The Florida anthropologist

Material Information

The Florida anthropologist
Abbreviated Title:
Fla. anthropol.
Florida Anthropological Society
Place of Publication:
Florida Anthropological Society
Florida Anthropological Society.
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
v. : ill. ; 24 cm.


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


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

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [Florida Anthropologist Society, Inc.] Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
AAA9403 ( LTQF )
01569447 ( OCLC )
00153893 ( ISSN )
1569447 ( OCLC )
56028409 ( LCCN )
0015-3893 ( ISSN )
UF00027829_00210 ( sobekcm )

Full Text





40 -,1-872 REPORTS



PERd ii
:? 58 t

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 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.


President: Jeffrey T. Moates, 4202 E Fowler Ave, NEC 116, Tampa FL 33620 (jmoates(
First Vice President: Theresa Schober, 1902 Florrie Ct, N Fort Myers FL 33917 (
Second Vice President: Jason Wenzel, Gulf Coast State College, Social Sciences Division, 5230 W Hwy 98,
Panama City FL 32401 (
Recording Secretary: Jon Simon Suarez, 1710 NW 7th St, #304, Gainesville FL 32609 (
Membership Secretary: Pat Balanzategui, PO Box 1434, Fort Walton Beach FL 32549 (
Treasurer and RegisteredAgent: Joanne Talley, PO Box 788, Hobe Sound FL 33475 (
Directors at Large: Tommy Abood, 4975 San Jose Blvd, Jacksonville, FL 32207 (;
Linda Geary, 510 South Carolina Dr, Stuart Fl 34994 (; Emily Jane Murray, 54197 Lisa Dr, Callahan
FL 32011 (
Immediate Past President: Patty Flynn, PO Box 11052, Ft. Lauderdale FL 33339 (
Newsletter Editor: Sarah Bennett, 2615 Crestwood Ave, New Smyrna Beach FL 32168 (


Co-Editors: Keith H. Ashley Department of Anthropology, Building 51, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive,
Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659 ( Vicki L. Rolland, Department of Anthropology, Building 51,
University of North Florida, sl UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659 (
Editorial Assistant: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239-5019 (geoluer(
Technical Assistant: Michael Boyles, Center for Instruction and Research, UNF, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659
Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304
Bulk Mail: TCB Marketing, 2818 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301


Albert C. Goodyear, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (
Nancy Marie White, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100
Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (

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.



O n

Volume 66 Number 3 ,/CE 19A1

September 2013









Cover: Figures representing Wheeler (top), Stull, and Luer articles

Published by the
ISSN 0015-3893

0 nx l Florida Anthropological Society

An Endowment to Support production of The Florida Anthropologist,

the scholarly journal published quarterly by

the Florida Anthropological Society since 1947

Donations are being accepted from individuals, corporations, and foundations.
Inquiries and gifts can be directed to:

Keith H. Ashley, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist
Archaeology Laboratory, Building 51
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
University of North Florida,
1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659

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.


Welcome to the third issue of 2013. This is the first issue claims that Pilijiriba was located on the Greenfield Peninsula.
since the annual meeting in St. Augustine. For those who Mike's study is an example of an undergraduate student project
could not attend the May meeting, a wide range of papers were that evolved from a class paper to a conference presentation
presented showcasing an active and diverse research agenda and eventually to a published article.
among professional and avocational archaeologists working The third article, by George Luer, adds to his already
in Florida. We encourage presenters to consider expanding impressive list of articles published in The Florida
their meeting papers and submitting them to The Florida Anthropologist. This study focuses on an intriguing artifact
Anthropologist for possible publication. It is important that type that he coins Tabbed Circular Artifacts (TCA). Readers
we get our research out to a broader audience. Finally, with familiar with C.B. Moore's descriptions of his mound
respect to the annual meeting, we would like to extend a well- excavations at Crystal River undoubtedly observed examples
deserved "thank you" to the St. Augustine Archaeological of this artifact type among his drawings. Beyond the 11
Association for putting together a fantastic conference, chock specimens Moore recovered from Crystal River, George
full of good papers and enjoyable events. Next year's meeting reports on 7 other known TCAs unearthed from sites across
will be hosted by the Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring the southern half of Florida and describes two more previously
Archaeological Society and is set for May 9-11 (2014) in unreported specimens made from whelk shells. In all, twenty
Punta Gorda. are now known, of which 19 are made of shell and one of
This issue of the journal consists of three articles and a bone. George defines this artifact category, creates a catalog,
series of short summaries that highlight the various award establishes their temporal range, traces their distribution
winners announced at the annual meeting. First out of the throughout south-central and southern Florida, and speculates
gate is Ryan Wheeler's article on Florida's unmarked human on their role as identity or status markers in past Native
burial law. As many readers are aware, Chapter 872 (Florida societies. He further explores their potential cosmological
Statutes) protects unmarked human burials in Florida. significance.
The amended version of this state law, which included the Lastly, we acknowledge the winners of a variety of
protection of human burials associated with Native American awards presented at the 2013 annual meeting in St, Augustine.
sites and mounds, actually went into effect a few years Congratulations go to Time Sifters Archaeology Society
before the federal law known as the Native American Graves (Arthur R. Lee FAS Chapter Award), Charles Reynolds (FAS
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Ryan Wheeler, President's Award), Kendal Jackson (FAS Dorothy Moore
Florida's former State Archaeologist and Chief of the Bureau Student Grant), and Katherine Higgins (Chuck and Jane Wilde
of Archaeological Research, summarizes data on unmarked Archaeological Research Award). We hope you enjoy the
human burials recorded over a period of more than 20 years. issue!
Ryan identifies trends in the data and demonstrates that
with a few exceptions Chapter 872 is working as intended.
Its success, in our opinion, is the result of high quality State Keith H. Ashley
Archaeologists (and their staffs) over the past few decades. Vicki L. Rolland
In the second article, Michael Stull brings to the forefront
the little-known Mocama community and Spanish garrison
of Pilijiriba, located near the mouth of the St. Johns River in
northeastern Florida during the first decade of the eighteenth
century. Mike synthesizes archaeological data generated
by projects conducted by several different CRM firms over
an approximately twelve year period. Moreover, he draws
upon Spanish documents that he translated as part of his
paleography class at the University of North Florida, which
included a visit to the archives in Seville, Spain. Although
physical remains of the fort have yet to be unearthed (and may
never be uncovered as a result of residential development), this
archaeological-archival investigation clarifies issues regarding
the settlement's history and strengthens previous researchers'




Ryan J. Wheeler

Robert S. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810

In December 2010 a bulldozer leveling an ancient dune The History of Chapter 872.05, Florida Statutes
in Delray Beach uncovered human remains. All activity at the
construction site stopped and the local police were called to State unmarked human burial laws are very important in
the scene. Personnel from the District Medical Examiner's site protection at a local level; Bushbaum (1993) points out
Office quickly determined, with the aid of an archaeologist some specific California cases in which the state unmarked
and physical anthropologist from Florida Atlantic University, human burial law was the only protection for Native American
that these were likely ancient American Indian remains. Not burial sites. A 1997 survey by the United States Department
long after, the State Archaeologist began receiving phone calls of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service
and e-mails about the find from the first responders, asking if identified 38 states with specific unmarked human burial
they should go ahead and excavate the remains. They were laws (Schamel 1997); since that time several other states
given a standard response: protect the remains in place until have added these protections (for example, see Vermont State
the state can consult with the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes Representative Kesha Ram's blog post from February 2009).
regarding final disposition. Thus began a typical unmarked The National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation
human burial case-unusual, exotic and even sensational Officers maintains a web-based resource that catalogs state
to many-but just one part of the daily work of the State statutes related to the protection of Native American sites,
Archaeologist. During my tenure as State Archaeologist including unmarked human burials, while the Washington
(June 2006 through August 2011) I dealt with many of these College of Law at American University maintains a website
discoveries and found that it was useful to keep some simple that provides a detailed, albeit slightly idiosyncratic, legal
statistics that could be shared with property owners, the media, analysis of some of these state burial laws.
and other archaeologists. Despite provisions in the law that Florida passed laws protecting unmarked human burials in
allowed excavation, I regularly urged developers, property the late 1980s, preceding the federal Native American Graves
owners, and archaeologists to preserve remains in place, Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) by
if possible. This approach to unmarked human burials was several years. Specifically, the 1986-1987 Florida Legislature
based on a conservation ethic that had guided the Bureau of amended Chapter 872, Florida Statutes (FS), adding lanuage
Archaeological Research since it was established and was to protect unmarked human burials and burial sites. Criminal
supported by the trends in the data being compiled on these penalties were added for the disturbance of unmarked human
discoveries. burials and a process was established by which discoveries
of these burials could be reported to the proper authorities in
Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Law- order to arrange protection (Olexa et al. 2012; Tesar 1987). The
Goals of the Analysis legislative intent of Section 872.05, FS is "that all human burials
and human skeletal remains be accorded equal treatment and
This article presents a review of over 20 years of data respect based upon common human dignity without reference
on unmarked human burial discoveries and reports. Using to ethnic origin, cultural background, or religious affiliation."
the information accumulated on each report of a discovery of This represented a strengthening in the state's cultural resource
unmarked human burials, this paper summarizes the data and protection policy, extending significant protection to sites on
seeks to examine the trends, especially regarding protection private property. Prior to this, Florida statutes only provided
and final disposition of unmarked human burials, to examine protection for sites on state-owned and state controlled
the efficacy of the statute, and to make recommendations property (Chapter 267). Shortly after the cemetery and burial
regarding any needed amendments to the statute. A few statute was revised, rules were promulgated to address the
educational examples are provided as well. Broader issues, notification process and the subsequent determination of
especially regarding large endeavors involving the intentional jurisdiction. Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Rule 1A-
and authorized excavation of burials also are considered. 44 also outlined the duties of the State Archaeologist, and



the procedure for determining final disposition of the burial. Between 1987 and 2010, the Florida State Archaeologist
FAC IA-45 addressed the exhibit and use of human skeletal logged over 700 reports regarding unmarked human
remains and a process for institutions and individuals to burials, ranging from actual discoveries being reported by
turn over remains to the State Archaeologist. James J. Miller archaeologists and medical examiners under the statute, to
(1986:226), State Archaeologist when Chapter 872 was inquiries regarding protection of unmarked human burial sites,
revised to include the unmarked human burial provisions, often from private citizens.
indicates that the original legislative effort began in 1985 and
ultimately involved concerned members of the general public, The Nature of the Data
public and private sector archaeologists, Native Americans,
and district medical examiners. Just a few years later, in 1990, The current unmarked human burials database maintained
the federal government enacted NAGPRA, which provides for in Microsoft Access by the Bureau ofArchaeological Research
protection of Native American remains on federal and tribal evolved from a system of paper records and a Microsoft Excel
lands and requires all museums and institutions receiving spreadsheet kept by State Archaeologist Jim Miller. In 2003
federal funding to report their collections so that descendant some Bureau of Archaeological Research functions were
communities can request repatriation of remains (Hutt et split up, with Collections Manager Dave Dickel assuming
al. 1999:316-322; King 2004:370-371). Unlike NAGPRA, the State Archaeologist position. At that time he moved the
Section 872.05, FS provides protection for all unmarked paper and Excel information to Microsoft Access and created
human burials, regardless of ethnic affiliation, a customized Visual Basic "front end" interface program for
Section 872.05, FS and Rules 1A-44 and 1A-45, FAC entering, accessing, and updating the data. The database is
can be accessed in their entirety online; the details of the organized by site and county, and includes 13 fields (see Table
statute and rule will not be repeated here, but it is important 1). Dave Dickel (personal communication, March 2013) notes
to understand the intent and basic components of the process, that the database and interface were not designed to conduct
which include: analysis, but rather to serve as a quick "look up" tool, cross-
check against multiple reports, and reminder for cases which
All human burials and human skeletal remains took months or years to resolve.
to be accorded equal treatment and respect The Microsoft Access database and Visual Basic interface
are powerful tools for keeping track of the unmarked human
Provisions for reporting discoveries made burial reports and offer some possibility for analysis of 24
during archaeological excavations differ from years of data consider here. Older reports often only include
inadvertent discoveries made, for example, the very basic information extracted from the paper files,
during construction while newer reports include fairly detailed summaries of each
case's major events. A quick look at entries reveals that many
Consultation with relatives or descendant of them are not strictly reports of discoveries of unmarked
communities is required to determine final human burials being made by archaeologists or medical
disposition (including Native American tribes examiners, the two scenarios outlined in the statute. In many
when the remains are Native American, or other cases the entries detail calls made by concerned citizens about
appropriate communities, organizations or unmarked human burial sites or historic cemeteries. In these
groups if the remains are of another ethnicity) cases, the field "Remains Encountered" help sort out these two
Gui s e d fr p c d y of major types of reports-actual discoveries of unmarked human
*Guidelines established for public display of
burials versus calls about possible burial sites. While it may
human remains and a process for other
institutions to transfer remains to the Division of seem like the latter cases could be excluded from our analysis,
Historical Resorcesthe truth is that these calls often result in considerable efforts
Historical Resources
by the State Archaeologist to preserve or protect an unmarked
Scientific reports are required for some cases human burial site, or assist with preservation of a historic
or abandoned cemetery. The other major report type that is
Explicit direction that discovery of remains included in the database summarizes those cases where human
does not necessarily require excavation skeletal remains are transferred to the State Archaeologist by
other institutions under Rule 1A-45. In these cases the remains
*If burials must be excavated, the cost of come from medical examiner and police evidence lockers
excavation, analysis, and reporting are the where they were stored for many years; from small, local
responsibility of the party whose activities museums who no longer wish to exhibit or curate remains;
would disturb the remains and from private individuals who have recognized that it is not
appropriate to keep remains in their homes. Incredibly, remains
Criminal provisions established for willful and are routinely found stored in sheds, attics, and basements and
knowing disturbance of an unmarked human are sent to the Bureau by the police or medical examiners on
burial and failure to report a discovery or behalf of homeowners.

WHEELER Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Law 77

Table 1. Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research 872.05 Database Fields..

Field Description
Site Number Standard trinomial designation: state, county, site
Remains Encountered Yes or No field
Remains Removed Yes or No field
First Report Date Date field
Next Action Date Reminder or "tickler" for next action
Location of Remains Current location of remains
Ad Hoc Field tracks notification and consultation with relatives or descendant
community per the statute
Contact Contact with reporter, discoverer
872 File Yes or No field-is there a paper file?
FMSF Yes or No field-is the site updated in the state site file as having
unmarked human burials?
Federal Involvement Field tracks federal agency involvement
Status Open or Closed status of case
Notes Text field for tracking details, correspondence, phone notes, etc.

Analysis of the Unmarked Human Burial Data suggests that almost 70 percent of the reports received by the
State Archaeologist were from professional archaeologists
Based on the nature of the data in the 872 database and and medical examiners, while around 30 percent of the reports
the goals of this study, analysis focused on the following: 1) represent inquires about burial sites, historic cemeteries, false
Number of Reports where Remains were Encountered, 2) alarms and the like. In fact, 64 out of 224 reports with no
Number of Reports by County, 3) Number of Reports by Year, remains encountered include the keyword "cemetery." The
and 4) Final Disposition. Appendix 1 summarizes the data database likely does not accurately reflect the total number
used in this paper, of cases where remains were turned in by local museums, as
"remorse turn ins," or inquiry calls, especially in the period
Number of Reports where Remains were Encountered before 1995 (Dave Dickel, personal communication, March
2013). Both total reports and reports with remains encountered
Section 872.05, FS recognizes two scenarios for the are considered in the next two analyses.
discovery and reporting of unmarked human burials: the
discovery of remains by a professional archaeologist during Number of Reports by County
the course of archaeological research, or the inadvertent
discovery of remains, which are then reported to local law One of the easiest queries was a summary of unmarked
enforcement. If the remains are more than 75 years old and human burial reports by county (though the database includes
not part of a crime scene, the district medical examiner seven entries where the county is unknown). Most of Florida's
will refer these cases to the State Archaeologist. The State 67 counties had very few reports; in fact, only 13 counties had
Archaeologist's database of unmarked human burial reports more than 20 reports between 1987 and 2010-almost twice
includes 497 entries where human remains were actually the overall average of 11 reports per county. Broward and
found, 224 cases where no remains were found and 11 entries Miami-Dade counties were near the top of the list, but Volusia
that are pointers or cross-references for multi-site reports. This County had more than any other county with a total of 46

Table 2. Florida counties ranked by highest number of Unmarked Human Burial reports.

Top Counties by All Number of Top Counties by Number of
872 Reports Reports 872 Reports w/ Remains Reports
Volusia 46 Volusia 32
Miami-Dade 37 Miami-Dade 31
Broward 36 Broward 26
Brevard 32 Duval 21
Duval 32 Brevard 20
Leon 27 Lee 19
Sarasota 25 St. Johns 17
Lee 25 Palm Beach 17
St. Johns 24 Collier 17
Collier 23 Hillsborough 16
Palm Beach 22 Sarasota 16


reports. In an attempt to put this data in context I compared the relatives and descendants in determining final disposition,
rankings to 1) total number of recorded sites per county, 2) rate but recognizes that it may be difficult or impossible to locate
of population increase between 1990 and 2009 per county, 3) such persons. Alternatively, the State Archaeologist should
county size in square miles of land, 4) number of recorded sites consult with an ad hoc committee composed of a skeletal
per square mile for each county, 5) total county population, analyst, two representatives of a related ethnic community or
and 6) population density. Most of these comparisons showed two representatives of Native American tribes (depending on
very little correspondence, with the exception of county size, ethnic affiliation of the remains), and an individual who has
county population, and population density. Of the counties special knowledge regarding the particular type of burial in
with higher numbers of unmarked human burial reports, 5 question. In order to increase accuracy of the final disposition
were on the top 10 list of counties with the greatest land area; data I cross-checked those records in the 872 database with
8 were on the top 11 list of counties in population, and 7 were both the Bureau of Archaeological Research accession records
on the list of the top 11 counties in population density, and updates to the NAGPRA inventory, since many remains
The data for the 497 reports limited to just where human have been repatriated to Native American tribes-primarily
remains were encountered also were sorted by county. There the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida over the last ten
was tremendous agreement between the two lists; in comparing years.
the top counties for each category there was roughly 90 percent
correspondence (see Table 2). Not surprisingly, comparison
of 872 reports with human remains encountered to number
of recorded sites per county, county size, and indicators of
population growth are very similar to the general set of 872 Table 3. Unmarked Human Burial
reports, with the exception of county size, where there is about reports by year, 1987-2010.
50 percent agreement in the top 10 to 13 counties in each
of the two categories, and county population, where there is Total Unmarked
about 67 percent agreement in the top 10 to 12 counties in Year n
each category. Population density relates a bit more than half Human Burial reorts
as well, with about 58 percent of the top counties on both lists. 1987 7
1988 17
Number of Reports by Year 1989 10
1990 21
Chronological tracking of 872 reports hints at several 1991 13
possible trends. Beginning in 1987 there is an initial period
where there are only a few 872 reports per year; by 1992, 1992 30
however, there were 30 reports-very near the average of 1993 35
31 reports per year seen for the 24 year period in question 1994 19
(Figure 1, Table 3). The most notable chronological trend is 1995 29
the considerable increase in 872 reports made in 2005, 2006, 1996 24
and 2007. Remarkably, the State Archaeologist fielded 75 17
1997 16
reports of unmarked human burials during 2005-well over
1 case per week! The reports made between 2005 and 2007 1998 25
account for 27 percent of all reports made between 1987 and 1999 24
2010, significantly exceeding the overall average of31 reports 2000 32
per year. Comparison with Florida housing starts for the same 2001 18
period indicates that the increase in 872 reports follows the
2002 28
housing boom and bust fairly closely (Bureau of Economic
and Business Research 2010, 2011) (Figure 2). Statistical 2003 41
analysis using an unpaired t-Test, however, indicates that over 2004 36
the 24 year period in question there is no significant correlation 2005 75
between housing starts and 872 reports.' 2006 64
2007 50
Final Disposition 2007 50
2008 35
Final disposition of the human remains encountered-in 2009 32
other words, what happened to the remains-is perhaps of 2010 22
the greatest interest to the archaeologists, landowners, and Totals 703
American Indians involved in each discovery (see Table 4).
The statute requires that the State Archaeologist consult with

WHEELER Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Law 79

o_ 190 19 2 2 19 19 9 17 10 99 02 70 2 0 2 7 2 3 2= 2 20 7 2= 200

Figure 1. Bar graph comparing numbers of reports of the discovery of unmarked human burials per
year, 1987-2010.





40 a-1-872 REPORTS
-*-HOUSING STARTS (x 10,000)




Figure 2. Line graph comparing number of reports of the discovery of unmarked human burials
with Florida housing starts, 1987-2010.


Table 4. Summary of final disposition of Unmarked Human Burial discoveries, 1987-2010

Final Disposition Categories Count Percent
Unknown or no entry 12 2
With consulting archaeologist pending final 17 3
Federal, not 872 13 3
With district medical examiner 15 3
Curated at other institution, university, etc. 24 5
Left in place 117 23
BAR curation 132 27
Reburied 167 34
TOTALS 497 100%

Other Trends cases under the statute. Often there is not an immediate and
medical examiners and local enforcement agencies, since little
While the database does not specifically track ethnic or no actual physical evidence of burials may be present. In
affiliation, ethnicity is often known in those cases where some cases it is possible to point to locations where unmarked
descendant or ethnically affiliated groups were consulted human burial sites have been recorded, local lore regarding
regarding final disposition. A review of reports made between the presence of remains, or mound features that might be
2005 and 2010 indicate that 216 (78 percent) related to Native burial mounds. During my tenure as State Archaeologist I
American remains or sites. An attempt to simply assign wrote a or letters urging either caution during earth moving or
ethnicity based on the site of origin is more complicated then recommendations for an archaeological survey in areas where
it might seem; in the period 2005 through 2010, several Native burials were believed to exist. Lacking physical remains or
American sites have produced remains of people of European a specific site feature, like a mound, makes this part of the
and African descent. For example, the discovery of a burial statute vague and difficult to enforce.
at 8V081 in Tomoka State Park in 2007 ultimately turned
out to be associated with remains recovered from the same Discussion
spot in 1983-both discoveries were assumed to be those of a
Native American, buried long ago in a shell mound, but were The trends revealed by the simple analyses reported above
eventually found to represent the remains of a diminutive are important. Some observations and recommendations based
woman of African descent (Geggis 2011; Parente 2011). on the analysis are presented here, including the need to add
Similarly, human remains discovered at 8LL4 in 2005 are training classes for law enforcement and medical examiner
believed to include individuals of both Native American and personnel, the increased protection offered by Section 872.05
European ancestry. Reports regarding more recent cemeteries to Native American burials and burial sites, the need to align
also are difficult to categorize, since many include burials of Chapter 872 with federal legislation, the need for formal
several ethnicities. A comparison of the Division of Historical protection of burials and burial sites through protective
Resource's NAGPRA inventory, the 872 database entries, and covenants, and the issue of intentional excavation of burial
the archaeological collections database indicates that there sites.
are accessions from 325 sites with human remains in the
state's collection, but only 16 (or 5 percent) of these represent Training Needs
ethnicities other than Native American. This suggests that the
total number of cases with non-Native American unmarked The counties with the most reports and discoveries of
human burials may be significantly lower than the trend unmarked human burials would be good targets for law
observed for the 2005-2010 reporting period discussed above, enforcement training courses that focused on Chapter 872,
Section 872.05, FS includes a very broad definition of and perhaps additional training or workshop opportunities
unmarked human burials, including "any human skeletal with the district medical examiners, county and city personnel,
remains or associated burial artifacts or any location ... where and local builders. Training in these areas should take into
human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts are consideration the existing experience with the statute and any
discovered or believed to exist on the basis of archaeological specific cases that could have been handled more efficiently.
or historical evidence." This definition is much broader than Currently, the Bureau of Archaeological Research offers
the one offered by the NAGPRA regulations for human several training courses for public land managers and law
remains, which excludes parts of bodies that are given freely enforcement officers, including those with topical or regional
or naturally shed, such as hair or teeth. I was particularly focus. Specific classes on the unmarked human burial statute,
interested in the number of 872 cases that included teeth only, targeted to a specific audience in the top reporting counties
since the State Archaeologist's office has been treating those

WHEELER Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Law 81

may be an important addition to the state's cultural resources 872.05 has a very broad definition of unmarked human burials
training program. Such training classes should include review and burial sites that would appear to include any skeletal
of the salient points of the statute and rule, the need for timely elements, including isolate or shed human teeth. Roughly 9
assessment of jurisdiction, and case studies. The other classes percent of the cases with actual discoveries of human remains
offered by the Bureau of Archaeological Research follow between 2005 and 2010 were exclusively teeth and no other
a similar format and have proved successful in increasing human remains. While the discovery of teeth often signals the
awareness of historic preservation laws, programs, and best presence of human burials, it appears that many archaeological
management practices. Overall, the data also suggests that sites (especially black earth middens) often contain teeth lost
reports and discoveries of unmarked human burials are related in life. It may be prudent to narrow the definitions in Section
to multiple factors of development and population pressure 872.05, FS so they are aligned with the federal regulations. This,
on archaeological resources, though it is difficult to pinpoint however, should be balanced against practical considerations,
one factor that is responsible for the regional trends. Training including local preservation conditions, the number of teeth
may increase awareness of the statute and proper protocols found, and efforts to confirm that the teeth were shed and do
for determining jurisdiction, which may in turn lead to more not signal the presence of burials.
discoveries reported to the State Archaeologist's office.
Needfor Protective Covenants
Chapter 872.05 and Final Disposition
There are several other issues that are not apparent in the
The data regarding final disposition is encouraging, since data analyzed for this paper. The wording of Section 872.05
57 percent of the cases involving actual discoveries of human steers property owners and archaeologists toward preservation
remains are resolved with reburial of the remains or by leaving of burials and burial sites in place and discourages excavation;
the remains where they were found. Correspondence on file this is consistent with the broader trends in preservation of
with the Bureau of Archaeological Research indicates that the cultural resources in Florida. However, the statute does not
State Archaeologist consistently recommends preservation have specific provisions for memorializing burials, reburial
in place as the preferred alternative when unmarked human locations, and burial sites. During my tenure as State
burials are encountered. Remains that are curated by the Archaeologist I asked that landowners execute protective
Bureau of Archaeological Research or other institutions are covenants that run with the deeds to their property so that
typically from cases where it is impossible or unsafe to rebury future owners are aware of unmarked burials. While not
the remains where found or to leave them in place. In the specifically mentioned in the statute, these covenants have been
case of Native American remains, these cases are reported on included as part of the protection plan for unmarked burials.
updates to the NAGPRA inventory (see the NAGPRA website Interestingly, around the time that the State Archaeologist's
for online databases: office began using covenants to protect unmarked human
burials, one case illustrated the need for such a measure. The
Native American Burials and Historic Cemeteries discovery and reburial of unmarked human burials associated
with archaeological site 8PB11 (resource group 8PB9636) in
The high percentage of cases involving Native American 2003 was the subject of litigation brought by a new owner
burials and burial sites is not surprising. While the percentage who claimed he was unaware of the remains (Iuspa-Abbott
of cases involving burials of other ethnic groups is fairly low, 2007). Specific details on the resolution of that lawsuit are
there are a significant number of calls to the State Archaeologist unavailable, but the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's
regarding historic and abandoned cemeteries. In response to records indicate that the property was transferred back to the
this, and in order to ensure consistent responses by Division seller in 2010 (Certificate of Title on file with Palm Beach
of Historical Resources staff, the Bureau of Archaeological County Clerk and Comptroller, Official Record Book 23926,
Research developed an online resource focused on both marked Page 1367). Such protective covenants are often unwelcomed
and unmarked burials with the help of consultants Jim Miller by landowners concerned about resale value, however, these
and Sharyn Thompson ( legal measures are routinely used to protect sites identified
cemeteries/). Statutory attempts to address historic and during Section 106 projects and parallel state reviews. As
abandoned cemeteries in 1998 and 1999 produced a series the Palm Beach County case illustrates, failure to disclose
of recommendations that were ultimately not implemented discoveries may have more serious implications.
(Pappas 1999).
Unmarked Human Burials and Scientific Data
NAGPRA and Chapter 872
While the intention of Section 872.05 is not the scientific
NAGPRA and Chapter 872 are divergent in their investigation of archaeological sites, it is clear that in many
definitions of human remains. The federal code related to cases the statute provides the only means for not only
NAGRPA includes definitions of both burial sites and human protecting sites, but also for collecting some basic data on
remains, specifically excluding shed items like teeth. Section these places. As of February 1, 2011. the Florida Master


Site File database includes 130 archaeological sites that of the State Archaeologist and Native American tribes, the
were recorded or updated due to reports made under Section developer-MDM Group-proceeded with plans to excavate
872.05, out of a total of 2,729 known sites with unmarked the site in order to build a complex of commercial and high-rise
human burials. It has become common practice to record new real estate variably know as MetMiami, One Miami, or Miami
discoveries with the site file, since this information is used by One. Civic leaders at the local and state level were concerned
planners, developers, archaeologists and others interested in that the discovery would prompt a repeat of the unprecedented
site location and protection. public outcry that had halted development and led to the public
acquisition of the nearby Miami Circle site only a few years
Chapter 872 and Intentional Excavation of Burials earlier (see an account of the fairly contentious nature of the
undertaking in Sheridan 2006a, 2006b). It also was clear very
One other difference between Section 872.05, FS and early on that the only historic preservation laws bearing on the
NAGPRA relates to the intentional excavation of burials, project were the City of Miami archaeological ordinance and
The focus of the Florida statute is largely on inadvertent Section 872.05. By 2006 a team of archaeologists and physical
discoveries, while the federal law has provisions for both anthropologists from both New South Associates and the
inadvertent finds and intentional excavation of Native Archaeological & Historical Conservancy Inc. had spent over
American burials. In practice, inadvertent discoveries can two years excavating an extensive Native American cemetery
quickly become the subject of an excavation, especially when complex that occupied at least half a city block. Conflicts
the burials are extensive and present an obstacle to the modern with the developer and slow downs in construction delayed
use of the property. Examples of these intentional excavations inventory of the remains, but draft reports and a University
in Florida are relatively few, but it is clear that they often of South Florida Master's thesis are now available, indicating
take on challenging public relations and political dimensions that remains representing at least 234 individuals were
that property owners, civic leaders, and archaeologists find excavated, though not all burial features were inventoried at
difficult to navigate. One example from early in the history of the time of this writing (Carr et al. 2010; Carr 2012: 96-98;
Section 872.05 is found in the file for 8SO1292. Excavations Echazabal 2010). After protracted negotiations, the developer
related to construction of a residence in late 1988 led to an executed an agreement with the Division of Historical
inadvertent discovery of unmarked human burials, which were Resources dedicating a reburial area near the original cemetery
reported under the statute. The burials were not discovered site-an amendment to the agreement required reburial by
until considerable construction, including installation of February 2012. Personnel from the Bureau of Archaeological
large cement house pilings, had already caused significant Research and archaeologist Bob Carr report that the developer
disturbance. Remains representing at least 120 individuals completed the reburial. While the developer has constructed
were recovered during site investigations, first led by Wilburn two buildings on their complex, no work has begun on the
A. "Sonny" Cockrell, and then B. Calvin Jones. Dave Dickel 74 story high-rise planned for the lot once occupied by the
(1991:9-10) made a brief site visit and conducted analysis of Native American cemetery. What is now clear from the
the remains; his report provides the most detailed information State Archaeologist's experience with the MDM MetMiami
on the discovery. Newspaper accounts indicate that the excavation is that Section 872.05 and Rule 1A-44 do not
excavation attracted considerable attention and became quite contain sufficient provisions and safeguards to ensure that an
contentious; the articles also indicate tentative plans to rebury undertaking like this can be brought to satisfactory and timely
the remains, however, all the burials are still curated by the completion. While all parties recognized that the excavation
Bureau of Archaeological Research and appear on the state's and reporting expenses were the developer's responsibility,
NAGPRA inventory (Anonymous 1989; Demshar 1989a, the developer should have been required to post bonds to
1989b; Miller 1989; Royal 1989). Inadvertent discoveries that cover the cost of excavation and reporting in the event of a
become large scale excavations are very rare, but they present bankruptcy or similar default.
special challenges, especially regarding timely reburial of One final case study of an intentional excavation of
remains; managing public relations; ensuring that scientific unmarked human burials is worth discussing, found in the files
data is collected and published, when appropriate; economic for HN47, HN54, HN55 and HN56, and related to the broader
considerations; and adherence to the requirement of respectful efforts to restore the Florida Everglades. Unlike the MetMiami
treatment of remains. example offered above, these four Hendry County sites were
Another example of a large scale excavation of unmarked subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
human burials involving many of these issues began in 2003 Act because the construction of a storm water treatment area
when archaeologists with the Archaeological & Historical by the South Florida Water Management District required
Conservancy Inc. reported their discovery of fragmentary a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Known as
human remains at a proposed construction site on the north Compartment C, this project offers a case study in the do's
bank of the Miami River in downtown Miami. This site- and don'ts of Section 106 consultation, including confusion
recorded as 8DA11 in the Florida Master Site File-quickly regarding jurisdiction and coordination with Native American
became the subject of intense scrutiny and interest as testing tribes and organizations. Like the Met Miami example,
revealed more and more human remains. Despite the advice however, the agencies involved, against the advice of the State

WHEELER Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Law 83

Archaeologist's office, undertook the excavation of unmarked Sheriffs Office requested the State Archaeologist's assistance
human burials from four sites that were to be inundated by in a case involving the discovery of unmarked human burials.
construction. Efforts to recover human remains from the sites A local pool contractor discovered the remains while digging
were hampered by high water levels and the fact that the a swimming pool, but failed to make the proper notifications;
remains had been scattered by the long disturbance of soil an employee ultimately contacted the authorities and turned
(likely a combination of ancient and more recent processes). over remains that had been disturbed. Numerous remains also
After two years of excavation, the archaeologists recovering were recovered from the construction site, where they were
the remains-most of which were reburied on a nearby on the ground or in back dirt piles. The pool contractor was
parcel-became concerned because the minimum number prosecuted by the State Attorney at the request of the Division
of individuals represented by the scattered, fragmentary of Historical Resources, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and
remains was beginning to mount. The concern was based on the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, ultimately making
the significance of the sites and the impact that the recovery a court-required donation of $2,500 to the Florida Museum
effort-ostensibly designed to address tribal concerns about of Natural History, writing apology letters to the tribes, and
inundation of human burial sites-was having on these serving 6 months probation. The property owner assisted in
resources. The District and Corps had focused coordination the reburial of the remains near the original find spot after the
on one tribe, assuming that lack of response from other tribes criminal case was resolved.
equated with lack of interest or concurrence. Ultimately, the
Seminole Tribe of Florida demanded the preservation of the Conclusion
site and the return and reburial of the remains that had been
moved to the adjacent parcel (Stapleton 2010). The lessons The data presented in this paper confirms that Section
learned in this case probably vary by agency, but include the 872.05, FS is operating as intended, with a few notable
need to closely adhere to the provisions of Section 106 and exceptions; the statute's focus on respectful treatment of all
the difficulty in recovering remains from tree island sites in burial sites and preservation of burials in place is mirrored by
southern Florida. Data from most of the Everglades tree island the statistics compiled since 1987. Those data show that 57
sites indicate that when burials are present, they are often percent of the discoveries of unmarked human burials result
highly disturbed, with remains scattered across the site. Again, in remains being left in place or reburied. The vast majority
the Compartment C example demonstrates that Section 872.05 of reports relate to Native American burials and burial sites,
and Rule 1A-44 do not contain sufficient provisions to regulate though there is tremendous interest in preservation of historic
such an undertaking-primarily the intentional excavation of and abandoned cemeteries, which are outside the scope of the
unmarked human burials. What is most difficult, especially unmarked human burial section of the law. Improvements to
in the case of the tree island burials, is that it is almost the statute could be made by aligning definitions of human
impossible to determine the extent of excavations required remains and burial sites with NAGPRA. It is important to
prior to beginning a project. The open-ended nature of these keep in mind that the statute is most applicable to inadvertent
excavations, as they expand in cost and scope, are difficult for discoveries of human burials, and does not include sufficient
both developers and Native American tribes. In the case study provisions for regulating intentional excavations of burials
discussed here, the Seminole Tribe of Florida initially agreed and burial sites, especially when these involve long-term,
to excavation, but after the number of individuals mounted, extensive excavations. While these large-scale excavations are
they withdrew their support of the project. Of greatest concern, a small subset of the overall Section 872.05 cases, they occupy
however, is that the Everglades restoration involves a number considerable time and resources in the State Archaeologist's
of these large water impoundments and many of these include office, they often take years to complete, and frequently
sites with human burials. Engineering solutions will hopefully include disputes about analysis costs and final disposition.
be found for most of these sites, but if the projects move Future research into the workings of the Florida unmarked
forward, it is likely that other burial sites will be subjected to human burial statute could include continued monitoring of
excavation. data and trends; workshops with other State Archaeologists-
especially focused on improving these kinds of state statutes
Criminal Prosecution under Chapter 872 or innovating solutions for those discoveries that are most
problematic; and more detailed analysis and presentation of
One final word is probably merited, since Section 872.05 case studies.
resides in that part of the Florida statutes reserved for crimes, Note
known as Title XLVI. As mentioned at the beginning of
this paper, the statute provides criminal penalties for willful 1. On-line statistical calculators from the following
disturbance of an unmarked human burial (third degree websites were used to compare the two data sets: http://www.
felony) and for failure to notify law enforcement about the; http://www.
discovery of such a burial (second degree misdemeanor),;
The State Archaeologist's files include very few cases where cgi-bin/stats/t-test;
individuals were prosecuted for violations of the statute. One ttestl.cfm.
notable exception occurred in 2007, when the Wakulla County


Acknowledgments Demshar, Sarah
1989a Indians to Get Remains. Englewood Times, January
It is hard to imagine my time as State Archaeologist 11, 1989, pages 1A, 2A.
without the friendship and aid of Jim Miller and Dave Dickel. 1989b Radiocarbon Dating Sets Indian Remains at 120 A.D.
They were always ready to lend an ear when I wanted to talk Englewood Times, March 1, 1989, pages 1A, 2A.
about Chapter 872, and they could be counted on for regular
good advice. Without Dave's amazing computer program this Dickel, David N.
project would have been difficult or impossible. Many thanks 1991 Descriptive Analysis of the Skeletal Collection from
to Jim, Dave, and an anonymous reviewer who provided the Prehistoric Manasota Key Cemetery, Sarasota
good suggestions on this article-their time helped improve County, Florida (8S01292). Florida Archaeological
this piece considerably. I also extend my thanks to all of Reports 22. Bureau of Archaeological Research,
the archaeologists who took up the difficult task of working Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
with unmarked human burials, who regularly made difficult
decisions in the field, and who continue to struggle with the Echazabal, Christina
greater preservation dilemmas presented by these discoveries. 2010 Life in the Florida Everglades: Bioarchaeology of
Bill Steele, longtime Tribal Historical Preservation Officer for the Miami One Site. Unpublished Master's thesis,
the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and Fred Dayhoff, NAGPRA Department of Anthropology, University of South
and Section 106 representative for the Miccosukee Tribe Florida, Tampa.
of Indians of Florida were always ready with wise counsel,
insight, and thoughtful recommendations-all I had to do was Geggis, Anne
pick up the phone. 2011 300 Years Later, Bones of Possible Slave Given
Proper Burial. The Daytona Beach News-Journal.
References Cited June 5, 2011.

Anonymous Hutt, Sherry, Caroline M. Blanco, and Ole Varmer
1989 Archaeology and Responsibility. Editorial in the 1999 Heritage Resources Law: Protecting the
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, March 26, 1989, page 2FS. Archeological and Cultural Environment. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. New York.
Bureau of Economic and Business Research
2010 Florida Annual State and County Building Permits luspa-Abbott, Paola
and Housing Starts, Single-Family and Multi-Family 2007 Owner Says Bones Break a Deal, Suit Alleges Seller
Units, 1976-2009. Warrington College of Business, Failed to Disclose Indian Remains. South Florida
University of Florida, Gainesville. Sun Sentinel (April 8, 2007). Electronic document,
2011 Florida Annual State and County Building Permits
and Housing Starts, Single-Family and Multi-Family news/0704070233__ bone-fragments-indian-tribes-
Units, 1976-2010. Warrington College of Business, patio-expansion, accessed January 26, 2011.
University of Florida, Gainesville.
King, Thomas F.
Bushbaum, Michael J. 2004 Cultural Resource Laws and Practice: An
1993 Beyond ARPA: Filling the Gaps in Federal and State Introductory Guide. 2nd Edition. Altamira Press, New
Cultural Resource Protection Laws. Environmental York.
Law, (Summer, 1993). Electronic document, http://
findarticles.comi/particles/mi_hb3153/is_n4_23/ai_ Miller, James J.
n28633037/?tag=conent;coll, accessed January 21, 1986 Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Bill. The Florida
2011. Anthropologist 39(3, pt. 2): 226-230.
1989 Florida's Approach to Archaeological Finds. Sarasota
Camr, Robnrt S, Herald-Tribune, May 22, 1989, letters to the editor
2012 Diggng Miami. University Press of Florida, section.
National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
Car, Re I t S., William Schaffer, Ashley Gelman, Bradley M. 2005 State and Tribal Laws and Regulations webpage.
Mailr0 BShaiim D. Iveron, William F. Rombola, and Ryan Electronic document,
Franlliin Laws/, accessed December 27, 2012.
20110 PlYe I Atrhaelogical Investigations of Parcel D,
MDM, Miamii-Dade Coumny, Florida, Archaeological
and Hiisoisal Contservancy Ie Davie, Florida

WHEELER Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Law 85

Olexa, Michael T., Nancy C. Hodge, Tracey L. Owens, and
Caycee D. Hampton
2012 A Grave Situation: Protecting the Deceased and Their
Final Resting Places from Destruction. The Florida
Bar Journal 86(9):35-36, 38-42.

Pappas, Robert
1999 Final Report of Task Force on Abandoned and
Neglected Cemeteries. Typescript on file, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Parente, Audrey
2011 Bones believed to be slave woman's to be buried
in Ormond cemetery. The Daytona Beach News-
Journal. June 2, 2011.

Ram, Kesha
2009 First Floor Report: Unmarked Burial Sites, blog
post on Vermont House of Representatives bill
H.26. Electronic document, http://www.kesharam.
org/?p=48, accessed December 27, 2012.

Royal, Shirley
1989 Calls Manasota Dig a Carnival. Sarasota Herald-
Tribune, March 26, 1989, editorial section.

Schamel, Kathleen
1997 Update of Compilation of State Repatriation,
Reburial and Grave Protection Laws. Prepared for
the Natural Resource Conservation Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Sheridan, Terry
2006a Complaints Rise as Remains are Unearthed in Miami.
Daily Business Review, January 19, 2006.
2006b State Stops Icon Construction Pending Covenant on
Remains. Daily Business Review, February 10, 2006.

Stapleton, Christine
2010 Tribes Angry, Everglades Projects Halt after Workers
Dig Up Major Burial Ground but Don't Tell. The
Palm Beach Post, Thursday, November 25, 2010.

Tesar, Louis D.
1987 Chapter 872, Florida Statutes ("Offenses Concerning
Dead Bodies and Graves") Amended: The Law
and Its Significance. The Florida Anthropologist

Washington College of Law
2008 State Burial Laws Project webpage, Washington
College of Law, American University, Washington,
D.C. Electronic document, http://www.wcl.american.
edu/burial/, accessed December 27, 2012.

Appendix 1: Unmarked Human Burial Reports by County, with Demographic Data.


Volusia 46 32 645 11.9 1106 0.58 443,343 401
Miami-Dade 37 31 581 11 1945 0.3 2,253,362 1159
Broward 36 26 287 8.8 1209 0.24 1,623,018 1342
Brevard 32 20 489 12.6 1018 0.48 476,230 468
Duval 32 21 664 10 774 0.86 778,879 1006
Leon 27 11 1524 11 667 2.28 239,452 359
Sarasota 25 16 366 13.4 572 0.64 192,695 337
Lee 25 19 389 33.1 804 0.48 440,888 548
St. Johns 24 17 555 52.2 572 0.97 325,957 570
Collier 23 17 833 26.7 2026 0.41 251,377 124
Palm Beach 22 17 211 13.2 2034 0.1 1,131,184 556
Manatee 21 10 483 20.6 741 0.65 264,002 356
Hillsborough 20 16 1178 19.7 1051 1.12 998,948 950
Pinellas 19 10 424 -1.4 280 1.51 921,482 3291 0
Alachua 17 10 891 11.8 874 1.02 217,955 249 C
Levy 17 13 473 13.6 1118 0.42 34,450 31
Hendry 15 11 139 9.3 1153 0.12 36,210 31
Seminole 14 6 192 13.1 1016 0.19 117,743 116
St. Lucie 14 13 163 38.3 308 0.53 365,196 1186
Citrus 13 12 738 18.9 584 1.26 118,085 202
Walton 12 5 1721 35.7 1058 1.63 40,601 38
Orange 11 6 396 21.2 908 0.44 896,344 987
Indian River 11 7 137 19.7 503 0.27 112,947 225
Nassau 11 8 195 22.4 652 0.3 57,663 88
Martin 11 9 146 10.3 556 0.26 126,731 228


Polk 9 5 932 20.6 1875 0.5 483,924 258
Charlotte 9 8 170 10.8 694 0.24 141,627 204
Wakulla 8 4 679 43.5 607 1.12 22,863 21
Lake 8 5 753 48.3 953 0.8 210,528 221
Hernando 8 5 396 30.9 487 0.81 130,802 269
Jackson 8 6 760 8.9 916 0.83 46,755 51
Gadsden 7 1 269 5.3 516 0.52 45,087 87 3
Flagler 7 5 177 83.9 485 0.36 49,832 103
Okaloosa 7 5 1404 4.7 936 1.5 170,498 182
Franklin 7 6 274 14.8 534 0.51 11,057 21
Osceola 7 6 357 56.9 1322 0.27 172,493 130
Dixie 7 7 242 7.2 704 0.34 13,827 20
Unknown 7 7
Bay 6 3 457 11.2 764 0.6 148,217 194
Highlands 6 5 278 13 1028 0.27 87,366 85
Escambia 6 5 662 3 664 1 294,410 443
Pasco 5 2 1069 36.8 745 1.43 344,765 463
Taylor 5 4 391 11.1 1042 0.38 19,256 18
Jefferson 5 4 811 8.6 598 1.36 12,902 22
Suwannee 5 4 290 15.2 688 0.42 34,844 51
Putnam 4 2 370 3.5 722 0.51 70,423 98
Liberty 3 2 489 13.7 836 0.58 7,021 8
Sumter 3 2 361 45.6 546 0.66 53,345 98
Glades 3 3 328 3.5 774 0.42 10,576 14
Columbia 3 3 570 22.6 797 0.72 56,513 71
Clay 3 3 380 32.6 601 0.63 140,814 234
Baker 2 1 383 18.3 585 0.65 22,259 38
Gulf 2 2 116 8.2 565 0.21 13,332 24
Hamilton 2 2 176 9.5 515 0.34 13,327 26




Clay 3 3 380 32.6 601 0.63 140,814 234
Baker 2 1 383 18.3 585 0.65 22,259 38
Gulf 2 2 116 8.2 565 0.21 13,332 24
Hamilton 2 2 176 9.5 515 0.34 13,327 26
Hardee 1 0 210 9.2 637 0.33 26,938 42
Okeechobee 1 0 61 12.1 774 0.08 35,910 46
DeSoto 1 0 89 9.6 637 0.14 32,209 51
Union 1 0 196 8.5 240 0.82 13,442 56
Lafayette 1 1 62 13.2 543 0.11 7,022 13 5
Calhoun 1 1 158 6.2 567 0.28 13,017 23
Bradford 1 1 72 12.1 293 0.25 26,088 89
Madison 0 0 128 0.9 692 0.18 18,733 27
Washington 0 0 457 14 580 0.79 20,973 36
Holmes 0 0 184 2.9 482 0.38 18,564 39
Gilchrist 0 0 58 18.5 349 0.17 14,437 41





S949 Rock Bay Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32218

Pilijiribahasgreat importance tothehistoryofnortheastern prominent in the legal documents relating to the Residencia
Florida and southeastern Georgia for it serves as the last of Governor Joseph Zufiiga y la Cerda, although the exact
known occupation of the Mocama-speaking Timucua in their spelling found in most of these documents is Pilixiriba. The
native lands. The story goes much deeper than this and follows "x" character has taken the form of "j" in modern Spanish.
a twisting path of instability, contention, and consolidation. A This is also the case for other words such as trabajo which is
1602 census of the Mocama created by two friars, Francisco written as trabaxo in colonial Spanish form. A few words have
Pareja and Balthasar Lopez, lists 18 Mocama villages (Hann retained the "x," most notably is the word Mexico. Pilijiriba
1996:158-159). One hundred years later Colonel James Moore is consistent with the spelling used by John Worth (1998),
led a militia force ofBritish Carolinians along with Indian slave although other versions have been noted, such as Pilitiriba
raiders down the present-day coasts of Georgia and Florida to (Hann 1996) and Pilijuirigua (Ponze de Leon 1703).
remove the Spanish and their allies from Florida. On their way The name Pilijiriba is almost certainly native, likely
Sto St. Augustine the South Carolinian force encountered only Timucuan, and the different spellings are due to various
one Mocama town, San Juan del Puerto, located on present- scribes attempting to spell the word phonetically. One thing
day Ft. George Island and a satellite settlement known as that is unclear is why the name Pilijiriba was used instead of
Pilijiriba on the south side of the St. Johns River. It is clear that something relating to the early mission visita of San Pablo,
the years preceding Moore's assault had taken their toll on the which is currently thought to be located on the Greenfield
Mocama population. Moore's raid ended San Juan del Puerto's Peninsula in the vicinity of Pilijiriba. The Greenfield Peninsula
115-year span as a Spanish mission and marked the end of is bordered by the St Johns River and its salt marshes to the
the mission period along the Atlantic coast. Moore's attack, north, Greenfield Creek to the west, and the Intracoastal
however, did not mark the end of the Mocama people in their Waterway to the east; the latter was known to the Spanish
homeland. In 1703 the less heralded community of Pilijiriba as Caho de San Pablo (Figure 1). The visita of San Pablo
would reemerge and become the final Mocama settlement in disappears from the known documentary record after the first
their native lands. decade of the seventeenth century. It is suspected that the
The purpose of my research is to combine all existing visita of San Pablo consolidated with San Juan del Puerto, but
secondary sources relating to Pilijiriba with additional primary the exact date is unknown, though likely prior to 1630 (Ashley
source information and newly available archaeological data. 2013:157). The uncertainty of when the visita of San Pablo
With the inclusion of both archival and archaeological sources dissolved is due to the lack of documentary sources from this
I am able to offer new insights into the location and possible time period. Interestingly, the name San Pablo was still being
function of Pilijiriba. What emerges is a new picture of used to refer to the Greenfield area as late as 1683 (Worth
Pilijiriba; one whose significance has been underemphasized, 2007:38-39), and today the Intracoastal Waterway in that area
or misappropriated, by previous scholars. I begin with a is known as San Pablo Creek.
discussion of the known history of Pilijiriba using all available
literature including both secondary references and primary The Mocama
sources; the latter I consulted at the Archivo General de
Indias (AGI) in Seville, Spain. I further use this information Mocama became the seventeenth-century term used by
to explore why Pilijiriba may have been chosen as the site of the Spanish to refer to the Timucuan people that lived along
a Spanish garrison and native community. This is followed by the coast of extreme northeastern Florida and southeastern
my analysis of the archaeological research carried out on the Georgia (Milanich 1996:98). At European contact the Mocama
Greenfield Peninsula in Jacksonville (Florida), the suspected occupied an area stretching from the south bank of the St Johns
location of Pilijiriba. River in Jacksonville, Florida to the Satilla River in present-
day Georgia. Mocama was known as the maritime dialect
The Mocama and the Community of Pilijiriba by Francisco Pareja and it was said to be a Timucua word
meaning "of the sea" (Granberry 1993:6, 148; Hann 1996:6-
Before chronicling the history ofPilijiriba, it is appropriate 7). Over the years, the word "Mocama" has been used as a
to discuss the name Pilijiriba. The spelling I use is one that is descriptive term for many things including, "a seventeenth-



A.I. 55-8-B 'o .--

B e

Figure 1. 1703 Spanish Map showing Pilijiriba (from Arnade 1960).

century mission province, an ethnic group, and a dialect of the it provides a degree of geographical and cultural specificity
Timucuan language" (Ashley and Rolland 1997: 51). Mocama that helps differentiate the Mocama from other coastal and
is one of several terms used to describe these maritime people. hinterland Timucua speakers.
According to historian John Hann (1996: 5-6), the Traditionally, the Mocama were fisher-hunter gatherers
term Tacatacuru was used most frequently in early Spanish who exploited their rich maritime environment for a large
documents to refer to the maritime Timucua or Mocama. portion of their subsistence. Beginning around A.D. 1450
Tacatacuru was a Timucuan chief who lived on Cumberland corn farming was added to their economy, and the dietary
Island Georgia during the 1560s. The term San Pedro or importance of maize increased through the mission period
"people of San Pedro" became popular in the seventeenth (Ashley 2009). Environment and subsistence were not the only
century owing to the paramount position of San Pedro's differences between the Mocama and other Timucua speakers.
cacique (Worth 2007:12), who resided at the Spanish mission The contact-period Mocama produced a unique grog-tempered
of San Pedro de Mocama on Cumberland Island. By the pottery that we now call San Pedro (Ashley and Rolland 1997;
beginning of the eighteenth century the term Chiluque was Ashley 2009; Milanich 1971). During the mission period,
often applied to the Mocama, and it is used in most documents the Mocama eventually transitioned to making grit-tempered
relating to Pilijiriba (Zufhiga y la Cerda 1703:381r-381v; pottery as their primary ware, which today is referred to as San
Ponze de Leon 1706:407r). Mocama is the term that most Marcos (although the term Altamaha is used by archaeologists
scholars use today, and I believe it is most appropriate because in Georgia). The exact date for this ceramic transition is


unknown but current estimates are between A.D. 1600 and the siege elsewhere. We also do not know how Pilijiriba was
1625 (Ashley 2009). As mentioned previously the Greenfield reoccupied. When Zuiliga y la Cerda ordered a fort built at
Peninsula is the suspected location of both the contact/early Pilijiriba, had the natives already reoccupied it? There does
mission-period Mocama community of San Pablo and the not seem to be an explicit answer, but the implication is that
later occupation at Pilijiriba. In terms of pottery, an important the reoccupation was immediate
research question becomes: did the occupants of the visita of The post-Moore resettlement of Pilijiriba raises many
San Pablo make the transition to San Marcos pottery or did questions. The presence of a fort and garrison at Pilijiriba has
they relocate to San Juan del Puerto (or elsewhere) prior to the been characterized as a necessity to protect the natives living
ceramic shift? I will return to this question later in the article, there. Evidence for this claim is very limited, however. Even
because it is an essential question in the search for Pilijiriba. the documents used to make this claim indicate a dual purpose
for the military presence.
The Mocama Community ofPilijiriba

Pilijiriba is said to have been inhabited around 1701 by After the siege he [Governor Zufiiga y la Cerda] sent
some of the Mocama from San Juan del Puerto (Hann 1996: orders to all of the Lieutenants to build corrals for the
290). The entire population of San Juan del Puerto had actually defense of their places. And in Pilijiriba 10 leagues
petitioned to move to Pilijiriba, citing the availability of good from this city to the north he ordered them to fabricate
soil. Hann (1996) suggests that Governor Zufiiga y la Cerda a fort of four bastions with accommodations, housing,
interpreted this petition as a desire of San Juan's inhabitants and storage for ammunition and supplies which will
to lessen the work incurred by ferrying people across the St serve as a buffer to this presidio and for the defense of
Johns River and between San Juan del Puerto and the mission the towns of Indians Iguajas and Chiluquez, [Ponze
towns and garrison on Amelia Island to the north. Spanish de Leon 1706:407r-407v].
officials considered San Juan's strategic position north of the
St Johns River too important to abandon. In an apparent act
of compromise a few of San Juan's inhabitants made a move This document appears to be the same source that Hann
in 1701 to Pilijiriba (Hann 1996:290). On November 4, 1702 (1996:297) uses, although he does not include a citation. Hann
Pilijiriba was attacked as part of Colonel Moore's British raid leaves out the portion of Ponze de Leon's writing that indicates
on Spanish Florida (Hann 1996:297). The natives dispersed as the importance of Pilijiriba in relation to St Augustine. This
the assault occurred with many fleeing toward St Augustine omission has huge implications for the function of Pilijiriba.
and others presumably hiding in the surrounding forests. Hann's characterization of the military presence at the fort is
Governor Zufiiga y la Cerda (1702:fol. 840r) speaks of the one of benevolence, suggesting that the Spanish military was
incoming refugees in a letter dated November 29, 1702. extending itself to protect the Mocama and Guale at Pilijiriba.
Even without the original Ponze de Leon document, too much
evidence seems to exist that refutes this characterization.
In this Royal Fort [San Marcos] there are some Prior to the British assault in 1702 the northern extent of
Indians. They are Christians who have come seeking Spanish Florida was Amelia Island, the northernmost barrier
shelter, having fled from the enemy. In Particular island in present-day Florida. This had been the case since
these are the Iguajas [Guale] and those from the 1684 when the last of the Georgia missions moved south. For
town of San Juan [Mocama] that were populated in all intents and purposes the northern boundary of Spanish
the Guale Province where the enemy entered with Florida immediately after Moore's raid was St. Augustine,
intense violence bringing blood and fire destroying leaving a military void to the north that the Spanish would
their towns. need to fill. No explicit evidence has been uncovered to date
that indicates why Pilijiriba was chosen for reoccupation by
the natives. We simply do not know if the natives themselves,
It is after this attack that the documents suggest that or the Spanish, chose Pilijiriba. San Juan had been a staple of
Pilijiriba takes on additional significance, as it becomes the mission system since 1587, and Amelia Island had been
a garrison community with two native villages. The first home to the Spanish mission and garrison community of Santa
native settlement community was Mocama, presumably Maria. Pilijiriba was merely a small offshoot community of
survivors from San Juan del Puerto and the previous Pilijiriba San Juan del Puerto established in 1701. So why was the least
occupation. The second was composed of Guale, the survivors prominent area chosen for resettlement?
from the Amelia Island missions (Ponze de Leon 1706:fol. The likely answer is that the reestablishment of Pilijiriba
407r). Although the inhabitants of Pilijiriba sought refuge in marked a shift in strategy by the Spaniards. The garrison on
the Castillo de San Marcos in the immediate aftermath of the Amelia Island had been overrun almost instantly by the massive
British assault in 1702, we do not know how many natives British force. It seems that Pilijiriba was chosen for its location
made it to the Castillo or how many may have waited out on the mainland south of the St. Johns River, as opposed to


the barrier islands to the north that were previously chosen on Amelia Island prior to the British invasion. With the
for settlement. The area north of the river was not abandoned, subsequent abandonment of the island, the area north of St.
however, because the Spanish reestablished the sentinel post Augustine would have been far more exposed than before.
along the "Bar of San Pedro" at the northern end of Amelia Resettlement at Pilijiriba may have been a compromise by
Island and the sentinel post at Sarabay (on present-day Big the Guale to maintain some autonomy outside the immediate
Talbot Island). In addition, the sentinel post along the "Bar of vicinity of St Augustine, while still being somewhat under the
San Juan" (on the south side of the St Johns River in present- protection of the Spanish military.
day Mayport) also was reestablished. I contend that Pilijiriba
served as the administrative and command and control center The Infamous Map
for these sentinel posts. In archival sources Pilijiriba and the
sentinel posts are often mentioned as one unit, "the sentinel It is the map of Pilijiriba (Figure 1), uncovered in The
posts of Pilijiriba" (de Pefialoza 1707:fol. 597r). The real Archive of the Indies in Seville, Spain (AGI), that first created
question that emerges is whether the sentinel posts served interest in finding its exact location. Unfortunately this piece
Pilijiriba or whether the collective entity of Pilijiriba and the of cartographic evidence has led to much confusion. The
sentinel posts served another function? My answer to this map shows a massive fort along with several surrounding
question follows, structures, including two apparent churches. The map legend
The British force led by Moore in 1702 is estimated at indicates that the fort was called Castillo de Pilihiriba and that
between 800 and 1200 men (Arnade 1959:5). A fort at Pilijiriba it contained two Indian towns. When one looks at the map a
with its 25 to 30 man garrison would have done little to slow an cluster of structures appear to the north of the fort and another
invading force of even close to that number. What Pilijiriba roughly to the south. With respect to these clusters Arnade
and the sentinel posts could do was provide warning of an (1960:71) proposes that, "One nation of natives occupied
impending attack to St Augustine. The sentinel posts could the northern side of the fort and the other the southern one.
act as a series of relay stations, ultimately notifying Pilijiriba Each had its own church. This is in accordance with the
and sending word south to St Augustine. It is in this context Spanish Indian policy of maintaining united the various
and that of maintaining a presence north of St. Augustine nationalities." Arnade provides no documentary support for
that Pilijiriba as a Spanish outpost was born. There simply this interpretation, as it relates to Pilijiriba, so I conclude that it
is no evidence indicating that a Spanish military presence at is based solely on the map. This conclusion was not unique to
Pilijiriba was solely for the protection of the natives. Evidence Arnade, because Hann (1996:297) indicates the same thing,
exists, however, suggesting that the opposite may have been again without any documentary sources. I contend that this
true. A native presence at Pilijiriba may have been encouraged rather literal interpretation of the map is incorrect.
by the Spanish as a means of supporting the garrison's soldiers. The first problem with the map is the size of the fort.
According to Arnade (1960:73) there had been an incident I understand the difficulties associated with representing
between the cacique of the Guale and a Spanish soldier at a structure on a map of such a large geographic area. If the
Pilijiriba and that, "the corporal had come to exact tribute structures were drawn proportional to the landforms and
in the form of food in a very nasty and demanding way." It waterways, the community would hardly be visible. Once you
would certainly have been in the best interest of the soldiers lose the scale of the fort, all the other structures come into
to have a substantial native community nearby to provide food question. It is then difficult to make any distance judgments,
and labor. from structure to structure or from structure to shoreline.
The presence ofboth Spanish troops and a native population Overall the map does an excellent job representing the
at Pilijiriba was mutually beneficial. For defense, the Spanish landscape and waterways from Amelia Island to the south bank
needed to reestablish themselves north of St. Augustine. A of the St Johns River. When it comes to Pilijiriba, however,
buffer was needed to curtail invading forces and both the St. the structures depicted are a general representation and not
Johns River and San Pablo Creek were vital transportation intended to be accurate.
routes that needed to be defended. For the natives, one must Support for this proposition comes from documents
use more caution when assessing motives. We simply do not relating to the creation of the map. These accounts reveal one
have documents from them indicating how they may have very important detail about the map. It was never intended to
felt or what their wishes would have been. Some facts we be a diagram of Pilijiriba, but instead a map of the waterways
do know. For the Mocama, Pilijiriba was a familiar place, surrounding Pilijiriba, as suggested in the following passage:
It would have been, to put it simply, "home." With a small "He [Governor Zufiiga y la Cerda] ordered me to make a
number of Mocama already living at Pilijiriba just prior to the map of the paths, channels, estuaries, sandbars, and mouths
British invasion and the majority living nearby at San Juan del of sandbars that encircle the said Pilijiriba." (Ponze de Leon
Puerto, Pilijiriba was likely a far better alternative than staying 1706: 407r-407v). As one takes a close look at the map, the
in St Augustine. The Guale may have had a similar desire to reason behind it becomes clearer. The map indicates the path
reestablish their community outside the St Augustine area. that the British took during their invasion in November, 1702.
The Guale had occupied a mission and garrison community Special attention was given to depicting areas connected to the


Table 1. CRM Projects carried out on Greenfield Peninsula.

Year and Site Phase # of 50-cm2 1-x-2- 2-x-2- area excavated Reference
CRM firm shovel tests m units m units (m2)
1988 FAS 8DU5537-45 I 507 127 Johnson 1988
1991 FAS 8DU5544-45 I 104 26 Johnson 1998
Marina area
1994 FAS 8DU5541-43 II 347 48 183 Johnson 1994
1995 ESI 8DU5544,45 II 192 48 Smith et al. 2001
1996 FAS 8DU5545 FIND I 365 91 Johnson 1996
1998 FAS 8DU5545 FIND II 7 41 1 88 Johnson 1998a
1998 FAS 8DU5544, II 304 48 1 176 Johnson 199b
2000 FAS 8DU5541 III 117 34 97 Kirkland and
Johnson 2000
2000 8DU78 I, II 236 11 81 Poplin and Harvey
Brockington 2000
2001 ESI 8DU5544, III 17 34* Smith et al. 2000
TOTALS ______2179 199 2 951
In addition, 1,084 square meters were mechanically stripped to search for features.

mainland and to the waterways that the British used during Instead his excavations focused on the Maxey Plantation,
their invasion. Since Pilijiriba itself was not the primary focus an early nineteenth-century plantation community (Drane
of the map, it was not necessary to reflect it accurately. 1960; Jones 1977). Greenfield Peninsula was not revisited
One thing that is clear is that his map was certainly an until 1988 when it was subjected to an archaeological survey
article of military intelligence with significance extending by Florida Archeological Services (FAS) in anticipation of
well beyond Pilijiriba. It may have been an intentional future development relating to The Queens Harbour Yacht and
decision to keep the layout of Pilijiriba vague, or possibly even Country Club (Johnson 1988). FAS returned to the northern
inaccurate. If this map fell into enemy hands, knowledge of the tip of the northern tip of the Greenfield 1991 to begin Phase
precise layout of the fort and native villages could have had II testing and phase III excavation projects at several sites
devastating consequences. Given the success of the 1702 siege until 1998 (Johnson 1994, 1998a). Environmental Services
it is clear that the British had more than adequate intelligence Inc. (ESI) completed Phase III testing at several sites in 2001
in relation to the waterways and landforms surrounding (Smith et al. 2001). FAS also conducted phase I and 11 testing
Pilijiriba. The newly constructed fort, and its associated on the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) property
garrison, would have been a new addition in early 1703. in 1996 and 1998 (Johnson 1996, 1998b). Brockington and
Any information about its size and nature would have been Associates conducted excavations in the U.S. Navy owned
invaluable to the British. This also could have led to the over- portion of Greenfield Peninsula in 2000 (Poplin and Bruce
exaggeration of the size of fort and surrounding communities. 2000). Figure 2 displays the property boundaries and state site
This is, of course, speculation and whether the size of the numbers located on the Greenfield Peninsula. Table 1 presents
Pilijiriba occupation was intentionally skewed or whether this various information on the archaeological projects conducted
was incidental may never be known. What follows is a brief carried out on the Greenfield peninsula since 1988.
discussion of archaeological investigations carried out on the
Greenfield Peninsula. Locating Pilijiriba on the Greenfield Peninsula

Archaeology of the Greenfield Peninsula The piecemeal approach to the archaeological testing
carried out on the Greenfield Peninsula has led to some
The Greenfield Peninsula has long been suspected as discontinuity. Projects have been conducted by three different
the location of Pilijiriba, because it matches the location of CRM firms and the locations subjected to archaeological
the peninsula containing the "Castillo de Pilihiriba" on the survey and testing at a given time involved different levels
previously discussed map. The prospect of finding this fort of testing that were confined to specific land owner properties
led William Jones (1977) to the area in 1957. While Jones or loci within properties designated for developmental
did encounter native artifacts, he did not locate the fort. impact. The peninsula currently consists of ten recorded


t .",Private Property
S. meter

4 DU5543 A9u X

Figure 2. Map displaying property boundaries.

archaeological sites (Figure 2), but the boundaries of several locations, but unfortunately with more than two thousand shovel
sites have been fluid over the years as additional (or more tests and two hundred test units it was simply not possible to
intensive) shovel testing was conducted between sites, display that information. The map I have created indicates the
Boundaries of once separate sites have dissolved and merged extent of San Pedro and San Marcos pottery distributions as
into larger sites. In looking at the totality of work done on bounded by the lack of positive tests for each pottery types.
the peninsula many site boundaries are arbitrary and based on The entire northern half of Greenfield Peninsula was subjected
slight breaks in artifact recovery. The combined archaeology to at least 25-m interval shovel testing. Ideally, a more reduced
has shown that cultural materials dating from the Archaic to interval of testing would create firmer distribution boundaries,
nineteenth-century plantation times are distributed across the but additional testing in not possible since this area has already
entire peninsula. Because my goal is to examine the Greenfield been impacted by residential development.
landform in its totality, I am removing all property lines and While analyzing the data from the various reports, some
archaeological site boundaries. In the following, I synthesize discrepancies were noted. In the Tables 2-9 some counts
the horizontal distribution of pottery on the peninsula with for San Marcos pottery include sherds originally classified
respect to the possible location of Pilijiriba. In effect, I offer simply as grit-tempered plain. Often the authors note that
new interpretations of the Greenfield Peninsula from European grit-tempered plain sherds compare favorably to San Marcos
contact through the occupation of Pilijiriba. wares. In situations where San Marcos sherds were reported
In order to identify where contact- and mission-period and no other grit tempered pottery was present (e.g., Deptford)
occupations took place, we need to understand the distribution I have included sherds originally classified as grit-tempered
of San Pedro and San Marcos pottery across the Greenfield plain as San Marcos Plain.
Peninsula. Figure 3 displays the occurrences of San Pedro As with San Marcos pottery, the classification of San
and San Marcos ceramics. This map was created by plotting Pedro posed some challenges. My analysis includes San Pedro
all previous test units (i.e., 1-x-2-m and 2-x-2-m units), and sherds originally classified simply as "grog-tempered". This is
their corresponding ceramic totals are given by area in Tables primarily due to the fact that San Pedro as a ceramic series was
2-9. My goal was to create a map that showed all excavation not defined until 1997 (Ashley and Rolland 1997). Pre-1997


,Xt X. .
,X X X X h X .

Greenfield Plantation/
S Queens Harbour .Legend
SQueens Harbour A. Area containing significant quantities of
and B-2.
B-1. High concentration of San Pedro pottery.
US Navy Property. Area bounded to west by
mar property line and lack of testing on opposite
X side, not by lack of San Pedro pottery.
X B-2. High concentration of San Pedro pottery.
Previously defined as San Pedro Area.
C-1. Area with significant amounts of San
Pedro and San Marcos ceramics.
C-2. Area containing small quantities of San
Pedro and San Marcos pottery. Area on State
of Florida property as part of the F.N.D. tract.
D. Area containing significant amounts of San
I North Marcos pottery. Includes core area "E.
1 mters 2 E. High concentration of San Marcos pottery.
Ime -Previously defined as San Marcos Area.

Figure 3. Distribution of San Pedro and San Marcos Pottery, Greenfield Peninsula.

reports typically classified theses wares as grog-tempered or 4), and it contains two core areas. Two hundred and thirty five
"Timucuan." In contexts where pre-1997 reports list grog- or shovel tests and eleven 1-x-2-m test units were excavated on
clay-tempered pottery I reclassified them as San Pedro, unless the Navy property. This area (B-l) is a strong candidate for
other grog-tempered wares were present, such as Colorinda. future excavation, because it maintains the potential to yield
In those cases, grog-tempered sherds were not included in my important information on contact- era Mocama and possibly
San Pedro counts (Figures 4 and 5). the visita of San Pablo.
For the purposes of my study, I have divided the Area B-2 was previously defined by FAS and ESI as the
northern portion of the Greenfield Peninsula into a series of "San Pedro Area" (Table 5). No clear demarcation separates
areas (Figure 3). Area A is broad and encompasses most of Areas A, B-l and B-2. San Pedro pottery was consistently
the northern tip of the peninsula. San Pedro pottery is found found throughout Area A. While Areas B-l and B-2 are
throughout this entire area. Included within Area A are two certainly concentrated loci, the decision on where to place
high concentrations of San Pedro pottery (B-l and B-2), but test units certainly had an impact on final ceramic counts. Due
an intermittent distribution of San Pedro pottery covers the to lack of data, I cannot definitively state whether Areas B-l
whole northern tip of the peninsula. The relatively low number and B-2 are contemporaneous or discrete occupations. Table
of test units (other than shovel tests) in the central portion of 5 presents ceramic totals for Area B-2. It should be noted that
Area A, near the naval property, results in an apparent break, if the majority of the San Marcos sherds noted in Table 5 came
one looks purely at quantities of pottery recovered. However, from the very southern edge of Area B-2 near Area C-l.
when the contents of each test unit are examined individually, Area C-l contains a mixture of San Marcos and San Pedro
no break in the distribution exists. Table 2 shows the total pottery. This area is part of the San Pedro Area, as first classified
count of sherds from Area A (including Areas C, B-l, and by Johnson (1998a), but it must be differentiated from Area
B-2), while Table 3 presents ceramic counts for Area A only. B-2 because of the presence of a substantial San Marcos
Area B-1 is situated entirely on U.S. Navy property, and it component. This overlap is likely the result of reoccupation by
is one of the few areas on the peninsula that has not seen recent later Mocama or Guale occupants, possibly households related
development. In fact, no structures are currently present in this to the settlement of Pilijiriba. Table 6 shows the pottery counts
location.. Area B-1 is dominated by San Pedro pottery (Table from Area C-1.


0 3

Figure 4. San Pedro pottery: Top left to right: San Pedro Plain, Sand Pedro Cobmarked. Bottom left to right:
interior surface showing grog and very-coarse quartz inclusions, San Pedro Complicated Stamped with sooted

Figure 5. San Marcos Simple and Cross-Simple Stamped. Note the crisp paddle-edge impressions.


Table 2. Ceramic counts for all of "A" including core Table 4. Ceramic counts from B-1

# of sherds % of assemblage # of sherds % of assemblage
San Marcos 186 3.12 San Marcos 6 0.59
San Pedro 1302 21.85 San Pedro 363 35.59
St. Marys 654 10.97 St. Marys 114 11.18
St Johns 1956 32.82 St Johns 278 27.25
Sand Tempered 1010 16.95 Sand Tempered 40 4.92
All other types 852 14.30 All other types 219 21.47
Total 5960 100.01% Total 1020 101.00%

Table 3. Ceramic counts for "A" not including C-1, B-l, Table 5. Ceramic counts from B-2
or B-2.
# of sherds % of assemblage # of sherds % of assemblage
San Marcos* 76 1.84 San Marcos 6 0.59
San Pedro 432 10.48 San Pedro 363 35.59
St. Marys 526 12.76 St. Marys 114 11.18
StJohns 1589 38.55 StJohns 278 27.25
Sand Tempered 924 22.42 Sand Tempered 40 4.92
All other types 575 13.95 All other types 219 21.47
Total 4122 100.00% Total 1020 101.00%
*San Marcos totals do not include grit-tempered counts due to
the appearance of other grit-tempered wares in the assemblage.

Area C-2 represents an area of San Marcos pottery, was not tested during more intensive investigation in 1998 and
rare in the eastern section of the Greenfield Peninsula. This 2001. The lack of testing in this part of the peninsula explains
location is situated within a larger area of San Pedro pottery. why the San Marcos Area was previously underestimated.
Only twenty four sherds were recovered, but this was based Table 8 shows pottery totals for Area E. Table 9 shows pottery
on shovel testing at 25-m intervals. The potential for further totals for all areas of the newly defined San Marcos Area,
testing in this area exists, because no test units (other than which includes Areas C-l, D, and E.
shovel tests) were placed in the vicinity. Moreover, the area is
part of the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) tract, so Discussion
no development is planned for the near future. Unfortunately,
not enough specific data are available to create a chart for Area As discussed earlier much of what was previously known
C-2. about Pilijiriba was based on historical sources. Conclusions
Area D contains significant amounts of San Marcos drawn from these sources often lacked supporting evidence.
pottery (Table 7). This area is much larger than previously The addition of archaeological data to this discussion as well
defined, as discussed below. The northern half of Area D is as a reexamination of primary sources mandates a revised
part of both 8DU5544 and 8DU5545 (or 8DU5544/45), while interpretation of Pilijiriba. A good example of this is the precise
its southern half lies in 8DU5543. These sites were previously location of Pilijiriba. The key element needed to identify the
defined by Johnson (1988) during Phase I shovel testing. It is Pilijiriba occupation is San Marcos pottery, because it was the
now clear that Areas C-1, D, and E all represent one contiguous signature pottery type produced by the Mocama and Guale by
San Marcos occupation. Pottery from the core part ofArea E is the mid-seventeenth century, or perhaps earlier (Ashley 2008).
presented in Table 8, while Table 7 shows the ceramic counts As indicated in Figure 3 and Tables 2-9, large quantities of
for areas south of Area E. San Marcos pottery were located along the western edge
Area E contains high concentrations of San Marcos of Greenfield Peninsula. Small quantities of San Marcos
pottery. This was previously defined by FAS and ESI as pottery were recovered elsewhere. Most significant was the
the "San Marcos Area." My analysis indicates that the San lack of San Marcos pottery along the northern portion of
Marcos Area is much larger than previously recorded as it the peninsula. In short, the San Marcos ceramic distribution
encompasses all of Area D. Area E represents the core part across the Greenfield Peninsula does not match what would
of the San Marcos pottery concentration. The southern half be expected based on the Spanish map. It is worth pointing
of Area D (i.e., south of the utility easement marked by the out that neither Arnade (1959) nor Hann (1996) had access to
dotted line that runs east-west across the peninsula) was only the archaeological evidence when they wrote their respective
sampled during the 1988 and 1994 FAS projects. This area works.


Table 6. Ceramic counts from C-1. Table 8. Ceramic counts from "E" San Marcos core
# of sherds % of assemblage # of sherds % of assemblage
San Marcos 51 21.25 San Marcos 440 81.48
San Pedro 109 45.42 San Pedro 12 2.22
St. Marys 0 0 St. Marys 0 0
St Johns 19 7.91 St Johns 0 0
Sand Tempered 21 8.75 Sand Tempered 88 16.30
All other types 40 16.67 All other types 0 0
Total assemblage 240 100.00% Total assemblage 540 100.00%

Table 9. Ceramic totals for all of newly defined San
Table 7. Ceramic counts from the southern half of "D." Marcos Area (All of C-1, D, and E).

# of sherds % of assemblage # of sherds % of assemblage
San Marcos 86 56.21 San Marcos 577 61.84
San Pedro 2 1.31 San Pedro 123 13.18
St. Marys 6 3.92 St. Marys 6 0.64
St Johns 10 6.54 St Johns 29 3.11
Sand Tempered 38 24.84 Sand Tempered 147 15.76
All other types 11 7.19 All other types 51 5.47
Total assemblage 153 100.01% Total assemblage 933 100.00%

The ceramic distributions also indicate an important western location was selected for defensive purposes; that is, in
fact: there is very little overlap between areas containing response to the repeated attacks and a desire to be hidden away
San Marcos and San Pedro pottery. In fact, only Area C-I from view (specifically boat travel along the St Johns River
yields appreciable quantities of both types (see Figure 3), and Intracoastal Waterway). Perhaps the spatial separation,
which makes it an interesting intersection point between two albeit slight, between the San Pablo and Pilijiriba occupations
occupations. If the Mocama occupants of San Pablo visita had explains why the name San Pablo was not used for Pilijiriba.
already made the transition from San Pedro to San Marcos Another possibility is that the area historically known as
pottery, we would expect to encounter the two pottery types San Pablo may not have been available due to the presence
together. The ceramic distributions on Greenfield Peninsula of a Spanish hacienda with grazing cattle. San Pablo was
are nearly void of areas where San Marcos and San Pedro mentioned as a potential relocation site for the retreating
pottery overlap. The lack of co-occurrence between the two Guale in 1683. The Guale indicated that the presence of
pottery types suggests that that the occupants of the San Pablo nearby cattle herds would threaten their agricultural fields, so
visita had not transitioned to the production of San Marcos ultimately they did not make the move to San Pablo (Worth
pottery. Thus, I attribute all San Marcos pottery encountered 2007: 38-39). An interesting question that emerges is: Whose
along the western edge of Greenfield Peninsula to Pilijiriba. cattle were these? The presence of cattle not only changes
The western edge of the peninsula is unique in terms of the environmental landscape, but also signals changes in the
native occupation because of its distance from the St Johns sociopolitical landscape. The consequences that Spanish land/
River and the Intracoastal Waterway (San Pablo Creek). cattle owners had on the surrounding natives are unknown.
Although the Greenfield Peninsula is represented by aboriginal Most studies of rancher-native interactions have focused on
occupations spanning the Archaic through late mission areas near St. Augustine and present-day Gainesville (Bushnell
periods, the area chosen for Pilijiriba lacks evidence of earlier 1994; Hann 1996:192). Although Arnade (1961:118) mentions
prehistoric occupations (Table 8). In fact the San Marcos the possibility of small cattle ranches along the coastal islands
Area E contains 440 San Marcos sherds, but only twelve San of northern Florida and southern Georgia, I have found no
Pedro sherds and 88 sand-tempered sherds (Table 8). The mention of cattle ranching on the Greenfield Peninsula or
sand-tempered pottery dominated the region between A.D. among the Mocama. This topic needs further investigation.
100-300 (Ashley 2008:125), but occurred during virtually all Another intriguing characteristic of the pottery
ceramic periods, so the exact age of these sherds is unknown, distributions is that the majority of the San Marcos sherds
Because the location of Pilijiriba had been utilized sparsely were located in one specific geographic area. Pilijiriba has
in prehistoric times suggests it might have been a less than always been noted to have two distinct native towns, one
ideal choice under normal circumstances. Thus, its location Mocama and the other Guale. All the primary sources that I
was chosen for a specific reason. One possibility is that the have seen are unwavering in this characterization as well. The


archaeology forces us to ask a tough question. Were these two Mocama at San Juan. After San Buenaventura was attacked
towns separated geographically, as expected by the map and and burned in October 1684, its occupants finally moved
documents, or were they separate in a political sense? The south (De Luna 1686:fol. 626r-627v). Despite the wishes of
Mocama and Guale at the time of the Pilijiriba occupation the Spanish government, San Buenaventura did not make the
were both makers of San Marcos pottery. To date, no research move to San Juan but instead moved to a location west of San
has been presented indicating an ability to distinguish between Juan on the opposite side of the intracoastal waterway and
turn of the eighteenth-century Mocama and Guale pottery took the name Santa Cruz de Guadalquini (Worth 2007:45)
thus occupations by the two groups are archaeologically The obvious precedent is that both the Guale and Mocama
indistinguishable in the absence of historic documentation, desired to maintain autonomy, even within their own ethnic
Based on the map, what we would expect to see is two groups. Given this precedent living in a single town would
large concentrations of San Marcos ceramics. The presence of not have been appealing to either the Mocama or the Guale.
only one large area of San Marcos ceramics must be explained. Perhaps the unique circumstances that led to the creation of
The first obvious explanation is that the large concentration Pilijiriba led to a unique occurrence. As the earlier document
of San Marcos ceramics that I have indicated represents from Zufiiga y la Cerda indicates, the Guale and Mocama
only one of the towns. If this is the case then there must be a both sought refuge inside the Castillo de San Marcos in
significant spatial separation between the two towns. Looking St Augustine during the British siege. So for at least a few
at the shovel test data the only other area surveyed with an months the Guale and Mocama lived together prior to the
appreciable amount of San Marcos pottery is the FIND tract resettlement of Pilijiriba. It is worth noting that when Pilijiriba
located on the eastern side of Greenfield Peninsula along San was abandoned the Guale and Mocama split again with the
Pablo Creek (see Figure 2). The occurrence of San Marcos Mocama occupying Palica and the Guale Nombre de Dios
pottery in the FIND tract is very isolated. The survey of the Chiquito, both near St Augustine (Ponze de Leon 1706: fol.
U.S. Naval property just north of the FIND area revealed only 407r).
four San Marcos sherds in eleven 1-x-2-m test units, and two One last bit of evidence supporting the one settlement
San Marcos sherds in over 200 shovel tests. The testing done idea is the quantity of San Marcos sherds recovered. Arnade
in the areas just south of the FIND tract in sites 8DU5541 and (1960:68) estimates that the Pilijiriba reoccupation lasted
8DU5542 only yielded four San Marcos sherds. Thus, the for just over two and a half years. Hann (1996:297) gives a
occurrence of San Marcos pottery in the FIND area may be shorter duration of a year and a half. I am inclined to agree
indicative of activity relating to Pilijiriba (e.g., sentinel post, with Hann's estimate, which is confirmed by primary sources,
ferry stop), but it is not a likely candidate for the location of a "They withdrew [from Pilijiriba] in a year and a half forming
second town. towns in Palica and Nombre de Dios Chiquito" (Ponze
With this in mind the other possibility that must be de Leon 1706). If we include the year and a half that the
considered is that the Mocama and Guale lived together at small contingent from San Juan occupied Pilijiriba before
Pilijiriba. By together, I mean in roughly the same geographic Moore's attack, we have roughly three years of documented
area without a distinct separation. I find it highly unlikely occupation. Available data indicate the combined recovery of
that the Mocama and Guale would have lived as one "native" 868 San Marcos sherds compared to 1305 San Pedro sherds.
community without any distinction. It is within reason to The visita of San Pablo was likely a Mocama village before
consider them living side by side as two distinct ethnicities Europeans arrived in Florida. With an occupation of at least
and political entities. If this was the case, it has significant a half century one would expect-a greater disparity in the
implications and raises more questions about the post-Moore ceramic totals. A large population of Mocama and Guale in
social landscape. one location may explain the robust totals for San Marcos
Just prior to the British invasion of 1702 pottery. This disparity could also be the result of sampling,
the Guale occupied three separate towns, (San although more extensive test units were opened up in the two
Phelipe, Tupiqui, and Santa Maria) all located on Amelia San Pedro core areas in Figure 3.
Island. These three communities represented aggregations At this point a keen observer may be wondering where
from different towns on the Georgia coast that moved south the Spanish artifacts are. With a fort and garrison at Pilijiriba
under increasing pressure from the British. The fact that one would expect to find such items. The simple answer is that
these towns remained separate indicates a desire among the no artifacts relating to a Spanish military presence have been
Guale to retain some independence. The story is very similar found. The 2001 ESI report indicates that 23 cultural features
for the Mocama. In 1684 only two Mocama communities were encountered, but none contained San Pedro or San
remained, San Buenaventura de Guadalquini on St Simons Marcos pottery. Nothing structural has been found indicating
Island (Georgia) and San Juan del Puerto on Fort George a fort or even a structure relating to the fort. The absence of
Island. Facing the same pressures from the north as the Guale, Spanish artifacts is so conspicuous that after my initial review
increasing pressure was placed on San Buenaventura by the of the archaeological literature, I questioned whether the fort
Spanish to move south. The Spanish government wanted actually existed. After viewing the primary sources I have
the inhabitants of San Buenaventura to merge with the other concluded that the documentary evidence is too overwhelming


and that a fort must have been constructed. The Castillo at Conclusion
Pilijiriba may have been little more than a small fortification,
but it existed in some form. There are several documents In closing I would like to present the testimony ofa Spanish
written by members of the garrison and other Spanish officials soldier taken in 1707. This is the first of many responses given
at Pilijiriba and many records of visits to and from there. Also to a particular question. To fully understand the significance of
more than a dozen witnesses testified to the construction and Pilijiriba one must understand what the Pilijiriba occupation
maintenance of the fort at Pilijiriba (De Rivera 1707: 704v, preceded. After Moore's attack in 1702 all Mocama and
etc.). These testimonies came as part of Governor Zufiiga y Guale became refugees. This refugee status ended when the
la Cerda's residencia, which occurred after he left office. The decision was made to resettle at Pilijiriba. This decision to
residencia was designed to review the activities of Spanish reoccupy Pilijiriba was certainly not the safest decision and
officials and, in the words of Amade (1960: 67), "was quite is yet one more example of the resilience of the Mocama and
a democratic institution as everyone who had a complaint Guale. This would be the last time that any Native American
against the departed official could come forth and accuse group would live in the area known as the Mocama Province.
him." Not a single person questioned as part of the residencia The aforementioned question is as follows, "If it is known that
suggested that the fort was not built, after the siege the enemy continued their threats and hostilities
The fact that the fort has not been located may not be in the provinces of Apalache, Timucua, and places that the
as discouraging as one might think. Perhaps by locating the Guale and Mocama formed and what is the state of these
fort the true importance of Pilijiriba may be misinterpreted, places and how many Indians do they contain?" (De Pueyo
Many forts were built throughout the years in Spanish Florida, and Horruytiner 1707). Luis Rodrigo's (1707:1102r) answer
including several among the Mocama. The true importance of to this question is as follows.
Pilijiriba is that it was the last occupation by Mocama people
in their native lands as well as the last Guale settlement outside
of the colonial capital of St Augustine. Pilijiriba is often The enemy has destroyed all of the provinces of
mentioned as a small refugee community, existing almost Apalache, Timucua, and Guale and today these
as a post-1702 asterisk to the previous mission occupations. places are unpopulated. The few Indians that remain
These characterizations are based primarily on the length of its from these places are being protected by the governor
occupation. My research shows that the Pilijiriba community under the canon [living within canons shot of the
was not small and in reality contained the residents of four presidio]. They have formed their towns and are
previous towns. The date of 1702 is given to mark the end of sustained by the same ration of beans as the infantry
the coastal mission era, and nothing about Pilijiriba contradicts but they are not able to go out in search of roots for us
this point. Pilijiriba certainly had ecclesiastical activity and because the enemy will imprison them and take them
there is mention of a priest at Pilijiriba, but it was not known to be sold as slaves.
whether this was a resident priest or simply a visitor (Ponze
de Leon 1703: 1042r-1043v). For many people 1702 not only
marked the end of the mission era but the native era in its Acknowledgments
entirety along the coast north of St Augustine. For the latter
this date must be amended to 1704, and Pilijiriba must be I would like to thank Keith Ashley for first suggesting
mentioned. Pilijiriba as a research topic and for providing assistance
The end of the Pilijiriba occupation still remains a mystery. ever since. Keith provided me with a tremendous amount of
There is no explicit evidence for why it was abandoned, material including all of the CRM reports used in my analysis.
Several testimonies indicate that Governor Zufiiga y la Cerda Without Keith's support and input this paper would never have
ordered the fort to be demolished, but no reason was given been possible. I would also like to extend my thanks to Vicki
(De Pefialoza 1707, De Rivera 1707). It can be noted that all Rolland and Robert Thunen both of whom provided input on
of the respondents were in agreement, and each specifically various portions of this paper. Dr. Thunen also was vital in
used the word demolished. This was almost certainly done to modifying the graphics for Figures 2 and 3 into their current
prevent any use by enemy forces, which could explain why form. Michael Francis was instrumental in my education in
the archaeological evidence of the fort is so elusive. Although Spanish Paleography as well as planning my research trip to
archaeologists know that no matter how methodically the fort Spain. And for the funding of my trip to Spain thanks must be
was torn down, some evidence must still remain. It might only given to Dr. Pierre N. Allaire and the UNF Foundation, Dr.
be a series of buried postmolds, but at the very least there Mauricio Gonzalez with UNF student affairs, The National
should be evidence relating to daily activities of the soldiers. Park Service and specifically John C. Whitehurst with the
Given the aforementioned three years of native occupation and Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve.
year and a half of Spanish occupation at Pilijiriba it remains
surprising that no cultural features were found.


References Cited Granberry, Julian
1993 A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua
Amrade, Charles W. Language. University of Alabama Press,
1959 The Siege of St. Augustine in 1702. Gainesville: Tuscaloosa.
University of Florida Press.
1960 Piribiriba on the Salamototo. Jacksonville Historical Hann, John
Society. 1996 A History of the Timucua Indians and Missions.
1961 Cattle Raising in Spanish Florida, 1513-1763. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Agricultural History Vol. 35, No. 3 (Jul., 1961),
pp.116-124. Johnson, Robert E.
1994 Phase II Archaeological Investigations at sites
Ashley, Keith H. 8DU5541, 8DU5542, and 8DU5543 at the Queens
2008 Refining the Ceramic Chronology of Northeastern Harbor Yacht and Country Club, Duval County,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 61:123-131. Florida. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
2009 Straddling the Florida-Georgia State Line: Ceramic 1996 Intensive Archaeological Survey of Florida Inland
Chronology of the St. Marys Region (A.D. 1400- Navigation Tract DU7, Duval County,
1700). In From Santa Elena to St. Augustine: Florida. Report on File, DHR, Tallahassee
Indigenous Ceramic Variability (A.D. 1400-1700), 1998a Phase II Archaeological Investigation of Sites
edited by Kathy Deagan and David Hurst Thomas, 8DU5544 and 8DU5545 Queens Harbor Yacht and
125-139. Anthropological Papers, American Country Club Duval County, Florida, Report on File,
Museum of Natural History Number 90. DHR, Tallahassee.
2013 Grafting onto the Native Landscape: The Franciscan 1998b A Phase II Archaeological Investigation of Florida
Mission System in Northeastern Florida. In From Inland Navigation Tract DU-7 Greenfield Peninsula,
La Florida to La California: The Genesis and Duval County, Florida. Report on File, DHR,
Realization of Franciscan Evangelization in the Tallahassee.
Spanish Borderlands, pp. 143-163. The Academy of
American Franciscan History, Berkeley, CA. Johnson, Robert E., and Ste. Claire, Dana M.
1988 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of the
Ashley, Keith H., and Vicki L. Rolland Greenfield Plantation Tract Duval County, Florida.
1997 Grog-Tempered Pottery in the Mocama Province. Report on file, DHR, Tallahassee.
The Florida Anthropologist 50:51-65.
Jones, William M.
Bushnell, Amy 1977 A Second Spanish Period Log Water Pump, Duval
1994 Situado and Sabana. Athens: University of Georgia County Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 30(3).
Kirkland, Dwight S., and Johnson, Robert E.
De Luna, Fray Pedro 2000 Archaeological Data Recovery at Greenfield Site No.
1686 Letter to the Crown. AGI Santo Domingo, 235 fol. 5, 8DU5541. On File, DHR, Tallahassee.
Milanich, Jerald T.
De Pefialoza, Juan 1971 Surface information from the presumed site of San
1707 Residencia de Joseph Zuhiga y la Cerda. AGI Santo Pedro de Mocama Mission, Conference on Historic
Domingo, 858 fol. 597r. Site Archaeology Papers 5: 114-121.
1996 The Timucua. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Ma.
De Pueyo, Juan and Joseph Benedict Horruytiner
1707 Residencia de Joseph Zuhiga y la Cerda. AGI Santo Ponze de Leon, Luiz
Domingo, 858 fol. 1100 1703 Residencia de Joseph Zuhiga y la Cerda. AGI Santo
Domingo, 858 fol. 1042r-1043v.
De Rivera, Joseph 1706 Residencia de Joseph Zuhiga y la Cerda. AGI Santo
1707 Residencia de Joseph Zuhiga y la Cerda. AGI Santo Domingo, 858 fol. 407r-407v.
Domingo, 858 fol. 704r.
Poplin, Eric C., and Harvey, Bruce G.
Drane, Hank 2000 National Register of Historical Places Evaluation of
1960 They looked for a fort and found a Plantation. Florida 8DU78 US Naval Station Mayport, Duval County,
Times Union, October 9, 1960. Florida


Rodrigo, Luis
1707 Residencia de Joseph Zuiiga y la Cerda. AGI Santo
Domingo, 858 fol. 1102r.

Smith, Greg C., Brent M. Handley, Keith H. Ashley, and
Gregory S. Hendryx
2001 Archaeological Data Recovery and Mitigation at
8DU5544/5545 Queens Harbor Yacht and Country
Club Duval County, Florida. Report on File, DHR,

Worth, John
1998 Timucuan Chiefdoms ofSpanish Florida. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida.
2007 The Struggle for the Georgia Coast. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press.

Zufliga y la Cerda, Joseph
1702 Residencia de Joseph Zuiiga y la Cerda. AGI Santo
Domingo, 858 fol. 840r.
1703 Residencia de Joseph Zuiiga y la Cerda. AGI Santo
Domingo, 858 fol. 381r-381v.


George M. Luer

The Archaeology Foundation, Inc., 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239

I investigate known specimens of a rare, important type of a large, left-handed whelk (Busycon contrarium) shell.
of Florida Indian gorget and pendant that I call "tabbed circle Such whelks occur locally in the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent
artifacts" (TCAs). They apparently were symbolic ornaments estuaries. TCA#19 and #20 appear to date to the latter half
worn for personal adornment. Because of their widespread, of the Manasota period (ca. A.D. 1 to 500) and are products
relatively early contexts in the Middle Woodland and late of a well-developed American Indian tradition of creating
Glades I periods (ca. A.D. 1 to 500), TCAs are significant in tools and ornaments from shells. This tradition flourished in
the study of developing social complexity in Florida. To date, the Manatee-Sarasota region and the wider Glades area to the
I have assembled data on 20 specimens designated TCA#1 south.
through #20. I examine their archaeological contexts and Shell Gorgets in Florida
associations and analyze them for size, fabrication, geographic
occurrence, function, and symbolism. TCAs comprise an important type of gorget. Gorgets
The first TCAs were found at the Crystal River site were worn by many North American Indians and varied in
(8CR1) near the Gulf coast of central Florida. There, Clarence size, shape, and material (e.g., shell, stone, bone, pottery, and
B. Moore (1903, 1907a, 1918) unearthed 11 specimens, all copper). Archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence indicates
fashioned from shell. Since then, nine more (8 shell, 1 bone) that native peoples wore gorgets on the neck or chest, although
have been found at widespread sites in west-central and some might have been worn on an arm and others apparently
southern Florida (Figure 1). were attached to the hair of the head (Coe 1995:Figures 12.3
Sears (1962) attributed Crystal River TCAs to the late and 13.7; Hudson 1976:64, Figures 19, 27, 32, 34, 38, 39,
Deptford-period Yent complex, now thought to date to ca. 60, 102; Jones 1994:128). Shell gorgets and related pendants
100 B.C. to A.D. 100 (Milanich 1994:135-140). However, were secured to a cord and worn, often singly, sometimes
Crystal River TCAs do not come from tightly-dated contexts. in pairs, and sometimes apparently as sets of three or four
Moore unearthed them from three different areas of a large (Keller 2009:90-94; Lorant 1965:63, 71; Moore 1903:396,
burial precinct (Figure 2) consisting of a continuous-use 1907a:416).
mound (Mound F), its surrounding apron (Mound E), and their Archaeological specimens of shell gorgets (fashioned
encircling embankment (Mound C). Research at Crystal River from marine shell body whorl) occur widely in Florida (Figure
by Willey (1949a:320-321, 1949b) and Bullen (1953) showed 1). Early forms are poorly known. In the St. Johns River region,
that these and nearby site components contained ceramics "an unidentified cut and drilled shell gorget" is reported from
primarily of the late Deptford (ca. 100 B.C. to A.D. 200) and "stratigraphic layer 10" dating to the Middle Archaic period
Weeden Island I (ca. A.D. 200 to 500) periods, suggesting an Mount Taylor culture (ca. 4000 B.C.) at the Harris Creek site
age range for TCAs that can be extended by several centuries. (8VO24) on Tick Island (Aten 1999:150, 161). Other possible
Indeed, this and other evidence presented below indicates specimens are mentioned from "the Mount Taylor period level
that TCAs date to ca. A.D. 1 to 500. Such refinement was at Midden 2, Salt Springs Run" (8MR2) (Goggin 1952:88,
anticipated by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980:85), who wrote: 120). Late Archaic-period shell gorgets of varied forms are
"research may show the need for redefining the Yent complex, known from elsewhere in the United States, such as in the
especially regarding whether specific artifact types are Yent or upper Midwest and lower Great Lakes region, where they occur
post-Yent in origin." in the Glacial Kame culture (ca. 3000 to 500 B.C.) (Fitting
I also describe and discuss two previously unreported 1970:82, 88-89; Keller 2009; Ritchie 1965:131-134, Plate 48).
TCAs (#19 and #20). One is from Shaw's Point near southern The latter include "sandal sole" shell gorgets, with an example
Tampa Bay and the other is from the Whitaker Bayou area known from southeastern Florida, where it reportedly was
in Sarasota. Both locations have large site complexes, and I found in the vicinity of Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach County
include information about them so they are not overshadowed (Ryan Wheeler, personal communication, 2013).'
by Crystal River and can take their place among Florida's Also poorly known in Florida are shell gorgets dating to the
important Middle Woodland sites. TCA#19 and #20 were Terminal Archaic (ca. 1000 to 500 B.C.) and Early Woodland
each made from a portion of the extracted outer body whorl (ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. I) periods. In the Tampa Bay area, small




Street Abel Midden
Eagle Nest Shaw's Point
\ Whitaker
Roberts Bay Fort

Pineland Bee Branch I Mound

Addison Key Glade

SChokol Circle

100 km
o* P1D Key

Figure 1. Peninsular Florida. Large bold type shows sites where TCAs have been found. Smaller regular type shows
sites yielding some other gorgets mentioned in the text.

shell discs of body whorl, some with two perforations for (Moore 1907:416). A similar gorget, fashioned from a large
attachment, appear to be gorgets. Examples are reported from piece of outer body whorl from a helmet shell (Cassis sp.),
the Canton Street site (8PI55) in St. Petersburg, possibly dating was found by the late Robert Atwood at Shaw's Point near the
to the Terminal Archaic period (Bullen et al. 1978:Figure mouth of the Manatee River, west of Bradenton.
1 Oa-c, Table 2). Another small, disc-shaped specimen with At Tick Island, shell gorgets display a variety of forms,
two perforations came from the Eagle Nest site (8MA1820), ranging from circular to bar-shaped, and apparently span
on Palma Sola Bay west of Bradenton, and may date to the a long time range. Small plain, disc-shaped specimens with
Terminal Archaic period or Early Woodland portion of the two perforations (resembling those from the Tampa Bay area,
Manasota period (see Hoff and Hoff 2007:Figure 11.51A). mentioned above) may date to the Terminal Archaic period and
Again poorly known are shell gorgets from the Tampa Bay early St. Johns I period (ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 1). From Tick
area made from large pieces of outer body whorl, including the Island, ring-shaped ("annular") shell gorgets with a central,
shoulder. In 1974, I found a broken specimen at the Roberts circular hole may date to the late St. Johns I period (ca. A.D.
Bay site (8SO56) in Sarasota, apparently dating to the latter 1 to 750), while some decorated circular forms may appear
half of the Manasota period (ca. A.D. 1 to 500). Its outer surface in the St. Johns II period (ca. A.D. 750 to 1500). The latter
was ground smooth to the nacreous ("mother-of-pearl") layer, include specimens with a notched exterior margin or a central
and it had two small suspension perforations. I described it as cross depicted by incised lines or in relief. These ring-shaped
"a polished and perforated piece of body whorl cut from the gorgets from Tick Island often have a pair of perforations for
shell of a left-handed whelk" (Luer 1977:123).2 It resembles attachment, although some have four, three, one, or none (Jahn
some gorgets from Crystal River that were "wrought from and Bullen 1978:Figures 20, 25k, 40, 41,46, 48).
considerable parts of body-whorls" so that they "somewhat A variety of forms also was found among shell gorgets at
resemble shallow drinking-cups, though the presence of small the Crystal River site. In his excavations, Moore (1903:396-
perforations for suspension places them in the gorget class" 397, Figures 41 and 42) recovered gorgets that were "roughly


Thousand Islands (Moore 1900:Figure 17), one fashioned
S[ from the shell lip of a queen conch (Strombus gigas) at Upper
30 m Matecumbe Key (8M017) in the Florida Keys (Goggin and
S.,.,.: Sommer 1949:58, Plate 7F), and one made from a piece of
~u.n, ..,, possible left-handed whelk body whorl at the Patrician Mound
,' (8PB99) in Palm Beach in southeastern Florida (Ritchie et
.. al. 1981:28, Figure 4; Wheeler et al. 2002:129-131, Figure
11). Another effigy shell gorget, carved in the form of an
SD apparent alligator, came from the Abel Shell Midden on
-' \ _, Terra Ceia Island (Armistead 1959). Such effigy specimens
c F are expressions of the Glades Complex, and similar forms of
Ssmaller size occur among metal ornaments of the Terminal
S E ""'E Glades Complex (e.g., Allerton et al. 1984:36; Beiter 2001:39,
:, Figure 13; Goggin n.d.:586-587; Wheeler 2000:140-142).
D v. Some Mississippi-period sites in northwestern Florida
1 "\\ have yielded engraved shell gorgets. Similar specimens were
i l, widespread in the Southeast during the Mississippi period and
S .. are among the best-known shell gorgets made by precolumbian
Sijl American Indians (e.g., Brain and Phillips 1999; Sullivan
2001). These display varied styles, date to different times, and
had different functions in different cultures. Florida specimens
include Williams Island-style or "spaghetti-style" engraved
Figure 2. Crystal River's central burial area. "C" labels shell gorgets from Jackson County in the Florida panhandle
Mound C, the encircling embankment. "D" marks enclosed and from a large mound at the Lake Jackson site (8LEI)
level area. "E" refers to Mound E, an elevated apron. "F" near Tallahassee. The latter consist of three specimens, each
indicates Mound F, a conical mound. Arrow points to from under the occipital of an adult burial in the uppermost
the general area of highest Mound C where TCA#11 was (most recent) floor of Mound 3, radiocarbon dated to the
found. Adapted from Moore (1903:Figure 16). late A.D. 1300s or early A.D. 1400s (Jones 1994:128; Payne
1994; Scarry 1990, 1996; Wheeler 2001:69-71, 73). Clearly,
Florida's native peoples had a long tradition of making and
circular," "scoop-shaped," collar-shaped, and six-lobed. These wearing shell gorgets.
appear to date to Middle Woodland times.
At Key Marco (8CR48) in southwestern Florida, shell Tabbed Circle Artifacts
gorgets have mostly circular and oblong shapes. Carved from
pieces of whelk shell outer body whorl, they date to the Glades TCAs have a primarily circular outline with an extension
II and III periods (ca. A.D. 800 to 1500) (Gilliland 1975:175, or tab (Figure 3). The tab was an attribute distinct from other
Plates 112-114; Moore 1900:Figure 9, 1907b:Figure 7). These circular or disc-shaped gorgets and pendants. Shaped like a
include two discoidal specimens, with concave-convex sides, flat extension or rounded knob, the tab apparently aided in
each with a cut-out ("fenestrated") four-armed cross (Gilliland attaching a cord for suspension, and it was an integral part of
1975:Plates 113, 114). Both are similar to a third specimen the symbolic form. Seventeen of the 20 TCAs in this study
from nearby Goodland Point (8CR45) (Moore 1907b:Figure display a central, circular hole, often quite large. On some
10). Other shell gorgets from Key Marco include a perforated specimens, the hole is surrounded by concentric circles carved
and red-painted valve of a lion's paw (Lyropecten nodosus) on the obverse and, in one case, the hole is at the center of
as well as a body whorl effigy gorget carved in the shape of a an incised equilateral cross. On most TCAs, the obverse is
lion's paw (Gilliland 1975:175, 179, Plate 112A, C). "bulged" outward (convex), whereas the reverse is "dished"
Similar ornaments are known from elsewhere in southern inward (concave). Known TCAs lack perforations for
Florida. For example, a perforated lion's paw valve came from suspension, except TCA#4 and #11, each with a single small
Terra Ceia Island near southern Tampa Bay (probably from the perforation drilled near the outer edge, possibly after the tab
Abel Shell Midden [8MA83A]), and an effigy gorget with the snapped off. Large-size TCAs can be identified as gorgets and
shape and size of a perforated lion's paw valve carved from a small ones as pendants. Such a distinction (pendant versus
piece of apparent horse conch (Pleuroploca gigantea) body gorget) reflects positions along a size continuum. TCAs might
whorl came from the Bee Branch 1 site (8GLl/8HN17) near have been worn on the head, neck, or chest, but the precise
La Belle and the Caloosahatchee River (Luer 2000).3 Other manner(s) in which they were worn is not known.
shell gorgets shaped like a lion's paw or large scallop valve
include an incised specimen from Goodland Point in the Ten


Contexts of TCAs

Most available data for associations of TCAs can be
gleaned from Moore's accounts of Crystal River, where they
occurred with human burials. Moore unearthed TCA#1 and #2 #1 #2
(Figure 3) in 1903 on his first visit to the site. They came from
the large, continuous-use burial mound (Mound F) and its
surrounding apron (Mound E), another apparent continuous-
use burial area (Figure 2). TCA#1 and #2 were among 105
"pendant ornaments of shell" from a number of burials also
accompanied by 11 shell gorgets and other goods (Moore
1903:397, Figure 43). The 11 shell gorgets consisted of four #5
"roughly circular" gorgets with varied numbers of suspension
perforations, four "scoop-shaped" gorgets with a single central
hole, two collar-shaped gorgets, and one with six-lobes and a
central perforation (Moore 1903:396-397, Figures 41 and 42). #3 #6
On a second visit to Crystal River in 1906, Moore
unearthed TCA#3 through #10 (Figures 4 and 5) when he dug
in the southern and western toe of Mound F and the remaining
portion of Mound E. He called them "annular" (ring-shaped)
gorgets "having a projection to which a cord could be
attached" and pictured four of them (Moore 1907a:406, 416,
Figures 13 through 16). These TCAs were among- at least 3cm
40 shell gorgets unearthed in 1906, carved from shell body
whorl (some including the shoulder) and with "one, two, or
three perforations for suspension" (Moore 1907a:416). Most Figure 3. TCA#1 through #6 from Crystal River. From
lacked incised decoration and were not pictured by Moore (an Moore (1903, 1907a).
exception was a trapezoidal gorget with a single perforation
[Moore 1907a:Figure 12]). Burial No. 11, partly flexed to the left, had
Intriguingly, some of these shell gorgets were found below it and crushed against it a skeleton of a child.
cupped or nested together, suggesting that they were tied and Possibly at the neck of the adult, or perhaps belonging
worn together, when used in life. Indeed, Moore (1907a:416) to the child, were four pendants of shell and one of
wrote that: limestone. With these was a gorget of shell having
a large, central, circular excision and rude, incised,
concentric circles on the convex side.
Series of two and of three gorgets were found,
usually with burials, and in one instance four gorgets
lay together. Each series had gradation of size, the This is the best description for the context of any TCA.
smaller lying within the larger. Moore (1918:572) also noted that Burial No. 11 had hematite
(red ochre), bits of sandstone, and two stone pendants under
the knees of the adult. These "pendants" of shell and stone,
Moore also reported that shell beads tended to be appear to be plummet-pendants, of which Moore found many
uncommon at Crystal River, but that some gorgets were with burials at Crystal River.
associated with small, perforated marine shells used as beads. Indeed, multiple pendants were found with some Crystal
In one case, "a considerable number" of tiny perforated River interments. For example, near the skull of a "bunched"*
shells that he identified as the common Atlantic marginella burial ("5 feet" deep in southern Mound F) were four faceted l
(Marginella apicina) "lay with gorgets near scattered bones" clear quartz crystal plummet-pendants and 16 other ornaments
(Moore 1907a:416). including a small discoidal stone gorget with two suspension
During a third visit to Crystal River in 1917, Moore holes, an "amethystine quartz" pendant, two stone effigy
(1918:572) dug in the highest southern part of Mound C, canine teeth pendants, and assorted stone beads (of slate,
another continuous-use burial area (Figure 2). He uncovered catlinite, fine-grained igneous rock, and an unidentified
24 flexed and full-length (prone) interments and portions material) (Moore 1903:400, Figure 52). Another burial had 10
of other burials disturbed by the Indians during times of stone plummet-pendants (Moore 1903:Figure 47). Yet another
interment. With an apparent double burial, called "Burial No. interment (an adult extended on its back at the southern base
11," Moore found TCA#11 that lacks a tab, perhaps broken off of Mound F) had a row of 3 copper and 39 stone plummet-
(Figure 5). Moore (1918:572) described its context: pendants stretching across the waist and lower left arm as well


#7 #8 #9


S#10 .: #3 2 cm

Figure 4. TCA#3 and #7 through #10 from Crystal River. Figure 5. TCA#11 from Crystal River. Based on image at
Based on image at NMAI (all five have cat. #170371). NMAI (cat. #082254).

as two ground black bear canines, two ground bear molars, sherds of Deptford and Weeden Island types. Bullen (1953)
and a cut and perforated puma mandible (Moore 1903:399- analyzed sherds from the nearby midden, identifying an upper
400; Reiger 1999:227-228; Wheeler 2011:149, 160). Such Weeden Island zone (containing Dunns Creek Red sherds)
abundant, valuable grave goods support the interpretation and a lower Deptford zone (lacking Dunns Creek Red). He
that many interments in Crystal River's Mounds C, E, and F offered a speculative period sequence for the burial complex,
represent high-status or high-ranking individuals, viewing lower Mound F as Deptford, Mound E as Deptford
The only other intra-site context we have for TCAs and Weeden Island I, Mound C as Weeden Island I and
concerns a small, carved bone pendant (TCA#17) from the II, and upper Mound F as Weeden Island II (Bullen 1953).
Miami Circle/Brickell Point site (8DA12) in southeastern Bullen tested his sequence with excavations in 1960, adding a
Florida. Wheeler (2004a:150-151) states that it came from a Deptford-period component to the base of Mound C (Bullen
midden deposit in the center of the Miami Circle. No human 1965:10). This supports the interpretation that TCAs at Crystal
burials are known for the Miami Circle component of the River came from deposits of the Deptford and Weeden Island
Brickell Point site (Elgart and Carr 2006). Thus, TCA#17 periods.
was not associated with a human burial. Clearly, the carefully Willey and Sears assigned Crystal River TCAs to
carved and symbolic TCA#17 had value and meaning, and its archaeological cultures and periods. This was despite a lack
deposition in the Miami Circle might have been intentional of feature data associating TCAs with other tightly dateable
or, considering its small size, perhaps it was simply lost by artifacts. Willey (1949a:596-597, Plate 24f) assigned TCA#5
accident. Regardless, its presence in the Miami Circle supports (called a "shell gorget") to the Santa Rosa/Swift Creek culture
its use there. Given the probable importance of the Miami and period, and he included it among photographs of artifacts
Circle as a special, ceremonial, or high-status space, it seems from northern Florida sites he placed in that complex. Sears
consistent that an object such as TCA#17 would have been (1962:8, 13-14, Figure 2j) considered TCA#1 and other "cut
used or worn in such a setting. shell ornaments" part of the Yent and Green Point complexes
of the late Deptford and Swift Creek periods, respectively,
Age of TCAs and he pictured TCA#1 among northern Florida artifacts that
he assigned to those complexes. Sears overlooked the fact
A general age estimate of ca. A.D. 1 to 500 can be made that TCAs had not been found in any site, other than Crystal
for TCAs. Again, the best evidence comes from Crystal River, River, which had yielded artifacts of the Yent and Green Point
although of a general nature. The site's available radiocarbon complexes. Thus, while it is possible that TCAs are coeval
dates fall mostly in the ca. 100 B.C. to A.D. 600 time range with one or both complexes, their inclusion is not certain.
(Pluckhahn et al. 2010), and a similar age is supported by The Miami Circle, where TCA#17 and #18 were found,
ceramics. Willey (1949a:320-321) classified sherds pictured produced radiocarbon dates in the latter half of the Glades I
by Moore from Mounds E and F, which included Deptford period (ca. A.D. 1 to 500) (Carr and Ricisak 2000:Table 2).
types (Alligator Bayou Stamped, Deptford Simple Stamped) The Miami Circle bone specimen (TCA#17) is similar in
and Weeden Island types (Weeden Island Plain, Weeden style (size, form, and concentric incised circles) to TCA#1
Island Punctated, Keith Incised). Willey (1949b) also made and #2 from Crystal River, suggesting a similar age. Given
a surface collection from Mounds F and C that included such similarities in style, and given radiocarbon dates from


Table 1. Tabbed circle artifacts (TCAs). All are shell, except one of bone. Approximate dimensions record maximum length
along two axes: height (including tab) and width (perpendicular to height). Measurements are based mostly on images with

TCA# Site of Origin Tab, Central Height by Width (mm), Source(s)
Hole Present? Description of Incisions
#1 Crystal River Yes, yes 36 x 28; Moore 1903:397, Fig. 43 (4th from
(8CI I), Md. E/F 3 nested circles upper right); NMAI cat. #170602
#2 Crystal River Yes, yes 36 x 24; Moore 1903:397, Fig. 43 (3rd from
(8CI ), Md. E/F 5? nested circles upper right); NMAI cat. #170602
#3 Crystal River Yes, yes 118 x 100; Moore 1907a:415-416, Fig. 13; NMAI
(8CII), Md. E/F None cat. #170371
#4 Crystal River No (broken off?), 63 x 64; Moore 1907a:415-416, Fig. 14; NMAI
(8C1), Md. E/F yes 3 nested circles cat. #170366
#5 Crystal River Yes, yes 90 x 75; Moore 1907a:415-416, Fig. 15; NMAI
(8CI I), Md. E/F 7 to 8 nested circles cat. #170373
#6 Crystal River Yes, yes 84 x 61; Moore 1907a:415-416, Fig. 16; NMAI
(8Cll), Md. E/F 5 to 6 irregular nested circles cat. #170372
#7 Crystal River Yes, yes 52 x 50; none NMAI cat. #170371
(8Cll), Md. E/F
#8 Crystal River Yes, yes 99 x 85; NMAI cat. #170371
(8Cll), Md. E/F 5 nested circles
#9 Crystal River Yes, yes 80 x 66; none NMAI cat. #170371
(8CII), Md. E/F
#10 Crystal River Yes, yes 117 x 99; none NMAI cat. #170371
(8C1), Md. E/F
#11 Crystal River No (broken off?), 70 x 74; Moore 1918:572; NMAI cat. #082254
(8CI1), Md. C, Burial No. yes 5 nested circles
#12 Chokoloskee Island Yes, yes 47 x 40; Moore 1907b:462, Fig. 18
(8CRI) 4-armed cross
#13 Golden Glade 1 or 2 Yes, yes ? x 22; none Willey 1949c:109;
(8DA46, 8DA47) Goggin n.d.:544
#14 Surfside Midden Broken off, no 130 x 95 (estimated, broken); Goggin n.d.:131, 612
(8DA21) none
#15 Pineland (8LL33) Yes, yes 116 x 70; none Patton 2013:561, Fig. 10d
#16 "Lee County," Addison Yes, yes Approx. 30 x 20; obverse not Dubin 1999:Fig. 271
Key? (8CR35)? shown
#17 Miami Circle/ Brickell Yes, yes 17 x 13; Wheeler 2004a:150-151, Fig. 11,
Point (8DA 12) 5 nested circles, carved bone 2004c:Fig. 12
#18 Miami Circle/ Brickell Broken off, no ? x 73; none Wheeler 2004b:163, Fig. 5a, Table 5
Point (8DA 12)
#19 Shaw's Point Yes, yes 92 x 76; none this article, Figure 8
(8MA7, 8MA27)
#20 "Whit. B." Yes, no 75 x 66; none this article, Figure 11
(cf. 8SO39)

the Miami Circle and Crystal River's Mounds C, E, and F that 1918) at Crystal River's Mounds C, E, and F. Moore (1907b)
overlap in the general range of ca. A.D. 1 to 500, this time also reported another (TCA#12, Figure 6) from Chokoloskee
range appears to be a reasonable estimate for the general age Island (8CR1) in the Ten Thousand Islands of southwestern
ofTCAs. A more definite determination is hampered by a lack Florida. Chokoloskee Island is a large shellworks with
of radiocarbon dates from secure contexts yielding TCAs, and extended habitation by native people, spanning the Glades
because most do not have tight provenience I, II, and III periods (ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 1750) (Carr et al.
Review ofFinds In 1949, archaeologists John Goggin and Gordon Willey
recorded a specimen (TCA#13) from the Golden Glade 1
Table 1 lists 20 known TCAs, and Figure 1 shows where or 2 site (8DA46, 8DA47) in southeastern Florida, where it
they were found over the last 110 years. As discussed above, was unearthed in 1936 by Federal Relief excavations. Willey
TCAs #1 through #11 were unearthed by Moore (1903, 1907a, (1949c:109) described TCA#13 as small, with a central hole


Ta f p Bayou Shaw'6

#15 8 A

#18 Boyou 43o

s; o e of T 5 fm P d
L ex"o S g- "
2013:Figure d); TCA#17 from Miami Circle (Wheeler at the Pineland site (8LL33) in Lee County, southwestern

lacks incising and has a central hole and tab. It was reported
a #17d

Figure 6. and an apparently plain convex obverse that was "ground was noint stated and mouth of Manatee Rivuncertain (Patton 2013:560-561, from
Chokdown." Goggin (n.d.:544) knew of (from Moore 1907b);'s Chokoloskee of Figure Od).
specimen, and he called it and the Golden Glade specimen In 1999, a photograph of TCA#16 was published by
TCA#16"nubbed shell gorgets" and cited their similarity to TCAs Dubin (1999:158, illustration 271). The image shows its1999:Figure

271);ound by Moore ofat Crystal River. Unfortunatelandy, we lack an small size, elongated tab, and plain, concave reverse (Figure
2013:Figure TCA#13. Ages of the Golden Gladmi Cirle (Wheel and 2 sites 6). the Pin eland site e eAmerican Indian (MAI;southwestern
2004b:Figuare poorly known, but Wll redrawn, ex(1949c:90-92) reported that they extraccession number 17/1145) anded whelk shell (Fattributed to "Lee County"
lacks incising and has a central hole and tab. It was reported

as ayielded sherds of the Glades II and early Glades III periods in southwestern Florida. My attempts to locate ty; its provenience
ca.nd an apparently plain convex obverse that was "ground was not Nstatioed and its age is uncertain (Patton 2013:560-561Indian (NMAI),
Also Goggin ( n (n.d.:612) reported a large, broken havFigure d).been unsuccessful. Goggin (n.d.:540-542) indicates that
specimen, and he called it and the GolMidden (8Glade specimen MAI accession numbers 17/1134 to 17/1137 and 17/1149 (toby
"nubbed shell gorth Miami Beach. It was fashiongets" and cited their similarity to TCAs Dubin (1999:158, illustradention 271). Tfy shell and ston image showbeads itsfrom
foundlat" piece of queen conch lip, had a tab or tangately, we lack an small sizrge, complex shellworks of Addisin, conave reverse (Figu8CR35),
yieldd shers identification. We lac an y Glades II periods in sothat it came from ddida so. aKe. Tese arocate t aparentyt
it reA.D. 7sembles50 TCA#18 (below). The Surfsiblidy earlie Midden is now were acquiret byNational Musoore (1905:311)e in ther eanrly 1900s, whenMAI)

mostly destroyed in 1949, but Goggin (n.d.:131-132)2) reported andrge, broken have been unsuccessful. Gogginwas in Lee County (beforen.d.:540-542) indicates that
shell dis(1949c:81, Table 914) from the Surfside Midlate Glades I creat accession numbers 17/1134 to 17/1137 and 17/CA#149 (to
throuh koloee lades II prios aioned from a "eav, fary eithyer anyo ar#tifacts wit accessio n n beras los o
TCA t piee o uees oro Addison Key rhsed by MA in 1 (eis n 1 5,
2013:Figurebroken off and missing, and lacked a central hole and incised locat the Pineland site (8LL33) in Lee County, southeast of Keyern
decoration. Wheeler (2004:163) interpreted it as a TCA, and Marcorida. This srouggests that TCA#worked from ais pieartce of outhis same series
2004b:FI follow his identification. We lack an image of TCA#14, but and that it came from a left-handed whelk shese artifacts apparentlyCA#15

andit resembles TCA#18 (below). The Surfside thatMidden iwas "groundow was notere acquired byand its agMoore is(1905:311) uncertain (Patthe early 1900s, when
mostly destroyed, but Goggin (n.d.:131-132) and Willey Addison Key was in Lee County (before Collier County was10d).

(image of949c:81, Table 9) reps of the Golden Glae and 2 sites 6).I created), perhaps explaining Museum of the ascriptiocan IndiofTCA#16 to "Lee(MAI;
througyielded sherds of the Glades II and early Glades III periods ( southwestern Florida. My attempts to locate1400). County." Manythe artifacts with accession numbers close toin

In the late 1980s or early 1990s, TCA#15 was found 17/1145 were purchased by MAI in 1929 (Weisman 1995:77,


of TCA#17 in another source (Wheeler 2004c:Figure 12) is.
inaccurate because it shows only four circles.
TCA#18 came from Excavation Area 1, the block
excavation centered over the Miami Circle (Wheeler
2004b:163, Figure 5a, Table 5). It is carefully ground into a
Scircular form with a tab, now broken and missing (Figure 6).
Based on the shell's considerable thickness (11 mm), relative
flatness, and layered structure, perhaps TCA# 18 was fashioned
from a piece of queen conch lip instead of left-handed whelk
shell, as first identified by Wheeler (2004b:Figure 5a, Table 5).
Its thick, dense, laminated structure might have discouraged
creation of a central hole. TCA#18's missing tab, lack of
incising, absence of a central hole, and fabrication from a
heavy piece of shell resemble TCA#14.
Figure 8. TCA#19 from Shaw's Point ("De Sota Landing").
Left: obverse convex side. Right: reverse concave side. Two New Specimens
Images provided by South Florida Museum.
The two TCAs reported here (#19 and #20) are in
Table 8), accounting for their presence at NMAI. Radiocarbon the South Florida Museum and Bishop Planetarium/
dates from Addison Key support habitation during late Glades Parker Manatee Aquarium (SFM) in Bradenton, Florida.
I and Glades II times (Southwest Florida Archaeological Documentation supports their origins from Shaw's Point in
Society 2007:16-19). Manatee County and near Whitaker Bayou in Sarasota (Figure
Two TCAs (#17 and #18) were unearthed in the late 7). Though somewhat rough in appearance, they are attractive
1990s during excavations in downtown Miami at the Miami objects with some artistic merit. I first saw them in May, 2000,
Circle/Brickell Point site and are in the collection of the while working at SFM to assess shell and bone artifacts in the
Historical Museum of Southern Florida, in Miami. TCA#17, museum's Montague Tallant Collection (Luer 2000).
a very small, knobbed pendant of carved bone, was found Tallant was a collector of American Indian artifacts who
in a midden deposit in the central area of the Miami Circle lived in Manatee County and amassed large collections in the
(Wheeler2003:27,2004a:150-151). Figure 6 shows TCA#17's early and mid-twentieth century. My assessment was one of
five concentric circles. The two outermost circles are partially a series of studies by archaeologists in preparation of a new
obscured by erosion (see Wheeler 2004a:Figure 11). A drawing exhibition at SFM. Ceramic and metal artifacts were classified
by Jeffrey Mitchem and Bonnie McEwan, and lithic artifacts
were examined by Robert Austin. We were part of a Scientific
Advisory Committee that provided guidance for the first phase
of the exhibition, "Strengthening the Legacy," which opened
SMin Fall 2002. Because of my interest in TCA#19 and #20,
Suzanne White, then-curator at SFM, placed both on public
display in the exhibition.
Though displayed in the Tallant Gallery, it is important
to state that TCA#19 and #20 are not from the SFM Tallant
Collection. Instead, they have a different source and history.
They were among artifacts acquired in Florida many years ago
and taken northward, apparently by a visiting "northerner."
They were in a large collection of artifacts that belonged to a
man named Merritt Simpson in the early decades of the 1900s.4
The collection was donated to the Mohawk Caughnawaga
Museum (MCM) near Fonda, New York, where TCA#19 and
#20 were catalogued in 1940 and 1941 (Fort Plain Museum
[FPM] 1996).
At MCM in the early 1940s, the artifacts were given
accession number "426G." This apparently was done by
Thomas Grassmann, with "G" signifying "Grassmann" (Dean
Snow, personal communication 2006). Grassmann was a
priest responsible for MCM under the Franciscan Order of
Figure 9. Portion of left-handed whelk shell used to make Minor Conventuals. In the 1930s through 1960s, Grassmann
TCA#19. was involved in establishing MCM and in excavating the


Ma e R r of elevated 8MA7
Manatee River i r

s Shaw 's N
vicinity Point
of eroding .. ... ark
cemetery ,-- a
". ",so A EU I building

EU2 %,
S\ river
\ /"',, \ cove
S~ ''---V--- `-'---- -ditch
upland park

Figure 10. Shaw's Point and De Soto National Memorial. Note: 8MA27; a cemetery at the western end of 8MA7; Excavation
Unit 1 (EU1) in "Marker Mound" and Excavation Unit 2 (EU2) in "Remnant Mound" (based on Schwadron 2002:60, Figure

Caughnawaga Indian Village site, near Fonda (Wetterau specimen's reverse ("F" perhaps signifies "Florida"). A de-
2002). In 1996, MCM merged with FPM in Fort Plain, New accession list prepared by MCM in 1996 identifies this artifact
York. At that time, Florida artifacts in the MCM collection by its code and states that it was "donated" and "catalogued
were de-accessioned. In March 1997, the Florida artifacts in 1941" and that its provenience is "De Sota [sic] Landing,
were sent from FPM to SFM in order to return them to their Manatee County, Florida" (MCM 1996). Also, written lightly
area of origin (FPM 1996; Wetterau 2002). Thus, after being in pencil on the artifact's reverse is "D.L. 41" (apparently an
in New York State for more than a half century, TCA#19 and abbreviation for "De Sota Landing" and "1941").
#20 were returned to Florida. I interpret this information to mean that TCA# 19 came
from Shaw's Point at the mouth of the Manatee River, close
TCA#19 to Tampa Bay (Figure 7). Since at least the early 1900s,
many people have viewed this locality as the landing area
TCA#19 (Figure 8) was fashioned from a piece of left- of Hernando De Soto,5 and the informal name "De Sota
handed whelk shell. Its approximate height is 92 mm (3.7 in) Landing" refers to it. This is supported by another mid-1900s
and its approximate width is 76 mm (3 in). The maximum collector of American Indian artifacts, Ralph W. Burnworth of
diameter of its central hole is approximately 25 mm (1 in). Bradenton, who used the name "De Sota Landing" for Shaw's
TCA#19 resembles TCA#3, #9, and #10 from Crystal River Point (Burnworth n.d.).6
and TCA#15 from Pineland in its form and fabrication from a Shaw's Point (Figure 10) was the location of a very large
similar piece of whelk body whorl (Figure 9). Indian shell midden, shell mound, and burial complex with
TCA#19's convex obverse takes advantage of the a long history of habitation and use, beginning at least 2,000
naturally curved, bulging form of the outer body whorl. The years ago and continuing into the historic period (Mitchem
artisan cleverly shaped the artifact's tab from the constricting, 1989:158-160; Schwadron 2000, 2002). Most impressive
basal portion of the whorl, while using the shell's shoulder was the massive, eroding, cliff-like exposure of the high shell
to make the artifact's opposite, rounded edge (Figure 9). On mound that overlooked the river in the late 1800s (Figure 10).
the obverse surface, the artisan maintained the shell's natural It stretched for approximately 170 m (560 ft) along the river's
sculpturing of ridges and growth lines. The reverse surface edge and reached a height of approximately 4.5 to 6 m (15 to
is smooth and concave, like the original shell. TCA#19 was 20 ft), attracting the attention of early archaeologists such as
shaped through a reductive process of chipping that created an S. T. Walker, Frank Cushing, and Wells Sawyer (Kolianos and
uneven edge, which was roughly smoothed by grinding. Weisman 2005:66, 148, Figure 4.3; Walker 1880). Tragically,
Written on the reverse of TCA#19 is the identification most of this elevated shell ridge was hauled away for road fill
code "426G-F292." As explained above, "426G" was the in the very early 1900s (Schwadron 2002:57).
collection number at MCM. "F292" appears to be the specimen Before shell mining and for many years after, the
number, which is typed on a small, old paper tag pasted on the shore along the western side of Shaw's Point contained


Figure 11. TCA#20 from Whitaker Bayou/Indian
Beach area. Left: obverse convex side. Right:
reverse concave side. Images provided by South
Florida Museum.

archaeological deposits that were eroding into the Manatee
River. These deposits included the Shaw's Point Burial Mound
(8MA27) as well as portions of the Shaw's Point shell midden
(8MA7). The latter included a cemetery or burial area "in
the low mangrove swamp at the west end of [the] living site
and beach erosion has exposed many of them [the burials]" Figure 12. Portion of left-handed whelk
(Tallant quoted in Schwadron 2002:60). Thus, this eroding shell used to make TCA#20.
cemetery was east of 8MA27 and west of the rest of 8MA7
(Figure 10). driven transport of sediment, involving erosion of its western
Erosion along the western side of Shaw's Point was a shore and sedimentation on its eastern side.7 The eroding I'
natural process linked to the shape and dynamic nature of the "beach" along the western side of Shaw's Point was a popular
landform itself, which was ongoing before, during, and after collecting place of Indian artifacts through much of the 1900s.
the time of Indian habitation. In geomorphic terms, Shaw's Artifacts were found along the shore as well as on the adjacent
Point is an "asymmetrical cuspate spit" formed through wave- tidal flats. Manatee County residents Robert Atwood, Mark i

Along the Beach.

Figure 13. Eroding shore of Sarasota Bay, north of Whitaker Bayou (from Arnold ca. 1915). Note abundant midden shells
below high tide line.


-pIER. ".


200 m .

S039 S0 S4494

S93 S04493

Sarasota Bay


Figure 14. Whitaker Bayou. Top shows undeveloped north side in early 1940s (United States Coast and Geodetic Survey
1943). Bottom shows subdivided lots and sites, including Weber Mound (8S020) and Bullock Mound (8S093). Star marks
parcel in Figure 17.

Figure 15. Shell plummets from Alameda Way Midden found by Chester Bullock, ca. 1925 to 1975. a-i: horse conch
columellae; j-l: fragmentary horse conch columellae; m: queen conch lip; n-p: left-handed whelk columellae.


These radiocarbon dates support habitation primarily ini
the middle to late Manasota period, especially ca. A.D. 1 to,
500. They come from deposits close to the river's edge, where
collectors recovered many artifacts. These ages compare well
-4 with the apparent age of TCAs and are compatible with the'
possible age of TCA#19.


TCA#20 (Figure 11) is in excellent condition and has a
sr height of approximately 75 mm (3 in) and a width of 66 mmn
(2.6 in). The shell is hard, clean, and has a bleached whitish
color, suggesting it is a "beach" find. It shows no leaching or
related degradation, indicating it was not buried in a matrix K
of sand, as in a sand mound. Its edge is ground smooth and it
lacks a central hole.
c- i 8 TCA#20 was fashioned from an especially thick piece
of outer body whorl that came from a very large, robust left-
Figure 16. Stone plummets from Alameda Way Midden handed whelk shell (Figure 12). The artifact's convex obverse :
found by Chester Bullock, ca. 1925 to 1975. a-f: limestone; has a series of natural growth lines. Such very pronounced,
g: sandstone; h: mineralized fossil bone. step-like growth increments occur rarely. This piece of shell
apparently was selected for this unusual effect and the growth
Burnett, Ralph Burnworth, Charles Earle, Montague Tallant,s increments were used to create a set of horizontal lines and a
and others found numerous artifacts there, such as pottery clapboard-like surface on the front of the artifact. In contrast,
sherds, tools of worked shell, stone, and bone, and shell the reverse is concave and smooth, like the shell's original
and stone plummets (Burnworth n.d.; Luer 1986:140, 2000, inner surface. The projecting tab also preserves the natural i
2012:Table 2; Malesky 1992; MAI n.d.; Mitchem 1999:30-32; quality of the shell, which has many tiny holes (caused by a
Schwadron 2002:59-62). marine invertebrate boring sponge, Cliona sp.) that might have
TCA# 19 consists of clean, slightly bleached, "hard" shell been in this tab portion of the shell before it was fashioned into
(not leached, degraded, "soft" shell, as from a sand mound), a gorget.
suggesting that it came from a shell-rich matrix. This is Written on the reverse of TCA#20 is the identification
consistent with 8MA7, which had dense shell deposits. It also code "426G-F219." Again, "426G" was the collection number :
may apply to the eroding burial mound, 8MA27, which Tallant at MCM, and "F219" appears to be the specimen number (the
(ca. 1940:site No. 12) noted as composed of "sand and shell," latter typed on a small, old paper tag pasted on the reverse).
and where archaeological testing in 1982 (prior to residential The MCM de-accession list identifies the artifact by this code,
development) revealed burials, lenses of "compact shell," and stating that it was "donated to MCM, catalogued in 1940"
sand-tempered plain and Deptford Linear Check Stamped and that its provenience is "Indian Beach, Manatee County,
sherds (Piper and Hardin 1982; Schwadron 2002:70). The Florida" (MCM 1996). Also written on the artifact's reverse is
latter suggest an early to middle Manasota-period component. "WHIT B."
TCA#19 could have originated from either of these sites, Indian Beach was a subdivision created in 1891 (Manatee
including the cemetery at the western end of 8MA7. Thus, County 1891) and refers to a stretch of mainland shore along
it is possible that TCA#19 (a gorget, a kind of artifact often Sarasota Bay. The abbreviation "WHIT B." probably refers 1
placed with burials) came from a burial eroded from 8MA7 or to "Whitaker Bayou," a tributary to the bay. Both are in the
8MA27. northwestern portion of the City of Sarasota (Figure 7) and are
In January 1997, the National Park Service (NPS) rimmed by American Indian shell middens.
conducted archaeological testing near the river's edge of Figure 13 shows an historic photograph of the Sarasota
western Shaw's Point (Figure 10). There, NPS crews dug two Bay shoreline, just north of Whitaker Bayou. This image,
units in remaining basal portions of shell midden deposit. One looking northward, is from a 1910s souvenir booklet (Arnold
was Excavation Unit 1 (EUl) in the "Marker Mound," which ca. 1915). It shows abundant midden shells along the eroding
yielded three calibrated radiocarbon date ranges (2-sigma) of shore of the Alameda Way Midden (8SO39). This midden is an
155 B.C. to A.D. 475. The other was Excavation Unit 2 (EU2), important part of the Whitaker site complex that once included
in the "Remnant Mound," which yielded five calibrated five or six mounds a short distance inland to the east (Figure
radiocarbon date ranges (2-sigma) of 70 B.C. to A.D. 635, plus 14). Three of these mounds were destroyed in the 1920s land
a sixth calibrated 2-sigma date of A.D. 660 to 895 (Schwadron boom (Luer 2005:34-35, Figures 18-20).
2000:183-184, Tables 2 and 3, 2002:94-100, Tables 11 and The mostly undeveloped northern side of Whitaker
12). Bayou can be seen in a 1943 map (Figure 14: top). It shows


an unpaved road winding westward near the bayou's edge, round and oblong forms carefully shaped and ground from
Sassing fishermen's "net racks,"9 mangroves, and a salter limestone, sandstone, and mineralized fossil bone.'4
efore reaching Sarasota Bay. The road ran northward along Considering multiple plummet-pendants with individual
he Alameda Way Midden toward several houses and a seawall burials at sites such as Crystal River (above) and the Jones
built to protect the eroding shoreline shown 30 years earlier in Mound (8HI4) near Tampa (Bullen 1952), I suspect that burials
Figure 13. were the original source of Bullock's shell and stone plummets
In 1950, Ripley Bullen visited this area, finding a as well as TCA#20. A burial origin would be consistent with
complex of "shell ridges," two unnamed burial mounds, my experience in Florida, where plummets are rare in shell
and a third he named the "Weber Burial Mound" (Bullen middens and tend to be found where burials occur or have
1950:21-27, Figure 3).10 Bullen (1950:27-28) dug five units been reported. Indeed, human bones were unearthed recently
in the Alameda Way Midden, finding abundant quahog clam during house construction in the Alameda Way Midden (Almy
(Mercenaria campechiensis) shells, many sand-tempered et al. 2007:12, Figures 5 and 6), close to Sarasota Bay (Figure
plain sherds, columella "hand hammers," and a fighting conch 17). Human bones also have been reported along the midden's
(Strombus alatus) "hand hammer." These finds are like those shore in previous years
in the Palmetto Lane Midden (8SO96), on the opposite side of
Whitaker Bayou (Luer 1992b)," supporting habitation in the Analysis of TCAs
Manasota period (ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 500) (Luer 2011:22-23)
and placing both sites in the time range of TCAs. I analyze and discuss TCAs from perspectives of
The eroding shore of the Alameda Way Midden was size, fabrication, geography, function, social context, and
a source of Indian artifacts for many collectors over many symbolism. The current sample is small and skewed by
years and is a likely source of TCA#20. In the mid-1900s, variable recovery, with some sites being better represented,
Chester Bullock'2 collected shell and stone artifacts here, namely Crystal River and Miami Circle.
including plummets worn by wave action."3 Most of his shell
plummets (Figure 15) were made by reducing and grinding Size of TCAs
"straight" columellae of horse conch shells (rather than
"kinked" columellae of left-handed whelk shells). Bullock's Table 2 ranks TCAs by width and height. It supports
stone plummets (Figure 16) are short and "plump," including three size ranges along a continuum: small, medium, and

50 m
12 13 .

9 8..--- 8

88.5 ...8 ..8-.>

% 7.5d gulley .

Sarasota \ ool
Bay - "" --- -
7.5 7 6 6 6.5 7 8 9 1011 12
22nd Street

Figure 17. Alameda Way Midden at 2211 Alameda Avenue. Approximate contours, April 2004. Note seawall, midden ridge,
and new house. Star in the pool area marks location of human bones. This map overlaps the western edge of Figure 18 in
Luer (2005).


large. Some attributes in Table 2 may correlate with size. At Crystal River TCAs comprise two groups that show close
least three of the five small-size TCAs are incised. Among similarities. All display excellent workmanship, including
medium-size TCAs, six are incised and five are not, and smoothly-ground edges, and each has a sizeable, well-made,
one large-size TCA is incised while four are not. Large-size central hole (see Figures 3, 4, and 5). Seven Crystal River
TCAs appear least likely to be incised. In Table 2, the three specimens have incised circles and resemble each other
smallest TCAs are from sites in Dade and Collier counties in closely; two are small-size (TCA#1, #2), four are medium-
southern Florida, while two other small-size TCAs are from size (TCA#4, #5, #6, #11), and one is large (TCA#8). Among
Crystal River. Presumably, small-size TCAs were used at these, TCA#2 resembles TCA#6 in sharing a long, narrow
geographically intervening sites. However, like many small- tab, while TCA#1 resembles TCA#8 in having a knob-
size artifacts, they may be underrepresented due to biases in like or grooved tab. The second group of Crystal River
preservation, recovery, and reporting. Thickness, while not specimens consists of the four plain TCAs (#s 3, 7, 9, 10)
quantified here, may correlate with absence of a central hole that were shaped from similar pieces of whelk outer body
because the three TCAs that appear to be the thickest (#s 14, whorl (see Figure 4). TCA#3 and #10 are almost identical
18, 20) lack one. in size and shape, with TCA#9 being very similar in shape
though smaller. This sharing of some attributes supports a
Fabrication of TCAs closely related origin for specimens in each group, such as
fabrication by the same artisan or craft specialist.
TCAs display varied attributes of style and fabrication, One other TCA (#17, from the Miami Circle) resembles
though some are very similar to each other. This suggests a the incised Crystal River specimens because of its incised
shared origin for some, and different origins for others. The concentric circles, prominent central hole, excellent

Table 2. TCAs in ascending order of size, based on width and height. Note size categories and
the presence or absence of incisions and a central hole.

TCA# and Size Category Site of Origin Width and Height (mm) Incised Central Hole
1. TCA#17 8DA12 13 x 17 Yes Yes
2. TCA#16 cf. 8CR35 20* x 30* ? Yes
3. TCA#13 8DA46/8DA47 22 x ? No Yes
4. TCA#2 8CI1 24 x 36 Yes Yes
5. TCA#1 8CI1 28 x 36 Yes Yes
6. TCA#12 8CR1 40 x 47 Yes Yes
7. TCA#7 8CI1 50 x 52 No Yes
8. TCA#6 8CI1 61 x 84 Yes Yes
9. TCA#4 8CI1 64 x 63 Yes Yes
10. TCA#9 8CII 66 x 80 No Yes
11. TCA#20 cf. 8SO39 66 x 75 No No
12. TCA#18 8DA12 73 x 80* No No
13. TCA#11 8CI1 74 x 70 Yes Yes
14. TCA#5 8CI1 75 x 90 Yes Yes
15. TCA#19 8MA7/8MA27 76 x 92 No Yes
16. TCA#8 8CI1 85 x 99 Yes Yes
17. TCA#15 8LL33 70 x 116 No Yes
18. TCA#14 8DA21 95 x 130 No No
19. TCA#10 8CII 99 x 117 No Yes
20. TCA#3 8CI1 100 x 118 No Yes


orkmanship, and knob-like tab (see Figure 6). However, it because those from Crystal River came from a large number of
iffers because of its small size and it was carved from bone human burials while the Miami Circle had none. Nonetheless,
ather than shell. TCA#17's similarities to Crystal River's patterns of "fall-off' in the numbers of Mississippi-period
'concentric circle style" TCAs suggest a close connection, shell gorgets with increasing distance from a source has been
uch as creation by the same artisan, or perhaps fabrication documented by Muller (1995). Such patterns may reflect
y another artisan who possessed and imitated a TCA with down-the-line trade and/or movements of artisans (Muller
oncentric circles like those from Crystal River. 1995:333-336).
We have images of six other TCAs (#s 12, 15, 16, 18, Trade or movement of artisans along the peninsular Gulf
9, 20) that show varied forms and other attributes suggestive coast is suggested by the use of similar pieces of outer body
of independent manufacture. The smooth margins, tab shape, whorl to fashion five TCAs (#3, #9, and #10 from Crystal
and rounded "main body" of TCA#12 from Chokoloskee River, #15 from Pineland, and #19 from Shaw's Point). The
are reminiscent of TCA#5 from Crystal River, but its central finished Crystal River specimens and the unfinished one
hole is smaller and bears a cross instead of concentric circles from Pineland may suggest trade in preforms from south to
(compare Figures 3 and 6). In contrast to the well-made circular north. Trade or movement along this coast is hinted also by
central hole and smoothly ground edges of Crystal River stylistically-similar, long, narrow tabs of TCA#2 and #6 from
specimens, TCA#15 and #19 each have an irregular central Crystal River and TCA#16 from Addison Key. In addition,
hole, a wider tab, and uneven, partially-ground, undulated some shell tools found by Moore at Crystal River might have
edges. This suggests that TCA#15 and #19 may be partially been traded from farther south, such as large horse conch
worked, with TCA#15 being rougher and less finished than columella gouges and chisels and left-handed whelk body
TCA#19. TCA#15 may represent a TCA "in production." The whorl gouges (NMAI accession #082260 through 082264,
three TCAs (#14, #18, #20) lacking a central hole were each 082276, 171072 and 171073). I have seen many of these same
made from a thick, hard piece of shell, with at least one of them two types of shell tools from sites in Manatee County near
(#14) shaped from a piece of presumably local queen conch southern Tampa Bay, including from Shaw's Point and Snead
lip. TCA#18 has a smooth, rounded, well-ground edge, and and Terra Ceia Islands, and such tools could have been traded
its front and back surfaces show traces of grinding. TCA#20 northward to Crystal River and other sites.
also has a smooth, well-ground edge, and its front and back Interaction between Indians of Crystal River and those
surfaces are polished. The divergent attributes of these TCAs in southern Florida is seldom appreciated and has led some
suggest work by different artisans. researchers to overlook southern connections (e.g., Weisman
Thus, TCAs show greatest variation (in decoration, size, 1995:85). However, evidence supports intensive interactions
material, and workmanship) in south-central and southern between northwestern and southern Florida in Middle
Florida. There, they consist of shell or bone, are plain or Woodland times. Connections between the Crystal River area
incised, are small or large, have or lack a central hole, and and Fort Center site in southern Florida have been interpreted
are well-worked or unfinished. TCAs from Crystal River on the basis of imported Deptford-period pottery at Fort
show less diversity: all are shell, all are well-worked, all have Center (Sears 1982:27-31). Deptford-period connections with
a central hole, seven have incised concentric circles, and three the northern Florida Gulf coast are indicated by imported
plain ones consist of the same portion of outer body whorl. ceramics (e.g., Gulf Check Stamped, West Florida Cord
Marked, miscellaneous zoned punctated wares) at the Miami
Geography of TCAs Circle (Carr 2006) and at the Oak Knoll Mound near Naples
and the Royce Mound near Sebring (Austin 1993:296-298;
TCAs come from widespread locations. Three are from Luer 1995:306). At the latter site, additional grave goods,
southeastern Florida (Miami Circle, Surfside Midden, Golden including galena, mica, plummet-pendants of exotic stone, and
Glade 1 or 2), three from southwestern Florida (Pineland, broken large ceremonial chipped-stone bifaces, again point to
Chokoloskee, and perhaps Addison Key), two from the Gulf Deptford-period connections with northern Florida (Austin
coast of south-central Florida (Shaw's Point, Whitaker), and 1993). Also during this time, Hopewell-style ceramic platform
eleven from west-central Florida's Crystal River site. This smoking pipes became widespread in Florida, with specimens
distribution supports the use of TCAs beyond a single polity reported from the panhandle, Crystal River, Fort Center, and
or society. Occurrences in different culture regions point to other sites in southern Florida (Luer 1995), including recent
communication among different groups of native peoples. finds at the Miami Circle (Carr 2006). Another similarity
TCAs of similar "concentric circle style" support direct or supporting contacts between Crystal River and Fort Center
indirect contact between Crystal River and the Miami Circle, is an encircling embankment at the mortuary precinct of both
such as through trade or the movement of an artisan who made sites (compare Figure 2 with Sears 1982:186-188, Figure 9.5).
them. Considering that seven TCAs with concentric circles Of course, TCAs at Crystal River and sites in southern Florida
occur at Crystal River and one at the Miami Circle, a direction support interaction between the two areas in Middle Woodland
of possible trade or movement may be from Crystal River times.
to the Miami Circle, although this is not a good comparison


Function of TCAs 1994:128, Table 2; Scarry 1990:180-183, Table 8, 1996:195
203, Table 9.1, Figures 9.3-9.5; Wheeler 2001 :Table 1). These
The gorgets and pendants represented by TCAs can be differ again from occurrences in southwestern North Carolin
interpreted as sociotechnic artifacts in the sense of Binford where nine Lick Creek and two Warren Williams shell gorgets
(1962). Such objects had "their primary functional context in accompanied burials of three very young children, and two
the social subsystems" of a culture and helped in "articulating Lick Creek shell gorgets accompanied burials of two young
individuals one with another into cohesive groups" (Binford adult women (Rodning 2012:42-43). In the Dallas culture
1962:219). These kinds of objects helped to express the rank of eastern Tennessee, Citico shell gorgets show a consistent
or status of individuals in a society, and they often required association with subadult burials (Smith 1987:108-112)
skill and labor to make, were fashioned from exotic material, Clearly, the use of Mississippian shell gorgets presents a
had unusual shapes or forms, were relatively few in number, complicated situation, with varied styles and associations at
and differed from technomic items (Steinen 1982:104-105). different places and times.
Besides their function as grave goods, TCAs appear While not directly comparable to eastern North America,
to have been ornaments worn by individuals during life, anthropological studies in other parts of the world confirm that
apparently for personal or ceremonial display (perhaps at the use of gorget-like ornaments varies in different cultures,
special events, such as dances and greeting visitors). At such as marking achieved high status, ascribed high rank, and
such times, their form and decoration apparently imparted clan or social group position. For example, gorget-like shel
conceptual and social messages about their wearers, especially ornaments (worn on the head or chest) functioned as emblems
to others who viewed them. It appears that cosmological ideas of achieved high status in "big man" societies of New Guinea
were conveyed by their carved shape and incised designs. It and other Melanesian Islands. In Fiji, however, similar shell
is likely that social meaning and power were conveyed by the ornaments functioned as emblems of high rank in a hereditary
wearers' appropriation of TCAs' symbolic and ideological hierarchical society (Safer and Gill 1982:99-102). In another
content. Social meaning probably was conveyed also by the part of the world, Safer and Gill (1982:98) describe cone
apparent beauty and rarity of TCAs and by their combined shell discs worn by chiefs as an emblem of rank in Zambia,
use with other gorgets and pendants. As discussed above, southern Africa, and they state that "the higher a chiefs
Crystal River TCAs numbered only 11 among at least 50 shell rank, the more shells he was privileged to wear." The latter
gorgets and more than 100 shell pendants found with more statement suggests an analogous interpretation for the series of
than 400 human burials (representing an estimated 500 to 600 two, three, and four nested shell gorgets found by Moore with
individuals [Willey 1949a:317]). several burials at Crystal River. In other words, the wearing
Previous researchers have interpreted Crystal River's of additional gorgets might have signaled a grading of higher
rich array of grave goods, including items of exotic origin, ranks.
as reflecting burials of important individuals (e.g., Reiger Considering an age ofTCAs in Middle Woodland and late
1990:230, 1999:227-228). Given the large number of burials Glades I times (ca. A.D. 1 to 500), most Florida archaeologists
at Crystal River, it is likely that individuals of many statuses probably would assume that TCAs functioned in societies with
were interred there. However, Moore's limited data for Crystal sociopolitical organization characterized as tribes or simple
River make it difficult or impossible to use grave goods for chiefdoms, which had a single level of achieved or ascribed
interpreting the status or rank of individual burials. high authority (e.g., Milanich et al. 1984). Such variable
Nonetheless, studies of burials from certain later societies preceded and continued into the Mississippi period,
Mississippiansitessupportdifferentstatusassociationsforshell when complex, ranked chiefdoms also developed in Florida
gorgets in several different ranked societies. At Moundville, and the adjacent Southeast. The latter were characterized by
Alabama. a cluster analysis was conducted of 2.053 burials two or more levels of high authority, including head-chiefs,
and their associated grave goods. It revealed that shell gorgets principal persons, and local sub-chiefs (e.g., Goggin and
were associated with cemetery and plaza burials of male and Sturtevant 1964:190-194; Hann 1994; Widmer 1988).
female adults and children (no infants) of the "subordinate Given large site complexes dating to the Middle and Late
dimension" (Segment B, Cluster III), a category interpreted as Woodland period along the peninsular Gulf coast, such as at
individuals of achieved status. In contrast other kinds of grave Crystal River, Shaw's Point and the Whitaker Bayou area,
goods at Moundville were found in mounds with high-ranking perhaps societies centered at such locations were beginning
burials of the "superordinate dimension" (Segment A), such to develop complex sociopolitical organization during this
as copper axes (Cluster IA). copper earspools, bear teeth, and early time, ca. A.D. 1 to 500. Indeed, anthropological theory
stone discs(Cluster IB), and oblong coppergorgets, shell beads, predicts that maritime societies with economies based largely
and galena cubes (Cluster II) (Peebles and Kus 1977:431, on fishing should display precocious complex sociopolitical
439. Figure 3). A different association occurred at the Lake development (e.g., Moseley 1992; Widmer 1988:31,280-281),
Jackson site, in Tallahassee, Florida, where three Williams and this applies to societies in west-peninsular Florida, such
Island shell gorgets were in the top of a large platform mound, as those represented by large coastal sites of the Middle and
each accompanying a high-ranking adult burial containing a Late Woodland period. Yet another stimulus for developing
copper axe, shell beads, and other symbolic artifacts (Jones sociopolitical complexity might have been the role of these


#11, #17 have five; TCA#6 appears to have six; and TCA#5
1 2cmhas seven. At least ten TCAs (#s 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19,
20) lack incising, and another (#16) may be plain.
19 The form of TCAs reinforces the circle motif (Figure 18).
Seventeen of 20 have a central circular hole and a surrounding
annular or ring portion that together project and reiterate the
circle symbol in three dimensional form. Besides providing
physical aid for suspension, the projecting tab defines a visual,
vertical axis that gives bilateral symmetry to the object.
5 Another attribute of form displayed by many TCAs is their
convex obverse and concave reverse, an attribute shared with
many shell gorgets.
The circle and the cross are recurring Native American
symbols that appeared at least as early as the Woodland
period, continued through the Mississippi and nineteenth-
century Plains Indian periods, and are still in use today. In
archaeological contexts, precise meanings of circle and cross
motifs are uncertain, and archaeologists and art historians
often interpret them by analogy to historic-period information.
Nonetheless, their meanings probably varied from culture to
culture and changed through time.
In addition to appearing on TCAs, concentric circles and
the cross occur on coeval pottery of Florida's late Deptford,
Swift Creek, and early Weeden Island periods. Willey
(1949a:380, 386, Figure 26a-f, Plate 21d, e) and Wallis and
Figure 18. Four TCAs compared. TCA#19 from Shaw's O'Dell (2011) document sherds of Swift Creek Complicated
Point; TCA#20 from Whitaker Bayou area; TCA#3 and Stamped and New River Complicated Stamped vessels that
#5 are from Crystal River (the latter two from Moore display concentric circles, often with a large center, that
1907a). are reminiscent of the circles and central hole of TCAs. In
addition, Crystal River Incised vessels can display crosses
coastal societies in Middle Woodland-period trade between and circles, such as an incised and punctated cross (Moore
Florida and peoples to the north (e.g., Austin 1993; Luer 1995; 1903:386, Figure 23) as well as concentric circle elements
Milanich and Fairbanks 1980:84-86). with prominent centers (Willey 1949a:389, Figure 31 a, f, g).
A proliferation of gorgets and pendants, including TCAs, Similar concentric circles and cross elements also occur on
might have helped distinguish new statuses in these coastal Swift Creek Complicated Stamped pottery in Georgia (Snow
societies. Such increasing social complexity was suggested 1998). Thus, these two symbols were used widely in Florida
by Willey (1949a:369) in his summary of Santa Rosa-Swift and the adjacent Southeast in Middle Woodland times.
Creek culture, to which he assigned the Crystal River site Later, circle and cross motifs are prominent on artifacts of
(now assigned to the Deptford and Weeden Island cultures): the precontact and postcontact Mississippi period throughout
Florida and the Southeast (e.g., Allerton, Luer, and Carr 1984;
Hudson 1976:122-126; Waring and Holder 1977:10, Figure
Differentiation [in burial treatment] is noted in the 2). In such later contexts, the two motifs sometimes occurred
number and quality of objects placed with the dead. separately, combined, or interchangeably. Frequently,
Prestige and pomp obviously surrounded some ethnohistorical accounts of Southeastern Indian beliefs are used
individuals and not others. Those so honored were to interpret both motifs as cosmological symbols-the circle
probably priest-chiefs, and it is not unlikely that a motif as a symbol of the Sun and its earthly manifestation, fire,
class of "nobles," ... was beginning to emerge. and the cross as a symbol of the four directions, four winds,
or four quarters of the world, with the notion of center where
the arms of the cross intersect (Hudson 1976:122-126). Even
Moore (1907b:362) interpreted the cross on TCA#12 as "the
Symbolism of TCAs incised sign of the four directions."
In the 1800s, the circle and cross were symbols used by
Eight TCAs display incised concentric circles, and one has many Plains Indian tribes, who continue to use them today. In
an incised equilateral cross (Table 1). The number of incised Plains Indian art and cosmology, the circle is a metaphor for
circles varies: TCA #1 and #4 have three circles; TCA#2, #8, the world, applying to the individual, family, tribe, horizon.


sky, and all within (Conn 1982:8-10). Circle symbolism primarily rounded outline and central circular hole. TCAs
encompassed the conception and use of social space, such as may reflect early complex sociopolitical development at some
the camp circle, council circle, and plans of dwellings, such large peninsular coastal sites. This rise in social complexity
as earthlodges and tipis (Nabokov and Easton 1989:124- eventually led to ranked, largely fishing-based societies
125; Storm 1972:16).' The cross often represented the four in peninsular Florida, such as the Tocobaga, Calusa, and
cardinal directions and associated colors and animals, and the Tequesta.
four quarters could be incorporated in a circle, such as the Notes
nation's hoop and Medicine Wheel (Neihardt 1979; Storm
1972:5-6, 11, 14). 1. This sandal sole shell gorget was found by underwater
Of interest are Plains Indian "shields." They were circular treasure salvors and later turned over to the State of
in form, displayed symbols painted on rawhide, and typically Florida (BAR catalog #11A.057.000143.001). Its
were adorned with feathers and sometimes hair, beads, bells, length is approximately 19 cm, and its width varies from
and other things. Such shields were personal items that reflected approximately 5 cm near the "heal" end to 7 cm near the
an owner's identity and functioned as personal insignia. Their "toe" end. Three perforations are drilled along its midline,
symbols referred to an owner's "medicine" (source of power), two near the toe end and the third midway between the
clan, or other social group (Storm 1972:9; Taylor 2001:90- ends. Its surface has traces of possible barnacle damage,
91, 98-101). An example from the Gros Ventre tribe, dating perhaps incurred when the artifact was submerged (Ryan
to ca. 1860, is a circular shield with a central solid red circle Wheeler, personal communication, 2013).
surrounded by three white and three red concentric circles in a 2. This broken shell gorget was eroding from the midden's
dark field. This appears to be a cosmological symbol referring bayside cutbank, only 3 m west of my 1974 test unit (see
to the sky from which its maker obtained power in a vision or arrow in Luer 1977:Figure 2). The apparent Manasota-
dream (Penny 1992:279-280). period age of this artifact is based on finds in the adjacent
While not directly related to TCAs, such shields apparently test unit (Luer 1977:127; Luer and Almy 1980:216). It
have analogous aspects because they: 1) bore cosmological is possible that this gorget was associated with a burial,
symbols; 2) expressed the identity of an individual; and 3) though no human bones were observed. However, at
functioned to communicate individual identity and social least one human burial has been found a short distance
group to other members of society. Another analogous aspect to the north, in an area where other interesting artifacts
may be their symbolic expression of medicine or power. In apparently dating to the Manasota period were found,
other words, it is doubtful that the incised motifs and carved such as a sand-tempered plain ceramic elbow smoking
form of TCAs are merely decorative. Instead, if analogy to pipe and the broken pole half of an imported, grooved
ethnohistorical information is valid, it seems likely that they and polished stone celt of dark grey or black diabase, a
symbolized a kind of cosmological power for the people who metamorphic rock from the Appalachian region. Similar
made and wore them. ground and polished stone celts and celt fragments also
are found in generally coeval sites of the Deptford ("Santa
Conclusion Rosa-Swift Creek") and Weeden Island cultures of the
northern Florida Gulf coast (Willey 1949a:393, 449, Plate
TCAs are rare and represent one of a number of forms 42h, i).
of gorgets and pendants used by widespread native peoples 3. The perforated lion's paw valve from Terra Ceia Island
during the Middle Woodland period in Florida. They occur and the perforated effigy lion's paw valve from Bee
in the late Deptford and/or early Weeden Island periods of Branch 1 are in the Montague Tallant collection in the
west-central Florida and the middle Manasota and late Glades South Florida Museum in Bradenton, where they have
I periods of southern Florida. At Crystal River, TCAs might numbers 261(34-131) and 6182(34-102), respectively
have been associated with the late Deptford-period Yent (Luer 2000:7-8, 12). The artifact from Bee Branch 1 may
complex, though they may date or extend to slightly later times date to the early postcontact period based on other artifacts
(the early Weeden Island period). The recovery of TCA#19 found there, including a metal Clarksdale bell and a silver
and #20 from Shaw's Point and the Whitaker Bayou area adds "crested woodpecker effigy" (MCW#5) with an applied
to our knowledge of TCAs, and they reinforce the importance gold eye (Goggin n.d.:324; Mitchem and McEwan 1988;
of those two site complexes in Florida's Middle Woodland Wheeler 1997).
period. 4. The identity ofMerritt Simpson is uncertain. His collection
TCAs probably functioned as sociotechnic objects that included materials from a number of Florida sites visited
reflected the individual and group identity and status of those by various collectors in the early 1900s. Some (e.g., Terra
who wore them in life, with some used as burial goods. TCAs Ceia Island and Shaw's Point in Manatee County, and
offer insights on Florida's Middle Woodland cosmology, Whitaker/Indian Beach and Pool Hammock in Sarasota
specifically the concentric circle motif (a possible sky County) were visited in the 1930s by Harry L. Schoff of
symbol) and the equilateral cross (a possible four-direction New York State. Those sites, and the collection's presence
or quartered world symbol) that were reinforced by TCAs'


in New York, may suggest a connection between the two 9. These "net racks" (also called "net spreads") were
men, though speculative at this time. removed in the 1950s and represent part of Sarasota's
5. For many years, local residents and some scholars largely overlooked commercial fishing history. They
(e.g., Swanton 1939, 1952) have viewed Shaw's Point were used by local fishermen for drying and repairing
and southern Tampa Bay as the general landing area of cotton gillnets. A rare image of these racks in Whitaker
Hernando De Soto and his army. This perception led local Bayou, as well as a "net wheel" (also for drying nets) and
interests to develop a park at Shaw's Point in the 1930s and accompanying boats, was taken ca. 1950 by photographer
1940s (Schwadron 2002:53). Since the park's dedication Joseph Steinmetz (1952). Other historic photographs
in August 1949, as De Soto National Memorial, it has of similar racks and wheels on Gasparilla Island are in
undergone further development (National Park Service Edic (1996:11, 27, 91, 132) and Hoeckel and Vanltallie
1967). (2000:6, 13, 15, 16, 89).
6. Ralph W. Burworth (1899-1974) was a civil engineer, 10. One of these mounds was recorded as the Bullock Mound
originally from Ohio, who lived in Bradenton and spent (8SO93) in the Florida Master Site File (Monroe et al.
more than 60 years assembling a large collection of 1977), and the Weber Mound was recorded as 8S020
American Indian artifacts. In the early and mid-1900s, (Chamberlenl965). In 1950, Bullen (1950:22-27) dug a
Burnworth collected Florida artifacts with Montague large trench (10 x 90 ft) and two test units (5 x 5 ft) in
Tallant and others. After he retired, Burnworth did the Weber Mound, after its upper portion was bulldozed
archaeological fieldwork, assisting Ripley Bullen in onto lower ground to the south. Around that time, school
1963 at the Pillsbury site (8MA30/31) and Lloyd Pierson children dug in the Weber Mound and removed a human
(1965:125) in 1964 at the Tabby Ruin at Shaw's Point. In skull (Elling Eide, personal communication, 1978).
1965, Burnworth directed excavation of eight 10 x 10 ft Reports of a "canal" immediately east of the Weber
units and made a contour map at Paulsen Point (8SO23) Mound are erroneous; apparently it was a southward--
in Englewood (Bullen 1971:1-4; Luer 1999a:5-10). In sloping gulley, now filled. Bullen (1950:22) called it
1986, Burnworth's daughter, Bonnie Lee Mesaric of Ft. a "shallow ditch" leading toward Whitaker Bayou, and
Lauderdale, distributed a typed catalog of his collection noted it drained runoff from an aboriginal borrow pit in the
(Burnworth n.d.) and began to sell the artifacts (many upland just north of the mound. Another gulley, running
in wooden frames with glass covers) at the Bradenton westward from this same upland, appears in Figure 17;
Resort Inn, next to Red Barn Flea Market, on U.S. 41 since 2004, it has been partially filled to make a driveway.
in Bradenton. In 2007, the remaining collection was 11. Photographs looking southward from the mouth of
pictured on-line and auctioned ( Whitaker Bayou appear in a previous issue of The Florida
auction/200). Anthropologist (Luer 1992a:Figure 4). They show views
7. Spit formation involves complex processes of wave energy ca. 1900 versus 1992 of the bayou and bayfront along the
and shoreline adjustment (e.g., Pethick 1984; Zenkovitch Palmetto Lane Midden, which has changed more since
1959). It is not caused simply by sea level change, though 1992 due to construction of "McMansions."
sea level fluctuations can influence these processes. Such 12. Chester Bullock was a commercial painter in Sarasota.
fluctuations might have contributed to the formation of In 1925, his family moved to the undeveloped Whitaker
low-lying ridges comprising the southeastern portion of Bayou area and lived in a tent on the Alameda Way
Shaw's Point, while Indian habitation and shell midden Midden, where young Bullock began to dig and collect
deposition were also factors (Schwadron 2002:220- Indian artifacts (Bullock 1976; Souders 1978). Around
223, Figure 77). These multiple processes are complex 1930, Bullock observed Harry Schoff, of New York State,
and need more study before we can understand them and J. E. Moore of Sarasota's Indian Beach, dig in the
accurately. Weber Mound (not to be confused with another mound
8. Tallant's artifacts from Shaw's Point are in two locations, where Schoff dug, close to the Manatee-Sarasota county
His first collection from the site is at SFM (catalog line [Luer 2011:5, 25, Figure 1]). In 1950, Bullock
numbers 286 through 471, A-7085 through A-7091) showed his collection to Bullen (1950:29). Bullock
(Tallant n.d.). Those at NMAI represent a second also collected at the Abel Shell Midden (8MA83A) on
collection assembled by Tallant and sold after his death Terra Ceia Island, Cow Point Midden (8MA12) on Tidy
in 1962 to MAI by his widow Louise Tallant (Allerton et Island, and on tidal flats at the mouth of Bowlees Creek
al. 1984:30). This was years after Montague Tallant sold near Whitfield Estates. He dug in the Casey Key Burial
his first collection, now at SFM. Copies of catalog cards Mound (8S017), Old Oak site (8S051), and Bullock
I obtained in 1986 for Tallant artifacts at MAI include Mound (8SO93), named after him.
two series attributed to "Shaw's Point." The first series 13. Around 1980, I obtained some of Bullock's "beach finds"
(23/7984 through 23/8014) probably applies to the shell for study. Those from the Whitaker Bayou area consist of
midden and eroding shore (8MA7/8MA27), while the 15 shell plummets (11 horse conch cylindrical columellae
second (23/8027 through 23/8034) apparently applies to [8 with a single suspension groove, 3 ungrooved]; 3 left-
the Pillsbury site (8MA30/8MA31). handed whelk columellae, each with a single suspension


groove; and | imported queen conch lip with a single
suspension groove); 8 stone plummets, each with a single
suspension knob or groove (6 limestone, | sandstone, |
mineralized bone); 3 horse conch columellae, each ground
on three sides (ungrooved pendants?); 2 horse conch
columella planes (ground on one side); 1 horse conch
columella gouge; and | left-handed whelk columella
gouge. Some may be artifacts Bullock showed Bullen
(1950:29) over 60 years ago.

14. Most of Bullock’s plummets have a flat side shaped
intentionally by grinding, an attribute of many plummet-
pendants in Florida (Reiger 1990:230, Figure 1). My
observations indicate that a good deal of time and effort
was spent to make plummets, often from uncommon
or rare materials that sometimes were imported. This
supports their use as valued pendants rather than
expendable utilitarian objects, such as parts of composite

15. The circular plan of the Miami Circle, dating to the same
time as TCAs (ca. A.D. | to 500), probably reflects circle
symbolism and resembles the footprint of some other
Native American structures, such as the Royal Palm
Circle in Miami, circular council houses in the Southeast,
and Adena circles in Ohio (Carr 2012:87-88, Figure 4.11;
Carr and Ricisak 2000; Clay 1998; Luer 1999b; Weisman,
Shepard, and Luer 2000).


I want to thank Suzanne White, former Curator of
Exhibits and Collections, at the South Florida Museum and
Bishop Planetarium, for her cooperation and interest in May
2000. At that time, her assistant, Cyndi Hall, photographed
TCA#19 and #20 and sent digital images. In 2006, Suzanne
White and Valerie Jackson Bell, then the Registrar/Curator
at SFM, provided additional information about the MCW
collection, as did archaeologist Dean Snow of Pennsylvania
State University. In preparing figures in 2010 through 2013,
Tesa Norman’s graphics expertise was indispensable. Tom
Pluckhahn’s generous sharing of information benefited this
paper. I also should acknowledge Ripley Bullen for his efforts
to study, preserve, and interpret the Crystal River site. His
work, and that of C. B. Moore and Gordon Willey, inspired
me during visits there in 1967 and subsequently, and were
essential for this current research. Finally, reviewers’ and
editor’s comments improved this paper.

2013 VoL. 66(3)

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, Lee Hutchinson, Nelson Rodriguez, and Brian


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,

Armistead, W. J.

1959 An Unusual Shell Gorget from Terra Ceia Island,
Manatee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist

Arnold, T. F.

ca. 1915 Souvenir Folder of Sarasota, Fla. Fanfold colored
photographs by T. F. Arnold. Curt Teich and Co.,

Aten, Lawrence E.

1999 Middle Archaic Ceremonialism at Tick Island,
Florida: Ripley P. Bullen’s 1961 Excavation at
the Harris Creek Site. The Florida Anthropologist

Austin, Robert J.

1993 The Royce Mound: Middle Woodland Exchange and
Mortuary Customs in South Florida. The Florida
Anthropologist 46:29 1-309.

Beiter, Gary N.

2001 Salvage and Excavation of Bamboo Mound (8DA94),
Dade County, Florida: A Multi-Component Site. The
Florida Anthropologist 54:30-48/

Binford, Lewis R.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity

Brain, Jeffrey P., and Philip Phillips

1999 = Shell Gorgets: Styles of the Late Prehistoric and
Protohistoric Southeast. Peabody Museum Press,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bullen, Ripley P.

1950 Tests at the Whittaker [sic] Site, Sarasota, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 3:21-30.

1952 Eleven Archaeological Sites in Hillsborough County,
Florida. Florida Geological Survey, Report of
Investigations Number 8, Tallahassee.


1953 The Famous Crystal River Site. The Florida Dubin, Lois Sherr
Anthropologist 6:9-37. 1999 North American Indian Jewelry andAdornment from
1965 Recent Additional Information. In Crystal River Prehistory to the Present. Harry N. Abrams, New
Indian Mound Museum, page 10, interpretive handout York.
at Crystal River Historic Memorial, dated November
20. On file with G. Luer, Sarasota. Edic, Robert F.
1971 The Sarasota County Mound, Englewood, Florida. 1996 Fisherfolk of Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Institute
The Florida Anthropologist 24:1-30. of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Bullock, Chester
1976 Yankee Turns Cracker." Typescript on file, Sarasota Elgart, Alison A., and Robert S. Carr
County History Center, Sarasota. 2006 An Analysis of the Prehistoric Human Remains
Found at the Miami Circle at Brickell Point Site
Burnworth, Ralph W. (8DA12). The Florida Anthropologist 59:241-249.
n.d. Catalog of American Indian Artifacts, Ralph W.
Bumworth Collection" (in three parts: Florida, Ohio, Fitting, James E.
and miscellaneous states). Distributed in Bradenton 1970 The Archaeology of Michigan: A Guide to the
on November 14-16, 1986, by Bonnie Lee Mesaric. Prehistory of the Great Lakes Region. Natural
Copy on file with G. Luer, Sarasota. History Press, Garden City, New York.

Carr, Robert S. Fort Plain Museum (FPM)
2006 Analysis of Ceramics from Brickell Point, 8DA12. 1996 Deaccession List of Florida Artifacts. Copy on file,
The Florida Anthropologist 59:133-159. South Florida Museum and Bishop Planetarium,
2012 Digging Miami. University Press of Florida, Bradenton.
Gilliland, Marion S.
Carr, Robert S., Don Mattucci, and Mary Derbish 1975 The Material Culture of Key Marco, Florida.
1995 Archaeological Monitoring of Water Utility University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
Trenching on Chokoloskee Island, Collier County,
Florida. Archaeological and Historical Conservancy Goggin, John M.
Technical Report #118, Miami. 1952 Space and Time Perspective in Northern St. Johns
Archaeology. Yale University Publications in
Carr, Robert S., and John Ricisak Anthropology, Number 41. New Haven, Connecticut.
2000 Preliminary Report on Salvage Archaeological n.d. Archeology of the Glades Area, Southern Florida.
Investigations of the Brickell Point Site (8DA12), Typescript on file, P. K. Yonge Library of Florida
Including the Miami Circle. The Florida History, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Anthropologist 53:260-284.
Goggin, John M., and Frank H. Sommer, III
Chamberlen, H. A. 1949 Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida.
1965 University of Florida Archaeological Site Survey Yale University Publications in Anthropology 41,
form for 8S020, Weber Mound. On file, Florida New Haven.
Museum of Natural History, Gainesville.
Goggin, John M., and William C. Sturtevant
Clay, R. Berle 1964 The Calusa: A Stratified, Nonagricultural Society
1998 The Essential Features of Adena Ritual and Their (With Notes on Sibling Marriage). In Explorations in
Implications. Southeastern Archaeology 17:1-21. Cultural Anthropology: Essays in Honor of George
Peter Murdock, edited by W. H. Goodenough, pp.
Coe, Joffre L. 179-219. McGraw-Hill, New York.
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American
Legacy. The University of North Carolina Press, Hann, John H.
Chapel Hill. 1994 Leadership Nomenclature Among Spanish Florida
Natives and Its Linguistic and Associational
Conn, Richard Implications. In Perspectives on the Southeast:
1982 Circles of the World: Traditional Art of the Plains Linguistics, Archaeology, and Ethnohistory, edited
Indians. Denver Art Museum. Denver, Colorado. by Patricia B. Kwachka, pp. 94-105. University of
Georgia Press, Athens.


Hoeckel, Marilyn, and Theodore B. Vanltallie Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 1-22. Florida
2000 Images of America: Boca Grande. Arcadia Anthropological Society Publication Number 14,
Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. Clearwater.
1999b Evidence Bearing on the Origin of the Miami Circle
Hudson, Charles and Its Significance. Archaeology online feature
1976 The Southeastern Indians. The University of (
Tennessee Press, Knoxville. experts/luer.html).
2000 Shell and Bone Artifacts in the Tallant Collection,
Jahn, Otto L., and Ripley P. Bullen South Florida Museum, Bradenton, Florida.
1978 The Tick Island Site, St. Johns River, Florida, edited Prepared for Synergy Design Group, Tallahassee, and
by Adelaide K. Bullen and Jerald T. Milanich. the South Florida Museum. On file, South Florida
Florida Anthropological Society Publication Number Museum and Bishop Planetarium, Bradenton.
10, Gainesville. 2005 /Sarasota Bay Mound: A Safety Harbor Period Burial
Mound, with Notes on Additional Sites in the City of
Jones, B. Calvin Sarasota. The Florida Anthropologist 58:7-55.
1994 The Lake Jackson Mound Complex (8LEI): Stability 2011 The Yellow Bluffs Mound Revisited: A Manasota
and Change in Fort Walton Culture. The Florida Period Burial Mound in Sarasota. The Florida
Anthropologist 47:120-146. Anthropologist 64:5-32.
2012 A New Kind of Shell Tool in Florida, With Notes on
Keller, Christine K. the Cedar Point Shell Heap and Cortez Midden. The
2009 /Glacial Kame Sandal-Sole Shell Gorgets: An Florida Anthropologist 65:119-138.
Exploration of Manufacture, Use, Distribution, and
Public Exhibition. M.A. thesis, College of Science Luer, George M., and Marion M. Almy
and Humanities, Ball State University, Muncie, 1980 The Development of Some Aboriginal Pottery of
Indiana. the Central Peninsular Gulf Coast of Florida. The
Florida Anthropologist 33:207-225.
Kolianos, Phyllis E., and Brent R. Weisman (editors)
2005 The Florida Journals of Frank Hamilton Cushing. Manatee County
University Press of Florida, Gainesville. 1891 Map of Indian Beach. Being a subdivision of...
Section 12, Township 36 South, Range 17 East.
Lorant, Stefan Manatee County Plat Book 1, page 96, filed October
1965 The New World: The First Pictures of America. 1, 1891. Copy on file, Clerk of the Circuit Court,
Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York. Sarasota County.

Luer, George M. Malesky, Karen
1977 The Roberts Bay Site, Sarasota, Florida. The Florida 1992 Montague Tallant at Shaw's Point, Manatee County,
Anthropologist 30:121-133. Florida. Featured photograph. The Florida
1986 Some Interesting Archaeological Occurrences of Anthropologist 45:90-91.
Quahog Shells on the Gulf Coast of Central and
Southern Florida. In Shells and Archaeology in Milanich, Jerald T.
Southern Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 125- 1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University
159. Florida Anthropological Society Publication Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Number 12, Tallahassee.
1992a Urban Archaeology in the City of Sarasota, Florida: Milanich, Jerald T., Ann S. Cordell, Vernon J. Knight, Jr.,
The Whitaker Archaeological Site Complex. The Timothy A. Kohler, and Brenda J. Sigler-Lavelle
Florida Anthropologist 45:226-241. 1984 McKeithen Weeden Island: The Culture of Northern
1992b The Palmetto Lane Midden (8So96): Some Florida, A.D. 200-900. Academic Press, New York.
Stratigraphic, Radiocarbon, and Shell Tool Analyses
for a Manasota Period Site in Sarasota, Florida. The Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles H. Fairbanks
Florida Anthropologist 45:246-252. 1980 Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
1995 Pipe Fragments from Ortona, South Florida:
Comments on Platform Pipe Styles, Functions, Mitchem, Jeffrey M.
and Middle Woodland Exchange. The Florida 1989 Redefining Safety Harbor: Late Prehistoric/
Anthropologist 48:301-308. Protohistoric Archaeology in West Peninsular
1999a An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Lemon Florida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Bay Area. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.


1999 Introduction. In: The West and Central Florida National Park Service
Expeditions of Clarence Bloomfield Moore, edited by 1967 De Soto National Memorial, Florida. Visitor brochure.
Jeffrey M. Mitchem. University of Alabama Press, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Neihardt, John G.
Mitchem, Jeffrey M., and Bonnie G. McEwan 1979 Black Elk Speaks: Being the Life Story ofa Holy Man
1988 New Data on Early Bells from Florida. Southeastern of the Oglala Sioux. University of Nebraska Press,
Archaeology 7:39-49. Lincoln.

Monroe, Elizabeth, Sharon Wells, and Marion M. Almy Patton, Robert B.
1977 Historical, Architectural, and Archaeological Survey 2013 The Temporal Contexts of Precolumbian Shell
of Sarasota, Florida. Miscellaneous Project Report Artifacts from Southwest Florida: A Case Study of
Series, Number 51. Florida Bureau of Historic Sites Pineland. In The Archaeology ofPineland: A Coastal
and Properties, Division of Archives, History, and Southwest Florida Site Complex, A.D. 50-1710,
Records Management, Tallahassee. edited by William H. Marquardt and Karen J. Walker,
pp. 545-584. Monograph 4, Institute of Archaeology
Moore, Clarence B. and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of
1900 Certain Antiquities of the Florida West-Coast. Florida, Gainesville.
Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia 11:349-394. Payne, Claudine
1903 Certain Aboriginal Mounds of the Central Florida 1994 Fifty Years of Archaeological Research at the Lake
West-Coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Jackson Site. The Florida Anthropologist 47:107-
Sciences ofPhiladelphia 12:361-438. 119.
1905 Miscellaneous Investigation in Florida. Journal of
the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Peebles, Christopher S., and Susan M. Kus
13:298-325. 1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies.
1907a Crystal River Revisited. Journal of the Academy of American Antiquity 42:421-448.
Natural Sciences ofPhiladelphia 13:406-425.
1907b Notes on the Ten Thousand Islands, Florida. Journal Penny, David W.
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 1992 Art of the American Indian Frontier: The Chandler-
13:458-470. Pohrt Collection. University of Washington Press,
1918 The Northwestern Florida Coast Revisited. Journal Seattle.
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia
16:514-580. Pethick, John
1984 An Introduction to Coastal Geomorphology. Halsted
Moseley, Michael E. Press, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
1992 Maritime Foundations and Multilinear Evolution:
Retrospect and Prospect. Andean Past 3:5-42. Pierson, Lloyd M.
1965 Tabby Ruin Test Excavation, De Soto National
Muller, Jon Memorial, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist
1995 Regional Interaction in the Later Southeast. In Native 18:125-136.
American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and
Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Piper, Harry M., and Kenneth W. Hardin
Michael S. Nassaney and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 1982 Limited Archaeological Investigations at Riverview
317-340. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Landings Subdivisions, Lots 26 + 27, Township 34
South, Range 16 East, Sections 13 and 24, Manatee
Museum of the American Indian (MAI) County, Florida. On file, Florida Master Site File,
n.d. Catalog cards for 23.7984 through 23.8014. Copies Tallahassee.
obtained in 1986 and on file with G. Luer, Sarasota.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J., Victor D. Thompson, and Brent R.
Nabokov, Peter, and Robert Easton Weisman
1989 Native American Architecture. Oxford University 2010 Toward a New View of History and Process at Crystal
Press, New York. River (8CII1). Southeastern Archaeology 29:164-


Reiger, John F.

1990 “ Plummets” — An Analysis of a Mysterious Florida
Artifact. The Florida Anthropologist 43:227-239.

1999 Artistry, Status, and Power: How “Plummet”-
Pendants Probably Functioned in Pre-Columbian
Florida — and Beyond. The Florida Anthropologist

Ritchie, Thomas, Frank Morrison, and Clivia Morrison
1981 Salvage Excavations of the Patrician Shell Mound.
The Florida Anthropologist 34:21-37.

Ritchie, William A.
1965 The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History
Press, Garden City, New York.

Rodning, Christopher B.

2012 Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Shell Gorgets
from Southwestern North Carolina. Southeastern
Archaeology 31:33-56.

Safer, Jane F., and Frances McL. Gill

1982 Spirals from the Sea: An Anthropological Look
at Shells. Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., and Crown
Publishers, Inc., New York.

Scarry, John F.

1990 The Rise, Transformation, and Fall of Apalachee: A
Case Study of Political Change in a Chiefly Society.
In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in
the Deep South, edited by Mark Williams and Gary
Shapiro, pp. 175-186. University of Alabama Press,

1996 Stability and Change in the Apalachee Chiefdom.
In Political Structure and Change in the Prehistoric
Southeastern United States, edited by John F. Scarry,
pp. 192-227. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Schwadron, Margo

2000 Archaeological Investigations at De Soto National
Memorial: Perspectives on the Site Formation and
Cultural History of the Shaw’s Point Site (3MA7),
Manatee County, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist

2002 = Archeological Investigations of De Soto National
Memorial. SEAC Technical Reports No. 8, Southeast
Archeological Center, NPS, Tallahassee.

Sears, William H.

1962 Hopewellian Affiliations of Certain Sites on the Gulf
Coast of Florida. American Antiquity 28:5-18.

1982 Fort Center: An Archaeological Site in the Lake
Okeechobee Basin. University Presses of Florida,

2013 VoL. 66(3)

Smith, Marvin T.

1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in
the Interior Southeast: Depopulation During the
Early Historic Period. University Press of Florida,

Snow, Frankie

1998 Swift Creek Design Investigations: The Hartford
Case. In A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift
Creek Culture, edited by Mark Williams and Daniel
T. Elliot, pp. 61-98. University of Alabama Press,

Souders, Barbara J.

1978 Near Whitaker Bayou: Life in Tent No Easy Task
Back in ‘25. Sarasota Journal, March 13, page
11A. Copy on file, Sarasota County History Center.

Southwest Florida Archaeological Society

2007 = Salvage Excavation of Addison Key, 8CR35, Collier
County, Florida. Technical Publication Series,
Craighead Laboratory, Collier County Museum,
Naples, Florida.

Steinen, Karl T.

1982 Other Nonceramic Artifacts. In Fort Center: An
Archaeological Site in the Lake Okeechobee Basin,
by William H. Sears, pp. 68-110. University Presses
of Florida, Gainesville.

Steinmetz, Joseph J.
1952 “Sarasota is Photogenic.” In The Sarasota Review,
Florida Tourist Association, Sarasota.

Storm, Hyemeyohsts
1972 Seven Arrows. Ballantine Books, New York.

Sullivan, Lynne P.

2001 Dates for Shell Gorgets and the Southeastern
Ceremonial Complex in the Chickamauga Basin of
Southeastern Tennessee. Research Notes, Number
19. Frank H. McClung Museum, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.

Swanton, John R.

1939 Final Report of the United States de Soto Expedition
Commission. United States House of Representatives
Document no. 71, 76th Congress, Ist Session.
Washington, D.C.

1952 De Soto’s First Headquarters in Florida. Florida
Historical Quarterly 30:311-316.


Tallant, Montague Wheeler, Ryan J.
ca. 1940 Mounds of Manatee County. Typescript, 8 pp. 1997 Metal Crested Woodpeckers: Artifacts of the Terminal
Copied from notebook of Montague Tallant by J. Glades Complex. The Florida Anthropologist 50:67-
C. Simpson.. On file, old Florida Park Service file, 81.
Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. 2000 Treasure of the Calusa: The Johnson/Willcox
n.d. Hand-written artifact catalog and typed version (with Collection from Mound Key, Florida. Monographs
corrections) of the Montague Tallant collection. On in Florida Archaeology 1, Tallahassee.
file, South Florida Museum and Bishop Planetarium,

Taylor, Colin F.
2001 Native American Weapons. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.

United States Coast and Geodetic Survey
1943 Sarasota and Vicinity. Topographic Map (No.
T-5850). Scale 1:10,000. Copy on file, Sarasota
County History Center.

Walker, S. T.
1880 Report of the Shell Heaps of Tampa Bay, Florida.
Smithsonian Institution Annual Report 1879:413-

Wallis, Neill J., and Amanda O'Dell
2011 Swift Creek Paddle Designs from the Florida
Gulf Coast: Patterns and Prospects. The Florida
Anthropologist 64:187-205.

Waring, Antonio J., Jr., and Preston Holder
1977 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the
Southeastern United States. In The Waring Papers:
The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr,
edited by Stephen Williams, pp. 9-29. Papers of the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 58.
Harvard University, Cambridge.

Weisman, Brent R.
1995 Crystal River: A Ceremonial Mound Center the
Florida Gulf Coast. Florida Archaeology 8, Florida
Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Weisman, Brent R., Herschel E. Shepard, and George M. Luer
2000 The Origin and Significance of the Brickell Point
Site (8DA12), also Known as the Miami Circle. The
Florida Anthropologist 53:342-346.

Wetterau, Glenadora
2002 Letter from Glenadora Wetterau, Trustee of the Fort
Plain Museum, to Suzanne White, Curator of Exhibits
and Collections, South Florida Museum and Bishop
Planetarium. Dated June 10. On file, South Florida
Museum and Bishop Planetarium, Bradenton.



debrawells( or
1129 NW 143" ST., JONESVILLE, FL 32266



Editor's Note: This year, the Bullen and Lazarus Awards were in research and education endeavors. Sherry also served as
not presented. an FAS Director. Time Sifters vice president Felicia Silpa is
another New College alumna, and she has studied the Gamble
Arthur R. Lee Plantation and presented a paper at an FAS Annual Meeting
FAS Chapter Award about her work. Other board members have worked with
New College archaeology students, providing internship and
Time Sifters Archaeology Society (TSAS) was honored mentoring.
as the ninth recipient of the Arthur R. Lee FAS Chapter Award. Time Sifters has worked with another FAS chapter, the
At the Annual Banquet in Henry Flagler's historic Hotel Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological
Ponce de Leon in St. Augustine, FAS President Patty Flynn Society. Recently, members of the two chapters held a
presented a plaque to Time Sifters, accepted by Sherry and joint public outreach event on Venice Beach for Florida
Vald Svekis of Sarasota. The plaque was inscribed: "for public Archaeology Month. Earlier, in 2002 through 2007, the two
outreach and education, cooperation with New College, and chapters worked together to help preserve Little Salt Spring
site preservation, May 11, 2013." Midden and Slough, in cooperation with Sarasota County,
Time Sifters is based in the Sarasota-Bradenton area. the City of North Port, the Archaeological Conservancy, and
Members work hard to promote archaeology, education, and interested citizens (Luer 2008).
public outreach. The chapter holds meetings and lectures at Time Sifters' history of accomplishment goes back to the
New College of Florida and in downtown Sarasota's public 1980s and 1990s. The chapter was started in 1986 by students
library. The Time Sifters website attracts more than 3,000 who had taken an archaeology class taught by Marion Almy,
"hits" each month and its e-mail newsletter is sent to 90 and it quickly achieved success by creating informative
members and 130 other interested people. brochures. The first, titled "Offenses Concerning Dead Bodies
In 2009 through 2013, Time Sifters presented four annual and Graves," explained the 1987 state law about unmarked
series of public lectures that featured distinguished researchers human burials (Tesar 1988). In 1990, a second brochure
of Florida's past. The series were in collaboration with the New promoting preservation was titled "Florida's Archaeological
College Public Archaeology Laboratory, with support from the Heritage: Protecting the Past for the Future" (Lee 1990). Both
Florida Humanities Council. In 2009, Time Sifters created an were designed by Theodore Morris, a Time Sifters member
annual Student Grant Competition, and some recipients have and graphic artist. Printing costs were covered by state grants,
been New College anthropology students, with distribution around the state by FAS chapters and other
In March 2011, Time Sifters inaugurated its annual groups.
celebration of Florida Archaeology Month with "Archaeology In early years, Time Sifters worked hard to assist
Fest!" During these events, more than 150 visitors enjoy professional archaeologists in the field. In 1987, members
demonstrations and lectures at New College. Chapter excavated in the Archaic-period Hill Cottage Midden at
members also volunteer at Gamble Plantation, where they Historic Spanish Point (Sarney 1994). In 1988 and 1989, Time
promote archaeology. Time Sifters participates in an event Sifters volunteered more than 1,000 hours in salvage work at
called "Pioneer Picnic" in Manatee County, which coincided Manasota Key Cemetery (Luer 1999:12-15) and in the "Year
with National Archaeology Day on October 20, 2012. of the Indian" project at Pineland. In 1990 and 1991, Time
Time Sifters members have worked in the field with Sifters gave more than 500 hours during development of "A
Dr. Uzi Baram of New College. They have dug at Manatee Window to the Past" Exhibition at Historic Spanish Point
Springs Park, located in Bradenton just north of Manatee (e.g., Kozuch 1998).
Village Historical Park. They have assisted Baram (2010) and Two FAS officers were early Time Sifters members,
New College students in documenting the Woodlawn/Galilee George Luer (FAS President, 1990-92) and the late Cornelia
Cemetery, also called Oaklands Cemetery, which was at one Futor (FAS Secretary, 1992-93), who also were members of
time Sarasota's only cemetery for people of color, located the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society. In 1990, Luer
north of Gillespie Park and south of 12th Street in the City of and Morris collaborated to create the first FAS poster, titled
Sarasota. "Florida Indians." In 1996, Time Sifters hosted the FAS 48th
In recent years, this close relationship with New College Annual Meeting in Sarasota. Congratulations to Time Sifters
developed because Time Sifters president Sherry Svekis is an for winning the 2013 Arthur R. Lee FAS Chapter Award!
"alum" of New College and previously worked with Baram



References Cited That site became known as the "Blueberry Site" and is
now one of South Florida's important archaeological sites!
Baram, Uzi Research at the site is ongoing and we are learning a great
2010 New College of Florida Survey of Galilee Cemetery: deal. A number of papers about the Blueberry Site have been
Sarasota, Florida. In: 2010 Florida Field School presented at FAS Annual Meetings, and scientific articles
Summaries. The Florida Anthropologist 63(3-4):183- about the site have appeared in the FAS journal.
185. Recently, over 100 boxes of collections from the Blueberry
Site were shipped to the Florida Museum of Natural History,
Kozuch, Laura in Gainesville. Without Charles, none of this would have been
1998 Faunal Remains from the Palmer Site (8S02), with a possible.
Focus on Shark Remains. The Florida Anthropologist
51(4):177-192. The Florida Anthropological Society
Dorothy Moore Student Grant
Lee, Arthur R.
1990 One of FAS' Younger Chapters has had a State-Wide Congratulations to Kendal Jackson, an undergraduate
Impact. The Florida Anthropologist 43(3):219-220. anthropology student at the University of South Florida St.
Petersburg (USFSP), and the 2013 FAS Dorothy Moore Student
Luer, George M. Grant recipient! With the assistance of USFSP undergraduate
1999 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Lemon students under the advisement of Dr. John Arthur, Ms. Jackson
Bay Area. In Maritime Archaeology of Lemon Bay, will pursue research relating to a project called "Harvesting
Florida, edited by George M. Luer, pp. 1-22. Florida the Bay: Subsistence at Weedon Island, Florida." The project
Anthropological Society Publication Number 14, intends to "explore the indigenous diet and its relationship
Clearwater. with prehistoric coastal ecology through analysis of the
archaeological record and experimental study of the moder
200 estuary shoreline at Weedon Island Preserve." Funding will
2008 Arthur R. Lee FAS Chapter Award: Warm Mineral enable the students to undertake nutritional analysis of
Springs/Little Salt Springs Archaeological Society. modem Crown Conch (Melongena corona) in order to
The Florida Anthropologist 61(3-4):200-201. "quantify the energy/nutrient value that this species
represents within excavated midden material." Their research
Sarney, Elizabeth D. will provide valuable information to Florida archaeologists
1994 Hill Cottage Midden Revisited: A Reassessment of who "seek to understand the role of marine shell as part of
the Late Archaic Period Marine Shell Midden at the the indigenous subsistence adaptation" and the research
Palmer Site (8S02), Sarasota County, Florida. M.A. results will facilitate "a clearer understanding of prehistoric
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of shellfish harvesting at Weedon Island and how the
South Florida, Tampa. availability of marine mollusks may have influenced the life
ways d' Florida's indigaious coastal populations."
Tesar, Louis D.
1988 Comments. The Florida Anthropologist 41(3):400-
402. Chuck and Jane Wilde Archaeological Research Award

The annual Chuck Wilde Archaeological Research Award
FAS President's Award was renamed the Chuck and Jane Wilde Archaeological
Research Award. This $500 student award is given by the
FAS President Patty Flynn presented an award to Charles Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
Reynolds at the Annual Banquet in St. Augustine. The plaque (KVAHC). The scholarship is dedicated to the memory of
read: "To Charles Reynolds for his support of preservation and two exemplar avocational archaeologists. Katherine Higgins
study of the Blueberry Site, Highlands County, Florida, May was this year's winner, and she used the grant to pay for field
11, 2013." school at the University of Florida, where she is enrolled as a
Mr. Reynolds is a successful citrus grower. He has student.
made an outstanding contribution to Florida Archaeology by
preserving an archaeological site in his citrus grove, for which
we are all grateful.
President Flynn explained that Anne Reynolds asked her
husband Charles to purchase a piece of land after one of her
students showed her Indian artifacts he had found there. Anne
was sure there was an archaeological site there. Charles replied
that he would buy the land but that it had to pay for itself, and
he promised not to plant orange trees on the site.

Chapters of the Florida Anthropological Society

10 5

1. Ancient Ones Archaeological Society of North Central Florida
2902 NW 104T 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 948083, Maitland FL 32794

4. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society
1902 Florrie Court, N. Fort Myers, FL 33917
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
6720 E. Tropical Way, Plantation, FL 33317
7. Indian River Anthropological Society 14 12
3705 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, FL 32952

8. Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy 17
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

1 J. 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 ,,
P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101 0 ,."

14. Time Sifters Archaeology Society 16. Warm Mineral Sprint/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 25642, Sarasota, FL 34277 P.O, Box 7797, North Port, FL 34287

15. Volusia Anthropological Society 17. Palm Beach County Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32175 6421 Old Medinah Circle, Lake Worth, FL 33463


@ Florida Anthropological Society

You are Invited to Join Us:

If you want to join with professional and avocational archaeologists and others in efforts to preserve and protect our
(pre)historic heritage, then join the Florida Anthropological Society (FAS) to achieve that goal.

If you are interested in archaeology, ethnology, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology and associated topics
with a focus on Florida and surrounding areas in the Southeastern U.S. and Caribbean, then The Florida Anthropologist,
the journal of the Florida Anthropological Society, and the papers presented at our annual meetings will be of interest to

If you are looking for that special gift, then a gift subscription to The Florida Anthropologist is your answer.

You do not have to be a resident of Florida to belong to the Florida Anthropological Society. Your membership fee
includes your subscription to the Society's journal and newsletter. We are a non-profit organization founded in 1947.

Objectives of the Florida Anthropological Society

to provide a formal means by which individuals interested in anthropological and archaeological studies in the State of
Florida and related areas may come together for mutual benefits;

to promote the continuing study of the peoples of Florida from ancient times to the present;

to establish and promulgate to its members and to the general public, rules of conduct, a code of ethics, and standards of
quality to govern anthropological work;

to effect harmony and cooperation between the amateur and professional anthropologist and archaeologist so that the
work of all will permanently enrich our knowledge of human history;

to bring to the attention of the general public and of appropriate governmental agencies the need for preservation of
archaeological and historical sites within the State of Florida as well as for the recording of the ways of live of extant
groups in Florida and related areas;

to disseminate information on anthropology and archaeology and in particular on the work of the Society members
through periodic, regularly scheduled meetings of the Society, through a program of publications by the Society, and
through such special events and other activities as the Society may consider proper to further its objectives;

to assist in establishing archaeological museums through contributions or gifts of materials or money;

to encourage the scientific collections, preservation, classification, study and publication of ethnological materials and
archaeological remains; and
to initiate and maintain appropriate By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations in the best interests of all its members.


Join the Florida Anthropological Society

Florida Anthropological Society memberships:

Student $15 (with a copy of a current student ID) Student membership is open to graduate, undergraduate and high school
students. A photocopy of your student ID should accompany payment

Regular and Institutional $30 Family $35

Sustaining $100 Patron $1000

Benefactor $2500 or more

Add $25.00 for foreign addresses

The Society publishes journals (The Florida Anthropologist) and newsletters, normally quarterly, and sponsors an annual
meeting hosted by a local chapter.

FAS Chapter:

SI agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society as presented on the previous page.

Florida Anthropological Society
c/o Pat Balanzategui
P Box 1434
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434

Membership forms also available at

About the Authors

George M. Luer, Ph.D., works in archaeology and related fields to save cultural sites and information. His research
includes studies of ceramics, shell and metal artifacts, canoe canals, shell middens and mounds, radiocarbon dating,
zooarchaeology, and coastal geomorphology.

Michael Stull is a graduate of the University of North Florida with a major in Anthropology and a minor in Spanish. I
have worked as a research assistant for the UNF archaeology lab. I have also studied 16th through 18th century Spanish
Paleography. Currently I am a History Teacher with Duval County Public Schools.

RyanJ. Wheeler grew up in Fort Lauderdale, where he developed a lifelong interest in nature and history. He has academic
degrees from Florida Atlantic University and the University of Florida, where he earned a Ph.D. in Anthropology. He
has published over thirty papers and monographs, highlighting research on wetsite archaeology, American Indian art,
bone and shell artifacts, and Florida's American Indian people.He served as Editor ofThe Florida Anthropologist from
1999 to 2006. Dr. Wheeler worked for the State of Florida for over 13 years, serving as State Archaeologist and Chief
of the Bureau of Archaeological Research before moving to Boston with his wife and son. In July 2012 he became the
eighth director of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology at Phillips Academy.



1111 11 l Bll U BiIII B II IBIII I II 1 I DIII iii
3 1262 08574 7391
Keith H. Ashley, Dept of Anthropology, UNF U.S. POSTAGE
Bldg 51, 1 UNF Drive PAID
Jacksonville, FL 32224-2659 TALLAHASSEE, FL

Volume 66 Number 3
September 2013






Cover: Figures from articles, Wheeler (top), Stull, and Luer

Copyright 2013 by the
ISSN 0015-3893

Full Text

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E2VCM68CS_3UAUDD INGEST_TIME 2014-10-28T21:46:56Z PACKAGE UF00027829_00217