![]() ![]() |
![]() |
UFDC Home | myUFDC Home | Help |
Front Cover | |
Table of Contents | |
From the editors | |
The Yellow Bluffs Mound revisited:... | |
Radiocarbon dating the Yellow Bluffs... | |
An incised antler artifact form... | |
The Florida radiocarbon databa... | |
Climate: The key to discovering... | |
About the authors | |
Back Cover |
Material Information
Subjects
Notes
Record Information
|
Material Information
Subjects
Notes
Record Information
|
Table of Contents | |
Front Cover
Front Cover 1 Front Cover 2 Table of Contents Page 1 Page 2 From the editors Page 3 Page 4 The Yellow Bluffs Mound revisited: A Manasota period burial mound in Sarasota Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Radiocarbon dating the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4), Sarasota, Florida Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 An incised antler artifact form Little Salt Spring (8SO18) Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 The Florida radiocarbon database Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Climate: The key to discovering the food plants foraged by Florida's Paleoindians and archaic people Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 About the authors Page 77 Page 78 Back Cover Back Cover 1 Back Cover 2 |
|
Full Text | |
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. VOLUME 64, NUMBER 1 March 2011 E 78 .F6 F58 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635. Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United States of America. Membership may be initiated at any time during the year, and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall be payable on the anniversary of the initial dues payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributed by the Society during the 12 months of their membership year. Annual dues are as follows: student $15, individual $30, family $35, institutional $30, sustaining $100 or more, patron $1000 or more, and benefactor $2500. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $25 U.S. to cover added postage and handling costs for individual, family, or institutional membership categories. Copies of the journal will only be sent to members with current paid dues. Please contact the Editors for information on recent back issues. Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editors to facilitate acknowledgment in subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editors. Publications for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (on-line at www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editors with specific questions. Submit four (4) copies for use in peer review. Only one set of original graphics need be submitted. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All manuscripts must be submitted in final form on CD in Microsoft format. Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to the mailing of the next issue. The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist. Such mail is returned to the Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year. OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY President: Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (bob@searchinc.com) First Vice President: Steven Martin, 4642 St. Augustine Rd., Monticello, FL 32344 (smartin@tin-top.com) Second Vice President: Theresa Schober, 15770 Lake Candlewood Drive, Fort Myers, 33908 (theresa@fortmyersbeachfl.gov) Corresponding Secretary: Debra Wells, SEARCH, Inc., 315 NW 138 Terrace, Jonesville, Florida 32669 (debra@searchinc.com) Membership Secretary: Pat Balanzategui, P O Box 1434, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434 (wnpbal@cox.net) Treasurer and RegisteredAgent: Joanne Talley, P.O.Box 788, Hobe Sound, FL 33475 (jo@whiticar.com) Directors at Large: Chris Hardy, 1668 Nantucket Gt., Palm Harbor 34683 (kasotagirl@yahoo.com); Debra Wells, (debra@searchinc. com); Jon Endonino, SEARCH, Inc., 315 NW 138 Terrace, Jonesville, Florida 32669, (jon@searchinc.com) Immediate Past President: Patty Flynn, P. O. Box 11052 Ft. Lauderdale Fl. 33339 (pflynn@pbmnh.org) Newsletter Editor: David Burns, 15128 Springview St., Tampa, FL 33624 (daveburns@prodigy.net) JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF Co-Editors: Deborah R. Mullins, P.O. Box 12563, Pensacola, FL 32591-2563 (dmullins.fl.anthropologist@gmail.com) Andrea P. White, Department of Anthropology, University of New Orleans, 2000 Lakeshore Drive, New Orleans, LA 70148 (awhite.fl.anthropologist@gmail.com) Book Review Editor: Jeffrey T. Moates, FPAN West Central Regional Center, 4202 E. Fowler Ave NEC 116, Tampa FL 33620 (jmoates@cas.usf.edu) EditorialAssistant: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239-5019 (gluer@grove.ufl.edu) TechnicalAssistant: Beth Chambless, SEARCH, Inc., 428 E. Government St., Pensacola, FL 32502, (beth@searchinc.com) Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304 Bulk Mail: Modern Mailers, 877 W Orange Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32310 EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD Albert C. Goodyear, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (goodyear@sc.edu) Jerald T. Milanich, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 (jtm@flmnh.ufl.edu) Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (jeffmitchem@juno.com) Nancy Marie White, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100 (nwhite@chumal.cas.usf.edu) Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (bob@searchinc.com) NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Review Board members, the review comments of others knowledgeable in a manuscript's subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process. VISIT FAS ON THE WEB: www.fasweb.org THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Volume 64, Number 1 March2011 U OFF LIBRARY A/'CE 19A' TABLE OF CONTENTS From the Editors ARTICLES The Yellow Bluffs Mound Revisited: A Manasota Period Burial Mound in Sarasota George M. Luer Radiocarbon Dating the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4), Sarasota, Florida George M. Luer and Daniel Hughes An Incised Antler Artifact from Little Salt Spring (8SO18) John A. Gifford and Steven H. Koski The Florida Radiocarbon Database Steve J. Dasovich and Glen H. Doran Climate: The Key to Discovering the Food Plants Foraged by Florida's Paleoindians and Archaic People I. Mac Perry ABOUT THE AUTHORS Cover: A view of Yellow Bluffs Mound in Sarasota, Fl. Compare the pergola on top of the mound in both pictures. Top: Postcard view toward the pergola at the Acacias residence in the 1910s. Bottom: A half century later, a similar view was taken during archaeological excavations at the Yellow Bluffs Mound in early April 1969. Henry Sheldon holds a shovel in the trench's northwest corner and Doris "Dottie" Davis wears a hat. Bottom image courtesy of the Sarasota County History Center. See the George Luer article beginning on page 5 for more information. Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08675 388 5 FROM THE EDITORS d OF LIBRARY Three of the five contributed articles for this issue focus on sites and specific artifacts from Sarasota County, while two others contain information that FA readers statewide may find applicable to their own research. We are positive that all FAS members, whether professional, avocational, or students of Florida history, will find something in this volume that piques their interest. In our first article, regular FA contributor George Luer revisits the Yellow Bluffs Mound site in Sarasota, Florida that was destroyed in anticipation of condominium construction. Luer traces the history of archaeological salvage at this mound site, reviews some of the important stratigraphic information and recovered materials, and discusses information gleaned from that work in conjunction with ongoing research. In 1969, a young Jerald Milanich from the University of Florida teamed with members of the Sarasota County Historical Commission and New College of Florida to conduct an archaeological salvage operation at the site preceding its destruction. This work revealed the Yellow Bluffs Mound to be a sand burial mound with multiple interments. Radiocarbon dates recently processed by Luer and Daniel Hughes place the use of the sand burial mound within the Manasota Period (see discussion below) and offer another avenue of research into subsistence practices and burial traditions of the Manasota Period Indians living along Sarasota Bay. In the following companion article, co-authors George Luer and Daniel Hughes discuss the radiocarbon dating of previously excavated Yellow Bluffs Mound materials in order to reassess the construction sequence and occupation dates for the destroyed site. Previous interpretations date the mound to the Safety Harbor period. However, the results of recently processed radiocarbon samples place the age of the mound between ca. 185 to 60 B.C. The new dates correspond to the early to middle portion of the Manasota Period, which is much earlier than previously thought. Luer and Hughes' research highlights the importance of both relative dating by carefully-controlled excavation of strata and absolute dating by scientific methods. Additionally, Luer and Hughes' rigorous reanalysis of portions of this collection would not have been possible without proper record keeping and publication by Milanich and responsible curation of the excavated materials by Sarasota County. Next up, John Gifford and Steve Koski describe a Paleoindian-period bone artifact from Little Salt Springs in Sarasota County. Recovered from the depths of the spring, the artifact is manufactured from a deer antler with a portion of the tine removed. Archaeologists have recovered over a dozen deer antlers from Little Salt Springs and determined they are usually worked into handles or projectile points. However, this worked bone has 27 small, parallel incisions running along one of its edges. Gifford and Koski speculate that the cut marks on the artifact could indicate initial stages of preparation of the antler for additional processing that never occurred or that the tool may have been used as an aid in measurement. All of us enjoy reading about unique finds from archaeological contexts and we encourage other FAS members to keep these summaries coming in for publication in the journal! The previous articles on the Yellow Bluffs Mounds illustrate the importance of radiocarbon testing for the accurate dating of archaeological strata. Co-authored by Steve Dasovich and Glen Doran, our forth article is a brief introduction to a project focused on amassing radiocarbon dates from across the state of Florida into a single searchable database. This database is an extension of Dasovich's 1996 M.A. research that compiled 940 radiocarbon dates from sites in Florida. Here the co-authors summarize the database structure, discuss the distribution of radiocarbon dated archaeological sites across the state, and add over 300 more dates to Dasovich's contribution. Researchers can access the database online by visiting http://digitool.fcla.edu/R/BCXQ C66H6ITLGCIKA 1 PP6CS8Y8E7DUV2GQDT2S9C 13CNT NER4B-02298?func=collections-result&collectionid=1460. Finally, our last article is a contribution from longtime FAS member and avocational archaeologist Mac Perry. Perry's article enlightens readers about plant-based foods and resources available to Florida Paleoindian and Archaic period peoples under various climate conditions. We know that past Floridians ate particular foods and cultivated certain sources based on a combination of complex physical and cultural factors, just as we do today. Following this, Perry's creative discussion and original illustrations will leave the reader thinking more deeply about the relationship of climate to subsistence and of (mere) subsistence to a set of historically and culturally derived perceptions of taste. Although Perry's article can be used as a guide to identifying available food resources, he definitely advises the reader against taste-testing these wild plants! In the upcoming June 2011 issue, we will recap the 2011 FAS meeting in Orlando hosted by the Central Florida Archaeological Society Chapter, talk about the role and iconography of the panther among Florida's Native Americans, fuel discussions among Seminole Indian researchers, and see where Caribbean currents might deposit a canoe full of archaeologists (among other things). We thank all of the contributors to this volume and we especially thank the avocational members of FAS who continue to freely give a great deal of their own time and other resources in the pursuit and pleasure of Florida archaeology. Enjoy! Deborah Mullins & Andrea White VOL. 64(1) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2011 VOL. 64(1) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2011 THE YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND REVISITED: A MANASOTA PERIOD BURIAL MOUND IN SARASOTA GEORGE M. LUER 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 Email: geoluer@gmail.com The Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4) was an American Indian burial mound overlooking Sarasota Bay. It was located 1.6 km (1 mi) north of downtown Sarasota (Figure 1). The mound was built primarily of sand and measured approximately 2.4 m (8 ft) in height at its center and approximately 29 by 37 m (95 by 120 ft) across its base. In 1969, the imposing mound suffered a tragic fate when it was destroyed by land development. At that time, the Yellow Bluffs Mound was the scene of salvage excavations by volunteers and three cooperating organizations: 1) the Sarasota County Historical Commission (SCHC); 2) the University of Florida (UF) Department of Anthropology; and 3) New College (NC), now named New College of Florida. This study reexamines the mound, the salvage work, and existing collections of faunal remains and pottery. A tandem article dates the mound using radiocarbon analyses (Luer and Hughes, this issue). This recent research shows that the Yellow Bluffs Mound is older than previously thought. In 1972, the mound was assigned to the precontact Safety Harbor Period (then thought to range from ca. A.D. 1300 to 1500) (Milanich 1972:37). However, newly obtained radiocarbon dates indicate that the mound dates to ca. 185 to 60 B.C., or the early middle portion of the Manasota Period (Luer and Hughes, this issue). The Yellow Bluffs Mound also has yielded evidence of a minor presence by American Indians during the postcontact Safety Harbor Period, ca. A.D. 1560 to 1660. Burials in the mound are not known from that time, but a Pinellas Plain lip-notched rim sherd (from the mound's periphery) and radiocarbon dates of a shell feature (apparently intrusive near the top of the mound) suggest some kind of limited re-use or visitation of the mound during that period. The Identity of the Mound Over the years, researchers have confused the Yellow Bluffs Mound with other mounds in the vicinity. In this article, I use the name "Yellow Bluffs Mound" and I use Florida Master Site File (FMSF) number "8SO4" for the mound because it has become attached to the site. However, it appears that the Yellow Bluffs Mound was not the same mound as the original "So-4" in the sense of Gordon Willey (1949). Willey's original application of site number "So-4" was to a sand burial mound excavated in the 1930s by Harry L. Schoff, which was located vaguely north of Sarasota at the "Whittaker [sic] or Whitfield estate" (Willey 1949:344).' A letter by Schoff(1933) appears to mention the location of that original mound. The letter describes it as "on the Whitfield Estates at the Manatee, Sarasota county lines," which is approximately 4.5 km (2.8 mi) north of the Yellow Bluffs Mound. Schoff's original site might have been a now- destroyed sand burial mound that was reportedly located very close to the Manatee-Sarasota county line and that is recorded in the FMSF as 8MA75 (Figure 1).2 Willey's vague location, and his addition of "Whittaker" [sic] to the name for Schoff's mound, led to confusion. First, Florida Park Service archaeologist Ripley Bullen (1950a) incorrectly assumed that Willey's "So-4" was the same as a series of mounds and shell middens, now called the "Whitaker Site Complex" (Luer 1992a), that is located south of the Manatee-Sarasota county line, near Whitaker Bayou in the City of Sarasota. Bullen also assumed that Schoff's sand burial mound was a mound within this site complex, which Bullen named the Weber Mound (Bullen 1950b:23). Later, Fales and Davis (1961)3 added "Whitaker" to the name of yet another mound, the Yellow Bluffs Mound, because it was near the homestead of the pioneer Whitaker family (see below). Archaeologist Jerald Milanich (1972) continued to use Fales and Davis' name, "Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound," and he used site number "So-4" for it and attributed Schoff's Whitfield Estates collection to it. Site number "8S04" and the combined name have been repeated by subsequent workers (e.g., Luer 1992a, 2005; Monroe et al. 1977), some repeating the Schoff ascription (e.g., Almy 1976; Mitchem 1989:219-220). Recently, another misunderstanding occurred when Mitchem (1999:6, 20) attributed Clarence B. Moore's description of the Yellow Bluffs Mound to the Weber Mound4 (also see text, below). In sum, this series of misattributions revolved primarily around three distinct mounds (Figure 1). They were the Yellow Bluffs Mound, the Weber Mound, and the original Whitfield/Schoff Mound. Today, the Yellow Bluffs Mound is identified by FMSF number 8S04. The Weber Mound bears FMSF number 8S020. The FMSF number of the Whitfield/ Schoff Mound is undetermined, and its precise identity is still uncertain, although it might have been 8MA75. VOL. 64(1) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2011 MARCH 2011 VOL. 64(1) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST THE~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FLRD NHOOOIS 01VL 4 Tampa Bay coastal mainland Sarasota N I Gulf of Mexico I 4km , Figure 1. The Yellow Bluffs Mound (8S04) near downtown Sarasota. Two other sand burial mounds are shown, the Weber Mound (8SO20) and a now-destroyed mound, 8MA75, near the Manatee-Sarasota county line and Whitfield Estates. Early History of the Yellow Bluffs Mound First Records of the Mound The Yellow Bluffs Mound was clearly depicted in the area's 1883 topographic map (Figure 2:top). The map shows the mound south of a citrus grove and northwest of a pioneer house and outbuildings. The mound was within the William and Mary Jane Whitaker family homestead,5 which was called "Yellow Bluffs" after a marl outcrop along the shore of Sarasota Bay. The Whitakers began their homestead in the 1840s and 1850s, so the Yellow Bluffs Mound was part of their landscape for many decades. In the 1890s, the Sarasota area was beginning to attract winter visitors from northern states, some of whom were buying local land. The heirs of the Whitaker homestead subdivided their property, which bordered the bay on each side of Whitaker Bayou (Manatee County 1895). In the newly subdivided land, the mound fell within two parcels, Lots 13 and 14, overlooking the bay. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND Figure 2. Yellow Bluffs Mound and early land use. Top: labeled portion of 1883 topographic map by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS 1883) showing the Whitaker homestead compound; the east edge of the grove is bordered by a sandy trail (today's Palmetto Lane) and the dark vertical line is an overlay of present-day U.S. Highway 41. Bottom: the same area in a 1944 topographic map (USGS 1944) with an added arrow pointing to the mound encircled by the driveway to The Acacias. In 1900, the Yellow Bluffs Mound was visited by Philadelphia antiquarian Clarence B. Moore, who wrote in his field notes: About 1/4 m. [mile] E. & S. [east and south] from mouth of Snell's [Whitaker] Bayou, E. [east] side of Sarasota B. [Bay], in sight of the water, mound on property of Mrs. F. E. Brooks (Birmingham, Mich.) whose winter residence is near the md., is a md. of brown sand 109 ft. across base & 10 ft. in height. A central trench was without result. [Moore 1900b:27] Moore's field notes are helpful because they clarify the location of his work, showing that he dug in the Yellow Bluffs Mound. This location matches that of a small, unlabeled cross just north of Sarasota in Moore's frontispiece map of the Tampa Bay area, titled "Florida Coast from Clearwater Harbor to Sarasota" (Moore 1900a:350; also see Note 2, below). Moore's trench in the Yellow Bluffs Mound accounts for a filled trench found by archaeologists almost 70 years later. The filled trench measured "three by fifteen feet in size and five feet deep" (Milanich 1972:21) and was under a pergola LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Figure 3. The front of The Acacias residence, which over- looked Sarasota Bay. This view is toward the east. Image courtesy of the Sarasota County History Center. built atop the mound a decade after Moore's visit. The location of the filled trench beneath the pergola, which was constructed ca. 1911, shows that the trench could not have been dug later, for instance, in the 1930s by Schoff(Milanich 1972:21-22). The Acacias Around 1911, the Yellow Bluffs Mound was incorporated in the grounds and gardens of The Acacias (Figure 3). The Acacias was an elegant estate constructed by Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin Honor6, uncle and aunt of Chicago millionaire Mrs. Potter (Bertha Honor6) Palmer (Fritts 1969a; LaHurd 2010:37; Tricebock 1986:44, 1996:55). It was during construction of The Acacias when a pergola was built atop the mound. The Acacias featured an elegant outdoor garden overlooking a retaining wall, seawall, and the bay (Austin et al. 1989:21-27). Creation of The Acacias coincided with Mrs. Palmer's development of "The Oaks," a larger estate along the Figure 4. The Acacias in plan view. Top: Whitaker Subdivision lots (8 through 11, 13 through 16) and Acacias estate features, ca. 1948 (based on Manatee County 1895; United States Department of Agriculture 1948). Bottom: Bay's Bluff Condominium footprint and changed parcel boundaries, ca. 1969 (based on Cobia and Hebb, Inc. 1970; Sanborn Map Company 1966). 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND bay in Osprey, south of Sarasota (a portion of which is now preserved and open to the public at Historic Spanish Point). Both estates had pergolas (Tricebock 1986:18, 43), which were prominent features of fashionable gardens of the Classic revival movement (Greek and Roman styles) (for architectural details about the pergola at The Acacias, see Luer [1992a:235, Figures 6 and 7]). Figure 4 (top) shows that The Acacias residence was built in the middle of Lot 13 in the Whitaker Subdivision. The two-story residence faced the bay, with smaller one-story outbuildings behind it. A 200-foot long dock on concrete pilings met the shore and a series of concrete steps to the northwest of the residence, near the boundary of Lots 13 and 14 (Figure 4). Originally, the land entrance to The Acacias might have been via Palmetto Lane, a 20-foot wide access way running northwest to southeast between lots in the southern portion of the Whitaker Subdivision. The entrance to The Acacias might have been extended eastward after automobiles come into use in the 1910s and after the "Dixie Highway" (now part of U.S. Highway 41 and the "Tamiami Trail") was built in 1916 (Anonymous 1916). The section of Palmetto Lane bordering The Acacias was vacated officially in 1939 (Mosby Engineering Associates, Inc. 1969).6 Figure 5 shows The Acacias when it was new. Both photographs appear in a 1910s souvenir booklet showing views of Sarasota (Arnold ca. 1915). One shows the pergola atop the mound, with ascending steps framed by Spanish bayonet and flowering oleander. The other is taken on the same steps and looks back at The Acacias residence, with the bay beyond. The Acacias, including its grounds and mansion, were maintained and kept intact by subsequent owners for many years. In the early 1960s, The Acacias residence was the scene of civic functions by the Sarasota County Historical Society, including annual membership meetings (Anonymous 1961). At one such function, "more than 500 persons" honored Sarasota's leading citizen, the late Karl Bickel7 (Anonymous 1963). Initial Investigations Begin Prelude to Destruction The Yellow Bluffs Mound and its pergola were intact in the late 1960s, when developers purchased an approximately 2.5-acre portion of The Acacias (most of Lot 14) that was just north of The Acacias residence. There, Earl Putnam and Robert Skalitzky, of The Earl Putnam Organization, Inc., and the Aurora Development Corporation, planned to build a six- story edifice called Bay's Bluff Condominium. They were the same Ontario developers who were building and planning condominium towers elsewhere in the City of Sarasota. These included downtown "high rises," such as the Royal St. Andrew (which destroyed a portion of the Pinard Midden, 8S099, between South Gulf Stream Avenue and South Palm Avenue) and the Embassy House (which destroyed the remaining portion of the Sarasota Bay Mound, 8SO44, at Mound Street) (Luer 2005:13, 43, Note 1). Figure 5. The Acacias in the 1910s. Top: view toward the pergola (a half century later, a similar view was taken dur- ing archaeological excavations, compare with Milanich 1972:Figure 6). Bottom: view of residence and bay from the first landing of the pergola steps. Images from Arnold (ca. 1915). In this case, Bay's Bluff Condominium was to be built north of the Yellow Bluffs Mound and would not harm it (Figure 4, bottom). However, Bay's Bluff Condominium was envisioned as a "first phase" to be followed by a southern addition "linking into the first L-shaped phase" (Fritts 1969a). The developers wanted to demolish the mound in anticipation of the second phase. At that time, in 1969, there were no laws to protect the mound and its burials.8 Thus, the developers let it be known that they planned to demolish the mound. Ironically, the second phase of Bay's Bluff Condominium was never built, and so the tragic demolition of the Yellow Bluffs Mound was unnecessary. The SCHC wanted archaeologist Ripley Bullen to direct salvage excavations in the Yellow Bluffs Mound. At that time, Bullen was 66 years old and a curator at the Florida State Museum (FSM, now named the Florida Museum of Natural History [FLMNH]) in Gainesville. During the preceding year of 1968, the SCHC had brought Bullen to Sarasota, first in January to analyze collections from the Paulsen Point Midden (Bullen 1971) and then in July to conduct salvage excavations in another doomed burial mound, the Sarasota Bay Mound (Luer 2005). In 1968, members of the SCHC showed the Yellow Bluffs Mound to Bullen and explained its LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE FLORDA ANTHOPOOGIT2 Figure 6. Start of SCHC Trench #1 in the west edge of the Yellow Bluffs Mound, early April 1969 (view to northeast). Henry Sheldon holds a shovel in the trench's northwest corner, which became 150N, 104E. Doris "Dottie" Davis wears a hat. Image courtesy of the Sarasota County His- tory Center. proposed destruction. Bullen wrote back, stating that proposed demolition of the Yellow Bluffs Mound "seems a pity as it is a beautiful monument to the Indians of Florida" (Bullen 1969). Initial Tests in the Mound In the late 1960s, Sarasota County Government and its SCHC played an active role with historical resources in the City of Sarasota. The 1968 archaeological work in the Sarasota Bay Mound is one example (Luer 2005). As a continuation of that effort, the SCHC and its Chairman, Richard Glendinning, Jr.,9 approached developers Putnam and Skalitzky and secured permission, in March 1969, for exploratory work in the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Zinn and Davis 1969). Thus, Sarasota County Historian Doris "Dottie" Davis'o and volunteers, including retiree Henry K. Sheldon, began a preliminary field investigation of the Yellow Bluffs Mound. On March 30, 1969, they dug a number of post holes that "revealed the possibility of burials on the west side of the mound," whereas post holes in "certain areas on the east side of the mound produced no indications of burials" (Davis 1969). As a result of these findings, Davis and volunteers started excavating two trenches in the mound, beginning at its west and northwest edges (Trenches #1 and #2, respectively). Figure 6 shows the start of the SCHC Trench #1 in the west edge of the Yellow Bluffs Mound in early April 1969. In this view toward the northeast, Henry Sheldon holds a shovel in the trench's northwest comer, which became 150N, 104E. Doris "Dottie" Davis wears a hat, immediately behind Sheldon. Behind them is a large southern red cedar, perhaps planted on the mound ca. 1912 as part of The Acacias landscaping. Also visible are native cabbage palms, growing on the mound. Other native vegetation included a large slash pine on the mound's northern flank, as well as live oak and pignut hickory" trees growing on well-drained ground around the mound's western edge. Davis and volunteers excavated in 10 x 10 ft units, so that "the western trench consisted of three interconnected squares and the northwest trench of two squares" (Milanich 1972:23). As they moved eastward into the second and third units of the west trench, they uncovered and removed a number of burials. These apparently are the remains from "Trench #1, Pit 2" (dug on April 3 through 15, 1969) and "Trench 1, Pit 3" (dug on April 16 through 18). Davis removed burials from the northwest trench, apparently labeled "Trench #2, Pit #1" and "Trench #2, Pit #2" (dug on April 16 and 17) (Hughes and Luer 2006). During this work in April 1969, I made an initial visit to the Yellow Bluffs Mound with my brother. We observed human burials in the west trench, which were being uncovered by Davis and volunteers. I recall in situ human bones in the trench's northwestern comer and in its southeastern portion. My brother recalls two burials in the trench's southeastern portion, both extended, heads to the east and feet to the west (Albert E. Luer, personal communication 2007). The SCHC also secured permission from the developers for a backhoe operator to dig exploratory trenches in the mound. The operator drove the backhoe onto the mound's grassy eastern slope, where the lack of trees afforded easy access, and began digging a trench in the mound's southeastern flank. He then repositioned the backhoe and began a second trench at the mound's eastern edge, moving upward across the mound (in a northwest direction) and passing just north of the pergola that occupied the central summit. Davis collected remains from these two trenches, called "Backhoe Pit" and "Backhoe Pit #1," on April 8 through 10 (Hughes and Luer 2006). On another visit to the mound, I observed as the backhoe was used to dig these trenches, and I helped at the screen (Figure 7).12 As a result of this work, Davis and volunteers recovered pottery sherds and tools of shell, bone, and stone, including lithic bifaces ("arrowheads") (Blocker 1969; Butcher 1969a). Based on its findings, the SCHC secured permission from the developers for further work. Meanwhile, the SCHC learned that Bullen, approaching 67 years of age, had other commitments and could not come to Sarasota. Thus, the SCHC pursued other options to accomplish their goal of salvage work. Archaeology in the Mound Bullen suggested that salvage excavations could be done jointly by NC and archaeologist Charles Fairbanks, a 56-year- old professor at UF (Bullen 1969). Since Fairbanks, like Bullen, had other commitments, he offered to divert a crew of young graduate students from a UF Department of Anthropology field school near Gainesville, so that they could conduct limited excavations in the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Milanich 1985:20- 21). For their part, the SCHC secured an anonymous gift to THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1l U YU Figure 7. Author George Luer (far left) works at a screen as a backhoe begins to dig in the east side of Yellow Bluffs Mound, April 1969. View to the west (image from Moss 1974). NC to provide needed funding. John Elmendorf, President of NC, and his wife, anthropologist Mary L. Elmendorf, secured housing for the UF crew and arranged for NC undergraduate students to assist in the excavation. Mound Excavations Begin A UF crew arrived on April 19, 1969. It was directed by Jerald Milanich, then 23 years old and in his second year of the UF Department of Anthropology doctoral graduate program. He was accompanied by another UF student, Carl McMurray. They spent the next several weeks doing salvage work in the mound, assisted by NC students, additional UF students, and volunteers (Fritts 1969b; Milanich 1972:40, 1985:20-21). First, Milanich established a site grid. Its north axis was oriented at 26 degrees, 30 minutes west of magnetic north. This orientation allowed the UF-NC crew to align their work with Davis' 10-ft-wide western trench (Trench #1). The crew and volunteers incorporated and lengthened her trench into an "east-west trench" that extended into the center of the mound (Figures 8 and 9). Based on the site grid, Davis' three partially excavated 10 x 10 ft units extended approximately 25 ft toward grid East, from near 87 ft East to near 110 ft East. The UF-NC excavation continued eastward another approximately 50 ft to reach 160 ft East. From there, the UF-NC crew and volunteers excavated a second 10-ft-wide trench, the "north-south trench," which ran toward grid south, perpendicular to the first trench. The UF-NC crew also excavated a third trench running down the mound's southwest slope. Figure 8 shows these trenches as Milanich overlay them on an engineer's contour map, with the mound measuring approximately 29 x 37 m (95 x 120 ft) in plan view and 2.4 m (8 ft) in height. The UF-NC trenches produced two right-angled stratigraphic profiles of the mound. These profiles record a number of different layers along the 140 North line in the east- west trench, and along the 160 East line in the north-south trench (see bold lines in Figure 9). The profiles revealed C. B. Moore's filled trench under the pergola (labeled "recent pit" in Milanich 1972:Figure 4). The UF-NC crew and volunteers removed soil by layer and zone, and they collected artifacts and faunal bones, mostly from screens of 1/2 in mesh (Milanich 1972:23-24). In the profiles across the mound, Milanich numbered 17 layers comprising four stratigraphic zones (see Milanich 1972:Figure 4). These zones and their layers can be described as: Zone I, Layers 1 through 5 (humus, leached, washed, and redeposited layers); Zone II, Layers 6 though 8, and Layers 14 through 16 (upper mound, mound fill); Zone III, upper Layers 9 and 10 (upper midden and sand layers of the mound base); and Zone IV, lower Layers 9 and 10 (lower midden and sand layers of the mound base). Zone IV rested on Layers 11 and 12, which were natural sandy soil layers below the mound. Findings in the Mound The excavations revealed a sand burial mound with abundant marine shells and shell fragments, especially in the upper mound fill. Quahog clam (Mercenaria campechiensis) and fighting conch (Strombus alatus) shells were very common, while oyster (Crassostrea virginica), left-handed whelk (Busycon sinistrum), and other shells were fewer. Most of these shells were eroded by leaching of rainwater and humic acids that percolated through the sand while the shells were buried. In better condition was a cluster of 12 left-handed whelk shells and two horse conch (Pleuroploca gigantea) shells that was near the surface in the east-west trench (see photographs in Milanich 1972 and in Luer and Hughes, this issue). Excavations also revealed numerous rounded, water- worn pieces of mineralized bone, especially fossil sea cow rib fragments and fossil shark teeth. Both are common natural inclusions in the soil of the surrounding area. Many might have been accidental inclusions in the mound's fill. However, some of them, especially large fossil shark teeth, might have been placed intentionally in the mound by the Indians. The UF-NC workers uncovered human remains comprising ten burials as well as scattered remains from an undetermined number of individuals (the latter are described below in the section, "Human Bone"). The ten numbered burials were all in the upper mound fill, as were most of the other human remains. Burial locations are shown in profile and plan view by Milanich (1972:Figure 5), but the reader should note that the plan view portion of Milanich's Figure 5 is reversed (it is the mirror image of how it should appear; for example, Burial 9 was in the north wall, the 150N line, not in the south wall). Burials 1 and 2 were in the east-west trench, just east of Davis' third unit where she had earlier removed three burials perhaps associated with Burial 1. Burial 2 represented a child, possibly buried with a small, ovate, lithic scraper as well as a deer mandible "cupped between two clam shells" (Milanich 1972:34, Figures 9n and 10j). The burial modes observed by the UF-NC crew were varied and included five flexed, two extended, one possible bundle, and two undetermined (Milanich 1972:32-37). The two extended interments (Burials 6 and 7) might have been buried at the same time (a double LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) Figure 8. Plan view of mound and excavations. Note locations of SCHC Trenches #1 and #2 and backhoe trenches in April 1969. Also note the three UF-NC trenches: the east-west (E-W), north-south (N-S), and southwest (SW) trenches (based on Mi- lanich 1969b, 1972:Figures 2 and 3; Mosby Engineering Associates, Inc. 1969). burial). After analysis at UF, the burial remains were returned to SCHC, as were artifacts. Many faunal remains were recovered from two layers deep in the mound's central portion, which Milanich interpreted as a "prepared mound base." Both are labeled "Layer 9" in the trench profiles (Milanich 1972:Figure 4). The two layers are visible in a photograph (Milanich 1972:Figure 8) showing the profile along the 160 East line in the north-south trench, between 115N to 125N. In the photograph, Milanich's right hand extends toward lower Layer 9, while his head is even with upper Layer 9 (this image appears as Figure 2 in Luer and Hughes, this issue). Vertebrate taxa represented by these remains are listed by Milanich (1972:Table 1), and some are discussed below (see "Zooarchaeological Remains"). No radiocarbon dates were obtained during the original analysis in 1969 to 1972. Milanich (1972:37, 39) assigned the mound to the Safety Harbor Period based on his interpretation of ceramics, although decorated mortuary pottery typical of the Safety Harbor Period was not found. Instead, the ceramic assemblage consisted primarily of plain sherds and a few decorated specimens of pre-Safety Harbor Period types (mostly St. Johns and Deptford wares) (Milanich 1972:Tables 2 and 3). The most numerous sherds were sand-tempered plain, a few with pinched or tooled lips. Although recognized as a "problem" (Milanich 1972:29), these sand-tempered sherds were assigned to the ceramic type "Pinellas Plain," which differs because it is a sand- and clay-tempered ware with laminated/contorted paste. Pinellas Plain dates to the late feet 0 10 20 30 40 50 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND U SCHC N-S trench 126.2N, 131.2E ---I ' 112.1N, 117.1E , SW trench I I I I I I 20 30 40 50 6 5 110 I, feet I Figure 9. Plan of UF-NC trenches: the east-west (E-W), north-south (N-S), and southwest (SW) trenches (based on Milanich 1969b). Weeden Island and Safety Harbor periods, ca. A.D. 700 to 1700. New radiocarbon dates and reanalysis of sherds (below) supports an older age for the mound, before the Safety Harbor and Weeden Island periods. Further Salvage Work The UF crew completed testing on May 16, 1969, and returned to Gainesville (Milanich 1969a, 1969b). After their departure, Davis and volunteers continued to dig and to salvage artifacts and burials from the mound before it was destroyed by the developers. A few notes written on field bags that were in the Sarasota County collections indicate that more burials and cultural materials were recovered (Hughes and Luer 2006). For example, on May 21, 1969, Davis and volunteers dug northward into the North Profile of the east-west trench (near 135 East), where they removed a "flexed burial." On July 19, they collected materials near the mound's northwest edge, in Trench #2, Pit #2. They also recovered materials from additional trenches, such as Trenches #3 and #4 (with undetermined locations in the mound). In addition, Milanich (1972:23) reports that Davis excavated in the central portion of the mound, where "no features or burials were found." Digging by Davis and volunteers continued through the summer. A newspaper article dated August 10, 1969, includes a photograph showing the mound in an advanced stage of excavation, with Bay's Bluff Condominium under construction in the background (Butcher 1969b). Field notes and a report are not available about this salvage effort, but it apparently yielded materials similar to the earlier excavations, including more burials. Efforts by the author and former Sarasota County Archaeologist Dan Hughes to find field notes by Davis and volunteers have been unsuccessful. Subsequent Surveys and Other Work Determining Mound Location After the Yellow Bluffs Mound was demolished, its location was obscured. In 1977, a map in an architectural and archaeological survey by the City of Sarasota (Monroe LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND | | I 1 I THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) et al. 1977:Figure 7) showed it slightly to the northwest of where it had been located. This was based on an assumption that the mound had been where Bay's Bluff Condominium was built. In 1989, this assumption was repeated during a Phase I archaeological survey (Austin et al. 1989:1)13 and in a revised map of archaeological sites in the northwestern portion of the City of Sarasota (Carr et al. 1989:Figure A). Three years later, this misunderstanding was acknowledged during a Phase II archaeological survey, but a determination of the mound's exact location was not made (Piper Archaeology/ Janus Research 1992:4). The same year, I included the mound in a map of the Whitaker Site Complex, but I placed it slightly too far to the southwest (Luer 1992a:Figure 1).14 Thus, the precise location of the Yellow Bluffs Mound remained unclear. The confusion was compounded by many changes in parcel boundaries and by the demolition and construction of buildings. The Acacias mansion changed owners a number of times before it was demolished by a developer in 1981 (Anonymous 1981; LaHurd 2010:37), and new high rise buildings were built in the early 2000s. I show the mound's correct location in Figure 4 (above) and in Figure 11 (below). Today, the location of the former mound is unmarked (Figure 10). Traces of the mound are missing from the landscape. Its beautiful setting and sense of place are erased (there is no "there" there anymore). The location is sandwiched between Bay's Bluff Condominium and the Sarasota Bay Club Condominium's 11-story northern tower (Figure 10). Mound Size and Monumentality In 2005, I cited the Yellow Bluffs Mound's large size and its coastal location as suggesting that it was constructed by a sizeable precontact-period aboriginal population (Luer 2005:29, Table 2). That interpretation may be correct but it must be revised, in part, because the mound cannot be identified as a Safety Harbor Period mound (as I did in 2005) in light of its much older age, as shown by this current project's radiocarbon dating (Luer and Hughes, this issue). While the large size of the Yellow Bluffs Mound (approximate basal dimensions 29 by 37 m [95 by 120 ft]) may reflect a sizeable population, it appears to have been a continuous-use burial mound that the Manasota Period Indians built, used, and "added to" over an extended period of time, perhaps two or three centuries. These are other factors that could help account for its considerable size. In 2005, I also cited the Yellow Bluffs Mound's imposing vantage over Sarasota Bay and its apparent purposeful placement on scarce high ground providing such a view. This interpretation also must be revised, in part, because of the mound's age. That is, I attributed such monumental construction to the Weeden Island and Safety Harbor periods (Luer 2005:29), but new radiocarbon dates from the Yellow Bluffs Mound now show this kind of strategic placement in the landscape already was taking place during the earlier Manasota Period. Figure 10. Erased from the landscape two views of where the Yellow Bluffs Mound was located. Top: north- west toward Sarasota Bay, with Bay's Bluff Condominium to right, November 2009. Bottom: southeast toward the mainland, with Bay's Bluff Condominium to left and Sara- sota Bay Club's northern tower to right, July, 2007. Research on Burial Modes In the 1980s, archaeologist Jeff Mitchem reviewed forms of human interment in American Indian burial mounds in west- central Florida. Among the interments that Mitchem cited were ten burials documented by Milanich in the Yellow Bluffs Mound, and he accepted their assignment to the Safety Harbor Period (Mitchem 1988:101). New radiocarbon research, however, shows that at least five of those interments (Burials 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8) date to the earlier Manasota Period (Luer and Hughes, this issue). This redating removes those five burials from an argument presented by Mitchem, in which they were offered as contradictions of Bullen's model of changing burial mode (Mitchem 1988:101). Of the five newly-dated burials from the Yellow Bluffs Mound, three were flexed (Burials 1, 3, and 5), one was THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND extended (Burial 6), and one was of undetermined type (Burial 8) (Milanich 1972:34-37). Flexed burials are a common mode of interment during the Manasota Period (Luer and Almy 1982). For example, at the Manasota Key Cemetery (8SO1292), most burials were flexed, often on their left side (Dickel 1991:150; Luer 1999:12). A review of field diagrams and photographs of approximately 30 burials uncovered at the Manasota Key Cemetery indicates that 23 individuals were flexed on their left side, five on their right side, and three on their left side and back. These interments at the Manasota Key Cemetery included four flexed, nested, double burials of adults of close age (data on file with George Luer), recalling the possible double interment of extended Burials 6 and 7 in the Yellow Bluffs Mound. The identification in the Yellow Bluffs Mound of a child burial in a flexed "sitting position" (Burial 2), and the identification of another "badly scattered" interment (Burial 4) as a possible "bundle burial" (Milanich 1972:34), appear to be consistent with additional modes of burial known for the Manasota Period. For example, at the Palmer Mound (8S02) between Sarasota and Venice, the Bullens characterized nearly 400 burials as follows: 75 percent were flexed, 6.5 percent bundle, 5.6 percent isolated skulls and the balance disturbed or indeterminate interments except for 1 sitting and 2 torso only burials. Flexed on the right side exceeded those on the left at a ratio of about 60 to 40. No extended burials were uncovered but semi- flexed were present. [Bullen and Bullen 1976:46] Burial Inventory In 1995, some of the burial remains from the Yellow Bluffs Mound that were curated by Sarasota County were inventoried for the federally mandated Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). At that time, skeletal remains and artifacts from the mound were housed at the Sarasota County Department of Historical Resources, now called the Sarasota County History Center (HC). The inventoried burials were those reported by Milanich (1972) as well as some of the burials salvaged by Davis. In August 2006, then-Sarasota County Archaeologist Dan Hughes and I reinventoried the skeletal collections from the mound that were curated at HC (Hughes and Luer 2006). They consisted of those reported to NAGPRA as well as additional burials salvaged by Davis but overlooked in the NAGPRA list. Additional human remains also occur among zooarchaeological materials from the Yellow Bluffs Mound that are in the FLMNH Environmental Archaeology Range (see "Human Bone," below). Adjacent Middens Two state-mandated archaeological surveys, conducted prior to recent land development, addressed two American Indian shell middens adjacent to the former Yellow Bluffs Mound (Figure 11). These were the Acacias Midden Area A (8SO97A) and Acacias Midden Area B (8SO97B). A Phase I survey assessed Acacias Midden Area A as a significant site eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), leading to its proposed preservation under fill in a deck and garden area incorporating surviving historic features (e.g., ornamental columns) that were part of The Acacias bayside garden (Austin et al. 1989:17, 21-23, 25-26; Piper Archaeology/Janus Research 1992:45). Thus, some of the Acacias Midden Area A was delimited as an "Archaeological Preservation Area" during development (City of Sarasota 1997).'5 On the other hand, Phase II excavations in Acacias Midden Area B determined that it was not eligible for listing in the NRHP, so it was not set aside during subsequent construction (Piper Archaeology/Janus Research 1992:46). The Phase II excavations in Acacias Midden Area B revealed a dense concentration of fighting conch shells, sherds (12 sand-tempered plain, 7 sand- and fiber-tempered plain, 1 St. Johns Plain), two stemmed bifaces, nine pieces of lithic debitage, and 26 shell implements of various types, including possible quahog valve tools (Piper Archaeology/ Janus Research 1992:17, 24-28). The work also produced four radiocarbon dates (Table 1). Two dates based on quahog shells from the lower portion of Area B suggest occupation in the middle of the Manasota Period (ca. cal A.D. 50 to 250), or soon after construction of the Yellow Bluffs Mound. A shallower portion of Area B produced two dates based on fighting conch shells that suggest more recent occupation in the late Weeden Island Period or early Safety Harbor Period (also see "Wider Context" and Note 16, below). Although Area A was preserved, little is known about the midden's age and cultural affiliation. Testing produced an assemblage of non-diagnostic pottery consisting of one St. Johns Plain and 19 sand-tempered plain sherds. Possible quahog shell tools as well as bone and shell food refuse (including oyster, quahog, fighting conch, left-handed whelk, horse conch, and king's crown [Melongena corona] shells) were found in dark brown sand near the surface to depths of 30 to 100 cm (12 to 36 in) below the surface (Austin et al. 1989:13). In 1969, Milanich (1972:23, Figure 3) placed a backhoe trench ("backhoe cut 3") in Area A near the bay, approximately 55 m (180 ft) northwest of the Yellow Bluffs Mound (a location now on Bay's Bluff Condominium property). He reported a midden deposit 15 cm (6 in) deep that yielded "only food bone and shell" (Milanich 1972:23). According to the City of Sarasota survey (Monroe et al. 1977:Figure 7), a narrow strip of Acacias Midden Area A extends northward along the shore of Sarasota Bay, directly in front of Bay's Bluff Condominium (Figure 11). Today, immediately north of Bay's Bluff Condominium, midden shells can be seen at the bases of live oaks and cabbage palms. This north end of the Acacias Midden was impacted, ca. 2000, during construction of the City of Sarasota's Whitaker- Gateway Park, when digging of a retention area for rainfall run- off removed some of the midden immediately north of Bay's Bluff Condominium. At the same time, the footer of a boundary wall along the park's northwest edge intruded into the south end of the Palmetto Lane Midden (8SO96). Radiocarbon dates from the Palmetto Lane Midden (Luer 1992b:247-248; Luer et al. 2005:2-22 through 2-23, Appendices V and VI) support a YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND LUER THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Figure 11. Continued land use changes around the former Acacias. Compare this with the same area shown in Figure 4. Top: locations of Acacias Midden Areas A and B (based on Austin et al. 1989; Piper Archaeology/Janus Research 1992). Bottom: location of the former Yellow Bluffs Mound between footprints of today's Bay's Bluff Condominium and pool, and the northern tower of the Sarasota Bay Club (based on A M Engineering 2003; Hebb and Associates 1978; Mosby Engineering Associates, Inc. 1969). period of occupation ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 300, which overlaps with dated burials from the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Luer and Hughes, this issue). New Research New information about the Yellow Bluffs Mound helps to reinterpret its age and cultural affiliation. Especially important are radiocarbon dates obtained by Luer and Hughes (this issue), funded by Sarasota County. These radiocarbon dates support the interpretation that the mound was built in the early middle portion of the Manasota Period (ca. 185 to 60 B.C.), which is equivalent to the middle Deptford Period of the Gulf region of northern Florida (Milanich 1994:114). This new information allows reassessment of the ceramics and faunal remains from the mound (vertebrate remains are curated at FLMNH, and some ceramics are stored at HC). Ceramics Pottery sherds recovered by the UF-NC excavations in 1969 (Tables 2 and 3 in Milanich 1972) comprise a diverse 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER ELLOWBLUFF MOUN Figure 12. Notched and tooled sand-tempered rim sherds from Yellow Bluffs Mound at HC. Shown are top and exterior views, with profiles solid black, a and b: FS 12 (north-south trench, Square 110N, 150E, upper mound); c: FS 27 (intersection of east-west and north- south trenches, Square 140N, 150E, upper mound); d: FS 15 (north-south trench, Square 110N, 150E, upper midden at mound base). FS numbers are written on specimens; prove- niences based on Milanich (1969c). Illustration adapted from Luer (1992a:Figure 8). assemblage. Some sherds may predate construction of the Yellow Bluffs Mound and may represent inclusions in the mound's sandy fill that the builders of the mound might have borrowed from older, nearby midden deposits.. Such pottery includes fiber-tempered (Orange Plain, Orange Incised, St. Johns ware with fiber temper) and sand- and fiber-tempered (Norwood Simple Stamped) sherds, of which Milanich (1972:Table 2) reported nine Orange Plain sherds from "mound fill," five from the upper mound and four from the lower mound. Typically, fiber-tempered pottery occurs in the Late Archaic and Florida Transitional periods of the Florida Gulf coast (ca. 2000 to 500 B.C.), which predate the Yellow Bluffs Mound. However, some researchers report that fiber-tempered pottery can occur "as a minor element" in the early Deptford Period (Tesar 1980:70, 588) and continue occasionally into the middle Deptford Period, ca. A.D. 1 (Milanich 1994:129; Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:78), so it is possible that some fiber-tempered sherds in the Yellow Bluffs Mound may be contemporary with its construction and use. Based on radiocarbon dates from the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Luer and Hughes, this issue), the assemblage's Deptford sherds appear to be coeval with the time of original mound construction and burial interment. These include Deptford Check Stamped, Deptford Linear Check Stamped, and Deptford Simple Stamped sherds. These ceramics, stamped with carved wooden paddles, are hallmarks of the Deptford horizon, which ranges from ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 100 or 200 in the Gulf region of northern Florida (Milanich 1973, 1994:114, 135). In the Sarasota region, the Deptford horizon follows the Florida Transitional Period (ca. 1000 to 500 B.C.) and is equivalent to the early and middle portions of the Manasota Period. Probably also dating to this time are many of the Yellow Bluffs Mound's plain ware sherds, including some with tooled lips (Figure 12). These tooled rim sherds came from depths throughout the mound, including the upper mound base (Field Specimen [FS] 15), the lower mound (FS 30), and the upper mound (FS 12 and 27). Such a distribution supports * a 1.-'"* b 3cin <___ _ <^ *^r.' ''^ _^.^<^\m /^^:'\ 3 c YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND LUER THE LORIA ATHROOLOGST 011 OL. 4(f their interment during original mound construction and use, rather than being superficial, late intrusions. In a previous article, I identified the specimens in Figure 12 as representing a possible early form of "Glades Tooled" (Luer 1992a:235, 239). However, I now think that my earlier identification is in error and that based on radiocarbon dates (Luer and Hughes, this issue) and on their occurrence at depths throughout the mound, most of them instead date to the Deptford horizon. In further support of that interpretation, I note that similar scalloped or tooled lips occur on ceramics within that horizon in the Gulf region of northern Florida, including the types Deptford Simple Stamped and Gulf Check Stamped, as pictured by Willey (1949:Figures 21, 29). My reinspection of lip-modified sherds in the HC collection from the Yellow Bluffs Mound reveals only one rim sherd (labeled "So-4-17") that can be classified as Pinellas Plain. It is from FS 17 and is identified by Milanich (1969c) as one of two "contorted paste sherds" from relatively near the surface of the southern end of the "southwest trench" (Square 105N, 110E, Zone II). This location is at the mound's extreme southwestern edge (Figures 8 and 9). The sherd has all the "classic" traits of a Pinellas Plain notched rim sherd. These include laminated paste, a flat lip, vertical V-notches that were sliced or cut in the outer edge of its lip, as well as linear striations on top of its lip and in its notches (made by the serrated edge of a shark tooth cutting tool). Such notched Pinellas Plain sherds are known to date from ca. A.D. 1250 and into the postcontact period (Luer 1992c:270). Thus, this Pinellas Plain rim sherd appears to postdate mound construction and is unusual in the mound's ceramic assemblage. All other rim sherds with modified lips in the HC collection from the Yellow Bluffs Mound are sand- tempered with tooled lips, as pictured in Figure 12 and Figure 13a, h. None of them has Pinellas paste or other attributes of Pinellas Plain pottery. Consistent with the great rarity of Pinellas Plain pottery in the Yellow Bluffs Mound is a lack of Safety Harbor Period mortuary ceramics. Milanich (1972:39) states explicitly that he found no such pottery in the mound (no "Pinellas Incised, Lake Jackson Plain, Safety Harbor Incised, Ft. Walton Incised, and Wakulla Check Stamped pottery"). He attributed its lack to the Yellow Bluffs Mound's geographic location rather than to its pre-Safety Harbor Period age. We now know that Safety Harbor Period mortuary ceramics occur throughout west- peninsular and southwestern Florida during the Mississippian Period (e.g., Luer and Almy 1987:315, Table 2; Mitchem 1989), and that its absence at the Yellow Bluffs Mound is not a function of geography but instead is a reflection of the mound's earlier age. I also inspected other sherds from the UF-NC excavations that are housed at HC, some pictured in Figure 13. They include two Deptford Linear Check Stamped sherds, a rim sherd (FS 12) and a body sherd (FS 26). Both contain mica inclusions, suggesting that they may be trade ware originating in northern Florida. They appear to be the two Deptford Linear Check Stamped sherds listed from "mound fill" by Milanich (1972:Table 2). A third sherd (FS 52) at HC is a St. Johns Linear Check Stamped body sherd. It came from the lower mound fill. It may reflect trade with the St. Johns River region. Similar Deptford and St. Johns series sherds that appear to be trade ware occur in southeastern Florida at the Brickell Point/ Miami Circle component of Miami Midden No. 2 (8DA12) in contexts dating to ca. 700 B.C. to A.D. 200 (Carr 2006). Two other specimens at HC are cord-marked body sherds (Figure 13f, g). They appear to be the two "cord marked" sherds from "mound fill" listed by Milanich (1972:Table 2). One is labeled FS 50 (apparently from Layer 7 or 8 in the center of the mound) and the other has an illegible FS number. Specimen FS 50 resembles a specimen pictured by Carr (2006:Figure 22a) from the same Miami Circle assemblage, cited above, that includes Deptford and related ceramics. Cord-marked pottery, impressed with a cord-wrapped paddle, often is found in Swift Creek and Weeden Island Period sites, but it also occurs in earlier Deptford Period contexts (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:65, 79; Sears 1963:36; Tesar 1980:74). These two cord-marked sherds from the Yellow Bluffs Mound also may represent trade ware from northern Florida (most local pottery in the Sarasota area during the middle Manasota Period was sand-tempered plain). I should mention two other decorated sherds in the HC collection. One is a sand-tempered body sherd (FS 13, north-south trench, Square 1 OlN, 150E, Zone III) identified by Milanich (1969c) as "Carrabelle Punctated," a type of the Weeden Island (ca. A.D. 400 to 700) and Suwannee Valley (ca. A.D. 700 to 1200) periods of northern Florida (Milanich 1994:183, 351; Willey 1949:425, Figure 45). The specimen has eight deep, small, widely-spaced punctations (Figure 13i). Close inspection shows that the punctations are almost identical, having an outcurved side and two small tails bracketing the opposite incurved side. This shows that the punctations were made with the same implement, perhaps the siphonal tip of a small gastropod shell or the edge of a hollow, narrow reed or bone shaft implement. This sherd has some similarities to Carabelle Punctated (Willey 1949:Figure 42c-e, Plates 30 and 31a, b) as well as to "sand-tempered punctated" sherds from the Canton Street Site dating to the earlier Florida Transitional Period (Bullen et al. 1978:Figure 6a, b, d). I would reclassify the sherd as "miscellaneous punctated" and suggest that it dates to the Deptford horizon, when pottery was sometimes punctated with reeds or sticks (e.g., Milanich 1973:60, 1994:129; Williams 1977:Figure 45). Such an age is suggested by the sherd's recovery from deep in the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Zone III) and by radiocarbon dates from locations in the mound (Layer 6/Zone II and lower Layer 9/Zone IV) that are stratigraphically above and below upper Layer 9/Zone III (Luer and Hughes, this issue). Finally, the other decorated ceramic (FS 39, east-west trench, Square 140N, 125E, Zone IV, mound base) was identified by Milanich (1972:Table 3) as "Opa Locka Incised," a type of the late Glades I/early Glades II periods, ca. A.D. 500 to 800 (Griffin 2002:82-83, 157, Figure 4.5, Figure 5.3). Opa Locka Incised designs are arch-shaped incisions drawn around the rim of a vessel, either with a tool or perhaps a thumbnail (Goggin and Sommer 1949:40). Typically, the incised arches are wide, often semicircular and overlapping, and on an inward-curving rim (e.g., Carr 2006:Figure 6). These attributes differ from those of the FS 39 sherd from the Yellow THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1 102 Voo. 64(1) LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND Figure 13. Decorated sherds from Yellow Bluffs Mound at HC. a: sand-tempered plain rim sherd, pinched inner edge of lip (FS 30, east-west trench, Square 140N, 125E, lower mound); b: St. Johns Check Stamped body sherd (FS 52, intersection of east-west and north-south trenches, Square 140N, 150E, lower mound fill); c: Deptford Linear Check Stamped body sherd (FS 28?); d: Deptford Linear Check Stamped rim sherd (FS 13?); e: St. Johns Simple Stamped body sherd (FS 44?); f: cord-marked body sherd (FS 50, east-west trench and in- tersection of trenches, around Squares 140N, 140E and 140N, 150E, Layers 7 and 8, mound fill); g: cord-marked body sherd (FS ?); h: miscellaneous incised rim sherd (FS 39, east-west trench, Square 140N, 125E, mound base) identified by Milanich as "Opa Locka Incised;" i: miscellaneous punctated body sherd (FS 13, north-south trench, Square 110N, 150E, lower mound) identified by Milanich as "Carrabelle Punctated." FS numbers are written on spec- imens (question marks indicate unclear numbers); proveniences based on Milanich (1969c). LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) Bluffs Mound, which is a small, sand-tempered rim sherd with a thin body wall (4 mm), a straight rim, and diagonal lines on top of a flat lip. On the rim below the lip, it has a vertical row of seven small, closely-spaced, apparent fingernail jabs or incisions, creating tiny flattish or obtuse arches with the open sides downward (Figure 13h). Such a simple design could be made occasionally by potters at different times and places. For example, an apparently similar treatment appears on a sand- and limestone-tempered rim sherd from the Florida Transitional Period (ca. 1000 to 500 B.C.) pictured by Bullen et al. (1978:Figure 6e). I would reclassify the FS 39 specimen from the Yellow Bluffs Mound as a "miscellaneous incised" sherd and suggest that it dates to the Deptford horizon based on its recovery from deep in the mound and on radiocarbon dates supporting such an age (Luer and Hughes, this issue). Lithic and Bone Artifacts Milanich (1972:30-32, Figure 10) described and pictured a number of stone artifacts. Most were rather crude, flaked knives and points, and two small scrapers, of generally low- grade chert of probable west-central Florida origin. He also pictured a single "siltstone plummet" (FS 7), probably of local origin (1972:Figure 10), and he described a barrel-shaped "whetstone" (FS 13) (1972:30). Most of these artifacts are housed at HC. Davis recovered similar artifacts, including lithic flakes of low-grade chert that are at HC and are unstudied. Milanich (1969c) also listed numerous "chert flakes" from many proveniences. Some lithic flakes at HC may be those excavated by Milanich, and four of them in FS 13 are among the mound's vertebrate remains housed at FLMNH (see next section, below). Such lithic artifacts are typical of the middle Manasota Period, although some could be older if they were accidental inclusions in mound fill or if they were collected items. One, a small ovate scraper, was reported with Burial 2 (Milanich 1972:34, Figure 10j). No exotic copper or lithic burial goods were found in the mound, nor were any shell vessels, shell plummets, or shell gorgets. This is consistent with other known middle Manasota Period burial sites and with radiocarbon dates of burials from the Yellow Bluffs Mound, which predate the Hopewell horizon and Yent complex, when such goods were placed with burials in some Florida Indian sites (Milanich 1994:135-140). Milanich (1972:30, Figure 9) also described and pictured a number of bone artifacts, most from the lower portion of the Yellow Bluffs Mound, including the upper and lower "midden" zones (Layer 9) at mound base. Some may be accidental inclusions in mound fill; none was reported with a burial. One is a perforated tiger shark tooth, perhaps from a hafted knife, and another is a small bone tube cut from a small longbone. A number of bone tools were fashioned from dense shaft pieces of deer metapodials, which the Indians intentionally reduced, split, and then worked. They consist of fragments of three awls and two pins as well as four points with evidence ofhafting on one end. Again, Davis recovered similar artifacts, which are typical of the middle Manasota Period. My reinspection of vertebrate remains from the Yellow Bluffs Mound, housed at FLMNH, revealed several additional pieces of worked deer longbone, including a fragment of a polished shaft (FS 21, perhaps from an awl) and a proximal epiphysis with cut marks (FS 43), both from the "upper midden" (Layer 9). I also identified two other deer bone artifacts in the FLMNH collection, one fashioned from a left metacarpal (FS46, upper Layer 9) and the other fashioned from a left metatarsal (FS 18, lower Layer 9). Each consisted of a long, narrow, proximal portion of a split shaft with distal and proximal ends removed. FS 18 appears to be unused, but FS 46 displayed much use-wear on its distal portion, including scratches, polish, and rounded edges. These apparently were a result of gouging motions. This tool's distal end also displayed several scored facets that apparently were a result of grinding against a hard, gritty surface. Zooarchaeological Remains Milanich (1972:Table 1) presents a list of vertebrate taxa represented by remains recovered from the "sub-mound base" (two strata labeled Layer 9) during the 1969 UF-NC excavations in the Yellow Bluffs Mound. These taxa were identified by Kent Ainslie and Curtiss Peterson using the vertebrate reference collection at FSM (now FLMNH), under the direction of Elizabeth Wing. For the overall mound, Milanich describes vertebrate remains as follows: "more than 75 per cent of the bones were those of deer, turtle, and fish" (Milanich 1972:39). In 2007, I reinspected the collection of vertebrate remains from the overall mound (mound base and other strata) that are curated at FLMNH in the Environmental Archaeology Range (Zooarchaeology Collection #93). In Milanich's Table 1 that lists vertebrate taxa, there is a prevalence of large-size animals. This probably reflects: 1) recovery of remains on large mesh screens (greater than 1/4-inch); 2) lack of identification of some remains; 3) poor preservation of small or delicate remains; and 4) selection of large animals by the Indians. My reinspection of the overall collection supported all four of these biases. With regard to the first, Milanich (1972:23) describes the use of 1/2 inch mesh screens and "a mechanical sifter with 3/8 by 3/4 inch mesh hardware cloth." Regarding identification, I observed some remains of taxa not listed, including unidentified bird (Aves, FS 21, 24, 43, 51) and small-size bony fish (e.g., toadfish, Opsanus sp., FS 10). An observation by Milanich (1972:39) that "fish skull bones were extremely rare, suggesting that the fish were cleaned at least partially before being placed in the mound base" appears instead to reflect poor preservation (due to decay, fragmentation, and dissolution) of delicate, less-dense elements. The collection from the mound base does contain kinds of fish cranial elements that are structurally dense and thus are more likely to persist in archaeological deposits (Luer 2007:294-297, Tables Q-3 and Q-4). These dense cranial elements show that the heads of fish were present and that they had not been removed ("cleaned"). Cranial elements in the mound base from the upper and lower portions of Layer 9 (the two "midden" strata, FS 18, 39, 43) include neurocranial THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER ELLOWBLUFF MOUN fragments of saltwater catfish (Arriidae), a dermethmoid (front of the neurocranium) of a blue runner (Caranx crysos), hyperostoses from cleithra of probable crevalle jack (Caranx cf. hippos), dentaries and maxillae of sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus), and a quadrate of a drum fish (Sciaenidae). The collection's abundant deer bones and deer bone fragments may reflect some intentional inclusion by Indians of deer remains in the mound. All deer body parts appear to be represented (e.g., head, torso, front and rear limbs). However, the greater density and hence better preservation of deer bone may play a role in its abundance (as accidental inclusions in mound fill as well as intentional ones). The same two processes may apply to turtle and tortoise bones in the collection from the mound base (FS 18, 19, 21, 30, 39, 43, 47, 51), including those of snapping turtle (Chelydra sp.), mud turtle (Kinosternidae), chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), box turtle (Terrapene carolina), softshell turtle (Trionyx ferox), and sea turtle (Chelonidae). At some other burial sites, an abundance of deer and turtle remains suggests that Indians intentionally included them with human interments, such as in the Fort Center pond burial area that is approximately 400 to 600 years younger than the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Hale 1984:177, Table 1; Sears 1982:Table 7.1; Purdy 1991:98). Much of the vertebrate faunal collection came from the lower portion of the Yellow Bluffs Mound, especially from the mound base. Divergent radiocarbon dates of two deer bone fragments from the base of the mound (ca. 3,200 versus 2,100 years old, see Luer and Hughes, this issue) suggest a mixture of faunal remains of different ages. That is, some remains date to the time of mound construction, whereas other remains are older and might have originated in deposits borrowed and used as fill by the builders of the mound. Despite apparent mixing, some faunal remains may date to the time of mound construction and use in both the mound base and the upper portion of the mound. This is suggested by a deer bone fragment from the mound base, which yielded a calibrated 2-sigma radiocarbon date of cal 340 to 40 B.C., or the same general time when burials were interred in the mound (Luer and Hughes, this issue). It also is suggested by the good condition of some vertebrate remains, which hint at primary deposition during the time of mound construction and use. An example is a portion of a deer mandible apparently interred with Burial 2 in the upper portion of the mound (Milanich 1972:34, Figure 9, bottom). Coeval deposition would be consistent with Milanich's (1972:34) interpretation that some faunal remains in the mound's upper portion represent "food offerings," such as deer, fish, and shellfish remains associated with Burials 1, 2, and 3 (also see Luer 1986:151). Primary deposition of some faunal remains in the mound base could support Milanich's (1972:24) hypothesis that some may represent food offerings deposited at or just before the beginning of mound construction. Human Bone I should note that human remains are mixed with faunal materials in the FLMNH zooarchaeology collection. I identified them provisionally in 2007. Many of these human remains were listed by Milanich (1969c) in his "Field Specimen Catalogue." He did not assign them to Burials 1 through 10 (Milanich 1972), and many may represent additional individuals. They apparently were not numbered as burials because of their scattered recovery and fragmentary occurrence. Milanich returned Burials 1 through 10 to the SCHC, and today they are curated at HC. Most of the FLMNH human remains are from the mound's sandy upper portion (e.g., Layer 6), called "mound fill" by Milanich (1972:26, Figure 4). They include teeth, cranial, longbone, and vertebral fragments (FS 14, 24, 28) from the east-west trench's Square 140N, 125E, some of which may be derived from Burials 4, 5, 6, and 7. Moving eastward in the east-west trench, more cranial and longbone fragments as well as teeth (FS 23, 31) came from Square 140N, 140E, which included Feature 1 (FS 23, an intrusive cache of large marine gastropod shells [see below]). It is unclear if the human remains in FS 23 were associated with Feature 1 or if they were from the older, surrounding mound; they included 16 teeth, a mandible fragment, and 12 cranial fragments according to Milanich (1969c). Other remains came from immediately to the south, in the adjacent 5 x 10 ft Square 135N, 140E, consisting of a cranial fragment, a longbone fragment, and two teeth (FS 25), a longbone shaft with cut marks (FS 26), and cranial fragments (FS 33). The shaft with cut marks is unusual. More human remains came from high in the central area of the mound. They include a patella, an unworn molar crown (FS 8), and a frontal (FS 27) from Square 140N, 150E in the intersection of the east-west and north-south trenches. One molar (FS 44) came from this same general area in Square 125N, 150E in the north-south trench. All these remains might have been displaced by Moore's trench, which impacted that area. Farther south in the north-south trench, a partially burned cranial fragment (FS 12) came from Square ll0N, 150E. The latter fragment, listed as "1 burnt human occipital" by Milanich (1969c), is unusual because it is burned. The FLMNH collection also includes a longbone shaft fragment (FS 43) from the "upper midden" (Layer 9), located deep in the mound in Square 140N, 140E. It may correspond with "a single premolar, perhaps intrusive, [which] was found in the prepared base" (in one of the two "midden" layers, Layer 9) (Milanich 1972:24). Besides these two elements, no other human remains are known from the base of the mound. Intrusive Finds A number of items recovered from the Yellow Bluffs Mound appear to be intrusive since the mound was first built and used over 2,000 years ago. Clearly intrusive are several bones of domestic animals recovered during the 1969 salvage excavations and stored in the FLMNH zooarchaeology collection. They include a left astragalus of a cow (FS 3, from 6 to 12 inches below surface), a sawn thin ring of bone (apparently from a single thin slice of ham; FS 5, from 18 to 24 inches below surface), and sawn proximal ends of two right cow ribs (FS 7, from "mound fill"). These bones appear to be LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) food remains of people who lived near the mound during the nineteenth and/or twentieth centuries. They may be associated with a few nails, glass, wire, and flower pot fragments noted by Milanich (1969c) from near the surface of the mound, which were discarded in the field. Also in the FLMNH zooarchaeology collection are several snake vertebrae that may be intrusive in the upper portion of the Yellow Bluffs Mound. The light color of these snake vertebrae suggests that they may be more recent than darker-colored bones from elsewhere in the mound. These light-colored vertebrae are identified as coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) by Milanich (1972:37). He mentions them with Burials 8 and 10, with which they were recovered, but in both cases he notes the intrusive central disturbance that we now know was dug by C. B. Moore (see above). I suggest that these snake remains may be intrusive, perhaps dating to the time of Moore's dig, or perhaps earlier. An earlier intrusion in the Yellow Bluffs Mound is suggested by radiocarbon dates of marine shells from Feature 1 (FS 23) that was excavated in 1969 near the surface in the east-west trench in Square 140N, 140E (see Luer and Hughes, this issue). Three shells from Feature 1 yield a calibrated 2-sigma age range of cal A.D. 1560 to 1660, suggesting that American Indians might have placed this cache of large univalve shells in the mound during the postcontact Safety Harbor Period. Perhaps the cache represents a ritual offering of some kind. Archaeological work at other sand burial mounds in central and southern Florida indicates that there was widespread reuse of older burial mounds by postcontact- period Indians, who placed burials, glass beads, metal tablets, and other valued items in them (Allerton et al. 1984:10, 22; Hughes and Hardin 2003). The reuse of existing mounds by later Florida Indians as places of offering and/or interment supports the interpretation that they understood them to be burial mounds and viewed them as sacred places. The Yellow Bluffs Mound in Wider Context Nearby shell middens indicate that Indians lived near the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Figure 14). Close-by, the Acacias Midden Area A (8SO97A) overlooked Sarasota Bay to the west of the mound, and another area of midden deposit, Acacias Midden Area B (8SO97B), was just south of the mound (Austin et al. 1989; Piper Archaeology/Janus Research 1992). A lower portion ofAcacias Midden Area B yielded two radiocarbon dates (Table 1) suggesting habitation in the middle of the Manasota Period (ca. cal A.D. 50 to 250), soon after original construction and use of the Yellow Bluffs Mound. A shallower portion of this same Area B midden produced two more recent dates suggesting habitation in the late Weeden Island and early Safety Harbor periods.16 North of the Acacias Midden and the Yellow Bluffs Mound, a long, linear shell midden ran along the shore of Sarasota Bay (Figure 14). Named the Palmetto Lane Midden (8SO96), it formed a distinct ridge rich in quahog clam shells (Archibald et al. 1989; Luer 1992b; Luer and Archibald 1990; Quitmyer 1992). The Palmetto Lane Midden grew higher and wider as it neared Whitaker Bayou, a tributary to Sarasota Bay. Just across the bayou to the north, the Alameda Way Shell Midden (8SO39) (Almy 1976; Monroe et al. 1977) is a continuation of similar midden deposits rich in quahog clam shells. Three radiocarbon dates from the Palmetto Lane Midden (Table 1) support habitation that was generally coeval with the original construction and use of the Yellow Bluffs Mound. These three dates came from the Drainage Culvert Trench at the north edge of Lot 3 in the Tocobaga Bay Subdivision (Luer 1992b:247-248). Four additional radiocarbon samples from the Palmetto Lane Midden were obtained during a cultural resource assessment project in 2004 on a parcel, Lot 8, in the Tocobaga Bay Subdivision by Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (Luer et al. 2005). Two of these dates from Lot 8's upper midden in Test Pits #1 and #6 (Luer et al. 2005:Appendix V) are coeval with dated burials from the Yellow Bluffs Mound. That same Lot 8 yielded human remains in shell midden deposits dating to the middle of the Manasota Period, which suggests that not all individuals were buried in sand burial mounds, such as the Yellow Bluffs Mound. The remains discovered in 2004 in Lot 8 were disarticulated and scattered (Luer et al. 2005:2-23 through 2-24). Additional human remains, apparently from an articulated burial, came from a shovel test to the east on the adjacent parcel, Lot 9, during an archaeological survey in 1989. These remains were in "dense quahog shell midden" and consisted of a number of longbone and cranial fragments, phalanges, and very worn adult teeth (Archibald et al. 1989:15). In 2007, additional human remains were uncovered in the Alameda Way Shell Midden, north of Whitaker Bayou, during construction of a residence (Almy et al. 2007). Burials in midden debris, cemeteries, and burial mounds are typical of the Manasota Culture (Luer and Almy 1982:46- 47). The dates from the Yellow Bluffs Mound show that mound burial was being practiced by the early middle portion of the Manasota Period (ca. 185 to 60 cal B.C.). Another sand burial mound that was being used during the middle and late Manasota Period is the Palmer Burial Mound in Sarasota County (see Bullen and Bullen 1976; Hutchinson 2004; Luer 1986:148-150, Figure 12; Luer and Almy 1982:47; Norr 2004). Both the Yellow Bluffs Mound and Palmer Burial Mound are examples of "continuous use or cemetery type" burial mounds, as described by Sears (1958). The Manasota Key Cemetery (Dickel 1991), also in Sarasota County, produced two radiocarbon dates that are coeval with dated burials in the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Gold 2006:Appendix I). At the Manasota Key Cemetery, burials apparently were interred in a natural beach ridge, rather than in an artificial mound. It appears that burial placement (i.e., in cemeteries, middens, or mounds) was variable in the region during the middle Manasota Period. This may reflect a number of factors, such as the population size of communities, the social power of lineages, and the rank or status of individuals buried. Besides cemeteries and mounds, some interments might have occurred in habitation settings (e.g., under the floors of houses?), perhaps accounting for human remains found in some shell middens (such as the Palmetto Lane Midden's Lots 8 and 9). THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND Figure 14. The Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4) and nearby Ameri- can Indian archaeological sites in the City of Sarasota. Adapted from Monroe et al. (1977), Carr et al. (1989), Luer (2005), and other sources. Sand burial mounds were appearing at important sites across central and southern Florida approximately 2,500 to 1,500 years ago. Predating the Yellow Bluffs Mound, two radiocarbon dates from the Crystal River site suggest that mound burials began there early in the Deptford Period, ca. 800 to 420 cal B.C. One of these dated burials was from the Crystal River site's Mound G and the other from Mound C. Moving ahead in time, three more radiocarbon dates from Crystal River overlap, or date to just after, our radiocarbon dates from the Yellow Bluffs Mound. Two of these Crystal River dates come from Mound B and the third is based on another burial from Mound G, and they together have a combined age range of roughly 100 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 200 (Pluckhahn et al. 2010:Table 1, Figure 9). Some south Florida burial mounds producing radiocarbon dates in the slightly later range of 2,000 to 1,500 years ago include the Oak Knoll Mound near Bonita Springs (Dickel and Carr 1991:165) and Mound B at Fort Center (Sears 1982:186- 189, 194-199, Table 7.1). Both these mounds date to the Hopewellian-Middle Woodland horizon. Additional mounds, such as the Royce Mound in Highlands County, also show Hopewellian influence and belong to the Middle Woodland horizon (Austin 1993). Meanwhile, burials in midden debris continued at some sites, such as the Dunwody Site on Lemon Bay near Englewood, Florida, dated to the late Manasota Period, ca. cal A.D. 410 to 660 (Gold 2006; Luer 1999:46- 49). Thus, this and preceding paragraphs present important evidence indicating that varied settings, including middens, cemeteries, and mounds, were being used for burial in central and southern Florida approximately 2,500 to 1,500 years ago. I also want to point out that radiocarbon dates from the Yellow Bluffs Mound, Acacias Midden Area B, and the Palmetto Lane Midden now make it clear that a large portion of the Whitaker Site Complex dates to the Manasota Period. Thus, much of the site complex does not date primarily to the Safety Harbor Period, as once thought. Additional components of the site complex, such as the Alameda Way Midden and the Weber Mound (8S020), also may date to the Manasota Period. The ages of other mounds, such as the Cedar Terrace (8S04494), Sylvan Drive (8S04493), and Bullock (8S093) mounds, are unknown. Some other portions of the Whitaker Site Complex are known to date to the Safety Harbor Period, LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from the Acacias and Palmetto Lane middens. The measured and conventional ages are in radiocarbon years before present (B.P.; present = A.D. 1950) and are rounded to the nearest ten. A typical 13C/12C value of marine shell is 0 o/oo, which is 25 o/oo larg- er than the agreed standard of -25 o/oo and thus adds 410 years (25 x 16.4 = 410) to its measured age. Equivalent values (in years) for 13C/12C ratios (1 o/oo = 16.4 years) are stated in this table, and they are reflected in the corrected (conventional) ages. Asterisks indicate estimated ratios and ages. Calibrated age ranges were derived by Beta Analytic, Inc., using the Intcal98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration. Uncorrected dates and 13C/12C ratios for the Acacias Midden are based on Piper Archaeology/Janus Research (1992:Table 3), and uncorrected dates from the Palmetto Lane Midden are based on Luer (1992b:Table 1). One sigma age ranges have 68% probability, and two sigma age ranges have 95% probability. Provenience, Lab Measured, 13C/1C Ratio Conventional, Calibrated, ID# or Uncorrected (Value in Corrected Age Calendrical Submitter's ID#, Age B.P., Years) B.P., 1 Sigma Range, 2 Sigma Material 1 Sigma (* indicates (* indicates estimate) estimate) Acacias Midden Area B (8S097B), upper level 1.91-107-1, 1180+/-70 +2.8 (27.8 x 1640+/-70 cal A.D. 640 to 900 fighting conch** 16.4 = 460) 2. 91-108-1, 1230 +/- 60 +9.0 (34.0 x 1790 +/- 60 cal A.D. 470 to 700 fighting conch** 16.4 = 560) Acacias Midden Area B (8S097B), lower level 1. 91-92-1, quahog 1750 +/- 60 +0.6 (25.6 x 2170+/-60 cal A.D. 50 to 330 valve 16.4 = 420) 2. 91-90-7, quahog 1770 +/- 60 +4.2 (29.2 x 2250 +/- 60 40 cal B.C. to valve 16.4 = 480) cal A.D. 240 Palmetto Lane Midden (8S096) 1. Beta-54002, 1820 +/- 60 0* (25 x 16.4 2230 +/- 60* 30 cal B.C. to quahog valve = 410) cal A.D. 250 2. Beta-54003, 1990 +/- 60 0* (25 x 16.4 2400 +/- 60* 210 cal B.C. to quahog valve = 410) cal A.D. 70 3. Beta-54004, 1730 +/- 60 0* (25 x 16.4 2140 +/- 60* cal A.D. 90 to 380 quahog valve = 410) **Caution is needed in using these ages (see Note 16 at the end of the text). on the basis of radiocarbon dates and/or artifacts, such as the Bolyston Mound (8SO35) and the Whitaker Mound (8S081) (Luer 1992a:228, 1992c, 2005:33-39). Together, the mounds and middens of the Whitaker Site Complex point to a protracted period of habitation, spanning ca. 500 B.C. to ca. A.D. 1250. Such a long age range can be compared with other major multi-mound and midden site complexes in west-central Florida, such as the Crystal River site that began in the Deptford Period and extended into the Weeden Island Period (Pluckhahn et al. 2010) and the Palmer Site that began in the preceramic Archaic Period and extended into the early Safety Harbor Period (Bullen and Bullen 1976; Luer and Almy 1982; Newsom 1998). These comparisons underscore the potential of the Whitaker Site Complex for adding significantly to our knowledge of human history along the Florida Gulf Coast. Conclusion The Yellow Bluffs Mound was protected by its incorporation in the grounds of The Acacias until it was destroyed in 1969 for anticipated construction of a condominium. It is tragic that such a significant, beautiful mound was lost. Such insensitivity to an important part of our 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND cultural heritage has been too common in Florida, especially in the City of Sarasota. Archaeological salvage work in 1969 revealed numerous burials in the western side of the Yellow Bluffs Mound. Ten burials were documented by archaeologists, and many more were salvaged by the SCHC and volunteers. Interments included flexed burials, an apparent extended double burial, and possible bundle burials. Skeletal remains were of males and females of varied ages, some accompanied by possible offerings (especially food, suggested mostly by marine shells and fish bones) (Milanich 1972). This evidence supports the interpretation that the Yellow Bluffs Mound (at least its upper western portion, including Layers 6, 14, and 16) represents a "continuous use or cemetery type" burial mound, as defined by Sears (1958). Archaeological work in 1969 also produced information and collections that allow continued study of the mound. The investigations presented here and in a companion study (Luer and Hughes, this issue) show that the Yellow Bluffs Mound is older than previously thought. It dates to the early middle portion of the Manasota Period, ca. 185 to 60 B.C. Finds in the Yellow Bluffs Mound are generally consistent with what we know from some other burial sites dating to the middle Manasota Period (e.g., the Manasota Key Cemetery and portions of the Palmer Burial Mound) and so they fit comfortably with this revised age while also adding to our knowledge of the period. The recovery of some paddle- stamped sherds (check, cord, and simple stamped) points to contact with Deptford peoples to the north. Such an age makes the Yellow Bluffs Mound coeval with the nearby Palmetto Lane Midden. Indeed, significant portions of the Whitaker Site Complex date to the Manasota Period, namely the Yellow Bluffs Mound, the Palmetto Lane Midden, and some of the Acacias Midden. This Manasota- period occupation probably included the Alameda Way Shell Midden, so that habitation bracketed the mouth of Whitaker Bayou and was spread linearly along the shore of Sarasota Bay. These Manasota-period middens are outstanding for their vast quantities of quahog clam shells as well as other mollusk shells, abundant fish bones, and other animal remains. These shell middens are important for future researchers to gain a better understanding of the fishing, hunting, and gathering lifeways of the Manasota Period Indians. Later, during the early Safety Harbor Period (ca. A.D. 900 or 1000 to ca. A.D. 1300), habitation shifted northward to Indian Beach. There, the Boylston Mound (8SO35) and probably the Shell Road Midden (8SO94) were occupied intensively at that time (Luer 1992c). Both middens might have been associated with the Whitaker Mound (8SO81), which apparently yielded evidence of the Safety Harbor Period, such as sherds with "ornamented" handles (Luer 1992a:228, 2005:35, Figures 18 and 19). Notes 1. Harry L. Schoffwas from upstate western New York. He dug in many Florida sites in the 1930s (Luer 1993:242; Mitchem 1989:43, 191,219, 227). Whitfield Estates was a 1920s boom-time subdivision located along Sarasota Bay and Bowles Creek to the north of the Sarasota-Manatee county line (Manatee County 1925, 1926). 2. The site listed in the FMSF as 8MA75 is based on site "Ma75" that was recorded in the 1950s by the University of Florida Archaeological Site Survey (Plowden 1954). That information was, in turn, collected earlier by the Florida Park Service (FPS), based on a list of sites maintained by Montague Tallant, a collector of American Indian artifacts who lived in Manatee County (Tallant ca. 1940). The FPS identified the site as "Mn 70" ("Mn" stood for "Manatee County," followed by the individual site number), while Tallant called it "No. 85" and described it as a sand mound "50 feet" in diameter, "3 1/2 feet" in height, and "removed by Road Dept." (Tallant ca. 1940). Schoff's mound at the Sarasota-Manatee County line was, according to Willey (1949:344), "60 feet in diameter and 10 feet in height," but its height could have diminished over time due to digging, including by Schoff. 3. In 1958 and 1959, the Sarasota County Historical Commission and its supporting Sarasota County Historical Society were established, and the first County Historian, Dorothy "Dottie" Davis, was hired (e.g., Fritts 1959). One of Davis' early initiatives was an assessment survey of archaeological and historical sites in Sarasota County and the City of Sarasota. She conducted it with Cracker outdoorsman John Fales, producing a typescript report describing many sites (Fales and Davis 1961). 4. Moore did not describe the location of the Yellow Bluffs Mound in his short, published paragraph about the mound (Moore 1900a:362), leading Mitchem (1999:6, 20) to misidentify it as the Weber Mound (which is on the opposite, northern side of Whitaker Bayou). However, Moore did describe the location of the Yellow Bluffs Mound in his field notes (Moore 1900b:27), and he marked its location in his published frontispiece map (Moore 1900a:350). This is explained in Luer (2005:35, 39), where Moore's field notes are quoted, and they are quoted again in this article (see above). The field notes describe the mound as southeast of the mouth of Whitaker Bayou and within sight of the bay, which accurately describes the Yellow Bluffs Mound. Moore also describes the mound's dimensions, which match those of the Yellow Bluffs Mound. In addition, Moore mentions a land owner and nearby winter resident, Mrs. F. E. Brooks. A check of deed records indicates that Frank E. Brooks and Flora W. Brooks of Oakland County, Michigan (near Detroit), purchased land in the Whitaker Subdivision in 1896 and 1903 (Manatee County n.d.:447, 449). 5. William Whitaker moved from Middle Florida after the Armed Occupation Act opened the Sarasota Bay area to American settlement, and he quickly became an owner of land, slaves, and cattle (Grismer 1946:31; Luer 1992a:230-232; Matthews 1981:171-175). Previously, I described the Whitakers' second house (pictured in Tricebock 1986:14) and I interpreted its architectural attributes as derived from Louisiana via Middle Florida (Luer 1992a:230). This interpretation is supported by LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE LORIA ATHROOLOGST 011 OL. 4(1 similar house styles in Louisiana, where they are termed "Creole" (Rehder 1978:Figure 6a). The Whitakers' second house was demolished many decades ago. The multi-story San Marco Condominium, bordering U.S. 41, was built on its former location in 2005. 6. Palmetto Lane was a remnant of the Whitaker homestead and appears in Figure 2, top. Its northern portion still exists today and is one of the oldest streets in the City of Sarasota. 7. Karl Bickel was an international newsman and president of United Press from 1922 to 1935. He retired to Sarasota, where he was active in municipal, state, and international affairs (Luer 2002:48, Note 7; Puig 2002:16-25). His book, The Mangrove Coast, was published in 1942. In 1948, Bickel and his wife, Madira, purchased a significant American Indian temple mound on Terra Ceia Island and donated it to the State of Florida, now known as the Madira Bickel Mound State Archaeological Site, a 10-acre park maintained by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Florida Park Service 2010). 8. During most years since 1969, the City of Sarasota has had meager legal protection for archaeological sites. Recently, portions of four significant sites were destroyed with little or no salvage work (at the Pinard Midden [8SO99] in 1996, Old Oak Site [8S051] in 2001, Alameda Way Shell Midden [8SO39] in 2007, and Shell Road Midden [8SO94] in 2008). These four sites date to different time periods, so that important pages of the region's history were lost. The city's current "Historic Preservation Plan" continues to be weak (City of Sarasota 2008). Outside the city, Sarasota County has developed stronger protective measures and has implemented an archaeological resources protection program since the late 1980s (e.g., Archibald 1991; Sarasota County 2009). A law that has applied to both the city and county, since 1987, is the State of Florida's legislation to protect unmarked human burials (State of Florida 2009). 9. Richard E. Glendinning, Jr. (b. 1918, d. 1988) was a writer bom in Elizabeth, New Jersey. After graduation from Dartmouth College, he worked for Vogue Magazine and Country Life, and as public relations director for the Baltimore Museum of Art. After serving in the Navy during World War II, he wrote pulp magazine stories, radio scripts, and articles. After moving to Florida in 1950, he was one of a number of well-known artists and writers in Sarasota (e.g., Marth 1973:151). In the 1950s, he authored many paperback novels in the Gold Medal Books and the Popular Library series. Later, he wrote books about historical topics, such as The Mountain Men (1962) and Frontier Doctors (1963) (both with noted author Wyatt Blassingame of Anna Maria Island [Norwood 2003:115- 117]) and a book for young readers, Circus Days Under the Big Top (1969). Glendinning was interested in Florida history and served on the Sarasota County Historical Commission in the 1960s. In the 1970s, Glendinning was a founding director of the Sarasota County Historical and Natural Sciences Center (Anonymous 1988), now called the Gulf Coast Heritage Association, which manages Historic Spanish Point and the shell middens of the Palmer Site (8S02). On a personal note, he was one of my neighbors in Sarasota in 1967 and 1968, when he lent me facsimiles of John Lee Williams' The Territory of Florida and Bernard Romans' A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida, two books which encouraged my interest in Florida history. 10. Davis was County Historian from 1958 to 1982. In the late 1960s, Davis' office was at the southwest entrance to the old Sarasota County Courthouse, near the corer of Ringling and Washington Boulevards. Upstairs, the SCHC met in the County Commissioners' chamber, where Ripley Bullen analyzed collections from the Paulsen Point Midden (8SO23) in early 1968 (Bullen 1971:5). 11. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra), in the walnut family (Juglandacea), is at the southern end of its range in Sarasota County, where it grows on well-drained ground in the Indian Beach, Whitaker Bayou, and Yellow Bluffs areas in the City of Sarasota. It also grows farther south at Historic Spanish Point, in Osprey (Rabinowitz 1998:8), where archaeobotanical remains of carbonized hickory nutshell fragments have been recovered from different components of the Shell Ridge Midden dating to the Manasota (ca. A.D. 200 to 300) and early Safety Harbor (ca. A.D. 1100) periods (Newsom 1998:210, Table 4). Historical accounts and archaeological evidence indicate that hickory nuts and oak acorns were important foods for Indians in north-central Florida (Newsom 1987:62). It is possible that pignut hickory might have been spread southward to Sarasota County by Indians of the Manasota Period, or earlier, who could have used its nuts as a food source. 12. I was in school in April and May and visited the mound only two or three times. During the summer, I was studying orchids (Luer 1969) and did not revisit the mound. I was puzzled by what was happening there. The situation contrasted with well-managed American Indian sites I had seen at Russell Cave and Mesa Verde in 1963, at Serpent Mound and Mound City in Ohio and at Florida's Crystal River in 1967, and in 1968 in Mexico, where I visited TeotihuacAn and the National Museum of Anthropology. I had read about American archaeology (e.g., Brennan 1959; Covarrubias 1954; Fewkes 1924; Fundaburk and Foreman 1957; La Farge 1956; Willey 1949), and I did not see how the State of Florida and the City of Sarasota could allow destruction of a beautiful mound like the one at Yellow Bluffs. Later that summer, in August 1969, I visited a neglected Monk's Mound at Cahokia. It had eroding gullies and a new interstate highway to its north, and I realized how differently archaeological sites were treated from place to place. 13. Another apparent error in the Phase I survey was the assumption that three buildings located near the center of the survey area were "Servant's Quarters" associated with The Acacias. Instead, Sanborn maps and a 1948 aerial photograph indicate that these buildings postdate the original estate and that they were located on adjacent parcels (e.g., Sanborn Map Company 1929, 1966). THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND 14. Another error occurs in my plan view map of the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Luer 1992a:Figure 7), which has an incorrect scale of 1 inch = 30 feet, whereas it should be 1 inch = 20 feet. However, the mound's approximate basal dimensions of 29 by 37 m (95 by 120 ft) that are stated in Luer (2005:Tables 2 and 3) are accurate. 15. According to the City of Sarasota (1997), the developer's site plan delimited an "Archaeological Preservation Area" that was to be "maintained and preserved throughout the duration of construction" and that was "limited to sidewalks and bicycle path." Furthermore, all activity within the preservation area was to be monitored by Janus Research, the archaeological firm retained by the developer. Today, the preservation area is near Sarasota Bay, west of the Sarasota Bay Club's two condominium towers. 16. Two fighting conch shells from the upper level of Acacias Midden Area B produced calibrated age ranges spanning cal A.D. 470 to 900 (Table 1). Ongoing radiocarbon dating research at Charlotte Harbor suggests that fighting conch shells may yield older dates than other marine shells in the region, so the Acacias Midden Area B dates may be approximately two to five hundred years too early. Acknowledgments The Sarasota County Historical Commission must be recognized for spearheading the 1969 salvage work at the Yellow Bluffs Mound. Although it was an unwelcome task for which they were unprepared (they preferred preservation over destruction), the late Doris Davis and the late Richard Glendinning worked selflessly in the salvage effort. Also giving important support for the salvage work was the late John Elmendorf, President of New College, and his wife, anthropologist Mary L. Elmendorf. Even in the 1960s, these four citizens were trying to save Sarasota's American Indian past. Today, this commitment lives on in Sarasota County's Historic and Archaeological Resource Protection Ordinance (Sarasota County 2009), which has been in effect since the 1990s. In contrast, the City of Sarasota has lagged behind in providing sufficient legal protection for its disappearing archaeological heritage (City of Sarasota 2008). In Sarasota, I would like to thank Dan Hughes, Sarasota County Archaeologist at the History Center from 2002 to 2008, who made collections from the Yellow Bluffs Mound available for study. He also kindly facilitated archival and collections research, and worked to obtain funding from Sarasota County for radiocarbon dates. Also at the History Center in 2009, Lorrie Muldowny and Jeff LaHurd helped with radiocarbon dates and historic images. In 2007, I obtained plat and boundary information at the Sarasota County Clerk of the Circuit Court. In Sarasota in 2004, Marion Almy included me in further work at the Palmetto Lane Midden. I also want to thank Tesa Norman, of Sarasota, for her expertise with computer images and graphics. In Gainesville, Sylvia Scudder at FLMNH provided access to the zooarchaeology collection from the Yellow Bluffs Mound, and she allowed samples to be removed for radiocarbon dating. Irv Quitmyer also provided access to the zooarchaeology collection at FLMNH, and Elizabeth Wing kindly gave me some background information about it. The P. K. Yonge Library of Florida History at UF made available books by Richard Glendinning in the John D. MacDonald Collection. Jeff Mitchem kindly provided letters by Schoff on file at the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, and he gave helpful review comments. In Tallahassee, Louis Tesar provided insights on Gulf Coastal Deptford culture. Finally, I want to thank my friend and colleague Jerald Milanich, with whom I first crossed paths at the Yellow Bluffs Mound in 1969, for sharing his field maps, notes, and photographs. His involvement in the 1969 salvage effort provided the archaeological expertise that was needed. His excellent work produced collections and documentation that made it feasible for current research to improve our understanding of the mound. References Cited Allerton, David, George M. Luer, and Robert S. Carr 1984 Ceremonial Tablets and Related Objects from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 37:5-54. Almy, Marion M. 1976 A Survey and Assessment of Known Archaeological Sites in Sarasota County, Florida. M.A. thesis on file, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Almy, Marion, Lee Hutchinson, Nelson Rodriguez, and Brian Jill 2007 Archaeological Monitoring: 2211 Alameda Way, Sarasota County, Florida. Conducted for Murray Homes, by Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota, Florida. On file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. A M Engineering, Inc. 2003 Sarasota Bay Club Condominium, Phase 2. Exhibit "C" to the Declaration, sheet 2 of 24, boundary survey site plan dated February 3. Scale 1 inch = 60 feet. In Sarasota County Condominium Book 35, page 49A. On file, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, Florida. Anonymous 1916 Good Roads Mean Much. The Sarasota Times 17(34):1. Thursday, January 20. Copy on file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. 1961 Historical Society Tea At Acacias. The News (Sarasota), Wednesday, March 1. 1963 Hundreds Attend Historical Society Tea; Sarasota Civic Leader Bickel Is Honored. Sarasota Herald- Tribune, January 21. 1981 Acacias doomed to razing for condo project. Sarasota Journal, August 13. LUER THE LORIA ATHROOLOGST 011 OL. 4(f 1988 Area Author Glendinning Dead at 70. Obituary. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, page 10BS, Sunday, June 26. Copy on file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. Archibald, Lauren C. 1991 Working to Save the Past in Sarasota County, Florida: A New Archaeological Review Program. The Florida Anthropologist 44:30-36. Archibald, Lauren C., Robert S. Carr, Mark Duda, and Don Mattucci 1989 Archaeological Survey at Tocobaga Bay. Conducted for Frank Cameron Lambert, Inc., and the City of Sarasota, by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., Miami. Arnold, T. F. ca. 1915 Souvenir Folder of Sarasota, Fla. Fanfold colored photographs by T. F. Arnold. Curt Teich and Co., Chicago. Austin, Robert J. 1993 The Royce Mound: Middle Woodland Exchange and Mortuary Customs in South Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 46:291-309. Austin, Robert J., Janice R. Ballo, and Howard Hansen 1989 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the Proposed Sarasota Conference Centre Development Site, Sarasota County, Florida. Conducted for The Applicant for Florida Quality Development, by Piper Archaeological Research, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida. On file, Florida Master Site File, Tallahassee. Blocker, Rupert 1969 Indian Mound Dig Reveals 11 Skeletal Remains. Sarasota Journal, April 18. Brennan, Louis A. 1959 No Stone Unturned: An Almanac of North American Prehistory. Random House, New York. Bullen, Ripley P. 1950a Florida Park Service (FPS) form for FPS Site No. S-6. On file, Florida Park Service file, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 1950b Tests at the Whittaker [sic] Site, Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 3:21-30. 1969 Letter to Mrs. Ralph Davis, Historian, Sarasota County Historical Commission, copied to Dr. Charles Fairbanks. Dated February 21. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. 1971 The Sarasota County Mound, Englewood, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 24:1-30. Bullen, Ripley P., and Adelaide K. Bullen 1976 The Palmer Site. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 8, Gainesville. Bullen, Ripley P., Walter Askew, Lee M. Feder, and Richard L. McDonnell 1978 The Canton Street Site, St. Petersburg, Florida, edited by Jerald T. Milanich. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number 9, Gainesville. Butcher, Lee 1969a Ancient Indian Skeleton Unearthed in Sarasota. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, April 11. 1969b Burial Sites Unearthed. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, August 10. Carr, Robert S. 2006 Analysis of Ceramics from Brickell Point, 8DA12. The Florida Anthropologist 59:133-159. Carr, Robert S., Janet S. Matthews, Katherine Rogers, Marion Almy, Lee D. Harrison, and Lorrie Muldowney 1989 Archaeological and Historical Investigations at Indian Beach, Sarasota County. Conducted for the City of Sarasota, by the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc., Miami, Florida. City of Sarasota 1997 Planning Board Meeting of December 3, 1997, Agenda Item IV-A-2(c), Conditional Rezoning No. 97-CO-16, Preliminary Site and Development Plan No. 97-PSD-27, and Special Exception No. 97-SE- 15. On file, Sarasota City Government, Sarasota, Florida. 2008 Sarasota City Plan, Ordinance No. 08-4792, including "Historic Preservation Plan." On file, Sarasota City Government, Sarasota, Florida. Cobia and Hebb, Inc. 1970 Bay's Bluff Condominium Apartments, Section One. Sheet 1 of 3, land surveyors plan dated July. Scale 1 inch = 40 feet. In Sarasota County Condominium Book 4, page 11. On file, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County, Florida. Covarrubias, Miguel 1954 The Eagle, The Jaguar and the Serpent: Indian Art of the Americas; North America: Alaska, Canada, The United States. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Davis, Doris A. 1969 Excavation of the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Burial Mound. Memorandum dated April 23. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. Dickel, David N. 1991 Descriptive Analysis of the Skeletal Collection from the Prehistoric Manasota Key Cemetery, Sarasota THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND County, Florida (8SO1292). Florida Archaeological Reports 22. Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State. Tallahassee. Dickel, David, and Robert S. Carr 1991 Archaeological Investigations at the Oak Knoll Mound, 8LL729, Lee County, Florida. Conducted for Bonita Bay Properties, Inc. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Technical Report #21, Miami. Fales, John, and Doris Davis 1961 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Sarasota County, Florida. Manuscript on file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. Fewkes, Jesse W. 1924 Preliminary Archaeological Explorations at Weeden Island, Florida. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Volume 76(13), Washington, D.C. Florida Park Service 2010 Website of the Florida State Parks 75th Anniversary 1935-2010 (http://www.floridastateparks.org/madira bickelmound/). Fritts, Bill 1959 Historical Society Being Formed Here. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Sunday, March 15. 1969a "Indian Mound" Studied at Future Building Site. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, March 3. 1969b No. 1 Digging "Find" Is Total Cooperation. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, April 24. Fundaburk, Emma Lila, and Mary Douglass Foreman (editors) 1957 Sun Circles and Human Hands: The Southeastern Indians Art and Industries. Published by Emma L. Fundaburk, Luvere, Alabama. Goggin, John M., and Frank H. Sommer III 1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 41, New Haven. Griffin, John W. 2002 Archaeology of the Everglades. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Grismer, Karl H. 1946 The Story of Sarasota. The Florida Grower Press, Tampa. Hale, H. Stephen 1984 Prehistoric Environmental Exploitation around Lake Okeechobee. Southeastern Archaeology 3(2):173- 187. Hebb, William, and Associates 1978 Amendment to Bay's Bluff Condominium Apartments, Section One. Survey dated August 4. Page 841 in "Certificate ofAmendment to Declaration of Condominium," Sarasota County Official Record Book 1277, pages 838-848, filed December 18, 1978. On file, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County. Hughes, Daniel, and Kenneth Hardin 2003 Beehive Hill: Another Pre- and Post-First Contact Period Site in Central Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56:267-275. Hughes, Daniel, and George M. Luer 2006 An Inventory of Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound (8So4) Osteological Collections at the Sarasota County History Center. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. Hutchinson, Dale L. 2004 Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. La Farge, Oliver H. 1956 A Pictorial History of the American Indian. Crown Publishers, New York. LaHurd, Jeff 2010 Sarasota's First and Finest Mansions. Style: A Magazine of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune Media Group, March:33-37. Luer, George M. 1969 A New Species of Triphora in Florida. The American Orchid Society Bulletin 38:878-880. 1986 Some Interesting Archaeological Occurrences of Quahog Shells on the Gulf Coast of Central and Southern Florida. In Shells and Archaeology in Southern Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 125- 159. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 12, Tallahassee. 1992a Urban Archaeology in the City of Sarasota, Florida: The Whitaker Archaeological Site Complex. The Florida Anthropologist 45:226-241. 1992b The Palmetto Lane Midden (8SO96): Some Stratigraphic, Radiocarbon, and Shell Tool Analyses for a Manasota Period Site in Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:246-252. 1992c The Boylston Mound: A Safety Harbor Period Shell Midden; With Notes on the Paleoenvironment of Southern Sarasota Bay. The Florida Anthropologist 45:266-279. 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 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011--------VOL. 1999 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Lemon Bay Area. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 1-22. Florida Anthropological Society Publications Number 14, Tampa. 2002 Obituary: Helen Sawyer (1898-1999). The Florida Anthropologist 55:47-50. 2005 Sarasota Bay Mound: A Safety Harbor Period Burial Mound, with Notes on Additional Sites in the City of Sarasota. The Florida Anthropologist 58:7-55. 2007 Mound Building and Subsistence during the Late Weeden Island Period (ca. A.D. 700-1000) at Big Mound Key (8CH10), Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy 1982 A Definition of the Manasota Culture. The Florida Anthropologist 35:34-58. 1987 The Laurel Mound (8SO98) and Radial Burials, With Notes on the Safety Harbor Period. The Florida Anthropologist 40:301-320. Luer, George M., and Lauren C. Archibald 1990 Monitoring and Limited Archaeological Salvage at the Palmetto Lane Midden (8So96), Tocobaga Bay Subdivision, Sarasota, Florida. Conducted for Frank Cameron Lambert, Inc., and the City of Sarasota. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Technical Report #18, Miami. Luer, George M., Justin Winkler, Katie Baar, Tesa Norman, Maranda Almy, and Marion M. Almy 2005 Archaeological Report: Lot 8, Tocobaga Bay Subdivision, Palmetto Lane Midden, City of Sarasota, Florida. Conducted for Jane Robinson and Kitty Hancock, by Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota. Manatee County 1895 Subdivision Plat of that part of fractional Section 13, Township 36 South, Range 17 East lying north of Hog Creek in Manatee County, Florida, the numbered lots being the property of the heirs of W. H. Whitaker. Manatee County Plat Book 1, page 120, filed October 16, 1895. Also in Sarasota County Subdivision Plat Book A, page 67. On file, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota County. 1925-1926 Plat maps of Whitfield Estates, Sarasota, Florida, and Whitfield Estates on Sarasota Bay. Prepared by Southern Construction Engineers, Inc. On file, Manatee County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller (web-site: www.manateeclerk.com). n.d. General Index to Deeds, Reverse. On microfilm, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. Marth, Del 1973 Yesterday's Sarasota, Including Sarasota County. Published in cooperation with the Sarasota County Historical Commission. E. A. Seemann Publishing, Inc., Miami, Florida. Matthews, Janet S. 1983 Edge of Wilderness: A Settlement History of Manatee River and Sarasota Bay, 1528-1885. Caprine Press, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Milanich, Jerald T. 1969a Letter to Mrs. Ralph Davis, Historian, Sarasota County Historical Commission. Dated May 20. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. 1969b Plan view maps and profile diagrams of "So-4, Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound, April 18-May 16, 1969." On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. 1969c "Field Specimen Catalogue" forms for 8SO4. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. 1972 Excavations at the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound, Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25:21- 41. 1973 The Southeastern Deptford Culture: A Preliminary Definition. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Bulletin 3:51-63. 1985 Field Schools, Fort Center, and the Origins of the Armadillo Roast: Reminiscences of Charles Fairbanks during the Florida Years, 1964-75. 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. 11-33. Florida Journal of Anthropology, Special Publication No. 4. Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1988 Some Alternative Interpretations of Safety Harbor Burial Mounds. The Florida Scientist 51(2):100-107. 1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/ Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. 1999 Introduction: Clarence B. Moore's Work in Western and Central Florida, 1895-1921. In The West and Central Florida Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore, edited by Jeffrey M. Mitchem, pp. 1-48. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Monroe, Elizabeth, Sharon Wells, and Marion M. Almy 1977 Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Survey of Sarasota, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Series, Number 51. Conducted for the City of Sarasota, by the Florida Bureau of Historic Sites THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Records Management, Tallahassee. Moore, Clarence B. 1900a Certain Antiquities of the Florida West-Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:349-394. 1900b Field notes, notebook 17. On file, Huntington Free Library and Reading Room, The Bronx, New York. Mosby Engineering Associates, Inc. 1969 Survey in W. H. Whitaker's Subdivision, Sect. 13, T. 36 S., R. 17 E., Sarasota, Fla., forAurora Development Corporation. Contour map dated February 14, showing Lot 14, Block "B," and adjacent areas. Copies on file with J. Milanich, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, and G. Luer, Sarasota. Moss, Bob 1974 Skeletons inYourBasement! Sunburst: Condominium Monthly News, November:6-7. Newsom, Lee 1987 Analysis of Botanical Remains from Hontoon Island (8VO202), Florida: 1980-1985 Excavations. In Investigations at Hontoon Island (8Vo202), An Archaeological Wetsite in Volusia County, Florida, pp. 47-84. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 13, Tallahassee. 1998 Archaeobotanical Research at Shell Ridge Midden, Palmer Site (8S02), Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 51:207-222. Norwood, Carolyne 2003 Anna Maria Island: The Early Days, 1893-1940. Anna Maria Island Historical Society, Anna Maria Island, Florida. Piper Archaeology/Janus Research 1992 Phase II Excavations at the Acacias Site (8So97B & C), Sarasota County, Florida. Conducted for Design Studios West, Inc., and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. On file, Planning Department, City of Sarasota. Plowden, William 1954 University of Florida Archaeological Site Survey card for Ma75. On file, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. Pluckhahn, Thomas J., Victor D. Thompson, and Brent R. Weisman 2010 Toward a New View of History and Process at Crystal River (8CI 1). Southeastern Archaeology 29:164-181. Puig, Francis J. 2002 Spend a Summer This Winter in Sarasota: Four Key Figures in Sarasota 's Development. Published for Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota, Florida Purdy, Barbara A. 1991 The Art and Archaeology of Florida s Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Quitmyer, Irvy R. 1992 Seasonal Growth Patterns in the Shells of Southern Quahog Mercenaria Campechiensis from the Palmetto Lane Midden (8SO96), Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 45:253-265. Rabinowitz, Larry 1998 Plants of Historic Spanish Point and Their Uses Through the Ages. Pinellas Press, Clearwater. Rehder, John B. 1978 Diagnostic Landscape Traits of Sugar Plantations in Southern Louisiana. In Man and Environment in the Lower Mississippi Valley, edited by Sam B. Hilliard, pp. 135-150. Geosciences and Man 19, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Sanborn Map Company 1929 Sarasota, Florida. Map of Area 18. Sanborn Map Company, New York. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. 1966 Sarasota, Florida. Map of Area 18 dated February 1954, with additions through August 1965. Sanborn Map Company, Pelham, New York. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. Sarasota County 2009 Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66, Article III: Historic and Archaeological Resource Protection. Sarasota County Government, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sarasota. Schoff, Harry L. 1933 Letter to Matthew W. Stirling dated January 26. On file, National Anthropological Archives, Bureau of American Ethnology collection, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Sears, William H. 1958 Burial Mounds on the Gulf Coastal Plain. American Antiquity 23(3):274-284. 1963 The Tucker Site on Alligator Harbor Franklin County, Florida. Contributions of the Florida State Museum, Social Sciences, Number 9, Gainesville. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. State of Florida 2009 The 2009 Florida Statutes, Title XLVI, Chapter LUER YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 872: Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies and Graves. Florida State Government, Tallahassee. Tallant, Montague ca. 1940 Mounds of Manatee County. Typescript, 8 pp. Copied from notebook of Montague Tallant by J. Clarence Simpson. On file, Florida Park Service file, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. Tesar, Louis D. 1980 The Leon County Bicentennial Survey Report: An Archaeological Survey of Selected Portions of Leon County, Florida. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Miscellaneous Project Report Series 49. Tallahassee. Tricebock, Kenneth F. 1986 Explore Sarasota and Vicinity: Tales ofthefascinating past ofthe Sarasota region, with maps showing points of interest. Privately published. 1996 Historic Sites and Buildings: A Guide for Weekend Explorers, Sarasota- Venice-Bradenton Area. Creative Printing and Graphics, Venice, Florida. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) 1883 "Sarasota Bay, Florida." Topographic (T) sheet. Register #1517a. Scale 1:20,000. J. E. Hilgard, Superintendent. Washington, D.C. United States Department of Agriculture 1948 Black and white aerial photograph showing a portion of the City of Sarasota, Florida. On file, Map and Imagery Library, University of Florida, Gainesville. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1944 Sarasota, Fla. 7.5 minute topographic sheet, scale 1:24,000. Washington, D.C. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 113, Washington, D.C. Williams, Stephen (editor) 1977 The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 58, Harvard University, Cambridge. Zinn, Robert W., and Doris Davis 1969 Letter to the Honorable Board of County Commission. Dated March 13. On file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. 2011 VOL. 64(1) RADIOCARBON DATING THE YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND (8S04), SARASOTA, FLORIDA GEORGE M. LUER' AND DANIEL HUGHES2 '3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239 Email: geoluer@gmail.com 2 5343 John Reynolds Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32277 E-mail: dbhughes@mail.usf edu Here, we present new data and interpretations about the age and cultural affiliation of the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4) in the City of Sarasota, Florida (Figure 1). It was an American Indian burial mound that was destroyed by condominium development in 1969. Our radiocarbon results allow us to date the mound to ca. 185 to 60 cal B.C., which places it in the early middle portion of the Manasota Period. Before our study, radiocarbon dates had not been obtained from the Yellow Bluffs Mound. Instead, the previous interpretation of its age (made at the time of excavation and original analysis in 1969 through 1972) attributed the mound to the precontact Safety Harbor Period, then thought to range from ca. A.D. 1300 to 1500 (Milanich 1972:37). This present study accompanies another article in this issue that examines the salvage excavations in the Yellow Bluffs Mound in 1969 as well as the ceramic and faunal collections recovered at that time. Archaeologist Jerald Milanich's excellent documentation of the provenience of recovered materials, coupled with curation of collections primarily by Sarasota County, made it feasible for us to conduct this current study. The Problem Archaeological research conducted during the last 30 years has raised questions about the original interpretation by Milanich in 1972 that the Yellow Bluffs Mound dated to the Safety Harbor Period. First, archival research indicates that the Yellow Bluffs Mound was not the same mound where H. L. Schoff found Safety Harbor Period pottery in the 1930s (Luer, this issue). Second, much of the pottery from the Yellow Bluffs Mound does not date to the Safety Harbor Period and was not "Pinellas Plain" (Luer, this issue). Third, the mound did not yield typical Safety Harbor Period mortuary ceramics, whereas archaeological work during the last 30 years has shown that decorated Safety Harbor Period pottery occurs in burial mounds throughout west-central Florida, including the Sarasota region (e.g., Luer 1980, 1993, 1996, 2002a, 2002b, 2005; Luer and Almy 1987; Luer et al. 1987:147-148; Mitchem 1989; Willis and Johnson 1980). The Sarasota area was not geographically marginal to the use of mortuary pottery of the Safety Harbor Culture. Thus, a burial mound dating to that period should contain decorated ceramics typical of burial mounds of that time. This runs counter to Milanich's argument of geographic marginality to explain the lack of such pottery in the Yellow Bluffs Mound (Milanich 1972:39). Given the three points outlined above, a reassessment of the mound's age and cultural affiliation was needed. Background to Our Dating Project In 2005, archaeologist George Luer completed research on two sites in the City of Sarasota (Luer 2005; Luer et al. 2005), which led him to think that a reassessment of the Safety Harbor Period assignment for the Yellow Bluffs Mound was possible. At that time, archaeologist Dan Hughes was working as Sarasota County Archaeologist at the Sarasota County History Center (HC), in Sarasota. Luer asked Hughes about collections from the Yellow Bluffs Mound that were stored at HC, all of which had been recovered during salvage excavations in 1969. Luer asked Hughes if they could begin to reassess the collections with a goal of dating the mound. As a first step, in 2006, Hughes and Luer located bags of human bone fragments from the mound that were at HC. Then, we made a list of the bags and their proveniences (Hughes and Luer 2006). Most of these bags and their contents were listed by HC in the 1990s in an inventory of human skeletal remains conducted for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). As a second step, in 2007, Luer and Hughes began a process of radiocarbon dating remains from the Yellow Bluffs Mound. First, Luer selected two bone fragments of deer (Odocoileus virginianus) from the mound that were stored at the Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH), in Gainesville. These specimens, plus clam shells and a deer bone associated with two human burials in the HC collection, were submitted by Luer and Hughes for radiocarbon dating in mid-2008, after funding was granted by Sarasota County. Later in 2008, Hughes used additional funds allotted to HC so that we could radiocarbon date three shells that were stored at HC, all of which came from a feature in the mound. Despite these efforts, we discovered that we still needed additional dates to secure a clear understanding of the mound's age, so further funds were granted by Sarasota County for five more VOL. 64(l) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2011 VOL. 64(1) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2011 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) w ** :. I' Figure 1. Location of the former Yellow Bluffs Mound, north of downtown Sarasota and south of Whitaker Bayou. This is the current location of the Sarasota Bay Club. Map from United States Geological Survey (1993). radiocarbon dates in mid-2009. These last five samples finally allowed us to date the mound successfully. As a third step, Luer prepared this paper to present our findings. We obtained a total of 12 dates, which support a much better understanding of the mound's age than previously available. These dates improve the value of the Sarasota County and FLMNH collections from the mound. Our radiocarbon results also can be compared to dates from other archaeological sites in west-central and southern Florida, thus yielding a better picture of Sarasota's and the wider region's human history. Collections Research Here, we describe in detail our research of collections at HC and FLMNH. In May 2007, Luer worked with faunal remains in the Zooarchaeology Range of the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory at FLMNH. He studied Zooarchaeology Collection #93, which was excavated from the Yellow Bluffs Mound in April 1969 by Milanich and a student crew from the UF Department of Anthropology as well as New College (NC) students and volunteers (Figure 2). At that time, Milanich was a 23-year-old graduate student at UF, and the faunal collection was analyzed there and stored at THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND Figure 2. Layers in the Yellow Bluffs Mound, April 1969. Milanich's right hand extends to lower Layer 9, and his head is even with upper Layer 9. Deer bone fragments from these two layers were dated in this study (although they came from another location). The strati- graphic profile shown here was in the north-south trench along the 160 East line, between 115N and 125 N. This photograph appears in Milanich (1972:Figure 8), courtesy of HC. FLMNH (then named the Florida State Museum). The faunal collection consists of vertebrate remains only. Invertebrate remains, which were abundant in the mound (especially quahog clam and fighting conch shells), are not present in the collection and apparently were not kept for curation. Next, we worked with remains from the mound that are housed at HC. Some of those remains were excavated by Milanich in 1969. The rest were excavated by the late Doris "Dottie" Davis, Sarasota County Historian, and volunteers under the aegis of the Sarasota County Historical Commission (SCHC) in 1969 (Luer, this issue). The Milanich materials at HC include artifacts with "So- 4" numbers written in black ink directly on them. In addition, they include remains from Milanich's Feature 1 and Burials 1 through 10. The burial remains are clearly identified in labeled bags or with numbers written directly on them, and they were itemized at HC in the 1990s on the NAGPRA list. At HC, we could match many of the Milanich artifacts and other remains from bagged features with published photographs and descriptions in Milanich (1972). Inked numbers on these artifacts were written at UF in 1969 before their return to SCHC. They were inscribed with "So-4" and their field specimen number (e.g., So-4-39). A detailed list describing these field specimens and their proveniences was created at UF at the time of analysis, ca. 1969. Milanich provided HC with originals and copies of the paperwork documenting the UF field work and laboratory analysis, including this detailed list (Milanich 1969a) as well as descriptions of burials (Milanich 1969b). In the HC collection from the Yellow Bluffs Mound, we determined that a number of stone and bone artifacts correspond to items pictured in Milanich (1972:Figures 9 and 10). Pottery sherds could not be similarly matched because a photograph of sherds was not included in Milanich's article. However, some labeled sherds at HC correspond to decorated ones listed by Milanich (1972:Tables 2 and 3) and in his detailed field specimen list (see below). In addition, we could match some sherds in the HC collection with images of sherds in a composite photograph assembled by Milanich (on file at HC, but not published in his article). The Davis materials at HC are in labeled bags. A number of those bags contain primarily marine shells from the mound, and some contain additional items, such as artifacts and faunal remains. Many bags contain human remains. Field and laboratory notes do not exist for the Davis collection, but many bags are inscribed with trench number, pit number, depth, and field date, while some bags have little or no specific provenience. In the 1990s, volunteers and staff at HC worked with the Davis collection to cull human remains from their original bags and to rebag them separately. At that time, many of these remains were included in the NAGPRA list, but some were LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FLR NHOOOIS 01VL 41 not. Hughes and Luer (2006) compiled a fuller list of these bags, including their existing provenience information. Radiocarbon Analyses We obtained 12 radiocarbon dates, confining our analyses to materials with well-documented provenience only. All were remains excavated by Milanich in 1969, which he describes and documents in his field and laboratory notes and in a published report (Milanich 1969a, 1969b, 1972). We should note that, at first, we began by dating items associated with the mound or with burials, while avoiding human remains directly. Thus, the first seven dates we obtained were based on marine shells and fragments of deer bones. Because these dates were inconclusive, it became clear that we needed additional dates and that we needed to date human burials directly. Thus, we then obtained dates from five burials, leading us to secure a total of 12 radiocarbon dates based on fragments of deer bones, clam and univalve marine shells, and human teeth and bone fragments. Our dating of a variety of remains was an effort to be as thorough as possible, given the nature of remains and the costs of dating. We submitted teeth and bone from five of Milanich's numbered human burials so that we could obtain direct ages for burial features that reflect the time when the mound was in use. We also dated remains from mound fill, including clam shells associated with two of Milanich's burials as well as deer bone fragments that were excavated by Milanich from the mound base. In addition, we dated three large univalve marine shells from Milanich's Feature 1, which was near the ground surface in the upper portion of the mound. The calibrated two- sigma age ranges of all 12 of our radiocarbon dates are plotted graphically, below. The dated materials were in good condition. All marine shells from the mound have surfaces that are chalky and eroded by soil acids. However, we made sure that the shells we dated had interiors that were hard and intact, and thus were in good condition for radiocarbon dating. Similarly, we chose bones and teeth that were thick, hard, and dense, with surfaces in good condition. In addition, our close inspection of surfaces showed that all bones and teeth had no traces of a preservative coating or stabilizer. Nor was any evidence of contamination found by laboratory personnel. If any contaminants had been applied (e.g., insecticides or sealants), they would have left traces detectable during pretreatment and analysis in the laboratory, but no such traces were present (Ron Hatfield, Beta Analytic radiocarbon dating technician, personal communication, 2008 and 2009). Finally, we asked that unused portions of the radiocarbon samples be returned by the laboratory. This included any fragments of bone, tooth, and shell. These materials were reincorporated with the HC and FLMNH collections. Dating Burials 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 These five human burials all came from the west side of the mound. Each burial formed a distinct feature in the mound's upper portion (Layer 6). The burials were spaced along a stretch of approximately 40 feet in what was called the "east-west trench." Their modes of interment and other details are described by Milanich (1972:32-37). All these remains were curated at HC with labels in Milanich's handwriting, and each burial had teeth and other elements that were consistent with each other in terms of color, biological maturity, and usewear (no mixing of elements was evident). In order to preserve existing skeletal remains as much as possible, we utilized accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating. This dating method uses a small amount of collagen extracted from a tooth or bone fragment, and thus is the least destructive method available. We selected one or two teeth from each of three burials (an upper right second molar from Burial 1, a fourth premolar and a second molar from Burial 5, and a third premolar and a first molar from Burial 6). From two other burials, we selected longbone fragments (an unsided fibula fragment from Burial 3, and a right femur fragment from Burial 8). We also selected a right humerus fragment from Burial 10, but it did not yield sufficient collagen in the laboratory (Beta-260439) to allow an age determination. The resulting five dates are in Table 1 and Figure 3. All the age ranges are similar, with four of them being statistically the same (having measured ages that overlap at 2-sigma range [95 percent probability]). Only one date, from Burial 1, is statistically older (having a measured age that does not overlap with the others at 2-sigma range), but it does overlap with the other four when calibrated. In calibrated 2-sigma form, all five date ranges overlap in an approximate range of ca. 300 to 40 cal B.C. To refine this age range, Darden Hood (a radiocarbon dating expert at Beta Analytic, Inc., where the samples were run) provided a weighted average of these five conventional ages at 1-sigma range (2108 +/- 17 radiocarbon years) that, when calibrated, yields a 1-sigma (68 percent probability) age range of 170 to 104 cal B.C. and a 2-sigma age range of 185 to 85 cal B.C. and 72 to 60 cal B.C. (or an inclusive range of 185 to 60 cal B.C.). Such age ranges place the burials in the early middle portion of the Manasota Period (the Manasota Period ranges from ca. 500 B.C. to ca. A.D. 600 or 700). These five dates of human bone and teeth do not take account of a minor reservoir effect that is assumed to occur in them. This effect is assumed because Indians who lived along the coast during the region's mid-Manasota Period had a predominantly marine-estuarine diet, as shown by isotopic analyses of human remains from the Palmer Burial Mound (8SO2) (Norr 2004:180-182) and the Dunwody Site (8CH61) (Gold 2006:43, Table 1; Kelly 2004:73, Table 11; Luer 1999). We did not obtain all the data needed to determine diet from our five samples (i.e., values for nitrogen isotope and stable carbon isotope from apatite carbonate), but we did obtain stable isotopic data from collagen (13C/12C ratios in Table 1). Our collagen '3C/l2C values are very similar to those of human remains from the Palmer Burial Mound (mean = -9.5, based on 25 individuals) (Norr 2004:Table E.2) and the Dunwody Site (mean = -8.7, based on 12 individuals) (Kelly 2004:Table 11). Thus, we assume that the individuals who were buried in the Yellow Bluffs Mound had a predominantly marine-estuarine diet. This assumption also is supported by abundant fish and THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) Table 1. Radiocarbon dates of human teeth and bone from the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8S04). The measured and conventional ages are in radiocarbon years before present (B.P.; present = A.D. 1950) and are rounded to the nearest ten. Equivalent values (in years) for 13C/12C ratios (1 o/oo = 16.4 years) are stated in this table, and they are reflected in the corrected (conventional) ages. Calibrated age ranges were derived by Beta Analytic, Inc., using the Intcal98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration. One sigma age ranges have 68% probability, and two sigma age ranges have 95% probability. Provenience, Lab Measured, 1C/ C Conventional, Calibrated, ID#, Material Uncorrected Ratio Corrected Age Calendrical Range, Age B.P., (Value in B.P., 1 Sigma 2 Sigma 1 Sigma Years) 1. Layer 6, Burial 1, 2010+/-40 -9.6 (15.4 2260 +/- 40 400 to 340 cal B.C., Beta-260434, upper x 16.4 = 330 to 200 cal B.C. right second molar 250) 2. Layer 6, Burial 3, 1820+/-40 -11.1(13.9 2050 +/- 40 170 cal B.C. to Beta-260435, un- x 16.4= cal A.D. 30 sided fibula fragment 230) 3. Layer 6, Burial 5, 1840 +/- 40 -9.1 (15.9 2100 +/- 40 340 to 330 cal B.C., Beta-260436, two x 16.4 = 200 to 30 cal B.C. teeth (see text) 260) 4. Layer 6, Burial 6, 1880+/-40 -10.8(14.2 2110+/-40 340 to 320 cal B.C., Beta-260437, two x 16.4= 210 to 40 cal B.C. teeth (see text) 230) 5. Layer 6, Burial 8, 1770 +/- 40 -9.9 (15.1 2020 +/-40 150 to 140 cal B.C., Beta-260438, right x 16.4 = 110 cal B.C. to cal femur fragment 250) A.D. 60 Calendar Calibrated 2-Sigma Age Ranges Years 00 A.D. 100 " 0- 00 B.m .- 200 B.C.- | 300 B.C.- 400 B.C.- 500 B.C.- o o o o 8 j m - o 0y Figure 3. Dates from the Yellow Bluffs Mound supporting its con- struction and use slightly more than 2,000 years ago. LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THEFLIANTRO__OLS 2 O. 6i Table 2. Radiocarbon dates of marine shells and deer bone from the upper and lower portions of the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4). The measured and conventional ages are in radiocarbon years before present (B.P.; present = A.D. 1950). All ages and 13C/12C corrections are rounded to the nearest ten. A typical 13C/12C value of marine shell is 0 o/oo, which is 25 o/oo larger than the agreed standard of -25 o/oo and thus adds 410 years (25 x 16.4 = 410) to its measured age. Equivalent values (in years) for 13C/12C ratios (1 o/oo = 16.4 years) are stated in this table, and they are reflected in the corrected (conventional) ages. The conventional ages in this table are not adjusted for local reservoir effect (delta-R) and they were not adjusted for delta-R before they were used to obtain calibrated ages. Calibrated age ranges were derived by Beta Analytic, Inc., using the Intcal98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration. One sigma age ranges have 68% probability, and two sigma age ranges have 95% probability. Provenience, Lab Measured, 1C/12C Conventional, Calibrated, ID#, Material Uncorrected Ratio Corrected Age Calendrical Range, Age B.P., (Value in B.P., 1 Sigma 2 Sigma 1 Sigma Years) 1. Layer 6, Burial 3, 3350+/-40 +1.2 (26.2 3780+/-40 1920 to 1620 cal B.C. Beta-245198, quahog x 16.4= left valve 430) 2. Layer 6, Burial 4, 2200+/-40 +1.0 (26 x 2630+/-40 410 to 320 cal B.C. Beta-246833, quahog 16.4 = notched left valve 430) 3. upper Layer 9, 2930+/-40 -20.2 (4.8 3010+/- 40 1390 to 1120 cal B.C. FS#30, Beta-245196, x 16.4= deer left humerus 80) fragment 4. lower Layer 9, 2030 +/- 40 -20.2 (4.8 2110 +/- 40 340 to 40 cal B.C. FS#39, Beta-245197, x 16.4 = deer right metatarsal 430) fragment shellfish food remains in nearby middens of the Manasota Period. Given a marine-estuarine diet during the lifetimes of these Manasota people, their living bodies (tissues, bones, and teeth) probably incorporated some "old" carbon from the ocean. According to Darden Hood (personal communication, 2010), there is presently no quantifiable correction that can be applied to these five dates of human bone and teeth in order to adjust for such assumed older carbon, other than arbitrarily subtracting "some tens of years." Such a minor correction would make the radiocarbon results slightly younger (more recent) by "perhaps as much as 50 to 100 years" (Darden Hood, personal communication, 2010). Given 2-sigma age ranges of +/- 80 years for our five dates of human bone and teeth, such a younger shift suggests that the younger half of our age ranges may be more likely to reflect the ages of the five samples. Because such a shift is minor and not quantifiable, we will continue to use the age ranges reported to us by the laboratory and listed in Table 1 (which yield an averaged conventional age that produces an inclusive, 2-sigma calibrated age range of 185 to 60 cal B.C.). Thus, as stated above, these five dates of human burials support an age in the early middle portion of the Manasota Period. Dating Items Associated with Burials 3 and 4 We obtained standard radiometric dates of two quahog clam (Mercenaria campechiensis) shells from Burials 3 and 4 in the upper portion of the mound (Layer 6). Each shell was a left valve that was collected with a burial and thus appeared to be associated. These shells were curated at HC in labeled bags containing the remains of Burials 3 and 4. Despite surface erosion and chalkiness due to the action of soil acids while buried, each of these shells was thick enough to contain hard, intact calcium carbonate in their interior that was suitable for accurate radiocarbon dating. Table 2 presents results. Both shells yielded ample carbon for standard radiometric dating, and their 13C/12C values are reasonable. Both shells yielded slightly positive values of 13C/12C that are indicative of high salinity waters, which occur in much of Sarasota Bay. Such values are consistent with quahog clams, which grow best in a high salinity range between 24 and 28 parts per thousand (Eversole 1987). For each conventional age, we did not adjust for the local reservoir effect (delta-R, which would add approximately 10 radiocarbon years in the Sarasota area). The quahog shell from Burial 3 yielded a 1-sigma measured age of 3350 +/- 40 radiocarbon THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(11 LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND years and a 2-sigma calibrated age of 1920 to 1620 cal B.C. The quahog shell from Burial 4 produced a 1-sigma measured age of 2200 +/- 40 radiocarbon years and a 2-sigma calibrated age of 410 to 320 cal B.C. These two dates are not the same (their measured ages do not overlap at 2 sigma). The shell from Burial 3 is more than 1,000 years older than the shell from Burial 4, and it is more than 1,000 years older than the dated fragment of human bone from Burial 3 (Tables 1 and 2). On the other hand, the shell from Burial 4 is close in age to the five AMS dates of human remains (above). While the measured age of the shell from Burial 4 does not overlap with any of the measured dates of human remains, it is very close to the measured age of Burial 1 and its 2-sigma calibrated age range overlaps with the 2-sigma calibrated age ranges of Burials 1, 5, and 6. Thus, the quahog shell from Burial 4 could be contemporary with at least some of the dated human remains. It could have been included intentionally with Burial 4 as a "recent" shell obtained by the Indians from their then-current natural environment (as opposed to an "old" or fossil shell). Interestingly, the quahog clam valve from Burial 4 was eroded at the umbo, sides, and back. Its form was that of a "notched left valve," a possible kind of shell tool (Luer 1986).' In contrast, the older shell from Burial 3 was an intact valve, without signs of significant wear, erosion, or other modifications (e.g., lateral notches). This older clam shell might have been an incidental inclusion, scooped up with fill dirt that the Indians used to build the mound. Milanich (1972:34) states that Burial 3 "was laid out on the old humus and covered with fill [by the builders of the mound]." He also notes "a deposit of shell with humic stains... in association with the burial" (Milanich 1972:34). Additional marine shells in the same bag as Burial 3 consist of fragments of at least three more quahog left valves, fragments of two quahog right valves, a fighting conch (Strombus alatus) shell lip fragment, and a basal fragment of a banded tulip (Fasciolaria lilium hunteria) shell. All these shell fragments were eroded, with chalky surfaces. We also tried to radiocarbon date a deer left astragalus from Burial 4. This deer element was in the HC collection, in the same labeled bag as the Burial 4 human remains and associated shells. It appears to be the one "deer foot bone" listed by Milanich (1969b) in his field "burial record" form for Burial 4, and which may be the same as the "one deer toe bone in association" mentioned in the published report (Milanich 1972:34). However, this astragalus (Beta-245195) did not yield enough collagen in the laboratory to allow dating. Besides the notched valve, shells in the Burial 4 bag included fragments of two more quahog left valves, a quahog right valve fragment, and an apparent fighting conch shell fragment. Again, these shell fragments were eroded, with chalky surfaces. Dating the Mound Base We obtained two AMS dates (Table 2) of remains from two layers near the mound's base in the mid-stretch of the east-west trench. Both are based on deer bone fragments we secured by loan from Zooarchaeological Collection #93 at FLMNH. Both fragments yielded sufficient collagen for AMS dating, and both yielded strongly negative 13C/12C values, which are typical of bone from terrestrial, plant-eating deer. Since deer are not a marine organism, no adjustment for local reservoir effect (delta-R) was made to the conventional ages. After dating, we returned remaining portions of each bone to FLMNH for continued curation, and we placed our notes and radiocarbon results on file with the Zooarchaeology Collection Manager. One fragment of a deer left humerus came from Field Specimen 30 (FS 30). A paper tag in the boxed collection at FLMNH identifies its provenience as "F.S. 30, upper Layer 9." Milanich's field specimen catalog identifies FS 30 as "fill" in the 10 x 15 ft unit of 140N, 125E at a depth of 9.9 ft below datum in the east-west trench (Milanich 1969a). This deer humerus fragment yielded a radiocarbon age of more than 3,000 years (Table 2), which supports the interpretation that it was derived from a source older than the mound. Perhaps it may be an incidental inclusion in mound fill that the builders of the mound obtained from an old, nearby midden. In describing this "fill," Milanich (1972:24) wrote that it "seems to have been taken from an old humic-midden layer." The other fragment, a piece of a deer right metatarsal, came from "F.S. 39, lower Layer 9," according to a provenience tag in the boxed collection at FLMNH. Milanich's field specimen catalog identifies FS 39 as "light colored midden" in the 10 x 15 ft unit of 140N, 125E at a depth of 10.6 ft below datum in the east-west trench (Milanich 1969a). Thus, the deer metatarsal fragment came from the same unit as the deer humerus fragment, but from 0.7 ft deeper. This deer metatarsal fragment produced a measured 1-sigma date of 2030 +/- 40 radiocarbon years and a calibrated 2-sigma age range of 340 to 40 cal B.C. (Table 2). Such an age for this deer metatarsal fragment is approximately one thousand years younger than the deer humerus fragment. Moreover, the deer metatarsal fragment's measured age is very close to the measured age we obtained for Burial 1, and the metatarsal fragment's calibrated 2-sigma age range overlaps with the calibrated 2-sigma ranges for all five burials we dated (above, and Tables 1 and 2). This suggests that the deer metatarsal fragment is coeval with the five burials and that it dates to the time of mound construction and use. In other words, these six dates, taken together, support an approximate contemporary age for the mound's base and its upper portion. Dating Feature 1 Feature 1 was located near the surface in Layer 6 in the east-west trench (Figure 4). It was in the western portion of the 10 x 10 ft square of 140N, 140E (Milanich 1972:32, Figures 5 and 7). It consisted of a row of 14 large univalve shells, ascending from east to west and rising from approximately 50 to 20 cm below the surface (estimated). At the time of excavation in 1969, these shells were carefully uncovered, mapped, and numbered. As each shell was removed from its in situ position, Milanich used a black marker to write its identifying number on the inside surface of each shell's outer LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) Figure 4. Feature 1 in the east-west trench, Yellow Bluffs Mound, April 1969 (view to west). Three of these shells were radiocarbon dated. Their ages sup- port the interpretation that this feature dates to the early postcontact period and was a relatively recent intrusion in the mound. Numbered shells are la- beled, based on labeled shells and a photograph at HC. lip. These numbers are still plainly legible on the specimens at HC. The first two shells at the eastern end of Feature 1, labeled Shells #1 and #2, were horse conch (Pleuroploca gigantea) shells. The rest, Shells #3 through #14, were left-handed whelk (Busycon sinistrum) shells. Figure 4 shows the shells in situ, with their identifying numbers added, based on Milanich's field notes and the numbered shells in the HC collection. Shells #1 and #2 were the deepest, and Shells #9, #10, and #13 were the shallowest. Figure 4 shows that the sand surrounding the shells of Feature 1 was darker than the sand in the adjacent mound. We selected three of these shells for standard radiometric dating (Shells #1, #7, and #13) (Figures 5, 6, and 7). We chose shells in excellent condition (intact, solid shells with slightly eroded, chalky surfaces). At the dating laboratory, each shell was broken intentionally to extract the columella in order to obtain the densest, cleanest, best preserved portion of the shell for dating. Table 3 presents results. The 13C/2C values (slightly positive or very slightly negative) are indicative of high- salinity water, such as Sarasota Bay. The conventional ages in Table 3 are not adjusted for the local reservoir effect (delta-R). However, we did adjust them (by adding 10 radiocarbon years to each) when we used them to obtain calibrated age ranges. All three measured dates are very recent, as are the calibrated age ranges. In calibrated 2-sigma form, all three dates indicate an age range of ca. cal A.D. 1470 to 1720, with a shared overlap in an approximate range of ca. cal A.D. 1620 to 1650. To refine this age range, Darden Hood provided a weighted average of the three conventional, unadjusted ages at 1-sigma range (690 +/- 20 radiocarbon years) that, when calibrated, yields a 1-sigma age range of cal A.D. 1620 to 1650 and a 2-sigma age range of cal A.D. 1560 to 1660. This supports the interpretation that Feature 1 was an intrusive, postcontact- period feature in the mound, and that Feature 1 was interred long after the mound's original construction. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND Figure 5. Two views of Shell #1 from Feature Figure 5. Two views of Shell #1 from Feature 1. Figure 6. Two views of Shell #7 from Feature 1. Figure 7. Two views of Shell #13 from Feature 1. LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(fl Table 3. Radiocarbon dates of marine shells from Feature 1 in the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4). The measured and conventional ages are in radiocarbon years before present (B.P.; present = A.D. 1950) and are rounded to the nearest ten. A typical 13C/12C value of marine shell is 0 o/oo, which is 25 o/oo larger than the agreed standard of -25 o/oo and thus adds 410 years (25 x 16.4 = 410) to its measured age. Equivalent values (in years) for 13C/12C ratios (1 o/oo = 16.4 years) are stated in this table, and they are reflected in the corrected (conventional) ages. The conventional ages in this table are not adjusted for local reservoir effect (delta-R). However, they were adjusted for delta-R by adding 10 radiocarbon years to each of these three conventional ages before they were used to obtain calibrated ages. Cali- brated age ranges were derived by Beta Analytic, Inc., using the Intcal98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration. One sigma age ranges have 68% probability, and two sigma age ranges have 95% probability. Provenience, Lab Measured, lC/1C Conventional, Calibrated, ID#, Material Uncorrected Ratio Corrected Age Calendrical Range, 2 Age B.P., (Value in B.P., 1 Sigma Sigma 1 Sigma Years) 1. Layer 6, Feature 1, 310+/-40 +0.7 (25.7 740 +/- 40 cal A.D. 1480 to 1650 Shell #1, Beta- x 16.4 = 248835, horse conch 420) 2. Layer 6, Feature 1, 210 +/- 40 -0.1 (24.9 620+/-40 cal A.D. 1620 to 1720 Shell #7, Beta- x 16.4 = 248836, left-handed 410) whelk 3. Layer 6, Feature 1, 270 +/- 60 +1.7 (26.7 710 +/- 60 cal A.D. 1470 to 1690 Shell #13, Beta- x 16.4= 248837, left-handed 440) whelk *This conventional age was provided by Beta Analytic and has been rounded up 10 years. Calendar Calibrated 2-Sigma Age Ranges Culture Years Periods A.D. 1800 Present era A.D. 1500 SSafety Harbor C- A.D. 1000 Sc,; Weeden Island A.D. 500 | II 0 o g Manasota 500 B.C. SFlorida ; Transitional 1000 B.C. - 10 Late Archaic 2000 B.C. Figure 8. Time chart of radiocarbon dates from the Yellow Bluffs Mound. Cali- brated ages are inclusive ranges based on Tables 1, 2, and 3. Culture periods are approximate. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND It is possible that placement of Feature 1 in the Yellow Bluffs Mound had ritual significance. A parallel may be found at the Thomas Mound on the Little Manatee River, near Tampa Bay, where an existing sand burial mound (in this case dating to the Weeden Island and precontact Safety Harbor periods) was reused by later Indians. At the Thomas Mound, postcontact-period Indians interred a copper ceremonial tablet, silver artifacts, mirror fragments, and glass seed beads in the top of the mound (Allerton et al. 1984:MT#8; Bullen 1952:7-20; Moore 1900:359; Willey 1949:124-125). This was not a unique action. Indeed, there was widespread reuse of older sand burial mounds in central and southern Florida (e.g., at Fort Center's Mound B, Bee Hive Hill, and many other mounds) by postcontact-period Indians, who placed glass beads, metal ceremonial tablets, and other ornaments in them. It appears that many such items were grave goods interred in association with burials (Allerton et al. 1984:10, 22; Hughes and Hardin 2003; Sears 1982:162). Such reuse of existing mounds by later Indians supports the interpretation that they understood them to be burial mounds (although they could not know how old some of the mounds were) and that they viewed them as sacred places. Summary Figure 8 plots the 12 calibrated 2-sigma radiocarbon age ranges that we obtained for provenienced materials from the Yellow Bluffs Mound, all excavated by the UF-directed crew in 1969. Six dates (five based on human remains, one on marine shell) support an age in the early middle of the Manasota Period for burials in the upper portion (Layer 6) of the mound. A weighted average of the five conventional dates of human remains supports a calibrated 2-sigma age range of 185 to 60 cal B.C. A seventh radiocarbon date supports a similar age for a basal layer of the mound. Two additional radiocarbon dates are older and appear to reflect inclusion of older materials in the fill that the Indians used to build the mound. Finally, a weighted average of three conventional dates of marine shells from a feature near the top of the mound yields a calibrated 2-sigma age range of cal A.D. 1560 to 1660, which supports a more recent intrusive origin during the postcontact Safety Harbor Period. Conclusion In this study, our goal was to clarify the temporal and cultural position of the Yellow Bluffs Mound, an American Indian burial mound destroyed in 1969 in the City of Sarasota. Our radiocarbon analysis indicates that burials were placed in the Yellow Bluffs Mound ca. 185 to 60 cal B.C., or during the early middle portion of the Manasota Period. The recovery from the mound of a marine shell and a faunal bone yielding older radiocarbon ages can be attributed to the Indians' use of earlier midden deposits as sources of sandy fill for building the mound. The same practice may account for some pottery in the mound, such as fiber-tempered sherds (Milanich 1972:Tables 2 and 3). The presence of some intrusive, postcontact-period material near the top of the mound is supported by more recent radiocarbon ages (ca. cal A.D. 1560 to 1660) from a feature of large marine univalve shells. If this feature is of aboriginal origin, it can be assigned to the postcontact Safety Harbor Period. We want to emphasize that our reassessment of the age of the Yellow Bluffs Mound is not intended to be critical of work done 40 years ago. Indeed, the work done at that time, in particular the careful field work and excellent documentation by Milanich and the UF-NC crew and volunteers, makes this reassessment feasible. In the late 1960s, radiocarbon dating was not yet widely used in Florida, and funding for radiocarbon dating was not available because of the salvage nature of the project. Given those limitations, we hope that current researchers understand the need for this reassessment and will welcome it. Note 1. This "notched left valve" from Burial 4 had a length of 85 mm and a direct height of 89 mm (see Luer 1986:Figure 4). Its form, and its degree of wear or erosion, were between the two lesser-worn specimens pictured in Luer (1986:Figure 8). It is still a question for research if some of these notched left valves are a result of intentional modification, use, and wear as tools, followed by erosion, or whether their form is entirely a result of natural erosion by soil acids while buried. Acknowledgments We want to thank Jerald Milanich for carefully documenting provenience, keeping thorough records, placing records and collections in repositories, and publishing results. We also want to thank Sarasota County for funding a sufficient number of radiocarbon dates. The assistance of Sarasota County personnel, including Lorrie Muldowney, Jodi Pracht, and Jeff LaHurd of the History Center, is gratefully acknowledged. Darden Hood and Ron Hatfield, of Beta Analytic, Inc., carefully dated remains and answered questions about radiocarbon dating. Sylvia Scudder and Irv Quitmyer of FLMNH provided access to the zooarchaeology collection from the Yellow Bluffs Mound and allowed samples to be removed for radiocarbon dating. Tesa Norman, of Sarasota, helped us a great deal through her expertise with computer images and graphics. Finally, we again want to acknowledge the support of Sarasota County in funding dates, which were essential for improving our knowledge of the Yellow Bluffs Mound, an important site in the history of the Sarasota region. References Cited Allerton, David, George M. Luer, and Robert S. Carr 1984 Ceremonial Tablets and Related Objects from Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 37:5-54. Bullen, Ripley P. 1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County, LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND THE LORIA ATHROOLOGST 011 OL. 4(1 Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Report of Investigations Number 8, Tallahassee. Eversole, Arnold G. 1987 Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic): Hard Clam. Biological Report II- 75, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Gold. Melissa L. 2006 Osteological Analysis of the Manasota Period Dunwody Site. The FloridaAnthmrpologist 59:35-54. Hughes, Daniel, and Kenneth Hardin 2003 Beehive Hill: Another Pre- and Post-First Contact Period Site in Central Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 56:267-275. Huehes. Daniel. and George M. Luer 2006 An Inventory of Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound (8So4) Osteological Collections at the Sarasota County History Center. On file, Sarasota County History Center. Sarasota. K"ei\. Jennifer A. 2004 Stable Isotope Evidence for Maize Consumption and other Dietary Practices At Bayshore Homes (8P141) and Other Prehistoric Sites in Peninsular Florida. M.A- thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa. Leer. George M. 1980 The Aqui Esta Site at Charlotte Harbor: A Safety Harbor-Influenced Prehistoric Aboriginal Site. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Winter Park. 1986 Some Interesting Archaeological Occurrences of Quahog Shells on the Gulf Coast of Central and Southern Florida- In Shells and Archaeology in Southern Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 125- 159. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 12, Tallahassee. 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. 1996 Mississippian Ceramic Jars, Bottles, and Gourds as Compound Vessels. Southeastern Archaeology 15:181-191. 1999 Cedar Point: A Late Archaic through Safety Harbor Period Occupation on Lemon Bay, Charlotte County, Florida. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 43-56. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 14, Clearwater. 2002a Ceramic Bottles, Globular Vessels, and Safety Harbor Culture. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 95- 110. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 15, Tallahassee. 2002b The Aqui Esta Mound: Ceramic and Shell Vessels of the Early Mississippian-Influenced Englewood Phase. In Archaeology of Upper Charlotte Harbor Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 111-181. Florida Anthropological Society Publication No. 15, Tallahassee. 2005 Sarasota Bay Mound: A Safety Harbor Period Burial Mound, with Notes on Additional Sites in the City of Sarasota. The Florida Anthropologist 58:7-55. Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy 1987 The Laurel Mound (8SO98) and Radial Burials, With Notes on the Safety Harbor Period. The Florida Anthropologist 40:301-320. Luer, George, Marion Almy, Dana Ste. Claire, and Robert Austin 1987 The Myakkahatchee Site (8So397), A Large Multi- Period Inland from the Shore Site in Sarasota County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 40:137-153. Milanich, Jerald T. 1969a "Field Specimen Catalogue" forms for 8SO4. Copy on file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. 1969b "Burial Record" forms for Burials 1 through 10 from 8SO4. Copy on file, Sarasota County History Center, Sarasota. 1972 Excavations at the Yellow Bluffs-Whitaker Mound, Sarasota, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 25:21- 41. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. 1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/ Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. Moore, Clarence B. 1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West-Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 11:349-394. Norr, Lynette 2004 Appendix E: Stable Isotope Analysis and Dietary Inference. In Bioarchaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast: Adaptation, Conflict, and Change, by Dale L. Hutchinson, pp. 169-184. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Sears, William H. 1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) LUER AND HUGHES RADIOCARBON DATING YELLOW BLUFFS MOUND 45 United States Geological Survey 1993 Sarasota, FL. 7.5 minute topographic sheet, scale 1:24,000. Washington, D.C. Willey, Gordon R. 1949 Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 113, Washington, D.C. Willis, Raymond F., and Robert E. Johnson 1980 AMAX Pine Level Survey: An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Properties in Manatee and De Soto Counties, Florida. Conducted by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST FUND An Endowment to Support production of The Florida Anthropologist, the scholarly journal published quarterly by the Florida Anthropological Society since 1948. Donations are now being accepted from individuals, corporations, and foundations. Inquiries and gifts can be directed to: The Editors The Florida Anthropologist PO Box 12563 Pensacola, FL 32591-2563 The Florida Anthropological Society is a non-profit organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions are tax-deductible as provided by section 170 of the code. ~~o-1.m~c~ AN INCISED ANTLER ARTIFACT FROM LITTLE SALT SPRING (8S018) JOHN A. GIFFORDI AND STEVEN H. KOSKI2 University ofMiami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University ofMiami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida 33149 Email: 'jgifford@rsmas. miami.edu Email: 2 skoski@rsmas.miami.edu Little Salt Spring (8SO18, hereafter LSS), a sinkhole containing an active spring (with a spring magnitude of 3), is located in southern Sarasota County about 15 km from the Gulf of Mexico. Intensive excavation work took place there during the 1970s and some of the earlier research is summarized in Clausen et al. 1979. In 1982, LSS and a surrounding 110-acre buffer property were donated by the General Development Corporation to the The University of Miami. In 1992, the Florida Department of State awarded a Special Category grant for initial test excavations in the basin of LSS (between 0 and 13 meters deep). This grant funded the most extensive fieldwork to date (February through June, 1992) and established the methodology for research that has continued to the present. However, underwater excavation in the basin, as well as elsewhere in LSS, has proceeded very slowly since 1992, primarily during short (1-2 week) field sessions involving graduate and undergraduate students from the University of Miami. Since 2005, volunteer divers from the Florida Aquarium in Tampa have assisted in three levels of fieldwork in LSS: surveying of the Basin (0-14 meters below the spring surface), excavating on the 27-Meter Ledge, and exploring of the bottom features, 65-75 meters below the spring surface. During the June 2004 field school, students began to expose an object in the southwestern quadrant of Operation 9, a 2x2 meter excavation unit on the north side of the LSS basin at a depth of 8.4 meters below the spring surface. The object was protruding at a near-vertical angle from an organic-rich marl stratum (Locus Z) that underlies a quartz sand deposit (Locus 8) in this part of the basin. Because the object appeared first in the sand stratum, it was assigned Item ID (identification number) 09108A01 (for Operation 9, Level 10 decimeterss below original water-sediment interface], Locus 8, Artifact 1 from that context). After removing just two centimeters of the sand it became apparent that the bulk of the object was actually embedded in the underlying organic marl stratum; thus its ItemID was changed to 0910ZA01 after recovery. Figure 1 is a photograph looking vertically down at the exposed portion of the object, in situ in the southwest quadrant of Operation 9. Approximately 15 cm west of the object we excavated an oak wood branch fragment, also embedded in the Locus Z marl at the same stratigraphic level; it was tagged as 0910ZW10 (nine other wood ecofacts already had been recovered from this locus and level). Like most of the wood ecofacts and artifacts we have excavated from the anoxic waters of LSS, it was in excellent condition on recovery although completely lacking cellulose. Prior to removing object 0910ZW10, we realized that it was a worked fragment of a deer antler; almost certainly Odocoileus virginianus, since more than half of all faunal material recovered from the basin of LSS represent bones of that species (Kozuch 1993). Also, from the exposed end it was apparent that this was a cylindrical fragment of an antler cut above the burr (i.e., a portion of the "beam"; MacGregor 1985:14). On its recovery we expected that any tines growing from this beam had been removed by some cutting or sawing technique. More than a dozen other deer antler fragments have been excavated from the LSS Basin in which the tines had been broken off to be further processed into projectile points; the remaining beam "blanks" were usually discarded but occasionally the blanks were used to make handles for other implements. The artifact and the adjacent wood ecofact were recovered on June 17, 2004 and brought to the surface. We immediately noted a series of short (3-4 mm), parallel incisions along the artifact's concave side. There were 27 incisions in all and they appear to be purposeful marks. Figure 2 shows the obverse and reverse of0910ZA01, with the parallel incisions visible in the former image. The artifact is ca. 8.5 cm in maximum length and after air drying has a weight of just over 53 grams. Visible on the reverse are discontinuous small patches of authigenic calcium carbonate. These patches are commonly found on solid objects that have been embedded in the LSS basin sediments for more than a few thousand years, but are only superficial. The artifact shows no sign of post-depositional modification of its structure or material; in other words, it is an original, unfossilized antler. One tine projecting normal to the long axis of the artifact had been cut off (Figure 2), presumably at the same time as the other two cuts along the beam of this antler had been made. There are additional incisions and possible surface modifications on the obverse side that also appear to be artificial (e.g., two substantial incisions toward the distal end that look as if they were going to become circumferential cuts; see Figure 2, Left) but they are not discussed here. Figure 3 shows end-on views of the two cuts that separated this section of antler from the rest of the beam at some point above its burr (MacGregor 1985: 55-57). The VOL. 64(1) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST MARCH 2011 VOL. 64(1) MARCH 2011 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) Figure 1. Vertical underwater image taken June 16, 2004 of the antler artifact (910ZA01, initially identified as "8A01") in situ. Its 2.5 cm-wide label is pinned into the marl sediment matrix with two bamboo skewers. Immediately to the left of this antler artifact is an arrow pointing to the oak branch fragment (0910ZW10), which was recovered and C-14 dated. H u m m m m i Figure 2. Antler Artifacts (0910ZA01) obverse (left) and reverse (right) images. proximal end (left) is identified relative to the root of the beam at the deer skull pedicle; its maximum diameter of 26.8 mm is larger than that of the distal cut end (25.0 mm), which is further distinguished by showing on its cut-off end the spongy, cancellous tissue of the antler's interior. The depression in the proximal end is filled with a small volume of carbonate- cemented quartz sand from Locus 8. Finally, both ends shown in Figure 3 clearly show the series of five to ten short, straight chord cut-marks that together resulted in the circumcision and breaching of the dense outer surface so that this beam section of interest could be broken off by hand. The technique by which these cuts were made is unknown, but we believe it may have involved a small wooden tool with a plant fiber bowstring combined with quartz sand as the abrasive. In August of 2004 the oak wood branch excavated in direct association with the antler artifact was submitted to Beta Analytic for a standard radiometric date. Results were delivered in September as Beta-195280. The conventional radiocarbon age of 9240 60 BP (Beta-195380; oak wood; '3C = -28.4%o) corresponds to a Cal BP date of 10,560 to 10,253 (2-sigma; Calib Rev. 6), indicating that this deposit dates to the late Paleoindian stage. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) ANTLER ARTIFACT FROM LITTLE SALT SPRING Figure 3. Antler Artifacts (0910ZA01) proximal end-on view (left) and distal end-on view (right). Figure 4. Composite (stitched) image showing the proximal (left) half of two parallel pairs (large and small) of incisions along concave surface of the antler artifact (0910ZA01). The pairs of incisions are identified as 1-14. The short, parallel incisions along the concave side of the antler artifact are visible in the left image of Figure 2; they are unique with regards to other wood, bone and antler items recovered to date from LSS. This incised surface was examined and photographed at 3x and 6x magnification using a Wild reflected-light stereoscopic microscope equipped with a USB digital microscope eyepiece (1.3 Megapixels); illumination was from a high-intensity LED light source shining from the proximal end at a low angle. Nine images were stitched together to form a continuous composite image of the incisions. Figure 4 shows the left half of the composite image, from the proximal end to the middle of the artifact (incisions 1-14) and Figure 5 shows the other half of the set (incisions 15-26), which ends where a large chip of the antler cortex was broken off prior to deposition. The end of that chip appears to terminate at what would have been another parallel incision (27), as discussed below. Whatever cutting technique was used to separate this section of the antler beam certainly also could have been used to make the "major" set of 27 parallel incisions shown in Figures 4 and 5. They are all between 5 and 6 mm long and less than 1 mm deep so that they do not usually penetrate the outer cortex; the average spacing from one to the next is 2.4 mm. Although the larger incisions 1-14 (Figure 4) were cut GIFFORD AND KOSKI THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST Figure 5. Composite (stitched) image showing the distal (right) half of two parallel pairs (large and small) of incisions along concave surface of the antler artifact (0910ZA01). The pairs of incisions are identified as 15 27. Figure 6. Close-up of the pit left by the missing chip from the distal end of the artifact. There is a trace of a possible secondary incision remaining above the pit at a distance of 1.9 mm (arrow) from the remaining half of Incision 27. 2011 VOL. 64(1) ANTLER ARTIFACT FROM LITTLE SALT SPRING at an angle of some 10-20 degrees relative to the proximal end circumcision, large incisions 15-27, from the middle to the chip at the distal end (Figure 5), are closer to being normal to the artifact's long axis. Two of the larger incisions on the left half- 1 and 13 show multiple shallow cuts; the same is true of Incision 25 on the right half. Although speculative, we assume the similarity of shape, orientation and general execution of the 26 major incisions (with a probable 27th mostly missing) suggest they were all made at the same time with the same tool. Of equal importance to characterizing this artifact is that each one of the 27 major incisions is associated with a much smaller, shallower and less well-defined incision cut on approximately the same circumferential outer diameter of the antler segment. Incisions 3-8 of Figure 4 show this most clearly. With some exceptions the smaller cuts appear less well-defined toward the distal end of the object, but there is little doubt that two "cutting events" are recorded on this object. Initially we speculated that these two sets represent the beginning of a sequence of production of 26 disks of antler that, individually, would be further worked and used for some other purpose. However, the artisan who made these incisions would have realized the major obstruction created by the location of the partially-removed central tine, so this does not seem a viable hypothesis. The alternative that almost everyone who examines this artifact mentions involves some sort of measuring device. Figure 6 focuses on the chip broken from the cortex on the distal end of the artifact. We see the trace of a minor incision located above the pit where the cortex was chipped away; it is about 2 mm away from the (faint) trace of the minor incision associated with major incision 27, marking the end of the pit. If this does mark the location of a now-missing pair of major and minor incisions that were broken away on the chip, that would make a total of at least 28, which is close to the number of days (29.5) in an average lunar cycle. Although speculative, this hypothesis involves the idea that each major-minor pair of incisions marks a sun-moon cycle of twenty-four hours. The near-vertical orientation of this antler artifact as excavated indicates that it was inserted into the marl sediment since it could not attain that position naturally. Since 2004, excavation of another 2-x-2 meter unit immediately downslope of Operation 9 has exposed several wooden artifacts as well as a gourd fragment. All these artifacts appear to represent items purposely discarded, possibly in shallow water as the spring level was rising. Artifact 0910ZA01 is curated (temporarily) at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, pending the construction of an on-site research center at Little Salt Spring (planned for 2012). References Cited Clausen, C. J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman, and J. J. Stipp 1979 Little Salt Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203 (4381): 609 614. Kozuch, L. 1993 Little Salt Spring (8S018) Faunal Analysis. Unpublished report in authors' possession. MacGregor, Arthur 1985. Bone, Antle,; Ivoiy and Horn: the Technology of Skeletal Materials since the Roman Period. Croom Helm, London. GIFFORD AND KOSKI A Video on Florida's Native peoples ."Shadows and c fe.tlT: Florida's Lost People" Produced by the Florida Anthropological Society , Funded by the Florida Department of State A Florida Heritage Production Produced and Directed by Chaos Productions Executive Producer: Brent Weisman Written by Marshall Riggan Artwork by Theodore Morris 1998 Florida Anthropological Society and the Florida Department of State To obtain copies please send $20 (includes shipping and handling) to Terry Simpson, 9907 High Meadow Ave., Thonotosassa, FL. 33592-2458. Please specify DVD or VHS. Make checks payable to the Florida Anthropological Society. Special reseller price available. THE FLORIDA RADIOCARBON DATABASE STEVE J. DASOVICH' AND GLEN H. DORAN2 SDirector ofArchaeology andAssistant Professor Dept. of Sociology/Anthropology, Lindenwood University, St. Charles, Missouri 63301 Email: sdasovich@lindenwood.edu 2 Department ofAnthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Email: gdoran@fsu. edu Archaeologists have been using radiocarbon dates since the technique's inception in the 1950s. Dates were and are often used individually or with others from the same archaeological site to help interpret the cultural chronology of multi- and single-component sites and to date a specific component, strata or feature. As the number of dates increases, tabulations of this information become increasingly useful in archaeological research. This paper describes such tabulation for the state of Florida. The utilization of radiocarbon assays has always been within the framework of useful data. From the first use of radiocarbon dates, most researchers seemed to be interested only in how a date, or suite of dates, effected the interpretation of their site or componentss. Until 1988 there was apparently little effort to compile large series of dates, or databases, though the number of dates within some regions was expanding rapidly (Kra 1988). Date compilation aids in the interpretation of cultural chronologies and often leads to additional research questions. A single date, when viewed within a suite of supposedly related dates, may more quickly stand out as aberrant or questionable. This can be particularly valuable given the volume of 'gray' literature that continues to be generated by cultural resource management work. Second, the ability to compare cultural component dates from several sites helps frame the tradition's chronological span. These are both issues identified by Dasovich (1996). Date Collection Reasons for the absence of such databases lie in the often idiosyncratic nature of archaeological specialization ('my region, my topic, my research focus'). Additionally not all dates appear in reports or published articles. Many radiocarbon labs regard their dates as proprietary client information and do not publish or release the information except to the client. Another factor limiting the widespread evolution of these databases also lies in the time required to compile them. Dasovich spent over two years collecting the 940 dates used in his thesis (Dasovich 1996) and this update, adding 313 dates, took an additional year and a half. Compilation becomes an elaborate scavenger hunt where you never know if you have all the dates and you always assume you are missing some. Equally demanding is the time required for continuous database updating. As soon as a database is completed it is out-of-date because new dates are constantly being produced. In almost every published and on- line discussion of radiocarbon databases these challenges are noted. To give some sense of the magnitude of the problem, Beta Analytic, one of the world's most productive radiocarbon labs, runs approximately 12,000 dates a year of which roughly 6,000 are from the United States. Several hundred come from Florida alone (Darden Hood, personal communication 2006). Though not all dates are from archaeological contexts this is still a large number of dates to track. Part of our hope in posting the database and providing this brief description is to encourage the archaeological community to help us update and keep the database current. Participation of the broadest group of users will aid in the accuracy and completeness of the database and improve its utility for all. Dates were collected from published literature, particularly the Florida Anthropologist, Florida Scientist, Southeastern Archaeology Bulletin, university publications, Florida site file reports and unpublished documents. The majority of practicing archaeologists with research interests in Florida were contacted and many provided unpublished date lists. A more complete discussion of the methodology and details can be found in Dasovich (1996) and only a brief discussion is provided here. This compilation specifically includes dates attributed or associated with archaeological investigations and does not include dates specifically obtained in association with geological or paleontological studies or dates obtained by archaeologists not specifically attributed to an archaeological context. For example, the basal date on the Windover (8BR246) peat is well below the zones with evidence of human cultural material and is not included here because it is more specifically a geological date (Pleistocene/ Holocene boundary) rather than a 'cultural' date (Doran 1988, 2002). The goal was to collect radiocarbon dates specifically on archaeological traditions and cultures. With the cooperation of many archaeologists, 940 radiocarbon dates from 51 counties were compiled (15 were dropped for incomplete reporting of information; for a complete discussion on this see Dasovich 1996). This initial effort compiled dates through 1993. More recently, we re- inventoried publications since 1994 (Florida Anthropologist, Southeastern Archaeology, etc.) and included dates recorded at the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research. We also THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 64(1) MARCH 2011 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) solicited updates through the Florida archaeology news group. The database now contains 1,253 dates. Two dates are excluded from this discussion but are included in the online database. One, a date of 40 and a standard deviation of 50 comes from the Newnan's Lake Canoe Project (CANOE 4, Beta-146269- Wheeler et al. 2003). Similarly, a Little Salt Springs date of 17,340 B.P. (the extinct tortoise, Beta-25430; John Gifford, personal communication) is excluded from this discussion although it is included in the database. Some argue the date may not reflect human activity although it dates the megafauna remains (John Gifford, personal communication) and might, strictly speaking, be paleontological in nature. The following discussion thus focuses on the remaining 1,251 dates. In the future we will try to include more 'problematic' dates and highlight the issues associated with them rather than simply excluding them. Cultural Chronologies; Chronological Issues In his 1996 study, Dasovich's main research goal was not to re-write the Florida prehistoric cultural chronology (as seen in Milanich and Fairbanks 1980) but to identify time intervals where such a re-writing might be warranted. In the process, further, unanticipated research questions became apparent, most notably the longer duration of the southern Florida Late Archaic tradition. This large scale date tabulation would allow for more careful assessment of the beginning and ending of cultural traditions. This would make it easier to identify poorly dated traditions which would benefit from careful chronometric scrutiny. Several cultural periods showed significant discrepancies. The thesis suggested some cultural periods be re-evaluated chronologically to better match the time periods archaeologists used in their publications. Dasovich argued that the Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Orange, Deptford, Glades II, Glades IIB, Glades III, Ft. Walton, and Safety Harbor intervals should have their temporal boundaries expanded. Others, specifically Caloosahatchee, Weeden Island, and Glades IIA should have their time frames narrowed. The Late Archaic period was moved almost completely out of its original time frame (from 4,000-5,000 B.P. to 2,400-4,100 B.P.), as was the Glades IIA period. The interesting aspect of the Late Archaic change is that the later dates all came from southern Florida, supporting the proposition that Archaic lifeways continued much longer in the southern peninsula than in the north where the Orange period started almost 1,000 years earlier than the equivalent tradition in southern Florida. These suggested revisions are solely based upon the association of radiocarbon dates with these cultural periods. Additional discussions of such differences are found in the thesis. Database Structure and Protocol Database variable names and a brief description are provided in Table 1. The earliest radiocarbon dates were not 'calibrated', and in many cases information on 13C ratios do not exist. In the last 20 years, we have begun to avail ourselves of the refined interpretations possible with radiocarbon calibration studies. Darden Hood of Beta Analytic was very helpful and ran calibrations on all the dates in the database and these calibrations are included in the database. Beta's web page provides an overview of the calibration protocol and as new dates are entered they will be handled similarly (http:// www.radiocarbon.com/calendar.htm). The Beta webpage notes that they use the Radiocarbon 1998 calibration data (from Intcal98: Stuiver et al. 1998) for their calibrations and the Talma and Vogel (1993) cubic spline fit mathematics. The intent is to update the database once a year after processing the 'new' dates and identifying and fixing any errors or comments that we receive. The file posted on the webpage contains the variable list in Table 1 (http://digitool3.1ib.fsu. edu/R/?func=collections-result&collection_id= 1104). Where no site number was known to us, but a county ascription was available, the site designation follows the format 8BRx. Where dates are from multiple unspecified sites, an additional 'x' is added per additional site (i.e., 8BRxx). In a few cases, multiple site numbers for a specific date were reported and both sites are included (e.g., 8VO24/25). Sometimes, published or unpublished reports provide lab numbers with dates at variance with each other. Short of obtaining copies of the original lab sheets we could see no straightforward way of resolving these discrepancies and have included both dates in the database. Out of the 1,251 dates there are only 13 which exhibit this problem. For example, Beta- 12896 has two different dates reported (in the grey literature), 570 and 670 B.P. The other 12 'duplicates' with apparently contradictory dates include Beta -36705, 1-5935, DIC-655, Gx-155, UM-1153, UM -1154, UM -1370, UM -1373, UM -1451, UM -1549 and UM -2359. We are continuing to attempt to resolve these discrepancies and we have included a 'PROBLEM' field identifying what issues exist with a date and we continue to resolve the issues. Reader input on this would also be appreciated. Some of the other interesting statistical aspects of the database include the sparse number of old dates. Of the 1,251 dates, only 78 are older than 6,999 radiocarbon years B.P. (uncalibrated) and these 78 dates come from only 11 sites - one unidentified site in Marion County, Little Salt and Warm Mineral Spring, Windover, the Bison Kill site in Jefferson County, Bay West, Cutler Fossil (Ridge) site, Devil's Den, J and J Hunt site, and the Page/Ladson site. Conversely, most of the dates (n=721; 57%) are less than 2,000 years old and come from 248 sites. Clearly (Figure 1), most of the dated samples and sites fall into the more recent periods and reflect site density, population expansion (development) and archaeological research orientation. The slightly elevated number of dates between 6,000 and 7,000 B.P. and between 9,000 and 10,000 B.P. indicate repetitive dating strategies from a handful of sites such as Windover, J and J Hunt, Warm Mineral Spring, and Little Salt Spring. Fifty-two of Florida's 67 counties have sites or materials which have been dated but statewide, geographic and chronological distribution is hardly uniform (Table 2 and Figure 2). Reported dates are concentrated in areas where more sites have been more intensively excavated, where development has been significant, and where researchers THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) DASOICH ND DRANFLORDA RDIOARBO DATBAS Table 1. FSU archaeological radiocarbon database variable list and variable description. Variable Name UID DATE SE AUTHCUL SITE SNAME COUNTY MATERIAL WEIGHT CONTEXT LABNUMBER YEAR SUBMITTER ACCELERATE COMMENTS CALIBRATE C13ADJ DIAGNOSTIC BIBLIO FSSF ORIGIN Variable Description Unique numeric identifier specific to this database. 1- 1,251 were calibrated by Hood in 2004 Uncorrected conventional radiocarbon date Standard error Submitters attribution of culture Florida Site File number Reported site name County, following standard abbreviation format Type of material dated if reported Weight (gm) if reported Archaeological context if reported Laboratory radiocarbon number Year sample run Name of submitter if reported y = date is AMS date, n = not an AMS date Comments about date or context pertinent to interpretation Source of the calibration 3C adjustment if reported Associated diagnostic artifacts Bibliographic reference (see Dasovich 1996 for complete citation) Florida Site File Manuscript Number (if known) Source of the date either Dasovich 1996 or the date of inclusion and name of person providing the information. The following calibrations use a date of 9220 + 180 as a model: C95ADMAX C95ADMIN C95BPMAX C95BPMIN CALAD1MIN CALAD1MAX CALBP1MAX CALBP1MIN CALAD2MIN CALAD2MAX CALBP2MAX CALBP2MIN CALAD3MIN CALAD3MAX CALBP3MAX CALBP3MIN Calibrated maximum A.D. date, 95 % confidence interval, 2 sigma Calibrated minimum A.D. date, 95% confidence interval, 2 sigma Calibrated maximum B.P. date, 95% confidence interval, 2 sigma Calibrated minimum B.P. date, 95% confidence interval, 2 sigma Calibrated minimum A.D. date, 1 sigma Calibrated maximum A.D. date, 1 sigma Calibrated maximum B.P. date, 1 sigma Calibrated minimum B.P. date, 1 sigma Calibrated minimum A.D. date, 2 sigma Calibrated maximum A.D. date, 2 sigma Calibrated maximum B.P. date, 3 sigma Calibrated minimum B.P. date, 3 sigma Calibrated minimum A.D. date, 3 sigma Calibrated maximum A.D. date, 3 sigma Calibrated maximum B.P. date, 3 sigma Calibrated minimum B.P. date, 3 sigma 9120 9000 11070 10950 8890 8880 10840 10830 8840 8150 10800 10100 8140 7970 10090 9920 DASOVICH AND DORAN FLORIDA RADIOCARBON DATABASE 400. 40.3 Proportion per Bar 300- Count -0.2 200- 100-0.1 100 0- .,-. . f r,..,i 0.0 0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 1500 4500 7500 10500 13500 14C YEARS BP (uncalibrated) Figure 1. Distribution of uncalibrated archaeological radiocarbon dates (n=1251). felt it important to obtain dates. Lee (n=124 dates, 12.0% of the total), Volusia (n=111, 10.8%), Collier (n=107, 10.4 %), Dade (n=87, 8.4%), and Sarasota (n=90, 8.7%) counties have produced the greatest number of dates and account for 40% of the current database. Some counties (n=15), such as Baker, Union, Flagler etc. do not have a record of radiocarbon dates. Others, like Orange County where development has been rampant, have only a handful of dates (n=4). Distribution by county is also clearly not associated with the density of sites or even time intervals represented within the county. To illustrate the point, Lee County contributes 12% of all Florida dates and has less than 2% of the total number of Florida sites within its borders (site density and count information based on a 2001 downloaded version of the Florida Site File inventory). Extremes on the other end of the spectrum also exist. For example, Leon County with over 2,000 recorded sites has only 15 reported dates. For the purpose of this discussion (sites per county) we are including both prehistoric and historic sites. Fifteen counties account for 75% of all identified dates. Interestingly, radiocarbon sample submitters (or authors of the individual reports where the dates are discussed) reported or only provided cultural affiliation for 70% (n=868; AUTHCUL) of the dates (Table 3). Some cultural traditions are more frequently dated than others. The Glades (n=142) Archaic (n=166), St. John's (n=91), Caloosahatchee (n=79) and Paleoindian traditions (n=45) have a disproportionate number of dates while others are more ephemerally tied to an absolute chronology. Again, this does not reflect overall site chronological frequencies but instead, we believe, researcher interest. We are reporting the submitter's assessment of cultural affiliation and make no evaluation of legitimacy (e.g., Hopewell, Colorinda, Kolomoki?). When material composition (MATERIAL) was reported (n=1136 90%), wood or charcoal accounted for nearly half the samples (n=530) with shell (n=475) accounting for nearly as many dates. Species identification has generally not been reported with the dates. Where type of date (standard or accelerator) was reported, only eight AMS dates are identified. Roughly half (n=650) of the dates were run by Beta Analytic of Coral Gables, Florida. We have not included optically stimulated luminescence dates (OSL) or thermoluminescence dated (TL) though this is being considered as these techniques become more widely applied in Florida. As noted, it is common for multiple dates to be run on sites, particularly those with a more extensive excavation record. A tabulation of the number of sites which have dates provides a different perspective on radiocarbon dating in Florida. Of the 1251 dates in the total series, there are only 361 dated sites. The other 890 dates are repetitive dates within individual sites. A total of 152 sites have single dates on them and another 84 have two dates, while 38 have three dates. Viewed from another perspective, 75% of all dates in Florida archaeological contexts come from 350 sites and another nine sites produce the other 25% of the dates in Florida. Obviously, there are many reasons for multiple dates for individual sites and most cautious researchers prefer to deal with multiple dates. What is striking to us is the surprisingly small absolute and relative number of sites that have been dated. This is even more obvious when the unevenness of geographic and chronological distributions are taken into account (Figure 2). Loosely speaking, there are 16,555 recorded prehistoric sites in Florida (Chip Birdsong, personal communication 2006). Thus, our dating framework is based on fewer than 3% of the known sites. It seems to us that we clearly need more dates for more sites from all over the state. Part of the reason for the paucity of dated sites, we believe, is that as more sites are investigated during the course of compliance driven projects, the lack of dates is often due to a lack of funding and time. Radiocarbon dating is not something that is required by agency guidelines and reviewers. Therefore, it is likely that THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1 102 Vot. 64(1) DASOVICH AND DORAN FLORIDA RADIOCARBON DATABASE Figure 2. Florida radiocarbon date distribution by county. First number is the number of samples dated and second is the number of sites dated in each county. Darker shading corresponds to higher totals of radiocarbon dates by county. the dating framework will remain relatively static. This being said, there are strategies that might be employed by cultural resource management companies to add a date or two to a project where dating would be beneficial and any such strategy should be considered. Given the diversity of cultural traditions and the early occupation of Florida, one of the conclusions the thesis reached, and is reiterated here, is that additional dates for most cultural traditions would be a valuable contribution to increasing chronological precision. This would improve our ability to more accurately document geographic differences and occupation and tradition duration. Many cultural traditions have very few dates and chronological precision is limited and based on a great deal of inferential reasoning. We hope this synthesis, and the accessible database format, will be of use to the widest possible audience. We are preparing more detailed analyses and comparisons of the Florida database but we felt it useful to provide the database to the public so we can get feedback and assistance in its expansion. This brief discussion is meant to be introductory to the possibilities of the database. The original research conducted to compile this database for Florida could not have been possible without the cooperation of many archaeologists. Those archaeologists who forwarded dates for the Dasovich compilation were told that they would receive a usable database for their personal use. The publication of this study and the posted database, now including more dates than the original study, fulfills NUMBER OF DATES SI-10o S11-5(0 51 -o lo DRAWN BY DEBBIE MISSEY ,A DASOVICH AND DORAN FLORIDA RADIOCARBON DATABASE 58 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) Table 2. Distribution of dated sites and number of dates by county in fl142009vl.xls. NO. OF PERCENT OF DATED NO. OF PERCENT OF COUNTY DATED SITES DATES DATES SITES Alachua 2 0.6 57 4.6 Bay 7 1.9 9 0.7 Bradford 2 0.6 2 0.2 Brevard 9 2.5 35 2.8 Broward 6 1.7 14 1.1 Calhoun 2 0.6 9 0.7 Charlotte 3 0.8 14 1.1 Citrus 11 3 25 2 Clay 5 1.4 5 0.4 Collier 39 10.8 117 9.3 Columbia 3 0.8 6 0.5 Dade 24 6.6 103 8.3 Dixie 1 0.3 1 0.1 Duval 21 5.8 40 3.2 Escambia 1 0.3 2 0.2 Franklin 7 1.9 11 0.9 Glades 2 0.6 12 1 Gulf 3 0.8 4 0.3 Hardee 2 0.6 9 0.7 Hendry 1 0.3 1 0.1 Highlands 3 0.8 8 0.6 Hillsborough 6 1.7 16 1.3 Indian River 4 1.1 7 0.6 Jackson 7 1.9 17 1.4 Jefferson 9 2.5 33 2.6 Lake 4 1.1 7 0.6 Lee 13 3.6 124 9.9 Leon 5 1.4 15 1.2 Levy 1 0.3 2 0.2 DASOVICH AND DORAN FLORIDA RADIOCARBON DATABASE 59 Table 2 continued. Distribution of dated sites and number of dates by county in fll42009vl.xls. NO. OF PERCENT OF DATED NO. OF PERCENT OF COUNTY DATED SITES DATES DATES SITES Liberty 3 0.8 21 1.7 Madison 1 0.3 4 0.3 Manatee 2 0.6 24 1.9 Marion 7 1.9 16 1.3 Martin 4 1.1 13 1 Monroe 11 3 39 3.1 Nassau 4 1.1 6 0.5 Okaloosa 13 3.6 49 3.9 Orange 2 0.6 4 0.3 Palm Beach 8 2.2 16 1.3 Pinellas 6 1.7 18 1.4 Polk 8 2.2 11 0.9 Putnam 7 1.9 7 0.6 Santa Rosa 4 1.1 6 0.5 Sarasota 11 3 95 7.6 Seminole 4 1.1 5 0.4 St. Johns 8 2.2 16 1.3 St. Lucie 1 0.3 4 0.3 Suwannee 1 0.3 1 0.1 Taylor 3 0.8 4 0.3 Volusia 35 9.7 147 11.7 Wakulla 4 1.1 9 0.7 Walton 11 3 30 2.4 Totals 361 100.0 1251 100.0 THE FLORID ANHRPOOIS 211VL.64 Table 3. Submitter's (AUTHCUL) attribution of cultural affiliation.* Affiliation Count (n) Percent Adena 1 0.1 Alachua 2 0.2 Archaic 166 13.3 Belle Glade 13 1.0 Cades Pond 3 0.2 Caloosahatchee 79 6.3 Colorinda 1 0.1 Deptford 19 1.5 Elliots Point 1 0.1 Ft. Walton 38 3.0 Glades 142 11.4 Hopewell 2 0.2 Kolomoki 4 0.3 Malabar 2 0.2 Manasota 38 3.0 Mississippian 1 0.1 that obligation. The authors have diligently reviewed and re- reviewed this database to fix any mistakes or inconsistencies. Any errors or corrections should be reported to us and we will attempt to address them. Records with known problems which we are trying to resolve are noted in the 'PROBLEM' field. We are continuing to 'clean up' the database .We have recently discovered some duplications and are trying to update the carbon-13 adjustments where possible (this minimally involves double checking the original publications). In other, particularly earlier dating efforts, they were not reported at all. Florida State University has posted the database online in an Excel file and Adobe PDF file format (http://digitool. Affiliation Count (n) Percent Mt. Taylor 23 1.8 Norwood 1 0.1 Orange 38 3.0 Paleo 45 3.6 Safety Harbor 7 0.6 Santa Rosa 22 1.8 Seminole 1 0.1 Spanish 2 0.2 St. Johns 91 7.3 Swift Creek 6 0.5 Transitional 25 2.0 Unspecified 441 35.3 Weeden Island 36 2.9 Woodland 2 0.2 Total 1251 100 * Cultural traditions grouped i.e., Archaic, Early combined with Archaic, Middle, Archaic, Late; St. Johns I, II, etc. combined into St. Johns; etc. fcla.edu/R/BCXQC66H6ITLGCIKA PP6CS8Y8E7DU V2GQDT2S9C13CNTNER4B-02298?func=collections- result&collection id=1460). As new dates are added the file name will be numerically incremented the current file name is fl 142007v1.xls. With the anticipated addition of more dates soon, the new file name iteration will be f11420XXvl .xls, with the 20XX reflecting the update year. We request all readers to forward us 'new' dates or dates we have inadvertently missed. Please forward them to Doran at gdoran@fsu.edu. Submission ideally should include the radiocarbon lab report and all pertinent archaeological information included in the database (FS, context, level, material, etc.). This information, THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1 102 Vot. 64(1) FLORIDA RADIOCARBON DATABASE the laboratory date forms, and associated archaeological information can also be faxed to Doran at 850-645-0032. Hopefully, this article, and our request, will generate sufficient interest that there will be an outpouring of dates and the next update will be a substantial increase over the current inventory. References Cited Dasovich, Steve 1996 Compilation and Analysis of Florida 's Prehistoric Radiocarbon Database. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Doran, Glen H. and David N. Dickel 1988 Radiometric Chronology of the Archaic Windover Archaeological site (8BR246). The Florida Anthropologist 41:365-380. Doran, Glen H. (editor and contributor) 2002 Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Kra, Renee. 1988 Updating the Past: The Establishment of the International Radiocarbon Data Base. American Antiquity 53: 118-125. Milanich, Jerald T. and Charles Fairbanks 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, New York. Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, Edouard Bard, J. Warren, G.S. Burr, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Johannes van der Plict, and Marco Spurk 1998 INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000 0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40:1041-1083. Talma, A.Steve and J.C. Vogel 1993 A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 dates. Radiocarbon 35:317-322. Wheeler, Ryan, James J. Miller, Ray M. McGee, Donna Swann Ruhl, and Melissa B. Memory 2003 Archaic Period Canoes from Newnans Lake, Florida. American Antiquity 68: 533-551. DASOVICH AND DORAN Chapters of the Florida Anthropological Society 10 5 r p- ----____ 1. Ancient Ones Archaeological Society of North Central Florida 2902 NW 104th Court, Unit A, Gainesville, FL 32606 2. Archaeological Society of Southern Florida 15 2495 N.W. 35th Ave., Miami, FL 33142 3. Central Florida Anthropological Society P.O. Box 947544, Maitland, FL 32794 4. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society P.O. Box 1563, Pinellas Park, FL 33780 ' 5. Emerald Coast Archaeological Society c/o Indian Temple Mound Museum 4 139 Miracle Strip Pkwy SE, Fort Walton Beach, 32548 6. Gold Coast Anthropological Society PO Box 11052, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33339 7. Indian River Anthropological Society 14 3705 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, FL 32952 8. Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy 195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid, FL 33852 16 9. Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee P.O. Box 20026, Tallahassee, FL 32316 10. Pensacola Archaeological Society P.O. Box 13251, Pensacola, FL 32591 13 11. St. Augustine Archaeological Association P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine, FL 32085 12. Southeast Florida Archaeological Society ' P.O Box 2875, Stuart, FL 34995 ' 13. Southwest Florida Archaeological Society i" .. P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101 . 14. Time Sifters Archaeology Society P.O. Box 25642, Sarasota, FL 34277 15. Volusia Anthropological Society P.O. Box 1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32175 16. Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society P.O. Box 7797, North Port, FL 34287 CLIMATE: THE KEY TO DISCOVERING THE FOOD PLANTS FORAGED BY FLORIDA'S PALEOINDIANS AND ARCHAIC PEOPLE I. MAC PERRY 8399 42nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Fl 33709 Email: macperry@tampabay.rr.com PLEASE NOTE: This article is not intended to be used as a guide to foraging or for culinary purposes. Some of the most harmful chemicals known come from plants. Never forage or eat any wild plants without positive identification from an herbalist or knowledgeable forager. So often we see illustrations of Florida's Paleoindians throwing spears into the hide ofa roaring mammoth (mammoths by the way were not the largest of Florida's early megafauna). We call these people hunter/gatherers, but we rarely depict them gathering and rarely do we write about what, where, and how they gathered. Indeed, they were brave hunters; archaeologists have found quarries where they chipped Clovis spear points (named after Clovis, New Mexico where the points were first found), temporary hunting camps, and kill sites where large animals were butchered and thin cuts of meat triple-smoked for preservation. But most of Paleoindian life must have revolved around a gathering economy in a world of environmental diversity. Archaeologist Philip Carr (2008) wrote, "A vegetable- rich diet was common among Native Americans for centuries. Even the Paleoindians, despite their reputation as big-game hunters, probably received most of their daily nutrition from gathering." Archaeologist Vaughn Bryant, Jr. (2001), studying Paleoindian coprolites in southwest Texas, suggests that these people may have had diets consisting of 66-75% carbohydrates (from plants) and 5 to 15 times as much fiber as we consume today. In fact, much literature today espouses the idea that the Paleoindians were first and foremost gatherers, then hunters of small game, and only the occasional hunters of megafauna. More recent studies of grave goods (Hamlin 2001) and degenerative joint disease (Wentz 2010) from the Early Archaic Windover site in Brevard County indicate that in all probability the women were the ones doing the gathering and hunting of small animals during that period, leaving the men to fabricate tools and hunt large animals (alligator, bear, deer). Most archaeologists believe that gatherers spent about 20 hours per week collecting resources that yielded an average of 2100 kilocalories per consumer day (Hawkes 1968). Doing research amongst the moder-day !Kung of Botswana, Kristen Hawkes said that "[!Kung] mothers usually take their children under the age of four on foraging trips" (1968:344) and that "the !Kung are often identified as prototypical hunter/ gatherers well-nourished foragers who work relatively short hours, rely on the widely available plant foods collected by women for the bulk of their diet, and maintain low birthrates, which prevent population growth from threatening local resources" (1968:341). Could this have been typical of Florida's Paleoindian and Archaic people? Florida has a vast biodiversity of plants and plant communities (Figure 1), perhaps because it sits on an ecotone between two major plant worlds: the sub-tropical and the temperate. These plant communities have been here a long time. Florida's mixed hardwood forests have persisted from the very beginning of the state's terrestrial history more than 25 million years ago, with first evidence of sandhill and scrub habitats appearing nearly 20 million years ago (Webb 1990:99). The wetland, subtropical, and estuarine species along today's west coast did not arrive in abundance until about 5000 B.P. when sea levels had risen to near modern levels. The Florida Natural Inventory (FDNR 1990) has defined 81 distinct plant communities within the state, all of which would have been familiar to the Paleoindians who knew each habitat through their own experiences, languages, and familiarity with a given plant community. This familiarity would have included a mental tally of what plants (and animals) could be expected in each locale and extended to a knowledge of the growth cycles for these plants, the location of each valued type across the landscape, and knowledge of how these plants could be gathered and managed from season to season. It is difficult for us to fathom the level of familiarity the Paleoindians had with their environment and the intensity of their foraging and management skills. Possibly they could "read" a landscape faster than we can read pulp fiction. There was a familiarity with the underside of every log and stone, as well as with the workings of every tree and the ground covering beneath every bush. They would have waded through every stream and pond searching for plants and animals and they would have continuously learned throughout their lives what was where and how to get at it. I can imagine them snapping, digging, crushing, sniffing, nibbling, cooking in various ways every new plant part they came across. Although most of the world's population "live on diets characterized by high intakes of plant foods and based on a THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 64(1) MARCH 2011 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) Dunes L Swamp / Major Plant Communities alt Marsh/ Scrub Estuarine Mangrove Swamp, Fresh Marsh Rockland JW OP l0 Figure 1. Florida's major plant communities were divided into 81 sub-communities by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. starchy, bland staple" (Lieberman 1968:241), it is impossible for us to know if or when Paleoindians were motivated by flavor or when they just wanted to fill their bellies. Many of the plants that we would never consider edible were a part of their daily recipes. I have eaten cabbage palm berries, saw palmetto fruits, beautyberry, sea oxeye, and many other paleo-edibles only to spit them back out as not-very-tasty. Shipwrecked Jonathan Dickinson also spit out his saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) fruits while the Indian sitting with him ate a basketful saying, "We tasted them, but not one amongst us could suffer them to stay in our mouths; for we could compare the taste of them to nothing else but rotten cheese steeped in tobacco" (Dickinson [1699] 1985:26). I have also tasted the cyanide in black cherry (Prunus serotina), the oxalic acid in wood sorrel (Oxalis violacea), the toxic alkaloids in coral bean (Erythrina herbacea)-the plant that some say was used on the Calusa arrow that killed Ponce de Leon -- and even have chewed a bit of Hercules club (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis) (author's note to the reader: do not do this!), a plant the Indians used to deaden a toothache. Cuisine preferences aside, these were all common food (or medicinal) plants for the Paleoindians. Palynologists studying pollen at various sites (e.g.,Little Salt Spring, Lakes Annie and Tulane, Sheeler Lake) have matched plant species with radiocarbon dates to determine the THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC FOOD PLANTS dominant plants growing at certain time periods. By pairing moisture-loving plants to moist climates and xeric plants to xeric climates, they assigned temperature and moisture levels to each of these time periods. Archaeologists are interested in the Florida plant record primarily as evidence of the climates and environmental habitats available for hunting, gathering, cultivation, and shelter building. Fortunately, the pollen record is rich in this type of information (Watts and Hansen 1988). The palynological record shows that over the millennia, Florida's paleo-climates shuttled between cool and warm, dry and moist. This gives us four combinations of climates for the Paleoindian and Archaic time periods: Cool/Dry (C/D), Cool/ Moist (C/M), Warm/Dry (W/D), and Warm/Moist (W/M). If we superimpose these four CWDM climates over the 81 plant communities and consider the water table level, which defines lakes, rivers, and freshwater swamps, and shoreline location, which defines estuaries and bays, then list all of the plants known to grow in Florida under these conditions and in these plant communities, we will have some very large lists of plants. I chipped away at these lists by first determining nativity. While University of South Florida botanist Richard Wunderlin (Wunderlin and Hansen 2003) lists 4246 native and naturalized plants in Florida, he classifies 2654 of this total as native, meaning they were growing and reproducing on their own in Florida when the Europeans arrived. Most botanists today concur that these plants, or analogs of the same genera, were the same plants growing here during the time of the Paleoindians. "Palynological data indicate continuous presence of hammock species since ... the early Wisconsinan glaciation (30,000-80,000 B.P.)" (Platt and Swartz 1990:194). Once nativity was established via Wunderlin and Hansen's 2003 Guide to the Vascular Plants ofFlorida, I chipped further at the lists to determined edibility. Research botanist Daniel Austin in his monumental Florida Ethnobotany (2004) lists 888 Florida native species used for food, medicine, construction, and fuel by indigenous people in neighboring locations. He lists Mexico, North, Central, and South America, the Bahamas, and the Caribbean as "neighboring locations." And since only limited archaeobotanical work has been conducted on the Gulf coast of Florida (see Ruhl 2004), Austin determines Florida ethnoflora by studying the historical and archaeobotanical record of these neighboring locations and working from the logical premise that if "people in other places use these plants, then people in Florida used them" (Austin 2004:18). I will take this a step further to state that if people in neighboring locales ate these plants, then the people of Florida ate them as well. This premise is based on the fact that indigenous people traveled about and shared knowledge and that knowledge was handed down through generations. It becomes evident that gathering was very likely daily task number one and probably done in conjunction with whatever other activities were going on, that Paleoindians took advantage of (ate) everything that was edible according to their palates, and that they also foraged inedibles for seasoning and for medicinal uses. Because full glacial conditions never reached peninsular Florida (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:156), all 81 plant communities, each with its own characteristic species, existed somewhere in the state during every CWDM climate condition and remained even during climatic shifts that saw differing species rise to dominance while other previously dominant species atrophied and retreated to smaller more conducive niche locations. And of course we understand that plant residency does not stop at the edge of a community- rather it overlaps into ecotones and to a lesser degree into adjacent communities such that many of the plants available in one community are also available in others. During this final chip, I carefully extracted about 250 Florida native edible plants from Austin's list of 888 ethnoflora and put them in the appropriate climate/time lists suggested by the pollen record. In summary, while palynologists use a "plant to climate" approach, I work it backwards and use a "climate to plant" approach. This method leaves us with what I believe is a fairly complete list of edible plants that were foraged by these gatherers and eaten by the Paleoindian and Archaic people of Florida. The following are lists of dominant edibles in their proper climate/time contexts as suggested by the pollen record. Recall that all of these plants were available somewhere in the state at any given time. No matter how wet it got there were always well-drained sandy areas (e.g., dunes) where a few of the old xeric plants survived, and no matter how dry it got there were always water sources like the ". . limestone-bottomed catchments lined with marly deposits-that is water holes, lakes, and prairies fed by rainfall . ." (Milanich 1994:39), whose adjacent damp soils supported the few remaining mesic and hydric food plants. Thus there is a cumulative effect on food plant availability. But with each change in climate, the Indian diet would have been slowly modified to favor the dominant species of that period. 14,000-13,000 B.P. (Cool/Dry) Although there is no consensus within the archaeological community as to exactly when Paleoindians first arrived in Florida, all concur that the state was populated by 12,000 B.P. at the latest, with some archaeologists claiming dates as early as 14.000 B.P. It was during the Ice Age (Pleistocene epoch) that the earliest New World inhabitants followed herds of megafauna into Florida and brought their Clovis tool-making skills with them (though I prefer to think they were following the same trail of edible food plants that enticed the migration of these megafauna). These Paleoindians lived in nomadic family bands of perhaps 25-50 people and went wherever there was food, moving on as resources were depleted. Heiser (1973:2) posits that Paleoindians "probably lived in small groups, for with few exceptions, a given area would provide only enough food for a few people." Because thick ice caps tied up much of the ocean's waters, the shoreline of the state of Florida during this epoch was likely 120 to 150 km seaward of its current location (see Borremans 1993). Thus, many of the earliest hunting and gathering sites are today under water in the Gulf of Mexico. According to my research, less than one hundred Paleoindian camps have been found in present-day Florida. And although there is no PERRY T LO.AH LGT1 O 64(-l archaeological evidence for it, I believe that Indians probably could have been found out along Wisconsinan glacial coast fishing and gathering food plants that thrived along the estuary borders. As applied to the present shape of Florida's coastline, the very low water table and lack of rain in the Pleistocene epoch meant that it was quite dry around today's Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor. In fact, these two basins carved out by river flow during earlier ice ages (there have been at least five) were prairies during this cool/dry period. Water sources were rare. Most of inland Florida was karstic limestone with a thin layer of quick-draining sand. There were no lakes or rivers to speak of, only a few surface ponds and streams and some deep sinks. David Webb (1990:96) said, "... the force and extent of late Pleistocene aridity, now confirmed by pollen samples, is quite remarkable." For example, pollen from Lake Annie (near Lake Placid in Highlands County) showed this to be an extremely dry period, "... with the primary plant cover consisting of rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides) scrub on sand dunes" (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:157). A few scrub oaks dotted the dry prairies, along with scrub hickory, juniper, and upland herbs, especially ragweed (Ambrosia spp.). As mentioned above, while all 81 plant communities existed somewhere in the state, the scrub, sandhill, and xeric hammock communities were the dominant ones during this time period. These communities were open canopy forests with a sparse understory of scrub oaks and palmettos and dense grasses and herbs on rolling sand hills with occasional open patches of sand. I speculate that the persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), a xeric hammock tree, must have been a popular fruit with the Indians in those days. It is quite large and sweet, and there were very few sweet tasting edibles in the Paleoindian period. As a child I learned that only the persimmons lying on the ground and fully ripe are worth eating (though we were allowed to bump the tree just a little to make others fall). I've wondered if the Indians learned this trick (they probably invented it!) and also about how they might compete with or ward off the animals that also would have loved this sweet fruit. Did they post guards to keep the animals away? Did they scatter seeds to enlarge the grove for future years? And since persimmons ripen off and on all winter long, would this fruit have encouraged these groups to stay near their groves for several months on end or return to the site periodically? And how did this particular fruit play into the suite of decisions the Indians had to make about other food resources? Table 1 lists the dominant food plants available to the Paleoindians from these xeric plant communities. Often, only one part of each plant is edible (e.g., seed, bark, leaves, root, pollen, buds, flowers, fruit, or twigs) and some require special preparation to remove toxins. Three of the more common food plants found in xeric scrub environments are shown in Figure 2. 13,000-12,000 B.P. (Cool/Moist) According to Daniel and Wisenbaker (1987:157), pollen samples from Lake Annie show that many of the dune species disappeared about 13,000 years ago. The climate was still slightly cooler than that of present day but there was high Table 1. Dominant Food Plants: Cool / Quite Dry. Beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) Blackjack Oak (Quercus marilandica)) Blackroot (Pterocaulon pycnostachyum) Blazing Star (Liatris sp.) Bluejack Oak (Quercus incana) Chapman's Oak (Quercus chapmanii) Devilwood or Wild olive (Osmanthus americanus) Dwarf Blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) Dwarf Live Oak (Quercus minima) Fox Grape (Vitis labrusca) Hog Plum (Prunus umbellata) Indian Turnip (Eriogonum sp.) Love Grass (Eragrostis elliotii) Myrtle Oak (Quercus myrtifolia) Paw Paw (Asimina reticulata) Pennyroyal (Piloblephis rigida) Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra) Red Bay (Persea borbonia) Red Love Grass (Eragrostis secundiflora) Reindeer Lichen (Cladonia rangiferina) Running Oak (Quercus Elliotii [pumila] Sand Live Oak (Quercus germinata) Sand Pines (Pinus clausa) Saw Palmetto (Serenoa repens) Scrub Hickory (Caryafloridana) Scrub Oak (Quercus inopina) Scrub Palmetto (Sabal etonia) Silk Bay (Persia humilis) Turkey Oaks (Quercus laevis) Wild Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) Winged Sumac (Rhus copallina) Witch Grasses (Panicum sp.) Yaupon Holly (Ilex vomitoria) precipitation (Watts and Hansen 1988). Likewise, Butzer (1971) proposed a humid, temperate climate during this time period. Because the water table was still very low, sinkhole lakes remained dry or at least very deep. The water level at the Little Salt Spring sinkhole in Sarasota County was down near the ninety foot ledge (Steve Koski, personal communication, 2010). Shallow rain-fed lakes and streams began to appear. Sediment studies at Sheelar Lake (northeast of Gainesville) revealed that the vegetation at this time consisted of broad-leaf mesic forest species. William Watts found a high pine pollen count at Lake Annie (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:157). Pines THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 1 102 Vot. 64(1) PERRY PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC FOOD PLANTS Figure 2. Scrub community food plants were dominant during the Cool/Dry and Warm/Dry climates. have a unique ability to thrive under moist as well as dry conditions- especially slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and pond pine (P serotina). According to Abrahamson and Hartnett (1990:109) pine flatwoods soils "become waterlogged and poorly aerated during the rainy season, and there may be standing water for varying periods of time. More rain brought more lightning and more fires that in certain areas kept the pine forests from succeeding to mesic hammocks (e.g., today there are more lightening strikes in Florida per year than in any place in the U.S.). Because tall ice caps in Canada blocked icy north winds, winter temperatures in Florida were milder than might be expected. But because it was still the Ice Age, summer temperatures were as much as 10 C cooler than today. This resulted in more evenly distributed year-round temperature and rainfall and means that present day sub-tropical species were absent during this time period. Daniel and Wisenbaker (1987) describe mesic species, such as oak (Quercus spp.), hickory (Carya spp.), beech (Fagus grandiflora), ironwood (Ostrya virginiana, used mainly as a medicine), and other broad-leaf trees as being dominant in many areas. They also point out that in some Florida locations, "... general aridity with restricted availability of water continued to prevail" (1987:157), implying again that while mesic species were dominant across the land, xeric species were still available somewhere, they just had a smaller niche. The dominant species of this era were more akin to today's temperate hardwood forests mesicc hammocks). The list in Table 2 comes from the dominant edible mesic species found in six exemplary Florida hammocks with examples shown in Figure 3. 12,000-10,000 B.P. (Warm/Dry) The following Holocene (Moder) epoch was marked with a transition to a climate that was both dry and warm Scrub Edibles Persimmon Table 2. Dominant Food Plants: Cool/Moist. Basswood (Tilia americana) Beech (Fagus grandiflora) Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis) Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) Blackberry (Rhus cuneifolius) Bracken Fern (Pteridium aquilinum) Cabbage Palm (Sabal palmetto) Chickasaw Plum (Prunus angustifolia) Elm (Ulmus americana var. 'Floridana') Goldenrod (Solidago sp.) Gopher Apple (Licania michauxii) Hickories (Carya pallida, Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) Longleaf Pine (Quercus palustris Mockernut Hickory (Carya alba) tomentosaa] Mulberry (Morus rubra) Oaks (Quercus virginiana, Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra) Pine glabra (Pinus glabra Post Oak (Quercus stellata) Red Bay (Persea borbonia) Sassafras (Sassafras albidum) Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) Shumard's Oak (Quercus shumardii) Slash Pine (Pinus elliotii) Spanish Oak (Quercus falcata) Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum) Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) Sweet Leaf or Horse Sugar (Symplocos tinctoria) Turkey Oak (Quercus laevis) Water Hickory (Carya aquatic) Water Oak (Quercus nigra) Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera) White Oak (Quercus alba) (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:157). Pollen samples from Little Salt Spring and other sites in the state indicate a relatively dry climate in central Florida from 12,000-10,000 B.P, with mesic forests once again on the decline and xerophytic species of oak (Quercus chapmanii, Q. elliotii, Q. incana, Q. geminata, PERRY PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC FOOD PLANTS THE LORIA ATHROOLOGST 011 OL. 4(1 Figure 3. Hammock community food plants were domi- nant during the Cool/Moist and Warm/Moist climates. Q. inopina, Q. laevis Walter Q. margaretta, Q. minima, Q. myrtifolia) becoming the most prevalent trees (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987). This dry spell lasted about 2,000 years, but it was not as dry as the 14,000-13,000 C/D period. And while it was warmer than the previous C/M millennium it was still cooler than it is today. South Florida had dry savannas with xeric scrub plants occasionally punctuated by mesic shrubs and trees fed by seepage from shallow streams (Borremans 1993). Lakes and ponds were fewer. The main water sources were the deep sinks and rain-produced water holes lined with marl where animals came to drink and where Paleoindians set up temporary camps. Archaeologists have verified the presence of these oases by finding bones of slain animals and broken tools used to butcher the animals at sinks and lakes and these sanctuaries were dotted throughout Florida wherever there was water. Dominant on the Florida stage were scrub oak forests and swatches of open savanna supporting ragweed, prairie grasses, and plants in the Aster family (several edible). Further, "By 11,000 B.P., the mesic trees had been replaced by pine and upland herbs" (Webb 1990:96). The temperature got a little warmer and closer to that of today. Many of the plants had thickened leaves to conserve what little moisture there was. The plants in this W/D time period were not unlike those found in several of today's plant communities including upland glades, pine rocklands, dry prairie, prairie hammock, and scrubby hammock. These communities are located in prairies and open forests, with grass clumps, sedges, low shrubs, and herbaceous (non-woody) plants often growing in alkaline limestone soils. Dry prairies, however, lack a subsurface limestone layer and have acidic sands. Otherwise, they ". . hardly differ from pine flatwoods except in the absence of pine trees" (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990:116). The present-day absence may be due to modern interventions, such as livestock Hablmoe Edibles Table 3. Dominant Food Plants: Warm/Dry. Beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) Blazing Star (Liatris chapmanii) Blolly (Guapira discolor) Bluestem Palm (Sabal minor) Cabbage Palm (Sabal palmetto) Coontie (Zamia integrifolia) Dwarf Blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) Goldenrod (Solidago sp.) Gopher Apple (Licania michauxii) Huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.) Maiden Cane (Panicum hemitomon) Marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides) Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) Pigeon Plum (Cocoloba diversifolia) Red Love Grass (Eragrostis secundiflora) Rattlebox (Crotalaria incana) Runner Oak (Quercus pumila) Satinleaf (Chrysophyllum oliviforme) Saw Palmetto (Serenoa repens) Silk Bay (Persea humilis) Slash Pine (Pinus elliotii) Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) Velvet Seed (Guettarda scabra) Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera) Weak-leaf Yucca (Yuccaflaccida) White Indigo Berry (Randia aculeate) Winged Sumac (Rhus copallina) grazing and clear-cutting. The prairies may contain sparse clumps of cabbage palms and scrubby oaks. The W/D edible species of these communities are listed in Table 3 10,000-7,500 B.P. (Warm/Moist) It was during this time period that the big animals became extinct, the Paleoindian period ended, and the Early Archaic period was underway. This was a time of intermittent traveling over the entire state dragging tools and hunting gear, babies, gourd containers, weaving looms (though none have been found, their woven cloth has), cook grills, and perhaps some primitive furniture, all the while searching for food plants and THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC FOOD PLANTS Figure 4. Ruderals were the first plants to emerge in a cleared field. Many were edible and readily available. small game. While only a couple of dozen megafauna became extinct, there remained over 500 species of animals to hunt (if you call catching turtles, rats, salamanders, and snakes hunting). Studies at Warm Mineral Spring (in Southwest Florida just a mile or so from Little Salt Spring) revealed that the temperature remained about the same during this period but the soils became wetter. Moisture was again more abundant. Sinkholes slowly filled and a few streams started to flow. Permanent lakes began to form. Water levels were rising strongly throughout Florida by about 8,500 B.P. Prior to that time the overwhelming majority of Florida's present-day lakes and smaller rivers were dry (Watts and Hansen 1988). Evidence at Little Salt Spring shows that the water table rose 85 feet between 12,000-8,500 B.P. (Watts and Hansen 1988). The Indians took advantage of the new climate and moved into previously uninhabited areas where there was more moisture. They adjusted their diets to match the new dominant food plants in these locations. The small family bands were now more like large camps that remained sedentary for longer periods of time. I can imagine their camps set back away from a pond so as not to frighten away mammals (deer, bear, panther) that came for a drink, mammals the Indians would ambush for food and clothing. The Archaic Indians would clear an area for their thatched houses, and ruderal plants would immediately spring up in the disturbed areas. As described by Scarry and Newsom (1992:391) ruderals "readily colonize open, disturbed areas and. . include species that can be used for grains or greens, and some [that] can be used to produce salt". Edible ruderals include bristlegrass (Poaceae), chenopods (Amaranthaceae), grasses (Xyridaceae), ground cherry (Solanaceae), mallow (Malvaceae), nutsedge (Cyperaceae), poke (Phytolaccaceae), purslane (Portulacaceae), and horsepurslane (Aizoaceae) (see Figure 4). The Indians probably shook a few seeds to the ground from the best plants to help perpetuate the next season's crop. Figure 5. The newly created estuaries brought a host of new food plants most of which were already seasoned with salt. This was an early form of cultivation and managed selection that over time improved the species and its numbers. At the very least, they would have left enough plants behind to reseed themselves for the next season. Most of the ruderals were annuals and grow from fallen seeds. These Early Archaic people continued living the lifeways of the Paleoindians before them but without the big game meats (Milanich 1994). The dominant food plants during this time period were similar to those found in upland pine forests, rockland hammocks, mesic flatwoods, and mesic hammocks. These habitats are often rolling, open-canopy forests of widely spaced pines or live oaks with scattered cabbage palms and little understory but with a dense ground cover of grasses and herbs. The soils were underlain by limestone (especially in the northern half of the state), and the plant communities were frequently found near water sources where the soils were slightly moist. Some of the dominant plants were hydric and lived in high-moisture soils, some actually in the water. The new W/M communities are defined as palustrine (freshwater wetlands such as wet flatlands, seepage wetlands, floodplain wetlands, marshes, and basin wetlands). If I were to be lost for days in one of Florida's ecosystems, I would hope it to be a wetland area. There are so many edibles available in hydric habitats, three of which are shown in Figure 5. Even today on my periodic walks I find myself pulling the center stalk from cattails, saw grass, and saw palmettos and munching on their succulent bases. The dominant edibles gathered by the Indians during the W/M period are listed in Table 4. 7,500-5,000 B.P. (Warm/Dry) During the Middle Archaic period water levels in the Gulf of Mexico continued to rise. Toward the end of this period, the shore came very close to where it is today. However, during ; Estuary altort Edibles Saltwort PERRY THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) Table 4. Dominant Food Plants: Warm/Moist. Arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.) Arum (Peltandra virginica) Assorted Bays (Persea sp.) Assorted Oaks (Quercus sp.) Assorted Pines (Pinus sp.) Blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) Bluestem palmetto (Sabal minor) Box Elder (Acer negundo) Cabbage Palm (Sabal palmetto) Cinnamon Fern (Osmunda Cinnamomia)) Dahoon Holly (Ilex cassine) Dotted Smartweed (Polygonum punctatum) Elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp.canadensis) Fireflag [Alligator Flag] (Thalia geniculata) Floating Hearts (Nymphoides sp.) Florida Elm (Ulmus americana) Fragrant Water Lily [Star Lotus] (Nymphaea odorata) Gayfeather (Liatris sp.) Greenbrier (Smilax sp.) Hawthorn (Crataegus sp.) Laurel Greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia) Leather Fern [Giant Fern] (Acrostichum danaeifolium) Love Grass (Eragrostis secundiflora) Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) Marsh Fern (Thelypteris palustris) Meadow Beauty (Rhexia virginica) Myrsine (Ardisia escallonioides) Ogeechee Tupelo (Nyssa ogeche) Pickeralweed (Pontederia cordata) Red Maple (Acer rubrum) Reed (Phragmites australis) Royal Fern (Osmunda regalis) Royal Palm (Roystonia regia) Saw Palmetto (Serenoa repens) Sawgrass (Cladiumjamaicense) Small-leaf Viburnum (Viburnum obovatum) Sunflower (Helianthus sp.) Sugar Hackberry (Celtis laevigata) Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera) Wild Grape (Vitis sp.) this W/D time period as the rains subsided, Florida underwent yet another dry period like that of 12,000-10,000 B.P. period. Leaves once again thickened (became sclerophyllous). There were scrub forests and vast savannas and blue stem (Andropogon fJircactus) prairies. The Middle-Late Archaic Groves Orange Midden in Volusia County yielded the remains of grapes (Vitis sp.), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), oak (Quercus sp.), bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), and squash/gourd (Cucurbita pepo/texana) (Newsom 1994). The Lake Monroe Outlet Midden (also in Volusia County) yielded the charred remains of oak and hickory plus blueberry or sparkleberry (Vaccinium sp.), greenbriar (Smilax sp.), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), and sugar hackberry (Celtis laevigata) (Ruhl 2001). All of these were edible. Plants of this period were very much the same as those of the earlier W/D period, only the soil moisture was slightly higher due to the elevated water table, and the temperature was slightly warmer as evidenced by the continually melting ice caps. Shallow lakes and ponds were still the main water sources. Many of the food plants the Indians foraged grew in and around these lakes. The W/D habitat reminds me of one of my favorite get-aways in the state-Pat's Island in the Ocala National Forest. Many years ago, long before it was opened to the public as the 1400-acre Yearling Trail, I drove up to Pat's Island. The name "Pat's Island" refers to the fact that the area is an island in a forest of slightly moist, slightly fertile soil where longleaf pine (Pinuspalustris) (not found elsewhere in the surrounding dry forest) grows as the dominant plant. Pat's Island is still warm and dry but slightly moister than the surrounding community of xeric plants. In 1933, author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, who lived in nearby Cross Creek, spent a month up on Pat's Island with the homesteading Rueben Long family. Like the other few families on the island, the Longs ran hogs and woods cattle, farmed, and made moonshine. Rawlings listened to stories told by the Long sons, stories that she turned into her Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Yearling. When I read The Yearling, I could not help but notice that Rawlings established a sense of place by naming numerous native plants on that island. Surely she did a lot of botanical research in the nearby University of Florida library. For instance, she described the banks of a river as being "dense with magnolia and loblolly bay, sweet gum, and gray-barked ash" (Rawlings [1938]1966:4). Plants growing in this period were like those growing in the previous W/D climate, including those found on Pat's Island. The edible plants of Pat's Island identified by Rawlings are listed in Table 5. The majority of Florida's 7800 lakes were in place by the end of this period, including upland lakes with clay bottoms, coastal dune lakes (lagoons) and ponds that were often brackish, flatwoods lakes surrounded by a wet prairie or dense rings of saw palmettos, artesian fed upland lakes, and deep funnel-shaped sinkhole lakes. Although the refilling "of shallower lakes was delayed until 8000 or 6000 years ago, when about half the rise had been completed" (Brenner et. al. 1990:370), higher water tables during this W/D period meant that Florida had a number of lacustrine communities that kept both people and animals fed and watered during severe dry seasons. The additional dominant food plants that grew in the vicinity of these lakes and became food for the Indians during this W/D period are listed in Table 6. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC FOOD PLANTS Table 5. Dominant Food Plants: Pat's Islands. Bamboo Vine (Smilax sp.) Blackjack Oak (Quercus marilandica) Brier-Berry (Rubus cuneifolius) Cabbage Palm (Sabalpalmetto) Dwarf Blueberry (Vaccinium myrsinites) Dwarf Huckleberry (Vaccinium arboreum) Giant Fern (Acrostichum danaeifolium) Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) Red Love Grass (Eragrostis secundiflora) Mulberry (Morus rubra) Myrtle Bushes (Myrica cerifera) Passion Flower (Passiflora sp.) Poke Salat (Phytolacca americana) Red Bay (Persea borbonia) Saw Palmetto (Serenoa repens) Sawgrass (Cladiumjamaicense) Scuppernong (Vitis rotundifolia) St. Augustine Grape (Vitis cinera) Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera) White Indigo Berry (Randia aculeate) Wild Cherry (Ernodea littoralis) Yaupon Holly (Ilex vomitoria) 5,000-2,500 B.P. (Warm/Moist) During the Late Archaic period, rains returned to the land. Sinkholes overflowed and formed more than 1700 rivers (Nordlie 1990). Pine forests replaced the sclerophyllous oaks. Florida's lowlands turned into large swamps. Tampa and Charlotte prairies filled and became bays. The net primary production rate (production from photosynthesis minus that of respiration) in salt marshes is among the highest in the world's plant communities (Montague and Wiegert 1990), thus providing abundant food plants in the intertidal zones where the wave energy is low and where there is an absence of shading mangroves. While the Indians had been eating seafood in the vicinity of Horr's Island in Southwest Florida since the Middle Archaic, during the Late Archaic it became a staple along with many new estuarine and riverine food plants. With a warmer, wetter climate, sub-tropical and tropical plants arrived from the Caribbean and established themselves in south Florida. Webb (1990:201) states that "cores from the Everglades indicate the return of sea level to its current position by 5000 B.P. and subsequent establishment of the coastal vegetation including tropical species that are currently found in sub-tropical hammocks". In the early days, the entire Atlantic coastal strip from the Keys to Cape Canaveral was a tropical forest (Austin 2004) (see Figure 6). Table 6. Dominant Food Plants: Lakes and Ponds. Arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.) Black Mangrove (Avicennia germinans) Cattail (Typha domingensis) Elderberry (Sambucus nigra sp. Canadensis) Fireflag (Thalia geniculata) Floating Heart (Nymphoides aquatic) Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) Marsh Elder (Ivafrutescens) Meadow Beauty (Rhexia virginica) Milfoil (Achillea millefolium) Pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata) Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) Possumhaw (Viburnum nudum) Red Bay (Persea borbonia) Red Maple (Acer rubrum) Royal Fern (Osmunda regalis) Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) Water Hickory (Carya aquatica) Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata) Water Oak (Quercus nigra) Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera) Witch Hazel (Hamamelis virginiana) Figure 6. The Warm/Moist climate of the Late Archaic brought a host of new food plants into south Florida. Tropical Edibles PERRY THE~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ FLR NHOOOIS 01VL 41 The Indians planted more and larger village gardens of goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri), sunflower (Helianthus sp.), squash/gourd (Cucurbita okeechobeensis), and marsh elder (Iva annual) (Smith 2007). In the swamps and estuaries, long-legged sea birds came to feed on little fishes. Like their ancestors in North Florida, the Indian hunters probably threw bolas with egg-sized rocks to trap the birds for their feathers and sparse meat. Florida has 425 species of birds (Myers 1990) that could have provided meat, eggs, and feathers for the Indians. The previously mentioned Horr's Island site on today's Marco Island was a Middle-Late Archaic-period site and had saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), poke weed (Phytolacca americana), mastic (Sideroxylon sp.), live oak (Quecrus virginiana), cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), Setaria/Panicum grass, chenopod (Chenopodium sp.), stopper (Eugenia sp.), wild grape (Vitis sp.), Horsepurslane (Trianthema portulacastnrm), prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), wax myrtle (vMyrica cerifera, used for seasoning), sea grape (Cocoloba uvifera), and squash/gourd (Cucurbito sp.), all used as food plants (Ruhl 2004). The West Williams site located on a hill next to Hamey Flats east of Tampa had the following additional edible plants: hickory (Carva sp.), witch-hazel (Hamamelis sp.), holly (Ilex sp.). marsh elder (Iva sp.), lotus (Nelumbo sp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda sp.), pine (Pinus sp.), smartweed (Polygonum sp.L bracken fern (Pteridium sp.), arrow-head (Sagittaria sp.), elderberry (Sambucus sp.), cattail (Typha), and elm (Ulmus sp.) (Ruhl 20(0l By the end of this W/M period villages were more permanent, there was greater regional cultural diversity amongst the Indians of central and south Florida, populations grew larger, and there began an emerging of complex societies that eventually culminated in the chiefdoms of the tenth century A.D. This was the end of the Archaic period. The food plants available in the Late Archaic were similar to the W/M plants of the Early Archaic but with the addition of the sub-tropicals, tropicals, river and stream, swamp, and estuarine plants (see Figure 7) akin to those found in today's tidal marshes and swamps, mangroves, river and creek communities (Table 7). Some common edible estuarine plants are shown in Figure 6. Conclusion In summary, roughly 10% of all 2654 native Florida plants were available as food plants to the Paleoindian and Archaic people and, except for the sub-tropicals that did not enter the state until the Late Archaic, all of them have been available to one degree or another since the arrival of the Paleoindians. Riverine and lacustrine (lake) species were not as abundant until the Late Archaic. Palustrine (wetland forests and swamps) species were not as abundant until the Late Archaic. And likewise, the estuarine species also were not in place along Florida's present coastline until the Late Archaic. I heartily agree with Dan Austin (2004:18) who says, "It is my experience that people are inquisitive and inventive with plants; comparison of the literature suggests the same... Humans not only experiment with plants to see what impacts they have on people, but they exchange information with Figure 7. With the filling of Florida's swamps, wetland food plants rose to dominance. their neighbors. Every plant listed in this article was used as a food plant by some indigenous group in this hemisphere, and without any strain on the imagination they were surely food plants for the Florida Paleoindians and Archaic people as well. With the fluctuations of climate over the millennia and the shifts of dominant species, the Indian foraging habits and recipes were adapted to match the dominant plant groups of that time period. Over the lifetime of the prehistoric Indians of Florida there have been only three major changes in their diet, giving them four recipe books. The first came when the megafauna went extinct and hunting of animal foods was directed more towards the 500 smaller animal species. New meat preparation recipes were introduced. Plant gathering and preparation remained about the same. The second came when the estuaries formed and the fish and shellfish harvest introduced new, well- salted recipes. Sub-tropical, estuarine, riverine, and lacustrine food plants became more abundant. The third came in the circa ninth century when vast fields of corn were grown in North Florida, a trend that introduced large scale tooth-decay, obesity, insect and plant disease epidemics, and a general decline in health typical of single-crop agriculture. More emphasis was placed on crop cultivation and less food plant gathering. But that is another story. References Cited Abrahamson, Warren G., and David C Hartnett 1990 Pine Flatwoods and Dry Prairies. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L Myers and John J. Ewel, pp. 103-149. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Austin, Daniel F. 2004 Florida Ethnobotany. CRC Press, Boca Raton. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) PERR PALOINIAN ND RCHAC FOD PANT Table 7. Dominant Food Plants: Tropical, Estuary and Rivers. Arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.) Black Mangrove (Avicennia germinans) Cattail (Typhus domingensis) Century Plant (Agave sp.) Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) Cowpeas (Vigna luteola) Cucumber/Squash (Cucurbita sp.) Glasswort (Salicornia sp.) Golden Club (Orontium aquaticum) Marlberry (Ardisia escallonioides) Marsh Elder (Iva annual) Mastic (Sideroxylon sp.) Locustberry (Byrsonima crassifolia) Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) Prickly Pear (Opuntia sp.) Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) Saltwort (Batis maritima) Seablight (Suaeda sp.) Sea Grape (Coccoloba uvifera) Sea Oxeye (Barrichia sp.) Sea Purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum) Sea Rocket (Cakile lanceolata) Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum) Smartweed [Knotgrass] (Polygonum sp.) Strongbark (Bourreria succulent) Vanilla (Vanilla sp.) Velvetseed (Guettarda elliptica) Water Lilies (Nymphaea sp.) Wild Rice (Zizania aquatic) Borremans, Nina 1993 The Paleoindian Period. In Florida Historical Contexts, MyFlorida.com, Division of Historical Resources, http://www.flheritage.com/facts/reports/ contexts/paleo.cfm. Brenner, Mark, Michael W. Binford, and Edward S. Deevey 1990 Lakes. In Ecosystems ofFlorida, edited by Ronald L Myers and John J. Ewel, pp. 364-391. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Bryant, Vaughn M., Jr. 2001 Slim, Trim, and Paleo-Indian: Why Our Diets are Killing Us. In Primitive Technology II: Ancestral Skills, edited by David Wescott. Gibbs-Smith Publisher, Salt Lake City. Butzer, Karl 1971 Environment and Archaeology: An Ecological Approach to Prehistory. Aldine/Atherton, New York. Carr, Philip 2008 The Paleo Period. In The University of South Alabama's Encyclopedia of Alabama, http:// www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article. jsp?id=h-1413. Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr. and Michael Wisenbaker 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale, NY. Dickinson, Jonathan [1699]1945 Jonathan Dickinson s Journal. Florida Classics Library, Port Salerno, FL. Florida Department of Natural Resources 1990 Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida: Florida Natural Areas Inventory. http://www.fnai. org/PDF/Natural_Communities_Guide.pdf. Hamlin, Christine. 2001 Sharing the Load: Gender and Task Division at the Windover Site. In Gender and the Archaeology of Death, edited by B. Arnold and N.L. Wicker, pp.119- 135. Altamira Press, New York. Hawkes, Kristen 1968 How Much Food Do Foragers Need? In Food and Evolution: Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits, edited by Marvin Harris, pp. 341-355. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Heiser, Charles 1973 Seed to Civilization: The Story of Man 's Food. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Lieberman, Leslie Sue 1968 Biocultural Consequences of Animals versus Plants as Sources of Fats, Proteins, and Other Nutrients. In Food and Evolution: Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits, edited by Marvin Harris, pp. 225-253. Temple University Press, Philadelphia. Milanich, Jerald T. 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Montague, Clay L., and Richard G. Wiegert 1990 Salt Marshes. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L Myers and John J. Ewel, pp.481-516. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. PERRY PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC FOOD PLANTS THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) Myers. Ronald L. IW9 Scrub and High Pine. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L Myers and John J. Ewel, pp. 194- 229. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Newsom. Lee A. 1994 Archacobotanical Data from Groves' Orange Midden (8VO2601). Volusia County. Florida. The Florida A r.i 'ln ,'!gi. t47:404-417. Nordlie, Frank G, 1990 Rivers and Springs. In Ecosystems of'Florida edited by Ronald L Myers and John J. Ewel. pp.392-428. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Plan. William J. and Mark W. Swartz I991 Temperate Hardwood Forests. In Ecosystems of" Flrida. edited by Ronald L Myers and John J. Ewel, ip 144-229. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Rawlings. Nl jorie Kinnan [ 'lar-l[ ~6 The K ar.-... Charles Scribners Sons, New York. Rua Doinna L. OX(I i abto)lbotanical Analysis. In Phase III flitigath'e Ema nu ia at the Lake Monroe Outlet Afidden (( 'S-053)) aRusia Co -r'n-r. Florida by Archaeological (C~orasrduiiE.. Inc., Janus Research, and URS C' aNati on pp. 8-1 to 8-22. U.S. Department of Traispamr~ tain Federal Highway Administration, axd Fknia Department of Transportation. On file, Flknii Diivsion of Historical Resources. Tallahassee. 3lt-4 A~ uoboiMtMcal Analysis. In \fultidisciplinary Imsaigatsiom at West ffiiams, (8Hi509): An Archaic eoiriaod A ecological Site Located within Florida Gas Tifmistsion Compean's Bayside Lateral -mJLril' Corriida HiRsborough Count; Florida, pp. 450-471. Report prepared by Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc. On file, Florida Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee. Scarry, Margaret, and Lee A. Newsom 1992 Archaeobotanical Research in the Calusa Heartland. In Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, edited by William H. Marquardt, pp. 375-401. Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph Number 1. University of Florida, Gainesville. Smith, Bruce D. 2007 Rivers of Change, revised edition. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Watts, William A., and Barbara C. S. Hansen 1988 Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site Archaeology, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 307-323. Telford Press, Caldwell, N.J. Webb, S. David 1990 Historical Biogeography. In Ecosystems of Florida, edited by Ronald L Myers and John J. Ewel, pp. 70- 1.02. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Wentz, Rachel K. 2010 Patterns of Degenerative Joint Disease among Males and Females at Windover (8BR246) and Their Relationship to Grave Goods. The Florida Anthropologist 63:5-10. Wunderlin, Richard P., and Bruce F. Hansen 2003 Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida, 2nd edition. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2011 VOL. 64(1) SJoin the Florida Anthropological Society Florida Anthropological Society memberships: Student $15 (with a copy of a current student ID) Regular and Institutional $30 Family $35 Sustaining $100 Patron $1000 Benefactor $2500 or more Student membership is open to graduate, undergraduate and high school students. A photocopy of your student ID should accompany payment Add $25.00 for foreign addresses Membership forms also available at www.fasweb.org The Society publishes journals (The Florida Anthropologist) and newsletters, normally quarterly, and sponsors an annual meeting hosted by a local chapter. Name: Address: Apt: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: E-mail: FAS Chapter: SI agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society. MAIL TO: Florida Anthropological Society c/o Pat Balanzategui P O Box 1434 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434 THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 77 About the Authors: Steve Dasovich is currently the Director of Archaeology and Assistant Professor in the Sociology/Anthropology Depart- ment at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, Missouri. He received his B.A. from the University of South Dakota, M.S. from The Florida State University, and Ph.D. from the University of Missouri. He is currently conducting research at the Nathan/Daniel Boone Home (circa 1804) in Defiance, Missouri and at the 1769 homestead site of Louis Blanchette in St. Charles, Missouri. Glen H Doran is a Professor of Anthropology and has been with the Florida State University faculty since 1980. He is best known for his work at the Windover site but has also worked in Texas, California, Tennessee, Alabama, and Italy. His primary interests include bioarchaeology, the Archaic period, and wet site archaeology. John A. Gifford is a principal investigator and underwater archaeologist for the University of Miami's Little Salt Spring project. His research interests include prehistoric underwater archaeology, remote sensing techniques, marine cultural re- source management and geoarchaeology. He received his MS in marine science from the University of Miami (1973) and a Ph.D. in geoarchaeology from the University of Minnesota (1978). He has taught at the University of Miami since 1983. Daniel Hughes has an undergraduate degree from the University of Massachusetts and holds Master's degrees from Florida Atlantic University and Armstrong State College. He is currently working on his Ph.D. at the University of South Florida. His research interest includes class formation processes and world-systems as well as the archaeology of southern Florida. Steven H Koski is a Research Associate with the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the Little Salt Spring Research Facility. His research interests involve early Florida coastal adaptations and settlement systems and prehistoric underwater archaeology. He first came to Florida in 1985 as a graduate research assis- tant from Arizona State University. He worked as an assistant underwater archeologist at FSU's Warm Mineral Springs Ar- chaeological Research Project, spent 18 years in CRM, and has been involved in research at Little Salt Spring since 1992. George M Luer has conducted archaeological research since the 1970s with a focus on American Indian cultures in the greater Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor regions of Florida. He has also developed wider thematic studies across much of central and southern Florida, including research of museum and private collections, salvage work, and preservation of sites. I. Mac Perry is an avocational archaeologist who holds degrees in Horticulture and Scriptural Literature. He has served as a horticultural agent for IFAS with the University of Florida, and was founder and director of the Foreign Agriculture Relief Mission (FARM), a missionary agriculture school at Florida Beacon College. Perry has authored multiple newspa- per and magazine articles on a wide variety of horticultural topics. He has also authored several books including Indian Mounds You Can Visit, Black Conquistador: The Story of the Narvaez Expedition, Children of the Sun: The Story of the Cabeza de Vaca Expedition, Mac Perry's Florida Lawn and Garden Care, Landscaping in Florida: A Photo Idea Book, Landscape Your Florida Home, and The Gro-Box Method of Vegetable Growing. Perry is an active member of the Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society and the Florida Anthropological Society. The research in this article is expanded on in his forthcoming book Life and Lunch in a 9th Century Indian Village that describes over 600 plant foods gathered by Florida's prehistoric people. FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. POST OFFICE BOX 12563 PENSACOLA, FL 32591-2563 NON-PROFIT U.S. POSTAGE PAID TALLAHASSEE, FL PERMIT NO. 236 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Volume 64, Number 1 March 2011 CONTENTS ARTICLES The Yellow Bluffs Mound Revisited: A Manasota Period Burial Mound in Sarasota George M. Luer Radiocarbon Dating the Yellow Bluffs Mound (8SO4), Sarasota, Florida George M. Luer and Daniel Hughes An Incised Antler Artifact from Little Salt Spring (8SO18) John A. Gifford and Steven H. Koski The Florida Radiocarbon Database Steve J. Dasovich and Glen H. Doran Climate: The Key to Discovering the Food Plants Foraged by Florida's Paleoindians and Archaic People I. Mac Perry Cover: A view of Yellow Bluffs Mound in Sarasota, Fl. Compare the pergola on top of the mound in both pictures. Top: Postcard view toward the pergola at the Acacias residence in the 1910s. Bottom: A half century later, a similar view was taken during archaeological excavations at the Yellow Bluffs Mound in early April 1969. Henry Sheldon holds a shovel in the trench's northwest corner and Doris "Dottie" Davis wears a hat. Bottom image courtesy of the Sarasota County History Center. Copyright 2011 by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. ISSN 0015-3893 |