sabloff 1980:41-42). Still, it would
take years before all archaeologists and the general public
accepted Thomas's conclusions.

The State of Archaeological Methods in the 1890s

Archaeological field methods in the 1890s left much to be
desired, reflecting an emergent rather than an established field
of inquiry. In England, General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-
Rivers already had developed a highly scientific approach to
archaeological excavation, including the meticulous recording of
the precise locations (vertically and horizontally) of uncovered
artifacts. While this would later become standard practice in
American archaeology, even the best American archaeologists
of the 1890s did not include such precise methods in their field
work. As Marion Gilliland notes:

Excavations were still in the nature of treasure hunts. Earth was
tossed out by the shovelful and discarded without sifting. Only
complete and recognized curios were kept, and most ended up in
private collections from which they were often discarded as rubbish
when the first owner died. Very few ended up in museums, and
those that did were usually exhibited as individual items with no
thought given to placing them in any kind of developmental or
chronological order [Gilliland 1989:5].

This lack of archaeological standards, procedures, methods, and
substantive theory formed the basis for the archaeological work
conducted in Florida during this time period.

Southwest Florida and Key Marco

In the 1890s, conditions in southwest Florida made travel by
any means other than boat difficult at best. The area was
essentially a vast wilderness, sparsely populated by early
settlers. In November of 1894, the railroad line reached West
Palm Beach on the eastern side of the state, but ended at Punta
Gorda on Charlotte Harbor on the west coast (Tebeau
1980:287). Travel was easiest via waterways as roads were few,
usually poorly maintained, and subject to flooding during heavy
afternoon rainstorms. When dry, the roads were equally
impassable due to the loose, sandy nature of the soils.
Despite traveling difficulties, many visitors were lured by the
exotic nature of Florida. By the 1890s, the state had already
established a tourist population. Tarpon fishing, game hunting,
alligator hunting, and bird hunting for the valuable feathers used
in ladies' hats brought many visitors to Florida. Others sought
out the warm climate for health reasons.
Located approximately 24 km south of Naples on the west
coast of Florida, Key Marco is one of the many barrier islands
which form the Ten Thousand Islands area of southwest Florida
in the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 1). The area is subtropical in
nature and Key Marco lies at the edge of this subtropical area,
which borders the more temperate climate farther north.
Environmentally, this area of the Florida Gulf Coast consists
of a shoreline, many lagoons, and mangrove-covered islands.
Milanich and Fairbanks state that:

These coastal lagoons, fed by drainage from the interior and
sheltered from the coastal winds, offer a rich and broad range of
resources...As they frequently open to the sea, the lagoons serve as
a zone of interchange between inland species and marine species
[Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:17].

Living in this area, the native peoples fished, hunted, and
gathered along the coastal lagoons. Non-marine animals were
available within the lagoon system or nearby, including deer,
raccoon, turkey, bear, rabbits, and turtles (Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980:16-17).
This environment also created an unusual opportunity for
preservation. As Barbara Purdy (1991:37) notes of the preser-
vation characteristics of the Key Marco site, there are "...per-
manently saturated peaty soils ensuring anaerobic ('foul-smell-
ing') conditions that retard decomposition." Due to the preserv-
ing aspects of these peaty soils, artifacts fashioned from organic
materials such as wood and fibers were recovered from what
many archaeologists feel is one of the most important sites in
North America. Artifacts fashioned from organic materials
represent a great portion of the material culture of prehistoric
peoples, yet they are usually the first items to decay and
deteriorate at an archaeological site. The unique environment of
Key Marco and its special properties preserved many artifacts
which otherwise would have been lost.


1996 VOL. 49(4)


Glades Culture Area

Our current understanding of the Key Marco site indicates that
it is found within the Glades culture area, which comprises all
of south Florida east and south of the Okeechobee and Caloosa-
hatchee regions (Figure 2). The Glades culture was character-
ized by the possibly seasonal use of both coastal and inland
wetland habitats for subsistence. Coastal areas in particular
appear to have been most heavily utilized, especially when
associated with rivers which drain interior wetlands (Milanich
The Glades culture began about 500 B.C. and is recognized
archaeologically by the presence of sand-tempered-plain pottery.
Use of this pottery prevailed until European contact. Slight
differences in the manufacture of sand-tempered-plain pottery
through time provide a convenient means for the categorization
of different manifestations of the Glades culture through time.
Due to the lack of quality stone, people of the Glades culture
possessed a tool kit unlike those of most other areas of Florida.
Wood, shell, and bone were used instead because of their ready
availability (Milanich 1994:300-302).

Figure 2. Location of Glades culture area (after Milanich

The Durnford Collection

The Durford collection contains examples of shell-tool tech-
nology, as well as the fibers, wood, and sand-tempered-plain
pottery. The use of these cultural materials at Key Marco
reflects the Glades culture as does a reliance on a water-based
In April of 1895, Lt. Col. C.D. Durnford could be found
tarpon fishing near the settlement of Naples, in present-day

Collier County. Cushing describes well the chain of events
leading to the involvement of Lt. Col. Durnford at the Key
Marco Site:

Early in the spring of 1895, Captain W.B. Collier, of Key Marco,
southwestern Florida, found, while digging garden-muck from one
of the little mangrove-swamps that occur, like filled-up coves,
among the low-lying shell-banks surrounding his shore-island home,
several ancient wooden articles and some pieces of netted cordage.
He did not recognize as of artificial origin the first found of these
objects so softened were they by decay, so like the water-soaked
fragments of rotten timber and rootlets everywhere encountered in
the muck. But the twine-like appearance of some of the seeming
root-strands that clung to his digging tools, and the discovery, a
little later, of a beautifully shaped and highly polished ladle or cup
made from the larger portion of a whelk or conch shell, led him to
believe that the strands were actual cordage, and that a noticeably
curious block of wood, which had been sliced through by his spade
and cast aside, was really an article fashioned by man.

A few days later, Mr. Charles Wilkins, of Rochester, N.Y.,
chanced to sail down from the little winter resort of Naples, some
fifteen miles north of Key Marco, to seek tarpon, and thus to hear
of this find.

Another guest at Naples, a traveler of wide experience and an
accomplished scholar withal, Lieutenant-Colonel C.D. Durnford, of
the British Army, had organized, a few days previously, an amateur
expedition to explore an ancient canal and several small burial
mounds near by. In this expedition, Mr. Wilkins had joined. He
was therefore much interested in what he heard at Marco, and
passed a day in digging there on his own account. He found close
to the place that had been opened by Captain Collier and his men,
other remains, including portions of two wooden cups one of
them somewhat charred another shell ladle, several pierced
conch tool-heads, and a fairly well-preserved animal figure-head of
carved wood. When told by him of these finds, Colonel Durnford,
accompanied by his courageous wife, immediately set forth for
Marco [Cushing 1896:329].

The discovery by Durnford of the Key Marco artifacts is
unusual and remarkable because of the nature of the site. Buried
as they were in the mucky peat of the mangroves, few may
have paused long enough to recognize these muddy objects as
cultural artifacts.
After reaching Key Marco, Durnford excavated two nearly
square areas next to the location where earlier artifacts had been
found. Within those two squares, he found rope, netting,
fragments of gourd, wooden blocks, a wooden trencher, float
pegs fastened together with cord, some fish spines, billets of
wood, small pieces of black pottery, shell tools, wooden slats,
two small plaques of thin wood, and a pierced shell, all under
.75 meters (2.5 feet) of muck (Durnford 1895:1035-36). Figure
3 shows the northeast area of Key Marco, including the area
that was eventually excavated by Cushing. The early excava-
tions within this area, including those by Durnford, are illustrat-
ed in Figure 4.
In an effort to preserve the artifacts as he traveled with them,
Durford kept the collection moist until reaching Philadelphia,
where by chance he met Frank Hamilton Cushing. After seeing




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs